Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[TomS]

I notice NG keeps moving staff around from Scaled Composites, are they moving all the best of them from SC to the LRS-B program?

Not necessarily just LRS-B. NG is using Scaled to build its candidate for T-X, so some of the personnel movement might be linked to that as well.

 

[flanker]

Well, they are moving scaled people away from scaled. Which is clearly prioritizing LRS-B over T-X, in short term anyway.

 

[TomS]

Well, they are moving scaled people away from scaled. Which is clearly prioritizing LRS-B over T-X, in short term anyway.

Not necessarily. It might be a sign that the T-X design work at Scaled is done and they need to move those people over to NG proper to look at productionizing it. I don't know, but I think it's very hard to make any accurate assessment looking at personnel moves alone without knowing how the actual programs are being managed internal to NG.

 

[Jeb]

Considering the nose is at the top of the image it sure looks like a straight leading edge to me and nothing like a cranked kite configuration. I think you're confusing the changing chord thickness and the difference in leading edge radius and how it is affected by the lighting for a small kink in the leading edge.

I still think those are two different aircraft altogether.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Northrop Grumman is expected to hire thousands in Palmdale, CA for LRS-B.

That's what the local press is reporting, however the reality is a bit different. The 1500-2500 new hires at Palmdale number is several years out of date and was highly speculative even then.

The state of CA has actually gone out of its way in the last 5 years to harm NG's bomber efforts. The AV is going to suffer as much of the LRS work will be done elsewhere.

They should have made it prop powered and told the CA pols those were wind turbines. They'd have been on that like stink on ----.

Like the old ABC bomber? (Image attached below was originally in the Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies thread, courtesy of Skybolt.)

 

[LowObservable]

It's the XB-42Neo!

 

[marauder2048]

With "billions and billions" of bucks up for grabs on the LRSB program I'm curious to know just how soon Boeing or Lockheed Martin tries to buy Northrop Grumman. "There's always a bigger fish." -SP

If Boeing were to purchase Northrop Grumman

Neither LM nor Boeing has the $40+ billion on hand to buy NG.

 

[fightingirish]

Aviation Week & Space Technology Podcast: Northrop’s Bomber Win

With Jen DiMascio, Bill Sweetman and Michael Bruno
With all the secrecy surrounding the Pentagon’s Long-Range Strike Bomber competition, the winner was hard to predict. But AvWeek’s editors discuss some of Northrop’s strengths that are not readily apparent. That includes experience with the particular kind of stealth technology needed for a long-range bomber as well as some of the company’s business side decisions that may have made it attractive in this $21.4 billion contest.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Aviation Week & Space Technology Podcast: Northrop’s Bomber Win

With Jen DiMascio, Bill Sweetman and Michael Bruno
With all the secrecy surrounding the Pentagon’s Long-Range Strike Bomber competition, the winner was hard to predict. But AvWeek’s editors discuss some of Northrop’s strengths that are not readily apparent. That includes experience with the particular kind of stealth technology needed for a long-range bomber as well as some of the company’s business side decisions that may have made it attractive in this $21.4 billion contest.

If I can't sleep tonight.....

 

[Steve Pace]

I checked the DOD contract award website where contract awards are published. But in the case of the LRSB contract award it only states: "Northrop Grumman, Falls Church, Virginia, has been awarded a contract for the Long Range Strike Bomber."

Too damn much secrecy to suit me. -SP

 

[sublight_]

Aviation Week & Space Technology Podcast: Northrop’s Bomber Win

With Jen DiMascio, Bill Sweetman and Michael Bruno
With all the secrecy surrounding the Pentagon’s Long-Range Strike Bomber competition, the winner was hard to predict. But AvWeek’s editors discuss some of Northrop’s strengths that are not readily apparent. That includes experience with the particular kind of stealth technology needed for a long-range bomber as well as some of the company’s business side decisions that may have made it attractive in this $21.4 billion contest.

Direct link to the audio if you want to save it for later...

http://traffic.libsyn.com/aviationweek/Northrops_Bomber_Win.mp3

 

[Triton]

Maybe we won't see a protest from the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team...

"Boeing faces high hurdle if it protests loss of bomber contract"
Originally published October 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm Updated October 29, 2015 at 9:18 am
by Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Source:

Boeing faces high hurdle if it protests loss of bomber contract

In the process that awarded the Long Range Strike Bomber contract to Northrop Grumman, the Pentagon went to great lengths to avoid a replay of Boeing’s successful challenge to the original Airbus win on the Air Force tanker program.

www.seattletimes.com

Boeing faces long odds if it decides to protest the Pentagon’s award of the Long Range Strike Bomber contract to Northrop Grumman.

