# The B-3 Bomber



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2015)

Soon a contract will be let out for development. The contract is specifying $550 Million per copy. But of course history has shown that this will be far more than that. A couple billion per airframe is not out of the realms of possibilities.

B-3: The Inside Story of America's Next Bomber


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 2, 2015)

No doubt...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2015)

Will the B-3 mean its three billion per copy?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2015)

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. I still think the B-1 is a potent delivery platform and still wonder why it's faded to the back-burner.

I also find it interesting that all these companies of WWII heritage are still in the game: Pratt&Whitney, Northrup-Grumman, Boeing-Lockheed. Also interesting how Rockwell was such a rising star in the aerospace/military industry and it seemed to fade away after several successes. Last time I saw anything about Rockwell, it was on a jigsaw at the shop.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 3, 2015)

I believe Rockwell was sold to Boeing in the mid 90's


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 3, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Soon a contract will be let out for development. The contract is specifying $550 Million per copy. But of course history has shown that this will be far more than that. A couple billion per airframe is not out of the realms of possibilities.



Of course it will. The contract is set at $550m in 2010 dollars. Assuming 3% annual inflation (not unrealistic) by 2025 the cost will be over $850m.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2015)

gumbyk said:


> Of course it will. The contract is set at $550m in 2010 dollars. Assuming 3% annual inflation (not unrealistic) by 2025 the cost will be over $850m.



I bet that figure was set low too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2015)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe Rockwell was sold to Boeing in the mid 90's


Sad to see that Rockwell faded away, though...they built the B-1 and the Space Shuttle (among other military and civil types) and they looked like they would lead the way into the 21st century with space related vehicles.

Also considering that Rockwell had the legacy of North American Aviation behind them, it's hard to imagine them going by the wayside.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2015)

Rockwell was a great company. I never worked there but knew many people who did. Rockwell did not do well in securing long term contracts beyond the work they had with the B-1 and space shuttle. IMO their demise lied with the people who ran the place. Like other manufacturers, some of Rockwell managers didn't have the business sense or the backgrounds to move into other aviation ventures. After the last B-1s were delivered, Rockwell tried to do aircraft mods and commercial maintenance, they failed miserably. Many people who run manufacturers have no interest or passion out side "the factory." I've worked at manufacturers almost half of my 36 years in aviation and there were only a small percentage of engineers and managers who held A&P or pilot's licenses. Few attended airshows or had an "after-hours" passion about aviation. Some of the people at the top did not have a connection to their customer, what they operated or what products they were looking for. All this just my 2 cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Sep 9, 2015)

As Industry Awaits Bomber Contract, New Details Emerge


----------



## Token (Sep 10, 2015)

When I see terms like "optionally manned" used in the description of a proposed bomber I can't help but ask myself how close we are to reactivating the early 1950's 1st Pilotless Bomber Squadron.

T!


----------



## davparlr (Sep 18, 2015)

Back in the 90s, I think, Northrop offered an additional 20 B-2s at $500M a copy. It was obviously turned down.


----------



## GregP (Sep 23, 2015)

I'll be interested to see what the damed thing costs.

I'll oppose it wholeheartedly if I'm alive mostly due to cost, but it won't do any good. Congress will buy anything include call girls if they get a big enough kickback. Then they get caught convicted, go to a commandiered country-club called a "prison", play golf and make wood furniture for 2 -3 hours a day that gets thrown away until their sentence is completed, and then go on a speaking circuit about it at $200,000 per speech.

And you wonder why we're in the situation we're in?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

davparlr said:


> Back in the 90s, I think, Northrop offered an additional 20 B-2s at $500M a copy. It was obviously turned down.



They did - IIRC there wasn't going to be as much "stealth" emphasis with the aircraft proposed, basically a replacement for the B-1 or B-52.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Rockwell was a great company. I never worked there but knew many people who did. Rockwell did not do well in securing long term contracts beyond the work they had with the B-1 and space shuttle. IMO their demise lied with the people who ran the place. Like other manufacturers, some of Rockwell managers didn't have the business sense or the backgrounds to move into other aviation ventures. After the last B-1s were delivered, Rockwell tried to do aircraft mods and commercial maintenance, they failed miserably. Many people who run manufacturers have no interest or passion out side "the factory." I've worked at manufacturers almost half of my 36 years in aviation and there were only a small percentage of engineers and managers who held A&P or pilot's licenses. Few attended airshows or had an "after-hours" passion about aviation. Some of the people at the top did not have a connection to their customer, what they operated or what products they were looking for. All this just my 2 cents.



