A mixture of big bombers and air superiority fighters is the cheapest way to continue our military dominance. It is the middle of the road F-35 that has no place in the future air force. The big bombers not only hauled the iron at the beginning of the campaigns but are far more cost efficient than a squadron of F-16's at staying in the air and being Johnny on the spot when someone on the ground is in trouble. This role is being rapidly taken over by UCAV's, but we aren't there yet. The swing wing B1-B's are extremely complicated beasts, and are flown much harder than the B-52's and as such won't last for another 20 years. The B-2's are awesome, but there exist only 20 or so airframes so are treated like precious snowflakes. I know the air force has projected the B-52's to fly another 30 years or so but it might be that the past 10 years of war have changed the cost projections. These aren't old caddies that you can keep slapping bondo on and have them fly forever. I would much prefer an air force version of the P8-Poseidon and purchase actual airframes over a decade of money burning R&D followed by cost shock death spirals, but I'm hoarse from screaming.
This will likely save money in the future. The B2 was in the works in the 1970's but the cost is just way over the top. the maintenance costs are also crazy because it requires an air conditioned hangar. the B-52 from the 50's will need to be replaced and obviously the B1b and B2 are not able to do it. when the B-52 are just too plain old you have to have something cost effective and modern to replace it. This is likely the beginning of that plane.
Expensive, long-range bombers are obsolete and a waste of resources. Aircraft like the Predator are the wave of the future. Not only are they less expensive and more effective, we lose no personnel when one gets shot down or disabled. Drones are more manueverable, can stay aloft longer and don't have to come home safely since some kid with quick fingers in Colorado can fight an offensive air battle over Afghanistan as easily as a defensive battle over Denver. In addition to these benefits, just as many jobs are created -- or saved -- as there are with building big bombers. We can explore all sorts of technologies to kill our fellow man and spur the economy at the same time.
No, I would have felt it. What can your average half-billion bomber do that a drone can't. Let's see: 1) Carry more payload -- nope, pilot dead weight is even removed. 2) Fly higher or faster -- nope, oxygen isn't diverted from the engines. 3) Be more evasive -- nope, drones can sustain all sorts of g-forces without blacking out. 4) Military intelligence -- nope, drones are packed with cameras than can transmit until the last seconds of destruction. 5) Less pricey -- nope, a fleet of drones can be built and maintained at a fraction of the cost of the bomber. 6) Generate a letter to mom and dad -- nope, the self destruct button ensures no prisoners, hostages or secret parts lost. 7) Pilot expertise and experience -- nope, the pilot is sitting safe a mile underground in Cheyenne Mountain, making him or her able to make rational decisions without life-threatening influences. Now, aside from the romance of an air warrior, please give me the advantages of a manned bomber.
Have we stropped dropping bombs and no one told me? We use these things, constantly. They save American lives. The stealth bomber stuff is superfluous at the moment, but these things have a 35+ year lifespan. Any chance I could get a look through your magic crystal ball? No matter the size of the military, we will have one, and we should get the most for our tax dollars in terms of capability. Capability being defined as bombs on target, on time, getting home and being affordable. I have serious doubts this new program will do this, but to say we don't need bombers shows you seriously naive of foreign policy. -------- An inexpensive interim bomber makes much more sense, as I have no doubts that 30 years from now bombers will be totally unmanned. We need the current fleet to last that long. 30 billion in current generation airframes allows us to kick this can down the road, and when the technology is ready, build unmanned bombers in 2040 or so. 30 billion is hardly seed money to develop a new stealth bomber.
Interesting. Name an unmanned plane we have that can outmaneuver our manned planes. Also please explain why you are smarter than the Air force in determining that long range bombers are obsolete. Thanks
As long as you are talking about radio controlled UCAV's the advantages are the pilot has a stick in his hand vs a radio signal that has to get across the globe without being jammed. There is also improved situational awareness from being in the plane, and an emotional tie to seeing men on the ground vs watching on a computer screen. That said, the machines are coming... they can't do it all quite yet. There is no doubt a fleet of armed global hawks at 45 million a piece is the ideal complement of the current air fleet but it's polyanna. It ain't happening without a King Ralph incident in DOD.
And while you are at it, name one that flies higher than the U-2 or faster than B-52. But they will get there, we just need the current fleet to last that long.
An inexpensive bomber is as much of an oxymoron as an accurate estimate or a little pregnant. I support the military, and because I do, I want as few injuries to our military personel as possible. Hence, I support drones over manned bombers. Drones can deliver as much, if not more, ordnance than any light, medium or heavy bomber. In addition, they can penetrate air spaces more easily and target enemies far more accurately than a manned craft. In addition, we don't have an expensive aircraft that becomes an obsolete albatross for 25 years. Drones are a lot easier to scrap and go in a new direction. Like you, I want us to retain military strength. However, I don't want any hostages or mounting casualties that keep us from negotiating from a strong position.
