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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Details of the Boeing Protest for the B-21 Raider Contract Award Revealed

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

"unrealistically low labour rates"

"[low-level] engineers"

So I take it that the unofficial name for the B-21 could well be "H-1Bomber"?




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It's going to depend on which you want more, reliable aircraft that you can use, or problem plagued aircraft that may or may not work.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Within the contracting community the Rapid Capabilities Office has a stellar reputation - one would think they would have developed a procurement strategy given their leaner size (and reputation for acumen) to go with the actual 'better a/c' rather than be forced to focus on just price...

Is that reputation in question / not accurate?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're forgetting that half of these buyers use their air forces primarily as flying polo clubs for political insiders, and probably only really care that their fighters look good at airshows and military parades



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

No, the RCO is awesome. The problem is that they don't make the final selection. They do amazing things, then turn everything over, including their recommendations, to the office of the SECDEF for the final selection.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting to consider is that the former head of contracting at the RCO left not long after award (maybe it was after the protest I can't remember exactly).

I just remember seeing the position open up on USAJobs and making a quick post on ATS about it.

What I'm getting at is of course folks move around / what better time to leave after a major project is awarded, but I wonder if there were folks at the RCO that wanted the LockBo bird and the director leaving was a show of disagreement with SecDef's decision?



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

It could very well be. Not much would surprise me anymore.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still have 20 some odd years left in my career as a 1102, I'm trying not to get too disillusioned here, lol.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Good luck with that. I got disenfranchised when He Who Will Never Be Named was appointed CSAF and I realized they didn't give a damn about anything but politics.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
If it were me choosing I'd invest all of that $ into cruise missiles, radar and satellite systems, and jamming equipment.


And how will you get those cruise missiles, radar, and jamming equipment close enough to the action?



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I have an interesting theory about this. I'm waiting to hear back from a few people to see if it's crazy, but recent comments lead me to think I might not be far off.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: muzzleflash
If it were me choosing I'd invest all of that $ into cruise missiles, radar and satellite systems, and jamming equipment.


And how will you get those cruise missiles, radar, and jamming equipment close enough to the action?


Well, cruise missiles usually fly into the hot zone and go boom, creating the action...
Satellites orbit around the Earth...
Radars are usually either ground/ship based or AWACS, etc...
And jamming equipment is installed on various platforms...

What are you saying? That we need a B-21 to achieve any of this? It's a bomber...
The B-2, B-1 and B-52 fulfill that role just fine as is.
I don't see where this new platform is necessary at all.
edit on 11/2/2016 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

It's going to depend on which you want more, reliable aircraft that you can use, or problem plagued aircraft that may or may not work.


I'm going with reliable and working aircraft that we already have parts for, trained maintenance crews, and are up-gradable with new avionics packages, etc.

What we have right now should be just fine (with upgrades) for a long time.
America needs to be more cost-effective right now and work with what we got.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

So you'd keep 60 year old aircraft flying until what, they're completely unable to fly any more before you start replacing them?

Your missiles and jammers aren't going to just fly there all on their own. And it would be sort of nice to get the platforms carrying them back again.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Reliable, OK. Before the $3B upgrade program those reliable B-1s had a mission capable rate of less than 50% over the course of a year plus. That's certainly reliable. That reliable B-2 celebrated last year because they hit a 63% mission capable rate.

Parts for them, sure. That's why they're retiring 4-5 E-3s so they can take the TF33s, also used by the B-52, off them and keep them as spares, because there are none being built anymore, and the E-3, E-8, and B-52 are the only ones using them anymore. Some of those upgrades are being done because there are no parts left short of changing the entire system out.

Yes, we need to be more frugal, but it would also be nice to have aircraft we can actually use if needed. And that can get through a modern defense system and come home again.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

So you'd keep 60 year old aircraft flying until what, they're completely unable to fly any more before you start replacing them?

Your missiles and jammers aren't going to just fly there all on their own. And it would be sort of nice to get the platforms carrying them back again.


You must have forgot my comments on the B-52 thread a month or two ago, I'd personally prefer the B-1.
And it was you who told me the B-52 is a viable missile carrier as long as it's protected.

Also the Navy carries plenty of cruise missiles as well.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

It is a credible missile truck, but defenses are getting better, which will push their launch points back, or force them to wait until defenses are knocked down.

As for the B-1, between their numbers and mission capable rate, they're not the greatest backbone to a bomber fleet.

The Navy has the same problem the B-52s are facing. New threats are pushing them farther out.
edit on 11/2/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Fair enough, but do you have statistics on the reliability of Russia's bomber fleets? What equivalents do they use for getting airborne radar into a random battlefield zone around the world to combat our forces, and how effective are they vs our fleets?
I realize we will be seeing the Beriev A-100 but I don't know how powerful or advanced it's systems are going to be over the next decade. I don't know how effective China's KJ-3000 or 2000 is, though I understand they have very limited numbers.

Russia is the primary competition still, despite China's rapid advances, in terms of potential global conflicts.

We have roughly 30 E-3's, if they are retiring some that's minus 5. Our allies can muster an additional dozen or so. We still have JSTARS, some Hawkeyes (maybe 50 of them)...

I do think we need a next-gen variation for early warning or command and control, maybe based on a 787 platform with all the state of the art equipment, spare no expenses. A few dozen of them to replace the existing fleets.

To get "through a modern defense system" I think cruise missiles and drones are the way to go honestly. It's cheap and effective. When combined with good jamming it could be devastating.

I think these types of money pits are far more practical and viable than the B-21 boondoggle.


edit on 11/2/2016 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

The B-21 hasn't even flown the prototype yet and you've already decided it's a boondoggle. Amazing.

Russia is improving their readiness rates. They're putting their bombers through huge upgrade programs. They are seeing problems in some areas still but are getting better.

Cruise missiles are great tools, but you have to get them to the launch areas, and use them in fairly large numbers. A bomber like the B-21 may be able to get to a target and drop two bombs and kill it, where you'd have to send at least 4-5 cruise missiles at the same target.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why can't we develop more stealthy cruise missiles? Isn't that cheaper?
What prevents us from extending their ranges?

Drones too.

Yes, I am certain that investing heavily in manned aircraft is a poor decision for the future battlefield of the next 30 to 50 years. Unmanned remotely guided ordinance seems to be the most cost effective and reliable option.

I don't want to lose the future war because of a mistake like this.
We have to give up our nostalgia and focus on winning.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join