backtop

Print 70 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Jan 8 at 6:58 PM

Current B-2 Spirit long-ranger bomber
Despite financial uncertainty, the USAF will be able to manufacture a new long-range bomber

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently indicated the U.S. Air Force is likely going to receive funding set aside for a new long-range bomber, according to media reports.

In April, Gates cut several high-profile projects, which led to Air Force officials being disappointed that funding for the bomber could have vanished.  However, the bomber program is expected to receive at least $1 billion, with the number expected to significantly increase in the years to come.

"We are probably going to proceed with a long-range strike initiative coming out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and various other reviews going on," Gates noted.  "We're looking at a family of capabilities, both manned and unmanned."

The U.S. military continues to transition its air fleet to be better prepared for the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Working with private contractors, military officials continue to look for new ways to modernize its fleet at a time when the Pentagon has requested lower spending budgets.

It's unknown if the Air Force is more interested in developing a long-range unmanned aircraft, or will instead decide to rely on manned bombers.  To date, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been reconnaissance aircraft, though coordinated strikes have taken place using UAVs.

Gates' announcement also will excite private contractors, which have been disappointed in the lack of government-issued contracts.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Evolved B-2?
By HotFoot on 12/14/2009 8:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that the B-2 is a very capable platform. Maybe an evolved platform would be an excellent solution. Something akin to the Super Hornet vs. the Hornet.

Otherwise, anyone want to place bets on how much the unit price will be for the next-gen bomber? I'm placing mine at $5 Billion per copy, total project costs.




RE: Evolved B-2?
By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 8:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Otherwise, anyone want to place bets on how much the unit price will be for the next-gen bomber? I'm placing mine at $5 Billion per copy, total project costs.


Plan has been to reduce the per unit cost compared to the B-2.

Should be quite do-able as long as they restrict it to subsonics.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By gamerk2 on 12/14/2009 9:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
The B2 is not only expensive to fly and maintain, it has a very small bomb load. Hence, why the majority of the work is done by Truman era (albiet heavily upgraded) B-52 bombers instead.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By Nfarce on 12/14/2009 11:51:41 AM , Rating: 4
The B-2 is a first wave surgical strike bomber that usually flies at night only on attack missions undetected. It doesn't need a large payload. The B-52 on the other hand is just a big massive unloader on a general hot spot. They like to come in low and hot in broad daylight or loiter high out of AA range. Two entirely different missions.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By SoCalBoomer on 12/14/2009 3:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
SMALL bomb load?

B2 = 80,500 lbs
B52 = 70,000 lbs

Hmmm. . .doesn't seem so small, now, does it?

(information found on publicly available sources)


RE: Evolved B-2?
By SoCalBoomer on 12/14/2009 3:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
btw - that's PAYLOAD. . .just in case you were curious.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By DominionSeraph on 12/14/2009 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
B2 = 80,500 lbs


80 500 lb bombs != 80,500 lbs.
It's 40,000.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By Solandri on 12/14/2009 8:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
The USAF has been looking for a bomber with better payload than the B52 for quite some time now. The B1-B was the first result, but its main characteristic (supersonic speed to evade supersonic Soviet interceptors) became superfluous with the end of the Cold War.

This page

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/bom...

has a pretty dramatic comparison of the payload difference between the B2, B1-B, and B52. Keep in mind the empty weight of all three planes is pretty close (158,000 lbs for the B2, 185,000 lbs for the B52, 192,000 lbs for the B1-B).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/jdam.gif

So yeah, the B52's payload is relatively small. Not surprising since it's a 1950s plane with an airframe designed for the engines available at the time.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/16/2009 12:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
just to clarify (not that anyone will actually read this).

the b52's bomb load is smaller with reason.

those numbers are based purely off internal stores. the original spec b52's also carried bombs on the wings. if you factor these hardpoints in as well--the capacity is significantly greater.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/14/2009 9:51:18 AM , Rating: 5
this isn't to replace the b1 of the b2. it's to replace the b52, which is currently the oldest designed aircraft in the USAF fleet. we're not looking for a premier 1st strike bomber (b2). we're looking for a fleet workhorse. something cheap, easy to repair, easy on maintenance, inexpensive to fly, and capable of boucoup flight hours on the airframe.

