Where's Aamco When You Need It?

You know how when your jalopy out in the driveway starts getting old and the transmission goes? Before deciding to spend a coupla grand to fix it, you and your significant other sit around the kitchen table and ask: hey, is it really worth pouring all that money into the old heap?

The U.S. Air Force just sat around its kitchen table and concluded its fleet of 75 B-52 bombers — first bought during the Eisenhower Administration — needs the equivalent of a new transmission. Cost? Twelve billion — that’s B as in Boeing — dollars over the next eight years.

“This is a contracting vehicle that will allow engineering sustaining contracts, studies, production and other activities to occur in support of the B-52,” Boeing – that’s B as in Billion — says. While it won’t pay for new transmissions, it will pay for stuff like Evolutionary Data Link Phase III kits, Combat Networks Communication Technology work, Extremely High Frequency engineering development and production, Strategic Radar Replacement development and production, Tactical Data Link engineering studies, and Internal Weapons Bay production. That’s definitely $12 billion worth of words right there.

The need for retooling a half-century old bomber — given our cruise missiles, B-1s, B-2s, assorted other warplanes, and the fact that new GPS-guided bombs can turn a FedEx 747 cargo plane into a heavy bomber — is a topic for another day. So is the likely list of targets — nations dangerous enough to require tons of bombs, but backward enough to lack good air defenses, and stupid enough to locate key targets where we can find them.

Such quibbles aside, the planned work is designed to keep the Stratofortresses flying until 2040 (that’s the B-52′s official name, but the airmen who keep it flying affectionately call it BUFF — for Big Ugly Fat…Fellow). That’s 95 years after the Air Force detailed the idea that became the B-52 when it declared it was seeking a new bomber “capable of carrying out the strategic mission without dependence upon advanced and intermediate bases controlled by other countries.” The cost of the upgrades works out to roughly $150 million per plane — planes that cost about $10 million each when new.

Related Topics: Air force, bombers, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • 53_3

    Patty Murray Rears Her Ugly Head Again.
    .
    Of course, we could outsource all those jobs to Airbus, I’m sure…

  • 53_3

    On the other hand, cranking up a good defense contract for a new fleet of bombers would kill two stones with one bird, er, three birds with two stones, er, um one bird with three stones, er, –
    .
    – oh, hell, something like that…

  • michaelfury
  • afguy

    Wouldn’t use the B-1 as a good example – it’s seriously flawed in its own way.
    .
    As for our needing tons of bombs to take out targets today, I would respectfully disagree.
    .
    Most of what we require to hit can be done with just 1 well-placed bomb per target. We just need to know where the targets are exactly – and to have an enemy that will be cooperative enough to leave the target in the same place long enough for us to hit it.
    .
    The B-52s and B-2s have the ability to hit many of these separated targets on a single mission – IF we know where they are. Problem is dwell time – the ability to stay on station for a long time waiting for someone to find targets to hit.
    .
    Unless the point is to put on a very public display of “shock and awe” and scare the sh!t out of the locals. Then, yes, we DO need tons of bombs to perform THAT mission. And somewhere VERY visible to do it.

  • stuartzechman

    Mark Thompson:
    .
    Only 12 billion dollars?
    .
    Come on…
    .
    That’s only 2 MIA*, so it can’t be that big of a deal.
    .
    .
    *MIA = “Months In Afghanistan” at US$6 Billion per month
    .
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/08/afghanistan-war-costs-jump-congressional-report-shows/

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The cost of the upgrades works out to roughly $150 million per plane — planes that cost about $10 million each when new.

    I think an adjustment for inflation is in order.

    OTOH, why save strategic considerations for another day? This is corporate welafare at it’s most blatant and turning a blind eye to it, ruins our discourse on a wide variety of topics, not just the military.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Juan Valdez

    Once these upgrades are complete, I will feel much safer as we will be able to once again strike deep within the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

  • michaelfury

    “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

    It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.”

    - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/forever-war/

  • Mark Thompson

    About $75 million per copy in today’s dollars.

  • newfreedomblog

  • pneogy

    Yeah. A little like old men who still chase women although they’ve forgotten why.

  • shepherdwong

    Wouldn’t use the B-1 as a good example – it’s seriously flawed in its own way.
    .
    Do you mean in the way that taxpayers were made to shell out tens of $billions – as in billions – to defense contractors to replace the B-52 and all that money and thirty years later, we’re being asked to shell out tens of billions to upgrade the B-52?

  • apr2563

    I grew up and came of age in Washington during the Scoop Jackson/Warren Magnuson era. This was pre Microsoft and other companies that have located in the Seattle area. Seattle lived or died by the fortunes of Boeing. My brother was a military, aerospace engineer there for over 30 years. He survived every down sizing.
    .
    However, in 1980 I was upset by Warren Magnuson and voted for his opponent Slade Gorton because of his stance against lotteries while he was AG and because Magnuson fell asleep during a meeting with commercial fishermen (my husband’s occupation). What a dope I was.
    .
    Although it affected our business, we supported the Native American fishing treaties and felt compromise was possible. All Gorton did was attempt to destroy Indian sovreignty and make compromise almost impossible.

    Gorton, of course still went for the pork. But worse, he was a horrible Senator who followed the Republican/Reagan policies and was and is a no compromise right winger.
    .
    The point is military pork will survive no matter who is in power. And, it was the one and only time I voted for a Republican.

  • afguy

    Only partially.
    .
    The B-1′s got some glaring design problems regarding fuel bladder leaks that can’t be easliy fixed. It was a compromise design – supposed to be supersonic at first but computerized variable intake system was dummied-down to a fixed version that took away the ability to do supersonic.
    .
    The B-2 costs a couple a billion a copy (at least).
    .
    So you see the attractiveness of upgrading the B-52. The description of the upgrade is misleading – it’s not a transmission upgrade – more like upgrading the navigation and bomb-delivery systems.
    .
    They’re NOT trying to turn it into anything like a supersonic bomber with a new propulsion system – it can NEVER be that.

  • afguy

    Those improvements ain’t just money going to Boeing, even though that’s PROBABLY where the actual mods will be completed.
    .
    The manufacturers of the actual electronics upgrades are pricey and are distributed to companies across the country.
    .
    Just like the MIC intended.

  • mikew67

    Nowhere to be found in all the talk of government spending; Defense. Now over $750 billion per year. No problem?

    Lift up the rock to find more slush funds, overspending and fraud, than even in Medicare.

    – Balkingpoints / www

  • herby002

    new,

    You posted a campaign videos with a lot of lies.
    Besides that fact, what does it have to do with the subject of this Swampland post?

blog comments powered by Disqus