US Air Force LRS-B Bomber Thread - the B-21 Raider
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Brumby
Major
Northrop Bonus for Mysterious Bomber Weighed Toward Contract End
There is no satisfactory solution for complex projects in terms of arresting unwarranted cost growth. Unfortunately the USAF don't have a good track record in cost containment with many of its projects. There are pros and cons of each type of contractual arrangement. I am not familiar with the bid terms, but if NG won on the basis of cost plus, I don't think McCain can stop it at this stage. Ethically and responsibly he should have stopped the bidding process on a cost plus basis if it was a show stopper to him and not after the event. Having said that I can understand why he has a major issue with it. Cost plus basically means potentially the risk of the cost base growing rest with the USAF and not NG. In fact there is no incentive for NG to stop the cost base from growing (without knowing the actual terms) and traditionally that had been the case with many of the USAF projects. In project management, the key is leadership in containing scope, restricting modifications and being proactive in managing your key partners. All these are dependent on appointing someone to head the program who is a heavy weight and reports to the very top of the chain. Typically what happens is every senior general or politician who has a bite at the program will attempt to incorporate their own agenda onto the program. You need someone who carries a level of authority to push back.
Jura The idiot
General
don't want to go off-topic so
etc. etc. according to
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-525#post-391279
Brumby
Major
I skimmed through the GAO report on this issue. For example, the contract value on the DDG was for $603 million and the rectification needed was about $2.3 million with a 1/3 split to the builder. In terms of materiality it is negligible. I agree that enforcement on contract may be lax on the USN. The issue raised by GAO is about enforcement over guaranty or warranty but the LRSB is over terms of contractual arrangement that will effectively manage cost within program budget. The major complain over non cost plus is that complex projects like LRSB simply has too many new technologies that makes it impossible to forecast what is needed to bring R & D into application. There is just too much risk for commercial firms to take on. it is counter productive and dis-incentivise development effort to its full potential. Maybe it is just BS but I don't have industry knowledge to reasonably judge.
Jura The idiot
General
perhaps we'll hear it's hyped
I've read (and posted maybe two years ago) the risk of the fixed-cost is a company will fix it then really high LOL
Brumby
Major
A fixed price contract poses two kinds of risk. The first type is self evident. If there are many unknowns due to complexities of the program, the obvious self protective mechanism is to built in multi layers of fat as a contingent plan against unanticipated problems. If every bidder takes the same approach, then invariably the program cost can become highly inflated even with competitive bidding. The second type of risk is actually the opposite. A potential bidder might be too aggressive with pricing and actually underestimates the complexities involved and win the contract but fails to deliver and eventually needing to be bailed out at a cost to the government.
There are no good solutions. Just the constant trade off between risk and cost management.
Jura The idiot
General
Bernard
Junior Member
More information on the B-21st bomber. Keeping it secret! It sounds like the first new major project of Cold War 2 for the U.S!
Pratt Is Making B-21 Engines; Don’t Expect More Tech Info
By on March 07, 2016 at 6:30 PM
PENTAGON: Pratt and Whitney, as many assumed, will design and build the engines for the , leaving B-2 bomber engine maker out in the cold.
Air Fore Secretary ‘ announcement of Pratt’s role, as well as that of six other subcontractors working with prime , during the annual State of the Air Force press conference revealed virtually nothing more about the program. She made a point of noting the news was being released because the companies had completed their security protection plans for their work on the bomber. So I asked her which was more important to the disclosure of information about the bomber: maintaining strategic ambiguity so that would find it difficult to design a counter to the airplane, or the security measures being put in place.
Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh
James made it clear that keeping the bomber’s capabilities a secret from Russia and China was the driving force behind the service’s decision to classify the great majority of information about the program. Will we learn much about what the plane can do?
“I don’t think you’re going to know for years much more about the technology,” James said. The secretary contrasted the approach they’ve taken with the B-21 to , which was shrouded in complete secrecy until November 1988 when the world was allowed to see the front of the aircraft in Palmdale, Calif, at Air Force Plant 42.
