Air Force generals get aroused by this crap. They all think they're Curtis LeMay prepping a strategic bombing campaign against the Soviet Union. What they want to cancel is all the drones and the A-10, because they won't let them play "Top Gun" and CAS missions aren't sexy.
A large chunk of our bomber fleet is made up of B-52's that are easily twice the age of the pilots flying them and are enormous images on any radar worth mentioning. As has been pointed out, we have far too few of the superb but hideously expensive B-2's. The B-1's are being upgraded, just as the B-52's have been upgraded numerous times over several decades, but it isn't stealthy. With the development of long range missiles by Russia and China (with the help of stealing loads of information from Pentagon computers), the two bombers are forced to stand off far from potential targets that have modern defensive systems, becoming essentially cruise missile trucks. With Russia and China becoming aggressively hostile to the United States and her allies, as well as other countries in their regions, the hope that we would continue to be in a world where we happily get along with both has been dashed. We need a new bomber and one in significant numbers. Our security posture would be far better had the F-22 been produced in hundreds rather than dozens, but that ship has sailed. As an example of the threats we face, China is busy placing Anti-Access/Area Denial anti-air/anti-ship systems on illegally constructed artificial islands in the South China Sea, where she threatens trillions of dollars of trade annually through those waters. She is also placing them where they can effectively threaten Japan and Taiwan. The B-21 will enable the US to put at risk, as an example, those systems that would make a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or an attempt to take the territory of a treaty ally, Japan, very costly for our military. During the 1995-96 Taiwan Crisis, in response to very threatening military exercises obviously aimed at Taiwan, possibly a prelude to invasion, President Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups to the area. The Nimitz battle group actually sailed into the Taiwan Strait between that island nation and China. This strong response by the President caused China to back off. Today? The Nimitz and most of her escorts would likely rest at the bottom of the Straits, overwhelmed by more missiles than they could knock out of the sky. As those anti-ship missiles get longer and longer ranges, in the hundreds of miles, we are forced further and further from where we can effectively defend our allies, and not just Japan and Taiwan. The Philippines are under threat as well, another treaty ally. China is ignoring the internationally recognized Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines and has occupied some of her islands, and blockaded another from being resupplied by sea. Since that country's military is one of the weakest in the region, she has been helpless to respond. That open warfare hasn't broken out between the two is a miracle. It's yet another situation that could cause a regional war. There are several. The B-21 would be an arrow in our quiver that would make China think long and hard about her actions. No sane person wants to spends hundreds of billions on the military. The fact is that we live in a world where the threat of open war with a major power, something we have avoided since the end of WWII in 1945, is growing. That we have been the strongest military on the planet since 1945 has a hell of a lot to do with preventing the realization of our worst nightmares. I'm not crazy about having to spend the money, but we need the B-21. It doesn't require the revolutionary technologies that made the B-2 and F-22 so expensive. We have already largely developed those technologies. It would be an investment in keeping the peace, a peace that today rests on far more fragile ground than it did even 5 years ago. Heck, I wish we already had it.
Deckard, So, you are saying we need a military buildup as deterrent to a China invasion of Taiwan? That's all fine and dandy. But the Generals are arguing over whether that has a big enough ROI vs other upgrades and technology advancements they require for a plethora of other purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong: We are talking about a fixed Dept of Defense budget, right? We aren't talking about increasing the budget for this B-3 program. Whenever there is arguing like this, it's almost always internal to the DD, despite what we hear in the public about legislators vs the DD. It's because they'd rather spend their budget on other things. So whenever we discuss huge programs like this, we should also list out the programs that the DD must cut or downgrade in order to pay for it under their existing budget. Only then can we talk about whether the B-3 as a deterrent against a Taiwan invasion is worth it. And let's please not discuss China becoming an aggressor to expand it's borders beyond that, which it historically has never done.
They just developed the B2, F-22 and F-35. They are only building the F-35 now. This won't be ready for decades and they will probably have cancelled the F-35 before they build a single one of these. There is your money.
Money that the DD might already have targeted for other programs. You correctly point out that the DD budgets have multiyear horizons that they consider...and a lot of it is already booked. Just answer this question: Are the Generals arguing over this B3 program, or are they all 100% in favor of it, and the legislators are blocking it for reasons DaDakota noted.
I don't think any of those things you mentioned are happening. They already awarded the contract to Grumman who beat out Lockheed. When 2040 rolls around they are either using this or something else to bomb poor people. Personally I want the airship. 60 knots but if you make it a stealth blimp who cares. Doesn't matter how fast it is.
I'm referring to the Title of the article and comments McCain made. The article is about debates over funding this, no? And I agree that it's one thing or another. That's my point. It's not about the B3 being added to the budget while the DD gets everything else. Personally, I think the future is going very small in huge numbers, not huge attack weapons in comparatively small numbers. Smaller means better precision, easier to mobilize, and manufacture and hard to detect.
Smaller doesn't mean any of those things but the problem we have now is it takes decades to develop weapons. The B2 and F22 were developed in the cold war in secret. We can develop in the open now but as with everything else (most notably out space program) the yearly budget introduces this churn where you fund something for 10 years then abandon it. Develop the F22 and B2 then don't build enough to make the billions in research to amortize. The other problem is the government just sucks at building stuff. The F35 was supposed to be the cheaper plane not the first class F22, but it is actually more expensive. The SLS rocket will cost 2 billion per launch but fortunately the churn will make the billions spent already go up in smoke.
Yes, but not only China. The services always fight over who gets the money. I can't imagine that that will ever change. Ironically, Obama has attempted to increase defense spending, only to be stopped by the GOP controlled Congress, who insist on cutting vital domestic programs to pay for an increase. Meanwhile, Russia and China are spending like drunken sailors on defense procurement. Yes, we can't buy everything we need. A big problem is Congress. One of the services will suggest cutting a program that is loved by a few powerful members and the money the service wants to cut doesn't get cut, resulting in attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul. It will take a long time to get the B-21 program where they are in actual production. By then, other programs will have either been cut or ended. As was mentioned earlier, the F-35 buy will likely be reduced and procurement spread out. We need longer range strike aircraft on our carriers, for example, in order to keep them relevant. The B-21 won't be that aircraft. The F-35C certainly isn't. You may have heard of an unmanned carrier fighter under development? We have flying examples of it. Guess what the Navy has decided to do with what could eventually be an unmanned carrier based strike aircraft (and likely will be, given time). They are turning it into an unmanned tanker for the carriers. Why? Because the carrier aircraft we have today, unlike the carrier based aircraft we have had in the past, have a range far shorter than what we need. The idea is that we will send the unmanned tankers ahead to fill up those aircraft in order to give them a longer range. Since they won't be stealthy, we'll have to hope that they aren't shot down before they are needed. Another way to get needed funds is to end the Ford program at 3 carriers, the last being the John F. Kennedy, currently in early production. It's time to produce much smaller carriers and have more of them. It will be cheaper and more useful, in my opinion. We have something similar already with the Navy's America class ships, but we only have two of them, and they aren't designed strictly as aircraft carriers. The F-35 B's will be replacing the Harriers that are currently in use by the Marine Corp., something that should actually put the F-35 to good use. In my opinion, of course.
so you are saying Drone technology is a dead end and deserves no budget for technology advancement, but rather focus of long range stealth bombers and behemoth gunships
Where did I say that? edit: Heck, I think I called the damned bomber the B-3 several times. It's the B-21.
The UK got their ass kicked in the air using tiny ships in the Falklands even when the Argies had a tiny air force and no sidewinders. A single Nimitz with F-14s would have sorted them right out. I'm not disputing your overall point about Navy budget but when you are HeyP talk about more and smaller it basically translates into expendable (and crap).
