User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13750
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:58 pm

Interesting article from AvWeek: Can USAF Buy A $550 Million Bomber?

The latest approach is for the USAF to limit itself to $550M/frame:

Quote:

Despite the record and potential pitfalls, Air Force officials say they are determined to deliver at or under the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s cost target for the new bomber, which is an average procurement unit price of $550 million; this includes development, the purchases and associated construction divided by the total number of units.

Interesting how this is all DoD folks (SecDef, etc). What makes them think that the money for a new bomber program is there to begin with? It kind of reminds me of how my friend's teenage daughter proposes spending his money for him.

Interesting view indeed:

Quote:
Thomas Christie, a former Pentagon chief tester, says: “It is the same game all over again. . . . You grossly underestimate the cost and schedule in order to get going. You oversell and [yet] it proceeds.” He says the Air Force, which is the most technology oriented of the U.S. military services, will be unable to resist overloading the program with excessive requirements. “This system that we are talking about will be the only game in town. . . . There will be an incentive for every laboratory and every subcontractor to gild a little bit. This is the only game where they will get to put their little piece of technology.” He suggests the price will be as high as $2-3 billion per copy.

It's the same thing we're seeing with F-35. You start out with a clear mandate everyone says they agree too, and then you turn your back for a minute and before you know it you have something so expensive that the nation can't afford to buy it.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:00 pm

It goes without saying that whatever cost is agreed upon will be left in the dust years before the first prototype flies. We will probably end up with a fleet of ~40 $2 or 3 billion aircraft. They will be more stealthy than a B-2, and still able to carry a GBU-57 (or similar). They will also be subsonic, manned, and shorter ranged than the B-2.

I hope the USAF is smart enough to realize they must replace the B-52 with a similar, simple airplane. A tube-and-wing airframe with COTS engines, a big bomb bay, underwing pylons for more weapons, lots of fuel, and enough internal space for all kinds of added boxes and gizmos.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13750
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:41 pm

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 1):
They will also be subsonic, manned, and shorter ranged than the B-2.

It was interesting how the article said the B-2 required to support low level bombing - has it ever been used for that?

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 1):
I hope the USAF is smart enough to realize they must replace the B-52 with a similar, simple airplane. A tube-and-wing airframe with COTS engines, a big bomb bay, underwing pylons for more weapons, lots of fuel, and enough internal space for all kinds of added boxes and gizmos.

So you are predicting two new bombers, one stealth and one non-stealth?
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
So you are predicting two new bombers, one stealth and one non-stealth?



Yes, due to cost (both acquisition and operating). A 'cheap', non-stealth bomber boring holes in the sky over Afghanistan is much preferred to racking up hours on the billion dollar wonder-bomber. And you know, over what will probably be a 75+ year lifespan for that 'cheap' bomber, we'll end up in at least one more Afghanistan. Of course, the "yang" to the cheap "ying" is a ruinously expensive gold-plated flying wing. Effective to be sure, but with too many zeros on the price tag.

Time-frame wise, I wonder which one is needed first? Is this new bomber needed as B-1's exit the fleet? Has the B-2 started to loose it's technological edge? It's not exactly a spring chicken anymore, you know... On the flip side, how long can the BUFF's soldier on in the bomb-truck roll?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
It was interesting how the article said the B-2 required to support low level bombing - has it ever been used for that?



Good question! And would the new bomber need that? Another bit I found is from the Wiki page on the "Next-Generation Bomber":

Quote:
Ability to "survive daylight raids in heavily defended enemy territory"



There are some neat tricks for fooling the good ol' Mark 1 Eyeball, but I would guess they're not cheap. Unfortunately the best way to avoid visual detection, small size, does not lend itself well to carrying a 30,000lb GBU-57.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:47 pm

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 1):
I hope the USAF is smart enough to realize they must replace the B-52 with a similar, simple airplane. A tube-and-wing airframe with COTS engines, a big bomb bay, underwing pylons for more weapons, lots of fuel, and enough internal space for all kinds of added boxes and gizmos.

If they can put a bomb bay on commercial wide body, then it would probably meet noted criteria.

Boeing put a bomb bay in the 737 for P-8A but the bay is limited in size and capabilities. Maybe they can do the same but on a 767 and work out some sort of modular launch or auto-feed launch system for bombs.

For a semi-commercial frame you could look at the blended wing body. The price would only come down for this configuration if Boeing can get a "Commercial" use out of it.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:19 am

Well I am cool with seeing B-1bs and B-52Hs for years to come.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:49 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
For a semi-commercial frame you could look at the blended wing body. The price would only come down for this configuration if Boeing can get a "Commercial" use out of it.