you have to understand that bombers aren't even remotely the same as the iconic WWII era depicts them. they are platforms with extremely long loiter times & copious payloads of 1-bomb, 1-kill weaponry. they are much more preferable for the current, asymmetric battlefield than fighters--if only for their extra long legs. the recent addition of targeting pods on bombers has cemented them as the most capable strike aircraft in all but a very few select situations (where the f22 shines gloriously).

don't expect large fleets of nuke-laden bombers with which to threaten our would-be enemies. instead, expect air-support to remain over the heads of our grunts indefinately & discharging warheads 1 at a time for troops-in-contact situations.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By mcnabney on 12/14/2009 12:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
How about making some more B-52s?

We do still have the designs, right?

All we really need is a huge Tonka truck that can loiter over a battlefield and drop JDAMs. Make more B52s and give them an I or J version number.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By lwatcdr on 12/14/2009 12:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
We kind of have the plans for the B52 but they are on paper not in CAD. Also a lot of the standard parts used are just not available anymore.
Add in wouldn't want to use TF33s for engines anymore. And we would want to use metric parts makes the B52 plans historically interesting but not useful.
Plus the plans are only part of the cost. There is the tooling which I would bet is long gone.

IT would be cheaper and better to build a new design with the same mission requirements than to build new B52s.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By chromal on 12/14/2009 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There is the tooling which I would bet is long gone.


Actually, no, the USAF kept the B52 tooling. In fact, it was brought from the B52 production factories to the boneyard in Mesa, AZ, aka the AMARC (Aerospace Maintenance and REgeneration Center), where it remains to this day.

This is the same place where the 'extra' B-52s were cut in the pieces for spy satellite verification under the SALT arms control treaties.

Mainly, the problem with the B-52 was that it was designed in another era, when engineering was done on paper and with a sliderule. If we build something to replace the B-52s missions, you can bet we're going to at least get the advantage of airframe modernization out of it.

You have to respect the robustness of the design that the B-52 is still operation-capable after all these years, and with missions the original designers never anticipated.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By DominionSeraph on 12/14/2009 4:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
IT would be cheaper and better to build a new design with the same mission requirements than to build new B52s.


Cheaper? This is the USAF we're talking about -- you know they're gonna go whiz-bang if given the chance.
Better? The B-52 has a proven operational life of over 50 years and is the best heavy bomber... ever. Throw some modern high-bypass turbofans on that beast, and how much better can anything be at being a bomb truck?

Nuclear/cruise missile/incendiary/iron bomb/smart bomb/minelaying -- the B-52 has done it all.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By lwatcdr on 12/14/2009 12:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
We kind of have the plans for the B52 but they are on paper not in CAD. Also a lot of the standard parts used are just not available anymore.
Add in wouldn't want to use TF33s for engines anymore. And we would want to use metric parts makes the B52 plans historically interesting but not useful.
Plus the plans are only part of the cost. There is the tooling which I would bet is long gone.

IT would be cheaper and better to build a new design with the same mission requirements than to build new B52s.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 1:30:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
IT would be cheaper and better to build a new design with the same mission requirements than to build new B52s.


It would be cheaper and better to design deployable munitions from the back of a C-17...

Not that the mil-industrial complex would like that, it would be too efficient (i.e. not enough taxpayers money for them!).


RE: Evolved B-2?
By Nfarce on 12/14/2009 2:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would be cheaper and better to design deployable munitions from the back of a C-17... Not that the mil-industrial complex would like that, it would be too efficient (i.e. not enough taxpayers money for them!).


Have you ever heard of the MOAB? It is usually unloaded from an MC-130 Combat Talon. The C-17, while a remarkable performing aircraft, of course is a transport plane and not armed nor designed to be in battle zones even though it can literally fly circles around the bumbling C-130.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By lwatcdr on 12/14/2009 3:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you could "fire" jdams out the back of the C17. You would have to upgrade it with targeting systems and probably improve the ECM systems but for a battle field bomb truck it could work. But then so could a C-130.
I was thinking more along the lines of a new B-70. You could get over target very quickly and then launch ACMs. It could also hang around a battle field for a while as a bomb truck. Probably not as long as a B-52 but probably as long as a B-1b.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By corduroygt on 12/14/2009 12:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't a bunch of UAV's be better suited to that task if you're only releasing weapons 1 at a time?


