willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) (07/15/89)
From: willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) With what looks like the impending rejection of the B-2 by Congress, what would happen to Northrop if no order is placed. How much of its own money has Northrop invested? With the failure of the F-20 program (political, not technical) and if the B-2 fails, will Northrop go out of business? I'd hate to see Congress force a defense contractor out of business by making promises and backing out at the last moment. This probably doesn't belong in sci.military so please reply by E-mail only to willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU. Thanks. :-} [mod.note: I disagree, obviously. At least, the impact upon Northrop, and therefore, military research in general, is quite appropriate here. - Bill ]
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/17/89)
From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) > With what looks like the impending rejection of the B-2 by Congress, >what would happen to Northrop if no order is placed. How much of its own money >has Northrop invested? With the failure of the F-20 program (political, not >technical) and if the B-2 fails, will Northrop go out of business? I'd hate >to see Congress force a defense contractor out of business by making promises >and backing out at the last moment. I have seen figures in the NY Times that say that Northrop will be forced to fire 30,000 employees, and then file for Chapter 11. This explains some of the reluctance of the Replican members of Congress to cancel the program. As far as Congress driving them out of business by backing out at the last minute, this is a load of nonsense. Northrop did it to themselves. Carter cancelled the program despite *HEAVY* lobbying by Northrop. Reagan re-instated the program. I don't see that this is a weapons system that Congress ever *really* wanted. It is more an executive branch and Pentagon brass weapon that was forced down their throats. Technology Review has had several articles on the B-2 in the past 6 months or so. The most recent issue (I think) had an article on the B-2 and stealth technology. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
wlm@uunet.UU.NET (William L. Moran Jr.) (07/17/89)
From: localhost!wlm@uunet.UU.NET (William L. Moran Jr.) In article <8331@cbnews.ATT.COM> willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov) writes: > > > With what looks like the impending rejection of the B-2 by Congress, >what would happen to Northrop if no order is placed. How much of its own money >has Northrop invested? With the failure of the F-20 program (political, not >technical) and if the B-2 fails, will Northrop go out of business? I'd hate >to see Congress force a defense contractor out of business by making promises >and backing out at the last moment. I saw in the paper today that the committee had advised that the Senate approve the purchase of the B2; this assumes that it flies (maybe today), and that the cost not including development is less than something on the order of 300 million apiece. From what I have read, this may be incorrect, I do not think that Northrop is risking anything on the B2. The development costs were paid by DoD. This is also supposed to be why the F20 wasn't a big deal; they had already gotten several billion for B2 development. I also notice that the same committee advised killing the F14D as per DoD recommendations. Bill Moran -- arpa: moran-william@cs.yale.edu or wlm@ibm.com uucp: uunet!bywater!acheron!archet!wlm or decvax!yale!moran-william ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- War is always a serious means for a serious object. C. von Clausewitz
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/27/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
In article <8345@cbnews.ATT.COM>, jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
:
:
: From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross)
:
: willey@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU (Adm. Pavel Chekov)
:> With what looks like the impending rejection of the B-2 by Congress,
:>what would happen to Northrop if no order is placed. How much of its own money
:
: I have seen figures in the NY Times that say that Northrop will be forced to
: fire 30,000 employees, and then file for Chapter 11.
:
: This explains some of the reluctance of the Replican members of Congress to
: cancel the program.
Democrats don't mind putting 30,000+ people out of work? (Sorry, I couldn't
help mysel'.)
: As far as Congress driving them out of business by backing out at the last
: minute, this is a load of nonsense. Northrop did it to themselves. Carter
: cancelled the program despite *HEAVY* lobbying by Northrop. Reagan re-instated
: the program. I don't see that this is a weapons system that Congress ever
: *really* wanted. It is more an executive branch and Pentagon brass weapon
: that was forced down their throats.
Go back to your sources: The B-1 system was the one cancelled by the Carter
administration and later reinstated. Part of the reason for the concellation
was the idea that the B-2 was coming down the pipeline and its advanced
technology would make up for the B-1. Carter was most definately a fan of
the stealth bomber.osmigo@cs.utexas.edu (07/28/89)
From: ut-emx!osmigo@cs.utexas.edu () [re: problems with Northrop] There was a report on the Northrop/B2 situation on the ABC News tonight. Some of the issues are: 1. Cost. Staggering national deficit, homeless people rotting in the streets, whole forests getting wiped out by acid rain, etc. etc. etc. and here's this exotic techno-toy costing billions and billions and billions and BILLIONS... 2. Petroiska is causing a diminished political incentive to invest this kind of money. The way things are going, it's highly, highly unlikely that the B2, if produced, will ever be used. 3. Northrop apparently hasn't been the epitome of industrial reliability. They are currently under criminal investigation for suspicious billing practices. The main gripe against Northrop is that *every single time* they have contracted for a project: a. They have had serious cost overruns. b. They have failed to meet deadlines. c. The product didn't work. Doesn't look good for Northrop. I must say, issue #1 above is starting to have some credibility in my book. Putting an advanced radar in our fighters, or improving tank armor or air-to-air missles would be one thing, but THIS........ Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu