And the winner is.....

[FLYBOYJ]

Northrop Bomber Award Upheld as Lockheed-Boeing Protest Denied

This will be the new fodder for the media.

"Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. lost their challenge to the Pentagon's choice of Northrop Grumman Corp. to build a heavy bomber valued at as much as $80 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office's chief spokesman.

The agency denied the protest filed by the two biggest U.S. defense contractors, the GAO said Tuesday in an e-mailed statement. The companies could still pursue the dispute in court."

 

[GrauGeist]

Well...

This should prove to be a great source of entertainment for a while

 

[tomo pauk]

Glad to hear N-G is to (re-)enter the military aircraft market, hopefully they draw lessons from the protracted development of the L-M's F-35.

 

[GrauGeist]

Glad to hear N-G is to (re-)enter the military aircraft market, hopefully they draw lessons from the protracted development of the L-M's F-35.

Tomo, I suspect that in this modern age, aircraft development may take longer than aircraft did in the past, due to a higher level of onboard technology and areodynamic demands.

Something that seems to go un-noticed, is how long other projects have taken, such as Sukhoi's PAK FA project for example.

 

[tomo pauk]

I hear what you say, Dave. The F-35 didn't pushed aerodynamic boundaries, while providing top-notch onboard tecnhnology (unlike the B-2 or F-22, for example), yet the project still didn't came to frutition in a timely manner.

 

[nuuumannn]

The F-35 didn't pushed aerodynamic boundaries, while providing top-notch onboard tecnhnology

I think all the effort to get the vertical take off element right might negate that statement Tomo; the experiments carried out using the VAAC Harrier and software developments were cutting edge and there's nothing else like it on the planet.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXE4yBXjCpQ

 

[tomo pauk]

The Harrier was pushing boundaries.
Thanks for the video

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yet the project still didn't came to frutition in a timely manner.

The F-35 program was set at a pace accepted by the US government. There were delays in software development (some contractor driven, others driven by changing DoD requirements). I think Grau posted a timeline somewhere that shows with everything considered, the F-35's development period is not that far out of whack when compared to other aircraft if this generation.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Harrier was pushing boundaries.

It sure was and it is only because of short sighted govt decision making that more Harriers weren't sold to foreign customers from the outset and that in Britain it was retired prematurely. It represented tremendous value for money as a military asset and in the later AV-8 models is an exceptional combat aircraft. The F-35 owes a heck of a lot to the Harrier and arguably it would be taking a lot longer without it.

everything considered, the F-35's development period is not that far out of whack when compared to other aircraft if this generation.

Yep, how long has it taken to get the Sukhoi PAK-FA into service?

"The T-50's maiden flight was repeatedly postponed from early 2007 after encountering unspecified technical problems. In August 2009, Alexander Zelin acknowledged that problems with the engine and in technical research remained unsolved.[38] On 28 February 2009, Mikhail Pogosyan announced that the airframe was almost finished and that the first prototype should be ready by August 2009.[39] On 20 August 2009, Pogosyan said that the first flight would be by year's end. Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies said that "even with delays", the aircraft would likely make its first flight by January or February, adding that it would take five to ten years for commercial production.[40]

Flight testing was further delayed when Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov announced in December 2009 that the first trials would begin in 2010.[41] The first taxi test was successfully completed on 24 December 2009.[42][43] Flight testing of the T-50 began with T-50-1, the first prototype aircraft, on 29 January 2010.[44]"

From here: Sukhoi PAK FA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting article comparing F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA:

Air Combat: Russia's PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35

 

[Vanshilar]

Yeah most modern combat plane programs have taken around 15 years from contract award to IOC, or 20 years from prototype to IOC. Nevertheless, they seem to always plan for 10 years from contract award to IOC, despite it usually end up taking ~15 years. (I note that the LRS-B contract winner was announced in 2015 and targeting IOC around 2025, so it's continuing this trend, but we'll see if it makes it by then). Taking some examples:

B-2:
1979 Development contract awarded
1981 Northrop wins
1989 First flight
1997 IOC (Initial Operating Capability)

Gripen:
1982 Contract awarded for production aircraft
1988 First flight of prototype
1997 Entered service (I'm not sure how this relates to IOC)

Rafale:
1982 Tech demonstrator announced (ACX)
1987 Contract announced, said would enter service in 1996
1991 First flight
2002 IOC

Typhoon:
1983 Prototype contract signed
1988 Contracts for demonstrator
1994 First flight of demonstrator
1998 Production contracts signed
2005 IOC (Italy)

V-22:
1983 Development contract awarded
1986 Boeing wins (actually, they were the only bid, but this is when it was actually awarded)
2007 IOC

F-22:
1986 Development contract for prototype awarded
1991 Lockheed wins
1997 First flight
2005 IOC

F-35:
1996 Development contract for prototype awarded
2001 Lockheed wins; original timeline calls for IOC between 2010 (F-35B) and 2012 (F-35C)
2006 First flight
2015 IOC (F-35B), IOC for F-35C planned for 2018

Also, people who try to compare development timelines of modern planes like the F-35 to past planes like the F-14, F-15, F-16, etc. forget that although those past planes entered service quickly, they also crashed a lot, sometimes with multiple crashes per year, and had major issues that were only dealt with once they became known through use in service. Nowadays a lot more thorough testing is expected prior to a plane entering service, which means it takes longer to develop but (presumably) are less prone to major problems like crashing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also, people who try to compare development timelines of modern planes like the F-35 to past planes like the F-14, F-15, F-16, etc. forget that although those past planes entered service quickly, they also crashed a lot, sometimes with multiple crashes per year, and had major issues that were only dealt with once they became known through use in service. Nowadays a lot more thorough testing is expected prior to a plane entering service, which means it takes longer to develop but (presumably) are less prone to major problems like crashing.

EXCELLENT!!!!