RE: Evolved B-2?
By lwatcdr on 12/14/2009 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.
A large bomber can carry a lot of different weapons all at the same time.
Plus it is a lot easier to manage a few big bombers than lots of small UAVs.
Think different tools for different jobs.


RE: Evolved B-2?
By corduroygt on 12/14/2009 5:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
But mostly you only need a few strikes in the 10+ hour loiter time. Is it efficient to get 100 bombs up in the air and only use 5 of them vs. UAV's?


RE: Evolved B-2?
By Calin on 12/15/2009 4:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
Is it more efficient to keep up a B-52 for 10 hours and launch 5 out of 100 bombs, or is it more efficient to keep in the air 100 UAV and launch 5 bombs? Or maybe keep 5 UAV in the air, and launch 5 bombs, and then need to launch another 5 bombs?


RE: Evolved B-2?
By aqaq55 on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
By HotFoot on 12/14/2009 8:16:13 AM , Rating: 4
Um, pretty much everyone?


By erwos on 12/14/2009 8:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well, put it like this: other NATO members have long-range bombers. Who are they planning on bombing? Answer: no one. They can act as a defensive and deterrent capacity. Unless you somehow think a defensive war only takes place on your own soil, in which case you're a bit of a fool. Until there's no more violent human conflict, countries will need ways to defend themselves, and, yes, attack others. These weapons are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem.

Welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.


By jonmcc33 on 12/14/2009 8:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 1:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
I see a list of NATO countries.

I do not see a list of NATO countries with "long-range bombers".

You wanna go back and rethink that?


By erwos on 12/14/2009 8:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Note that I said "long-range", not "strategic".

But, to answer your question: the French have the Mirage IV, which could be called one.


By mcnabney on 12/14/2009 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
1500 mile range for the Mirage IV - not a long range bomber.

The closest thing to a strategic bomber a NATO ally has produced is the British Vulcan - which has a range of 3500 miles. Otherwise all strategic bombers have been produced by the US and USSR (not Russia, they don't have anything new since the Cold War)

Compare that to the B-52 and its 8500 mile, unrefueled range.

I should also give a shout-out to the Tu-95 "Bear" bomber.


By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 1:28:28 PM , Rating: 4
The Mirage IV has been retired from all but photo reconnaissance.

Anyway, it is not a long range bomber.

I'm not surprised to have been downrated given the obvious lack of education of many of the users of this site.

There is not one NATO country outside the USA with a long range bomber right now.


By encryptkeeper on 12/14/2009 9:02:34 AM , Rating: 3
Mr. President we must not allow a Doomsday gap!


By Camikazi on 12/14/2009 9:43:33 AM , Rating: 4
Best defense is a good offense :)


By Iaiken on 12/14/2009 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 3
A wise vending machine once told me:

"The best defense is not a good offense...It's a good defense! So get yourself a shield!"

Oh how right it was...


By Camikazi on 12/14/2009 5:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not when it comes to stuff like this, showing you have guns as big as your enemies makes them less likely to attack you. Never said it was a good idea, is just how it works, countries don't wanna attack a country that can destroy them just as easily.


By MadDogMorgan on 12/14/2009 8:28:46 PM , Rating: 4
Dear Air Force Brass - who read these comments religiously...

How about just modding an existing commercial airliner such as the 747 Freighter to haul bombs and aerial refuel? Your development costs would be a teeny-tiny fraction of developing a new plane, you'd have spare parts all over the world already, and your maintenance costs would be minimized by utilizing a proven maintenance-friendly commercial airframe. If you want a smaller one, choose the 737. US Mil is already using it for a number of other tasks such as the P8-A.
Come on, let's face it, you don't need a new stealth bomber, or a fancy fighter derivative , you need a Mack Truck to replace the venerable B-52, fly a long way on a tank of fuel, haul a boatload of bombs over the target and be cheap to operate. (excuse the mixed metaphors) All that pinpoint bombing stuff can be handled by existing fighter-bombers or unmanned planes with guided bombs. You also don't need a bunch of fancy stealth stuff that's expensive to develop and maintain. Don't give me that silly talk about high-wing to operate from unimproved runways, we don't operate heavy bombers from unimproved runways. The days of WWII are over. How about saving us taxpayers a ton of money and getting yourself a new workhorse that will keep working for a long, long time?

Yours Truly,
Maddogmorgan
Military aviation advisory specialist.
(as must be obvious from the handle)




By mcnabney on 12/14/2009 9:13:36 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, there was a cool design to use a 747 as a huge cruise missile launcher. Essentially fill the body with 6 ALCM rotary launchers. I think the design allowed for 12 racks of 6, so one 747 could carry 72 cruise missiles. Impressive.
http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm

The cruise missiles could just as easily be replaced with JDAMs for current needs.


By Belard on 12/15/2009 5:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
Or for a long-range bomber...

take a B1B - remove the 3rd ammunitions rack (rear)and put in a fuel tank?

It'll still carry a bunch of bombs and would greatly extend the range.

But perhaps a bigger crew cabin is needed for longer trips? or simply include a PS3 in every bomber.


By DominionSeraph on 12/16/2009 9:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
take a B1B - remove the 3rd ammunitions rack (rear)and put in a fuel tank?


The B-1B already has the range. The problem is it costs over 5x as much, has half the service life, costs more to maintain, and, going by range/fuel capacity, it doesn't appear to be any more fuel efficient than a B-52 with TF33s.


By skyyspam on 12/14/2009 7:34:42 PM , Rating: 3
Don't they think it's a bit late in the game for "transitioning the military" for these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems likely that our national interest in them will fade sooner than we think, and we'll be left with a bunch of newly-built bombers, drones, and other hardware that's as improper for conventional warfighting as some current hardware is for occupying the desert right now.

It's sad that our committment to funding the F-22 and F-15 programs has been cut short. I doubt the politicians realize exactly how much of a dog the F-35 will be in non-attack roles, since no one seems to care about any other missions these days.

I guess we just have to hope and believe that all our future wars are occupational, and not a bit conventional.




Keep it cheap!
By filterxg on 12/14/2009 11:07:26 PM , Rating: 3
FB-22 for first day engagement. This should both serve the role, be relatively cheap in design, and reduce the long term servicing costs of all F22.

Then modify a 767 for the real heavy stuff after we gain air superiority.

Basically keep cost down, if you have a viable platform use it!




New?!?!
By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 8:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
Folks, this work has been ongoing for the past 3 or 4 years! (maybe even as far back as 2001, but I'm not sure on that)

There previously have been programs called the 2018 bomber, the long range strike aircraft LRSA-X and the advanced tactical bomber.

All are more or less working on this one aim. Supplement the B-2.




The way the USAF wastes money...
By qdemn7 on 12/14/2009 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
That $1B will probably buy one control surface on the new bomber.




New Bomber Program???
By FPP on 12/14/2009 6:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one for the record books! After billions of dollars spent to develop the B2 and then a short mfg quantity these chuckleheads want a NEW program. These jackasses should be beaten! How many planes do we develop and then not build???? jesus, we could have BOUGHT them for all the money we spent developing the F22 B1B B1A, etc!




wait what?
By shin0bi272 on 12/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: wait what?
By Brovane on 12/14/2009 8:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 went into full production. Production will be stopped at only around 185 air frames. Really Obama didn't kill it Defense Secretary Gates wanted to kill it and Obama went along with it.


RE: wait what?
By jonmcc33 on 12/14/2009 8:55:34 AM , Rating: 3
This isn't necessarily Obama's project. IT's a USAF project that the DoD approved funding for based upon it's already declared budget for the fiscal year.

It's all about cost of developing and building a new bomber vs maintaining older bombers such as the B-52 - which itself costs the US tax payers billions every year.


RE: wait what?
By MadMan007 on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: wait what?
By Nfarce on 12/14/2009 12:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Einstein, the program cutbacks started in 1990 before production even started - going from 750 to 648. Then in 1994 under the Clinton administration under Secretary Cohen that number reduced to 442. And on down from there the numbers went through many administrations. Perhaps it is you who needs to stick to the facts.