Clearly eager to avoid repeating the debacle of the decadelong Air Force tanker-procurement process — when a Boeing protest eventually reversed the original award to Airbus — the Pentagon insists it built independent oversight into the bomber- selection task.

Boeing said Tuesday it wants to learn from a Pentagon debriefing Friday “how the competition was scored in terms of price and risk,” which could lay the groundwork for a protest.

For its part, Northrop Grumman unveiled a website inviting people to send a pre-written form letter to specific members of Congress, urging them to make sure the $80 billion project now “moves forward without delay.”

Unlike the tanker, when the criteria used to select the winner were known to and endlessly debated by members of Congress alleging elements of bias, all details of the bomber program — including the selection criteria — are classified.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute who has consulted both for Boeing and its partner in the bomber competition, Lockheed Martin, believes that creates a high hurdle.

“You launch a protest when you think you have a reasonable chance of success,” said Thompson. “It’s very hard to do that when a program is secret.”
Independent judgment

The Pentagon’s advance efforts to try to ensure a bulletproof outcome and shut out any possible protest by the loser focused on lining up independent approval of its selection process.

In September, the Inspector General’s office of the Department of Defense (DOD) — whose investigators and auditors provide oversight of the department — performed an audit specifically on the acquisition process for the bomber.

The audit report, completed seven weeks before the award was announced, is classified, according to a notice on the DOD website.

The Pentagon went ahead with its announcement Tuesday, so presumably the audit found the process clean.

Briefing reporters last week ahead of the announcement, William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said he personally appointed an independent person, referred to as the Source Selection Authority, to run the acquisition process.

He said that person’s identity is known only to those involved in the process and is kept secret to preserve independence.

Air Force spokesman Maj. Robert Leese subsequently said this is someone from “outside the bomber program,” though he declined to elaborate.

LaPlante said this person’s role was to ensure the ultimate decision rested exclusively upon the criteria finalized for the two contending teams last July.

He added that federal acquisition regulations require that though this person may use analyses and reports prepared by others, the final decision “shall represent the Source Selection Authority’s best independent judgment.”

LaPlante spent a good portion of the advance briefing outlining this position and insisting upon the integrity of the process.
Politics this time

Northrop’s website to “support America’s new bomber”includes basic information about why the U.S. needs a new bomber and outlines Northrop’s credentials as the “world leader in stealth technology” and “the only company to ever develop, build, sustain and modernize a stealthy, long-range strike aircraft: the B-2.”

A large red button takes visitors to a form-letter page that can be filled in and sent online. Using the ZIP code provided by the user, the software will send the letter automatically to the appropriate members of Congress and to the leaders of the Pentagon.

“I commend the Air Force for choosing the Northrop Grumman industry team to build the nation’s new bomber,” the letter reads. “I encourage you to ensure LRS-B moves forward without delay.”

Clearly, Northrop is keenly aware of the role politics could play in a successful protest, for it was an intense political process that undid Airbus and won Boeing the $50 billion Air Force tanker contract.

When Boeing protested the initial 2008 tanker contract that went to Airbus in partnership with Northrop, it had the unwavering support of U.S. Norm Dicks, D — Bremerton, then the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee and often referred to as “Mr. Boeing.”

Congressional pressure led by Dicks forced the Air Force to change a key criterion in the contract bidding, giving less weight to additional performance capabilities beyond the minimum requirements.

With that crucial change, Northrop chose to pull out and in 2011 Boeing won the rebid competition against Airbus alone.

This time around, Boeing’s political hand is not as strong.

Airbus is a European company, so it was easier to raise political opposition than it would be when challenging a U.S. rival.

With Dicks now retired, Boeing has less clout in the House, which appropriates the budget.

And those secret selection criteria are not likely to be changeable.

Two people with indirect knowledge of the bomber competition offered widely differing reasons Wednesday for why Northrop won.

One had heard that Boeing was simply underbid.

The other, citing a well-placed source close to Boeing, said Northrop offered a key technology advantage that Boeing and its partner Lockheed Martin couldn’t match.

Either way, with the selection criteria fixed in advance and unlikely to be changed, and with the decision made by a supposedly independent official, it’s hard to see Boeing’s path to a successful protest.

 

[sublight_]

Maybe we won't see a protest from the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team...