“The B-2 remained in the shadows for too long, it remained classified — too many details remained classified too long,” James said. (While the secretary didn’t say so, the extreme secrecy made it easier for B-2 opponents to characterize it as a ). “In the case of the B-21, we are leaning forward, and we are trying to be more transparent, and we are going to continue to do so.”
10 percent of the nation’s B-2 bomber fleet — totaling just 20 aircraft — is in this photo.
Perhaps the most interesting tidbit came from Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunche, who followed James and Air Force Chief of Staff at the podium. I asked him if he could shed some light on what Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition, had meant last April when he said that . Bunche said he thought this referred to the plane’s open missions system architecture. It will allow the Air Force to “more cost effectively and in a more timely manner integrate new technologies into the bombers.” So the fleet of 100 probably won’t be built by anyone but Northrop, but other companies will get to compete to build new systems for the bombers.
Here’s the list of B-21 subcontractors and the locations where B-21 work will be carried out:
in East Hartford, Conn.
in Nashua, NH
in St. Louis, Mo.
in Sedro-Woolley, Wash.
in Clearfield, Utah and Dayton, Ohio
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
in Wichita, Kansas
Pratt Is Making B-21 Engines; Don’t Expect More Tech Info
By on March 07, 2016 at 6:30 PM
PENTAGON: Pratt and Whitney, as many assumed, will design and build the engines for the , leaving B-2 bomber engine maker out in the cold.
Air Fore Secretary ‘ announcement of Pratt’s role, as well as that of six other subcontractors working with prime , during the annual State of the Air Force press conference revealed virtually nothing more about the program. She made a point of noting the news was being released because the companies had completed their security protection plans for their work on the bomber. So I asked her which was more important to the disclosure of information about the bomber: maintaining strategic ambiguity so that would find it difficult to design a counter to the airplane, or the security measures being put in place.
Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh
James made it clear that keeping the bomber’s capabilities a secret from Russia and China was the driving force behind the service’s decision to classify the great majority of information about the program. Will we learn much about what the plane can do?
“I don’t think you’re going to know for years much more about the technology,” James said. The secretary contrasted the approach they’ve taken with the B-21 to , which was shrouded in complete secrecy until November 1988 when the world was allowed to see the front of the aircraft in Palmdale, Calif, at Air Force Plant 42.
“The B-2 remained in the shadows for too long, it remained classified — too many details remained classified too long,” James said. (While the secretary didn’t say so, the extreme secrecy made it easier for B-2 opponents to characterize it as a ). “In the case of the B-21, we are leaning forward, and we are trying to be more transparent, and we are going to continue to do so.”
10 percent of the nation’s B-2 bomber fleet — totaling just 20 aircraft — is in this photo.
Perhaps the most interesting tidbit came from Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunche, who followed James and Air Force Chief of Staff at the podium. I asked him if he could shed some light on what Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition, had meant last April when he said that . Bunche said he thought this referred to the plane’s open missions system architecture. It will allow the Air Force to “more cost effectively and in a more timely manner integrate new technologies into the bombers.” So the fleet of 100 probably won’t be built by anyone but Northrop, but other companies will get to compete to build new systems for the bombers.
Here’s the list of B-21 subcontractors and the locations where B-21 work will be carried out:
in East Hartford, Conn.
in Nashua, NH
in St. Louis, Mo.
in Sedro-Woolley, Wash.
in Clearfield, Utah and Dayton, Ohio
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
in Wichita, Kansas
Jura The idiot
General
another counter-strike:
Air Force Secretary Warns of Consequences if McCain Blocks B-21
source:
Scary Huh??? YAWN! AHHHHH! yeah lets all hear it for the "LITTLE, Really Sneaky Bomber", kinda a glorified cruise missle with seats and wings, oh boy??? this will suck the life outta the 6th gen for the next 20 years??? "Lawyer Proof??? don't bet on it???