Northrop Building US Military’s Future Stealth Bomber

Dangman said:
Because we're talking about taxpayer money here. In theory, the company with the most recent experience with stealth bombers should have an easier time developing a new stealth bomber. Easier time means that the project will be delivered on time and not over-budget as a result. That company is Northrup-Grumman on account of its B-2 stealth bomber.

Whereas Boeing hasn't really made a bomber for close to 40 to 50 years now let alone a stealth bomber. As such, they would have a had higher learning curve and therefore would have been more than likely over-budget and slip way way past the expected service date. Lockheed, on the other hand, considering how they screwed up the F-35 and LCS program, I wouldn't be willing to trust them at all.

There's also the fact that this bomber is really the last major combat aircraft program for the next 15 years minimum. More than likely 20. As such, whoever lost would need to have other major programs to keep them alive until then. Unfortunately, Northrop doesn't really have a major aircraft program compared to Lockheed (F-35, LCS, C-130J+, F-16) or Boeing (C-5, F/A-18E, F-15E, SLAM-ER missiles, etc). So this bomber program is basically a jobs program for Northrup.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... I don't know much about the politics and money behind these contracts, so I can't comment on this being a "jobs program" for Northrop-Grumman. However I was an F-15 tech for a number of years (primarily Es), and while Boeing was in charge of the overall airframe and system integration, many, if not all of the systems in that aircraft came from pretty much every major player in the game, including Northrop-Grumman, depending on configs. It's safe to assume that this is true for other airframes also, so I'd be hesitant to say that Northrop-Grumman would go broke just because they didn't have the contract for a major airframe, because they certainly have dealings in various places. But then again, I don't know their financials or any of the politics here.

noko said:
A man less bomber fully loaded that can escape the most advance missile defense system would be one heck of a plane to hack and hijack. To fly a plane without pilots leaves it open for failures which a human can handle (like a fire, loose items in the plane or ones that break free etc.) I can see smaller unmanned bombers but not something as expensive as this.
Click to expand...

Having a plane with pilots also introduces a host of problems of its own. You need to have an ejection seat, displays and controls for the pilot obviously, which is a lot of expense, weight, and a lot of extra maintenance. Often times with bomber aircraft, you need long range and long flight times, so you probably won't be supporting a single pilot. Then you need a bunch of life-support systems like systems to maintain cabin pressure, oxygen system. Standard stuff, but if you cut this out the potential for simplicity and savings is large.

Assuming you can maintain a proper link with an aircraft, there is no reason a pilot can't remotely deal with an engine fire. If your instruments tell you that you have an engine fire, then you can fire off the fire-suppression systems for that engine. You do not need to be in the cockpit for a visual confirmation because if the jet tells you that you have an engine fire, then you treat it as real. If you have a fire elsewhere in the plane, then I'm not sure there is anything that can be done at all.

There are a plethora of systems that can take control of an aircraft to prevent crashes, stall conditions, over-Gs, hell even automate take-offs and landings if we wish to do so. Systems like these are not typically installed or used AFAIK, but the technology exists and it can cut out a lot of human error.

And last but not least, if you lose one of these planes, the risk of death or capture of the pilot is zero.

I'm not for or against unmanned aircraft. I just wanted to get these points out in the open.
 
Shameless Liar said:
Hmmm.... I don't know much about the politics and money behind these contracts, so I can't comment on this being a "jobs program" for Northrop-Grumman. However I was an F-15 tech for a number of years (primarily Es), and while Boeing was in charge of the overall airframe and system integration, many, if not all of the systems in that aircraft came from pretty much every major player in the game, including Northrop-Grumman, depending on configs. It's safe to assume that this is true for other airframes also, so I'd be hesitant to say that Northrop-Grumman would go broke just because they didn't have the contract for a major airframe, because they certainly have dealings in various places. But then again, I don't know their financials or any of the politics here.
.
Click to expand...

