I contend that stealth is too costly for fly everyday and train hard, then go to war type airplanes. I also believe that the code will be cracked soon and all the money being spent on stealth will be seen as a passing phase of the development of warplanes. Even saying that, David Axe has an eye opening article on B2 availability. It ain't good. Read it here.
That's what happens when your stealth is based on coatings, tape, putty, etc.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness that the F-35 was designed with the very harsh maritime environment in mind.
Even the F-22 if borrowing some if the F-35 goodness when it comes to LO coatings.
Throw in the upgrade & Economy of Scale issues the B-2 is having (and F-35 will not) and it's not good.
Hopefully they will apply these learned lessons to the NGB.
Well, the Pentagon might as well save money by cancelling F-35A and replace it with the NGB program. The NGB would deliver more bombs per dollar than the F-35A ever could.
Delete100 New bombers for $550 million a pop? Yeah, what a deal! Like that's going to happen.....
ReplyDeleteNICO,
DeleteIt is certainly doable if the NGB pushes no new technological ground, and if Pentagon chooses the contractor based on past project execution, because not all contractors are built the same, and simply recycles the technology the Pentagon already has. In that case, the NGB would simply be a large flying wing with engines and RAM skin from the F-35.
On a message board that I'm on, one of the members who knows quite a bit about a lot of stuff, and can't talk about most of it, said that the B-2 airframes probably have at max 5-10 years left on it. You might be seeing two bombers coming out: a bomb truck that is kinda of stealthy and kinda slow. The other is the high speed/high altitude one. Now if they get built is the question...
ReplyDeleteThere is no money for two bombers when not even the NGB's funding is secured, better to invest in new multi warhead cruise missiles. Should the US seek out partners, there are willing partner nations, mostly in Asia.
DeleteIts a failure in leadership, the two wars we had depleted a lot of resources. We spent over $20 billion on MRAPs - most of which we are scrapping locally for pennis on the dollar as the cost to ship them back home is astronomical. Just one of many accrued costs of war. Now we have a president who could care less about the health of the military, and even worse, according to his mantra its actually better if they suffer in the light of 'fairness' to all of those we have harmed and spited over the years.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 won't be any better. They've got the F-35C now at Eglin.
ReplyDeleteCommander Frederick Crecelius of VFA-101 says, "They've got about an hour and a half to get the airplane down, service it, refuel it, do whatever maintenance needs to be done, before the aircraft man up and they launch again. And then, wash, rinse, repeat, and that carrier cycle goes on for the better part of 12-14 hours."
That's all BS of course. Here's a news report on Col. Mark Fluker who was the F-35 maintenance chief at Eglin, last January. --
As commander of maintenance operations, Fluker oversees about 390 maintainers who work on a fleet of 22 F-35s, the largest in the world. [17 mechanics per plane]
Every flight requires eight to nine maintainers to work about five-and-a-half hours to prepare an F-35 for takeoff. [approx 50 manhours] That’s if nothing goes wrong.
Using several complicated computer systems, they check for discrepancies and make sure every system is working properly. They walk around the airplane to look for aberrations and leaks, check gauges and tire pressure, and replace parts or refill fluids.
Then the plane is service ready, but not yet set for takeoff. Another round of checks is conducted with the pilot in the cockpit.
As a final precaution, they roll the plane forward to check the underside of the tires.
“Then we go launch that airplane,” Fluker said.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/top-story/col-mark-fluker-to-step-down-as-f-35-maintenance-chief-1.80032
Apples and Oranges
DeleteCol. Fluker is talking about start-of-ops maintenance in an environment where ALIS is not fully functional and the training of the maintainers is still going on.
Cmdr. Crecelius is talking about turn-around time (for 2-3 missions) in an environment where ALIS is fully developed and the maintainers are fully trained.
In any event, MC rates are not valid since there is no valid operational testing of a complete-go-to-war jet, and even more important, no active-duty squadron (not a test squadron) with a few years of MX tribal knowledge under their belt with Block 3 software.
DeleteSome additional MX history re: USAF. Some years ago right after the B-1 got the Block D upgrade (which gave it JDAM ability) and thus became really useful, people were complaining about its' 51 percent mission capability (MC) rate. Truth be told? USAF was only funding MX colors of money to the tune of 49 percent of what was needed in SPO-level maintenance planning, The other 2 percent came from the dedication of the maintenance personnel .... and of course having a CAN-bird sitting around at the squadron level (CAN=cannibalization).
DeleteThe MC rates are perfectly valid as they are talking about the KPP.
DeleteBig problems with viewing B-2 MC Rates out of context.
ReplyDeletePrimary B-2 objective in peacetime is the SIOP mission. You maintain X number of aircraft ready for the SIOP at all times. Second objective is to meet flying schedule. This means for the B-2 you fly jets with LO gigs that make them NMC. The AIr Force will not risk flight schedule for a flight on Monday, if a LO gig is discovered on Thursday and can be repaired and cured under normal conditions by Friday, but MIGHT not. As a result, the AF will let that one plane (1/16th the combat-coded fleet) sit in an NMC condition for 5 days before they even think about fixing it. Chances are it's on the schedule again, so the hit will be deferred. Before the AHFM OML treatments were installed, the AF was in a habit of letting the next two birds going to depot stay NMC for LO gigs and fly the daylights out of them. This meant you had two birds in perpetual NMC status doing the MOST flying. Now factor in Phase Inspections, Hot Section Inspections, and Airman Dumba** putting his knee through the frangible cover for the rescue handle up by the windshield (or standing on the toilet lid) for the umpteenth time, and all the normal routine and time-compliance maintenance actions, and 'awaiting parts' NMC time on a small fleet-- You get what we call the "Tyranny of Small Numbers" working against you. The 'Tell' for MC rates is the Combat MC rates. The B-2 had the best bomber MC rates in-theater during OIF and OEF. (The BUFF was worst BTW) In peacetime, the MC rates are less important than 'availability rates' IE is the plane available when you want to fly it, and how long does it take to make a plane ready for action if the signal comes? The AF figured out a few years ago that any readiness above X amount was wasting money, but it takes a long time to change a 'perfect plane' culture. Axe is a defense voyeur who hasn't a clue about (fill in the blank).
Good response, although some of the acronyms are a bit mysterious.
DeleteYou're right. I forget there's a wider audience sometimes for these specialized topics, In close to order of appearance:
DeleteMC- Mission Capable
SIOP- Single Integrated Operating Plan: The nuclear warplan
NMC- Not Mission Capable
LO- Low Observable(s)
OML- Outer Mold Line. The external shape and surface of the aircraft
AHFM - Alternate (or 'Alternative') High Frequency Material(s), An project where an upgraded OML design and application processes were developed to reduce B-2 LO maintenance overhead by eliminating much of the early surface and gap treatments. (all I'm going to say as to purpose), AHFM OML treatment was applied to B-2s as they were cycled through the scheduled depot maintenance cycle a while back.
OIF -Operation Iraqi Freedom
OEF - Operation Enduring Freedom
BUFF - Big Ugly Fat F***er AKA the B-52