[ARCHIVED THREAD] - B-2 coverage compared to F-35... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/21/2011 8:14:00 PM EDT
|
Just watched this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu |
|
Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement.
Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. |
|
Quoted:
To be honest, I rather see UCAV's play a major role.  But that's just me.I'm pretty much with you. I think we should buy the F-35 in moderate numbers, but think the navy should buy the X-47b to take a role in the initial strike. Just wondering what the older guys thought about the B-2 when it was procured; they are obviously different aircraft for differnt roles (f-35 to B-2); but with the different sorts of enemies and the budget we face today, just wondering what the average guy thinks is the way to go. |
|
Quoted: Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. Sounds like we need to put more money into "God's Rod" development then. |
|
Quoted: b2's were only 1B a piece because they didnt actually do a production run.Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it.  the 20 we have now were "preproduction" planes i think. |
|
The thread a day or two ago about the re-vamping of the B-52 was very interesting...When I was on the ground, there was nothing more intimidating to me, than a bomber, or hearing an aircraft coming, but not being able to see what it was doing. I was on a PMC security team, so most of the time, we did not know what the military guys were doing, unless we had prior communication to tell us. When you know that there is bombers flying over head, or there is a possibility of a gunship, you tend to be a little on edge. Fighter jets also bomb, of course, but for some reason they never bothered me, what bothered me was the unknown, high-altitude aircraft.
If I were receiving air support for ground forces, I would love to see more specter gunships (sp?). My Dad, who served during Vietnam, always told me stories about them, and then later in life, I saw his infatuation with them, they are awesome. I do not think it should be one or the other, so I will go with the typical Arfcom response and say "Get Both", they each have their purpose. -PC- |
|
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 
No. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22
No. Well maybe not the UCAV part. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22
No. Well maybe not the UCAV part. No, the F22 part. The F22 is gone. It's part of history. There will be no more. JSF is the future of military aviation until we get UCAVs into operation, and probably for many more years after that. |
|
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 That's silly. We do much more interdiction and strike than air superiority fighting in wars. What I think should happen is that the F-35B model should be delayed indefinitely, and started back up when the A and C models are delivered and our financial situation is improved. Modern UCAVs will be cool when they come online, but they should be retained for the dirty/dangerous and long missions, and should supplement manned vehicles, not be replacements. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 That's silly. We do much more interdiction and strike than air superiority fighting in wars. What I think should happen is that the F-35B model should be delayed indefinitely, and started back up when the A and C models are delivered and our financial situation is improved. Modern UCAVs will be cool when they come online, but they should be retained for the dirty/dangerous and long missions, and should supplement manned vehicles, not be replacements. No reason to delay the B model, it's the one doing trials on the LHD right now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 That's silly. We do much more interdiction and strike than air superiority fighting in wars. What I think should happen is that the F-35B model should be delayed indefinitely, and started back up when the A and C models are delivered and our financial situation is improved. Modern UCAVs will be cool when they come online, but they should be retained for the dirty/dangerous and long missions, and should supplement manned vehicles, not be replacements. No reason to delay the B model, it's the one doing trials on the LHD right now. There is a reason, and it's fiscally motivated, that's all. |
|
UCAVs are way out.
Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 That's silly. We do much more interdiction and strike than air superiority fighting in wars. What I think should happen is that the F-35B model should be delayed indefinitely, and started back up when the A and C models are delivered and our financial situation is improved. Modern UCAVs will be cool when they come online, but they should be retained for the dirty/dangerous and long missions, and should supplement manned vehicles, not be replacements. No reason to delay the B model, it's the one doing trials on the LHD right now. There is a reason, and it's fiscally motivated, that's all. Fiscal motivations should lead to the cancellation of the A model. We need the B and C models, the USAF can fly the C model. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 That's silly. We do much more interdiction and strike than air superiority fighting in wars. What I think should happen is that the F-35B model should be delayed indefinitely, and started back up when the A and C models are delivered and our financial situation is improved. Modern UCAVs will be cool when they come online, but they should be retained for the dirty/dangerous and long missions, and should supplement manned vehicles, not be replacements. My main issue being they want to replace the A-10 with this thing. 
