US Bomber Contract Awarded Oct 27th

metalinyoni · Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:07 pm

Looks like the US Govt is poised to award the $80b contract for the development of a long range bomber.

Secret development has been underway since 2011.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

flyDTW1992 · Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:40 pm

Northrop Grumman posted new high quality air-to-air footage of the B-2, and if you take a look at their Twitter header photo, it's quite interesting given this upcoming announcement.

My money's on Northrop. But that's more of a gut feeling than anything.

Ozair · Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:12 am

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 1):
My money's on Northrop. But that's more of a gut feeling than anything.

Agree, I have been leaning towards NG as well.

redflyer · Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:50 am

Count me in the NG corner as well. But I'm there only because I want to see the industrial base retained. Besides, LM and Boeing have had enough time at the government trough lately. Especially LM.

But I'm also assuming the competing designs are comparable in performance capabilities.

[Edited 2015-10-26 18:51:41]

bikerthai · Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:48 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
Agree, I have been leaning towards NG as well.

Having dealt with NG from a customer perspective I hope they do not win. If they win, then you better keep a tight hold on your wallet.

Make sure your contract is solid tight and you spec out everything you need up front. Any changes will cost you a bundle.
It's like pulling teeth.

Not that it matters to me, cause rumors has it that a certain company has plans to be part of the business no matter who wins

bt

Thunderboltdrgn · Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:24 pm

"Northrop Grumman Wins Air Force's Long Range Strike Bomber Contract"

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394/

Ozair · Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting Thunderboltdrgn (Reply 5):

"Northrop Grumman Wins Air Force's Long Range Strike Bomber Contract"

Wel I guess no surprise to the posters here that NG won.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Having dealt with NG from a customer perspective I hope they do not win. If they win, then you better keep a tight hold on your wallet.

Make sure your contract is solid tight and you spec out everything you need up front. Any changes will cost you a bundle.
It's like pulling teeth.

I doubt any of the Primes would be any different. From the start though this has been very cost regulated so hopefully the cost-plus for engineering and manufacturing development and fixed price for low-rate production stops as much of that as possible.

So what are the chances of a protest? The article makes it seem like an inevitability.

Disappointed that we haven’t seen at least some type of graphic or even a few technical details but perhaps this will come out once the major and minor sub-contractors are identified and the protest process has been completed.

bikerthai · Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:08 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 6):

I doubt any of the Primes would be any different.

At the working level, there is not much of a difference. Engineers do their best to produce good product and work easily across boundaries. From management standpoint, there is a slight cultural difference for those who have experienced in both commercial and military world vs. those worked strictly in military project. It does show sometimes on how you respond to your customers.

bt

ulfinator · Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:57 pm

So when do we start the pool on guessing when the protest will come?

wingman · Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:29 pm

I'd say NG will be part of Boeing or LockMart by the end of 2016.

Ozair · Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:37 pm

Quoting ulfinator (Reply 8):
So when do we start the pool on guessing when the protest will come?

LM/Boeing probably has to be debriefed on why their bid failed and go from there. I would expect this to occur within the first week of contract announcement. After that there is probably a time limitation on when they have to lodge a protest by.

It would be nice if they didn't though. Protests should be a last resort and not considered the normal behaviour after contract award within the Industry.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
From management standpoint, there is a slight cultural difference for those who have experienced in both commercial and military world vs. those worked strictly in military project. It does show sometimes on how you respond to your customers.

Thanks, interesting observations.

einsteinboricua · Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:22 am

I read an article on why NG was poised to win it: LM is working with the F-35 and Boeing has the K-46. To keep things fair, NG would have balanced things out. If the intent was to not show favoritism, then this was the way to go, and I don't think NG would be given a contract for a lousy product. It really must have also been a true B-2 2.0.

I can tell you right now that employees in Boeing (namely St. Louis which would have benefitted from the contract) will be going to bed more concerned than ever before. It would mean one less contract for the site. There's only so much work that can be offloaded from Seattle. Now that it's settled, all eyes are on a few smaller contracts and if Boeing does not land them, expect to hear layoff notices.

autothrust · Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:06 am

I am happy that NG got the contract, not because i don't begrudge it to Boeing, i just think NG is the right company to do it.

