|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 5, 2015 13:15:25 GMT -6
Against a peer adversary the bombers are still useful as standoff missile trucks. The older AGM-86 cruise missiles and the new AGM-158B have a reach of over 500 nm; a B-52 can carry 20 of either while the B-1 and B-2 can carry 24 or 16 AGM-158s, respectively. Those weapons can be carried by fighter-bombers, but only in pairs and as external ordnance. Granted naval vessels can do the same thing with Tomahawk, but bombers allow a little more flexibility in launch points. With an LO carrier like the B-2 or LRS-B, you can really complicate the other guy's air defense problem if all you have to do is find a chink in the IADS that will get within 500 miles of the target.
Just to clarify, at one point there you say that the B-1s should be ditched ASAP and the B-52s could take over all their tasks, then in the following statement you advocate for getting rid of the B-52 and using the savings to fund B-1 upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2015 13:34:52 GMT -6
Against a peer adversary the bombers are still useful as standoff missile trucks. The older AGM-86 cruise missiles and the new AGM-158B have a reach of over 500 nm; a B-52 can carry 20 of either while the B-1 and B-2 can carry 24 or 16 AGM-158s, respectively. Those weapons can be carried by fighter-bombers, but only in pairs and as external ordnance. Granted naval vessels can do the same thing with Tomahawk, but bombers allow a little more flexibility in launch points. With an LO carrier like the B-2 or LRS-B, you can really complicate the other guy's air defense problem if all you have to do is find a chink in the IADS that will get within 500 miles of the target. Just to clarify, at one point there you say that the B-1s should be ditched ASAP and the B-52s could take over all their tasks, then in the following statement you advocate for getting rid of the B-52 and using the savings to fund B-1 upgrades. Sorry about the confusion, I saw that screw up this morning and was going to correct it when I got home. Granddaughter was sick yesterday, so we had her the full day. It makes for a complex day for my wife and I. Now to correct the mistake.
We should eliminate the oldest bomber with the largest crews and save the money on crew size and maintenance. That savings should be put into upgrading and improving the B-1B maintenance and capability. It is faster, more maneuverable and the hardest to see down low between it and the B-52. Now, we can focus on the two current bomber capabilities and proceed with a new bomber as we are doing. The bomber can still perform many missions but in point of fact, we probably don't need 160 of them. I believe that SLAM's can begin the process of replacing the long range bomber on certain missions, by developing a new SLAM with longer range and bigger payload. I also like the concept of the unmanned long range drone idea and that capability is here now, we can do it.
Again, sorry for the confusion, I know what I wanted to say, but my GD was peering over my shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2015 21:53:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 6, 2015 18:26:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 27, 2015 18:04:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 27, 2015 18:14:54 GMT -6
This is a smart move to maintain the company that builds the B-2 Stealth bomber and has the most experience in this kind of low observability, long range bomber. Boeing has a large commercial side and builds the F-18. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35 so it keeps the big three; Boeing, Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin all in business for the foreseeable future. I am still waiting for detailed requirements and specifications.
Addendum -
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 27, 2015 18:47:15 GMT -6
Preservation of the three major combat jet manufacturers was one possible reason; some wags also figured that with the amount of black eyes Lockheed has given itself with the F-35 the Air Force might have had reservations about giving them another big-ticket program where cost control was supposed to be a major factor.
What I'll be most interested in over the next ten years is how well N-G is going to do at keeping the cost-per-plane down and whether it'll be ready for IOC in 2025. If they can at least get close to those numbers without major technical issues that'll be a major turnaround in stealth aircraft development.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 27, 2015 20:25:42 GMT -6
Preservation of the three major combat jet manufacturers was one possible reason; some wags also figured that with the amount of black eyes Lockheed has given itself with the F-35 the Air Force might have had reservations about giving them another big-ticket program where cost control was supposed to be a major factor. What I'll be most interested in over the next ten years is how well N-G is going to do at keeping the cost-per-plane down and whether it'll be ready for IOC in 2025. If they can at least get close to those numbers without major technical issues that'll be a major turnaround in stealth aircraft development. I am not certain that the cost overruns and problems with the F-35 entered into it. My experience over the years has told me that it is a two way street in the area of costs. The services tends to give the manufacturers a moving target in the area of specifications and this makes it real hard to predict how expensive the new changes might be and how far over the stated budgetary cost the actual weapon might be. it is also the responsibility of Congress and the GAO, it's their job to monitor costs and examine yearly budgets. If they find some issues with cost overruns and the IOC, they must go to the manufacturers and the service to correct them. Tight budget controls are a must, they have to transcend administrations. I've worked with Grumman on many occasions, and for the most part, they were a good group of men, who tried to do their best for the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 28, 2015 7:46:52 GMT -6
Just some more information on the LRS-B contract, if Northrup Grumman had not won the contract, a breakup of the company and sell off of many of its elements to the highest bidder would have occurred. Boeing could suffer as the F-15 and F-18 will stop production by the end of the decade along with the EA-18G Growler. The USAF claims that industrial base had nothing to do with the selection process, but I wouldn't believe that, I am certain it did. The terms of the contract and selection criteria are secret so we are going to have to wait until all of those documents are released.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 28, 2015 17:37:17 GMT -6