First, unlike the Air Force generals who want a new long range bomber, I have no empire to build or maintain, no shiny helmet to polish. Now, how could a manned plan outmaneuver an unmanned one. As I mentioned before, the drone will not black out at high G-force. Drones are always smaller than similar capability manned aircraft giving them a sharper turn radius. The drone pilot on the ground has just as much control over the craft as a manned craft -- perhaps more since he (or she) doesn't have to dodge hostile weaponry. If he loses, he says "game over" and gets up for some coffee. The pilot in the air is in far greater jeopardy. Exposure to electronic jamming is greater, but not significantly over a manned craft.
I don't understand SamFisher's point. Bombing was used extensively in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were all smashing (booming?) successes for the US military, the US economy, and US foreign policy. One should watch the Fog of War to see how amazing it was in Vietnam, but don't eat much before you start the DVD.
We kind of did stop dropping bombs, at least in 200,000 pound batches. I hate to break it to you but the miltary's needs have changed post 1990 and blowing up city blocks from 35,000 feet is both 1) not relevant and 2) doable by other means. Anyway, 35 year life span? LOL, the B-1 and B-2 were obsolete by about 1990, if they were ever un-obsolete to begin with, since they had nobody to fly into and shoot nuclear weapons at the Politburo -(of course this is after all of our sub- and ground-launched missiles are blown up in a first strike by the USSR.) In basketball terms, I'd put strategic bombing, even in its heyday, as about as useful as the Rockets pursuing Thomas "Two Sandwiches" Hamilton in case Yao can't go this year. The fact that they are used now to blow up $5 tents doesn't exactly help your cause (as does the fact that 3 generations of aircraft all perform the exact same low-tech, flying dump truck role). It's like buying a big fancy swiss army knife and then using only the bottle opener. The technology to build unmanned bombers exists. They're called drones and cruise missiles. They've been around for awhile. And also this thing called "ballistic missiles", invented in its modern form towards the end of the last real "strategic bombing" war have proven to be a rather capable means of transporting explosives from point a to point b.
30 billion buys you 150 P-8 Poseidon's. Assuming an air force variant could carry a slightly larger payload and no submarine hunting equipment for the same price, I find it preferable to this new bomber. This almost doubles our current bomber force and although it doesn't carry a huge payload, it can be on station for a very long time. It's operating altitude is more than enough defense for current and foreseeable conflicts. It would have a roll to play as a "day 2" air craft against more advanced defenses simply because of range and stand off munitions. 30 billion is peanuts when compared to developing a new bomber. As far as UCAV's taking over, show me. You might be able to convince me that a next gen predator can carry enough of the load to extend the lives of the current bomber force. But I haven't seen it yet. I agree this is the wave of the future but they are not without their as yet unsolved problems.
A ballistic missile hasn't been used to carry conventional explosives since the German V2. You can't do that today without the Russians thinking we're launching nukes. That is no small problem. The big bombers are the most efficient bomb trucks we own, even when you take into account the B1's high maintenance cost. The bombers do the job of many smaller planes simply because it is difficult to keep many smaller planes in the air over time. I see you are fixated on what these planes were designed to do, perhaps you should take a look at what they have actually done. Your fixation on IED's is also fun, but you seem to be under the impression that we no longer get into firefights that need CAS. This is not the case. It isn't even close to the case. Drones have their place, and we should have a larger percentage of them in the inventory over time, and cruise missiles (launched from where?) are slow and not accurate enough or small enough to hit close to friendlies. If the hideously expensive to maintain B1's are so obsolete, why are they being used more than ever before? In basketball terms, it's like everyone touting Yao Ming's jump shot and calling him soft before the draft, only to find out he can also kick your ass in the low post.
Yeah but the whole reason for strategic bombers existence was to fulfill that role. Which no longer exists. In terms of tons of explosive delivered? sure. In terms of cost? Lollerskatesroflmaohawhhaw. Not even exponentially. Again, justifying a massive strategic stealth bomber program to take out two guys with an RPG is not helping your cause. Becaue it's hideously expensive to maintain- you just answered your own question.
It costs roughly $9000 per flight hour for an F-16 and $32000 for a B-1. Per bomb, 500 miles from base the numbers are $6400 and $3700 respectively. This is before you take into account the additional tanker support required for the smaller plane. Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about.
So, your argument kind of boils down to: "My team of custom-bred clydesdales is much cheaper per unit than your inefficient pony express! It's the only way to deliver information on a cost effective basis!*" *if I only use cost/flight hour and disregard the astronomical development cost and if I have a reason to drop 24 tons of conventional bombs at once, which hasn't existed since the fall of Third Reich.
Not at all, had I wanted to stack the deck, I would have used the B-52 at 23,000 per hour, and the F-15E at 14,000 per hour. If you want to bomb your "two guys with RPG's" cruise missiles don't work unless they are hunkered inside a building or stationary for some reason.... And in mountainous terrain, the hellfire missiles carried by drones need a direct hit to kill with an 18 lb warhead. A 2000lb bomb is the only answer to some questions.