Certainly the Harrier needs replacement and this looks to be the best, but still. Air superiority seems to be a touchy topic too. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. Sounds like we need to put more money into "God's Rod" development then. I've been advocating for weaponizing space since the 90's and the fall of the Soviet Union. Kinetic strike weapons on orbital platforms is where it's at and frankly if we don't do it the Chinese in 50 years probably will. Of course, it would help if we actually had a decent space program right now, which we do not. Kind of hard to piss off the Russians when we depend on their space agency for so much these days. |
|
Quoted:
UCAVs are way out. Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. The X47-B is going to be doing sea trials very soon (months, IIRC). That's not nearly as far out as you're making it seem to be. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. Sounds like we need to put more money into "God's Rod" development then. I've been advocating for weaponizing space since the 90's and the fall of the Soviet Union. Kinetic strike weapons on orbital platforms is where it's at and frankly if we don't do it the Chinese in 50 years probably will. Of course, it would help if we actually had a decent space program right now, which we do not. Kind of hard to piss off the Russians when we depend on their space agency for so much these days. It costs a fuckton of money to put things in space. Putting kinetic energy weapons in space is not cost effective. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. You have a spare couple billion or so laying around to do that? There is plenty of money available. Most of the federal government has 3 sometimes 9 different departments that are tasked with doing the same job that the other similar departments are tasked with. You end all the redundant departments and you do stuff like end baseline budgeting and you free up 200-400+ billion dollars from the budget. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. The F22 is gone. You can't "restart production". It's done. It might have been shut down and people and equipment might be gone, but it can still be restarted. There is no can't in my vocabulary. If the desire is there anything can be done again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. The F22 is gone. You can't "restart production". It's done. It might have been shut down and people and equipment might be gone, but it can still be restarted. There is no can't in my vocabulary. If the desire is there anything can be done again. No, it really can't. You might as well start a new development effort for a new aircraft. "Can't" may not appear in your vocabulary, but it does in everybody else's when you start talking budget. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. You have a spare couple billion or so laying around to do that? There is plenty of money available. Most of the federal government has 3 sometimes 9 different departments that are tasked with doing the same job that the other similar departments are tasked with. You end all the redundant departments and you do stuff like end baseline budgeting and you free up 200-400+ billion dollars from the budget. You really have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
UCAVs are way out. Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. The X47-B is going to be doing sea trials very soon (months, IIRC). That's not nearly as far out as you're making it seem to be. The X-47B is still officially a demonstration project. There is no funding yet, at least to my knowledge, for the production or any set number the Navy is going to order. The X-35 took its first flight in 2000. It's been about 11 years and only now is the USAF taking delivery. The X-47B took its first flight in February of this year. So if it takes an unmanned aircraft the same development time as a manned one (I doubt it) we're looking at 2022 before we see delivery. Have to have something in the interim and I'm not sold yet that the X-47B is going to be capable of full replacement of a manned aircraft. I think at first they're going to be just supplemental until they become combat proven and the military figures out how to best deploy them. I don't see UCAVS making serious sweeping replacements of manned aircraft until 2030 or 2040 even. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. You have a spare couple billion or so laying around to do that? There is plenty of money available. Most of the federal government has 3 sometimes 9 different departments that are tasked with doing the same job that the other similar departments are tasked with. You end all the redundant departments and you do stuff like end baseline budgeting and you free up 200-400+ billion dollars from the budget. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I am referencing a research paper about how much money is being wasted by all the redundant departments in the federal government. It was estimated that ending these departments would free up at least 200 billion a year. Since it was done about a decade ago I tacked on the extra 200 billion because inflation has cut the value of the dollar in half. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