This would be the smartest thing Boeing could do, kinda like the dash 80, common design with both purposes in mind. Common basic design, wings, engines, avionics... optimized airframe.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:43 am

Anybody remember Boeings proposed 747 ALCM truck? A 747-8 variant could loiter over a hot zone for days taking out targets on request, sort of like airborne artillery.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:08 am

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It's the same thing we're seeing with F-35

The JSF was the politicians' fantasy from the start. You want a plane that can be a fighter, attack plane, land vertically, incorporate state of the art electronics, do it all with a low radar cross section, and be far cheaper than the F-22? Only a room full of yes men and bureaucrats could seriously believe that.

The whole paradigm was dumb. What good does stealth do when you're doing close air support? Anyone that wants to shoot at you can see you with their own two eyes.

The entire thing just didn't make a whole lot of sense, just like it didn't when they F-111 was developed. It's too late in the game now to fix it, but maybe this time we'll learn the lesson.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
So you are predicting two new bombers, one stealth and one non-stealth?

Low-observable is the future, but not the whole future. Sure the stealth bombers get the Discovery Channel specials, but radar people haven't been sitting still either. A B-2 that somehow gets discovered is a sitting duck. I think that in the future the USAF would be much better served attempting to develop something more like the B-1 with more advanced low-observable features.

I would advocated a three-pronged strategic bombing approach: develop the FB-22 at a fairly low cost as a F-117 successor to strike smaller, high value targets in the early days of a war, a large, stealthy strategic bomber capable of long range, low level penetration at high speed similar in performance to the B-1 but with a smaller RCS, and a cheap, subsonic B-52 replacement using as many off the shelf components as possible to bombard mostly defenseless enemies.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:56 am

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 1):
I hope the USAF is smart enough to realize they must replace the B-52 with a similar, simple airplane. A tube-and-wing airframe with COTS engines, a big bomb bay, underwing pylons for more weapons, lots of fuel, and enough internal space for all kinds of added boxes and gizmos.

Which a 767-200 variant with a bomb instead of fuel tanks, the rest identical to the KC767, would do for an unbeatable price, with a lot of support and spare parts on many USAF bases.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13750
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:58 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 7):
Anybody remember Boeings proposed 747 ALCM truck? A 747-8 variant could loiter over a hot zone for days taking out targets on request, sort of like airborne artillery.

These days with GPS guided dumb bombs, all you'd need to do is point the bomb in the right direction and drop it from high enough so it can glide right in.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
skysurfer
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:37 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:07 pm

Speaking of bombers and bomb bays, check out this little gem of a B-52's bomb bay:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ea_1334001244

Cheers

Stu
In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:46 pm

Maybe a 777F would be a good bomber?
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:28 pm

Structurally I think converting an existing low wing airframe is a non-starter. You'd have to massively overhaul the wing root structure in order to put a bomb bay on the CG, since I'm assuming you want a useful capacity in there it will probably extend a fair way forward of the cg and occupy all or almost all of the wing root real estate. Then you have the keel beams etc that would need to be replaced with other structure up the sides of the fuselage in order to carry the necessary loads.

IMO if you insist on taking an existing frame you would have an easier time of it taking a mid wing or shoulder wing airframe where the belly structure around the CG is far easier to customise. Perhaps something along the lines of a C17 - yes I know the ground clearance is pathetic and you'd need to develop a new means of loading bombs (through a tail ramp and into the bomb bay from the top?), but this may be a far easier bridge to cross than making a viable wing root join through a bomb bay.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:02 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):
Maybe a 777F would be a good bomber?




A T-7 can not do everything.    
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:31 am

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Can USAF Buy A $550 Million Bomber?

Can pigs fly?   

They should have all potential manufacturer submit ready to produce designs and have a flyoff. Winner takes all.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7648
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:02 am

I think they could equate any cost overrun to a voltage of an electrical current attached to executives' private parts. If it is 1 million dollars, 1 volt AC. 100 million, 100 volts, and so on. That's an example of a contract that is designed to get things done without any misunderstandings.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:11 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 16):

If it is 1 million dollars, 1 volt AC. 100 million, 100 volts, and so on.

Could you link amperage to program delays also to get a comprehensive electric shock lethality requirements matrix?

[Edited 2012-04-11 00:12:33]
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:26 pm

Quoting GST (Reply 13):
Structurally I think converting an existing low wing airframe is a non-starter. You'd have to massively overhaul the wing root structure in order to put a bomb bay on the CG,

Your CG concern it very real indeed. But it can be done. The P-8A bomb bay is aft of the wheel well. You will need two bomb bays, one in front of the wing and one aft to balance out the CG.

Remember, the B-17 was a low wing bomber.

