backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on May 22 at 1:10 PM
Though sought after, not likely to happen

The US Air Force is looking to develop a new long-range bomber in the coming years even though there are budget pitfalls that plague the Air Force, according to Air Force Chief of  Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

Gen. Schwartz isn't looking to create a budget specifically for the necessary long-range bomber, but said it's vital for the future of the Air Force.

"Long-range strike, not next-generation bomber," Schwartz clarified.  "It's an important part of the portfolio.  We'll leave no stone unturned in search of that capability in the next [Quadrennial Defense Review]."

The current 2010 budget plan -- outlined by Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month -- doesn't allow the Air Force enough funds to work on a long-range bomber, nor does it have the necessary resources available to hasten development of the F-35 Lightning II next-generation fighter craft.

The Air Force is looking to upgrade current fighter jets, while also hoping to make it possible for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crew to operate more than one UAV at a time.

In its budget request sent to Congress, the Air Force has requested $1.9 billion in extra funds for services currently not available in the Pentagon's 2010 fiscal budget.  Instead of bombarding Congress with request for millions of dollars for military aircraft and transport vehicles, the Air Force instead requested money for radar, missiles, and other low-cost items.

Each branch of the US military must deal with budget pitfalls at a time when politicians and military leaders look to adjust to the war in Afghanistan.  The Marine Corps recently sent a $188.3 million unfunded wish list to Congress, which is miniscule compared to the $3 billion unfunded wish list Marine Corps officials drafted in 2008.

The Air Force has requested $278 million for additional electronics and space parts for the F-35, but there are no further budget requests for more F-35 fighters.  Last year's wishlist had money put aside for 15 C-17 cargo planes, a down payment for 24 additional F-22 fighter jets, and four F-22 Raptor fighter jets.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Something wrong
By Brainonska511 on 5/20/2009 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 1
Something wrong with the current crop of B-52s, B1bs, and B-2s?




RE: Something wrong
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/20/2009 1:55:41 PM , Rating: 5
B-52 design is 50+ years old, although it has been retrofitted and upgraded to make it last well into the 2040s AFAIK.

Both the B-1B and the B-2 are expensive to operate IIRC, and the B-2 needs special hangers and constant upkeep of its body panels.

That being said, everybody loves new stuff :)


RE: Something wrong
By BladeVenom on 5/20/2009 1:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
There just aren't enough B-1 and B-2s to do the job either. Only 21 B-2s were even made.


RE: Something wrong
By DigitalFreak on 5/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Something wrong
By SlyNine on 5/21/2009 3:05:47 AM , Rating: 5
The jobs we didn't know we needed done, until we need them done.


RE: Something wrong
By Samus on 5/21/2009 5:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
6


RE: Something wrong
By mcnabney on 5/20/2009 3:02:56 PM , Rating: 5
What mission are we preparing for?

Global thermonuclear war with Russia?
Regional nuclear conflict with China?

Any other adversary we have default airborne control. Strategic bombers are designed as a nuclear platform. We have adapted the B52 for conventional war because it is big and relatively cheap. We adapted the B2 for conventional war because we needed the PR to justify the budget. Designing and building an extremely expensive long-range bomber is stupid when we all know it will only ever by used to make PR milk-runs with JDAMs. That is what cheap carrier and attack aircraft are for.


RE: Something wrong
By jarman on 5/20/2009 3:16:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Designing and building an extremely expensive long-range bomber is stupid when we all know it will only ever by used to make PR milk-runs with JDAMs. That is what cheap carrier and attack aircraft are for.


So... you are saying that designing, building, maintaining, and deploying a carrier battle group with ~70 aircraft (that burn > 100K gal. of fuel a day), the aegis cruisers to protect it, and the subs to protect both of them is cheaper than a long range bomber that can leave from and land back in the US?

Maybe my calculator is broken...


RE: Something wrong
By Reflex on 5/20/2009 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 5
Yes. Because those things would not be going away.


RE: Something wrong
By jarman on 5/20/2009 4:31:14 PM , Rating: 3
That's right. In fact there are many more planned to be funded, manned, supported, and deployed. Given that a single carrier alone (approx. disp. of 70k tons) costs ~approx $4B, I see no reason why the CBO shouldn't at least consider shifting some of that funding to the bomber development. Especially since the long range bomber is a key element of the nuclear triad.


RE: Something wrong
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 4:29:45 AM , Rating: 5
Agree, there is always a fighter in the pipeline but not a bomber. Bombers were close to extinction in the 90s but after a GAO number crunching session it turns out they are the most cost effective weapon for a variety of reasons and they are wearing out because of that.

BTW what is the most feared weapon in a war, the heavy bomber. Because they can carry so much and hang around for so long to drop at the perfect moment, something a lawn dart, ground or carrier based, cannot do.

