Posted on 09/18/2015 12:53:19 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
The US Air Force is getting ready to announce the winner of a multibillion-dollar contract to build a new generation of long-distance bombers that will replace aging, Cold War machines.
Dubbed the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) program, the Air Force will in the coming weeks award the mega-contract to either Northrop Grumman or a team made up of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
The program envisions the creation of between 80 and 100 strategic bombers to replace America's fleet of B-52s and B-1s. Almost everything about it is classified, save for the cost of each plane, which was set at $550 million per unit in 2010 dollars.
Experts and industry watchers say the bomber will be a very different animal from those it replaces.
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.businessinsider.com ...
Anyone who thinks it will come in on budget is only kidding themselves.
Or as Candidate Carson (aka Sleepy) says, we “should discuss and analyze it before acting, since it was evident that going into Afghanistan after 911 was a mistake at the time.”
We need people like that leading us? Don’t we already have one?
It is a Littoral Combat ship with wings to cut costs.
Well, considering that it took more than twenty five years of models, designs, concepts and prototypes to come up with the C-17 and V 22 Osprey. Neither of which have impressed me yet.
I’ll won’t hold my breath!
So were the B-2, C-17 and V-22 on First Roll Out and in the “Bang For Your Buck1” departments.
Too much time, energy and money wasted on technologies that don’t fit any of today’s missions!
“It occurred in part because of human error,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said Monday. “And in part because of process error, meaning a couple of our people got the figures wrong and the process of coordination was not fully carried out in this case.”
Those who erred have been “counseled,” James said. “The key thing is there has been no change in those cost figures.”
In other words, that recent $41.7 billion estimate is rock solid, at least for now. As they say of the nuclear weapons the new bomber is being designed to carry: close enough.
$550,000 for a bomber? I pretty much know without thinking very long, that isn’t right...................
As of January 2013, 78 of the original 744 B-52 aircraft were operational in the U.S. Air Force. (All are B-52H models.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress
The USAF had 66 B-1Bs in service in September 2012, split between four squadrons organized into two Bomb Wings: the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess AFB, Texas, and the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#B-1B_program
A total of 20 B-2s remain in service with the United States Air Force, which plans to operate the B-2 until 2058.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit
78+66+20 = 164 strategic bombers of three different generations in service.
An 80-100 unit acquisition program represents a 48-60% replacement of the existing force.
If you just count B-52s and B-1Bs, the in service numbers drop to 144 and the replacement percentages go up to between 55-70%.
If we use the 14 aircraft per B-1B squadron as a nominal per squadron target, 80-100 aircraft equips 5-7 squadrons. To maintain operational capability equivalent to four B-1B squadrons, you can go as low as 66 aircraft. Strategic plans, the need for operational rotation of units, and maintenance/overhaul/rebuild planning establish the requirement for multiple squadrons. There also have to be a certain number of aircraft in storage and available for R&D purposes.
ASSUMING the B-52 component is just going to be retired without replacement and that the B-2 bomber capability replacement will be the subject of another program, the 80 aircraft purchase is probably the lower number needed to maintain USAF strategic bomber capability equivalent to the existing B-1B fleet.
The USAF, if it can keep acquisition costs contained, will probably get 80 aircraft. Anything above that will be a bonus.
“... if it can keep acquisition costs contained ...”
That’s a very BIG IF ... and more than likely will become an aerial ‘jack of all trades’ like the F-35.
And remember, the cost of feeding the homeless will increase in direct proportion to the decrease in size of the AF and its budget ... and thus, the ever-shrinking number of new aircraft with an ever-increasing cost per unit. Ipso facto, the 8-10 number remains a distinct possibility.
Sorry, but the title is incorrect.
The correct title should read:
“The US is getting ready to unveil an artist’s rendition of its next super bomber.”
There will be no metal on the ramp at this unveiling just a mountain of glossy advertising pamphlets supported by a whole lot of PowerPoint presentations. The whole thing is, at best, a massive dream with little to no anchor in reality.
I attended some of the initial meetings on this platform eight years ago and found the general approved presentations an excellent comedy routine. The other attendees were shocked to discover that contractor from AFSOC had three Arc Lite tours plus three years in SAC under his belt when most of them had no combat experience in either the BUFF or BONE.
The AF got the B-1 and B-2 bombers to replace the obsolete B-52, but then still use the B-52 and have never had to use the B-1/2’s. (not I said had to use, not that they were not used)
As a ground pounder I would like to see the AF put real effort into the Close Air Support Mission instead of AF strategic Business as usual.
I would go for long range precision strike munitions, but the bomber seems like a boondoggle to me.
Clinton was the first to de-militarize the AF by breaking its major Commands.