"Boeing faces high hurdle if it protests loss of bomber contract"
Originally published October 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm Updated October 29, 2015 at 9:18 am
by Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Source:

Boeing faces high hurdle if it protests loss of bomber contract

In the process that awarded the Long Range Strike Bomber contract to Northrop Grumman, the Pentagon went to great lengths to avoid a replay of Boeing’s successful challenge to the original Airbus win on the Air Force tanker program.

www.seattletimes.com

The other, citing a well-placed source close to Boeing, said Northrop offered a key technology advantage that Boeing and its partner Lockheed Martin couldn’t match.

Now that is interesting...

 

[Triton]

"How The Long-Range Strike Bomber Requirement Evolved"
Oct 29, 2015 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:

How The Long-Range Strike Bomber Requirement Evolved | Aviation Week Network

Before the Long-Range Strike Bomber, there was a high-risk plan for a much more costly bomber.

aviationweek.com

The Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program and the Oct. 27 source selection cannot be understood without looking at LRS-B’s roots.

The program started after then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled a much more ambitious bomber project, the Next-Generation Bomber (NGB), in April 2009. The major differences between the two concern cost and risk, driven by the Pentagon’s desire to break the pattern of massive overruns and delays in major acquisition programs.

The NGB started after the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (released in early 2006) canceled the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program. J-UCAS had been designated as the next U.S. Air Force strike program, and there was no money for both J-UCAS and a bomber. But as J-UCAS had progressed, there had been tension between the Navy version, which had to fit on an aircraft carrier, and the Air Force’s desire for a “global strike enabler” with greater range and payload. By late 2005, Northrop Grumman was briefing a so-called X-47C for the Air Force that would have had a 172-ft. wingspan and a 10,000-lb. bomb load.

The demise of J-UCAS was the start of three programs: the Navy’s X-47B UCAS-D, intended to prove carrier compatibility; an unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, largely sponsored by the CIA (the competition was won by the Northrop Grumman RQ-180); and the Next-Generation Long-Range Strike (NGLRS) analysis of alternatives, which in the course of 2006 generated the NGB requirement.


By 2008, industry executives were expecting an NGB request for proposals (RFP) in late 2009 and a program start in fiscal 2010, with initial operational capability (IOC) in 2018. That did not happen.

There were several reasons for Robert Gates’s decision to cancel the NGB, including the 2008 economic crisis, but the most important was concern over the NGB’s cost and risk. The NGB was a very ambitious concept, as Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne had indicated in an October 2006 speech: “To reduce support packages, it will contain robust electronic attack and suppression of enemy air-defense systems. With fused sensor suites . . . the Next-Generation Bomber will provide global situational awareness on targets, threats and blue forces for positive identification and non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability.”

In short, the NGB would be a fully autonomous system capable of detecting, locating and striking moving targets with no outside support, while carrying both offensive and defensive weapons. It was expected to have the stealth and aerodynamic performance needed for long loiter times over hostile territory.

Gates’s decision was not the end of the road; the Air Force was left free to make a case for a less risky alternative while considering other approaches to long-range strike. Writing this year in Aviation Week & Space Technology, Wynne’s successor, Michael Donley, underscored the changes in thinking: “In 2010, the Air Force and DoD reviewed over 28 studies conducted since 1995,” Donley wrote. “We focused on setting affordable, realistic and achievable requirements up front.”

Most importantly, “we took a ‘family of systems’ approach, recognizing that the bomber did not have to do everything itself and would be part of a larger joint portfolio of ISR, communications, electronic warfare and weapon programs and capabilities essential to long-range strike,” he wrote. The LRS-B would be a penetrating, not highly persistent bomber, used in conjunction with the Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) nuclear and conventional strategic cruise missile, an RQ-180-type ISR asset and new electronic attack means.

The use of new technology was rigorously restricted in the LRS-B. “We looked at mature technologies from a variety of current programs and made informed trade-offs up front to control costs and technical risk,” Donley said. As Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, Jr., military deputy for Air Force acquisition, said last week: “If you’re simultaneously designing a new sensor or a new weapon, it’s complicated. You end up with nested ACAT 1 [Acquisition Category 1] programs or one Acquisition Category 1 program [the largest in the Pentagon] within another.” One lesson in this respect has been the Joint Strike Fighter’s much-delayed Autonomous Logistics Information System, which program director Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan has compared to an ACAT 1 program.

 

[marauder2048]

The other, citing a well-placed source close to Boeing, said Northrop offered a key technology advantage that Boeing and its partner Lockheed Martin couldn’t match.

Now that is interesting...

