Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It is fortunate the pilot is safe.
And now the media and detractors will have a field day with this...
And now the media and detractors will have a field day with this...
michaelmaltby
Colonel
downward pricing ...
F-35 price falls below $90M for first time in new deal
F-35 price falls below $90M for first time in new deal
Still 2x the cost of a Harrier adjusted for inflation. It's a shame our acquisition system has turned into a monster.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Technology isn't cheap.
The B-29 was one of the most expensive aircraft for it's time, costing nearly $640,000 per unit, but the next step in technology, the B-36 eclipsed that with it's several million per unit price tag.
Then came the B-52, who's unit cost of roughly $14 million each would have bought you 56 B-17s just ten years earlier...
The B-29 was one of the most expensive aircraft for it's time, costing nearly $640,000 per unit, but the next step in technology, the B-36 eclipsed that with it's several million per unit price tag.
Then came the B-52, who's unit cost of roughly $14 million each would have bought you 56 B-17s just ten years earlier...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Really?
Meanwhile Russia and China both are developing new weapon platforms and the U.S. should take it's defense budget and divert it to build new schools?
And since when did the Federal government build schools when each school district comes under the jurisdiction of their respective county within that particular state.
I would love to buy a brand new car at 1990's pricing, but reality dictates otherwise...
Meanwhile Russia and China both are developing new weapon platforms and the U.S. should take it's defense budget and divert it to build new schools?
And since when did the Federal government build schools when each school district comes under the jurisdiction of their respective county within that particular state.
I would love to buy a brand new car at 1990's pricing, but reality dictates otherwise...
I adjusted for inflation.
A lot of the problem is in procurement regulations and the DFARS. I also happily acknowledge the airplane is much more than an AV-8B
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Agree. I took the numbers you provided for the B52 ,14 million, and factored in in inflation(which is actually currency devaluation i.e.prices in aggregate don't go up its that the currency looses its value over time due to increase in the money supply at a greater rate than increases in goods and services) at 3.5%( the long term average in the US )and today that B52 would cost about 163 mllion if my couculations are right( always a big if) so that F35 at under 90 mill sounds like a bargan to me and all the more so when you factor in the dramatic advances in technology.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Something also to take into account is the life of the current weapon systems. The B-17 was obsolete 12 years as a first world front line bomber, whereas the B-52 has been going strong for 63 years.
Token
Senior Airman
Sure, the B17 was obsolete by 1946. However its replacements were already in hand by then. There was no need to breath life into the old aircraft because the replacements were planned almost from the day the new aircraft were actually operational. And the B17 timing was such that by the time it was obsolete the day of the reciprocating engine heavy bomber was just about done. The B-24, B-29, B-50, and B-36 carried on until jet bombers like the B-47 and B-52 were ready. The plans to build the B-36 go back to before the US was actually in WW II, and the letter of intent to build the B-36 was in mid 1943, or a bit over half way through the B17 operational life cycle, and shortly after the first flight of the B-29.
The B-52 is an anomaly, not only the length of service of the aircraft but also in what has been expected out of it over the years. Although several replacements for the B-52 were discussed or proposed at one time or another, none ever got any real traction, and so the B-52 has had to continue, or the tasking would not be supportable.
It was not originally designed for the service life it has delivered, but through various service life extension programs it has lasted far beyond its original design goals. I can find no service hour specification for the original design, however it was common at the time to design for 5000 - 10000 flight hours with a 2.0 factor. After the latest batch of updates the calculated life is now on the order of 35000 flight hours.
Out of the 744 B-52 airframes produced we have what, 76 in service today? The B-52H was the last variant produced, and the last 52H airframe rolled out in 1962. The B-52H is the only model used today. However, little of the original aircraft remains. The wings have been modified, the aircraft reskinned, the motors replaced, the avionics replaced, the weapons systems replaced, the ECM systems changed at least 3 times, the combat load expanded, then expanded again, then again, etc, etc. None of these kinds of things were foreseen when delivered.
The B-52B as flown in 1956 shares little with the B-52H as flown today.
And then there is the whole way the B-52 has been used. Asymmetric warfare has been the name of the game for the last 30'ish years.
The last time the B-52 faced an air defense system that was even remotely modern or complete was over Vietnam, in 1973 and before. The B-52 losses in Vietnam were pretty significant, and although thought of as well defended air space it was a second rate air defense system compared to say the Russians at the time. The Vietnamese had the SA-2 at the time the Russians had the SA-3 and -5. The early model Spoon Rests and Flat Faces used in Vietnam were in reserve / 2nd string use in Russia.
Since that time the B-52 has faced nothing more advanced than Vietnam was, and even then only after the airspace was no longer contested. In a modern, symmetrical, fight the B-52 just could not survive in hot air space. It has lasted this long, and been useful to the US as a bomb truck since the late 1980's because it has been able to be used in uncontested environments. If a heavy lift bomber was needed in numbers in contested airspace the B-52 would have been replaced by now.
T!
- Thread starter
- #1,412
- Thread starter
- #1,413
That's because there hasn't been a peer to peer conflict since 1945.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Tu-95 has been in service for the same length of time...That's because there hasn't been a peer to peer conflict since 1945.
And in the event of a peer to peer the TU-95 and the H6 will suffer as well.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The mission profile has changed considerably since these ships were on the drawing board.
The last great hurrah of Strategic bombing would have been in the 70's with Linebacker, etc.
The last great hurrah of Strategic bombing would have been in the 70's with Linebacker, etc.
Regrettably, I suspect there will be another great hurrah, but to send the B-52/TU-95/H6 into contested airspace will be a replay of the Polish cavalry against the panzers.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Polish Cavalry never charged German armor.
Metaphorically speaking.
How about Dutch B-10's against Japanese Zeros?
How about Taffy 3 against the IJN Combined Fleet?
The point is, using any of the aforementioned bombers in a peer to peer battle is suicide.