UCAVs are way out. Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. The X47-B is going to be doing sea trials very soon (months, IIRC). That's not nearly as far out as you're making it seem to be. The X-47B is still officially a demonstration project. There is no funding yet, at least to my knowledge, for the production or any set number the Navy is going to order. The X-35 took its first flight in 2000. It's been about 11 years and only now is the USAF taking delivery. The X-47B took its first flight in February of this year. So if it takes an unmanned aircraft the same development time as a manned one (I doubt it) we're looking at 2022 before we see delivery. Have to have something in the interim and I'm not sold yet that the X-47B is going to be capable of full replacement of a manned aircraft. I think at first they're going to be just supplemental until they become combat proven and the military figures out how to best deploy them. An unmanned aircraft project should take far less time to build. They're actually testing the avionics using F/A-18s right now on CVNs. Yes, it's currently a demonstrator, at least officially. That's probably going to change pretty quickly once it's flying and doing carrier quals while it's still a demonstration project. Yes, it will be "supplemental" for a while. That doesn't change my statement. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. You have a spare couple billion or so laying around to do that? There is plenty of money available. Most of the federal government has 3 sometimes 9 different departments that are tasked with doing the same job that the other similar departments are tasked with. You end all the redundant departments and you do stuff like end baseline budgeting and you free up 200-400+ billion dollars from the budget. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I am referencing a research paper about how much money is being wasted by all the redundant departments in the federal government. It was estimated that ending these departments would free up at least 200 billion a year. Since it was done about a decade ago I tacked on the extra 200 billion because inflation has cut the value of the dollar in half. I can write research papers too. You've got no real frame of reference for this stuff. It makes fun press fodder, but it really doesn't actually translate to the real world when you start looking at it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
tooling and plans were "saved" so yes, in theory, it can.
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. The F22 is gone. You can't "restart production". It's done. sure. 
|
|
Quoted: No, it really can't. You might as well start a new development effort for a new aircraft. "Can't" may not appear in your vocabulary, but it does in everybody else's when you start talking budget. If you want to talk about budgeting ok. Let's talk about budgeting. Both the air force and the navy are now admitting that the "cheaper" F-35 is going to cost at least 111 million dollars a plane and the costs to operate and maintain the aircraft are going to be at least 63% higher if not more. If we had just kept pumping out F-22s those planes would have been cheaper than the so called more affordable F-35.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. Sounds like we need to put more money into "God's Rod" development then. I've been advocating for weaponizing space since the 90's and the fall of the Soviet Union. Kinetic strike weapons on orbital platforms is where it's at and frankly if we don't do it the Chinese in 50 years probably will. Of course, it would help if we actually had a decent space program right now, which we do not. Kind of hard to piss off the Russians when we depend on their space agency for so much these days. It costs a fuckton of money to put things in space. Putting kinetic energy weapons in space is not cost effective. We split the cost with our allies. Want US Protection? Pony-up the dough. ISS cost us what $35 billion? I'm guessing we could do an orbital weapons platform for the same amount. In fact, with our experience with the ISS we could probably be more efficient. Say the USA picks 2/3rds of the expense and our allies kick in the other 1/3. Figure $23 to $24 billion on our end. It costs a ton of money to deploy bombers and other strike aircraft as well. Some of the weapons proposed for kinetic strikes would have yeild similar to small tactical nukes without radioactive fallout. That's pretty damn attractive and worth the cost. Plus, at Mach 10 they strike targets much fast than an ICBM, guided missile, or aircraft. Not to mention they're very difficult to detect when they launch. They're the perfect answer to a world with uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it really can't. You might as well start a new development effort for a new aircraft. "Can't" may not appear in your vocabulary, but it does in everybody else's when you start talking budget. If you want to talk about budgeting ok. Let's talk about budgeting. Both the air force and the navy are now admitting that the "cheaper" F-35 is going to cost at least 111 million dollars a plane and the costs to operate and maintain the aircraft are going to be at least 63% higher if not more. If we had just kept pumping out F-22s those planes would have been cheaper than the so called more affordable F-35. The F22 can't do most of what the JSF can do. If we kept making SR-71's, they'd have been cheaper per frame as well –– but pointless, as they had no mission. You're parotting arguments you don't understand. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, I can't think of any modern aircraft since the 70's that didn't have a lot of political opposition to it's procurement. Someone is always going to say "we don't need this" or "what we have is good enough this is too expensive." We know we need heavy bombers still, because we have rouge nation states like Iran and North Korea with WMD facilities deep underground that require heavy munitions to be dropped that only a heavy bomber can deliver presently. The USA is casualty phobic so we have to give our air crews the most protection from Surface to Air threats and Air-to-Air threats as possible. Right now the B-2 does a pretty good job of concealing the aircraft from detection by radar. It gives us the flexibility to do what we want and our enemies may question our resolve, but they can't question our capability. If nothing else the capabilities of the B-2 require the enemy to spend more money in air defense and more money on hardened shelters, which saps their resources and slows their development of WMD. Iran knows that we can hit them even if they think we will not so they have to go to the expense to build deeper facilities and more of them. So yeah, we're spending $1 Billion a piece on a B-2, but our enemies are spending the equivalent of their GDP to try and protect against it. Sounds like we need to put more money into "God's Rod" development then. I've been advocating for weaponizing space since the 90's and the fall of the Soviet Union. Kinetic strike weapons on orbital platforms is where it's at and frankly if we don't do it the Chinese in 50 years probably will. Of course, it would help if we actually had a decent space program right now, which we do not. Kind of hard to piss off the Russians when we depend on their space agency for so much these days. It costs a fuckton of money to put things in space. Putting kinetic energy weapons in space is not cost effective. We split the cost with our allies. Want US Protection? Pony-up the dough. ISS cost us what $35 billion? I'm guessing we could do an orbital weapons platform for the same amount. In fact, with our experience with the ISS we could probably be more efficient. Say the USA picks 2/3rds of the expense and our allies kick in the other 1/3. Figure $23 to $24 billion on our end. It costs a ton of money to deploy bombers and other strike aircraft as well. Some of the weapons proposed for kinetic strikes would have yeild similar to small tactical nukes without radioactive fallout. That's pretty damn attractive and worth the cost. Plus, at Mach 10 they strike targets much fast than an ICBM, guided missile, or aircraft. Not to mention they're very difficult to detect when they launch. They're the perfect answer to a world with uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. Your numbers are probably off by an order of magnitude, maybe two. The technology doesn't exist. You have to develop it first. Then you have to loft these massive tungsten rods into space. Everything we do with space is centered around making things we lift smaller and lighter –– and for a reason. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22
No. Well maybe not the UCAV part. No, the F22 part. The F22 is gone. It's part of history. There will be no more. JSF is the future of military aviation until we get UCAVs into operation, and probably for many more years after that. What do you yall in the military think of the f-22? i read the squadron at langely was groudned again today because of a pilot losing oxygen mid-flight  similar reason to why ALL f-22s were grounded?
They had the prototype flying almost 20 years ago, yeah? seems crazy that they would still be having problems with that system.... |
|
Quoted:
Your numbers are probably off by an order of magnitude, maybe two. The technology doesn't exist. You have to develop it first. Then you have to loft these massive tungsten rods into space. Everything we do with space is centered around making things we lift smaller and lighter –– and for a reason. Not every tungston rod would have to be the 20 foot telephone sized poles just the the ones we wanted for really big bangs. You could easily do tactical strikes from it with tungston poles about the size of a crow bar no problem. We launch 500 pound and 1,000 pound communications satelites no problem. We've put much heavier loads than that as well into orbit over our history. Hubble was probably 20 times the weight of a normal comms sat. Pretty sure we could keep an orbital weapons platform well stocked. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 But the F-22 can't fulfill the same role as the F-35. It wasn't meant to. They are different aircraft for different missions. |
|
B-1R needs to get done.