Good short article which touches on a few of the items that I've mentioned - www.pogo.org/blog/2015/04/20150430-historical-lessons-for-air-forces-new-bomber.htmlLet's examine and discuss the following points 1. The B-2 offers another example with its stealth skin. The plane’s skin is so sensitive to moisture and heat that it requires special hangers and mechanics just to stay operational. Consequently, the plane must be based in the United States, which means huge fuel costs (on top of the huge maintenance costs) anytime it flies around the world for use in combat. Just because a feature is technologically possible does not make it the right investment 2.The most important thing about combat aircraft is to have quality pilots. 3. “The F-22 costs 10 times as much as an early model F-16 fighter and, due to its huge maintenance load, can fly only half as many sorties per day. Thus, for equal investment, the F-22 delivers only one-twentieth as many airplanes over enemy territory as the F-16—a crippling disadvantage.” The F-35 and B-2 clearly fail these criteria, and it’s important that these costly mistakes are not repeated with the LSRB. 4.While R&D can improve well-defined programs, the Air Force has a history of wasting money researching and developing technologies it does not need. Without more transparency there is no way to know, but the cut potentially reflects congressional attention to that issue with the LRSB 5. Congress will need to act on the GAO’s findings and recommendations—assuming the study requirement makes it into the final version of the NDAA. Americans should have little faith that the Air Force or Congress will be more responsible with their money this time than they were with the F-35, F-22, or B-2. The GAO report could provide taxpayers much needed transparency, and be the basis for future LRSB oversight. History tells us it will be needed
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 29, 2015 7:40:48 GMT -6
I wasn't certain this was the best location for this upload, but here it is. It's a piece about weapons procurement by some men who are experienced with the Pentagon. It echoes some of our concerns and my ideas of how procurement works and what is important. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 20, 2015 18:53:01 GMT -6
I'll admit it - when you **** the Russkies off, they'll at least make a spectacle of the payback: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ev1IaLn-_wF-14s escorting Bears. Who woulda thunk it?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2015 19:06:32 GMT -6
I'll admit it - when you **** the Russkies off, they'll at least make a spectacle of the payback: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ev1IaLn-_wF-14s escorting Bears. Who woulda thunk it? Cool vid, and yes, when you've enraged the two most powerful nations in the world then throw in the French and Turks, you've dug your hole pretty deep. ISIS must have a big ego, because a few bombs in Paris and one aircraft over Egypt will not compare to what the US and the Russians can throw at you. With those two nations and the EU on your tail, its time to reconsider your strategy or you will all be visiting Allah.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 22, 2015 18:45:04 GMT -6
From what I understand, the line that ISIL feeds to their grunts (which may or may not be what the higher-ups actually buy into) is that this is basically an apocalyptic cult with the idea being that the endgame is to get a "crusader" army into Syria, at which point something reminiscent of biblical Armageddon courtesy of Allah kicks off. These guys consider everyone their enemy - they've insinuated that former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli puppet and they lump Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in with the rest of their enemies.
Back on topic, while the news that the Russians were bombing the crap out of these nutjobs was a plus, I hope theatrics gives way to practicality. If destruction of an outfit that has no practical air defenses is the objective, those Bears and Blackjacks should have been loaded with dumb bombs (or GPS-guided gravity munitions, assuming they can use those) rather than popping off pricey cruise missiles. That bit was another display aimed at the West.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2015 20:08:31 GMT -6
From what I understand, the line that ISIL feeds to their grunts (which may or may not be what the higher-ups actually buy into) is that this is basically an apocalyptic cult with the idea being that the endgame is to get a "crusader" army into Syria, at which point something reminiscent of biblical Armageddon courtesy of Allah kicks off. These guys consider everyone their enemy - they've insinuated that former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli puppet and they lump Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in with the rest of their enemies. Back on topic, while the news that the Russians were bombing the crap out of these nutjobs was a plus, I hope theatrics gives way to practicality. If destruction of an outfit that has no practical air defenses is the objective, those Bears and Blackjacks should have been loaded with dumb bombs (or GPS-guided gravity munitions, assuming they can use those) rather than popping off pricey cruise missiles. That bit was another display aimed at the West. On ISIS, they are nihilists, no vision and no real goal, just death and destruction. They want an international war between Muslim and Christian, so don't give it to them. Don't invade, just work together with the Muslim nations including Iran and pretty soon, the Iranian's who depend on the West to buy their oil, will realize which side of the bread the butter's on, and ISIS will simply disappear. As to the use of dumb bombs, it really, as I stated in another post, depends on the targeting strategy. After the Egyptair bombing, I believe the Russians will now cooperate and some real combined efforts will be forthcoming in the area of targeting. They can't keep using up their supplies of smart bombs, they going to have to focus on the areas like command and control, logistics and known troop concentrations possibly even training camps.
|
|