The other quote in the article suggests that NG won on price. So is that all possible bases covered?

 

[LowObservable]

You can also win (and lose) on both. If you're on the wrong side, the consequence can be what the RAF calls "a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits Axminster shuffle" meeting with the boss.

 

[seruriermarshal]

I think NG have secret stealth technology advantage to Boeing and LM . Many years NG haven't a big program in white world. they just take RQ-4, X-47B, MQ-8, ect, we know these aren't big programs , so I belive they must have some big programs in black world .

 

[Sundog]

NG has tech Boeing and LM couldn't match? OK, Quellish, lets talk about that wing.

 

[Ian33]

Northrop proves light flexible wing

Windtunnel testing of aeroelastic model demonstrates ability to control complex bending characteristics in gusts

www.flightglobal.com

 

[sferrin]

That sounds a bit like what LM is hoping the X-56 will do for them.

 

[marauder2048]

That sounds a bit like what LM is hoping the X-56 will do for them.

Wonder if that lets you get away with less control surface deflection which would in turn improve signature..

 

[Airplane]

Northrop proves light flexible wing

Windtunnel testing of aeroelastic model demonstrates ability to control complex bending characteristics in gusts

www.flightglobal.com

How does this differ from the MAW F-111?

 

[sferrin]

That sounds a bit like what LM is hoping the X-56 will do for them.

Wonder if that lets you get away with less control surface deflection which would in turn improve signature..

I'd think a flexible wing would be worse from a signature standpoint. Every time it flexed the return would scintillate I'd think. I'd think that would make the real time detectability assessments more difficult. (A big part of stealth is knowing when the other guy can see you, and that requires knowing how your signature fluctuates and feeding that back into the system.)

 

[Ian33]

I'd think a flexible wing would be worse from a signature standpoint. Every time it flexed the return would scintillate I'd think. I'd think that would make the real time detectability assessments more difficult. (A big part of stealth is knowing when the other guy can see you, and that requires knowing how your signature fluctuates and feeding that back into the system.)

Reading it again, I still see a massive advantage to knowing that they can use way less of the wing for control surfaces and yet still keep a pretty tight ship under full control, seeing as the entire inner wing would be left for sensors, only the outer having to do any work.

I kind of read it with a devils advocate head on - if they can control it that well, they can control it regarding signature reduction at the super high altitudes they whirl over head at. That for me was the kicker - At altitude, they got it all under control on a super massive long swept wing.

 

[flateric]

Briefing reporters last week ahead of the announcement, William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said he personally appointed an independent person, referred to as the Source Selection Authority, to run the acquisition process.

He said that person’s identity is known only to those involved in the process and is kept secret to preserve independence.

Let's pretend we don't know that this is Kendall.

 

[flateric]

Northrop proves light flexible wing

Windtunnel testing of aeroelastic model demonstrates ability to control complex bending characteristics in gusts

www.flightglobal.com

These studies like LMSW BFF/MUTT are mostly for SensorCraft applications.
AFRL/NASA ACTE is much more closer in TRL/MRL for application on LO aircraft.

 

[marauder2048]

Northrop proves light flexible wing

Windtunnel testing of aeroelastic model demonstrates ability to control complex bending characteristics in gusts

www.flightglobal.com

These studies like LMSW BFF/MUTT are mostly for SensorCraft applications.
AFRL/NASA ACTE is much more closer in TRL/MRL for application on LO aircraft.

LO was a crucial aspect of virtually all of the Sensorcraft studies.

Briefing reporters last week ahead of the announcement, William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said he personally appointed an independent person, referred to as the Source Selection Authority, to run the acquisition process.

He said that person’s identity is known only to those involved in the process and is kept secret to preserve independence.

Let's pretend we don't know that this is Kendall.

Can an assistant secretary for one of the service branches appoint an under secretary from OSD who supercedes the service branch secretaries for all matters on acquistion?

 

[elmayerle]

Militarily speaking Boeing has B-52H and B-1B updates, Super Hornet, Growler, P-8, and the KC-46 manufacturing programs. Lockheed Martin has F-22 updates, F-35 production, C-130J, and the C-5M. Northrop Grumman has the RQ-4 (and X-47B) and radar systems.

They are a major subcontractor on the F-35, too, making roughly a third of the fuselage of every one, including the intakes. They haven't been resting on their laurels and I know some of the middle-level managers on their F-35 effort were working-level "gurnt engineers" with me on the B-2.

