Last edited:
US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber
- Thread starter Greyman
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have a name: Massive Cost Overrun
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
We should start a pool to see how long it takes for the word "behind schedule" to pop up
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
We should start a pool to see how long it takes for the word "behind schedule" to pop up
And "it doesn't work, it's too slow, it's bomb load it too small, it's already obsolete, it's not maneuverable, it breaks all the time, it's not that stealthy, the pilot's can't see out of it, it's uncomfortable to fly in, the ejection seats kill women pilots..."
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And: "it lost to an F-16 in a dogfight"!
...nobody has released an accurate kit of it in 1/32 scale, the complaints go on and on...
Token
Senior Airman
Meh...not sure i like the designation, B-21. But it goes along with all the other "21" themed things that the military has jumped on, trying to signify the "twenty first century" aspect. I wonder how many Air Force folks will be shivering every time they see this aircraft, thinking of the PTSD inducing bureaucracy and castrations of TAMI-21?
T!
T!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Still wondering why the B-3 designation was dropped...
Not dropped... changed... 2+1=3!
Now wait for someone to come up with a conspiracy theory about that!
Token
Senior Airman
The B-3 designation did not get dropped, that is a different aircraft. The B-3, and others, are part of the secret force that the military does not want the public to know about. As proven by the designators there are at least 19 secret bomber types in use or planned to be in use. They likely fly from the same bases as the Aurora.
T!
T!
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Powered by hypersonic engines using the Earth's gravity reverse engineered from alien craft...........................
buffnut453
Captain
Hmmm...not sure this will go down too well with the negative-laden press. I'm just waiting for the first headline to read "B-21 - Looks Just Like a B-2" - looks the same, must work the same so why are we paying so much for this shiny new thing? All this and it can't manoeuvre with an F-16. Bound to be a failure! 
soulezoo
Senior Airman
I was waiting for the "can't maneuver with a Spitfire" remark!
buffnut453
Captain
Actually, there was a typo in the press release. The official name isn't B-21 it's B-2.1.
Sorry...couldn't resist.
Sorry...couldn't resist.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
DeJa vu all over again. I was on the proposal team for the B-2 and then became manager for Avionics Controls and Displays, responsible for hardware development, operational logic and symbology, software requirements, and software development. Very heady days. We were doing exciting things and couldn't tell anyone what we were doing or where we were going, including my wife. The program in general was the best of times and the worst of times. In the beginning it was great, coming up with control ideas, generating hardware requirements, building lab equipment, simulating the crew station with displays, entertaining constant flow of big shots, including Barry Goldwater, who I missed due to being out. The best of times. Then came making the daggone thing, getting suppliers to meet schedule and perfromance, solving interface problems, but most of all supporting first flight. It was costing one million dollars a day for every day we delayed first flight. Luckily, my system never affected first flight but the pressure was still there. The worst of times.
Comments on the reasons for cost and schedule growth
1. Unrealistic schedule led to non-existent systems engineering. On go ahead, we had to release specs and initiate procurement in order to meet first flight schedule. With subsystem contract go-head, system engineering stops and make-work engineering starts.
2. Poor program planning led to non support of procedures such as release cycle. I, only a first level manager, personally signed off on multi-million dollar contracts because there was nobody else to do it.
3. Contract selection, both prime and subcontractor, weighs both cost and schedule heavily forcing contractors to optimize both in order to get the contract. They propose the perfect program, WHICH NEVER OCCURS! And, cost models can be manipulated and/or mismanaged.
4. Little contract discipline. We had both firm fixed price and cost plus contracts. Both could, and often did, result in cost and schedule impacts. No one tended to object to Program creep. The User customer wanted their ideas incorporated, the Prime was too happy to implement to get more money, so too the subcontractors. Congressional sources were also happy in more work for their constituents. And the Program Office, charged with maintaining Program performance, was not strong enough to counter the User community.
There were many others but I felt these were the biggies early in the program.
Military programs have a designed in system to overrun cost and delay schedule.
Comments on the reasons for cost and schedule growth
1. Unrealistic schedule led to non-existent systems engineering. On go ahead, we had to release specs and initiate procurement in order to meet first flight schedule. With subsystem contract go-head, system engineering stops and make-work engineering starts.
2. Poor program planning led to non support of procedures such as release cycle. I, only a first level manager, personally signed off on multi-million dollar contracts because there was nobody else to do it.
3. Contract selection, both prime and subcontractor, weighs both cost and schedule heavily forcing contractors to optimize both in order to get the contract. They propose the perfect program, WHICH NEVER OCCURS! And, cost models can be manipulated and/or mismanaged.
4. Little contract discipline. We had both firm fixed price and cost plus contracts. Both could, and often did, result in cost and schedule impacts. No one tended to object to Program creep. The User customer wanted their ideas incorporated, the Prime was too happy to implement to get more money, so too the subcontractors. Congressional sources were also happy in more work for their constituents. And the Program Office, charged with maintaining Program performance, was not strong enough to counter the User community.
There were many others but I felt these were the biggies early in the program.
Military programs have a designed in system to overrun cost and delay schedule.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And this was/ is the scenario for the F-35 that few understand, but then again is this the norm for almost every government contract these days. It seems the end user has folks (who I call parasites) who do nothing but create solutions for problems that don't exist and in the end justify their GS-XX positions. The "MIC" doesn't exist at some mahogany corporate office(s), it lives within the pentagon, perpetuated by people living off our tax dollars!
(stepping off soapbox)
- Thread starter
- #17
parsifal
Colonel
I cant get my head around this....let me get this straight. B2 and B1 to be scrapped and B-52 to be kept? How is that logical?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
There hasn't been any bombing against a country with a significanr air defense network for 40 years. The B-52 is capacious and cheap to run. The countries with capable air defense networks all have nukes.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
Well isn't this dandy.
Speaking only to my time working with B-52's and B-1's side by side in actions over Afghanistan, the B-1 dropped far more tonnage with fewer airframes available. The B-52 still got more love though. While the MC rates of both were fairly miserable, the B-1 was just slightly better. I am not shilling for the bone, it's just that I don't see keeping the -52 and burying the bone (pun intended). I can certainly understand the cost side of things which are true, but operational requirements, of which the B-1 has some significant advantages in theater, seem to be ignored. That said, I am damn glad I was never a hydro troop on a bone. One of the worst jobs in the AF!
Speaking only to my time working with B-52's and B-1's side by side in actions over Afghanistan, the B-1 dropped far more tonnage with fewer airframes available. The B-52 still got more love though. While the MC rates of both were fairly miserable, the B-1 was just slightly better. I am not shilling for the bone, it's just that I don't see keeping the -52 and burying the bone (pun intended). I can certainly understand the cost side of things which are true, but operational requirements, of which the B-1 has some significant advantages in theater, seem to be ignored. That said, I am damn glad I was never a hydro troop on a bone. One of the worst jobs in the AF!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
