It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B-21 and KC-46 facing possible funding issues

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Both the B-21 and KC-46 are facing very real dangers to the programs if a continuing resolution is passed, instead of a new appropriations bill. Under a CR, the KC-46 buy would be reduced to 12 aircraft, instead of the required 15, which would affect the Required Assets Available date. If that happens, there is a very real possibility that the contract will have to be renegotiated at a much higher cost to the Air Force. The Milestone C decision is expected later this month.

As for the B-21, if a CR is passed, R&D funding is capped at 2016 levels instead of doubling in 2017 as planned. This will delay the program, an unknown amount of time, and will push back entry into service by several years at least.

aviationweek.com...

www.dodbuzz.com...




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So I am guessing these decisions are made by politicians and not top brass?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
All is not lost. There are options.

The Air Force could start a Go Fund Me account. With all the Congressmen that claim to support the troops, they could have lots of money in no time.

Maybe the Air Force could start something like Air Uber. Tired of high prices and crappy service from commercial airlines? Tired of waiting for hours to be groped by the TSA? Let an Air Force jet fly you to your destination non-stop for half the cost.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Part of the b21's issues us that image sells. They shoulda gone with lockheeds bird instead. Heard she had some lines on her.

Also b21 doesnt exactly have a good ring to it. LRSB sounds modern, fresh and high tech.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Of course. The Pentagon submits their requests, and the amount that they think they need, then Congress cuts things out, occasionally adds things, and makes changes. But under a Continuing Resolution, funding is capped, which means they have to prioritize, and procurement gets hammered.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58Only 15 KC46`s aounds low,we had 60 KC 10`s last time we bought tankers.If the 135s are being phased out it seems like there should be more of the 46`s in the pipeline.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ridgerunner

That's the low rate production for next year. They're getting a total of 179 by the end of the purchase in 2028. They'll crank up production within a couple of years and they'll buy a lot more of them with each buy.
edit on 8/12/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

B-21 and KC-46 are yet again the Pentagon asking a poor man for billion, do I have remind you guys how broke America is. The B-21 Bomber is likely to be as expensive a program as the JSF program with ancost pre plane of about five billion which would be my guess. You ask why so expensive, each plNe will have the equivalent of a super computer on board along with a first or second generation AI. So complicated it will use a unique computer hardware just process the staggering data flow. It's engines will be a custom revolutionary design. This just beginning. Does this bomber would like another boondoggle for plane we don't need. Don't say the Russians or the Chinese will field anything like the B-2 stealth bomber any time this half the century because your dreaming.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Harru42

And you're wrong. The EMD portion of the contract is cost plus, but once production starts, it's fixed price through LRIP 5, and negotiable after that. That means Northrop will be responsible for overruns.

Whether Russia or China will fly a stealth bomber in the next 50 years is irrelevant. We're already seeing huge cost increases in keeping our bomber fleet flying, as well as our youngest aircraft getting into their 30s. You don't wait until the threat is on the horizon to start replacing 60 year old bombers. The B-52 will be flying until 2040, which isn't long after the B-21 will reach FOC. The B-1 won't be far behind the B-52 at reaching the end of its life. Should we wait until we only have old B-2s flying before replacing them?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Harru42
What you want guy ? living in a world of Russia and China will dominate the world or may be ISIS ? Open your eyes weapon are not a waste of money it's to protect our life and our lifestyle so Yes it's expensive building B-21 but what is the price of your life and the price of the life of good people ?? Our life at all cost much more , no problem for me to give money for the people who protect us everyday.


edit on 12-8-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
tthTa reply to: Zaphod58 That `s more like it,still a little less than the 135`s and 10`s we had when I was in,but the fighters and bombers capabilities now mean we can do more with fewer aircraft,


edit on 12-8-2016 by ridgerunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ridgerunner

They still have another unclassified program to replace the KC-10, and a classified LO tanker competition to go. The initial plan called for KC-X (the KC-46) to procure 179 aircraft, KC-Y to drop between 2020 and 2024, and acquire 15 aircraft a year through 2036, and then KC-Z to acquire 9 aircraft a year through 2048.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

B21 has a ring to it, especially if you know the story behind Bat 21. The largest rescue operation in USAF history and a fairly good movie if you find the time. Thats why I hope they name it the Bat as sort of a tribute to all those lost in that Op.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Other than for rescue missions (yet), the drone programs seems to be thriving , and that has to have some effect on how the defense funds are doled out to existing projects. Like others, I see this as the future... certainly not for all missions, but for many of what we spend big bucks on presently.