NG has huge knowhow in Bombers, and the final product will be stunning.

spantax · Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:31 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 12):
and the final product will be stunning

Any leaks about the possible configuration? Are we talking here about a kind of updated/bigger B-2 with unmaned capabilities or is there something else?

LAXintl · Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:42 pm

Northrop announced locally it plans to build the aircraft in Plant 42 in Palmdale.

Company initially sees 1,400 new jobs at the facility

marktci · Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:59 pm

Quoting spantax (Reply 13):
Any leaks about the possible configuration? Are we talking here about a kind of updated/bigger B-2 with unmaned capabilities or is there something else?

We're probably just going to have to wait for Honda to reveal the design.

wingman · Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:00 pm

Based on the covered aircraft in the NG PR teaser photo I think it's this one here:

Tugger · Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:03 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 16):
Based on the covered aircraft in the NG PR teaser photo I think it's this one here:

That is just a modified/photoshopped version of the NG X-47 UCAS:

Tugg

Stitch · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting wingman (Reply 9):
I'd say NG will be part of Boeing or LockMart by the end of 2016.

The Department of Defense noted that they would not be in favor of NG being purchased by Boeing (no chance it could be part of Lockheed-Martin as that would put almost all the USAF's manned aircraft programs in their hands).

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 11):
I read an article on why NG was poised to win it: LM is working with the F-35 and Boeing has the K-46. To keep things fair, NG would have balanced things out. If the intent was to not show favoritism, then this was the way to go, and I don't think NG would be given a contract for a lousy product. It really must have also been a true B-2 2.0.

The DoD noted that industrial capacity (keeping three major US defense contractors) was not one of the criteria so you are correct in suggesting that NG was not chosen on that basis.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 11):
I can tell you right now that employees in Boeing (namely St. Louis which would have benefitted from the contract) will be going to bed more concerned than ever before. It would mean one less contract for the site. There's only so much work that can be offloaded from Seattle. Now that it's settled, all eyes are on a few smaller contracts and if Boeing does not land them, expect to hear layoff notices.

There is some concern that Boeing could once again become primarily a commercial aviation company. That being said, Boeing was a major contractor on the B-2 program so it might not be inconceivable that they are called upon to provide assistance to Northrup on the LRS-B.

wingman · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:29 pm

I agree, an LM buy would be very unlikely, but I could see Boeing making a bid. The EU wouldn't be too thrilled either but in terms of major contracts right now you have one each and the combined NG/Boeing contracts you could argue would bring them on par with LM for defense dollars going to Air Force programs over the next 40 years.

And I'm sticking with my rendition guess. That's what envision under the drape just based on the center fuselage shape.

flyingturtle · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting spantax (Reply 13):

Oh yes. Since how many years we haven't had a completely new jet in the air-ground role? I'm equally eager... I still fondly remember the time the F-117 and the B-2 were the shiny new stuff.

David

Ozair · Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 12):
NG has huge knowhow in Bombers, and the final product will be stunning.

I suppose they built the last US bomber so may have some know how but I doubt many of the staff that worked on the B-2 in the 80s/90s are still around.

Quoting spantax (Reply 13):
Are we talking here about a kind of updated/bigger B-2 with unmaned capabilities or is there something else?

The requirements apparently were for a bomber with better stealth than the B-2, smaller but with still excellent range and a large weapons bay for internal payloads at a cost of US$550 mill in 2010 dollars. It is required to draw heavily from the F-35 and F-22 programs so expect it to be powered by the F135 and have a similar EODAS, stealth skin and fusion engine from the F-35. I am also expecting a self defence capability with internal AIM-120s, perhaps off the weapons bay doors similar to the F-35.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
That being said, Boeing was a major contractor on the B-2 program so it might not be inconceivable that they are called upon to provide assistance to Northrup on the LRS-B.

I can also see Boeing winning a significant amount of sub-contractor work. This also makes for an interesting competition emerging for the new T-X airframe. Boeing must be very keen to win that contest now that both LM and NG have work going forward.

Quoting wingman (Reply 19):
I agree, an LM buy would be very unlikely, but I could see Boeing making a bid.

The talk has been that NG would spin off the division anyway although I doubt as Stitch indicated that Boeing would be given approval to purchase the spun off business.