You are right that Northrop-Grumman wouldn't necessarily go broke if they had lost the LRS-B program. But according to one aviation-consulting firm:
After the B-3 contract is awarded, the next big deal for combat planes—for a sixth-generation “air-dominance fighter” to replace the F-22 and F-18 Super Hornet—will be more than a decade away. So Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, an aviation-consulting firm, believes it will be hard for the loser to stay in the combat-aircraft business. If Northrop were to miss out, its investors may press for it to be broken up. If Boeing were to lose, Mr Aboulafia thinks it may seek to buy Northrop’s aircraft-building business, to ensure it gets the job after all. The production line in St Louis that makes Boeing’s F-18 (the US Navy’s mainstay fighter until it starts to get the carrier version of the new F-35 in numbers) is due to close in 2017. If Northrop were to depart the field, that could leave Lockheed Martin as the only American company with the ability to design combat planes, and thus the biggest winner of the three.
Click to expand...

In other words, having a big-ticket item would keep investors happy and therefore keep the company whole. If a company breaks up into small parts, that usually means job loss, not creation.
 
Skripka said:
As opposed to F-35C which is "only" $120 million USD each, and has taken 20 years from original request for proposals to first operational aircraft.
Click to expand...

I thought it was down to ~85 million for partner countries. About half the price of a new Strike Eagle.
 
... because this is what 'murica needs more of, instruments of death.
 
Skripka said:
...Well look at it this way. The B-2 ended up costing 1-f*cking-billion USD EACH. And from design request to first operational delivered aircraft was 15 years.
...
I'd say the B-2 was even more of a monstrous taxpayer joke than the F-35. Northrup can do better than Boeing/Lockheed, yea right. In any case, it is all a farce committed in the name of "national security". This bomber project is nothing more than the military-industrial-complex version of the bank bailouts or the GM bailout....pissing fucking money away to make fat cats more rich.
Click to expand...

Just... no. The high cost-per-aircraft on the B-2 is primarily due to the fact that they only built 20 (plus one prototype converted to operational status). If they had built 100+ as planned the unit cost would have been lower and other aircraft could have been retired. The end of the Cold War also changed the aircraft's primary role from being our front line nuclear bomber to being a precision stealth strike platform.

The F-22 went through similar growing pains when it's mission was broadened to fill the role of the now-retired F-117.

Flogger23m said:
I thought it was down to ~85 million for partner countries. About half the price of a new Strike Eagle.
Click to expand...

It is, maybe even less depending on how many they end up building. The F-35 is going to be around for 40+ years and the initial procurement is over 2000 aircraft, that's why they're willing to throw so much money into the program.

Cost estimates can vary wildly during development. The F-22 was up over $300 million/plane at one point, it ended up being half that.
 
Also isn't this new bomber supposed to be a smaller tactical bomber, like the F-111? Or is it a strategic like the B-1?
 
mstersmith80 said:
I completely forgot the world is currently hugging it out and world peace is just around the corner!;)
Click to expand...

More like a humanity long fight for world/global dominance by a small few ruining life for the many in the process. Which is worse. As it won't end well.


lol
 
mstersmith80 said:
I completely forgot the world is currently hugging it out and world peace is just around the corner!;)
Click to expand...

The world has been more peaceful since World War II ended than at any other time in recorded history. What may seem like a "war" to you now is just a skirmish.
 
xJ321x said:
I wasn't aware of the fact that Saudi's are intolerant of the US alone. I wonder why the US GOV does so much business with them then.
Click to expand...

Umm, for the same reasons we have citizens in the US that don't agree with US Foreign Policy or why we go to war. Because the people who run a government are not the same people who have to live under it.

And the US Gov does so much business with the Saudi Government because .... it's business, it's money, influence, and power. The Saudis have friends, and we have friends, and through each other deals can be made the would never be possible, or profitable, otherwise.
 
Shameless Liar said:
Do you guys work for Boeing or a competitor? What are the reasons someone who is not in that industry would care which of the contractors gets the contract?
Click to expand...

Um, maybe that one contractor has a history of delivering a better product and the other for delivering mediocrity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing
Products
737
747
767
777
787
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
CH-47 Chinook
702
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman
Products
Aircraft carriers
Military aircraft
Military vessels
Missile defense systems
Satellites
Information technology
Advanced electronic sensors and systems
Click to expand...

So Boeing has built a few Airliners, a Jet Fighter, and a couple of improved versions of someone else's helicopters. And Northrup has built many versions of several classes of military grade equipment and has by far the most experience with military grade electronics.