Screwing and disarming SAC to the point of being useless.
Repurposing TAC from offense to defense and gutting several fighter wings.
Destroying MAC and it Rapid Response Force to the point of humanitarian aid.
Shorter: Whenever a Democrat occupied the White House. My AF Active or Reserve trash hauling or refueling units immediately pulled a Mission Capable heavy into a Phase Maintenance hangar. And that heavy became our “Cann (Cannibalization) bird. Putting extra stress and pressure on the squadron for no useful purpose.
Black-world prototypes from teams led by LockMart and Northrop-Grumman have been flying for a while now, allegedly.
There have been some good articles on The Aviationist about this, including decent (for civillian telephoto cameras) pictures of what are believed to be the prototypes operating in daylight.
The cost could really be that low, depending on how far the USAF tries to push the avionics, engine, stealth and sensor technology.
If the USAF sticks to a brand new airframe with a LOT of room for growth, and loads it up with current engines and tech from the B-2, F-22 and F-35 programs (plus other black world programs we can only speculate about), I can see a $550 million per flyaway cost.
Then the USAF just plans to upgrade the thing quickly once new tech becomes avail. Which distributes the full lifecycle costs. And limits sticker shock.
The B-1 and B-2 may have been intended to replace the B-52, but they were never bought in the numbers necessary to do so.
Carter cancelled the B-1A because of the B-2. The B-1B was put in by Reagan as an interim measure to span the gap between earlier B-52s (the D models) leaving service and the B-2 entering service.
The end of the Cold War killed full B-2 production, meaning that the B-52 needed to be kept around longer.
I am unclear as to why you are responding to me.
I joined the Army under Carter and survived BJ Clinton, then had to deal with Obama’s disdain for the military, impacting all services, not just the Air Force.
My Army specialty is Air Defense and I spent a lot of time with you zoomies. The last system I supported has over 150 confirmed combat surface to air kills (and the Big PC Army hates the system, kind of like the AF A-10).
So from my experience it would be much more viable to invest in smart precision munitions rather than aircraft trying to get through a layered Smart Air Defense System. If there is not a layered Air Defense System then the existing bombers should be more than capable.
And how many bombers are really needed? In modern warfare do we need a one for one replacement of cold war era bombers?
The USA lacks the political will (balls) to go for unconditional surrender or to fight to win (with either party in control). Until that changes IMHO there is no need for a new bomber.
The program envisions the creation of between 80 and 100 strategic bombers to replace America’s fleet of B-52s and B-1s. Almost everything about it is classified, save for the cost of each plane, which was set at $550 million per unit in 2010 dollars.
...
It will be $2 billion per copy by the time it’s ready to fly. Got to keep the cronies and lobbyists happy.
...
Compare the acquisition crimes of today to the A-10 or the Cobra helicopter. Two "back of the envelope" designs that are still going strong. And then there is the B52:
On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen and Vaughn Blumenthal presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber. Joined by Ed Wells, Boeing vice president of engineering, the engineers worked that night in the Hotel Van Cleve in Dayton, Ohio, redesigning Boeing's proposal as a four-engine turbojet bomber. On Friday, Colonel Warden looked over the information and asked for a better design. Returning to the hotel, the Boeing team was joined by Bob Withington and Maynard Pennell, two top Boeing engineers who were in town on other business.[37]Heck, the B52 required a trip to the hobby shop. Today that would translate to a trillion dollar cost overrun with money raining from the sky for those well connected. And guess what? the result will still be disappointing.By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially a new airplane. The new design (464-49) built upon the basic layout of the B-47 Stratojet with 35 degree swept wings, eight engines paired in four underwing pods, and bicycle landing gear with wingtip outrigger wheels.[38] A notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot the main landing gear up to 20° from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings.[39] After a trip to a hobby shop for supplies, Schairer set to work building a model. The rest of the team focused on weight and performance data. Wells, who was also a skilled artist, completed the aircraft drawings. On Sunday, a stenographer was hired to type a clean copy of the proposal. On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch scale model.[37] The aircraft was projected to exceed all design specifications.[40]
Back in the late 1950s I was an engineer at Wright Field's Armament Laboratory. We were developing a new bombing-navigation system for the B-52. General Lemay claimed he couldn't spare any of his new B-52s for testing the bomb-nav system. So we tested them on a B-47. Unfortunately the B-47 had a lower ceiling than the B-52. When the system was eventually installed in B-52s and taken to altitudes higher than we could test in a B-47, the electronics arced over because of the lower air pressure (lower breakdown voltage). We eventually got that fixed, but it impressed on me the need to test in actual conditions. I insisted on that for the rest of my career.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.