RE: wait what?
By FPP on 12/15/2009 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 3
Nonetheless, professor, the Obama admin killed what is essentially an invincible weapon system.

Presidents like this have done this for years and then are not around when the music stops. There are at least six good scenarios for the F22's use, from China to the middle east, and after spending all the development money, all we had to do was buy them.

Nothing pisses me off more than the colossal waste of terminating a system that gives us unquestioned air superiority at 3, 4 even 5 to 1 ratios.

What a sad commentary.


RE: wait what?
By NesuD on 12/14/2009 10:14:30 AM , Rating: 3
And anyone that thinks 185 F-22s isn't the most formidable force of Air Dominance aircraft to fire their afterburners needs to come back to earth and see what is happening these days. As of right now I think you can easily pit 50 of virtually any Air dominance fighter in the world against 10 F-22s and the F-22s will rip them to shreds, likely with zero losses in most cases.


RE: wait what?
By jonmcc33 on 12/14/2009 10:21:12 AM , Rating: 1
You have been playing too many video games and are apparently unfamiliar with what other countries are developing.


RE: wait what?
By mcnabney on 12/14/2009 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure other countries are 'developing' all kinds of wonderful things that will eventually be released at a far inferior spec. Look at the Russian Tu-160 'Backfire' bomber. In the real world you only get to count things that actually roll down the runway and do their job.


RE: wait what?
By Iaiken on 12/14/2009 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the Tu-160 Blackjack bombers that have been violating US, Canadian, British and other NATO members airspaces? Half of the time without being intercepted and identified?

Sure it's all posturing, but if you have a Mach 2.5+ aircraft that is capable of delivering as much ordinance as a B-52 and you can demonstrate to yourself that even modern militarizes cannot reliably perform interceptions of it. Its capabilities gives credence to it's existence. A Tu-160 was able to get within spitting distance of England's coast without so much as a radar contact.

It's interesting what can be accomplished with hybrid designs (variable geometry + blended wing).


RE: wait what?
By chromal on 12/14/2009 6:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the crews of Tu-160s who successfully embarrass national air defense programs, like the UK's, by succeeding in 'virtual strikes' get rewarded after they return home. Surely, it must involve vodka-fueled revelry!


RE: wait what?
By Kosh401 on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: wait what?
By mcnabney on 12/14/2009 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 1
The F22 has a single role in mind. Delete the entire Chinese airforce as a precursor to a land engagement. The odds of monkeys flying out of my ass are greater than the need for that kind of weapon.

Truthfully, the age of the manned fighter is over. In 30 years the Air Force will only be training pilots to fly cargo planes and tankers.


RE: wait what?
By HercDriver on 12/14/2009 1:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The odds of monkeys flying out of my ass are greater than the need for that kind of weapon.


<sigh>...I really hate reading the uninformed garbage spewing out of the mouths of idiots. This whole "cold war relic" and "we don't need it" kind of rhetoric really makes me angry. Fortunately for the citizens of the United States, Mcnabney doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The F-22's PRIMARY role is air supremacy. What is that? It means simply that its job is to shoot down ALL opposing aircraft to allow the un-contested use of air for OUR purposes (be those purposes to conduct strikes, reconnaisance, airlift, or whatever) while DENYING the enemy the use of the same airspace. The last time US ground troops have been attacked from the air was in the Korean war. Why don't you ask the Army or Marines if they are happy about that fact? The F-15 has done an OUTSTANDING job for the last 35+ years in ensuring US and Allied Air Supremacy. Although it is a great aircraft, it is now only on-par with the latest generation of Russian fighters. We can sit on our butts and say "we don't need the F-22", and subsequently get our butts kicked, or we can develop the finest combat aircraft the world has ever seen. Once again, I direct you to the Army and Marines to see which option they prefer. Before you make the other uninformed point "we aren't going to war with Russia or China", allow me to remind you that both of those countries export their latest generation fighters to nations with whom we may end up fighting in the future. In one particular case (Iran) we need the F-22 to penetrate the Russian-supplied air defenses. I assure you, the F-15 was not built to fly into areas protected by the S-300 and survive for long.

