B-2 question

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Billy Preston wrote:

I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.


I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.

But aren't those numbers supposed to be coming down quite a bit courtesy of
the new joint covering process? ISTR reading recently that a big part of the
maintenance load for the B-2 was the excessive manhours and materiel needs
for covering all of the joints and fasteners, and the new method is supposed
to radically reduce this?

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Kevin Brooks wrote:

I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.

But aren't those numbers supposed to be coming down quite a bit courtesy of
the new joint covering process?

I'm not sure if the numbers I saw were before or after the improved LO
maintenance procedures.

ISTR reading recently that a big part of the
maintenance load for the B-2 was the excessive manhours and materiel needs
for covering all of the joints and fasteners, and the new method is supposed
to radically reduce this?

Very true, but I've never seen anyone boast about this saving money, just how
it will increase FMC rates and turn around jets more easily.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Leslie Swartz wrote:

But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is calculated-
and then it isn't so shocking anymore.

Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1 and
B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that shocked
me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with the
B-52. Damn we're a bargain!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Leslie Swartz wrote:

But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is
calculated-
and then it isn't so shocking anymore.

Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1
and
B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that
shocked
me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with
the
B-52. Damn we're a bargain!


To make it an apples-and-apples comparison, of course, one needs to look
at the mission. There's no question the BUFF is a bargain for ARC LIGHT
(not LINEBACKER II) or the equivalent raids against Iraqis in 1991. In
both cases, however, there was either no air defense, or it had been
suppressed.

When one starts factoring in the SEAD, CAP, EW, etc., aircraft that
might be required to fight through a thick modern defense, the
individual aircraft flight hour cost isn't the only metric.

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is
calculated-
and then it isn't so shocking anymore.

Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1
and
B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that
shocked
me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with
the
B-52. Damn we're a bargain!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Update me. The figure that kept getting beat into my head, back in my RBS
days and every time we missed an aircraft, was eight thousand dollars an
hour. Now don't ask how the figure was determined. It just the figure
which was preached over and over. So what is the current figure?

David

David wrote:

Update me. The figure that kept getting beat into my head, back in my RBS
days and every time we missed an aircraft, was eight thousand dollars an
hour.

Hmm, I'll have to find the data because I thought BUFFs were the only bomber in
single digit thousands of dollars/hour???


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"hobo" wrote

The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
to build zero. No more will be built because they are too expensive to
build and operate.

Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
bankrupt the Soviets policy. 21 was the number that wouldn't
bankrupt us.

Having worked on the B-2A for 10 years now, I can say it fulfilled
its designed roll, but technology has caught-up with other bombers.

The B-2 was the only plane that could drop the big bridge in Serbia.
It did that with 4 JDAM's hitting the bridge at the same instant. The
B-1 and B-52 didn't have them. Now that they do, the supremacy
of the B-2 is merely stealth. With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
an option we can do without. Even C-17's can perform the role of
most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
sometimes outside the theater.

The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.

"Billy Preston" wrote in message
news:KMtTc.984$ni.679@okepread01...
snip

With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
an option we can do without.

But we ain't there yet, and won't be for at least a few more years (it has
been hoped to get a baseline UCAV to the USAF *starting* around 2007, but
that may in the end be a bit optimistic). Until such time that we have a
credible, reliable UCAV capability that can match the striking power of the
B-2, I'd just as soon keep that club in my bag--and right now, there is NO
realistic plan to acheive that (being as the B-2 can heft the really big
stuff like the GAM-36 (or is it 37?) that is WAY outside the carrying
capability of the UCAV's under consideration). If you have to go deep, into
denied airspace, against a reasonably hardened target, your UCAV might as
well sit on the tarmac, while the B-2 does the job. Then there is the issue
of range...the UCAV's under development in the near term are not exactly
really long haulers...

Even C-17's can perform the role of
most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
sometimes outside the theater.

Not really. To nitpick, the term you are grasping for there is "FLOT"
(Forward Line Own Troops), not "FEBA" (Forward Edge Battle Area); things can
still get pretty hairy on our side of the FEBA (which can be used to
describe the *limit* of major ground force operations, not necessarily where
they have already secured).


The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.

Why don't we wait on that move until after the systems that would replace
their unique capabilities are actually in service, as opposed to being
"vaporware" as they are now?

Brooks

hobo wrote:

The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
to build zero.

Defence contractors need an assurance that they'll get loadsa money for
their efforts.

For the government, they need to see some hardware in return.


Graham

Billy Preston wrote:

The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.

As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.

It worked.

Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?


Graham