45272455674 · Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:18 am

Pending the protest from the unsuccessful bidder, I'm going to take a guess and suggest it is this:

https://www.google.com/patents/US8292220?dq=inassignee:%22Northrop+Grumman+Corporation%22+aircraft&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMI7Pm71sDmyAIVA4amCh0KgwYS

Or similar to it.

angad84 · Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:46 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 21):
and fusion engine

???

Have I missed something over the past decade?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 21):
I can also see Boeing winning a significant amount of sub-contractor work. This also makes for an interesting competition emerging for the new T-X airframe. Boeing must be very keen to win that contest now that both LM and NG have work going forward.

Interesting point. I keep forgetting about T-X even though it's a very interesting programme.

Cheers
A

Ozair · Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:43 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 23):
???

Have I missed something over the past decade?

There is a whole bunch of words at the following link that discusses the fusion aspect of the systems architecture
http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/t...e-f-35-and-advanced-sensor-fusion/

In simple words it is the software code written that fuse all the sensors of the airframe into one situational picture, tasking associated sensors to gather additional info, all the while displaying the most pertinent information to the pilot and sharing it across the network. Forgot the stealth coating or other advanced systems, the fusion engine is the crowning achievement of the program, is easily a generation ahead of what other manufactures are doing and will probably be re-used on every subsequent US combat platform.

angad84 · Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:29 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24):

Whoops. I read "engine" as in "propulsion" and was thoroughly confused.

Thoroughly agree with you on the importance of sensor fusion, btw, and it's something that's giving us AMCA watchers in India a fair bit of trouble sleeping. There's still a lot of focus on LO/VLO shaping and materials (diminishing returns), power (expensive, sensitive, long development period) and pure kinetic performance (iffy track record in India) but the more important - IMO - systems level stuff seems to have fallen by the wayside and it looks disconcertingly like they might once again to go for a Su-30MKI-esque hodge-podge of parts that will struggle to talk to each other.

OTOH, sensor fusion done right - in hardware as well as software - will be a game changer for the whole industry, and will have application beyond just the AMCA programme.

Sorry, veered off topic there.

Cheers
A

FSXJunkie · Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:25 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 11):
I read an article on why NG was poised to win it: LM is working with the F-35 and Boeing has the K-46. To keep things fair,

Bad strategy, Boeing and Lock-Mart are large companies with production and facilities to spare, plus we're not on a war footing.

You have to go for what is overall the best system for force economy, and a Northrop bomber ain't it. a Boring/lock-Mart plane would have better cost spread via parts commonality with other airframes.

Quote:
NG would have balanced things out. If the intent was to not show favoritism, then this was the way to go,

This isn't Kindergarten, this is nuclear deterrence and national defense.

We need to bring back 'SAC rules' with bomber procurement.

Convair screwed themselves when the B-58 Hustler was late and over budget.

Northrop's already pushed out a subpar bomber thrice, the XB-35, YB-49, and the B-2 were/are all maintenance intensive hanger queens, all never fully lived up to expectation, tons of free surface issues, and grossly over budget. And as if to drive my point home the B-2's are in the queue to be replaced along with the Bone and BUFF.

They shouldn't have even been in contention

You really want to throw Northrop a bone, give them the E-10 (as it's a 767 base air frame, we'd have parts commonality with KC-46)

Quote:
and I don't think NG would be given a contract for a lousy product. It really must have also been a true B-2 2.0.

Given that cost overruns are a given, and how much their last product cost...

$4 BILLION dollars per airframe, still giddy for that tax hike? Sure the Air Farce is spinning $500 million right now, just remember how the F-35's costs multiplied...and the B-2's original forecast turned into that final $2 Billion per plane mark.

bikerthai · Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
That being said, Boeing was a major contractor on the B-2 program so it might not be inconceivable that they are called upon to provide assistance to Northrup on the LRS-B.

What Boeing offers is the industrial capacity with all those autoclaves pumping out 787 and now 777 composite parts.
Squeeze a B-3 wing in once in a while will keep the non-recurring cost down.

The real question would be whether Boeing would be tapped for the Engineering (and composite technical development) and lessons learned from the 787 program. Composite manufacturing has come a long way since the B-2. Specially in terms of rate production.

