Read the forum code of contact
By: 10th March 2014 at 05:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you outsource the entire planning and production cycles.
By: 10th March 2014 at 06:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-what is a reasonable price do you think?
By: 10th March 2014 at 07:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is this remotely possible by western militaries?
I think a 40 million bomber is possible..you just have to change the entire philosophy and way of doing things as they are today.
Then again we could also rethink why dropping bombs on people in the first place is plausible at any circumstances...that would make the bombers obsolete all together. Word bomber usually refers to mass bombing and casualties on civilians.
By: 10th March 2014 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What kind of bomber are we talking about?
An Tactical or Strategic bomber?
The Su-34 is a Tactical bomber and cost around $30-40 mill a pop domestical.
But a New USAF strategical bomber will cost around $700- one bill a pop.
By: 10th March 2014 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is this remotely possible by western militaries?
I bet a few members on the forum probably know how to do it :)
By: 10th March 2014 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No. Modern long range airliners cost $300+ million. And airliners are built by the hundreds. An intercontinental bomber will cost 3 to 4 times that amount.
By: 10th March 2014 at 13:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is this remotely possible by western militaries?
Maybe.
Some back of a postage stamp stuff.
The Embraer KC390 is *supposed* to cost 50 million a pop.
It *supposedly* will have a range of ~2 500 nm.
An AGM-86D costs around 2 million or so. To integrate pallet launch, lets say that ramps up to 3 million/missile. Range ~ 1300 nm.
So, 16 missile carrier for 100 million with a weapon system range of 3500-3800 nm. Missile targetting must be done from offboard sensors, which may or may not utilise palletised electronics in the back of transport.
[Design costs not included.]
So, in summary, its highly unlikely, but probably theoretically possible.
By: 10th March 2014 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It may be possible.
If the weight is kept low, if the engines are cheap cots and the avionics are second tier...
Cost increase as you make the aircraft more survivable. Ironically stealth in the form of shaping is the cheapest approach as it allows for less sophisticated avionics without sacrificing survivability.
An enlarged manned global hawk could do the trick and get it right for less than $100m (in 2005 flyaway cost was $35m).
Would that fit your bill?
Internal payload for an enlarged RQ4 could easily reach some 10'000 lbs. Especially if fuel was sacrificed.
By: 10th March 2014 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Define modern.
By: 10th March 2014 at 18:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No.
Next question.
By: 10th March 2014 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No.
Next question.
Don't be so dismissive. It all depends on parameters, definition of modern and size. True as djcross pointed out some modern airliners (doing a quick scan for Boeing 777 and A340 confirms) cost $300 million it doesn't mean a bomber can't be done for less.
$100 million might be a big ask but below $150, possibly. If it's just to haul a huge amount of bombs or guided missiles then you don't need to complex a plane. Crew of two, maybe three maximum, forgoing full stealth you could use an existing plane as your base. I'd have thought a bomber would maybe less complex than an airliner in many ways. It's an interesting though any how.
By: 10th March 2014 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Don't be so dismissive. It all depends on parameters, definition of modern and size. True as djcross pointed out some modern airliners (doing a quick scan for Boeing 777 and A340 confirms) cost $300 million it doesn't mean a bomber can't be done for less.Modern or vintage, for a plane to haul 25-50 tons of bombs or ordnance and not get blown out of the sky, even by basic ground fire, is not going to be simple.$100 million might be a big ask but below $150, possibly. If it's just to haul a huge amount of bombs or guided missiles then you don't need to complex a plane. Crew of two, maybe three maximum, forgoing full stealth you could use an existing plane as your base. I'd have thought a bomber would maybe less complex than an airliner in many ways. It's an interesting though any how.
Your logic sounds like the mode used by the dweebs in Washington that gives soldiers half-assed weapons.
By: 11th March 2014 at 03:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It would probably be good for unit costs if they don't end up cutting production to a very small number of airframes like the B-2.
Of course regardless of final costs of the crazies will start screaming about "THE 2 BILLION DOLLAR BOMBER" AND "THINK OF WHAT WE COULD WASTE THAT MONEY ON INSTEAD".
By: 11th March 2014 at 05:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-topspeed sez, not only can you do it with less than $100, it can be made smaller than a Mustang!
By: 11th March 2014 at 06:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-topspeed sez, not only can you do it with less than $100, it can be made smaller than a Mustang!
Mustang carried as much bomb load as the Gotha bomber by the luftwaffe in WW I. B-29 carried 9000 kg..and B-17 only 3600 kg...new fighters can do that...what is the payload for modern bomber...something to think about ?
By: 11th March 2014 at 19:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Mustang carried as much bomb load as the Gotha bomber by the luftwaffe in WW I. B-29 carried 9000 kg..and B-17 only 3600 kg...new fighters can do that...what is the payload for modern bomber...something to think about ?The B-1 can carry approx. 30,000 kg. the Tu-160 approx. 45,000 kg both with ranges of thousands of miles with internal fuel.
What is your point?
By: 11th March 2014 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you outsource the entire planning and production cycles.
You'll end up with nothing but half built* FE models and CFD mesh....
*and what is done has most likely been done wrong.
[Never mind actually building a product. Outsourcing has its place, but definitely not as extensively as it has been used in the last decade or so.]
By: 12th March 2014 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The B-1 can carry approx. 30,000 kg. the Tu-160 approx. 45,000 kg both with ranges of thousands of miles with internal fuel.What is your point?
You have to think about it...B-52 carries 100 000 kg of ordnance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress
It has never been easier to do collateral damage as it is today...unfortunately.
By: 12th March 2014 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hi All,
I think it all comes down to the greed of individuals who fund these projects let alone the greed of involved company's, making a profit is one thing but to make a profit at the expense of say for example the air crew is very ugly. One thing that never get's taken into consideration are the aircrew who have to pilot and man it's systems if they ever bothered taking these seriously you wouldn't have the trouble that for example the F-22 went through with the Oxygen supply.
I am no expert by any means at anything just putting an opinion across to the asked question, I accept that there are costs in development etc.etc but to my mind (which is tiny:highly_amused:) aircraft are way overpriced and more often than not over complicated weather it be a Fighter,Bomber or Airliner somewhere along the line people are making millions from overpricing from a rivet to engines etc.etc. and unless this practise is curtailed the aircraft are only going to increase in price which eventually translates into the forces not buying enough simply because off expenditure.
I would have to say honestly you can provide a new Bomber if the honesty is complete from design to first flight, to often shortcuts to solve problems bite back later down the development which is really stupid when you are designing a system that is supposed to be fairly easy to Fly,Maintain, and Arm here is just another example. Why design an aircraft that is supposed to be stealthy then hang all sorts of appendages off it negating the need for stealth to it's supposed mission design which from what I have seen change all the time. Why not design a MRCA from the start where all weapons can be hidden that would be flown for say as long as the B-52 service career instead of trying to out do the competition all the time after all I may be wrong here but the service life of the B-52 has been extended beyond belief and possibly with the adage 'If it isn't broke don't fix it'
I think that in the aviation industry particularly the military side especially there is a tendency to run before walking resulting in vast cost overruns, as an example the F-35 debacle that still continues and we never learn from these mistakes we just tend to blunder onto the next one with no accountability, personally I think getting rid of the Vulcan was a mistake like the Victor and Nimrod complete waste of money, after all if the American Air Force can do it with their systems why couldn't we ? As we are now seeing XH558 is being improved to extend her fling life something that the RAF should have considered years ago instead of jumping into bed with various programmes that just suck this country dry.
Geoff.
Posts: 306
By: philbob - 10th March 2014 at 05:15
Is this remotely possible by western militaries?