Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 17:46:41 GMT -6
Interesting... I wonder what's the real need of a dedicated bomber when tactical aircraft can do the same nowadays? Does the op cost eventually offset the R&D cost somehow?... Yes, operating costs will offset the R&D costs over time. Long range strike capability in cases where there are no carriers and friendly bases. The B-36, B-47 and the B-52 essentially kept the Cold War from becoming hot. They can still keep small to medium size countries from getting frisky. This is a strategic asset that can be used by the President of the US to coerce a nation into backing down. It has worked many times. Plus..... they are really cool to watch take off and use to bomb nations back to the stone age... a quote from Curtis Lemay Lol. I guess to some its still a big looking stick.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 6, 2017 14:31:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 13, 2017 10:37:49 GMT -6
B-21? This isn't another one of those silly "bomber for the 21st Century" kind of deals is it? Like The Seawolf's (SSN-21-23) screwing up the submarine hull number sequence. Marketing stunts for our defense equipment annoy me out of proportion to their actual seriousness for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 13, 2017 11:41:59 GMT -6
B-21? This isn't another one of those silly "bomber for the 21st Century" kind of deals is it? Like The Seawolf's (SSN-21-23) screwing up the submarine hull number sequence. Marketing stunts for our defense equipment annoy me out of proportion to their actual seriousness for some reason. No, I don't think it is something stupid. I think it is a continued development of the B-2 with the start of a new numbering system. It is a development based on the concept of the LRS-B being the first bomber of the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 13, 2017 11:51:33 GMT -6
But why a new numbering system? They were at 2. Like I said, this is trivial and not a big deal in any way but it just rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 13, 2017 14:52:56 GMT -6
But why a new numbering system? They were at 2. Like I said, this is trivial and not a big deal in any way but it just rubs me the wrong way. Well, the USAF went all the way to XB-70, so I guess they just are starting over or something.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 16, 2017 12:51:24 GMT -6
I know that designs get numbers once they get to a certain point of development regardless of whether they go into production. So possibly there were some design studies between 2 and 21? Just speculating.
I'm not too unhappy the navy started over on numbers - I can even put up with all of the post-WW2 reclassifications (USS Little Rock was CL-92, CLG-4 and CG-4). What really moves me to protest is the current system of naming everything after anything. If it were up to me:
1) No ship may be named for a President unless that person has been dead for 50 years or more. 2) Aircraft carriers to be named for battles, famous navy ships and qualities 3) Submarines to be named for cities, ballistic missile subs for states 4) Cruisers and destroyers being just about the same thing, name them for Navy and Marine personnel who died in battle 5) LHA and amphibious warfare ships to be named for small cities
Even if you don't like my proposed scheme I think we can all agree the present system stinks on ice. In ONE CLASS of submarine we have a President, a state and a fish!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 16, 2017 13:53:12 GMT -6
I know that designs get numbers once they get to a certain point of development regardless of whether they go into production. So possibly there were some design studies between 2 and 21? Just speculating. I'm not too unhappy the navy started over on numbers - I can even put up with all of the post-WW2 reclassifications (USS Little Rock was CL-92, CLG-4 and CG-4). What really moves me to protest is the current system of naming everything after anything. If it were up to me: 1) No ship may be named for a President unless that person has been dead for 50 years or more. 2) Aircraft carriers to be named for battles, famous navy ships and qualities 3) Submarines to be named for cities, ballistic missile subs for states 4) Cruisers and destroyers being just about the same thing, name them for Navy and Marine personnel who died in battle 5) LHA and amphibious warfare ships to be named for small cities Even if you don't like my proposed scheme I think we can all agree the present system stinks on ice. In ONE CLASS of submarine we have a President, a state and a fish! Yup, there were bombers between 2 and 21. There have been bomber numbered from B-1 all the way to B-70. No numbers missed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_bomber_aircraft - Check the bottom of the page, it lists all of them with links.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 26, 2017 11:39:22 GMT -6
Yeah, but they reset the B sequence with the B-1 Lancer so then we have the B-2 and the next should be the B-3, not the B-21. I wish they would spend less time on marketing and more time making the things effective. We've had a large number of clunkers recently it seems. The LCS, the F-35, numerous Army programs designed to replace all of their armored fighting vehicles including the M-1 that end up being canceled in whole, the Marine EFV. We are putting a lot of money in defense contractor CEO's pockets and not getting back much out of it in my opinion. Having just scratched the surface of the procurement side of things by virtue of having been a Plankowner on USS New Hampshire, I think we need real reform in the way we pay contractors for producing defense equipment. I'm going to let the B-3/B-21 thing go, it's just not that big of a deal. director , I don't necessarily agree with your conventions but I certainly agree with you that the current naming criteria is screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 26, 2017 13:03:22 GMT -6
The numbering systems used by the military is really for accounting purposes. The US Navy had the F4B..... actually she had two of them. One was the first line fighter from 1932 to 1937 and the one that I worked on the sixties through the eighties. Same number, but different birds. One was a supersonic twin engine fighter, the other was a biplane.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 27, 2017 10:33:41 GMT -6
I agree that the armed forces need to have effective systems. Cost-overruns are the responsibility of Congress, which has all the backbone of a box of jello when dealing with military procurement.
I'm not insisting on a particular naming scheme, really. I just long for the days when the Navy actually HAD one LOL.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2017 10:55:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 28, 2017 1:43:35 GMT -6
It's a tangent but the navy still uses a version similar to the old aircraft designation system for their nuclear reactor plants. A1W and A2W for Enterprise, A4W for the Nimitz class and now A1B for the Ford class. Submarine plants all start with S. Ohio's is S8G, Seawolf's is S6W, Virginia's is S9G and now the Ohio replacement will be S1B. The only real difference is they include the 1 for first generation designs from a manufacturer instead of leaving it assumed like they did for their aircraft (i.e. SBD Dauntless, TBF Avenger, AD Skyraider)
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 7, 2017 19:59:31 GMT -6
Rather than start a new thread, I figured I would redirect this one onto the discussion of yesterday's TLAM strikes on the Sharyat Air Base in Syria. To avoid getting into politics, perhaps we can evaluate it as an example of an attack on a large hardened airfield, the factors involved in striking such a target, and how best to effectively shut a hardened, dispersed airbase down for a prolonged period of time. www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 7, 2017 20:26:59 GMT -6
Rather than start a new thread, I figured I would redirect this one onto the discussion of yesterday's TLAM strikes on the Sharyat Air Base in Syria. To avoid getting into politics, perhaps we can evaluate it as an example of an attack on a large hardened airfield, the factors involved in striking such a target, and how best to effectively shut a hardened, dispersed airbase down for a prolonged period of time. www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.htmlIf they were serious about destroying those hardened structures then they should have used BLU-118 or 116 weapons or the BLU-113 Super Penetrator. They could have delivered the weapons with B-2's or used AGM-130's to really do the job properly. Tomahawks cannot do this job. I am certain that the aircraft did not stay at that airbase for long. They landed, refueled and rearmed then dispersed within one hour. The birds were SU-22, very old and out of date aircraft that can only drop dumb bombs. This whole operation is a farce. If you really want to do the job, you need large penetrator weapons and develop a sustained air campaign against this base and all the bases for about seven to 10 days. As Curtis Lemay said, "we will bomb them back to the stone age."
|
|