Northrop Grumman wins LRS-B contract

[Trigger]

Why Northrop Won The LRS Bomber

By ROBERT HAFFA

on November 03, 2015 at 4:01 AM

How did Northrop beat world’s largest defense companies, the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team, in the crucial competition for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB)?

First, and probably most importantly, Northrop Grumman is the only company in history to design, develop, manufacture, and maintain a long-range stealth bomber—the B-2 Spirit. Thanks to pre-award briefings, we know that the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office managing the acquisition saw the LRS-B program as a way of advancing the application of new stealth technologies, not only in survivability but also in producability and maintainability. Northrop Grumman has advanced the state of the art in all- aspect stealth aircraft from modernizing the B-2, developing the stealthy X-47B unmanned aircraft (a candidate to help solve the U.S. Navy’s long-range strike dilemma),and working other programs.

We also knew before the recent announcement that the LRS-B program was designed to combine the very best practices in integrating advanced propulsion, imbedded antennas, self-defense systems, electronic and communication suites, and manufacturing techniques. Northrop Grumman brought to the competition not only corporate expertise in these areas, but also extensive expertise in the subsystems so critical to stealthy aircraft.

The company not only owns and maintains the B-2, but builds the radars and communications systems for the low-observable F-22 and F-35. Manufacturing and integrating systems that rely on electronic emissions compatible with stealth raises many challenges, but Northrop Grumman has decades of successful experience to leverage. Savvy observers noted that Lockheed Martin comes to Northrop Grumman for that expertise.

Northrop Grumman also has an ace up its sleeve in the manufacturing capabilities inherent in the company. Northrop Grumman not only has a factory designed to build B-2 bombers, but that factory is producing F-35 stealth fuselages today on an award-winning automated assembly line. Boeing has never produced an operational stealth aircraft. Furthermore, the Air Force has announced that the initial buy will be in five lots for a total of 21 aircraft, or about four aircraft per lot.

Northrop Grumman is uniquely qualified to drive efficiencies out of similar production rates. From the E-2D, to Global Hawk, and Triton, Northrop Grumman is very comfortable producing at that rate. Boeing is much more focused on higher rate production and very seldom, if ever, produced aircraft in that low quantity, let alone aircraft that will be as sophisticated (read stealthy) as the LRS-B.

Why is the LRS-B program so critical to U.S. national security?

Experts in American defense policy point to the increasing inability of U.S. forces to deploy forward in the face of growing “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) capabilities of our potential adversaries, to include China, Russia, and Iran.

These and other foreign militaries are attempting to counter the traditional plans and patterns of projecting American military power into a vital region by not only prohibiting our relatively short range air and naval air forces from deploying to forward bases, but also by preventing their freedom of action and maneuver in close-in areas of military operations. Just this week, Secretary of Defense Dr. Ashton Carter has called the new bomber “the backbone of the Air Force’s future strike and deterrence capabilities.”

Evolving threats to American security guarantees in the Pacific Rim and Persian Gulf regions place a premium on platforms combining the range, payload, and survivability needed to underwrite U.S. commitments. Long-range aircraft are able to launch from bases outside the reach of adversaries. Heavy bombers can utilize their large and varied payloads to hold any potential target at risk.

State-of-the-art stealth technology enables the synergy of low-observability and tactics to ensure the survivability of the platform in contested air environments characterized by integrated air defenses. Unfortunately, the capabilities needed to execute these missions successfully are in short supply in the existing long-range bomber force. Except for the 20 B-2s, of which only 16 might be available for combat operations, the remaining 76 B-52s and 63 B-1Bs legacy bombers cannot survive in this contested air environment.

Given the critical nature of the program it is not surprising that the Air Force “followed a deliberate and disciplined process” which was “scrutinized via DoD peer reviews” as Air Force Secretary Deborah James noted in the award announcement.

Given the challenges of anti-access/area denial environments, the requirement to hold various high-value targets at risk in this contested airspace, and the shortfalls of our current long-range bomber force, it is essential that the United States demonstrate the capability to conduct sustained power projection operations to deter and defend against hostile aggression for decades to come.

America’s new bomber, reportedly well along the acquisition path in terms of major testing and risk reduction, will leverage mature technologies and systems to minimize development risk and cost growth while sustaining a U.S. advantage in a long-term military competition. Northrop Grumman has the design and manufacturing capability and capacity to deliver LRS-B at the lowest risk. Boeing may be bigger, but Northrop was better.

Robert Haffa, a retired Air Force colonel, is the former director of the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Why Northrop Won The LRS Bomber

By ROBERT HAFFA

on November 03, 2015 at 4:01 AM

He is right on all counts. Surprised he didn't mention the sections they assemble on the super hornet too. Northrop Grumman has been an extremely effective subcontractor for all the major companies

[caudleryan]

Well, Boeing has formally protested. Go figure.

