USAF News and Discussion

[gf0012-aust]

peripherally related

https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/30/you-can-track-u-s-navy-private-contractor-dogfights-online/

 

[t68]

The final draft RFP for the replacement JSTARS has been released. This is a US$6.9 billion dollar contract for 17 aircraft to replace the current 17 E8C B707 based JSTARS. In this RFP the USAF probably have picked a fight with Congress because they stipulate a cost plus incentive fee whereas Congress have mandated fixed price contracts unless national security is impacted.

Ah that's interesting, I remember an article sometime ago that Boeing was going down the 737 route and Lockhead a Gulfstream 550, will be interesting to see who gets up.Also gives us I little clue on the possabile capabilty of the RAAF 550,

Found it again,
Boeing Provides Virtual Tour of 737-700 JStars Proposal | Defense News: Aviation International News

 

[gf0012-aust]

In this RFP the USAF probably have picked a fight with Congress because they stipulate a cost plus incentive fee whereas Congress have mandated fixed price contracts unless national security is impacted.

I think that process is up for some significant changes under the new administration

if you look at the common complaints by the service secretarys its about congress imposing caps but then not letting the services make what they see as critical force restructure to achieve same.

 

[CB90]

The final draft RFP for the replacement JSTARS has been released. This is a US$6.9 billion dollar contract for 17 aircraft to replace the current 17 E8C B707 based JSTARS. In this RFP the USAF probably have picked a fight with Congress because they stipulate a cost plus incentive fee whereas Congress have mandated fixed price contracts unless national security is impacted.

Honestly, all of DOD is going to have to (if they haven't already) come to an "understanding" with Congress on that mandate.

Fixed price is a dangerous road to take for R&D. Sounds good in theory, but also a potential case of be careful what you ask for...because you might get it.

I'd be very curious how similar private sector industries budget their R&D.
DOD R&D requires that the design deliver to specified performance levels, while often also pushing the limits of available technology. The contract amount for the R&D portion is therefore pretty much just a rough guess of what the project will cost.

I'd love to know of similar private sector R&D efforts that have the same sort of performance requirement and a fixed R&D budget.

 

[colay1]

It's just 17 units so maybe Congress will not object too much. IIRC it's a similar arrangement for the SDD phase of the B-21 and fixed price thereafter.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

US planes strike Isis fighters in Libya 'planning attacks in Europe'
U.S. Bombs ISIS Camps in Libya
The B-1Bs & B-52s also have loitering capability, but they (nor SLCMs) weren't used. Was it too risky for them w/o fighter escorts? Otherwise, why send just the B-2s + UAVs?

 

[colay1]

The B-2s were apparently all that were needed. Maybe one of these days they'll release the video of the strike.

 

[gf0012-aust]

US planes strike Isis fighters in Libya 'planning attacks in Europe'
U.S. Bombs ISIS Camps in Libya
The B-1Bs & B-52s also have loitering capability, but they (nor SLCMs) weren't used. Was it too risky for them w/o fighter escorts? Otherwise, why send just the B-2s + UAVs?

Huh? what fighter opfor is there?

B1's, B52's and B2's have conducted precision strike for decades without an escort

the mission is planned

some of the missions are more than likely force development and concept development events - just like the russians over syria

Its not hard to reason why this mission was constructed as such

 

[Tsavo Lion]

The opposing Libyan Dawn AF controls another limited number of airworthy MiG-23s. The types involved are the ones imported during the Seventies and Eighties.
Why Did The Pentagon Use The B-2 Against Terrorists?
..Most of the commentary surrounding the action has centered on why the U.S. employed such advanced strike assets in a seemingly permissive air defense environment. Air Force Operations and Support spending data from fiscal 2015 show the Operational Cost per Flight Hour (OCPFH) of the B-2 at $128,805 in then-year dollars, compared to $58,488 for the B-1 and $67,005 for the B-52. Why then use the bomber with the highest OCPFH?
Some news outlets have reported that Washington was sending a message. The Libyan general Khalifa Haftar, who has been fighting the Tripoli-based government supported by the U.S. and UN, recently visited Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea where he reportedly received a promise of weapons and financial support. The strike may have been meant to dissuade General Haftar from deepening this friendship and encourage him to join the Tripoli government. Other sources have called it a parting message from the administration to Russia and China, showing them the destruction that can be wrought by each of the U.S. Air Force’s 20 B-2s. Another possibility is the B-2 was the most cost-effective way to accomplish this particular strike, which apparently necessitated delivering 108 independently targeted weapons. In the mid-2000s, the B-2 fleet was upgraded with the Smart Bomb Rack Assembly (SRBA), which allows each bomber to carry 80 GBU-38s— the 500-lb. version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-guided bomb family. B-52s can only carry 12 each and are currently being upgraded to carry 24. B-1s can only carry 15. Fighters unsurprisingly cannot match the B-2’s payload and suffer a bigger range penalty for every bomb they carry because the aircraft are lighter and carry weapons externally, where they create lots of drag. .. A significant portion of the OCPFH consists of annual, fixed costs that do not increase with additional usage, such as unit maintenance personnel and continuing system improvements. When one considers only the costs affected by utilization—such as operating material, depot-level maintenance and field spares—the B-2 costs an additional $30,000 per flight hour, not $60,000-70,000... And B-2 crews do periodically practice long-distance strikes from Whiteman. If there were a large number of terrorist structures in need of demolition and a flight crew in need of cockpit time, the B-2 could have been allocated for the strikes with no budget impact. One more potential rationale is the B-2’s sophisticated sensors. ..B-2s are equipped not only with broadband stealth but also with radars that detect and generate images of ground targets from over 100 mi. away. After the Cold War, GPS-guided weapons were integrated and the radar was made capable of updating the target coordinates in-flight. From 2007 to 2012, the passive electronically scanned arrays of these radars were replaced with active electronically scanned arrays. If the mission called for a radar especially capable at detecting targets or generating high-resolution images from long ranges to independently retarget GPS-guided bombs, these criteria would also justify employing “the world’s most technologically advanced strategic bomber” against America’s most technologically unsophisticated opponents.
Source URL: Why Did The Pentagon Use The B-2 Against Terrorists? | Defense content from Aviation Week

It might be all of the above reasons why the B-2s were used. The Chinese now have more reasons to get their own strategic bombers!

 

[gf0012-aust]

The opposing Libyan Dawn AF controls another limited number of airworthy MiG-23s. The types involved are the ones imported during the Seventies and Eighties.

and? what bit did you not understand about mission planning?

the level of threat and risk is assessed for each mission, if an opfor has jet fighters contributing to a viable and contentious threat then it is factored in at mission planning

obviously airworthy Mig23's were not regarded as active and viable threats to the mission

 

[ngatimozart]

It might be all of the above reasons why the B-2s were used. The Chinese now have more reasons to get their own strategic bombers!

Instead of quoting whole articles how about just posting the link to the article and giving a considered précis of it with some considered thoughtful analysis instead of just glib remarks. You are skating on thin ice with your attitude and posting habits which is annoying moderators quite a bit. There is no future in that so I strongly suggest a change in attitude and posting habits.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

That site must be logged into to see the whole article, that's why I posted it whole as a courtesy. I'm not as versed in military matters as many others here & unfortunately haven't much to offer in the way of analysis. I'm here to learn, not to argue with, nor lecture to anyone.

 

[ngatimozart]

That site must be logged into to see the whole article, that's why I posted it whole as a courtesy. I'm not as versed in military matters as many others here & unfortunately haven't much to offer in the way of analysis. I'm here to learn, not to argue with, nor lecture to anyone.