I really don't want to knock Boeing too hard, they are good at what they do. The just don't really do military that much, not like many of the others.
 
Shameless Liar said:
Do you guys work for Boeing or a competitor? What are the reasons someone who is not in that industry would care which of the contractors gets the contract?
Click to expand...

Uhh I used to work for Boeing. Their track record as of late trying to polish a turd has not been good. Even the 787 program which I supported is still over $25 billion in deferred production cost which is still increasing. The last quarter shows no sign of it slowing down. They're expected to clear at best 1% in returns over a 10 year period. Lately in Charleston at the 2nd FAL for the 787, they just started gutting workers shifts and refusing to promote anyone to level 3 by making unrealistic tests that are impossible to pass. Earlier this year, the IAM backed out of trying to unionized but those shit as of late just gave the workforce ammo to let them back in. A buddy of mine just signed the signing card despite his voting the last time to kick the IAM out.

On top of that, they ate a $600 million charge to get the tanker back on schedule after they messed up the second EMD Tanker with the wrong kind of fuel.

Also it's gotten so bad that they started blaming the general non-union workforce for not doing better which they cut out a lot of the bonuses even though the 2014 year was a record high over 2013 but they said "We didn't do good enough so we're taking 8 days of bonuses from you."

Honestly I'm glad to be done with Boeing. The culture is just very demoralizing.
 
Bombing countries has been so beneficial for America, it's a good way to invest your tax money for a better future.
 
Shameless Liar said:
Hmmm.... I don't know much about the politics and money behind these contracts, so I can't comment on this being a "jobs program" for Northrop-Grumman. However I was an F-15 tech for a number of years (primarily Es), and while Boeing was in charge of the overall airframe and system integration, many, if not all of the systems in that aircraft came from pretty much every major player in the game, including Northrop-Grumman, depending on configs. It's safe to assume that this is true for other airframes also, so I'd be hesitant to say that Northrop-Grumman would go broke just because they didn't have the contract for a major airframe, because they certainly have dealings in various places. But then again, I don't know their financials or any of the politics here.



Having a plane with pilots also introduces a host of problems of its own. You need to have an ejection seat, displays and controls for the pilot obviously, which is a lot of expense, weight, and a lot of extra maintenance. Often times with bomber aircraft, you need long range and long flight times, so you probably won't be supporting a single pilot. Then you need a bunch of life-support systems like systems to maintain cabin pressure, oxygen system. Standard stuff, but if you cut this out the potential for simplicity and savings is large.

Assuming you can maintain a proper link with an aircraft, there is no reason a pilot can't remotely deal with an engine fire. If your instruments tell you that you have an engine fire, then you can fire off the fire-suppression systems for that engine. You do not need to be in the cockpit for a visual confirmation because if the jet tells you that you have an engine fire, then you treat it as real. If you have a fire elsewhere in the plane, then I'm not sure there is anything that can be done at all.

There are a plethora of systems that can take control of an aircraft to prevent crashes, stall conditions, over-Gs, hell even automate take-offs and landings if we wish to do so. Systems like these are not typically installed or used AFAIK, but the technology exists and it can cut out a lot of human error.

And last but not least, if you lose one of these planes, the risk of death or capture of the pilot is zero.

I'm not for or against unmanned aircraft. I just wanted to get these points out in the open.
Click to expand...

These are all very valid points but I have only one to lay out there for consideration. That point about maintaining a link. It's easier said then done. I mean it's one thing to do it without an enemy working to disrupt it and another when your enemy has that capacity to interfere. In such a case you would need to allow for autonomous control and when you do this you start reaching a point where you might as well just use missiles. Missiles, bigger missiles, lasers and rail guns. You push these technologies far enough and we still come back to the old problem. We still need boots on the ground to do what only they can really do. Then we are back to needing air support with loiter time and responsive strike packages and air superiority.

None of that really changes right.
 
xJ321x said:
More like a humanity long fight for world/global dominance by a small few ruining life for the many in the process. Which is worse. As it won't end well.


lol
Click to expand...

