U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday

I seem to remember posting something a while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sweet. LM or NG, we're likely to get little crumbs from the table. Boeing, much tougher.

a reply to: grey580

That was my blog you grabbed from, too.

a reply to: anzha

Awesome. Lol.


Oh. And I wonder.
Are we gonna melt twice?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Zaphod58

Could it be that the non-winner, is being run on a limited production and the AF doesn't want to show there hand for there secret bomber/isr platform.

I don't think they'll bury her quite yet, literally. There's probably use studying the design for the eventual F-111/117/FB-23/TacBomber follow on.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Boeing has stated they will internally debate the protest option vigorously and the world will know their decision within two weeks.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

Boeing has stated they will internally debate the protest option vigorously and the world will know their decision within two weeks.

Fie! Fie I say! Boeing ought to not win this one. Because.

a reply to: anzha

The protest option is being considered. And right now, they are getting all their congressmen and senators to go ballistic on this: remember just how many jobs are at stake and - critically - in which states (whilst the subcontractors are still classified, look for reactions from various congressmen and senators next few days and weeks to get an idea of who may have been doing what).

And you know what else is happening? Either it has been done, or will be done next few days, some of the nicest guys and gals from both Boeing and LockMart will be taking NG people to very nice dinners to discuss possible cooperation on this in some way...

Seems like somebody's Bothans ate lightsaber, all for nothing.

Does this mean DOD is really pissed off about F-35 way more than they let on?

I was betting on Northrop Grumman.

a reply to: Barnalby

Northrop Grumman is undisputed leader in radars and sensors IMO (AN/APG-77, AN/APG-81, AN/AAQ-37 DAS). The need for Northrop Grumman team to rely on Boeing / Lockheed for internal components is much smaller than the need Lockheed-Boeing have for Northrop.

Being able to integrate stealthy sensors into a stealthy aircraft is something that is extremely difficult.

Betting RWR will be supplied by BAES given it already supplies RWR for F/A-18 E/F, upgraded F-15s, F-22 and F-35.

Engine obviously Pratt and Whitney.

a reply to: BigTrain

This is flat out not true. The B-2 was used in combat after IOC but before FOC in the Kosovo War. Why? Because the B-2 had unique capabilities that meant it was the best aircraft for the job. These capabilities were the ability to penetrate defended airspace without support and GPS guided munitions. The whole way defense procurement works is that aircraft are purchased to fulfill requirements to provide a capability. In other words, the whole reason you build these aircraft is to use them - can't meet a capability if you are unwilling to actually use the aircraft.

As to your example, why would the US use its 20 B-2s dropping JDAMs on Afghanistan and Iraq from 40,0000 feet? The whole point of the B-2 is to take on high-end threats. The B-1 on the other hand is the cheapest bomber the US has to fly and has reasonably good sensors. And since it is apparently doing such a good job dropping JDAMs on Iraq and Afghanistan, why is there a requirement for a replacement B-1. Further, given there is a limited budget adding B-1Rs would take away funds from LRS-B, cutting quantities of aircraft actually procured and raising unit cost - resulting in far worse value for money.

That and given a B-1R wouldn't be survivable in a high-threat environment it wouldn't provide the capabilities the Air Force needs.

B-1B was $283.1 million in 1998 dollars, inflation adjusted to 2010 dollars this is $378.7 million. LRS-B should be $511 million in 2010 dollars. That's 35% more expensive. Of course, upgrading the B-1 to create the B-1R and with modern technology would raise the cost further, meaning it would probably cost a similar amount to LRS-B.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: BigTrain

This is flat out not true. The B-2 was used in combat after IOC but before FOC in the Kosovo War. Why? Because the B-2 had unique capabilities that meant it was the best aircraft for the job. These capabilities were stealth and GPS guided munitions. The whole way defense procurement works is that aircraft are purchased to fulfill requirements to provide a capability. In other words, the whole reason you build these aircraft is to use them - can't meet a capability if you are unwilling to actually use the aircraft.

As to your example, why would the US use its 20 B-2s dropping JDAMs on Afghanistan and Iraq from 40,0000 feet? The whole point of the B-2 is to take on high-end threats. The B-1 on the other hand is the cheapest bomber the US has to fly and has reasonably good sensors. And since it is apparently doing such a good job dropping JDAMs on Iraq and Afghanistan, why is there a requirement for a replacement B-1. Further, given there is a limited budget adding B-1Rs would take away funds from LRS-B, cutting quantities of aircraft actually procured and raising unit cost - resulting in far worse value for money.

That and given a B-1R wouldn't be survivable in a high-threat environment therefore wouldn't provide the capabilities the Air Force needs.

Imagine the audacity of having a B-1 to do your low end work, that my friends is how advanced the USAF is!!

Some of the reporting amuses me. For example:

Loren Thompson of Lexington Institute thinks Boeing/Lockheed will win, saying a Northrop victory would be a “stunning upset” against a much better financially endowed team.

www.flightglobal.com...

Lexington Institute was founded by a former Lockheed Lobbyist and of course receive funding from contractors. They tend to be very pro-Lockheed in my experience.

Rebecca Grant, of IRIS Research, disagrees, saying Northrop remains a “very viable company” either way through its MQ-4C, F-35 and F/A-18 work, and will probably live on.

Rebecca Grant wrote a book on how good (more or less) Northrop Grumman was during B-2 development.
www.northropgrumman.com...

Of course Rebecca Grant would be pro-Northrop and of course Lexington Institute would be pro-Lockheed.

a reply to: C0bzz

BUT, B-2 Kosovo very limited, VERY limited.

When you need bombs dropped, en masse and long loiter times and fast response times from marines and army calling in air support, guess what, they dont wakie talkie the B-2, sorry guys.

Go ask the grunts, whats your bird, A-10 and B-1 all day any day any night.

When the real battles are happening right now, as I type this message, B-1s are taking off, and remaining on station for the call. This wont change for 30, maybe 40 years because slow bombers flying from the US arent going to replace the b-1, and thats why I say Boeing make a B-1R out of its ridiculous net profit margin and start flying one.

Why wait for the USAF to ask you for it, go ahead and make it. It really wont even dent their bottom line.

And guess what, even if USAF says nah, no thanks, sell it to me for $1 dollar, ill take it to air shows and give people rides in it.

a reply to: BigTrain

I'll bid $2.00

a reply to: BigTrain

Go work on a B-1 for a week and then come back and brag about how amazing it is. It barely goes supersonic, it can't run all of its systems at the same time, because it can't generate enough electrical power, every B-1 flying is broken in some way.

In 2013 the B-1 fleet had a mission capable rate of 57.9%. That's 20% lower than the B-52, and only 11% better than the B-2 for that year.

In 2014, the mission capable rate of the B-1 dropped to 47.7%, with almost a quarter of the fleet breaking. They're hundreds of hours over their life span, and are going into Depot level maintenance at 10-11 at a time for major overhauling. The Depot is surprised to see the new and unique ways that the aircraft are finding to break. They're having to replace major subsystems to keep them flying.

a reply to: mbkennel

Given that the F-35's overseas sales house of cards looks poised to collapse thanks to the new Canadian government (and there's no way a Canadian cancellation won't have ripples across the globe), I'd imagine that the DOD is MUCH more miffed than they can publicly let on.

a reply to: Barnalby

Nowhere near as much as you think. The last 18 months have turned the program around. There's only do much that can be done about foreign customer decisions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A brand new B-1r built with todays manufacturing and materials would have a mission capable rate of 100%.

Of course a 30 yr old massive hulking hydraulic beast has issues, do you remember the Ford Mustang in the 80's???

Compare that to todays model.

a reply to: BigTrain

Bull. No aircraft ever built, at any point in its existence has had near a 100% mission capable rate. As soon as the engines start turning things start breaking. You might get an 85%, but even that would be more luck.

So your big idea is to build brand new aircraft, that in its current configuration, would cost $431M per airframe, and spend another $100M in upgrades and improvements, and have it ready in 10 years?

So besides the LRS-B what else are you planning to eliminate from the budget to pay for this big plan of yours?