RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,189618,00.html

As usual, all is not as it seems. But why announce it the way it was? It came off to me as postponed for an indefinate period.

If Obama has his way the USAF will be forced to fly bi-planes again.

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:
If Obama has his way the USAF will be forced to fly bi-planes again.

This aircraft is a design looking for a mission. It will cost $BILLIONS each and no one can state how it will be used that other aircraft can not do as well for a LOT less money.

Finaly we are think of things we need and not big contracts for friends that will be worthless a few years down the line. Save a few billion here and a few billion there soon adds up, for sure win Nortrup has over runs like the 295 billion dollar won, or Give them a butt load of money to build a lander and it crashes cause it was programed for standard and not metric. Yes, I would say think it over first then explain it to me.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by FlankerFlyer:
If Obama has his way the USAF will be forced to fly bi-planes again.

This aircraft is a design looking for a mission. It will cost $BILLIONS each and no one can state how it will be used that other aircraft can not do as well for a LOT less money.

The whole original idea behing the NGB was NOT to spend stupid amounts of money on it. Its mission is easy to define, long range strike, nuclear or conventional take your pick. The question, from what I got from articles, is how it would be addressed in the next round of nuclear disarmament talks since the current agreements expire in December.

Could other acft deliver similar weapon types? Yes, but not from the distance a bomber can and not from US territory.

What has to be answered is are we ready to give up manned long-range missions at this time? Cruise missiles and tactical airframes are short-range in comparison with a much smaller load and that leaves us with a next generation UCAV to do it. But UCAVs culd not be deployed the way B-1s are currently being used in SWA, at least not yet with the same reliability and eyes on target.

Are there looking for a "real" needed bomber or are they looking just for something new ? The way I see it, they are just looking for something new to show off when a B52 or B1 can still do the job required. How about just building a NEW B52 or B1 with updated electronics etc. I am sure it would not cost as much as the blueprints and testing is already completed for those airframes !

quote:

Originally posted by tlwasson:
Are there looking for a "real" needed bomber or are they looking just for something new ? The way I see it, they are just looking for something new to show off when a B52 or B1 can still do the job required. How about just building a NEW B52 or B1 with updated electronics etc. I am sure it would not cost as much as the blueprints and testing is already completed for those airframes !

Because neither can penetrate moderately or heavily defended airspace. The tooling for the B-52 has long been destroyed and will have to be rebuilt and the B-1 has its limitations as it likes gas, and a lot of it. But it can move on the deck!

Same reasoning the USN went for new design destroyers and the Army a new tank when those programs were being debated. If you are going to buy something, add capability. The NGB was SUPPOSED to use mostly off the shelf technology with regards to LO exterior and avionics.

are we dumb go forward with the stealth projects now and secure some employment for others who work on such aircraft hats off to the 554 fules at nellis AFB GOD BLESS THE TROOPS

**** ALL OF YA'LL AND I CAN SAY THIS BECAUSE I AM AIR FORCE AND I HAVE SEEN THE ******** THAT OUR MONEY GOES TO, AND I CAN SAY IT IS WORTHLESS. IF YOU THINK WE SPEND GOOD MONEY ON GOOD **** THINK ABOUT THE WORTHLESS MANHOURS AND HOURS WE S0END ON GAS ALONE TO FLY ALL YOU WHO WORRY ABOUT THINGS IN THE US LIKE SWINE FLU AND OTHER THINGS ARE STUPID AND IF YOU THINK YOUR GOING TO BLAME IT ON ONE PERSON YOUR STUPID GOVERNMENT AS IN PEOPLE WHO GOVERN WHAT IS MENT TO BE AS IN NOT OBAMA BUT CONGRES HOUSE THE SENATE THE PEOPLE WHO GOVERN THEN WHAT THEY SAY IS MENT TO BE THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE REMEBER YOU CAN POINT THE FINGER BUT STILL THE BLAME COMES ON YOU

If they are waiting for technology to catch up to their desires, it will never happen. When technology seems to be catching up to the “wants of the military customer” it only spurs their imagination to want more or something different or more complicated / advanced. One feeds off the other and if you wait you will continue to wait. We must draw a line and go for it. Build into the aircraft the capability to be easily upgraded without major structural change. A new black box, a new antenna etc. Go for the airframe change/design or updating every 20 years or so.

Food for thought gentlemen. If the D.O.D.and the congress does not want to spend big money on a new inflight refueler that is long over due, why then spend it on another bomber? And
while we are on the subject. The aircraft design in the article is the same design used for a model in a magazine I received two days ago. Coincidence, or not ?

Cold War Vet

To 16924282- -30 April-2009-03:50-Hrs.Brother I don't mean to get into your face, but were you trying to make a point with your ramblings?


Cold War Vet.

Isn`t there a point in strategy when the long range rocket takes over, and the long range bomber backs it up ?

quote:

Originally posted by 16405482:
Food for thought gentlemen. If the D.O.D.and the congress does not want to spend big money on a new inflight refueler that is long over due, why then spend it on another bomber? And
while we are on the subject. The aircraft design in the article is the same design used for a model in a magazine I received two days ago. Coincidence, or not ?

Cold War Vet

The problem of the new tanker is not one of design or money, but one of selection process. So far they have screwed up a lease and a RFP.

On the picture, it is prtobably just a rendition of waht [people think the NGB may look like. In the last 30 years, models and artists' impressions have not even been close.

quote:

Originally posted by OddBall1st:
Isn`t there a point in strategy when the long range rocket takes over, and the long range bomber backs it up ?

Yes and no. Long range missiles are cheaper, but can only be used once and the missiles have an issue of going after targets of opportunity. To have a well-rounded force, we actually need both.

quote:

Originally posted by 16924282:
**** ALL OF YA'LL AND I CAN SAY THIS BECAUSE I AM AIR FORCE AND I HAVE SEEN THE ******** THAT OUR MONEY GOES TO, AND I CAN SAY IT IS WORTHLESS. IF YOU THINK WE SPEND GOOD MONEY ON GOOD **** THINK ABOUT THE WORTHLESS MANHOURS AND HOURS WE S0END ON GAS ALONE TO FLY ALL YOU WHO WORRY ABOUT THINGS IN THE US LIKE SWINE FLU AND OTHER THINGS ARE STUPID AND IF YOU THINK YOUR GOING TO BLAME IT ON ONE PERSON YOUR STUPID GOVERNMENT AS IN PEOPLE WHO GOVERN WHAT IS MENT TO BE AS IN NOT OBAMA BUT CONGRES HOUSE THE SENATE THE PEOPLE WHO GOVERN THEN WHAT THEY SAY IS MENT TO BE THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE REMEBER YOU CAN POINT THE FINGER BUT STILL THE BLAME COMES ON YOU

Take a sedative - -

Who are we gona bomb with this thing that we can't already annihilate ten times over with what we got already??

The B2 is already closing in on 25 years old and the B1 is from a 1968 design. As enemy defenses continue to get more advanced the weaponry needed to penetrate these defenses also needs to advance.

Right now the ability to produce a manned hypersonic bomber exists and can be designed and built rather quickly, comparatively speaking anyway. If bureaucracy and political pandering could stay out of the way something like this can be a reality in less than 10 years. Imagine being able to put a bomb up a terrorist's asz in 4 hours from the continental US. Bombers can always be recalled or redirected, missiles cannot.

Thank you, Flanker.