I don't how we expect to give a nation like China any pause when we only have such a limited number of aircraft without something like the B-1R supplementing them at least until we could get UCAVs up. B-1R is easy to do and when working with F-22's or F-35's would be pretty bad ass. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0uGrmcCitM I'm too young to remember how the B-2 was really procured; but after watching that, it seems like quite a battle was waged in washington to proceed with its purchase. After witnessing our current wars, it seems like the B-2 has been absolutely worth it- at least in the numbers we have now... It seems obvious now that the 100+ originally planned would have been overkill for what we have needed... At least thus far... And from what i've read, carter cancelled the B-1 program because he knew something else was in the works (B-2); but reagan restarted the B-1 program because it was in the open and did a lot when it came to american power projection... despite it not actually being the best aircraft in our arsenal. Anyways, were the budget battles argued in washington over the B-2; comparable to what we see today with the F-35? I know that if we retire the F-16 and F-18 (c/ds) we will need a viable and affordable replacement; do you think the F-35 is the answer? and how many do you think we need? I personally think its a great aircraft, but I see us fighting more wars like we are fighting right now; so I wonder if another relatively high cost stealth aircraft mass produced is what we need at this point in time... We already have a huge military advantage compared to any other country, is it worth spending hundreds of billions on the F-35 over the next decade, or should we save our money and invest in the NEXT generation of aircraft, such as the X-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-Yp5WMW7s&feature=relmfu THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22
No. Well maybe not the UCAV part. No, the F22 part. The F22 is gone. It's part of history. There will be no more. JSF is the future of military aviation until we get UCAVs into operation, and probably for many more years after that. What do you yall in the military think of the f-22? i read the squadron at langely was groudned again today because of a pilot losing oxygen mid-flight similar reason to why ALL f-22s were grounded?
They had the prototype flying almost 20 years ago, yeah? seems crazy that they would still be having problems with that system.... never deployed. it's a great tech demonstrator, that we bought about 180 too many of. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you want to talk about budgeting ok. Let's talk about budgeting. Both the air force and the navy are now admitting that the "cheaper" F-35 is going to cost at least 111 million dollars a plane and the costs to operate and maintain the aircraft are going to be at least 63% higher if not more. If we had just kept pumping out F-22s those planes would have been cheaper than the so called more affordable F-35. The F22 can't do most of what the JSF can do. If we kept making SR-71's, they'd have been cheaper per frame as well –– but pointless, as they had no mission. You're parotting arguments you don't understand. I am well aware of the fact that the F-22 doesn't have many of the capabilities of the F-35. That doesn't mean the F-22 couldn't be upgraded to use some of the software and hardware developed for the F-35. All of our fighter aircraft get upgraded and improved over time. Rather than avoid addressing what I have written by calling into question my intelligence or what might have influenced my arguments. How about you actually address the arguments? That would be better than resorting to an over the head ad hominem. Usually when people resort to ad hominems they do so because they want to avoid addressing scientific information, truth, or logic which might prove them wrong. You wouldn't be trying to do that by any chance would you?
 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
tooling and plans were "saved" so yes, in theory, it can.
Quoted:
Quoted:
THIS, Ax the F-35 immediately and restart production of the F-22 Restart F-22 production and keep the F-35. The F22 is gone. You can't "restart production". It's done. They are still building them. I've just finally seen them doing test flights over my house here in marietta again; they stopped when they were all grounded. don't know if they kept building them or not during that period; but they certainly weren't test flying them. The big problem (if you want to call it a problem  ) with our aircraft is that as soon as we are finally able to start buying and procuring our latest and greatest, it seems as though we have something that puts it to shame ready to start development. Look at the Boeing F-XX and the various UCAVS that are in development.... I think its difficult for the pentagon and the white house to put a big bulk of money into one program when we have something else in the works that would make it pretty much obsolete... look at the B-2 vs. B-1; reagan restarted the B-1 line after the B-2 was in development.... I imagine many viewed that as a waste at the time!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
