Northrop Being Screwed by the US Government

[Lucky13]

Are, will the F-22/35 be like the B-2, you can't afford to lose one in combat, because they're that effing expensive?

 

[GregP]

That link give s a great table of MC rates. Thanks, Joe!

I'd love to see what other data is available, but have no idea where to look for it, having tried with little success.

 

[pbehn]

BAE also had a major hand in this and was part of the design team, in the US I believe they are the 3rd largest defense contractor Behind Lockheed and Boeing - someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I remember reading something similar at the start

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That link give s a great table of MC rates. Thanks, Joe!

I'd love to see what other data is available, but have no idea where to look for it, having tried with little success.

Whats funny is out of nowhere the Air Force Times will come up with data like this. I'm also going to try to ping some folks I know to see if this info has been made public yet. That one table is funny - they show all the birds my company takes care of but N/A'd the FMC rates.

 

[eWildcat]

About BVR missiles - Wiki claims 8 successes for the AMRAAM, not including a friendly fire incident, to 2008. Any idea how many were failures?

If we only talk about failures in combat, none as far as we know : all the missiles fired in combat did what they were supposed to do. So they apparently worked as advertised.

However, that doesn't mean all the fired missiles hit : even the best missile in the world will eventually miss if it's fired at close to maximum firing distance and the target turns away. Ditto if the attacker fires two missiles and the first missile destroys the target before the second missile may hit it.

17 AIM-120s were fired in combat, and it resulted in 10 targets destroyed. Which is much better than any other air-to-air missile in air combat history.

What's interesting though is that none of the targets used advanced ECM as far as we know. So we can't draw conclusions about how effective the missile would be against advanced fighters.

Here's a short interesting link : http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

There's a list of AMRAAM kills on page 25.

 

[davparlr]

Are, will the F-22/35 be like the B-2, you can't afford to lose one in combat, because they're that effing expensive?

This is not an informed comment. The B-2 has been active in all major US engagements since introduction.

1. B-2s destroyed 33% of selected targets in Serbia in 1st 8 weeks. Many other aircraft were grounded due to weather.

2. B-2s supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

3. B-2s were engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraqi War) and dropped over 1.5 million lbs of munitions, including 583 JDAMS.

4. The B-2 was the first US aircraft into action in the Libyan no-fly zone effort, dropping 40 bombs on Libyan airfields, most likely JDAMS.

5. The B-2 was considered for the strike on Osama Ben Laden but was rejected due to possible civilian deaths and inability to identify the corpse (apparently a 2000 lb does quite a bit of damage to a human body).

So, it is apparent that the US is unafraid to commit the B-2 in combat and that it is uniquely capable of attacking high value, highly defended targets anywhere in the world.

 

[GregP]

VERY true about the B-2. When it DOES fly, look out if you're on the target list. Being halfway around the world is no protection from it.

If the F-35 will do that part (precision strike without being detected), then I'm all for it. How long it may remain undetected is another question but, at least for the near-term, the people most likely to develop the capability to detect it aren't the people we would most likely be opposing directly. Unless we wind up in a shooting war over Crimea, we aren't very likely to be flying against Russia ... we're more likely to flying in a Russian airshow. At least with Russia, diplomacy usually works much better than armed conflict.

If we ever get into a war, think of all the Vodka we'll be missing. Maybe I'd better stock up on Stoli!

 

[wuzak]

If we only talk about failures in combat, none as far as we know : all the missiles fired in combat did what they were supposed to do. So they apparently worked as advertised.

However, that doesn't mean all the fired missiles hit : even the best missile in the world will eventually miss if it's fired at close to maximum firing distance and the target turns away. Ditto if the attacker fires two missiles and the first missile destroys the target before the second missile may hit it.

17 AIM-120s were fired in combat, and it resulted in 10 targets destroyed. Which is much better than any other air-to-air missile in air combat history.

What's interesting though is that none of the targets used advanced ECM as far as we know. So we can't draw conclusions about how effective the missile would be against advanced fighters.

Here's a short interesting link : http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

There's a list of AMRAAM kills on page 25.

Thanks eWildcat.

When I said failed I meant failed to hit the target.

That list says 13 fired at BVR targets for 6 hits. Some of those BVR targets were not manoeuvring, none had ECM, some did not have operable radar.

