View Full Version : LRS-B Decision
LRS-B (Long range strike bomber), decision reported to be announced (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/10/26/ahead-long-range-strike-bomber-announcement-aerospace-industry-looks-clues/74649650/) after the stock market closes today (Tuesday 27th Oct).
Is the Air Force's Next Nuclear Bomber Trying to Get Itself Fired? (https://news.vice.com/article/hold-ar-will-the-air-forces-next-nuclear-bomber-try-to-put-itself-out-of-work)
BEagle
27th Oct 2015, 10:13
Either the contract is going to go to Northrop Grumman (the maker of the B-2 bomber) or a joint bid between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
A joint bid between the 2 companies which are infamous for long-delayed and over-budget military aircraft projects sich as KC-767I, KC-46A and F-35? YGBSM - that'd be a disaster.
LowObservable
27th Oct 2015, 11:58
I'm not calling a winner, because we know that what we know we don't know is at least as important as what we do know, and that's before you take account of the stuff we do know that ain't so.
And you may quote me on that.
a1bill
27th Oct 2015, 20:57
LM/b is my guess, but it's online in 15min
Live Stream 1 (http://www.defense.gov/live1)
Corporal Clott
27th Oct 2015, 21:32
Northrop Grumman has won...
http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/thediplomat_2015-08-20_09-27-35-386x257.jpg
Apparently $1/2Bn each for 100 aircraft!!!
Northrop Grumman Wins Air Force's Long Range Strike Bomber Contract (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/27/northrop-grumman-wins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394/)
WASHINGTON – Northrop Grumman has won the contract to build the US Air Force’s next-generation Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), an industry-shaping deal that breathes new life into the world's sixth-largest defense company.......
Speaking at the announcement, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the bomber would "allow the Air Force to operate in tomorrow's high-end threat environment" and praised the work that went into the selection, in a move that sounded like a preemptive shot to any attempt by Boeing and Lockheed to challenge the award decision.
James said service acquisition officials “carefully considered” the offers from both teams, with the entire process carried out “with a high level of transparency with our industrial partners… we believe our decision represents the best value for our nation.”
At the announcement, service officials revealed:
According to Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the military acquisition deputy, the two bomber teams offered up proposals with all industrial partners included — meaning providers for subcomponents such as engines have already been decided. However, Bunch said that information would remain secret for security reasons.
Risk-reduction efforts cost $1.9 billion from FY11 to FY15.
A tentative date for initial operating capability is 2025, although Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Global Strike Command, indicated that could change.
While many have referred to the bomber as the “B-3” as shorthand, Rand’s office will have final say on the designation, which has not been reached.
Air Force officials will make themselves open to Boeing and Lockheed as early as Friday for an explanation of why Northrop was selected, Bunch said.
What remains unknown at this time — details about the plane itself. The size, weight and payload remain unknowns, as do the extent of its stealth capabilities.
vp_WfB2yKD4
LowObservable
27th Oct 2015, 23:39
Good one ORAC.
Heathrow Harry
29th Oct 2015, 13:43
unless they really screwed up the Bidding process they were always a probablity for this - if they didn't get it the US would be down to 2 advanced airframe builders
JFZ90
29th Oct 2015, 18:37
Interesting they have spent nearly $2bn on risk reduction in last 4 years. You might have expected some sort of Tech demo to have been developed or even flown for that much cash. A classified fly off under wraps perhaps?
Is it assumed to be subsonic again? Is it too early to exploit any of the hypersonic research? Is this manned or unmanned or tbd?
LowObservable
29th Oct 2015, 18:55
Stay tuned and do not adjust your set.
http://www.londonlee.com/chipshop/chippics/testcard.jpg
BossEyed
29th Oct 2015, 20:38
You might have expected some sort of Tech demo to have been developed or even flown for that much cash. A classified fly off under wraps perhaps?
Hmmm.
Mysterious delta jet over Texas (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/536905-mysterious-delta-jet-over-texas-fortnight-ago.html)
BEagle
29th Oct 2015, 20:50
'Mysterious low-flying delta jets' were frequently reported over Nebraska and Kansas half a century ago....
In the '70s, one confused redneck rang SAC at Omahaw complaining "Dangest thing ah ever saw. Didn't have no tail 'n the wings began at the nose!"
'twas the mighty tin triangle on an OB route, of course. Not that we ever chased lone redneck pick up trucks or overflew feed lots. No siree, Bob, not HM's FC Vulcans....
....very often :E!
West Coast
30th Oct 2015, 01:39
Best to up the meds again Beagle.
con-pilot
30th Oct 2015, 02:36
"Dangest thing ah ever saw. Didn't have no tail 'n the wings began at the nose!"