The cool fighter guys rule the world, the bombers just save it.


RE: Something wrong
By Calin on 5/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Something wrong
By Einy0 on 5/21/2009 7:38:37 AM , Rating: 3
Worse than artillery that you can hear incoming is a bomb that you can't. Also consider that a bomber of this category could drop multiple 2000lb bombs or thousands of bomblets that scatter about and make a field of fire and metal shards.


RE: Something wrong
By jcbond on 5/21/2009 9:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that Artillery is more useful. Artillery covers indirect fire from man pack mortars to towed and self-propelled. They are accurate and can be "walked". Their fire missions can be adjusted on the fly. They respond faster to calls for support. It's also cheaper by far.
I'm not saying that you don't need air support. Arty is just more useful, generally speaking.


RE: Something wrong
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that artillery is very useful and that there isn't much use for heavy bombers in the strategic role any more (at least not with the wars going on right now). However, bombers can carry lots of bombs and stay in an area for a long time, allowing them to react to situations on the ground with a variety of weapons (missiles, JDAMs, etc). Combining this ability with artillery should be enough to cover any fire support needs.

B-52s and B-1Bs do a good job in this role, but the B-52 design was first introduced in 1955. As Brandon said, the B-52 will stay in service until at least the 2040s, but given the military's track record, they should really get started on a(nother) replacement. Personally, I think it would be cool if they kept the B-52 in service until 2055 and then retire the fleet 100 years to the day after they were introduced.


RE: Something wrong
By jimbojimbo on 5/21/2009 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
From experience I can tell you that if you hear artillery coming, you're safe. If you don't, you're dead.


RE: Something wrong
By TSS on 5/21/2009 11:20:28 AM , Rating: 3
should we ever return to the WWII era of carpet bombing, you'd understand bombers > artillery.

these days though it's missles. your just walking along, the sun is shining, it's a great day, the icecreamtrucks passing byBOOOOOOOOMMMMMM.

goodbye streetblock.

the most feared weapon of WWII was the V2 rocket. for the above reason.


RE: Something wrong
By jabber on 5/21/2009 9:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
Carriers carry more than just offensive war power. They have great psychological power.

No one likes a battle ready carrier fleet sailing off their coastline.

The threat of a 'cruise by' in international waters by a carrier is often enough to make someone stand down. Its not a direct violation like having a few bombers fly over head but the show of power is there.


RE: Something wrong
By Smilin on 5/20/2009 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

What mission are we preparing for?

Global thermonuclear war with Russia?
Regional nuclear conflict with China?


Ok I'll bite. Which of those do you NOT want to be prepared for?

Strategic nuclear bombers are a success when they are not used.


RE: Something wrong
By ClownPuncher on 5/20/2009 7:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
Thus creating a strange loop, ending the world as we know it.


RE: Something wrong
By BansheeX on 5/20/2009 10:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why are existing intercontinental nuke missiles not sufficient deterrents for any type of attack? Am I missing something?


RE: Something wrong
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 11:19:51 AM , Rating: 3
Once a bomber is launched, it's hard for an enemy to track. ICBM silos are fixed and so are sitting ducks for an enemy attack. The three components of the nuclear triad (ICBMs, bombers, and SSBNs) are all important parts of a nuclear deterrent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad


RE: Something wrong
By Smilin on 5/21/2009 12:06:54 PM , Rating: 3
Just because nuclear war cannot be won doesn't mean people don't sit around trying to think of a way. :)

A successful "first strike" is one that eliminates the threat of a "second strike". Bombers are one way to make a successful first strike impossible.

A guaranteed "second strike" is how nuclear wars are ultimately won...the deterrence of mutually assured destruction prevents it from happening at all.
----

ICBMs
ICBMs are ineffective as a first strike weapon since they can be detected at launch. Their intended target (other ICBM silos) will be empty by the time they arrive.

ICBMs as a second-strike weapon can be defeated as they are in fixed locations and can be taken out ahead of time.

Technology is also catching up to the point where it will soon be possible to shoot them down in limited numbers.

Subs
Sub launched nukes are somewhat more effective as first strike in that there is little time to react. The launch heat bloom can still be detected though. Sub launched nuclear cruise missles will be essentially immune to being shot down.

For second strike subs are currently the ultimate weapon.

Bombers
Bombers are effective as both first strike due to either stealth or (if they are detected) short notice to detonation in the same way subs are.

Bombers are also relatively effective as a second strike since any notice at all means they are airborn when their bases are hit. Also, unlike silos, they can be moved ahead of time if the political situation indicates a first strike may be imminent.


RE: Something wrong
By Regs on 5/20/2009 5:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
And the enemy just keeps advancing their radar and surveillance technology for low level "stealth" flights like the B-2 and B-1 were designed for. The radar technology is much cheaper than a fleet of bombers.