 

[davparlr]

General comments.

Some will be controversial.

Because I am old and decrepit, I have witnessed many weapon system come under horrendous fire during development, the F-15, F-14, F-16, Abram tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, HMMWV (Humvee), Apache, aircraft carriers, et.al. A few like the M247 Sergeant York did indeed fail, but most have performed heroically and have contributed to making the US armed forces the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. I suspect the F-35 will also be effective.

I don't think developmental aircraft gives good indication of reliability and maintainability. If I remember correctly, I think both tend to be maturing requirements.

I did work at GD in support of the JSF program, and my opinion was that GD was as screwed up on system engineering as Northrop was on the B-2. But, they do have good engineers and will solve problems, as Northrop did.

If the USAF and USN had the missiles and sensor in Vietnam as we have now, fighters would still be without cannons.

Near future battlefield air control. Manned combat control aircraft (CCA) with long range sensors behind Forward Edge of Battle Area (FEBA) will provide combat control, UAVs with sensors under control of manned (CCA) operating beyond FEBA will provide extended range sensor and command capability. Unmanned UCAVs will provide weapons carry function. Weapons will be controlled by CCA. No manned air control combat aircraft will be over the battlefield.

Not so near future air control. No manned aircraft near battlefield. All manned personnel will be well behind the FEBA in a combat control center (CCC). All weapons systems will be netted together called "Skynet". High powered long range high flying UAVs, smaller battlefield UAVs, satellite sensors, battlefield sensors, etc. will provide target detection and identifications. Weapons armed UCAVs carry weapons but will not control weapons except as a relay. CCC will initiate launch and guidance, battlefield sensor UAVs may also autonomously provide guidance.

Long distance future. Skynet controls everything. Human beings are considered superfluous.

Actually, a lot of this is available today. It only takes a change in philosophy to implement.

 

[vikingBerserker]

BAE also had a major hand in this and was part of the design team, in the US I believe they are the 3rd largest defense contractor Behind Lockheed and Boeing - someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

You are spot on.

 

[eWildcat]

Thanks eWildcat.

When I said failed I meant failed to hit the target.

Well, the matter is that "failure" to hit the target is misleading if you don't know how the missile was fired. As I wrote, the maximum firing distance is computed for a target flying toward the shooter, so that if the target turns away the closing speed markedly decreases and the missile no longer has enough energy to reach the target (EDIT : It may also happen if the target is able to dive down to a lower altitude as well). But it's not a failure of the missile per se, or a mistake in its conception : it's a limitation common to all missiles, whatever the model. A limitation that fighter pilots are well aware of, and are trained to understand.
That's why I think that the only failures that should be counted as real failures are the launches that occurred in the right range parameters but didn't result in a hit (or a near hit, to be accurate, since most missiles don't hit their targets, their warhead explodes very close to it instead). As far as we know, it never happened in combat.

But the missile is still unproven against advanced targets nevertheless, no doubt.

 

[Lucky13]

This is not an informed comment. The B-2 has been active in all major US engagements since introduction.

1. B-2s destroyed 33% of selected targets in Serbia in 1st 8 weeks. Many other aircraft were grounded due to weather.

2. B-2s supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

3. B-2s were engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraqi War) and dropped over 1.5 million lbs of munitions, including 583 JDAMS.

4. The B-2 was the first US aircraft into action in the Libyan no-fly zone effort, dropping 40 bombs on Libyan airfields, most likely JDAMS.

5. The B-2 was considered for the strike on Osama Ben Laden but was rejected due to possible civilian deaths and inability to identify the corpse (apparently a 2000 lb does quite a bit of damage to a human body).

So, it is apparent that the US is unafraid to commit the B-2 in combat and that it is uniquely capable of attacking high value, highly defended targets anywhere in the world.

But, when a B-2 becomes a loss, it'll be a big dent in the pennybag....you can get a few modern fighters for the price of one....Spirit, is it?

 

[davparlr]

But, when a B-2 becomes a loss, it'll be a big dent in the pennybag....you can get a few modern fighters for the price of one....Spirit, is it?

And none could do the above jobs, certainly not without losing some of the most valuable asset involved, airmen.