Quoting GST (Reply 13):
Perhaps something along the lines of a C17 - yes

This would also be a very viable option. Specially if you make the whole back side non pressurized and add additional cross frames to regain the structural lost with any bomb bay.

Really, if you can figure a way to drop the bomb vertically, it would make structural modification to a commercial airliner much easier.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:27 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
Remember, the B-17 was a low wing bomber.

A low wing purpose built bomber - the equivalent would be the B-1B today...

Designing in the structures from the start, verses redesigning existing structures are two very very different things.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:51 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Designing in the structures from the start, verses redesigning existing structures are two very very different things.

True, but we are all much smarter now with CAD/CAM and FEM and all  

Besides, we are all looking at lower design/manufacturing cost, not more efficient structures.   

From structural efficiency wise, I would venture that the C-17 would be an easier mod.
From an overall efficiency stand point, a 767 mod would probably perform better.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:11 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):

Your CG concern it very real indeed. But it can be done. The P-8A bomb bay is aft of the wheel well. You will need two bomb bays, one in front of the wing and one aft to balance out the CG.

The P-8A bomb bay is tiny compared to what you would want in an aircraft to carry out the B-52's job of pulverising targets without significant air defences, so yes, two bomb bays is the only viable option...or is it an option at all?

Current support missions usually drop one bomb at a time onto targets, which has potential to put you straight into an adverse CG position, at best forcing you into a draggy trim state. Of course anyone who has read Fire Strike 7/9 will know of the scheme to drop a B-1B's entire bomb load in order to take out an entire grid square, somewhere in which was a Taliban mortar, but this strike was denied on cost grounds and is hardly normal. I would imagine the USAF would want to be able to equip the aircraft with most of the armaments equivalent airfames currently carry or are intended to carry, large cruise missiles and the new super-large bunker buster bomb could certainly not be put in bays significantly offset from the CG unless you are always intending to drop them in twos, and even then...what if one fails to release?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 20):

True, but we are all much smarter now with CAD/CAM and FEM and all

Besides, we are all looking at lower design/manufacturing cost, not more efficient structures.

It is still an extremely significant task to redesign existing structures, don't risk underestimating this, even with all the computerised tools we can now bring to the mix.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 20):

From structural efficiency wise, I would venture that the C-17 would be an easier mod.
From an overall efficiency stand point, a 767 mod would probably perform better.

Agreed.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:22 pm

Quoting GST (Reply 21):
The P-8A bomb bay is tiny compared to what you would want in an aircraft to carry out the B-52's

Yes, part of the P-8 problem is because the upper deck is chock full of mission equipment. If they clear the upper deck of equipment, make it unpressurized from front bulk head of the front bomb bay all the way back (similar to the dreamlifter), then you will have less pressure loads on your structure and you may be able to cut a large hole in the floor beams to accommodate a larger bomb bay (assuming you can re-route some system around the cut-out).

Quoting GST (Reply 21):
I would imagine the USAF would want to be able to equip the aircraft with most of the armaments equivalent airfames currently carry or are intended to carry, large cruise missiles and the new super-large bunker buster bomb

I'm thinking bunker busters and large cruise missile are first strike missions and should be done with dedicated stealth bombers. Although, the P-8 can carry tomahawks on he wings, so in theory, you can get larger cruise missiles on a modified 767 wing.

Then again, during the Vietnam war, they unloaded the daisy cutter from the back of a transport . . . So you want to "carpet bomb" you can have a pallet (smart pallet?) full of bombs rolling off the back of a C-17. Once detached, the parachute guided pallet can float down in a controlled pattern and unload the dumb bomb in the pattern you want.

Back to work . . . too much brain storming . . .

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13750
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:54 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
The JSF was the politicians' fantasy from the start. You want a plane that can be a fighter, attack plane, land vertically, incorporate state of the art electronics, do it all with a low radar cross section, and be far cheaper than the F-22? Only a room full of yes men and bureaucrats could seriously believe that.

Yet we had two different defense contractors (actually four to start) swear up and down that they could do it on a given schedule and budget.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 15):
They should have all potential manufacturer submit ready to produce designs and have a flyoff. Winner takes all.

That IS what we did for F-35, and see where that got us.

LM's schedule and budget were engineered not to deliver a product but to get the taxpayers in deep enough so they couldn't/wouldn't pull out.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 22):
So you want to "carpet bomb" you can have a pallet (smart pallet?) full of bombs rolling off the back of a C-17. Once detached, the parachute guided pallet can float down in a controlled pattern and unload the dumb bomb in the pattern you want.

Back to work . . . too much brain storming . . .

LOL! I was already thinking down that path before you typed that in, but then I considered GST's postings about CG shift and gave myself a headache. What would the CG do as a bunker buster rolled down the deck of the C-17? Member in abstentia Dougloid sure would be proud of the main deck taking the load, though!

