Northrop Grumman wins US$80b Long Range Strike Bomber contract for 100 new bombers.
112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;48998229]USN dood here. Budget decreases all the time, please talk about something you know about instead of saying something that makes sense to you at the time.[/QUOTE]
Also, to bring it up further the budget cuts have been continious and retarded. Its cutting programs and entitlement systems (that are earned, no negative tone from me) for enlisted soldiers in particular, officers a bit. Some of my friends got [I]fucked[/I] by the cuts and others in ROTC lost their pilot slots (which they have worked their entire college careers for).
It's like someone so get's off to angles looked at a B-2 and said, "FUCK THAT, I WANT IT MORE ANGLY!".
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996576]In the words of George Carlin
[video=youtube;jMwXR-1oajE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwXR-1oajE[/video][/QUOTE]
It took you like 5 posts into thread to post an irrelevant joke by George Carlin.
[QUOTE=download;48998478]It's for 100 aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The actual article says they have a fixed price contract for 21 aircraft. If production were to continue successfully, it would cost ~$564 million dollars per bomber IF they were to build 100 aircraft. This assumes that there will be no budget cuts that will affect it down the line (but there probably will be). It's a weird metric and the wording is kind of weird in the given article.
Here's a quote from another article covering the same thing.
[QUOTE]The contract is broken up into two parts — the cost-plus incentive fee development contract awarded today, and a separate agreement on the first five low-rate initial production lots that will be fixed-price incentive fee. Those first five lots will cover the production of 21 bombers.
The service requested that two independent government cost estimators look at the program. The two groups projected that each bomber will cost $511 million in 2010 dollars on average if 100 planes are built, Air Force officials told reporters on Tuesday — substantially less than the original $550 million target cost set by then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. This translates to $564 million per plane in fiscal year 2016 dollars.
LRS-B’s projected unit cost is higher compared to the B-1, but significantly lower relative to the $1.5 billion price tag of Northrop’s B-2, according to an Air Force handout. The expected development cost overall for LRS-B is also lower than for the B-2, at $23.5 billion.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/27/northrop-grumman-wins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394/[/url]
[QUOTE=old_hag12;48996467]Why do we need this again[/QUOTE]
War economy.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;48998987]The actual article says they have a fixed price contract for 21 aircraft. If production were to continue successfully, it would cost ~$564 million dollars per bomber IF they were to build 100 aircraft. This assumes that there will be no budget cuts that will affect it down the line (but there probably will be). It's a weird metric and the wording is kind of weird in the given article.
Here's a quote from another article covering the same thing.
[url]http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/27/northrop-grumman-wins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394/[/url][/QUOTE]
Ah, so if they only buy 21 aircraft it will cost $23.5b + the unit cost of each aircraft, but if they buy 100 aircraft it will be US$80b all up. I assume the $80b/100=$800m is the lifetime inflation adjusted cost.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
They're not giving them the full amount unit they've proven they have a flyable aircraft.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48997317]Hasnt the US pretty much always kept its weapons around regardless of if we are at war or not? I dont think that we would get rid of our bombers if we were not fighting a war.[/QUOTE]
In our early days, no not at all, up until post WWII, we never had much in the way of a standing army. Look at how unprepared the US has been at the start of all of their major conflicts.
We ran a cycle for a while:
1. Start War
2. Holy shit we're not ready for war
3. Ramp up our industry and get ready for war
4. Break it all down and disband most of the military after the war
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=paindoc;48998869]Also, to bring it up further the budget cuts have been continious and retarded. Its cutting programs and entitlement systems (that are earned, no negative tone from me) for enlisted soldiers in particular, officers a bit. Some of my friends got [I]fucked[/I] by the cuts and others in ROTC lost their pilot slots (which they have worked their entire college careers for).[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, losing an aviation slot would be maddening, its the hardest to get.