I can see NG wining the contract on technical grounds. There are a lot of intangibles of having to support the B-2 all these years. These intangibles are always beneficial when putting together a proposal by filling in the details that your competitors may miss.

bt

checksixx · Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:18 am

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 26):
You have to go for what is overall the best system for force economy, and a Northrop bomber ain't it.

Right....because who cares they have the most successful stealth bomber in history (the only one).....maybe you should stick with FSX............

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 26):
Given that cost overruns are a given, and how much their last product cost...

Apparently you have not done ANY research into the contract being awarded....

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 26):
and the B-2's original forecast turned into that final $2 Billion per plane mark.

Flyaway cost was less than $800 million per aircraft...if you even bothered to look and read, you could have found that out. You CANNOT apply spare parts, buildings, incremental software updates, aircraft updates, etc...when calculating a per aircraft price.

ThePointblank · Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:25 am

Northrop has extensive experience in composite construction as well; they build the F-35's center fuselage section, and was a partner in developing the F-35's skin along with Lockheed Martin.

KarelXWB · Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:59 am

Boeing will protest against the award to Northrop:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...kheed-bomber-idUSKCN0SU02K20151105

Quote:
Boeing Co (BA.N) may decide as soon as Thursday whether to protest the U.S. Air Force's selection of Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) to develop and build a next-generation long-range strike bomber amid signs that a challenge could be an uphill battle, according to sources familiar with the issue.

Stitch · Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:11 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
Boeing will protest against the award to Northrop

They may decide to protest it per the article title and text you quoted, so it's not a foregone conclusion as yet.

If Lockheed is not interested in joining the protest, I wonder if Boeing is considering using a potential protest to try and become a senior sub-contractor on the Northrup project, as they were on the B-2 Spirit rather than get the award reversed.

NathanH · Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:59 pm

https://twitter.com/ABAviationWeek/status/662632853729996800

Pretty obvious this was going to happen. There is basically no reason for Boeing/Lockheed to NOT protest.

KarelXWB · Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
They may decide

Well that was quick:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...-northrop-win-for-bomber-contract/

nomadd22 · Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:34 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 25):

Whoops. I read "engine" as in "propulsion" and was thoroughly confused.

Funny thing is, The Skunkworks claims they're working on a fusion reactor that will fit in the bed of a pickup and will be ready in 10 years.

angad84 · Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 33):
Well that was quick:

Well f***, here we go again...

I hope we don't have to wait 3 months for GAO to respond.

Cheers
Angad

Beta · Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:32 am

It's hilarious Boeing/Lock-Mart protests based on cost-overrun risks. No doubt Northrop will experience delays and cost overruns. But Boeing and Lock-Mart are arguably in worse positions to argue against: The on-going tanker saga, the Wedgetail program fiasco for Australia, the F 35, LCS, GPS replacement. Boeing couldn't even make the 787 commercial airliner on time, on budget, on spec. Uncle Sam might as well spread the wealth to Northrop.

einsteinboricua · Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
That being said, Boeing was a major contractor on the B-2 program so it might not be inconceivable that they are called upon to provide assistance to Northrup on the LRS-B.

That may aid the lower level employees but not those midway and through the end of their careers. Simply put, even as a subcontractor, it's not gonna merit a full site like St. Louis.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The Department of Defense noted that they would not be in favor of NG being purchased by Boeing

It would be ironic actually. A coworker left earlier this year to go work for NG in Florida. Imagine how it would be if Boeing bought NG and incorporated it into the company...she left Boeing and Boeing brought her back.

On a more serious note: why would it not be in favor of the purchase? It's not like there's product overlap. And odds are many of the munitions the bomber will carry (nuclear or conventional) are Boeing made.

Stitch · Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:57 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 37):
On a more serious note: why would it not be in favor of the purchase?

If Boeing purchased NG, that would reduce the number of major US defense contractors from three to two.

That being said, the USAF stated keeping NG as an active company was not a criteria, yet if they had not been chosen, that would have affected their long-term survivability.

