Why The B-52 Got $11.9 Billion

DoD Buzz ^ | 10/7/2010 | Colin Grant

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

When the Air Force announced an $11.9 billion sustainment contract to Boeing last week for the venerable and enduring B-52 eyebrows shot up along the Potomac, especially on Capitol Hill.

It appeared to provide roughly $127 million per airplane spread out over eight years, one hell of a lot of money for a plane that originally cost $9.3 million in 1955 (somewhere around $76 million per in current dollars). So we checked with the Air Force to get some details on just what was happening and why.

Congressional aides were flabbergasted by the contract, for which no money has been authorized and almost none obligated. When I shared the Air Force response with some congressional aides they were not happy since I got an answer more quickly than they did. One of them put it this way: “I can’t validate or comment yet on what you’ve been given, other than the fact that it’s “ops normal” on how the Pentagon chooses to interact and engage with the Hill.” (There were also a few choice words about how “dysfunctional” the legislative affairs office at the Pentagon is, but we won’t go into that.)

Here are the details on the B-52 deal. It’s an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The amount is “based on estimated costs derived from current activities and in-house estimates for future projected support requirements for B-52 modernization.” In an interesting approach, the Air Force gave the contract a “sufficient ceiling” for “programs critical to maintaining B-52 mission capability as funding is appropriated and authorized.” That

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Let’s see, the money requested for the F-22 fighter was just $200 million airplane, and that was denied–for 5 airplanes, the best fighters in the world, would’ve cost us just $1 billion–that was denied,

but $11.9 billion for the B-52 bomber is–apparently, just before election time, it’s no problem at all!

[kingpins10]

All this contract is, in my opinion, is appeasement for the DOD’s announcement of Airbus winning the contract to supply tankers instead of Boeing, again.

Wait for it...

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

So why this everyone think but the B-52 bomber, although a great airplane, needs, suddenly, without funding without reference to anything else or notice to everyone else, $11.9 billion?

I wonder why.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ping

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

So why does everyone think but the B-52 bomber, although a great airplane, needs, suddenly, without funding without reference to anything else, or notice to everyone else, $11.9 billion?

... I wonder why.

[StormEye]

"So why this everyone think but the B-52 bomber, although a great airplane, needs, suddenly, without funding without reference to anything else or notice to everyone else, $11.9 billion?

I wonder why."

I believe the purpose is to keep the US from modernizing it forces by wasting money on the B52. The B52, though still useful, needs to be replaced with something new. Obama and his communist Democrat Party gang wants to gut US defense capabilities. Obama and his Democrat Party hate the US military and they hate America --> you and me.

[JRios1968]

Would all this money go to Washington State? Or maybe to Illinois (since Boeing moved their HQ to Chicago...)

Follow the money, see the embattled Senators...you’ll get your answer...

[BocoLoco]

The question is not “why?”. The question is really “where?”.

Money spent on bombers means dropping bombs. Yes, it’s a Captain Obvious moment. Wait a few minutes for it to sink in...

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Whatever the cost the B-52’s need to be kept up,,,

I live close to Barksdale,AFB,,,

Home of the B-52,,,

We call it a “Louisiana Long Rifle” around here,,,

Any spot in the world in 12 hours,,,

Gulf War,,,First shot...

[ozzymandus]

30 years ago B-52s used to fly low lever training missions around here. Pretty unnerving to have a giant airplane suddenly pass over you so low you can see the crew looking out the windows. Pretty cool, too.

[MadJack]

Arc lights on North Waziristan.

[Vinnie]

What ever happened to the B1b Lancer?

[NTHockey]

>>What ever happened to the B1b Lancer?<<

The same thing that happened to the B-58 Hustler, the B-70 Valkyrie and any other design that tried to replace the B-52. They couldn’t do what the B-52 does.

[Little Ray]

Dunno. But I would start with “Whose State or District is this money being spent in, and what committees do they sit on?”

[Vince Ferrer]

All this contract is, in my opinion, is appeasement for the DOD’s announcement of Airbus winning the contract to supply tankers instead of Boeing, again.

Or maybe that whole contract will be shelved.

[TangoLimaSierra]

Arc lights on North Waziristan.

Wow, Arc lights. There's a flashback to a Det in NKP Thailand.

[Yo-Yo]

This contract has the potential to be worth $11.9 billion.

As the article points out, there isn't that much money allocated for the contract. It will be used on an as-needed basis as things crop up.

This will cover things like the discovery of corrosion in the main wing spars, and get them repaired without having to go through a two year bid process.

If no corrosion is found, for example, then no money will be spent.

[tanknetter]

Let’s see, the money requested for the F-22 fighter was just $200 million airplane, and that was denied–for 5 airplanes, the best fighters in the world, would’ve cost us just $1 billion–that was denied,

but $11.9 billion for the B-52 bomber is–apparently, just before election time, it’s no problem at all!

Apples and oranges. The $200 million for the F-22 was to build the thing to get it into service, and does not include the yearly lifecycle costs of maintaining one.

The ~$120 million for the B-52 is the high-end estimate of maintaining and upgrading one over 8 years and works out to $15 million per year.

The best figure I could find on annual operating costs for a single F-22 were from 2008 (over on defensetalk.com), and amounted to $3,190,454.72. That's for an aircraft that, while technologically more advanced than a B-52, is also substantially less complex.

Now, consider this ... the Commemorative Air Force's B-29 (World War II bomber named FIFI), just restored to flyable condition (after being grounded for four or five years waiting for new engines), costs $8000 an hour to operate. They plan to fly her about 200 hours a year (IIRC), so that works out to $1.6 million annual cost. That DOESN'T include all the volunteer labor that gets poured into her, btw, an in reality the annual operating costs for her are in excess of $2 million and possibly approaching $3 million (if you start figuring in the depreciation of the new engines, etc).

The B-52 is much more complex than a B-29, but still ancient technology from a current-day perspective. $15 million per year per aircraft, and this being an IDIQ contract there's a LOT of padding in there (maybe 1/3 of the amount), doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[tanknetter]

Big correction to my above. I was trying to make the point that there are lots of costs involved in maintaining, upgrading and operating an aircraft, not just the flyaway costs. I botched my delivery of that (that’ll teach me to post before my third cup of coffee in the morning!), and rereading my post it comes across as drawing an apples-apples comparison between operating costs, maintenance costs, upgrade costs etc. Which wasn’t my intent.