That rolling bunker buster took a problem that was mostly statics and turned it into mostly dynamics. I was an EE major who went on to CompSci so I had to take a semester each of statics and dynamics, and let me tell you dynamics was not my forte, so my headache is pretty bad! I got my revenge when the MechE students had to take a few EE courses.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:27 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
That IS what we did for F-35, and see where that got us.

What the Air force did (or so I'm told) was to selected a more risky design in the F-35 with potential for better performance. So now they are living with the risk.

Don't know how the F-32 would have fared during the development and production stages, but my bet would be that Boeing would have done a better job keeping the cost down. But then again, if Boeing won that contract they would not have all those spare composite Engineers to help out with the 787 when that program ran in to problems. Such are the ways of Silver Lining.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
What would the CG do as a bunker buster rolled down the deck of the C-17?

Shrug . . . I guess a pallet full of bombs is much heavier than a pallet full of MRE's. I would be curious to know the weight of the largest pallet dropped from a C-17 and from that calculate the number of bombs you can then put on that pallet without affecting current operating procedure.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:27 pm

There are a few, 'virtually free' airframes readily available for quick and cheap prototyping.....  http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_C-27J_Cockpit_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_C-27J_Cockpit_lg.jpg

Take the C-27Js the Air Force does not want, put bomb rack in cargo hold, modify rear door ramp for quick bomb release, install pylons and strengthen wings, mount 20mm guns, chaff and flare dispensers, add a bit of armor and stealth coating for self protection, provide refueling probe to extend range, and presto.....a bomber for another undenied territory campaign.....10 ton payload, 315 knot speed, 1,000 nm range, 30,000' ceiling.   

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-27J_JCA_First_Flight_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co.../AIR_C-27J_JCA_First_Flight_lg.jpg

Just pray to the Gods that the first wave had eliminated all opposition.   

Jet engines could be swapped for the Rolls AE-2100-D2As, but would require a tanker to drag this mini-bomber all the way.....and cause the program costs to soar to high heavens.....thus taking us back full-circle.   


[Edited 2012-04-12 10:18:18]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
What the Air force did (or so I'm told) was to selected a more risky design in the F-35 with potential for better performance. So now they are living with the risk.

The proposed Boeing design was much further from the flown prototype than was Lockheed's.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:00 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 26):
The proposed Boeing design was much further from the flown prototype than was Lockheed's.

If you are talking about final configuration vs the F-32 version what was flown, then you may be right. But there were many technologies that were slated for the production frames that would have made manufacturing easier and cheaper.

Although people say that the F-35 would still out fly the F-32. I don't think that would have changed.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 13750
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
Don't know how the F-32 would have fared during the development and production stages, but my bet would be that Boeing would have done a better job keeping the cost down.

Who knows? I know Boeing is doing a bang-up job on the P-8, but we don't have to look too far to find programs like FIA and JTRS where Boeing has screwed the pooch in a multi-billion dollar way.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:57 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
FIA and JTRS where Boeing has screwed the pooch in a multi-billion dollar way.

   Boeing knows how do do airplanes. They don't know how to do Electronics.   And they definitely can't do ground combat vehicles (FCS).

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:37 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 27):
If you are talking about final configuration vs the F-32 version what was flown, then you may be right.

Not least, the X-32 prototypes were tailless deltas - the proposed production aircraft had a more conventional wing shape and a conventional tail, and actually looked a bit like an F-16 from a front/above view. So the production aircraft would have been much further removed from the prototype in aerodynamics and stealth than the X-35 was.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:21 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 30):

Not least, the X-32 prototypes were tailless deltas - the proposed production aircraft had a more conventional wing shape and a conventional tail, and actually looked a bit like an F-16 from a front/above view.

Yeah, I think that they found some maneuvering deficiency with the tailless prototypes and decided to add the tail back in.
But from a structures stand point, they had pretty good approach in building a cost effective wing structure using some technology they inherited from the North American merger. And I think they did a pole model to verify the stealth characteristic . . . am not sure if the model was of the production configuration though.

So back to point. With their commercial production strategy and composite experience with both Military and Commercial planes, Boeing should have a good chance to keep the price of the airframe of a new bomber down. It's all the electronics and mission system items that would be at risk for cost escalation.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 31):
So back to point. With their commercial production strategy and composite experience with both Military and Commercial planes, Boeing should have a good chance to keep the price of the airframe of a new bomber down.

So long as they don't put the 787 team on it...   
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber?

Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 32):
So long as they don't put the 787 team on it...

LOL, yeah, I was referring to the working level . . . can't vouch for management . . .

Since this would come under Global Strike, program management would probably comes through St. Louis . . .

Don't know if that is any better.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 14 guests