"The USAF Makes Another Attempt To Replace The B-52" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2011) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article The Sovereign of Sweets and her entourage take their turn in Showcase.
Featured Workbench Article Mal Wright  experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
| Tango01 | 12 Nov 2015 9:25 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Air Force recently announced a plan to develop, test and build the LRSB (Long-Range Strike Bomber) by 2025. This would be yet another effort to replace the 1950s era B-52. Each LRSB would cost about $600 USD million and the entire program will cost $80 USD billion with about 30 percent of that going for development and the rest for building about a hundred aircraft. The LRSB plan is designed to avoid past problems (like endless lawsuits from companies that lost design competitions as well as unpredictable and always escalating costs) and get the new design into service on time and under budget. This is the latest reboot of air force efforts to get a new heavy bomber. Since the 1990s the air force has been working on the next heavy bomber diligently but without much success. In 2003 the air force announced a development plan that would enable it to start testing a new heavy bomber in 2037. That did not work out and in 2009 the Department of Defense told the air force that there was be no more money for developing a new heavy bomber. Not for a while, anyway…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 12 Nov 2015 11:14 p.m. PST |
Well, the endless lawsuits by the disgruntled contract losers have begun, so…….. |
| jpattern2 | 13 Nov 2015 6:24 a.m. PST |
Hell, they could just slap some external fuel tanks on an all-purpose F-35, right, Mako.  |
| Brian Bronson | 13 Nov 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
Endless lawsuits aren't limited to companies that lost. Even companies that won will go the lawsuit route. I worked on a project where the company won the contract by deliberately grossly underbidding. Then turned around and sued for the difference between their bid and their costs. Since the government is always fiddling with requirements, which resulted in contract changes, it was easy for the company to justify (and win). |
| hagenthedwarf | 13 Nov 2015 12:55 p.m. PST |
Since the government is always fiddling with requirements, which resulted in contract changes, it was easy for the company to justify (and win). Common in all contracts: engineering, IT …. . |
| David Manley | 13 Nov 2015 10:51 p.m. PST |
One of our project managers effectively killed a major UK defence contractor in the 90s by playing hardball on changes. He imposed a rigid "no change" policy, whilst the company had underbid to get the job "knowing" that MOD would pay through the nose for changes. At the end of the contract the company went bust. |
|