RE: Something wrong
By inperfectdarkness on 5/22/2009 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
we have less than 100 total b1 & b2's COMBINED in service currently. if you factor in deployments, maintaince, basing requirements...etc; you'll find that the amount we can field in a given theatre is closer to 10-20 MAX.

we don't need a 2-billion-dollar bomber. we need a non-stealthy workhorse bomber that we can flog the bejeezus out of (ala b52). i'd be surprised if the per-unit cost of such was more than double the cost of a single f-22.

and wtf is up with the wish list asking for 24 f-22s & 4 f22 raptors?


RE: Something wrong
By Hardin on 5/20/2009 1:56:47 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah they're really old. Things fall apart eventually no matter how well you maintain it.


RE: Something wrong
By jonmcc33 on 5/20/2009 2:01:21 PM , Rating: 1
That would be an insult to the USAF air crews that work on repairing and maintaining those aircraft. Sorry, they are probably the best in the world and I speak from knowing quite a few of them. You are confused if you think the B-52 is a flying trash heap that falls apart in the sky.


RE: Something wrong
By BoomerUNI on 5/20/2009 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Its not an insult to the USAF air crews its a simple fact. They will not fly forever they will not last forever. You can only repair them for so long. You can only badage them for so long. The fact they have lasted the amount time they have is a testament to the air crews but even they will tell you at time their isn't a single thing they can do.


RE: Something wrong
By nafhan on 5/20/2009 3:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
Air Force is planning to keep the B-52's around until around 2050 last I heard...
At this point, they are used only for standoff weapons (cruise missiles) or in areas where the enemy's ground-to-air and air-to-air capabilities have been heavily suppresed.
They are good for what they can do and will continue to be good at it, but they cannot do everything.


RE: Something wrong
By foolsgambit11 on 5/20/2009 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
So... in those situations where we'll be going up against an enemy with good AA capabilities, what kind of losses would we be suspecting? What kind of losses would we expect with a next generation bomber?

Bear in mind that, as a previous poster mentioned, aircraft detection capabilities are always improving, so there will still come a point when any new bomber is relatively easy to spot and shoot down - while long range missiles will continue to be more difficult to shoot down (they are smaller targets and move faster).

Next, consider how much it will cost to deploy, maintain, and replace the new fighters versus the old ones. The loss of pilots and crews, while tragic, would probably be less of a concern against the kind of a foe we're talking about, since we can expect heavy losses on all fronts anyway.

We also have to consider replacement speed - how quickly could the US pump out B-52's, and how quickly could it pump out a theoretical next-gen bomber? Could the US handily keep up with the loss rates of bombers (the B-52's especially, since we can safely assume their rate of loss would be higher)? Of course, the added complexity of manufacturing a 'stealth' bomber (if that is indeed what they'll go for) would slow their replacement rate considerably, as well.

Given all that, how many bombs can we be expected to hit the enemy with in an all-out, protracted war with each platform, and of what size and type?

If, after evaluating all of this - including a hefty chunck for cost overruns, especially in development of the new plane - it looks like a good ROI, go for it.

(In other words, just because the B-52 would get shot down more often against this enemy with good anti-aircraft capabilities, that doesn't necessarily mean it is a less effective weapon.)

I definitely support the Air Force looking into this and seeing if there is a really good argument for upgrading our bombers. But age alone isn't a good argument. The M2 machine gun, exempli gratia, first came into the service in 1921, and it's still going like a champ.


RE: Something wrong
By beerhound on 5/20/2009 11:56:30 PM , Rating: 3
You have some valid points, but I have to disagree on a couple of them. Replacing lost crews isn't much of an option, it takes years to get replacements fully qualified. It takes one year just to get a guy through the channels out to the unit and have him flying as a green as hell "nugget" wingman. As far as replacing the aircraft, that is even less likely. Congress hasn't funded aircraft to replace combat losses in so long that the companies that get the contracts to build them, don't maintain the production lines after the contract is complete. They convert the factories to other uses to keep them productive. The final B-52 built rolled off the line in June of 61, there is no way in hell the production tooling to start the line back up exists. The youngest B1 is now 21 years old. The newest B2 was built in Nov of 97 and only 21 were made. With only 20 left in service, as capable as it is, it still isn't THAT capable.

With all of that said, I don't think our budget really allows for this. Cutting other programs to get it would be a mistake. Who knows for sure but I wouldn't bet against the idea that the B-2 is the last manned strategic bomber we build. The beginnings of the B-2 started in 1978, it takes so long to field an aircraft now, that by the time a manned design were ready, it would be obsolete. I think UAVs have will have a bigger role in the future.