A circular linked list of defense projects and contractors, and you squeeze more in there... something has to squeeze out.

BTW: The linked list can expand or contract. It is bound by the defense budget, which in itself, is certainly shrinking... It would be interesting to know what is black ops, and not really in the "budget".
edit on 12-8-2016 by charlyv because: content

edit on 12-8-2016 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

You're going to see them take over the ISR mission, with a limited strike role.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charlyv

You're going to see them take over the ISR mission, with a limited strike role.


Cool. And this is just the beginning...



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I say as too whether China and Russia field the same level of tech as the B-2 is very relevant because it goes to the justification for yet another costly weapon system. That will come from a company like Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman that has monopoly over such airframes and will give a horse hockey cost analysis that won't even be close to the final cost of concept or cost of final production. Let alone the new logistics needed to support the bomber and if you can guess how much it'll cost to train pilots than you are better swami than I am.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Harru42

And you don't wait until someone is about to field a similar weapons system to replace your weapons. Our youngest B-52, which makes up the backbone of our bomber fleet is 64 years old. Whether China and Russia have a B-2 or not, the B-52, is no longer capable of penetrating an even near modern air defense system and can only be used in a permissive environment. So according to you, we should wait to replace that until someone is about to build a new stealth bomber?

Our entire air force is old. You don't wait until there's a more modern threat before you start replacing them. It takes years to develop a new platform. The F-22 took 8 years to go from first flight to IOC. The B-21 will take longer, because it's that much more advanced. Whether China or Russia will have a B-2 in the next 50 years is irrelevant, because bombers don't fight bombers. Bombers go against defenses. That means that it will go against the S500, and future missiles, as well as the T-50 and J-20.

As for cost, Lockheed and Northrop don't set cost. The Air Force decides what they're willing to pay for the program, and it's up to the developing company to meet that cost. It's up to the developer to meet that cost. In a fixed price contract, if they can't, then once the Air Force meets what they agreed to pay, everything over that is paid by the developer. The KC-46 is currently at $1.3B in pre-tax costs that have come out of Boeing's pocket. They'll make that up in the procurement phase of the program, but that's all had to be paid by Boeing, not the Air Force. The cost of the logistical tail and pilot training isn't part of the procurement cost, and is going to be paid regardless. Parts for old aircraft are expensive as hell, and get more expensive the older the aircraft gets. And you need to keep training pilots regardless of whether or not you field a replacement aircraft.
edit on 8/13/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

[SNIP]

Like I said earlier this year, nobody wants this B-2 Rev. 1 aka B-21.

Its like taking away steroids from baseball, nobody is interested. They should have gone with Lockheed if it means increased public interest and "Awe Factor", like they did with the F-22, it simply looked better, although the F-23 was the better performer.

We won't ever see the B-21 in anything more than limited prototype quantity if at all. DOA.

 


Mod Note: It is against the ATS Terms and Conditions to make accusations of shills / disinfo / paid posters, etc. Line removed.
edit on 8/14/2016 by eriktheawful because: Removed Shill comment



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

The YF-22 and YF-23 were almost identical in terms of performance. If they were going for the awe factor they would have gone with the YF-23 as that was the better looking of the two. The F-22 looks too much like an improved F-15.

So who is this "nobody" you keep talking about. Amazingly I haven't heard anyone that matters say they don't want it. The only complaint anyone has had about it is that the AF won't release cost details. Fortunately the Air Force goes for function instead of "that looks cool".
edit on 8/14/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join