UCAVs are way out. Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. The X47-B is going to be doing sea trials very soon (months, IIRC). That's not nearly as far out as you're making it seem to be. The X-47B is still officially a demonstration project. There is no funding yet, at least to my knowledge, for the production or any set number the Navy is going to order. The X-35 took its first flight in 2000. It's been about 11 years and only now is the USAF taking delivery. The X-47B took its first flight in February of this year. So if it takes an unmanned aircraft the same development time as a manned one (I doubt it) we're looking at 2022 before we see delivery. Have to have something in the interim and I'm not sold yet that the X-47B is going to be capable of full replacement of a manned aircraft. I think at first they're going to be just supplemental until they become combat proven and the military figures out how to best deploy them. An unmanned aircraft project should take far less time to build. They're actually testing the avionics using F/A-18s right now on CVNs. Yes, it's currently a demonstrator, at least officially. That's probably going to change pretty quickly once it's flying and doing carrier quals while it's still a demonstration project. Yes, it will be "supplemental" for a while. That doesn't change my statement. I'm not sure we're ready for a UCAV yet and take the man out of the middle of the kill chain. What if it decides to melt down a bus full of nuns? How would you like to write the headline for that? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want to talk about budgeting ok. Let's talk about budgeting. Both the air force and the navy are now admitting that the "cheaper" F-35 is going to cost at least 111 million dollars a plane and the costs to operate and maintain the aircraft are going to be at least 63% higher if not more. If we had just kept pumping out F-22s those planes would have been cheaper than the so called more affordable F-35. The F22 can't do most of what the JSF can do. If we kept making SR-71's, they'd have been cheaper per frame as well –– but pointless, as they had no mission. You're parotting arguments you don't understand. I am well aware of the fact that the F-22 doesn't have many of the capabilities of the F-35. That doesn't mean the F-22 couldn't be upgraded to use some of the software and hardware developed for the F-35. All of our fighter aircraft get upgraded and improved over time. Rather than avoid addressing what I have written by calling into question my intelligence or what might have influenced my arguments. How about you actually address the arguments? That would be better than resorting to an over the head ad hominem. Usually when people resort to ad hominems they do so because they want to avoid addressing scientific information, truth, or logic which might prove them wrong. You wouldn't be trying to do that by any chance would you? you didn't set forth any arguments. the F22 can't do but one tiny part of the mission of the JSF. Comparing them in the way you did shows such a breathtaking lack of comprehension that discussion is really pointless. you can't operate an F22 off the deck of any ship, anywhere. You can't export the F22 to our allies. can't fix those with either a software or a hardware upgrade. so you can "pump out" all the F22s you want, you won't meet the mission of the JSF. Comparing them as though it could, is absurd. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
UCAVs are way out. Look at how long it's taken for the F-35 program to reach this point and we still have a ways to go. You folks really think that UCAVs are going to be procured any faster? No way. We need the F-35's to cover the gap between legacy aircraft and next gen UCAVs. UCAVs are going to take a long time to bring up to the point where we can start replacing manned systems. I think in the beginning they're just going to be "supplemental" to our manned aircraft not replacing them. The X47-B is going to be doing sea trials very soon (months, IIRC). That's not nearly as far out as you're making it seem to be. The X-47B is still officially a demonstration project. There is no funding yet, at least to my knowledge, for the production or any set number the Navy is going to order. The X-35 took its first flight in 2000. It's been about 11 years and only now is the USAF taking delivery. The X-47B took its first flight in February of this year. So if it takes an unmanned aircraft the same development time as a manned one (I doubt it) we're looking at 2022 before we see delivery. Have to have something in the interim and I'm not sold yet that the X-47B is going to be capable of full replacement of a manned aircraft. I think at first they're going to be just supplemental until they become combat proven and the military figures out how to best deploy them. An unmanned aircraft project should take far less time to build. They're actually testing the avionics using F/A-18s right now on CVNs. Yes, it's currently a demonstrator, at least officially. That's probably going to change pretty quickly once it's flying and doing carrier quals while it's still a demonstration project. Yes, it will be "supplemental" for a while. That doesn't change my statement. I'm not sure we're ready for a UCAV yet and take the man out of the middle of the kill chain. What if it decides to melt down a bus full of nuns? How would you like to write the headline for that? there will be a man in the kill chain in some way for a very long time. That doesn't invalidate anything I'm talking about. |