 

[quellish]

I'd think a flexible wing would be worse from a signature standpoint. Every time it flexed the return would scintillate I'd think. I'd think that would make the real time detectability assessments more difficult. (A big part of stealth is knowing when the other guy can see you, and that requires knowing how your signature fluctuates and feeding that back into the system.)

It definitely is. Even a little bit of flex can have a dramatic effect on the RF signature. This is one of the many reasons that dynamic RCS ranges are extremely important for testing and development of VLO aircraft. Some recent aircraft have proven to be flexy enough to matter.

 

[marauder2048]

I'd think a flexible wing would be worse from a signature standpoint. Every time it flexed the return would scintillate I'd think. I'd think that would make the real time detectability assessments more difficult. (A big part of stealth is knowing when the other guy can see you, and that requires knowing how your signature fluctuates and feeding that back into the system.)

It definitely is. Even a little bit of flex can have a dramatic effect on the RF signature. This is one of the many reasons that dynamic RCS ranges are extremely important for testing and development of VLO aircraft. Some recent aircraft have proven to be flexy enough to matter.

Wouldn't that only really matter at the mid-to-end of the mission when you're depleting he wing tanks?

 

[Airplane]

What makes everyone so certain that it won't be an F/B-XX designation. Remember the model that was on EBAY for a couple of hours and then got yanked? Around the same time they (NG) restored for display one of the 2 prototypes, but I remember they did some kind of improvements (mockups) to the cockpit. This was circa 06 I think.

 

[Ian33]

What makes everyone so certain that it won't be an F/B-XX designation. Remember the model that was on EBAY for a couple of hours and then got yanked? Around the same time they (NG) restored for display one of the 2 prototypes, but I remember they did some kind of improvements (mockups) to the cockpit. This was circa 06 I think.

No way on earth would that have the ability to launch from CONUS and complete mission across any point on the globe.

 

[Airplane]

What makes everyone so certain that it won't be an F/B-XX designation. Remember the model that was on EBAY for a couple of hours and then got yanked? Around the same time they (NG) restored for display one of the 2 prototypes, but I remember they did some kind of improvements (mockups) to the cockpit. This was circa 06 I think.

No way on earth would that have the ability to launch from CONUS and complete mission across any point on the globe.

I'm playing devils advocate here. But remember when they said it will be smaller than a B-2?

 

[kagemusha]

Wonder if that lets you get away with less control surface deflection which would in turn improve signature..

Hingeless control surfaces with plasma actuators should reduce the radar return of the wing.

 

[phrenzy]

Is anyone else here praying to the flying spaghetti monster in the sky that a long 2 part special was filmed by PBS during the development and evaluation just like the JSF "battle of the X planes" Nova documentaries? Might not get tu to see it for a few months (or years) but that would be a great coup for us.

Given the greater strategic importance and general secrecy (along with the fact that details of LRS-B weren't being shared with potentiality leaky international partners anyway like JSF) I suppose it's possible that the idea would have been completely off the table. A man can dream though.

 

[Ian33]

Is anyone else here praying to the flying spaghetti monster in the sky that a long 2 part special was filmed by PBS during the development and evaluation just like the JSF "battle of the X planes" Nova documentaries? Might not get tu to see it for a few months (or years) but that would be a great coup for us.

Given the greater strategic importance and general secrecy (along with the fact that details of LRS-B weren't being shared with potentiality leaky international partners anyway like JSF) I suppose it's possible that the idea would have been completely off the table. A man can dream though.

I'd break down and cry. They would melt the internet releasing that.

 

[Steve Pace]

Designation, propulsive system, roll-out, first flight, manned (unmanned) - is it flying already? -SP

 

[marauder2048]

Is anyone else here praying to the flying spaghetti monster in the sky that a long 2 part special was filmed by PBS during the development and evaluation just like the JSF "battle of the X planes" Nova documentaries? Might not get tu to see it for a few months (or years) but that would be a great coup for us.

Given the greater strategic importance and general secrecy (along with the fact that details of LRS-B weren't being shared with potentiality leaky international partners anyway like JSF) I suppose it's possible that the idea would have been completely off the table. A man can dream though.

I'd break down and cry. They would melt the internet releasing that.

Have we even seen imagery of NG employees celebrating the win?

 

[Ian33]

Have we even seen imagery of NG employees celebrating the win?

Not a single thing. Nothing. It's like they shut this entire project off from any PR type moments. 'Northrop Grumman won, the end.'

 

[Flyaway]

If the big new hanger at Area 51 is for this aircraft we can forget seeing it for many years.