To the more tech-savvy individuals out there (who might also have a military background), I pose a question:
Could you possibly target AAA batteries by deploying drones in their area of coverage, and then striking anything that targets them? The drones act as a disposable air asset that help to expose the extent of the AAA coverage, and then mop-up with cruise missiles or air-to-ground outside of the range of coverage?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48996532]I'm just excited to see Grumman win this instead of Boeing/Lockheed. Cant wait to see what new technologies they come up with to make it possible.[/QUOTE]
I find it pretty amusing how it seems like anytime someone wants to start a company that has to do with anything like technology, engineering etc. they make its name sound german
[QUOTE=download;48996478]Because the USAF's bomber fleet is mostly made up of 50 year old B52s and 40 year old B1s. Neither of which have any chance in hell of surviving any vaguely modern air defense.[/QUOTE]
The B-52s are indeed 50-60 years old, but the B-1s were built in the 90s.
[editline]28th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=proch;49003984]I find it pretty amusing how it seems like anytime someone wants to start a company that has to do with anything like technology, engineering etc. they make its name sound german[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Boeing"]Namesake of Boeing[/URL]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Corporation#Origins"]Lockheed was originally Lougheed[/URL]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroy_Grumman"]Leroy Grumman[/URL]
[QUOTE=Ridge;49004496]The B-52s are indeed 50-60 years old, but the B-1s were built in the 90s.
[/QUOTE]
The first B1 was built in the 70s while the last rolled off the production line in 1988.
[QUOTE=download;49004851]The first B1 was built in the 70s while the last rolled off the production line in 1988.[/QUOTE]
The first B1 was the B1A, which Carter killed. Reagan restarted the program with the B1B, which makes up the entire stock of them in service.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49008771]The first B1 was the B1A, which Carter killed. Reagan restarted the program with the B1B, which makes up the entire stock of them in service.[/QUOTE]
And none were built in the 90s.
Is there even still a point to having strategic bombers? I thought we moved away from that now bombing require less collateral damage so less are dropped at a time.
Although I can definitely see why the long range of a strategic bomber would be required, but not the ability to carpet bomb an area
This might be a little off topic but I just had a thought
If the US hadn't grown into the world police, would another country eventually have? I mean it wasn't really viable until technology allowed dickwaving on such a huge scale to exist (referring to how fucking huge our military is). If we hadn't started sticking our nose in everything, would a different superpower (not us) have eventually grown to have a defense budget like ours?
[QUOTE=Dr.C;49010311]Is there even still a point to having strategic bombers? I thought we moved away from that now bombing require less collateral damage so less are dropped at a time.
Although I can definitely see why the long range of a strategic bomber would be required, but not the ability to carpet bomb an area[/QUOTE]
All modern strategic bombers can carry nuclear weapons as well. It's not like it's just the Vietnam days of dropping hundreds of bombs at once.
[QUOTE=paindoc;48998869]Also, to bring it up further the budget cuts have been continious and retarded. Its cutting programs and entitlement systems (that are earned, no negative tone from me) for enlisted soldiers in particular, officers a bit. Some of my friends got [I]fucked[/I] by the cuts and others in ROTC lost their pilot slots (which they have worked their entire college careers for).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I personally believe we should do something like not pay FIVE HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS for ordinary ball-lock pins or A HUNDRED PLUS FUCKING DOLLARS for an ordinary nickel copper bolt.
But oh hey man deez are SHOCK tested and shit. Military wastes so much fucking money on big ass corporations its disgusting.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;49010363]This might be a little off topic but I just had a thought
If the US hadn't grown into the world police, would another country eventually have?[/QUOTE]
The Soviet Union sorta did
ITT people don't like me saying tear down the military. I'm just angry. This is how I feel
[video=youtube;Vabeos-F8Kk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk[/video]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;49003954]To the more tech-savvy individuals out there (who might also have a military background), I pose a question:
Could you possibly target AAA batteries by deploying drones in their area of coverage, and then striking anything that targets them? The drones act as a disposable air asset that help to expose the extent of the AAA coverage, and then mop-up with cruise missiles or air-to-ground outside of the range of coverage?[/QUOTE]
yes, the israelis did it 40 years ago, they used drones fitted with radio generators that masked their true size, and used them to trigger the Egyptian AAA defenses, which in turn were swiftly bombed by israeli fighters that carried radar guided munitions durring the yum kappor war
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.