[11bee]

Well, Boeing has formally protested. Go figure.

Shocker.... Has there been any major DOD award that hasn't been protested lately?

They should write into any upcoming contract that any bidder has the right to protest but if they do and the award is upheld, they are required to reimburse the feds for the full cost of the award review plus 10% of the value of the contract as a penalty.

[Exhausted]

Boeing just got the tanker, did it not? They are cranking out 787s at a cheaper cost in SC than they could have in WA, no? I guess it's just part of the game when you're that BIG.

[GreyGhost]

Lockheed Martin Sikorsky are in on the protest as well ...

-Gregg

[Trigger]

[Check Six]

I just hope we get more than 20 this time.

Amen to that.

A 220+ fleet would be appropriate, seeing that it's going to provide a deterrent similar to the nuke-packing European 'Varks.

Enough to cover Europe, Asia, as well as the homeland.

Back in the '80s ole Crazy Ivan was kept nervous with two weapon systems present in Europe: The Pershing missiles and the "Warsaw Pact Central Heating", the nuke-carrying F-111E 'Varks.

[11bee]

Boeing just got the tanker, did it not? They are cranking out 787s at a cheaper cost in SC than they could have in WA, no? I guess it's just part of the game when you're that BIG.

As far as Boeing's WA production vrs SC - can't tell you about unit cost (and I don't think Boeing would ever share these numbers) but I can tell you that WA is currently producing 787's at a much higher rate (and quicker per airframe) with significantly less defects then SC. There have been a few articles over the last year that come down pretty hard on the quality of the labor at their SC plant.

[caiotfjr]

Amen to that.

A 220+ fleet would be appropriate, seeing that it's going to provide a deterrent similar to the nuke-packing European 'Varks.

Enough to cover Europe, Asia, as well as the homeland.

Back in the '80s ole Crazy Ivan was kept nervous with two weapon systems present in Europe: The Pershing missiles and the "Warsaw Pact Central Heating", the nuke-carrying F-111E 'Varks.

The Pershing II missiles (and the SS-20) were banned after the START treaty. The Warsaw Pact has long gone the way of the Dodo. And I think US have more pressing matters than restarting the Cold War, even with a new bomber...

[11bee]

And I think US have more pressing matters than restarting the Cold War, even with a new bomber...

Come on, we need a boogeyman to justify all that spending. China just didn't cut it, Vlad is the perfect villain.

We have a bomber gap, a carrier gap, a fighter gap. I've never felt more threatened.

I'll wager that we never see this program come to fruition. At some point it will be cancelled due to out of control cost increases and a bankrupt federal budget.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Come on, we need a boogeyman to justify all that spending. China just didn't cut it, Vlad is the perfect villain.

And all of Russia's neighbors are falling for it too!! Jokes on them

I'll wager that we never see this program come to fruition. At some point it will be cancelled due to out of control cost increases and a bankrupt federal budget.

If so it means the US (thus the west) is out of the bomber business.

[11bee]

And all of Russia's neighbors are falling for it too!! Jokes on them

If so it means the US (thus the west) is out of the bomber business.

1 - Are you suggesting a Domino Theory (where have I heard that before)? First Georgia and Ukraine, next the Red Hordes will be marching down Main Street USA? Oooh... scary stuff. However, I'm content to wait and see. Surely if this becomes reality, our allies closer to Russia will step up their defense spending and pick up the slack for good ole Uncle Sam.

2 - We got decades of service from the B-52, I have no doubt that we can dust off the B-1 and B-2 fleets and SLEP them into the next century. If the B-1 is lacking LO features, isn't that why we are spending tens of billions on the B-2, F-35 and F-22 fleets?

[TaiidanTomcat]

1 - Are you suggesting a Domino Theory (where have I heard that before)? First Georgia and Ukraine, next the Red Hordes will be marching down Main Street USA? Oooh... scary stuff. However, I'm content to wait and see. Surely if this becomes reality, our allies closer to Russia will step up their defense spending and pick up the slack for good ole Uncle Sam.

2 - We got decades of service from the B-52, I have no doubt that we can dust off the B-1 and B-2 fleets and SLEP them into the next century. If the B-1 is lacking LO features, isn't that why we are spending tens of billions on the B-2, F-35 and F-22 fleets?

Jesus Christ John, go take that stupidity to Foxtrot Alpha or youtube.

[11bee]

Jesus Christ John, go take that stupidity to Foxtrot Alpha or youtube.

