The concept of a high-low mix of aircraft where 5th generation craft gain air supremacy then 4/4.5th gen exploit that exists and has made me think about maintenance and other impacts on cost per flight hour.How would you engineer combat aircraft for absolute minimum cost per flight hour while keeping performance acceptable enough for the task of exploiting air supremacy?Ignore existing craft, so just using B-52s isn't an option for this thought exercise.Would something in the size category of an F-16 be best or something larger? From googling around apparently a B-52 costs roughly 3-4 times an F-16 per flight hour and has far more than that in multiples of its payload.Are there any considerations that would make a 'clean sheet B-52' not the best fulfillment of these parameters?
>>64679955Subsonic aircraft with straight wing Tiny jet trainer
>>64679955>How would you engineer combat aircraft for absolute minimum cost per flight hour while keeping performance acceptable enough for the task of exploiting air supremacy?
They need to just prioritize ease of maintenance/longevity of parts in the design phasePerformance is more of a concern, and cost reflect thatLike how they buy ground vehicles that can't drive 1000 kms without a breakdown
>>64679955Just use a civilian airliner.
>>64679955Instead of buying F-15EX (Heavy Fighter) to replace the F-15C, A-10C, and old F-15E's the USAF should have replaced their entire 4th generation fighter fleet including the F-16's (Light Fighter) with modified "De-Navalized" F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets (Medium Fighter). Standardizing on one logistics chain all while being cheaper to purchase and maintain than the F-15EX and having more payload and range than the F-16.
>>64679955>while keeping performance acceptable enough for the task of exploiting air supremacy?Air supremacy means there's no real threat to your air operations.This means that nearly any aircraft would do, at that point, since the enemy cannot oppose you dropping bombs on him anyway.To be honest, the B-52H does the job at roughly 90K $US / flight hour.At 32000 kg of payload, that means you have a cost of about 3000 $US / kg of bomb dropped, this on top of the bomb itself.
>>64680475Yes and the OP asked how to improve that while disregarding existing aircraft
>>64679955This is not a mechanical engineering problem.This is a "structure of your entire society", so social engineering problem.To fix the excessive cost in procuring and maintaining weapon systems in the west, you have to fix what is wrong with society.We have inefficient politics with rapidly changing priorities and no long-term planning that can run untouched by the whims of leadership.You can't run a 20-30 year program that sees 7 different administrations and expect it to be cost efficient.There is way too much bureaucracy, inflated wages, and way too many managers which slows everything down and makes it too expensive.
>>64679955>see thumbnail>think the red straps are feet>also think the nose is a girl's buttI'm ratbat levels of cooked.>>64680082Bot sure if something like a Super Tucano or Skyraider 2 would be able to compete on a maintenance per flight hour to payload ratio with a B-52.
>>64679955I suppose if you broke out a perfectly good F-86 or maybe even an F-100 I could make it fly for you for awhile just with hand tools. F- 4 Phantom and up? No way, Jose. Anything older, sure.
>>64679955>How would you engineer combat aircraft for absolute minimum cost per flight hour while keeping performance acceptable enough for the task of exploiting air supremacy?The major component of cost per flight hour is simply fuel, which, ceteris paribus, is a function of take-off weight.If you burn 10000L/hr, you're gonna have to pay for that every singe mission. A true Hi/Lo-mix would therefore employ piston engined, straight winged subsonic drones as cheap bomb trucks for the low end with COTS and MOTS components. Something like the A-10, but half the payload and hence smaller size, no gun, no life support systems (obviously) and a COTS piston aircraft engine.Think of something like the Grob G 850, but as a drone and with relaxed altitude requirements.
>>64680102This.A 777 cargo shits on a B-52.
>>64680082>5 hardpoints for 3300lbs. 800 mile rangeWhy can't anyone design a decent airplane anymore?15 hardpoints for 10,500lbs. 1300 mile range.
>>64680481Not much to be done.To reduce flying cost would mean reducing fuel consumption, wear and tear on parts, maintenance time,... while also optimizing payload and/or increasing accuracy.Fuel consumption can be reduced if missions are done over a relatively short range. This won't change much of the flight hour cost but it will affect the cost per kg of ammunition dropped. This can have a negative effect on the wear and tear, as most of the stress comes from take off and landing.You can more easily optimize payload on short distances, as the aim here is to reduce fuel cost so there's a pareto equilibrium between payload and fuel for each given distance.Now it all depends also about timing :You could keep bombing the enemy with a small fleet of Super Tucano like >>64680082 but it might take years to get results leading to victory.Sometimes, you need to be able to deliver volume in a small window for tactical reasons.And sometimes, it's for strategic or purely budget reason : every day you takes bombing the enemy is a day your army is kept on a higher operational footing or deployed oversea in bigger number, which cost much more than just an inefficient flight hour cost.So before trying to make "B52 but better", we need to know the other parameters of the potential mission.Are we talking "taking off from Houston, air refueling then bombing Tehran" ? Or are we talking "taking of Seoul then bombing the DMZ" ?
>>64680513>The major component of cost per flight hour is simply fuelNo, maintenance costs.
>>64680541That may or may not be true for aircraft which undergo high structural stresses due to unpredictable mission flight envelopes. Aircraft whose sole purpose is to transport shit from point A to point B, like e.g. civilian airliners, have their cost dominated by fuel.https://ansperformance.eu/economics/cba/standard-inputs/latest/chapters/aircraft_operating_costs.html
>>64680528One is a trainer/light attack aircraft and the other is a close support aircraft twice its size.Here's your skyraider bro
Okay, hear me out, remote controlled electric aircraftUpsides:>cheap to build (under 200k)>cheap fuel (powered by sun, wind, diesel generator, the grid, etc)>low maintenance (electric are simple and require little maintenance)Downsides:>low loiter timePossible solution? >Airborn carrier aircraft acting as a mothershipI will be taking no further questions.
>>64680590People somehow forget the how huge it is despite the fucking door with a window on the side
>>64680128>Standardizing on one logistics chain all while being cheaper to purchase and maintainId imagine the US MIC and quite a few politicians would fight such an idea quite strongly
>>64680082>>64680475>>64680528>>64680590>>64680613You still have ground fires to worry about
>>64680626Stay above 10k feet
>>64679955It's drones.Drones all the way you retarded fucksbomb truck drones
>>64680627How's that working in Yemen?
>>64680562Civilian planes have insane pressure to optimize cost down, you cannot compare them to military planes.Especially for anything "stealth" maintenance costs are through the roof.
>>64680626>You still have ground fires to worry aboutThen it's not Air Supremacy.That's Air Superiority.
>>64679955just strap some APWKS on a jet trainer. Any jet trainer nowadays can at least reach mach 0.9. They would be the perfect low system for antidrone operation or for slow moving interceptors.
>>64680626I hate the term "fires", what's wrong with "fire"?
>>64680635Would work great since they're so cheap its not a problem if you lose some while obliterating those who launched them.
>>64679955I noticed how the drones in th Ukraine war is using wires. Why not make a big plane and have that lunch drones with wires. Theres a chance the wire might get caught.
>>64679955Why not fight the war by making jet fighter pointless and useless like what the vietnamese did get real close to them so air cover mortars becomes useless. They can fly the jet as much as they want but there will be nothing to hit or give them fake hits so they waste money.
>>64680080So the A10 still winning.
>>64680691Correct fire is plural for fire. Unless dealing with multiple wildfires.
>>64680713If you turn those jets into turboprops, get rid of the oversized gun and strap more bombs on it instead, yes.
>>64680082/threadIf you control the airspace a turbo prop is the cheapest thing that will still carry bombs far enough to be useful.
>>64680641Stealthlets always forget "reservations, ticketing, sales, and promotion", how do you think we got here without vaporwave gear, 90s movies, the X Files, and snacks?
>>64679955>high-low mixLow has been monopolized by drones. (Transport/utility not included.)>Are there any considerations that would make a 'clean sheet B-52' not the best fulfillment of these parameters?Missiles continue to get cheaper and fill that niche. B-52 is for unsophisticated COIN enemies who don't have air defense.
>>64680082
>>64680641You don't need stealth for the low part of a Hi/Lo-mix. You just need a cheap bomb truck. Maybe read OP to get a sense what the thread you're posting in is about.
You remove the pilot, for one.