Guess he never saw an F-102, F-106 or a B-58. :p
Boeing protest - as expected - but there seems little probability it will win. The speechifying from their supporters on the Hill should be entertaining......
Boeing Protests Northrop's Long Range Strike Bomber Contract (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/11/06/boeing-protests-northrops-long-range-strike-bomber-contract/75225206/)
hoodie
6th Nov 2015, 16:11
Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners ... estimated a 15 percent probability that the protest would be successful.
“We absolutely believe that the Air Force assumed there would have been a protest on the LRS-B contract award,” he wrote. “While there is the precedent of Boeing successfully protesting the tanker program to EADS and then winning the re-compete, this is a different acquisition team at the Air Force."
..and that, unlike in that case, both competitors happen to be US companies. :E
LowObservable
6th Nov 2015, 18:36
The fact that they're going with what appears to be a weak protest is worrisome, because it indicates that they don't care abut the GAO process per se. It's just a precursor to a political campaign.
The Sultan
6th Nov 2015, 21:05
Time for the Government Accounting Office to revisit all those requirements that have not been met on the JSF and new tanker and start working on what should be reimbursed to the American citizen.
The Sultan
Two's in
7th Nov 2015, 13:58
The fact that they're going with what appears to be a weak protest is worrisome, because it indicates that they don't care abut the GAO process per se. It's just a precursor to a political campaign.
But why wouldn't they? They managed to steal back the Tanker contract on a protest technicality, what are the chances the acquisition team broke the rules on this one as well - pretty high I would think. This is the US DoD, whoever turns up in court with the tallest pile of paper and the most lawyers wins.
JimNtexas
7th Nov 2015, 15:24
Aviation Week has an interesting article on possible 'LRS Details (http://aviationweek.com/defense/sources-statements-point-lrs-b-details)'. It's behind a paywall.
This and several other articles they've published are very reminisce of their reporting in the months leading up to the F-117 coming out of the closet.
Some highlights:
All three bidders flew "Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Demonstrators'. A picture of what is said to be one of them is here: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/11/LRSB-FAQPIC1_DeanMuskett.jpg.
Two engines, 2500 mile unrefueled range
30000 pound payload - carry the 30,000 pound 'mother of all bombs'?
Managed by the same organization that did the F-117
Low rate production (6-8/year)
Engine selection unknown
And as an old EF-111A EWO, the mention of a rumor of a companion 'penetrating electronic attack system' made me happy.
Radius, not range.......
"....so it is considered likely that LRS-B will have an unrefueled operational radius of 2,500 nm."
sandiego89
7th Nov 2015, 23:30
I do fine it ironic that Boeing and LM touted their achievements in cost reduction. Undoubtedly they learned something from the 787, KC-46 and F-35, F-22 etc. but I don't think they have much to brag about.
JimNtexas
8th Nov 2015, 02:50
Radius, not range.......
Good catch, thanks!
GAO Denies Boeing’s Protest of Bomber Contract; Northrop Gets Back to Work
WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office has denied Boeing’s protest of the US Air Force’s decision to award Northrop Grumman a contract to build the Long Range Strike Bomber, allowing Northrop to move forward with engineering and development work after a three-month delay.
"GAO reviewed the challenges to the selection decision raised by Boeing and has found no basis to sustain or uphold the protest," GAO wrote in the Feb. 16 decision. "In denying Boeing’s protest, GAO concluded that the technical evaluation, and the evaluation of costs, was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and in accordance with procurement laws and regulations.".......
“Northrop Grumman is pleased that the [GAO] has denied Boeing’s protest and reaffirmed the Air Force’s decision to award Northrop Grumman the [LRS-B] contract,” according to a statement by Randy Belote, company vice president of strategic communications. “This confirms that the U.S. Air Force conducted an extraordinarily thorough selection process and selected the most capable and affordable solution.”.............
Boeing will review the GAO’s decision and decide on its next step in the coming days, according to a company statement following the announcement. “We continue to believe that our offering represents the best solution for the Air Force and the nation, and that the government’s selection process was fundamentally and irreparably flawed,” the Boeing statement reads. “Given the significance of the LRS-B program, it could not be more critical that the government procure the most capable bomber to serve the warfighter, at the greatest value to the American taxpayer."
GAO decisions can not be appealed, but Boeing can choose to bring its case before the US Court of Federal Claims.
"This is an important program for the future with significant dollars involved, and it's possible that — particularly for Boeing — that they may want to proceed to court," said Jeff Bialos, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, who previously served as the Pentagon’s deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy. "If you are Boeing, I don't see a lot of downside in not appealing, in not going to court. There are such high stakes riding on this."
Even if Boeing takes the case to court, it is unlikely Northrop will have to stop work on LRS-B again.................