Sorry bud, didn't mean to get you riled up. I forgot, we can only voice certain opinions and comments here on ARC.

Congrats on your promotion to moderator BTW, you are off to a great start.

[Waco]

A couple of points before this thing goes completely off the rails...

1 - Yes, the contract award was protested. The Air Force anticipated--nay, expected--this action, and as a result, has prepared for this contingency. The entire structure of the competition, bid, and selection process was designed to be as protest proof as possible. Just as all defense contractors now build the expense of a protest into their bid process, the Air Force has begun to build the expectation of one into their selection process, in an attempt to stay as above board as possible and to prevent this from being a long, drawn out process. In this case, I think the process will be fairly short, and the claim will be unsubstantiated. The selection process for the LRS-B was as "protest proof" as you could possibly make it, and they've been extremely careful in the language used at all points along the timeline. Summarizing: the AF is ahead of the contract protest game this time.

2 - This selection process was not run by the Air Force's traditional acquisition community, but by the Rapid Capabilities Office. That means it was developed differently, relies more on proven, demonstrated, and off-the-shelf technologies, as well as open architecture, and is far more mature than most acquisitions programs at the selection point. The press releases don't say the aircraft has flown already (they also don't say it hasn't), but they are very clear that major component testing, risk reduction, and integration planning has been thoroughly demonstrated. The whole point of RCO is to be able to put something in the field, ASAP. I don't think we're looking at a decades long development timeline at this point. EMD, DT&E, and OT&E timelines will take a few years, no doubt. However, I think this system at large is far more mature than most folks realize at this point. The majority of the timeline until IOC will involve setting up the appropriate logistics chains, basing support, and developing the operational TTPs to integrate its capabilities into joint force employment.

3 - LRS-B is not solely about replacing the "big wing" strategic bombing capabilities. It's about enabling a whole new set of capabilities built around what has historically been called the prompt global strike initiative, counter-A2/AD, realizing a host of capabilities gaps identified by Air-Sea Battle, enhancing over-the-horizon Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Assess in a single, rapid targeting, network enabled platform, etc. In short, there's a whole bunch of stuff they want this thing to do that is above and beyond a traditional bomber model: serve as an LO node in a forward ISR network, providing OTH SA and rapid strike capability, act as a penetrating platform for HVT and emergent/fleeting/heavily defended TST environments, provide direct inputs to combat cloud information in a contested environment, support long range strike against an A2/AD adversary in a regionally denied environment, etc. So now the naysayers are thinking, "well, if it's going to do all of that stuff, then it won't be fielded rapidly." In my opinion--and my opinion only--a lot of this stuff probably already exists. You've already got RQ-170 with much speculated LO ISR and OTH feed capabilities, you've got LRASM and other LO network centric weapons capable of being supported from BLOS sources, they're working aggressively on hypersonic strike weapons, etc. What you don't have is a single platform which can integrate all of those capabilities. I believe that is the goal for LRS-B....take a bunch of existing stuff that's been fielded to meet emerging needs and put them all together in a single, coherent, long-range strike capable platform. And further, keep it open architecture to be able to integrate future capabilities as they emerge. So yes, there is an operational need for this thing, and it goes beyond traditional strat bomber missions. The problem with "dusting off and updating" the B-2 is, we've only got 20 of them. The B-1 and B-52 are not capable of meeting all these requirements. And the fighter LO platforms do not have the persistence being sought by LRS-B.

4 - There have been a lot of lessons learned after the next generation tanker, F-22, F-35, LCS, Paladin, CSAR-X, and other acquisitions programs. This program has undergone an evolution of program changes, names, and funding alterations (Next-Gen Bomber, anyone?). What has NOT changed, however, is the fact the Air Force recognizes the need for a new strategic strike asset with a slew of new capabilities. I think the USAF at large has recognized and adapted its acquisition process to correct previous mistakes. Of all the acquisition programs currently in play, this one displays the most signs of being intelligently, deliberately, and carefully managed. Frankly, I hope it stays in the RCO world for a while, because they've done a great job so far. I think it has a very high probability of fielding on-time, and meeting its capabilities milestones.

As with all my posts, the above represent the opinions of the author alone, and is based on my operational experiences, judgment, and opinion. The information posted above in no way reflects and official position or opinion of the United States Air Force or the United States Department of Defense, unless otherwise stated and cited. (since some folks think it's confusing when I post, and that maybe people think I'm making an official statement when I do).

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sorry bud, didn't mean to get you riled up. I forgot, we can only voice certain opinions and comments here on ARC.

Congrats on your promotion to moderator BTW, you are off to a great start.

not riled at all, you just broke my suspension of disbelief. I assumed you knew the difference between fighters and bombers, etc. My mistake, I thought you were deliberately posting an over the top trolling attempt and took it as such.

sorry you were serious.

