If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
T Tail question | Paul Austin | Military Aviation | 7 | September 23rd 03 06:05 PM |