Or a bullet, or an education, or whatever. But disregarding all that, note you said "A 2000 lb bomb" (and I'm pretty sure you don't need 2,000lbs to incapacitate man, even if he's hiding behind a rock, but whatever). A single bomb. Not 25 of them delivered at once.
I agree with you on development costs which is why I proposed an air force variant of the P-8 which is basically a 737. Spare parts would never be an issue and 90% of the development costs are paid for. This would slow the aging of the current "hot rod" bombers for quite some time. You are still missing the point that it is more cost efficient to have a few bombers covering Afghanistan for example, than dozens of fighters and their accompanying tankers irrespective of the ordinance advantage of the bombers.
Or they are popping out of a cave and firing a mortar, a 2000lb bomb is the tool. Close to friendlies, a maverick or a SDB is more fitting. A big bomber can carry a few of each. It is another advantage.
Interesting you did not name a plane. I guess that means this plane you are speaking of exists in your head. thanks.
You want to bet the lives of americans that the world will continue to be as politically stable 30 years from now as it is today? In 1987 we would have never guessed we needed armored Humvee's. It is pretty hard to predict the future.
What a tremendously dumb argument. let's ignore the needs of the present, and plan to fight wars of the past as a way of preparing for wars of the future, cuz, YOU JUST NEVER KNOW. Yes, I'll bet the lives of Americans on planning for security contingencies that appear reasonably probable and offer a better value, and not ones that Eisenhower recognized as a silly idea 50 years ago. It's precisely this outmoded thinking that was in action on the morning of September 11, 2001, when Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld were busy preparing for meetings on their signature issue and what they saw as the number 1 lynchpin to national security in the 21st century: Ground-based ballistic missile defense. They bet on that, and they bet wrong.
I'm not against developing a new plane. I probably would be against building more than a few. It keeps the smart people that do this sort of thing employed and builds experience for their staff. And it promotes advances in the field. Remember the tax money spent on domestic development pays salaries, that support businesses that get taxed. It's not a zero sum game. I don't see a major exchange between world powers happening again though. There's just to much to lose for anybody that steps across the line. There may be some skirmishes over commodity supplies. China might want to see what their military can do in defense of the Spratleys. Russia and Canada might fire a shot over the Arctic. But in a big exchange, even if you win you probably lose.
The Predator XL? What is the name of your bomber? Experimental and / or drawing board craft never have designated names until they are close to production.
That actually raises the cost even more. If the whole objective is to keep smart people employed, why don't we do something useful, like solve the "plane on a conveyor belt" problem - a useful exercise and as reflective of real world scenarios as flying from Alaska to Moscow to drop bombs on the Kremlin.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YORCk1BN7QY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YORCk1BN7QY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
That was an easy call that was badly missed. It should have been evident in the year round exercises and Fort Irwin and Fort Bliss. The Army saw the need but put all their eggs in the Bradley but it became too expensive and too heavy to use half a world away.
I'm not trying to derail your argument or anything...because I happen to agree with you that drones should be the primary focus of the defense department right now. However, the Predator and all its variants were built to be essentially "expendable." They're not equipped with top-shelf engines, maneuverability, or even weaponry. They barely fly past Mach 0.5 and can't get above 25,000 feet (at least from what I read in wikipedia). Just saying...there's more to maneuverability than just the simple fact that drones can't black out. The ones we use today aren't built to be fighter/bomber-replacements. Future drones may be, but their cost would go up accordingly to be on-par (although still slightly cheaper since there's no pilot to accomodate) with fighters and bombers.
I know. I just picked out a drone name for fun. Cruise missiles -- all disposable -- have been around for a long time, but I couldn't give you a model name for one of them. My central point is that if you lose a drone in combat, the "pilot" has an "aw shucks" moment and, unlike a piloted craft, takes control of another. We don't have to armor drones or take precautions to protect human life (ours, not theirs) so aeronautical designers can do everything possible to make the drone more lethal and situational combat effective at a greatly reduced per unit cost compared to a manned craft.
The only problem with drones is they are satellite dependent. EMP the controllers and all you have are paperweights. Pilots are somewhat independently capable as a counterstrike weapon. But VFR to half way around the world isn't really practical either. Here's some geekspeak : Future UAS should be multi-mission, all-weather, net-centric, modular, open architecture and employ leveraging appropriate levels of autonomy. They should also be able to carry any standard payload within in its performance envelope, with dial-a-yield, dial-an-effect and be multi-mode capable. Additionally, some platforms may consider optionally manned capability. Modularity is the ability to mix and match weapons and sensors to meet given mission requirements on a given platform. Furthermore, modularity is the key enabler for UAS mission agility, flexibility, adaptability, growth capability and mission effectiveness that encourage innovation and low costs. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/usaf-uas-flight-plan_2009-2047.pdf
How many times, exactly, have drones been rendered inoperable by these supposed problems? EMP? If you give a sufficient EMP to an F-22, its electronics and fly-by-wire controls turn the whole thing into a $200 million brick, same as with the drone. EMP's are video game and movie MacGuffins. If you want to make a new bomber, build more B-52's, or install a bomb bay in a C-5 or Boeing 777. Or turn all our bombs into the BLU-82 model, where two grunts open the door and push them out the back of a C-130. Do we really need a new trans-sonic low observable stealth bomber to avoid that great Taliban air defense?
I meant an EMP that effects command and control. Like over Tampa and every drone in Afghanistan is useless. And again, I don't ever think it would happen but as a military scenario you'd have to consider something like defending Taiwan; in an environment that might be too lethal for your carriers. could happen.