RE: Something wrong
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 4:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you think UAVs came from, small flying models for testing ideas for the B2 and other research. At what point do you put a 200 ton bomb laden aircraft up by remote control? Commercial aircraft have had the ability to fly themselves for decades but you don't see an empty cockpits when you fly do you? At this point in time remote is fine for small aircraft but does the public have the stomach for remote heavy aircraft?


RE: Something wrong
By Tsuwamono on 5/21/2009 11:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
I believe they would like it if it saved pilots lives.


RE: Something wrong
By jconan on 5/21/2009 1:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
2nd... Those F-15 A-Ds sure didn't hold well in the skies during 2007 if anyone recalls


RE: Something wrong
By Smilin on 5/20/2009 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 4
I say good sir, retract your criticism of the fine young men and women who..

Easy there buddy. I spent 3 years working on military aircraft myself.. and yes they are flying trash heaps, even the new ones. We cannibalize the "hanger queen" to keep the rest of the squad going and manage to squeek out a decent sortie completion rate. All aircraft are flying trash heaps and it takes 100 man hours of maintenance for every flight hour. There wouldn't be enough kitty litter on the planet to clean up all the oil, hydraulic fluid, and JP-5 if we didn't use drip pans in the hanger.

Not that there is anything wrong with that though. We're talking decades old machines so it's to be expected. We get the ordnance on target on time and get the crew home safely. Nobody cares if it's "pretty".


RE: Something wrong
By Solandri on 5/20/2009 6:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That would be an insult to the USAF air crews that work on repairing and maintaining those aircraft. Sorry, they are probably the best in the world and I speak from knowing quite a few of them. You are confused if you think the B-52 is a flying trash heap that falls apart in the sky.

Aluminum is different from steel in that it is always susceptible to fatigue. With steel, if you design it strong enough, you can repeatedly load it an infinite number of times and it will never suffer a fatigue failure. Aluminum is not like that. You can make it as strong as you like, and it will still fail after X number of loading cycles.

That's why airframes have end of life ratings. They're designed to be loaded for so many cycles (usually 100,000 or so for pressurized cabins). Beyond that the fatigue cracks that develop grow to a size which are in danger of compromising structural integrity, and you must retire the airframe or rebuild it. No amount of maintenance will prevent this - it is an inherent property of the metal.

Unfortunately, a same-strength steel component is much heavier than aluminum, so we use aluminum to build airplanes.


RE: Something wrong
By stromgald30 on 5/20/2009 7:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Aluminum is also much more ductile than steel. Therefore, you can have a pretty large crack before a failure actually occurs. With steel, the catastrophic failure occurs with a much smaller crack (or hole).

This is especially important with respect to enemy fire and also simple FOD damage.


RE: Something wrong
By Griswold on 5/21/2009 7:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
You dont seem to grasp the issue of material fatigue of the airframe. No maintenance crew in the world can "fix" this ad infinitum. Things do "fall apart" undless you completely replace it at some point.


RE: Something wrong
By HrilL on 5/20/2009 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Because those air frames are getting to the end of their life span and developing a new bomber will likely take 10 years until one is produced so that is still a long time for our older craft to be used.


RE: Something wrong
By Smilin on 5/20/2009 5:37:14 PM , Rating: 5
a lot longer actually. It would take 10 years just to get through the initial bidding competition.


RE: Something wrong
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2009 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the KC-X tanker program.


RE: Something wrong
By Aloonatic on 5/21/2009 4:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think the main problem that a lot of these older/continuously modified and end of cold war technology/stealth driven designs have is simply the cost of keeping these things maintained and flying, rather than any short fall in capability.

The retrofitted/updated airframes must be a nightmare for maintenance crews to keep going and updating, no doubt costing a lot more to the tax payer than is necessary, and then the stealth bombers and such just aren't needed all that much and were built for wars that have never really come along. The Taliban don't have much of an anti air-craft radar network to be destroyed. China is a different matter of course. A war with China is very unlikely though, but it never hurts to be prepared I suppose.

As such, I think that there will probably be a push for cheaper to run, large, terrorist bombing air-frames and perhaps a new generation of stealth aircraft that are more refined/efficient and cost effective too.

It never hurts to spend money on defence as well, lots of jobs/votes and such, we all know the politics of this.


More Toys for the Boys
By LoweredExpectations on 5/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: More Toys for the Boys
By Solandri on 5/21/2009 5:07:46 AM , Rating: 3
It's silly to to compare raw dollars spent when comparing countries with different populations and different size economies. That'd be like complaining that a rich family of 4 spends way more money on food than a poor single bachelor. Percentage of GDP is probably the best way to compare. But if you insist on comparing raw dollar amounts, we spend more than the next 12 highest-spending countries combined, not 45. Prior to 9/11 it was the top 9. But then, our economy (GDP) is as large as the next 4 or 5 largest economies combined.

