A new bomber. Anyone think the AF procurment people can get this right?

[gmwalk]

From the article:

Mindful of its poor track record in developing bombers and still stinging from Gates’ public rebuke, the Air Force has vowed the Long-Range Strike Bomber will be different than previous models. “We are … cautious,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said. “Cautious not to repeat the painful experience of previous Air Force bomber programs.”

......

But there are good reasons to be very, very skeptical of the Air Force’s assurances. For in addition to possessing traditional attributes such as long range and heavy payload, the flying branch wants the Long-Range Strike Bomber to include an optional robotic mode. With the flip of a switch, the new plane should be able to transform from a normal manned aircraft to one that can be flown remotely by crews on the ground.

https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...bomber-gamble/

[Danger41]

The KC-X/F-35/many other procurement program SNAFU train is departing the station on its regularly scheduled route.

[guineapigfury]

Well, we have the inherent awesomeness of Big Blue Procurement combined with the epic helpfulness of congressional oversight. What could possibly go wrong?

[Ram]

Oh wow - best of both worlds!

[schokie]

With the flip of a switch, the new plane should be able to transform from a normal manned aircraft to one that can be flown remotely by crews on the ground.

"Chariot directs ... standby, the general says he'll fly this one himself."

[Fud]

A short answer to the question raised in this topic..."No". That is all.

[raimius]

No.

[brabus]

Not a chance in hell.

[Skitzo]

"Chariot directs ... standby, the general says he'll fly this one himself."

This already happens, or at least happened when I was at OTBH... I calculated that the lost hours I had between the WG/CC and the OG/CC from poaching flights...it directly attributed to being TAMIed... but that was many moons ago and very astute statement.

Oh yeah and no... B-52 will probably be the last standing manned bomber.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Skitzo

[RescueRandy]

"A new bomber. Anyone think the AF procurment people can get this right?"

Short answer.

-Nope.

In the last decade... the Air Force has already screwed up a procurement program for at least two fighters, a tanker (twice), a helicopter (three times) and a tiltrotor. What makes them think they'll do this any differently?

Edited March 31, 2012 by Hella-Copters

[Jaded]

Well, the Super Tucano buy went off without a hitch, right?

[BQZip01]

Well, the Super Tucano buy went off without a hitch, right?

Oh yeah, that one had no problems...

https://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-26/embraer-expects-u-dot-s-dot-to-rebid-light-attack-plane-within-weeks

[Dupe]

I'm confident we'll get the right bomber for the 2030+ environment. I'm also confident it will be well over cost and will start to be operational well beyond any current promises. We'll get it right...eventually.

[BQZip01]

I'm confident we'll get the right bomber for the 2030+ environment. I'm also confident it will be well over cost and will start to be operational well beyond any current promises. We'll get it right...eventually.

With the track record lately, I doubt it. They will LITERALLY fly the B-52s into the ground before they have a capable replacement

[Colostomy_Bag]

"With the flip of a switch, the new plane should be able to transform[...]"

Someone better find Shia Lebouf we're gonna need his help.

[SurelySerious]

"With the flip of a switch, the new plane should be able to transform[...]"

Someone better find Shia Lebouf Tyrese Gibson we're gonna need his help.

This will be Type 4 control... bring the rain.

[Disco_Nav963]

With the track record lately, I doubt it. They will LITERALLY fly the B-52s into the ground before they have a capable replacement

They'd better get serious about our sustainment issues then. Like making ex-Captain Dale Brown the program officer.

[daynightindicator]

we might as well buy the TU-160s that are still coming off the line (albeit 1 every 5 years or so). probably faster than the B-1 glass cockpit upgrade.

[BQZip01]

we might as well buy the TU-160s that are still coming off the line (albeit 1 every 5 years or so). probably faster than the B-1 glass cockpit upgrade.

B-1s are the next bombers on the chopping block (mark my words). The B-2s may outlast the B-52s, but I think the newest bomber will replace them before the B-52s

[daynightindicator]

B-1s are the next bombers on the chopping block (mark my words). The B-2s may outlast the B-52s, but I think the newest bomber will replace them before the B-52s

That's not the first time I've heard that, and it may well be true, but I really want to know what the AF is going to use to gap-fill if they retire the Bone. It's done the heavy lifting for over 10 years and most combatant CC's know how valuable it is, both in the current fight and other near-term likely conflicts. It's the lowest cost-per-DMPI platform we have and would be a pretty big loss to the CAF if it's retired before the next-gen bomber comes online.

Of course I'm slightly biased.

[BQZip01]

It's the lowest cost-per-DMPI platform we have and would be a pretty big loss to the CAF if it's retired before the next-gen bomber comes online.

Well, when you factor in miscap rates...

[Ram]

Well, when you factor in miscap rates...

Standing by for your PPT slides...

[Royal]

Literally impossible and here's why: https://itunes.apple....sts/id215717216

If you've got a commute or you need to kill some time in the AOR, download the 12th podcast on the link. Chuck Spinney is interviewed by George Kenney for about 1.5 hours. He clearly articulates how absurdly flawed our procurement process for all our weaponry is and why it won't change. He also highlights the issues we dealt with in the B-1. Interesting stuff.

[Mitch Weaver]

It's the lowest cost-per-DMPI platform we have

Source?

[Disco_Nav963]

Well, when you factor in miscap rates...

IDK... I've seen my share of Benny Hill ground ops in BUFF world, can't be too much better than BONE world. I wonder if a lot of the assumptions I hear from B-52 people about B-1 maintenance reliability are a little dated. It seems like they do well enough overseas with OCO money to pay for MX, as I'm sure we would if we were in that fight. My biggest fear with dropping the BONE would be the less quantifiable opportunity cost in terms of crew proficiency. BUFF dudes have to maintain CMR status in Nuke, Standoff and Direct Attack--by the nature of recent events and our new MAJCOM, in a world of diminishing O&M funds it isn't going to be Nuke training that suffers. On the conventional side there is a little jack of all trades, master of only a few going on.

(Only going to get worse if you believe what AFA was reporting about the force structure plans for after New START hits the BUFF... Every squadron will still be dual-DOCed, we'll just add some more capabilities to the conventional coded tails... Like maybe bring HARPOON back. On top of MALD coming online, even more for the crews to "master" with less flying hours and the same number of exercises/inspections.)

Having the BONE around keeps not only those jets in the fleet, but also more crews that can be not only current but proficient at the conventional skillsets that AFGSC considers to be of secondary importance.