Edited November 11, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Check Six]

3 - LRS-B is not solely about replacing the "big wing" strategic bombing capabilities. It's about enabling a whole new set of capabilities built around what has historically been called the prompt global strike initiative, counter-A2/AD, realizing a host of capabilities gaps identified by Air-Sea Battle, enhancing over-the-horizon Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Assess in a single, rapid targeting, network enabled platform, etc. In short, there's a whole bunch of stuff they want this thing to do that is above and beyond a traditional bomber model: serve as an LO node in a forward ISR network, providing OTH SA and rapid strike capability, act as a penetrating platform for HVT and emergent/fleeting/heavily defended TST environments, provide direct inputs to combat cloud information in a contested environment, support long range strike against an A2/AD adversary in a regionally denied environment, etc. So now the naysayers are thinking, "well, if it's going to do all of that stuff, then it won't be fielded rapidly." In my opinion--and my opinion only--a lot of this stuff probably already exists. You've already got RQ-170 with much speculated LO ISR and OTH feed capabilities, you've got LRASM and other LO network centric weapons capable of being supported from BLOS sources, they're working aggressively on hypersonic strike weapons, etc. What you don't have is a single platform which can integrate all of those capabilities. I believe that is the goal for LRS-B....take a bunch of existing stuff that's been fielded to meet emerging needs and put them all together in a single, coherent, long-range strike capable platform. And further, keep it open architecture to be able to integrate future capabilities as they emerge. So yes, there is an operational need for this thing, and it goes beyond traditional strat bomber missions. The problem with "dusting off and updating" the B-2 is, we've only got 20 of them. The B-1 and B-52 are not capable of meeting all these requirements. And the fighter LO platforms do not have the persistence being sought by LRS-B.

An academic question:

Can the B-2 design platform fit the needs of the LRS-B?

Meaning taking the B-2 fuselage design and fill it with all the LRS-B requirements.

Maybe even incorporate design improvements on the fuselage itself. Also incorporate improved/more powerful engines, etc.

And then build a whole new fleet.

Kind of like how McDonnell Douglas did with the F-18E/F Super Hornets. But, of course, the B-2 platform is still state-of-the-art stealth technology that can benefit from any new stealth design applications.

Your off-the-shelf points got me wondering, hence, my post.

If the B-2 platform is still formidable, why not use its design?

[Check Six]

Jesus Christ John, go take that stupidity to Foxtrot Alpha or youtube.

Dude; Don't feed the troll.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sorry bud, didn't mean to get you riled up. I forgot, we can only voice certain opinions and comments here on ARC.

Congrats on your promotion to moderator BTW, you are off to a great start.

That was better. you have to be subtle

Edited November 11, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

Dude; Don't feed the troll.

My apologies for wanting to keep this on topic, rather than having it devolve into a theory I never even mentioned

you, yourself mentioned how the F-111 protected Europe, and I mentioned that Europe was feeling threatened. This makes me a troll? 11bee then tried to take my pointing out that Europe felt threatened as a "domino theory" (nope!)

in fact I never even said he would invade, simply that others took him seriously and feared him. and that there are no differences between strike fighters and bombers, and that you can't SLEP things into eternity, just because they have done it with a (very small) number of B-52s. I found his post so absurd, and his comments twisting what I said so over the top, that I honestly thought he was doing it to be comical.

Edited November 11, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Check Six]

My apologies for wanting to keep this on topic, rather than having it devolve into a theory I never even mentioned

you, yourself mentioned how the F-111 protected Europe, and I mentioned that Europe was feeling threatened. This makes me a troll? 11bee then tried to take my pointing out that Europe felt threatened as a "domino theory" (nope!) and that there are no differences between strike fighters and bombers, and that you can't SLEP things into eternity, just because they have done it with a (very small) number of B-52s. I found his post so absurd, and his comments twisting what I said so over the top, that I honestly thought he was doing it to be comical.

NOT YOU !

11bee is being a major troll this morning.

I agree with your points.

You (The feeder) by responding to 11bee (The troll) are feeding an ARC troll.

[TaiidanTomcat]

NOT YOU !

11bee is being a major troll this morning.

I agree with your points.

You (The feeder) by responding to 11bee (The troll) are feeding an ARC troll.

My mistake

[Check Six]

My mistake

Roger that .

IMHO he's being a rather malicious troll today too.

I wonder what happened to his Cheerios .

[spejic]

It's super annoying for you guys to quote pictures and have giant pictures in your signatures when all you are doing is having a Twitter-sized conversation.