In 2005 (last year for which widespread figures are available), the U.S. spent 4.06% of it's GDP on the military vs. 2.6% average for the world. We'd dropped as low as 3.0% prior to 9/11, which was nearly indistinguishable form the world average (IIRC it was 2.8% that year - France actually outspent us for a few years). Given the extensive foreign presence the U.S. has as well as our treaty obligations in Japan and NATO, I think it's to be expected that our military spending will be above the world average.

And since you mentioned China, they currently spend a greater portion of their GDP on the military than we do - 4.3%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_g...


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 5:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo. Everyone just sees the military as this massive pot of money that "they" could put to better use somewhere else, sadly, another false analogy.

When a disaster happens anywhere on the planet it's the US military moving life saving supplies, providing massive amounts of fresh water, and medical services. Who else on the planet provides more life saving services than the US military? I know it sounds like an oxymoron but it's the truth.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By LoweredExpectations on 5/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: More Toys for the Boys
By Helbore on 5/21/2009 1:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
One way to improve your life is to keep having one. Having a scary-arse military is a good way of making sure someone doesn't decide they want a piece of that massive GDP your country produces.

Lots of unused weapons that make your enemies wet themselves save more lives than small militaries that have to fight in big wars (even if they win)


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 5:23:56 AM , Rating: 3
Bravo. Everyone just sees the military as this massive pot of money that "they" could put to better use somewhere else, sadly, another false analogy.

When a disaster happens anywhere on the planet it's the US military moving life saving supplies, providing massive amounts of fresh water, and medical services. Who else on the planet provides more life saving services than the US military? I know it sounds like an oxymoron but it's the truth.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By LoweredExpectations on 5/21/2009 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 1
The following quote concerns world military spending for the yeay 2008

"US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined."

from the World Military Spending website:

http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75

We spend so much more than other countries because we have bases everywhere and insist on meddling in everyone's affairs. However, those days are rapidly coming to a close as the American Empire is finally running out of money. This, no doubt, will upset a lot of countries like the EU and Japan who will have to start paying for their own defense.

Personally, I'd like to see the States do something more productive with it's dwindling funds; like maybe building a 1st-world, high-speed rail network. Taking the train from NYC to Boston recently, I felt like I was somewhere in Africa. Flying into Seattle airport from Hong Kong via Inchon is like visiting Pakistan. There's only so much money to go around and we could do a lot better than purchasing more useless weapons.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 11:43:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This, no doubt, will upset a lot of countries like the EU and Japan who will have to start paying for their own defense.

Umm, the EU and Japan do pay for their own defense. Europe does design and build a lot of its own equipment, and both the EU and Japan do pay for any US-designed equipment that they have. The US doesn't give them the stuff for free. There's a difference between the US having defense treaties with them and the US just defending them itself.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By LoweredExpectations on 5/21/2009 12:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but our armed forces and a significant percentage of our defense budget go towards defending those countries from external threats. That's why they don't want use to leave. Japan, which has the 2nd largest economy in the world, spends less that 1% of its GDP on defense, and now sees the US presence in Japan as a deterent against Chinese expansionism. Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union the Europeans relied on us to defend them from the Soviets. Tho those countries do contribute something towards compensating us for our expenditures, it is only a percentage. If the burden of global defense were more equitably shared by those countries friendly to us, we would be spending a lot less and they a lot more.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By Helbore on 5/21/2009 1:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
If those puny little Eastern European countries had half of America's GDP, I'm sure they'd be happy to build big militaries and defend their own borders.

But they don't. So they can't.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By erwos on 5/21/2009 12:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no, they don't. To prove I'm right, ask yourself: if the big militaristic power next door decided to invade them, could they stop them without US help?

For pretty much every country in Europe, excepting maybe France, Germany, and the UK, the answer is a big fat no with regards to a Russian invasion. The Japanese and South Koreans have no chance whatsoever without the US to defend themselves effectively against China. The Australians are similarly screwed - their entire plan for a war with Indonesia is to beg the US for help.

European countries spend on their defense, but it's not enough to stop an existential threat to them by a major power. It's just enough to slow them down until the US and the rest of NATO can get their asses over there to save them. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. The US is a NATO member, and with good reason. Just realize that "spending money on your military" is not the same as "effectively defending yourself". I've got more sympathy for the Japanese, who at least have the excuse that they probably couldn't spend enough to fight off the Chinese anyways.


RE: More Toys for the Boys
By HotFoot on 5/21/2009 2:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised you include Australia in this. For a country of their size, they have a lot of military kit. Or have they downsized significantly since last I looked?