 

[Lucky13]

True, but then, I can't help but think of the B-2s as all the eggs in one basket....

 

[pbehn]

But, when a B-2 becomes a loss, it'll be a big dent in the pennybag....you can get a few modern fighters for the price of one....Spirit, is it?

It only becomes a loss if you replace it, the money is lost when you buy it cos there isnt a second hand market for US aircraft like the B-2.

 

[Jugman]

Sorry for the late replay. All data comes from SAC sheet unless otherwise stated

Ceiling
B-36 36,000 ft
B-35 40,000 ft

The service ceiling for the B-36A at normal rated power and a combat weight of 212,800 lb was 39,100 ft.
The B-35 figure is most likily similar condition.

At a combat weight of 135,569lb and max power the YB-49 ad a service ceiling of 45,200ft. at takeoff weight it was 37,400ft.

Range in miles with bomb load
B-36 7760 w/10k lbs of bombs (actually this is listed as a combat radius of 3380 miles)
B-35 8150 w/16k lbs of bombs

The B-36A had a combat radius of 3370 NAUTICAL MILES with a 10,000lb bomb load. At maximum bomb load (72,000lb.) the B-36A had a combat radius of 1870 n.mi.

The B-36B had a combat radius of 3710 n.mi.with a 10,000lb bomb load and combat radius of 1610 n.mi. with a 86,000lb bomb load.

The YB-49 had a combat raduis of 1403 n.mi with a 10000lb bomb load. With maximum listed bomb load (16,000lb) radius was 1322 n.mi.

The manual for the XB-35 lists a maximum range of of 2310 n.mi. at a takeoff weight of between 120,000lb and 130,000lb. At maximum listed weight (160,000lb) range dropped to 1820 n.mi. Both conditions have 4500 gallons of the 5000 carried available for flight.

Northrop report A-56 lists an estimated (based off of the N-9K) range of 5100mi. with a 10,000 bomb load. Takeoff and empty weights were 155,000lb and 95,339 respectively.

I doubt the 8150 mile range is accurate. Even if we assume that this is the ferry range of the B-35, average fuel consumption would be about the same as the light condition listed above. I think that the practical combat radius of the B-35 with a 10,000lb bomb load would be in the range of 2000-2500 n.mi. This assumes a take off weight ~170,000lb.

One contender that has been left out is the B-50D. Combat radius with 10,000lb was 2246 n.mi. at a take-off weight of 173,000lb with 11,603 gallons of fuel. Basically the B-35 was a B-50 with extra problems.

Seems unsupportable for the B-35 version compared to the contemporary B-36.

By c/g range I mean center of gravity range. How is this unsupportable?

This needs verification. I have never heard this and I doubt the USAF would have proceeded with a program for a strategic bomber that could not carry an atomic bomb. From a size and weight carrying capability, the B-35/49 could easily carry the late 1940s atomic bomb. Besides, it was demonstrated on "War of the Worlds". .

I believe Wagner makes the claim that the B-35 could not carry nukes. The Northrop aircraft could not carry a Fat Man type implosion device for sure. It may have had the space to carry a Little Boy style gun device. For a number of reasons gun type weapons were not pursed.

It is very apparent that the B-35 airframe was a much more efficient airframe for the strategic role than the B-36. In addition, mission reliability would have been significantly better due to the smaller number of engines.

The B-35 was faster and more fuel efficient but this did not translate into significantly better capability than the B-50 let alone the B-36. The B-35 suffered from sever and insurmountable propeller vibration. This vibration was a major factor in the decision to halt the production of the YB-35s.

And, of course, it had a demonstrated reduction in radar and visual cross section.

The B-35/B-49 was no where near stealthy enough to reduce an enemy's response time. For their size the B-35/B-49 was harder to see but the flying wings were still pretty big ships.

In addition, stability augmenters were quickly becoming available.

For some issues yes. Others no. Stable Flying wings have naturally high trim drag. This negates most of their theoretical drag advantage. They must be flown with a fairly aft c/g. Too far aft for anything but a computer controlled FBW system to handle.


Just today I found Dr. Francis J. "Bud" Baker's Dissertation: The Death of the Flying Wing

I found a shorter article by the same Aurthur yesterday titled: Clipped Wings

I have read the shorter article but not the Dissertation. The Dissertation is very well sourced though.