To them, work was just another paycheck then I guess...
Sad to hear....always wondered what 'happened' to the B-1.



Token said:


> When I see terms like "optionally manned" used in the description of a proposed bomber I can't help but ask myself how close we are to reactivating the early 1950's 1st Pilotless Bomber Squadron.
> 
> T!



Maybe it'll soon be like reading those magazines of the 50's, what it'll be like living in 2000, I'm surprised that we don't have bases on the moon yet!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> always wondered what 'happened' to the B-1.



The B-1 is alive and well.

B-1B Lancer - United States Nuclear Forces

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-1 is alive and well.
> 
> B-1B Lancer - United States Nuclear Forces



I guess this is what's driving the move to new aircraft:


> The limiting factor for B-1�s service life is the wing lower surface. At 15,200 hours, based on continued low level usage, the wing�s lower skin will need replacement. Current usage rates, operational procedures, and mishap attrition will place the inventory below the requirement of 89 aircraft in 2018, while the service life attrition will impact around 2038.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They did - IIRC there wasn't going to be as much "stealth" emphasis with the aircraft proposed, basically a replacement for the B-1 or B-52.



Hmmm, I was working the program then but, while I did not work the proposal, I saw no effort to downsize the B-2 performance in any manner. I would have expected a pretty intensive costing effort. Redesigning the B-2 would have increased overhead cost in hardware, drawings, etc. All of these were complete for the baseline. I suspect it was strictly a stamp out, I think that would be the cheapest option, and most effective, option.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2015)

davparlr said:


> Hmmm, I was working the program then but, while I did not work the proposal, I saw no effort to downsize the B-2 performance in any manner. I would have expected a pretty intensive costing effort. Redesigning the B-2 would have increased overhead cost in hardware, drawings, etc. All of these were complete for the baseline. I suspect it was strictly a stamp out, I think that would be the cheapest option, and most effective, option.



IIRC some of the newspapers (Antelope Valley Press) reported that it would have been more of a "metal" aircraft - as we know that statements was just plain silly based on the way their aircraft was built and assembled. 

I found this small blurb from the LA Times...

Northrop Offers to Add 40 B-2s to Air Force - latimes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 22, 2015)

The is a 14 year old article. Sadly they didn't take them up on it.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IIRC some of the newspapers (Antelope Valley Press) reported that it would have been more of a "metal" aircraft - as we know that statements was just plain silly based on the way their aircraft was built and assembled.



Can you imagine the engineering, drawings, jigs, stress testing, etc, that would be required?  If they wanted to save money, and improve performance, they would have not made the change to include the terrain following requirements. It will probably never be used. This couldn't be undone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 23, 2015)

gumbyk said:


> I guess this is what's driving the move to new aircraft:



I guess they have to still train for it (the low-level high speed flight) but surely these days that is reduced to the absolute minimum?
They have the B2 (which surely has many upgrades ahead of it yet) for the more 'sophisticated' part of any credible future scenario (although quite how anyone actually uses these nuclear forces to any credible end resulting in anyone's survival is beyond me).
It would seem fairly obvious that what they 'need' is a bomb-truck (like the B52), but I bet it gets inflated into something neither quite one thing nor the other costing several magnitudes more that it ought.

Always liked the B1 (A B), great looking planes the noise when the 4 burners are lit they're climbing fast is incredible, similarly the Russian Tu160 Blackjack is another great looker (but as, on the surface at least, being a scaled up B1 why wouldn't it?).


----------



## GregP (Jan 17, 2016)

They didn't buy the "extra" B-2's but it looks like they may be considering buying some more F-15s and F-18s, IF the news articles have a shred of truth in them. If they do, I wonder if the avionics will be "upgraded" as well.

An F-18 or F-15 with F22 or later F-35 avionics would be formidable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2016)

F-35 Too Expensive: US Air Force Might Buy 72 New F-15 or F-16 Fighter Jets

Un-named sources, not an inkling of truth to this at the present time. It's almost laughable to think that the F-15 production line could be reopened at a cost savings.


----------

