Murphy's Law Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
How To Cut The B-2 Price 90 Percent
   Next Article → WARPLANES: Foreigners Get The Best Stuff
February 25, 2009: The U.S. B-2 bomber takes a lot of heat for its high price. The 21 that were built ended up costing $2.1 billion each. About half of that was development expense. Actual construction costs for each of those aircraft was about $933 million each. Still pretty high, mainly because a lot of special machinery and factories had to be built to manufacture the many custom components. The air force likes to point out that if the original (1986) plan had been followed, each B-2 would have cost $438 million each. But then the entire program would have cost $58.2 billion, versus $44.3 billion for the 21 plane program (which included $10 billion more R&D expense).

New technology gives a weapon, especially an aircraft, an edge in combat. But since World War II, most military technology has been developed in peacetime conditions. This means it is more than twice as expensive, as there is no wartime urgency to overcome bureaucratic inertia (and emphasis on covering your ass, which is very time consuming and expensive) and hesitation (because you don't have a war going on to settle disputes over what will work best). Developing this technology takes longer in peacetime, which also raises the cost, and fewer units of a new weapon are produced (driving up the amount of development cost each weapon will have to carry.) If several hundred B-2s were produced under wartime conditions, each aircraft would have probably cost $200 million each, or less. In other words, a tenth of what it actually cost.

Next Article → WARPLANES: Foreigners Get The Best Stuff
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
WarNerd       2/25/2009 11:37:33 AM
Sounds just like the medical field with the constant complaints about extra costs due to "preventive medicine".
 
Society has to learn to accept some level of simple mistakes is inevitable, not malicious intent, and end the constant witch hunts in the courts and the legislature by snide lawyers/politicians.  It is all well and good to talk of improving service by eliminating mistakes, but the resulting climate of fear has pushed both the medical and defense fields far past the point of diminishing returns and is rapidly approaching the points of being unaffordable and the collapse of services.
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       2/25/2009 12:36:35 PM

Sounds just like the medical field with the constant complaints about extra costs due to "preventive medicine".

 

Society has to learn to accept some level of simple mistakes is inevitable, not malicious intent, and end the constant witch hunts in the courts and the legislature by snide lawyers/politicians.  It is all well and good to talk of improving service by eliminating mistakes, but the resulting climate of fear has pushed both the medical and defense fields far past the point of diminishing returns and is rapidly approaching the points of being unaffordable and the collapse of services.


I think you mean "defensive medicine" (medical actions taken primarily to avoid malpractice liability) not "preventive medicine" (actions taken to prevent illness or injury, rather than cure it).
 
 
 
A good primer on aircraft costing is the RAND Corp. Study "Military Airframe Costs: The Effects  of Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes":
h**p://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1370/
 
It provides estimation equations to compute the NRE (design&test) (p128), tooling (p128), and production man-hours (p90) for aircraft based on the weight, year of the aircraft, use of advanced materials, and stealth. 
 
Quote    Reply

Chris    another read...   2/25/2009 2:07:59 PM
Another good read is "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich.  The last chapters outline a number of problems with the defense acquisition process that enhances the costs of aircraft (and other systems), and provides a lot of ideas for how to reduce these burdens to a more reasonable level.
 
 
Quote    Reply

jwilly48519       2/26/2009 1:23:19 AM
"Advanced materials" in this context merely means "stuff that's Godawful expensive to build because it's build using an expert-labor-dependent additive process and is very difficult to inspect and validate, instead of a relatively much cheaper subtractive process for which validation concepts are well understood and relatively inexpensive."
If a cost breakthrough is desired, the strategic thinking should be in the direction of flexibly configurable automated additive manufacturing. It would cost a chunk of R&D money, but the end result would be what's being asked for here...the benefits of what we currently call "advanced materials", at more reasonable unit costs.
 
An additional advantage of such manufacturing technology, of course, would be that it would be difficult for our national manufacturing competitors to copy...thus leaping us out in front again for a while, as long as they continue to use hand layup.
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       2/26/2009 1:16:02 PM

"Advanced materials" in this context merely means "stuff that's Godawful expensive to build because it's build using an expert-labor-dependent additive process and is very difficult to inspect and validate, instead of a relatively much cheaper subtractive process for which validation concepts are well understood and relatively inexpensive."


If a cost breakthrough is desired, the strategic thinking should be in the direction of flexibly configurable automated additive manufacturing. It would cost a chunk of R&D money, but the end result would be what's being asked for here...the benefits of what we currently call "advanced materials", at more reasonable unit costs.

 

An additional advantage of such manufacturing technology, of course, would be that it would be difficult for our national manufacturing competitors to copy...thus leaping us out in front again for a while, as long as they continue to use hand layup.

The Rand study considers titanium as well as composites to be 'advanced materials'
 
p44 covers some of the automation techniques used the the layup. There is also an interesting table (4.15 p75) which compares the cost of hand layup, hand layup w/ an optical projection system, and automated fiber placement. They estimated automated layout saves about half the work for simple parts (compared to hand) and about a quarter for complex parts, but automated systems didn't work for the most complex parts.
 
Much of the Rand study is based on mid-90s data, I am sure the technology has advanced by now. Anyone have any good sources?
 
Quote    Reply