Boeing/Lockheed vs. Northop for 2018 bomber

[docm]

Swan song for the B-52?<br /><br />Reuters story....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Boeing, Lockheed join forces to compete for bomber</b><br /><br />Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:00pm EST<br /> <br />By Andrea Shalal-Esa<br /><br />WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) will announce an agreement on Friday to team up to compete for a next-generation U.S. bomber that the U.S. Air Force wants to deploy in 10 years, two sources familiar with the companies' plans told Reuters.<br /><br />Boeing, the No. 2 U.S. defense contractor, would be the primary contractor, with about 60 percent of the deal, while Lockheed, the No. 1 contractor, would have around 40 percent, said the sources, who did not want to be identified.<br /><br />"Boeing's in the driver's seat," one said.<br /><br />The companies said in a statement earlier on Thursday that they planned to make an announcement on Friday about their efforts to team up to "perform studies and system development efforts for an anticipated U.S. Air Force program."<br /><br />Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which built the last U.S. bomber, the B-2, has also said it plans to compete to build the new bomber -- a deal that defense analysts say could be worth $10 billion or more.<br /><br />"A Boeing-Lockheed team sounds like a stronger combination than any other team," said Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, noting that Lockheed would likely be the only U.S. builder of fighter jets in 10 years, while Boeing would be the only U.S. maker of large aircraft.<br /><br />The Air Force announced plans for a new long-range bomber several years ago, but the program has not yet received much attention or funding in the regular defense budget up to now because of competing budget demands.<br /><br />Current plans cal</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[steve82]

Boeing+Lockheed?<br />an unholy alliance!<br />a crime against nature!<br />a marriage made in hell!<br />matter and antimatter!<br />

 

[docm]

Dogs and Cats - LIVING TOGETHER!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

As much as I admire the B-52 they are getting rather old. A plane can fly for only so many hours. Part of me is concerned about the state of the aerospace industry in America with the number of manufacturers now at only 2. But the reality is that it is very expensive to develope competing designs with the outcome being only one winner.<br /><br />The Navy is now down to only one fighter, the FA-18 and they are trying to modify it so as to reduce the number of plane types on board their carriers even further.<br /><br />In this post "cold war" world how many long range bombers do we really need?<br /><br />My worry is that if a hot war were to develope somewhere will we have the skilled people needed to build a lot of planes in a hurry.<br /><br />I'm guessing we would be building a lot of UCAV's to do the dirty work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[shadow735]

well there are countries other then Russia that we would need to reach. Also I thought that the f-18s and such are going to be replaced by the navys version of the f22 raptor? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shadow735]

what are the navy getting? I saw the show on discovery but forgot the details <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

The Navy is not getting the Raptor. That idea was kicked around about 15 years ago or so, but was ultimately rejected (too expensive). The Navy's current plan is to field the Super Hornet as an air dominance fighter and heavy attack aircraft and the F-35 as a light multi-role fighter and "first day of the war" attack aircraft.<br /><br />The idea is that the F-35s will roll in with stealth in the opening hours of a conflict and conduct SEAD and DEAD missions to clear a path for the less stealthy F/A-18E/Fs to attack. <br /><br />Beyond the Super Hornet and JSF: UCAVs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

As I recall the 'dog' bought the 'cat' in the 90's. <br /><br />Should I mention Microsoft buying Apple? now that's unholy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

I would guess that the 60 or so B-1B's that the Air Force has would be able to decimate most any country other than Russia or China. My concern now is the reductions in work force that have taken place and how long it would take to train people to build a new generation of fighters and bombers if the need presents itself.<br /><br />The same concern goes for the manned space program with the long lead times between generations of vehicles. How do we keep enough skilled technicians in the work force. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">My concern now is the reductions in work force that have taken place and how long it would take to train people to build a new generation of fighters and bombers if the need presents itself.</font><br /><br />If need be, we'd have to pull them out of related industries like the automaking industry, send them to school for a few weeks, and get them to work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

docm:<br />Swan song for the B-52?<br /><br />Me:<br />They once said this when the XB-70 was supposed to enter operationm, then the B-1A, then the B1B...and the B1B did enter service but the buff remained in service.<br /><br />Even the statement from the AF below suggests the B-52 would be complemented, not phased out.<br /><br />"The Air Force would like to have its new long-range bomber in service by 2018 to complement the existing fleet of B-52s and B-2s."<br /><br />But eventually the atoms holding the B-52 together will be so fatigued that we will have to replace it...but will this be 2018, or 2118? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Yes, but they can't keep those things flying forever. Eventually they are going to start falling out of the sky à la the F-15. Congress is now finding out the hard way that it can't keep the old Cold War warhorses running into the 21st century. Other examples that have recently come out are half century old C-130s and KC-135s.<br /><br />Aircraft don't fly forever (especially combat aircraft), they <i>have</i> to be replaced eventually. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

Instead of spending a gazillion dollars coming up with an over-engineered clean sheet design for another subsonic bomber, it might be better to just improve on the B-2. I'd like to see Northrup find a way to make a tanker out of a B-2 airframe while they're at it. The "next generation" is going to be more about the bombs themselves and less about the platform that drops them.

 

[qso1]

I agree, I just wonder how far into this century the ole Buff will go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

About the time room sanitizer/deodorant doesn't work anymore? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Sounds about right, those buff cockpits are probably pretty ripe after long flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>