And by not choosing Lockheed-Boeing, there is a risk that Boeing's military division will fade away (as the F-15 and F-18 programs wind down), which would leave them as primarily a commercial aerospace manufacturer as they were before the 1990s and their mergers with Hughes and McD.

einsteinboricua · Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
That being said, the USAF stated keeping NG as an active company was not a criteria, yet if they had not been chosen, that would have affected their long-term survivability.

BINGO!

That's why I don't think the DoD should be against a Boeing/NG merger. If they chose NG because it had the best product (not because it wanted to have various suppliers available or a varied market), then I would think that it would be OK with Boeing acquiring NG to revamp its military sales and keep it alive.

bikerthai · Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
If Boeing purchased NG, that would reduce the number of major US defense contractors from three to two.

This in it self may not be a problem. But since NG was the only US competitor to Boeing for the tanker contract, it would not bode well for the next round of tanker recapitalization if there is only one tanker offer.

Not sure if Lockheed would be too keen in working with Airbus.

With that in mind, the only thing I could see is if Boeing was a sub-tier to NG for fabrication of the fuselage. A merger would have too many hurdles.

bt

bikerthai · Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:00 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
(as the F-15 and F-18 programs wind down),

And Israel comes to the rescue with an large order of F-15 SE . . .

br

Stitch · Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:08 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 40):
But since NG was the only US competitor to Boeing for the tanker contract, it would not bode well for the next round of tanker recapitalization if there is only one tanker offer.

Well the DoD only have one (effective) source for fighters - LockMart - and one for submarines and land vehicles - General Dynamics - and they don't seem to be too worried about that. And with this win, NG effectively becomes the sole source for bombers going forward. So if the USAF was forced by default to buy 767s and 777s for cargo/tankers because only Boeing was able to supply them domestically, I think they'd be okay with it.

LAXintl · Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:46 pm

GAO denies Boeing’s protest of long range strike bomber contract and reaffirms the award to Northrop.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/bre...e-strike-bomber-contract/80433300/

angad84 · Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:16 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 43):
GAO denies Boeing’s protest of long range strike bomber contract and reaffirms the award to Northrop.

Just saw that too - looks like GAO isn't taking the piss, they've told LockMart to get bent on JLTV as well.

Now we wait and see if this new generation of rejiggered procurement programmes can work as planned.

Cheers
A

Ozair · Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:58 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 44):
Just saw that too - looks like GAO isn't taking the piss, they've told LockMart to get bent on JLTV as well.

Now we wait and see if this new generation of rejiggered procurement programmes can work as planned.

To put the protest into context, one of the reports I read stated that only 2% of Defence protests in the US are ever upheld. It did waste three months of dev time for NG though.

Hopefully this moves us closer to an actual graphic or image of the aircraft!

Confuscius · Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:17 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
Hopefully this moves us closer to an actual graphic or image of the aircraft!

I bet it comes in black only.

angad84 · Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:03 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
Hopefully this moves us closer to an actual graphic or image of the aircraft!

Yeah, dying for the real deal to finally break cover.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
To put the protest into context, one of the reports I read stated that only 2% of Defence protests in the US are ever upheld. It did waste three months of dev time for NG though.

Didn't know it was that low. Still, even with the inevitable delays, it's good that a system for challenge exists and that it's time bound.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 46):
I bet it comes in black only.

I wouldn't mind a Raptor/Lightning grey!

Cheers
A

Stitch · Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:39 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
Hopefully this moves us closer to an actual graphic or image of the aircraft!

NG's latest television commercials have been showing an advanced "6th generation" stealth manned fighter that, to my knowledge, is not in the current USAF or USN inventory so I wonder if that is a cover for what the L-RSB looks like (if not exactly, in general perhaps).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGSX55MkDnM

Ozair · Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:46 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
NG's latest television commercials have been showing an advanced "6th generation" stealth manned fighter that, to my knowledge, is not in the current USAF or USN inventory so I wonder if that is a cover for what the L-RSB looks like (if not exactly, in general perhaps).

That is the same as the rendering for the 6th Gen that NG released last year.

I'm inclined to believe that the LRS-B is going to look more like a cross between a B-2 and an X-47b. Last requirements rumours were for a subsonic aircraft and the NG 6th Gen fighter looks decidedly supersonic and therefore less area for fuel and large internal weapon bays.

The last few seconds of the video give a hint though, apparently what it looks like it worth a standing ovation

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net