How about using a 747
By MadDogMorgan on 5/20/2009 3:39:32 PM , Rating: 3
No need to develop a new aircraft when we have plenty of worthy candidates for the job. Why not use a 747, modified with military electronics, bomb racks, chaff and flare dispensers. Massive payload, cheaper and easier to maintain, parts are available all over the world, can fly in and out of every major airport in the world if need be. Heavy bombers such as the B52 are rarely sent in until air superiority is established these days so a commercial class airliner is just as good as a specialized (read: much more expensive) military bomber. Use a 767 or 737 for a smaller version. Buy them cheap right now from airlines who are going broke. B-)




RE: How about using a 747
By gcouriel on 5/20/2009 4:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
why reinvent the wheel, when the B52 airframe has been developed and paid for? every new generation of B-52's is an advancement over the previous, but is just that, an advancement, not an entirely new airplane, with the costs involved in modifying a plane for a purpose it wasn't designed for.

the B52 is currently in its 8th generation, with plenty of airplanes in mothballs, that can be called up and used for parts to replace the current planes in the fleet. why spend the money to retrofit commercial airliners, purchase parts, train mechanics, and refit bases for airplanes that basically do the same thing you are already equipped to handle.

does the USAF need a new long-range bomber? maybe, but unless they can design one with the same combat readiness as the B52 (80%), it's just not worth the expense.


RE: How about using a 747
By Jansen (blog) on 5/20/2009 4:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
In that case, I would argue that they should use the B1B Lancer, as it holds much more ordnance than the B-52.


RE: How about using a 747
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 4:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
There aren't many B52s left since most have been chopped up for scrap. It would cost silly amounts of money to revive what is left and foolish given a new aircraft will have computer engineering, modeling, testing, better materials.... The B52, good though it maybe, has out lived it's useful service life.

As for commercial jets into bombers, ignoring the fact that airlines would become targets just on appearance, bombs are not like passengers. They weigh more but take up less space so you need a special purpose aircraft.


RE: How about using a 747
By jabber on 5/21/2009 9:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Just less than 100 apparently. Most of these would be airframes from the last couple of marques from 59-61.

What I would be intrigued to know is whether certain military projects like these are required more for 'posture power' than actual real offensive/defensive power?

You know the 'we'll never use em but the threat is there' stance. Its a valid tactic, just a rather expensive one.


RE: How about using a 747
By aegisofrime on 5/20/2009 4:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
How about an airborne drone carrier? Maybe a converted 747 or C-130 built to carry, deploy, re-aram and re-fuel UAVs. It's gonna be like a Carrier, which we are know is an instant win.


RE: How about using a 747
By StevoLincolnite on 5/20/2009 4:49:48 PM , Rating: 3
Especially in StarCraft. ;)


You Must be Joking!
By FPP on 5/20/2009 5:36:35 PM , Rating: 4
Honestly, can you imagine a more boneheaded comment?

We have developed four long range bombers in the last 50 years:

B70
B1A
B1B
B2

In EVERY case, after spending billions in research, billions in development and billions in production, we CANCELLED EVERY program!

NOW, this chucklehead, wants to commit billions more so another congress can fail to produce what was produced by the program?????????

Never mind the F22, C17, and how many other programs cropped short after the taxpayer pays for the whole program!

Nonsense.

Now run along and try to impress us by buillding an aerial refuling plane, needed desperatly. That, General, should keep you busy for a while.




RE: You Must be Joking!
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2009 5:44:05 PM , Rating: 1
You're blaming the military for politicians canceling a program to help pay for social welfare programs?


RE: You Must be Joking!
By FPP on 5/21/2009 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Of course not, because they were not cancelled to pay for social programs. They were cancelled because the political leaders lacked the will to proceed. How can a general legitimately advocate for a new bomber when congress has, for numerous reasons, cancelled the last four? The glaring message is that we do not need one. While I disaggree with this, we have to get past this hurdle before we put even more money into this fools errand.


RE: You Must be Joking!
By ekv on 5/21/2009 6:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
And it's ok to spend trillions on bailouts? At least with a Military project you have a decent idea of where the money is going.


RE: You Must be Joking!
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the problems that resulted in the XB-70 and B-1A being cancelled were because the bombers were just too ambitious. Both the Air Force and NASA have this problem - they want to build some new thing that is revolutionary is as many ways as possible. What both the Air Force and NASA need to do is use off-the-shelf technology as much as possible and simply design something that gets the job done.

Production of the B-2 was stopped because of the changes resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union, the same reason there have been huge cuts to the number of F-22s that are being ordered. Those programs didn't exactly fail, they just became unnecessary.


RE: You Must be Joking!
By HotFoot on 5/21/2009 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
My vote, if I had one, would be to pick up the B-2A design, dust it off, and work out some design akin to the Super Hornet rework - with emphasis on lowering maintenance and overall cost of operation. That might be better than starting from scratch.