 

[swampyankee]

Are, will the F-22/35 be like the B-2, you can't afford to lose one in combat, because they're that effing expensive?

If -- and it's a very big "if" -- the US is ever again in a situation where there is a shooting war that involves existential threat (this hasn't happened for decades, perhaps over a century), then price will be no object and the military will place much higher priority on producibility and cost. This was, of course, the major driver behind platforms like the F-16 and the Perry-class frigates. The current "price is no object" mindset that seems to have permeated military procurement is an artifact of the current environment, where the main threat is suicide bombers, not professional militaries. Unfortunately, we may end up having that problem because of Putin's idiocy in Ukraine.

 

[tomo pauk]

... The current "price is no object" mindset that seems to have permeated military procurement is an artifact of the current environment, where the main threat is suicide bombers, not professional militaries. ...

If I'm getting this right, the expensive A/C are supposed to defeat the threat of suicide bombers?

 

[wuzak]

If I'm getting this right, the expensive A/C are supposed to defeat the threat of suicide bombers?

No, not at all.

That is the job of the super-carriers.

 

[davparlr]

Sorry for the late replay. All data comes from SAC sheet unless otherwise stated



The service ceiling for the B-36A at normal rated power and a combat weight of 212,800 lb was 39,100 ft. The B-35 figure is most likily similar condition.

I was comparing the XB-36 to the XB-35 to keep apples to apples. Data was from Wagner's "American Combat Planes". There was no "A" version of the B-35.

The B-36A had a combat radius of 3370 NAUTICAL MILES with a 10,000lb bomb load. At maximum bomb load (72,000lb.) the B-36A had a combat radius of 1870 n.mi.

The B-36B had a combat radius of 3710 n.mi.with a 10,000lb bomb load and combat radius of 1610 n.mi. with a 86,000lb bomb load.

The YB-49 had a combat raduis of 1403 n.mi with a 10000lb bomb load. With maximum listed bomb load (16,000lb) radius was 1322 n.mi.

The jet powered YB-49 was a different airplane than the B-36D (with jets) as it was 60 mph faster at 35k. A more accurate comparison would be to the XB-47 which was 80 miles per hour faster than the YB-49 at 35k but had 600 miles less range with a 10k lb weapon load. Neither had the range of the propeller driven B-36 but both were more survivable. Both the XB-47 and YB-49 had potential but the XB-47 had more obvious advantages. However pursuing the YB-49 may have accelerated the work on radar avoidance.

The manual for the XB-35 lists a maximum range of of 2310 n.mi. at a takeoff weight of between 120,000lb and 130,000lb. At maximum listed weight (160,000lb) range dropped to 1820 n.mi. Both conditions have 4500 gallons of the 5000 carried available for flight.

What manual? I saw where a similar range estimate was made in 1944 based on the N-9M certainly a stretch. I found no comment on the XB-35 range being an issue of cancellation, something that would certainly kill it in reference to the B-50.

This data also appears to be with limited fuel. Empty weight of the XB-35 is 89,560 lbs. Add crew of nine, O2, misc. (2500-3000 lbs) With a 10k bomb load gives a zero fuel takeoff weight of about 102,000 lbs which would give 28000 lbs for fuel for a takeoff weight of 130,000 lbs. This is about 4200 gallons of fuel. My source, Wagner, says the XB-35 could gross out at 180000 lbs normal with fuel capacity of 10-18k gallons. If this is true, more than doubling up the fuel, actually 2.6 times, would significantly impact range. Another 4300 gallons could be added to reach the 209000 lb max takeoff weight as stated by Wagner and Northrop reports. It must be noted here that full performance could only be met with the counter-rotating props and not the single prop configuration. To meet full performance, the props would have to be fixed.

Your statement of 5000 gallons available seems in error. My source shows between 10 and 18k gallons available. As a side note the B-59D carried over 11k gallons of fuel on board. It is not likely the XB-35 carried only 5k gallons. Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement.

Northrop report A-56 lists an estimated (based off of the N-9K) range of 5100mi. with a 10,000 bomb load. Takeoff and empty weights were 155,000lb and 95,339 respectively.