It all comes down to this: if we should not have spent money on the F-22, then why not keep flying B-17s and P-51s? I'm frankly amazed that the operational lifetime of the F-15 has lasted for so long. The P-51 came into service about as long after the Wright Flyer as the F-22 after the F-15. We simply CAN NOT stand around or our rear ends and allow anyone to develop an aircraft which would out-class our front line fighters and cede control of the skies to our enemies. Technology costs money, which in the long run is a much lower price then American and allied lives.

Although fighter aircraft MAY end up being unmanned in the future...we aren't ready for that yet. Just look at the last few times that an aircraft's autopilot has caused it to crash (the Turkish Airlines flight is the latest I can think of). Machines can't make decisions when information is missing, or conflicts with other sensors. I'd hate to be on a plane when the radar altimiter malfunctions, and the plane thinks it is only 5 feet off the ground and starts to reduce the throttle for landing, over-riding the human input (frantically trying to increase the power) and crashing.

Longer post than usual for me, but the "anti-F-22" crowd needs to educate themselves or shut up.


RE: wait what?
By Nfarce on 12/14/2009 3:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, I get tired of the mindless ignorance too. "We don't 'need' those aerial superiority aircraft."

Well not right now, no SH*T. Like you equated to, nobody knows what we'll "need" in 10, 20, or 30 years from now. WTF are we supposed to do, sit around like mindless bed wetting stoic philosophers while the Russians and Chinese build up arms and technologies? Not to mention the fact that it takes a decade or more to develop a new aircraft from CAD design sketches to tarmac operation. The mentality of pacifism never fails to fail.


RE: wait what?
By Amiga500 on 12/14/2009 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is far and away the best fighter aircraft on the planet right now.

However, I think its too inflexible for its cost (as yet, I'm not even sure if its been certified with JDAM).

But... what are the alternatives? JSF? A joke. Safer to suck it up and get the A2G modes into the F-22 IMO. A fleet of at least 500 of them and they can multi-role and have enough numbers to win any conflict.

Quantity has a quality all of its own, and if I was in the USAF, I'd be worried that the pentagon has forgot that.


RE: wait what?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/16/2009 12:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
lol.

clearly unaware of the intent behind the gbu-39 program.


RE: wait what?
By MadDogMorgan on 12/14/2009 8:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hear, Hear! HercDriver. Well said. By the way, the B2 autopilot caused the one B2 crash, on takeoff. If the pilot had been holding the stick instead of letting the computer fly it, you think he'd have pitched the nose up way too high as soon as it left the ground and stalled it? Cause? Malfunctioning sensor. You can tell when the pilot grabbed the stick if you watch the video, and he almost managed to save it.
On the F22, the other thing people don't seem to realize is that fighters of this caliber are so incredibly complicated that they take 10 years or more for the engineers to develop, and 20 years with all the political BS that the congress and presidents supply! If an enemy comes out with a superior technology we are years and years away from being able to counter it. That's ANOTHER reason we need to continue development of next generation fighters, be they manned or unmanned. People are lulled into a stupidly false sense of security because our military and intelligence services have done a stunningly good job of keeping the conflicts off our homeland, for the most part. That's another reason we need a big presence in the middle east. Keep the conflict over there, rather than here.

If you are, or were, a Herc driver, I thank you for your service. If it's just a handle, it's a good one.

As for my thoughts on the stated title of this article "develop long-range bomber" see my incredibly insightful comment titled "Dear Air Force"

MDM


RE: wait what?
By mcnabney on 12/15/2009 12:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
You know the Cold War is over, right?

All you are advocating doing is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars (which we are borrowing from the Chinese) in order to build weapons that are only needed to fight China or Russia. Unless you anticipate a war with Israel or the EU anytime soon?

Just because you 'can' build arguably the best fighter in the world does not necessarily mean you should. Our Air Force and the few military contractors left competing has designed themselves into a position that they will no longer be able to field an Air Force because the costs are too high. That happens when you have to spend geometrically more for subsequent generations of aircraft. The B2 and F22 are the best examples of this behavior, but almost the entire procurement division of the Air Force has followed this path. Tankers and C17s are another fine example.

