So how much redundancy does our defense system need? If we have to fork out tax dollars to build both manned and unmanned bombers to deliver nukes..then why do we need to fork out tax dollars to build missles? Sure, we need bombers, manned bombers, unmanned has too many potentials for problems if the aircraft starts malfunctioning. At least a pilot can still fly out on a wing and a prayer and one good engine or glide out. But if that CPU back home goes down because a squirrel decides to chew through some wires (research that story) there goes the whole grid and one unmanned nuke straight into enemy hands. Future defense strategy needs to focus manned bombers and submarines armed with missles.
A 500# laser guided bomb from 60,000 ft can kill a person as well as anything. I don't think we need to destroy cities to do that. If we want to keep the flight crews safe put the nukes on cruise missiles and then they won't need to penetrate heavily defended air space.
Well I see no problem with you boys scenario, all you need to do now is convince the adversary that he doesn't need nuclear weapons. Good luck!
Man or unmanned bombers can never reach a target faster than silo based missiles, whereas bombers have the ability to change their destinations in flight as well as be recalled. As long as we have a possible adversary who has the ability of mass destruction upon their enemies, we require a deterrent. Massive reply is the best deterrent we have in our arsenal. It's been keeping the peace for quite awhile now. Common sense!
I like the way you think Bill. Gotta have the right tool for the job at hand. And they have to know we have the tools to wipe them off the face of the planet. Most of my life and certainly all of my service we had MAD, and it worked real good.
Originally posted by ChuckW65: A 500# laser guided bomb from 60,000 ft can kill a person as well as anything. I don't think we need to destroy cities to do that. If we want to keep the flight crews safe put the nukes on cruise missiles and then they won't need to penetrate heavily defended air space.
ETCS(SW)ret
Unless it has something to do with Chinese killer satelites.
I agree that a new generation of bombers to carry nuclear payloads is needed; cause we can't rely on the aging B-52 fleet forever. With a full suite of nuclear bombers, backed by our naval nuclear deterent, as well as the Missile component the US be better able to handle different scenarios.
one can be highly assured that they will cost at least 2 billion bucks a piece and there will only be about 60 of them. taking bets on the sticker price!
When the USN went shopping for a replacement for the A-1 Skyraider in the light attack role, they chose the A-4 Skyhawk. One of the requirements was that the aircraft have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons. The Scooter did this without the complexity that the experts of the 1950's thought necessary. I see no reason why someting similar could not be done today.
Hey FlankerFlyer. Did you know that the Skyhawk was used by adversary squadrons such as VFC-13 to simulate Soviet/Warsaw Pact fighter aircraft such as the Mig 21? Not bad for a subsonic bomb dropper! And I think the next administration may be reluctant to purchase a weapons system with the "sticker price" you are predicitng.
Is this bomber going to be that big white dorrito chip with the dorsal engines? Will it be false nuclear warhead loading proof? ...
I'm sorry Airman I can't allow you to load that live nuke on a conus flight. Airman what are you doing to my hardened cpu core... daisy.... Oh well poor ACC.
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale
Another new more expensive bomber? Thought this was the ultimate!
But then again, if the objective is to sneak a nuclear weapon into some ultra secret hiddy hole, never forget the famous man pack, portable, demolition device.
But if all else fails and we absolutely need a new delivery means, I fully support the newest and most super secret experimental delivery method below:
Originally posted by retired1987: Lets bring back the Minuteman III. Then we will have superiority over the air.
LGM -30 Minuteman III numbers around 500 active missiles in silos and to my knowledge are not planning to be deactivated for multiple years to come... Like somewhere around the year 2020.
These missiles are a last ditch deterrent force... So to ensure modern-day defense a modern manned bomber force completes this defensive posture allowing flexibility whereas missiles are a last ditch deterrent, once released creates a massive destruction scenario with no recall. Bombers can also respond to last-minute change of targets whereas missiles do not have that assurance. Food for thought!
For almost 5 decades, our nuclear deterence has been based on the triad theory; SLBMs, ICBMs, and air delivered.
The next bomber should retain nuclear capability for just that reason. Since the implementation of SALT and START, we have continually cut the number of deployed warheads with the target being somewhere between 1700-2200. We have withdrawn most tactical weapons that would be carried by small acft as part of our drawdowns.
Hardening the acft makes sense even if it didn't have a nuclear mission. There have been developments is weapons that can, theoretically, radiate an EMP without nuclear detonation.
Having redundant communications makes sense since the ability of any potential enemy to jam has also been proliferating.
In short, if we want a manned long-range acft, it needs protection against threats other than the conventional shoot-it-down with a missile variety. As has been proven, long-range manned acft have been a tremendous asset to the theater commanders. Range, payload, and loiter time is unmatched by any straight tactical airframe.
I just hope we do not repeat the B-2 experience; start with a 300 acft requirement, cut to 132, cut to 75, settle on 21. As we have seen, that drives costs to an exhorborant levels.
So with everything being "outsourced" these days, will we be having the Chinese or people from India doing the designs and building? We have almost decimated our industry base in this country and this is going to prove to be a problem for us militarily in the future. In stead of a large nuclear bomber, we should focus on smaller, more numerous cost-effective dual role fighter-bombers, think A4, F5 size and then have stealth designed into them. Why not update the F-117 which was/is actually a medium bomber and not a fighter. Use a similiar airframe, but with modern stealth features. Only need one bomb there also. Just a thought.
Hang on a second, let me see if I understand this. We are paying a billion dollars a copy for the B2 because we needed a stealth heavy bomber capable of delivering a nuclear payload deep inside defended territory and now the Air Force is saying it can not penetrate the air defense of a country like Iran???? Anyone else feel someone trying to pick our pockets. I think maybe its time to dust off the Boomer's and park them off our enemies shores and play hide and seek, just like the Good Old/Bad Old days
Originally posted by Jamie42: So with everything being "outsourced" these days, will we be having the Chinese or people from India doing the designs and building? We have almost decimated our industry base in this country and this is going to prove to be a problem for us militarily in the future. In stead of a large nuclear bomber, we should focus on smaller, more numerous cost-effective dual role fighter-bombers, think A4, F5 size and then have stealth designed into them. Why not update the F-117 which was/is actually a medium bomber and not a fighter. Use a similiar airframe, but with modern stealth features. Only need one bomb there also. Just a thought.
That would only work if you're going for strictly the nuclear touch. Why build it for one mission only? Also you make it sound like you can just add on some nifty "stealth" parts and it becomes radar invisible. That's not how it works. Also, the F-117 is a relativly poor aircraft, IMHO and shouldn't be confused with a "medium" bomber. Those kinds of designations went out with the Mitchell and Marauder. The F-117 is slow, has short legs and isn't quite as stealthy as you might think. That's why the EF-111 had to escort it in to baghdad in 1991.