You act as if it's a condition caused by individuals, like kings and queens, or the illuminati. The real deal is you could wipe out all the rich big shots who have been running this game and tomorrow 6 dozen more would fill their shoes. It's a human condition, it's people, it's the way we are wired. Some just desire wealth and power above other things. Some just have to want to run the show. And it isn't a minority, the waiting list trying to work their way to the top or get close to the table for scraps is a long one.
 
lcpiper said:
Um, maybe that one contractor has a history of delivering a better product and the other for delivering mediocrity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman


So Boeing has built a few Airliners, a Jet Fighter, and a couple of improved versions of someone else's helicopters. And Northrup has built many versions of several classes of military grade equipment and has by far the most experience with military grade electronics.

I really don't want to knock Boeing too hard, they are good at what they do. The just don't really do military that much, not like many of the others.
Click to expand...

You apparently only read the Wiki article and for starters didn't know that it was only in 2001 that Northrup bought the Ingalls shipyard... and then in 2011 Northrup/Grumman sold of its ship building department. So no, it really doesn't have ship building experience in house anymore.

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/active/ingalls.htm

And further you read the listing...no Northrup didn't build any aircraft carriers. The only hulls built by NG during the years they owned a shipyard were dome amphib assault ships. The NG years were the LEAST productive in the entire history of that shipyard.

That wiki entry is a classic example of resume-padding by BG to try and make them look better.
 
Skripka said:
You apparently only read the Wiki article and for starters didn't know that it was only in 2001 that Northrup bought the Ingalls shipyard... and then in 2011 Northrup/Grumman sold of its ship building department. So no, it really doesn't have ship building experience in house anymore.

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/active/ingalls.htm

And further you read the listing...no Northrup didn't build any aircraft carriers. The only hulls built by NG during the years they owned a shipyard were dome amphib assault ships. The NG years were the LEAST productive in the entire history of that shipyard.

That wiki entry is a classic example of resume-padding by BG to try and make them look better.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I did miss some of the Arleigh Burke missile DDs that they built...but still. AFAIK they never built a carrier.
 
Skripka, why are you focusing on shipbuilding when I am talking about aircraft and electronics designed to support warfare?

While it's true that Boeing has a long history of building bombers, B-17, B-29, and B-52s. And B-52s have been stretched along quite well for long beyond what anyone would have thought. They were a hell of an airframe.

But other then this, they have failed to secure a military aircraft contract of any note for decades. Not so for Northrup Grumman.
B-2 Spirit strategic bomber
E-8C Joint STARS surveillance aircraft
RQ-4 Global Hawk
T-38 Talon supersonic trainer
RQ-5 Hunter unmanned air vehicle
BQM-74 Chukar
Grumman C-2 Greyhound
Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
EA-6B Prowler

Northrop Grumman provides major components and assemblies for different aircraft such as F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler.


If you are going to build manned and unmanned combat aircraft no one has more experience and success then Northrup Grumman. The next closest is probably North American/GM.
 
lcpiper said:
Skripka, why are you focusing on shipbuilding when I am talking about aircraft and electronics designed to support warfare?

While it's true that Boeing has a long history of building bombers, B-17, B-29, and B-52s. And B-52s have been stretched along quite well for long beyond what anyone would have thought. They were a hell of an airframe.

But other then this, they have failed to secure a military aircraft contract of any note for decades. Not so for Northrup Grumman.
B-2 Spirit strategic bomber
E-8C Joint STARS surveillance aircraft
RQ-4 Global Hawk
T-38 Talon supersonic trainer
RQ-5 Hunter unmanned air vehicle
BQM-74 Chukar
Grumman C-2 Greyhound
Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
EA-6B Prowler

Northrop Grumman provides major components and assemblies for different aircraft such as F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler.


If you are going to build manned and unmanned combat aircraft no one has more experience and success then Northrup Grumman. The next closest is probably North American/GM.
Click to expand...

You really should review your history.

Boeing built most of the B-2. Northrup designed it.

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b-2-spirit.page
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boeing/article/B-2-bomber-turns-25-5623210.php

Northrop Grumman led development and production of the B-2, while Boeing built the outboard portion of the wing, the aft center fuselage, landing gear, fuel system and weapons delivery system.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top