The Long-Range Strike Bomber winner is - NORTHROP!

[FLYBOYJ]

So let's see if this is the new punching bag for the press! I worked on the B-2 AV3 - 7 and wish Northop and its employees all the best. I always felt Northrop got screwed over by the premature B-2 cancellation.

Air Force picks Northrop Grumman to build next big bomber - Yahoo News

 

[GregP]

I think Northrop has been getting screwed ever since Symington was Secretary of the Air Force right after WWII.

 

[gumbyk]

I had read somewhere that one of the factors involved in this decision was to try to prevent a duopoly between the other two big aircraft manufacturers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I had read somewhere that one of the factors involved in this decision was to try to prevent a duopoly between the other two big aircraft manufacturers.

And LMCO and Boeing are protesting...

 

[gumbyk]

And LMCO and Boeing are protesting...

Don't they protest anything they lose?

Fact is, Northrop have the experience and capability to produce a long-range bomber.

 

[CharlesBronson]

I dont want to think about the individual cost of each bomber, must be bone chilling, aniway is pretty interesting foe the aviation aficionado that the big players are still interested in manned combat planes, I particulary like the concept of the Su-34 bomber.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't they protest anything they lose?

Fact is, Northrop have the experience and capability to produce a long-range bomber.

Agree to a point - at the beginning of the B-2 program, more than half of the final assembly employees worked for Boeing. At that time Northrop didn't have "large aircraft" experienced people. As production commenced many of these folks were absorbed by Northrop.

Even with the protest, Boeing and Lockheed "should" get a piece of the pie.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont want to think about the individual cost of each bomber, must be bone chilling, aniway is pretty interesting foe the aviation aficionado that the big players are still interested in manned combat planes, I particulary like the concept of the Su-34 bomber.

The contract is for 80 billion and it looks like the USAF wants 100 aircraft, subtract a few billion for R&D, sustainment and administrative cost then do the math.

 

[pbehn]

How long before the first report saying it wont work?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How long before the first report saying it wont work?

Next week

 

[Token]

How long before the first report saying it wont work?

but ... but ... It won't carry the payload of a B-52 .... but .... it won't have the speed of the B-1 ... but ... it won't have the RCS of the Spirit ...

but ... money spent on RCS reduction and control is wasted because old Russian radar completely negates Stealth ...

but ... there is no way that it will be worth the cost because the B-52 only cost a couple million per copy and we have gotten over 50 years of service. Why not just build a new B-52 at the original cost?

T!





And just in case anyone missed it...JOKING

 

[buffnut453]

but ... but ... It won't carry the payload of a B-52 .... but .... it won't have the speed of the B-1 ... but ... it won't have the RCS of the Spirit ...

but ... money spent on RCS reduction and control is wasted because old Russian radar completely negates Stealth ...

but ... there is no way that it will be worth the cost because the B-52 only cost a couple million per copy and we have gotten over 50 years of service. Why not just build a new B-52 at the original cost?

T!





And just in case anyone missed it...JOKING

You may have been joking but I think you've captured the next 20 years of argument about this new platform.

 

[pbehn]

but ... but ... It won't carry the payload of a B-52 .... but .... it won't have the speed of the B-1 ... but ... it won't have the RCS of the Spirit ...

but ... money spent on RCS reduction and control is wasted because old Russian radar completely negates Stealth ...

but ... there is no way that it will be worth the cost because the B-52 only cost a couple million per copy and we have gotten over 50 years of service. Why not just build a new B-52 at the original cost?

T!





And just in case anyone missed it...JOKING

You missed out but but this is old technology the future is satellites and UAVs

 

[buffnut453]

You missed out but but this is old technology the future is satellites and UAVs

And...why can't we just put all this cool new technology into the old platforms. They'd be so much better than this new heap of (insert perjorative doggy-doo synonym here)!

 

[buffnut453]

BREAKING NEWS!!!

New Northrop Grumman stealth bomber is already over-budget and late!

(Sorry...just couldn't resist. I did try to, honestly, but rather like the Borg, resistance is futile).

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

Should be good news for Palmdale.


Wheels

 

[Lucky13]

Is it too early to toss the sh*t etc., about this bomber, or should we wait to Russian websites gets going?

 

[GrauGeist]

And...so it begins...

The wrist-wringing, bed-wetting and heavy breathing starts now with this article's headline:
"Air Force Award Of The LRS Bomber To Northrop Grumman Commits Taxpayers To A Trillion-Dollar Burden"

Forbes - Taxpayer Burden

 

[Vanshilar]

And...so it begins...

The wrist-wringing, bed-wetting and heavy breathing starts now with this article's headline:
"Air Force Award Of The LRS Bomber To Northrop Grumman Commits Taxpayers To A Trillion-Dollar Burden"

Forbes - Taxpayer Burden

What's funny is the article doesn't bother trying to justify why the author calls it a trillion-dollar burden, when he says it's an $80 billion program. He refers to "the whole package" as a trillion dollars, but that's right after bringing up the Navy's nuclear carriers and submarines. Maybe he's talking about the entire nuclear triad? It's unclear.

Looks like he's just trying to pin the "trillion" label on the LRS-B.

 

[GrauGeist]

What's funny is the article doesn't bother trying to justify why the author calls it a trillion-dollar burden, when he says it's an $80 billion program. He refers to "the whole package" as a trillion dollars, but that's right after bringing up the Navy's nuclear carriers and submarines. Maybe he's talking about the entire nuclear triad? It's unclear.

Looks like he's just trying to pin the "trillion" label on the LRS-B.

Absolutely...

This is the sort of hysteria-journalism that plagues military aquisition, most recently, the F-35. The author is a so-called "expert" on pentagon affairs but his article says otherwise by his blatant misuse of statistics and shows that he's nothing more than a media hype, pandering to ratings.

The bigger problem here, is that now, blogs and click-bait websites will copy this crap of an article, (even use it as a citation when trying to convince others that it's an official source of information) and start a perpetual spin that will keep popping up for the next 5+ years...