Who knows what the basis of this since it is an engineering study based on the N-9K, a small scale of the B-35. Again fuel load must have been limited or not a final build.

I doubt the 8150 mile range is accurate. Even if we assume that this is the ferry range of the B-35, average fuel consumption would be about the same as the light condition listed above. I think that the practical combat radius of the B-35 with a 10,000lb bomb load would be in the range of 2000-2500 n.mi. This assumes a take off weight ~170,000lb.

See above statement on max fuel load with 10k lb bomb load. It must also be noted that, in your referenced dissertation that the original estimate of the B-36 performance gave a max range on 6500 miles. Obviously early estimates could be off quite a bit.

One contender that has been left out is the B-50D. Combat radius with 10,000lb was 2246 n.mi. at a take-off weight of 173,000lb with 11,603 gallons of fuel. Basically the B-35 was a B-50 with extra problems.

I think you are grossly understating the range capability.

By c/g range I mean center of gravity range. How is this unsupportable?

Sorry, my error of misreading you statement. Your statement is certainly true but one of the advantages of a flying wing is span wise fuel and load which almost completely eliminates C/G variations.

I believe Wagner makes the claim that the B-35 could not carry nukes. The Northrop aircraft could not carry a Fat Man type implosion device for sure. It may have had the space to carry a Little Boy style gun device. For a number of reasons gun type weapons were not pursed.

Possibly true for the Fat Man. I read that the B-36 could not carry the biggest bomb (fat man?) until the plane was modified to the B model but I could not verify this. This is reasonable since both planes were started in 1941 before any idea of the A-bomb was made available. However, when Northrop offered to upgrade to the Mark III bomb (fat man) the Army refused.

The B-35 was faster and more fuel efficient but this did not translate into significantly better capability than the B-50 let alone the B-36. The B-35 suffered from sever and insurmountable propeller vibration. This vibration was a major factor in the decision to halt the production of the YB-35s.

According to Wikipedia, both the transmission and propeller, and I would guess, engines, were Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and they failed to make an aggressive effort fix the problem. If what you say is true about this being the major reason for cancelling the program this would put the problem directly on the government's shoulders. If this would happen today, Northrop would have devastating lawsuit against the US government for not providing equipment as contractually obligated. I suspect there was little heart in fixing the problem, which was probably not "insurmountable" with the right effort. I wonder what "insurmountable" problems were overcome on the B-36 when appropriate effort was applied. I suspect the AAF/AF was willing to spend money on the big B-36 (big aircraft was something they always liked). In addition, Stuart Symington, Secretary of the Air Force, had dirty hands when it came to the B-36, having been CEO for Emerson Electric, a B-36 sub-contractor, and having pressured the CEO of Consolidated to donate to the Democratic party in order to get the B-36 contract and who was often entertained by the CEO, according to David S. Sorenson's "The Politics of __ Strategic Aircraft Modernization".
Congressman James E. Van Zandt, a Navy veteran, and maybe somewhat biased, said he had information demonstrating that

1. Defense Secretary Symingtion favored his former company, Emerson Electric, where he had once been chief executive officer, Emerson had a subcontract on the B-36.
2. Floyd Oklum, then chief executive officer of Consolidated, was pressured to contribute money to the Democratic Party by Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson and Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington, and the reward for these contributions was the B-36 contract.
3. Odlum had frequently entertained Symington at his ranch in Palm Springs, California.
4. Once Consolidated obtained the B-36 contract, it would merge with Northrop and Curtiss-Wright, with Symington as the new chief executive.
5. Other aircraft orders were canceled by the Air Force to benefit Consolidated, allowing enough money for the Air Force to buy thirteen more B-36's.

The Politics of Strategic Aircraft Modernization - David S. Sorenson - Google Books
While this position needs to be corroborated, it, and the fact Symington could be punitive toward aircraft manufactures who disagreed with him such a Martin, does cast a shadow on all aspects of the B-36 procurement.

The B-35/B-49 was no where near stealthy enough to reduce an enemy's response time. For their size the B-35/B-49 was harder to see but the flying wings were still pretty big ships.

Since no RCS testing was done, this is unknown. However, it is known that it disappeared off radar screens at some aspects. If this was from the front hemisphere, which could be true with its slender profile and deeply embedded engines, it certainly would be able to reduce response time.