But lets get back to the F22. This product is designed to secure the skies in a land war against a major opponent. And the most likely need for such a weapon, based upon likelyhood of conflict, is defending Taiwan from mainland China. However, the F22 has already been removed from the event scenario because the anticipated precursor to a Taiwanese invasion/assault is a massive medium-range rocket bombardment of Taiwanese air defenses and airfields. So any planes stationed in the theater would be blown-up on the ground. For that reason F22 deployment is not positioned to be utilized there. The damn plane hasn't even flown a combat mission yet because any war large enough to require their services would likely turn nuclear. They can't even be used as a token because of the high cost/risk in fielding them in a war zone. Think back to the Iraq war. Where did the first strikes come from? Not the stealth fighters/bombers. They were considered too expensive to risk in the opening fray of battle. Instead the old reliable B52 chugged up from Guam and launched cruise missiles at air defense targets. (some from subs too).

So the damn things cost a fortune to develop and deploy, plus they are too expensive to risk damaging. If a weapon system is too expensive to use you had no reason developing it. Who cares what they can do in the air when any knowledgable enemy will target them on the ground.

I also believe that the age of the fighter is over. In 15 years we will be using lasers to shoot down airborne threats, so the need to engage enemy planes/missiles will have passed on to new tech. We already use unmaned drones for close support. How many hundred armed drones can we deploy for the cost of one F35 squadron?

All I am really saying is that you need to stop romantacizing these planes. They are just flipping tools. Having them in your Air Force does nothing to make your penis any bigger. And if a tool costs too much to even use, it isn't a tool worth having.

PS - If the Chinese want to ground our Air Force, all they have to do is dump their US Securities. Priorities people.


RE: wait what?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/16/2009 12:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
incorrect.

the vast majority of first strikes (it was, after all, a long succession of them aimed at different regions & air defense sectors) were launched from f-117's.

that's right, STEALTH aircraft.

i award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.


RE: wait what?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/14/2009 1:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
not to get sucked into a side tangent...

185 f-22's is designed to replace 750+ legacy f-15's. that's about a 4:1 ratio.

then we factor in: the need to spread the fleet across a wide geographic area for homeland defense; the ops normal situation of at least 1/4 of the fleet at any given location being down for maintenance; the flight currency requirements for the pilots; the increased number of flight hours per airframe (in a given period of time) due to the substantially smaller fleet being expected to carry out the same amount of duty; and (last but not least) the original spec lifetime max hours per airframe.

i suppose to the uneducated it sounds like excessive, bloated spending. to me, it sounds like a recipie for windfall budget gains at the expense of long-term soluability.


RE: wait what?
By Zoomer on 12/14/2009 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
You are assuming that there isn't a better replacement in the works. Which is rather unlikely.


RE: wait what?
By chromal on 12/14/2009 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22s are simply awesome aircraft, just like the F-15s they replaced. From what I've read, the F-22 has the worlds most advanced avionics package, including its stealth features, and one of the best airframe/aerodynamic packages, perhaps only bested by the SU-35's performance curve.

Of course, and this is no accident, the F-22 was designed to take out planes like the SU-35 long before the SU-35 could threaten. In a long-range skirmish, it has advantages that would be difficult to overcome. In a short-range fight, there's some debate about which plane could win in a 1-on-1 fight.


RE: wait what?
By mcnabney on 12/15/2009 12:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the F35 has a more advanced avionics package. The F22 can supercruise, has a very good radar signature, and is proving to be more reliable than previous stealth generations.

The cost is $28B to develop, plus about $138 million per copy in manufacturing costs. So replacing the 750 F15s with 750 F22s would be about $140B. We just don't have the money for that.

Compare that with the Predator drone which weighs in so far at $4.5M each for the ~180 we have so far. Less than a billion in expenses on the program to date.


RE: wait what?
By FPP on 1/8/2010 6:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hogwash!

LOOK at what we DO spend 140 billion on!

Close uneccessary bases no longer needed by the F22's presence, the personnel cuts in putting new hardware on the line, and retiring all those old planes with their ungodly high maintenence and then get all the benefits.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki