It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

As Expected, Boeing & Lockheed Protest LRS-B Contract Awaard

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Boeing, which along with partner Lockheed Martin submitted the losing bid in the competition to build the US Air Force's new Long Range Strike Bomber, filed a protest Friday with the Government Accountability Office over the DoD awarding the contract to Northrop Grumman on Oct. 27.

The GAO now has 100 days to review the protest and issue a ruling.


link.

As expected, Boeing did protest. However, Lockheed filed with them. That is sorta expected since they are partners, but everywhere the headlines are stating that BOEING is protesting, not Lockheed.

The guts of their protest is that the Pentagon's calculation for cost evaluation was wrong and they were the cheaper bid. Given what has been said here and elsewhere that they had the more risky solution, I have a hard time believing their bomber costs less than the $511M/plane the Northrop bid seems to have.

My gut tells me their protest will be denied. However, we shall see.




posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

This is was definitely expected.

I hope that LoEing can come to an agreement with NG instead of waiting out the 100 days.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They would have been nailed to the nearest wall if they didn't, with that kind of money being tossed around.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Avweek starts digging into the protest and the parallel effort in Congress to make political hay as well on their Ares blog. There seems to be multiple bits of 'hrm.'

The extra padding claim where AvWeek says the US Air Force padded the contract by 100% is an eyebrow raiser. Either the USAF is going something hinky or AvWeek is making a big mistake. The hinkiness might be companion aircraft, but...dunno.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Truth is we should build both.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Truth is, they might. We still won't get to see one of them though.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

To be honest, I don't think they ought to build both. This would be for logistical reasons.

Rather I'd suggest either they add more bombers of the same type so that they can increase to the level they really need rather than the 100 bombers currently planned.

I'd also suggest if there's a desire for a mixed capability desired, a new, rather different design ought to be sought. I'd go for a RoboBUFF (monster drone as big as the BUFF) to fire off tons of cruise missiles (stealthy and hypersonic) and/or carry lots of bombs. The need would be for a long loiter time. Much longer than the LRS-B, but at the same time, it probably doesn't need to be as stealthy.

If there is STILL a need for another bomber, or super fighter/bomber, then go the BigTrain route and build a bomber variant of the Lockheed proposed SR-72.

Defending against the B-3 and the RoboBUFF would be hard and cost more than the two would us. The RoboBUFF is also useful for other conflicts. The hypersonic bomber could be doable and would make defending against bombers REALLY hard (well, unless railguns and very high energy lasers proliferate, but even then, it'd be really expensive).

Anyways, both contenders for the B-3 are not likely to be built and I don't think should be.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I agree they should buy more than the 100 bombers they say they currently need and that 100 be of one type.
What I think may happen with the other losing platform is it being utilized for other missions other than dropping bombs. Since the platform must be rather mature (according to the DoD), one of the most advanced aircraft built, and has a modular configuration, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think it could easily be used for something else.

I hear the companion aircraft is ready for retirement.

edit on 6-11-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
I hear the companion aircraft is ready for retirement.


Do you mean the infamous F-117A companion? Would be an impressive lifespan either way.
Any chance we get a peek sometime soon?



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: anzha

I hear the companion aircraft is ready for retirement.


Be still my beating heart.

Then again it'll probably be 20+ years post retirement till we see it.....if ever



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Northernhollow

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: anzha

I hear the companion aircraft is ready for retirement.


Be still my beating heart.

Then again it'll probably be 20+ years post retirement till we see it.....if ever


One will probably end up under Grooms hangar 18 or if unlucky in a ditch somewhere or underneath a taxiway...



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: spaceman42

originally posted by: Sammamishman
I hear the companion aircraft is ready for retirement.


Do you mean the infamous F-117A companion? Would be an impressive lifespan either way.
Any chance we get a peek sometime soon?


Yes, and sadly only in our imaginations probably.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Well they are still flying the F117 at Groom so I dont see them grounding the companion anytime soon.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

The F-117 isn't flying operationally though. The companion is reaching the same point the F-117 did when it was retired.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Too expensive to operate/maintain?

I'd love to see this come out of the black. Incredible that no one has managed to snap a picture based on the fact it's been operational over unfriendly areas of the globe for decades. I assume that means it's been operating out of foreign bases? Qatar? Cyprus?



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad

Point of diminishing returns. Required upgrades are getting expensive, and upkeep is getting harder.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You still think it'll never be declassified?



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Northernhollow

Not for a long time. Maybe eventually, but I'd say probably 10-15 years minimum, probably 20+ if they do.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
What would be the point unless it held some very very hitech stuff that nothing else is running?Engine tech?Avionics?Airframe?RAM coatings?Or is it because of where it has flown over?
Engine tech-Hybrid J58,s or other large engines running exotic fuels?
Avionics-A progression step towards what the F35 is running (B2 and possibly LRSB)
Airframe-Composites or carbon fibre "Grown" deriratives (F35,B2 and LRSB)
RAM Coatings-A step above the F1117 but a step back from the F35 so B2 era.
Destination flight-Russia,Serbia,North Korea,China,Middle East.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

A lot of reasons. The design is unique, the technologies involved are still some of the most advanced in use, and more advanced than several other nations, areas it's flown, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join