It just seems to me that so many programs go as far as having development complete to at least the first operationally ready spiral, and then production is either cancelled or drastically slashed. I can hardly see that as viable cost-savings measures. From this perspective, I'm leery of a totally new program, on the basis of the likelihood that it will simply be cancelled after a decade or two of work and tens of billions of dollars spent.


RE: You Must be Joking!
By FPP on 5/21/2009 4:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, that being the case, why on earth would we begin ANOTHER manned bomber program????????? Understand, I think the General is correct, it's just that we've failed to deploy perfectly good bombers. Were we to have deployed the B1A or B, and put the upgrades we stuffed into the B52 and B2, we would now have a pretty darned good fleet. Now, we have General wank-a-thon fantisizing over a new one.

Nonsense.


Yeah!
By gevorg on 5/20/2009 1:45:51 PM , Rating: 4
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran!




RE: Yeah!
By Iaiken on 5/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah!
By xRyanCat on 5/20/2009 2:27:17 PM , Rating: 3
+1 for Beach Boys reference.


RE: Yeah!
By codeThug on 5/20/2009 8:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
minus (-1) cuz McCain used it once.


RE: Yeah!
By Smilin on 5/21/2009 12:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
"I can see Russia from my house!"


Face the reality
By yomamafor1 on 5/20/2009 6:02:23 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, we need a new strategic bomber that's capable of making around the globe in less than 24 hours. In the mean time, we also need a new UAV program that can eventually take over fighters. Also, we need to have the next generation destroyers, cruisers, as well as carriers, not to mention the carrier based aircrafts... can't forget those. Oh, might as well throw in 11T worth of gold / silver / precious metal / goods / services, because we definitely need them.

Face it. We DON'T need another strategic bomber. We DON'T need new naval ships. We DON'T need additional aircrafts, but we NEED to start saving to pay back our debts.




RE: Face the reality
By codeThug on 5/20/2009 8:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.

Kinda makes you wish flying saucers would land in every major country and take our collective idiot minds off of killing each other.


RE: Face the reality
By Headfoot on 5/21/2009 2:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, not really.


RE: Face the reality
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 12:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
New ships can use newer technology and automation, both of which can decrease the maintenance cost and the crew size (which also decreases cost). This means that although new ships cost money, over the life of the ship they would end up costing less money.


Long-range Strike = B-52 Strategic Bases
By teckytech9 on 5/20/2009 8:18:46 PM , Rating: 1
As a kid, I watched the B-52 bombers fly daily over Anderson AFB, Guam USA. For those that
don't know, Guam is a US territory like Puerto Rico and where America's day begins.

Fast forward 30 years, the B-52 still fly's there as well as the $2+ Billion B-2. I wonder if a day arrives when those birds stop flying altogether?. Unfortunately, the strategic deterrence of the cold war era still lives.

Hopefully as predicted in 2012, when solar activity picks up in the Sun, the B-52 shall prevail and once again protect us all. Hafa Adai!




RE: Long-range Strike = B-52 Strategic Bases
By Jeffk464 on 5/20/2009 8:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
All they have to do is modify a boeing 777 to be a bomber. Engineer bomb bay doors, bomb racks and the necessary electronics and you have a much more reliable and cheap replacement for the b52. Yes it would have the same survivability problems of the b52, so you need air superiority before you use it.


RE: Long-range Strike = B-52 Strategic Bases
By Zoomer on 5/20/2009 10:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably what boeing will do if/when the USAF calls for bids.

That's if they don't use the 787 airframe, which is more likely.


RE: Long-range Strike = B-52 Strategic Bases
By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 12:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can't convert an airliner to be a bomber, as mentioned elsewhere in the comments (look for the comment where someone suggested converting a 747).


By HotFoot on 5/21/2009 2:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
They were referring to the problem of the density of the load, in that passengers/luggage are low-density and so spread the load over a larger area for a given mass carried by the plane.

Actually, so long as you can hold the payload close to the wing, it's easier to manage, and more structurally efficient too, the more concentrated load. The spread-out load being a good thing is only if that load is spread spanwise, over the wing. Spreading it along the fuselage only means the load has to be transferred further to get to the wing.

That said, most (all?) large airliners have their wing low on the fuselage, and so the wing carry-through box will be smack-dab right where you want the bomb bay to be located. You could split the bay in two about the wing, but I expect you'd be limited operationally because you'd have to carefully load-balance between the two bays. Dropping something from the foreward bay would prediated dropping weight from the aft bay as well, lest you lose margin on your longitudinal stability.

In the end, though, the fixed airframe is a relatively small part of the cost of a sophisticated craft such as a bomber. Look to have commercial off-the-shelf engines perhaps, as those are high-maintennance items, and borrow as many electronics systems as you can from other programs, but why not have a purpose-built airframe housing it all?


By streak24 on 5/20/2009 2:32:51 PM , Rating: 1
Huge difference between the two...one is an airplane that is historically manned by an aircrew and drops bombs. The other is the ability to strike targets from a great distance.