Not you. Meant as a response to Bandwagoner saying Smaller doesnt do any of those things. I think he thought I was talking about fighters and bombers, when I meant unmanned technological improvements that are happening everywhere
Sorry, but those "tiny ships" (I know you meant tiny jets or fighters) kicked Argentine arse. Argentina lost 20 aircraft to the Harriers, compared to zero to the very brave Argentine pilots. Two Harriers were lost to ground fire and two in accidents. That's it. I can't say enough about those Argentine pilots, though. They were fearless, but simply out-matched. As for the carrier comment, Britain used what they had, two tiny carriers. Had they lost even one of them, they would likely have lost the war. Hell, had Argentina simply waited several months, Britain wouldn't have had them. They were going to be sold. Obviously, the UK didn't have a Nimitz and Reagan had no intention of sending one to help them out. He did other things to help them out. Only now, decades later, is Britain about to have two excellent aircraft carriers, the second largest in the world, but much smaller and far cheaper than the Nimitz class carriers. Perhaps we should purchase their design, ditch the ski-jump (they nearly did, changing their minds twice), and install some of the cutting edge stuff the Ford class is going to have in them.
Yeah just making jet smaller doesn't do any of the things you said. Not less observable. Not more precise and not faster to deploy. No drone has more technology than the B2. The RQ-170 is pretty awesome but basically still a toy.
Warfare is changes. Those historical examples and use of deterrents no longer really apply The enemy has evolved. Big weapons dont seem to matter. I'm going to go out on a limb to say there are Generals making that argument and trying to block funding for new and fancier technology for old methods of fighting
Completely agree regarding manned fighters. Disagree regarding where unmanned tech can take us On mobile, so will respond better later. Interesting convo
No I meant tiny ships that couldn't launch enough jets. Those stats are pointless when the enemy is sinking your ships with exocets and doing strafing runs on your troops all night when they are trying to win a ground war. Air superiority is about owning the air, they didn't own the air at all. The reason they had to march 56 miles is they lost all their helos from a jet that was just picking targets with the exocet at their leisure. No supplies because if any landings were done during the day strafing runs in the harbor shut everything down. The UK had the better newest jets, carrying the better newest weapons and a massive advantage from a HEROIC mission that took out the islands air strip. This forced the Argies to fly from the mainland, no time to do much. and then fly back as they didn't have any tankers. They have tankers now as do most everyone else as the lessons learned. Why dogfight when the purpose is to kill troops and ships.
I don't doubt it. You can bet that there are ferocious arguments going on now, and for a long time, about what we should be investing our limited funds in. The Pentagon, and Congress, and the President have managed to waste hundreds of billions on things not needed, things obsolete, things needed, but not built in sufficient numbers, and research tossed down the rabbit hole (the F-22 decision, for example). You might be wondering why I have such an interest in this topic. After all, I'm a left leaning Democrat and we supposedly don't care about such things (according to the confused and misinformed). Answer? I grew up hearing about WWII from those who were in it. My father, who rarely talked about it, served in the Pacific for a time on the Saratoga, one of the few major carriers we had at the beginning. So I built models of WWII and pre-WWII warships, and not just the ones we had. I still have a model of the Hood that I built in the 1950's. You could say that defense and all the things surrounding it are a hobby of mine. Having traveled a lot, starting at a young age, I've also had a keen interest in foreign affairs. Hopefully, people won't think I'm simply crazy. ;-)- You need to read more about the conflict. I was in Europe in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands and have had an interest in the war ever since. Talking to young Brits on Ios in the Med at the time was something. Several headed back to the UK straight away. Why? "We might be needed." I was very impressed. The HMS Sheffield, for example, was a Type 42 destroyer, not the large civilian ship sunk by an Exocet that carried the helicopters. I suggest that you read one of several excellent histories about the Falklands War. The Falklands War, by Martin Middlebrook, is the best, in my opinion. It includes interviews with Argentine veterans of the conflict as well as several of their top commanders. Middlebrook is the only British historian allowed such access by the government of Argentina, to my knowledge. Two other interesting histories are, The Battle for the Falklands, by Hastings and Jenkins, and One Hundred Days, by Admiral Sandy Woodward.
damn, I was hoping for the price It would come with invisibility. I could Buy an nfl team 0r 50,000,000 lap dances. i used the harden app.