There are laws about intellectual property and copyright, that we must abide by. A matter of logging on isn't an issues including Aviation Week. If you have an problem regarding how Moderators are addressing an issue you do it by PM with a Moderator, not in the open forum.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That site must be logged into to see the whole article, that's why I posted it whole as a courtesy.

just to add to Ngatis comment earlier

there is no universal Commons Creative Copywrite dispensation that universally applies to all web sites.

even if you cite the source you can (and by association, this web site) be in breach of copywrite

websites will have disclaimers and directions as to how their material can be referenced - some will disallow anyway, or will permit only with written approval back to the web site owner who wants to host the material

the last thing that this web site wants is to have another web site lodge against them for breach of copywrite - hence why copy and pasting actual content is frowned upon unless there is clear approval from the host site that allows it.

copy and pasting the web link, even if it can't be hyperlinked is the safest way to refer to a site as that way all traffic is redirected back to the host and we aren't exposed to legal pursuit for a copywrite breach

its not about us being difficult, its about protecting the web owner here from legal pursuit.

 

[jasonfreeland]

Did the multi ejector rack ever get implemented in the B-1? I had remembered reading about it years ago so was surprised at the above article mentioning a 15 bomb limit. An article about the rack, add the www

dyess.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/10096/Article/268354/337-tes-demonstrates-ability-to-triple-b-1-payload.aspx

 

[Tsavo Lion]

just to add to Ngatis comment earlier
even if you cite the source you can (and by association, this web site) be in breach of copywrite.. the last thing that this web site wants is to have another web site lodge against them for breach of copywrite - hence why copy and pasting actual content is frowned upon unless there is clear approval from the host site that allows it. ..its not about us being difficult, its about protecting the web owner here from legal pursuit.

There are 3 categories of articles on AW&ST site: 1 can be accessed w/o logon, 2nd with logon, & the 3rd with a paid subscription only, marked with a lock symbol. The article in question is in the 2nd category. Just to make sure, I contacted them & now waiting for the answer.

 

[MrConservative]

There are 3 categories of articles on AW&ST site: 1 can be accessed w/o logon, 2nd with logon, & the 3rd with a paid subscription only, marked with a lock symbol. The article in question is in the 2nd category. Just to make sure, I contacted them & now waiting for the answer.

Access to online content elsewhere has nothing to do with copyright rules on THIS website and general copyright rules in the handling of authored content. A link and brief opinion about the information linked is fine more than that is pushing the boundaries.

We will not tolerate copyright violations and do not even argue about it. It is pretty much a life ban on DT for anyone who transgresses.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There are 3 categories of articles on AW&ST site: 1 can be accessed w/o logon, 2nd with logon, & the 3rd with a paid subscription only, marked with a lock symbol. The article in question is in the 2nd category. Just to make sure, I contacted them & now waiting for the answer.

usually if an article is only accessible by logon then its subject to copywrite as its locked by privilege

also refer to Mr C's response

 

[Tsavo Lion]

I assumed that: 1. since China Defense Forum allows full articles quoted, 2. a logon w/o paid subscription is a non-issue as far as a copyright is concerned, 3. therefore this forum is no different.
To address these concerns, I'll just post links & leave the trouble of logging in to those who won't mind becoming members on that site. For killing ~80 Islamic State fighters,

The price tag of Wednesday's mission was colossal.
The pair of B-2s flew for 34 hours at an operating cost of approximately $130,000 per flight hour. That comes out to roughly $4.4 million a piece or $8.8 million for the duo. Additionally, there were roughly 15 aerial refueling aircraft involved in the mission, not to mention the cost of 100 JDAMs.

So, $8.8M/80 = $110,000 per fighter. This shows that the main value was political.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I assumed that: 1. since China Defense Forum allows full articles quoted, 2. a logon w/o paid subscription is a non-issue as far as a copyright is concerned, 3. therefore this forum is no different.
To address these concerns, I'll just post links & leave the trouble of logging in to those who won't mind becoming members on that site.

This is my last on this - its irrelevant what another web sites policy is - the advice given on here is the one that counts. The WebMaster for CDF doesn't run DT - and vice versa

For killing ~80 Islamic State fighters,
So, $8.8M/80 = $110,000 per fighter. This shows that the main value was political.

what nonsense, USAF doesn't run missions for political statements. They are tactical decisions.

you're really starting to push the tolerance of people like me when you make bold statements which are done without any actual insight into how mission planning even works

you said you're here to learn - if thats the case then you need to start changing your posting style as its wearing a bit thin