So how do you strike targets from a great distance without a bomber?? One way would be through Kinetic Bombardment...also known as "Rods from God"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment




By johnsonx on 5/20/2009 5:10:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'm surprised that the depiction of orbital bombardment in Babylon 5 (used by the Centauri against the Narn home world during their war) did not make the list of sci-fi references. I guess since it's wikipedia I could add it but I'm just not that motivated...


By codeThug on 5/20/2009 8:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes!!!!

Rods from God :D

Why does the thought of telephone pole size tungsten cylinders raining down on some troublemaker at meteoric speeds bring about tears of laughter?


By imperator3733 on 5/21/2009 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Although Rods from God would be very powerful (and really cool - at least until they're being dropped on you), I can think of a few problems. First, there might be problems targeting accurately, and also it might be hard to target moving vehicles. The biggest problem I can think of, though, is that this would effectively be a militarization of space, which is currently barred by treaties.


Umm...
By Ranari on 5/20/2009 5:35:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'm trying to be pragmatic here. I know I'll get flamed, but may some of you will agree with me.

So the Air Force wants a new bomber. The thing is, this isn't the Second World War anymore. You can't just fly over a nation [you're at war with] and drop bombs with impunity. Air defense has gone a long, long ways since the thousands-manned flak batteries that nations used to operated back in the 1940s. Second a huge, slow flying heavy bomber over a target and it'll be the biggest fireball in the sky aside from the Sun after being knocked out by a multi-mach speed missile. We *could* develop a stealth bomber, but we already have, and the cost is outrageous.

So that leaves the B-52. The age old, tried and true, B-52 (hey that rhymes!). Thirdly, what stops us from building brand new B-52s?




RE: Umm...
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2009 5:48:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah we developed one. And then only built a relative handful. And they're based on technology that's 30 years old.

Don't forget that even if we start today, it'll be 15 years before one even flies. By then our current B2s will be 30 years old.


RE: Umm...
By Jeffk464 on 5/20/2009 8:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually some of the old tech stuff has proven to be very useful. The B52 was fitted with gps guided bombs for the war on terror and is a able to hit targets with precision. It is able to loiter over an area for a very long time and drop bombs precisely when needed. Kind of like the Air Force wanted to get rid of the a10 before the Gulf War because it was out dated. Well it turned out that it was the only plane that could be used when Saddam set the oil fields on fire. It was able to operate slow and low enough to be below the smoke from the oil fields. UAV's would have a very low survival rate in a war with another superpower but in the war on terror where the enemy is low tech they have been very effective.

The service that has had the hardest time justifying the Navy budge, I think I heard that our Navy is larger then the next 8 navies combined. Attack submarines are not very useful in trying to defeat the Taliban.


RE: Umm...
By ekv on 5/21/2009 6:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
Russian President recently announced commitment to building up their armed forces. Including new sub's. China wants to project power worldwide like the US does with it's Navy. They too are building sub's. [Is the Google picture still up?] And recall the little tit-for-tat over our mapping their ocean floor. China don't like to be messed with ... and they want to be paid on time. Something to think about.


One word ICBM
By Ammohunt on 5/20/2009 2:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Strategic bombing is so "50's" they need to develope something to replace the F-111 and mass produce ICBM's and cruise missles to do the job.




RE: One word ICBM
By Griswold on 5/21/2009 7:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hows life in yester-yesterday? More strategic bombers is a dumb idea, more ICBMs is silly. The arsenal currently available is sufficient. At best it needs to be modernized, but not increased.


use an existing platform
By filterxg on 5/20/2009 10:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
AF has been talking about it for a few years, and it'll take 50 years to implement, but keep a couple of standard platforms (sharing at least some parts, and design work). They have 2 light/fast platforms (they've investigated an FB-22, which has a full delta wing and big bomb bay), and they're about to get a new heavy in the KC-X. So save money and pick one of those.




By Steve73 on 5/20/2009 11:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Our intercontinental ballistic missile force needs replacing and is in far worse shape than the bomber force. Why not strengthen are nuclear triad? Oh wait, there are no pilots.




No, it doesn't
By WinstonSmith on 5/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: No, it doesn't
By WinstonSmith on 5/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: No, it doesn't
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 5:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot the NB-36H to test nuclear fueled jet engines, great idea except for that little problem with the radiation. Sounds weird by today's standards but put it into period context. We are very lucky they didn't blow up the world.

All this craziness when all then General was asking for, which is his job to do, is to start research not actually start cranking out bombers next week.

How many jobs or mind blowing ideas has welfare created? Just a thought.


RE: No, it doesn't
By FITCamaro on 5/21/2009 7:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because that's all the US Air Force has done in the past 8 years.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki