Wikipedia

Talk:Northrop Grumman/Archive 2

< Talk:Northrop Grumman
Latest comment: 5 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress

Aerospace products

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The F-14 was removed from the Aerospace products section. Isn't it still used by Iran? I looked through the links in the F-14 Tomcat article but the latest info I found at says Iran uses it was from like 2002. Thanks. -Fnlayson 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think that was supposed to be an exhaustive list, and Iran is only one nation. I have no problem if it goes back in, tho. - BillCJ 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should have been removed from the Aerospace products sections. Iran will not receive support from NG because there is an embargo on Iran from the United States. NG being a US entity cannot provide "tech support" to Iran for any of the F-14's they currently maintain. ViriiK 08:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I was mainly wondering if the F-14 was still in use by Iran. -Fnlayson 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
They are in their own ways but they're not supported by NG in any way whatsoever to maintain these planes. ViriiK 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I caught the support thing the first time. -Fnlayson 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You want to tell me how Northrop Grumman maintains these planes for the Iranian Military? ViriiK 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What does support have to do with it? You're adding your own criteria. It is simply a list of products. Older, out-of-production products get little to no manufacturer support anyway, e.g. KC-135. -Fnlayson 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
To be totally accurate, most of the air products listed in that paragraph were not produced by Northrop Grumman at all. For example, F-5s and T-38s have not been made in years. The whole paragraph should be reworked to reflect this, which would eliminate any mention of the Iranian F-14s among others. The pre-merger Northrop Corporation article has little information on products at all, so some of this could be placed there.
  • Yea that's largely true. ViriiK is right, support and other things are part of being an Aerospace manufacturer. The F-14 and others should be in an Discontinued list maybe further down the article like in the BCA article. -Fnlayson 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the F-14 should be in the aerospace products section, and in a discontinued section. I mean, they used to make it, so it counts, and they don't make it anymore. That's my argument. Also, they ended up in their military when Iran bought some just before the government was thrown over. There's even video footage of the Shah and the President passing in front of them. - An Anonymous User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.24.14 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of employees

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The intro paragraph states the company has 200,000 employees, but the stats box states 123,600. Since the FAQ on their web site states "More than 122,000 as of 3/02/07" I'm revising the intro paragraph. I'm also removing "The presence of their much-valued sub-contractors and global vendors account for an additional 10-15% of an already formidable workforce" as I can't find a source for that, and the statements "much-valued" and "formidable workforce" sound like marketing, not encyclopedia content. CJKreklow 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Good change. Much more neutral and encyclopedic now. -Fnlayson 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Scandals

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the navy one, I blame the Northrop part(Grumman has had long and good relationship with the U.S. Navy--LandonJaeger (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)).

KC-X pullout?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the KC-X article there is an indication, dated March 2010, that Northrop Grumman/EADS has pulled out of the bidding process for the KC-X contract. This would seem to be a major setback for NG as the contract was said to be worth US$ 35 billion for 179 tankers. It would improve the article to include this fact -- if there are reliable citations. --TGC55 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Only Northrop Grumman has pulled out so far. EADS may still bid of their own or with another partner. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

War profit, continued

(see Talk:Northrop Grumman/Archive 1#War profit section)

I am a former employee of Northrop Grumman. I worked there for 6 years. My husband is a former employee for Northrop Grumman. He worked there for 32 years. My father in law was a former employee for Northrop Grumman. He worked there for over 40 years. There is no such thing as WAR PROFITEERING by Northrop Grumman or ANY defense contractors. Northrop Grumman LOSES money when we go to war. Northrop Grumman makes money on research and development. There is little to no profit in replacing and fixing existing weapons. When we are at war, like the Gulf war and the current war, Northrop Grumman experiences LARGE LAYOFFS due to the lack of funding and contracts from the government. The government funds that would go to Northrop Grumman in peace time are diverted to the military for things like supplies. Northrop Grumman had a large layoff last year (2010 and will be having another one this year in 2011). Bonuses and raises for existing employees are almost virtually zero for existing employees in times of war. And almost all of the facts listed to support such a claim are based on emotion and not factual. ---Missy — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishGirl123 (talk • contribs) 21:01, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Logicon

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently Logicon, Inc. is briefly mentioned under Northrup-Grumman. I suggest that it is worthy of an article of its own. Peter Flass (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Major Northrop Grumman facilities

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would improve the article if the major facilities of NG were included in the article, especially aerospace manufacturing facilities.--TGC55 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

An what about Newport News, which was NG at least until 2011 and there still must be solid bonds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_News_Shipbuilding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.108.79 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Annual revenues

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trying to figure out some information on Grumman's revenues. Originally this article said in 2010 revenue was 34 billion, and cited Grumman's website here. However, when I went to the site, it seems to suggest that revenue for 2010 was actually 28.143 billion. On the other hand, businessweek agrees with the 34 billion number for 2010, so I'm a bit confused. Maybe I'm mis-reading Northrop Grumman's website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.216.179 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Northrop-Grumman news at Area 51

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

From articles that link to Aviation Week:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_06_2013_p0-643783.xml&p=1

The news breaking in India was within the last hour; most others, within the last 24 hrs. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A picture of a stealth drone my be hard to find; I really like the B-2 picture at the top of the article herein. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"BDN" is a typo

Should be "The BDM Corporation"

Long-range bomber contract for the U.S. Air Force

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This will be big for Northrop Grumman 

Headline-1: BUSINESS: Northrop Grumman Wins Long-Range Bomber Deal --

Contract value estimated at $80 billion for 100 jets

QUOTE: "The Pentagon on Tuesday awarded Northrop Grumman Corp. a $21.4 billion initial contract to build new long-range bombers for the U.S. Air Force in what has been the most fiercely fought weapons contest in more than a decade." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: US Air Force's new stealth bomber: What you need to know

QUOTE: "There’s a new stealth bomber joining the U.S. Air Force and it will be one incredible aircraft. In war, this strike aircraft can fly deep into hostile areas – undetected – where it can unleash serious munitions against an enemy. The Air Force announced Tuesday that it chose Northrop Grumman to build the next generation long-range strike bomber. The Air Force has not yet chosen a name for the aircraft, which folks are referring to as “B-3”.

The new strike bomber will start deploying in about a decade. The aircraft is expected to replace the nearly four-decades old B-1 as well as the legendary B-52 Stratofortress that has served the country for about six decades.

Related: Marine Corps' new helicopter completes its first flight

This new bomber will be fully loaded with lots of technologies and next-gen innovations that are cloaked in secrecy. It may even withstand nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) and still operate.

What will it be like?

The military has kept details of the wish list for its new bomber classified.

During the Super Bowl, Northrop Grumman’s ad featured a new aircraft shrouded in mystery – literally cloaked at one point. Some industry experts believe this was a representation of Northrop’s vision for the new mysterious bomber." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This is a great article, pointing out the need for secrecy, and Northrop-Grumman's good job of keeping the 'B-3' under wraps, (cf. Superbowl ad). FYI for additional future editing. To be an editor here, you will want to watch the 6min video. It is excellent!

  • The LRS Bomber details do not belong in the corporation's article. It has a separate article at Long Range Strike Bomber. Also, be aware that talk pages are for improving articles and are not a forum. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing (Northrop Grumman laser system)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

New contract: "Northrop Grumman sees a day when American Navy destroyers will pack laser cannons." 

Headline-1: Don't Look Now, But the Navy's Laser Arms Race Just Got Hotter

QUOTE: "Two months ago, Northrop Grumman won a Navy contract to build a new laser cannon..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. 

Another two references on the Northrop Grumman laser cannon for military application:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2015/12/05/northrop-grumman-invents-laser-tank.html
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/01/02/northrop-grumman-builds-biggest-laser-gun-ever.html

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman cements deal for $9.2B purchase of Orbital ATK

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.defensenews.com/industry/2017/09/18/northrop-grumman-approaching-deal-for-75b-purchase-of-orbital-atk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northrop Grumman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Orbital ATK which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northrop_Grumman/Archive_2&oldid=886388141"