Another interesting thing Elder mentioned at yesterday’s breakfast was the potential reasoning behind the delay of the so-called Next Generation Bomber (the one tabbed for fielding in 2018).
Elder wasn’t sure if this was the reason but thought it might have played a large role in the decision, but he said President Obama’s desire to reengage in strategic arms talks with Russia might have impacted the decision to punt the NGB. Reason is, if you go ahead with NGB you’re making it a part of the negotiation process, and Elder saw no need — based on arcane counting rules for warheads per bomber — to include the putative NGB in the negotiations.
I suspect that one of the things that could be in play here, I don’t know this for a fact, it makes sense to me, is that you don’t want to lock yourself in on an airplane until you know what the counting rules are going to be. Why would I want a program this year that puts me in a bad position in terms of how I’m negotiating what the START negotiations are going to look like. … I would not want to tie my hands in the negotiations.
If this is true, it would be a shame that the Obama administration would undercut our long-range strike capability for a more favorable negotiating position on some pie in the sky resurrection of antiquated nuclear arms reduction talks. What, am I watching “War Games” or “Failsafe” here? Are we getting back into Game Theory? I thought 1989 was 20 years ago…The Russians must be laughing all the way to the arms control bank on this one. Now their 100 year-old bombers are going to be matched up against our 100 year-old bombers — in that equation, the Russkies win.
Since they’re looking at doing these negotiations this year, and I don’t know this for a fact that the secretary brought this up, normally I would say strategy should drive your force structure. … The counting rules in START for bombers are pretty onerous. … The way a B-52 is counted, it’s counted as carrying more weapons than you would want to carry operationally. … It’s a matter of let’s not lock ourselves in and save some money.
Elder said the 2018 timeline for the NGB was tied to the retirement of the Air Launched Cruise missile which gives B-52s enough standoff range to be a viable strategic deterrent. But with the NGB falling by the wayside, then the B-52 will have to last until 2040. Yikes!
But, hey, maybe Obama and his negotiators with the Russians (and the Paks and Indians and Chinese and French and Israelis, etc.) can make good on his commitment to a nuclear free world before we even have to worry about centigenarian strategic bombers making up the bulk of our inventory? But I’m not holding my breath.
– Christian
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
A new bomber designed primarily for nuclear missions is an antiquated solution to a problem long since solved by land and sea-based ICBM’s. From a conventional standpoint, if our Raptor’s and Lightning II’s establish air dominance, then a 100 year old BUFF will work just fine for dropping ordinance on the ground-pounders. If we can’t secure the air space, then send in the TLAM’s (or UCAV’s).
The Air Force has always displayed a certain unrealistic fervor for buying the latest and greatest weapon system, especially considering the incredible cost overruns that usually result. In today’s economy, that just isn’t going to fly…
Let’s face it, Obama doesn’t care about our national security. All he really cares about is power and paying off his cronies. Obama is a soulless weasel.
Obama and Gates continue to say we have to get away from a “Cold War” mentality. Is there anything more Cold War than arms control negotiations with the Russians? North Korea just kicked out the inspectors that seems a little bit more of a pressing “21st Century” threat than measuring ICBM throw weights with a country that while not our friend is also not our enemy.
Let me put this very succincly. There is absolutely no reason to negotiate further arms cuts below the MASSIVE reductions that have taken place since the end of the Cold War. In fact I would support NGB, new ICBM’s, new SSBN’s(Gate’s supports these), SLBM’s, RRW, a rebuilt and revitalized nuclear weapons infrastructure, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and R&D on advanced nuclear weapons concepts to avoid strategic surprise.
Hey bobbymike, how you going to pay for all of that stuff you want?
Obama is dead wrong on the nuke issue, but Gates has a point.
This is not to placate the Russians. This is not out of any aversion to a new Bomber. This decision has it’s roots in the need to overhaul the USAF into a leaner more fiscally responsible and relevant entity for 21st century warfare. From the top to bottom programs are being reviewed and accessed based on relevance future necessity.
-DA
NGB didn’t seem like something that was totally needed in the short-term. It’d be nice to have a medium range stealth bomber for ground support, but considering that we usually own the airspace over whomever we’re fighting, and the success that the USAF has had with using B-52s in stand-by orbits as air support platforms, it does seem like something we can wait on for the economy to improve.
Pray tell, please tell me just what a NGB is supposed to look like right now? Do the fly boys even know? I doubt it, since we don’t know what the mission is supposed to be. If the USAF brass thinks that they do know the mission – beyond dropping iron bombs on their targets – they haven’t said.
Build the technology into the stand-off weapons that will be used by this platform. Then you can make them stealthy, small and fast. That means the NGB is going to look more like a 747 than the USAF’s classic idea of a sexy bomber.
Incidentally, to get the reach we’ll likely need and the flexibility we probably should be looking at using a monster flying boat. Then we wouldn’t need to worry about airbases in the Indian Ocean or the rest of the area around the Pacific Rim which is where this platform will likely need to function. Does anybody realize that the old Martin P6M Seamaster could lift as much as a B-52? A new flying boat bomber could dwarf both airplanes and come loaded with high-precision, hypersonic cruise missiles (and maybe even an on-board BMD laser system too) to boot. Of course, such a plane might fall under the admirals rather than the generals and that really would cause a riot.
You already have air dominance when you send the big bombers in…. so rather than design a new state of the art aircraft to do the same job as a B52, why not upgrade the B52 with a similar modern aircraft which is able to remain in the air for a long long time and carry a large payload.
In short replace them with modified Airliners. Similar survivability to a B52 (aka make sure nothing dangerous goes anywhere near it) whilst being more fuel efficient, carry similar or larger payloads, and soooo much cheaper to maintain than the B52 fleet that it would pay for itself long before 2018 let alone 2040.
bobbymike,
How useful are weapons that will likely never be sued? The massive reductions allow us to focus on more relevant weapons systems and capabilities that will help us fight conflicts that are actually HAPPENING! Nukes are fine to retain in small numbers as the ultimate deterrent but they have little usefuleness frankly, in almost all conflicts they are unnecessary and do more damage than good.
With regards to North Korea, they are a paper tiger…that country will implode under it’s own weight, you’ll see.
Isn’t that image taken from the movie “Dr. Strangelove”?
Geez, if it isn’t old brittle Vietnam-era PTSDers bloviating on Airpower, it’s new baby clowns who couldn’t comprehend the concept of ‘deterrence’ or long range strike to save their a**, and have no idea of what really happened during the Cold War.
Christian – why do you put out bait for these losers so? I really am interested. In case you haven’t noticed, you’re drawing the know-nothing loons more and more and people who actually DISCUSS developments are getting fewer and farther in between. I’m beginning to think this site is getting to be just not worth it anymore.
Bobbymike – good luck with the naifs, you’re going to need it.
We have tremendously downsized from about 12,000 deployed strategic weapons to around 2,200. That is an adequate and properly sized force. Now we need a maintenance and modernization plan to fit that force. Priorities should be that the current force works now and in the near term and then make sure we have the infrastructure to keep this force the most modern and up to date as possible. There are other side issues like hainvg a “break-out” production capability.
From a national security stand point we cannot allow the technical expertise of so many scientists, engineers, technicians and nuclear physicists to “go away”. In less than one generation we would find we no longer have the technical expertise or world lead in a myriad of important technologies. I suggest you read the NNSA’s Complex 2030 report. It discloses just how diverse and comlex the nuclear infrastructure is, you would not be able to reconstitute it in ten or maybe even 20 years if it was allowed to atrophy.
We can agree to disagree on numbers of warheads needed I believe the numbers we have now are low enough.
Since bombers are our only long-range strike platform, it seems unwise to put off indefinately the next one. We do not always have air superiority over an enemy’s territory for a deep strike missions and with the F-22 getting topped at 187 airframes, that is not longer a given anyway. Just how are we “make sure nothing is near” a B-52 on a mission? Answer – only use in low threat areas. Leaves a lot of territory an advesary can use with relative impunity.
The mission is a simple one, penetrate enemy air defenses. We will not always have a ship or sub close by to launch TACToms and bombers are the only air asset that can strike an enemy from US soil. The B-52 airframe is old at 45+ years and the B-1 is at 20+. People always seem to think the USAF just wants new toys. That is a load of crap, it is about capability. There is only so much upgrade that can be done to a B-52, this is not a Dale Brown novel.
This is ot just about nukes anymore, the bomber will primarily be a conventional asset. Anyway, our nuclear land forces are being allowed to atrophy and no one seems to care. When a reliable REPLACEMENT warhead was proposed, it was the US starting an arms race. Doesn’t matter that Russia is upgrading their ICBM force or that more nations now have more nuclear capability…..
This nuke free world the liberals dream of is a total illusion. Nuclear weapons are not something you can “put back into the bottle” as one general put it. Even of Russia, China, and everybody else were to promise to dispose of their nuclear weapons they would simply be lying.
The B-52 is a great aircraft and has already earned it’s role in history. Yet they can’t serve on forever. Upgrading F/A-18s is one thing. But B-52s serving on into 2040? That is just madness.
Sooner or later, unless we want to abandon our status as a military and global superpower (although Obama would like that) we will need a new bomber. It will also need the ability to carry nuclear munitions to ensure we have that capability in something other than our handful of B-2As.
The question is once again what speeds should it be capable of, and how stealthy?
Posts like this are the reason why I don’t link to this blog.
Look up the history of the Washington naval treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
The administration would go on with NGB and publish a planned quantity if its decisions about NGB had anything to do with arms control treaties.
That’s how it works: You use still imaginative assets in such negotiations. They’re the cheapest and most easily sacrificed assets you could have.
That’s how it worked with the Lexington Class (CC-1).
What ever happened to the B-2 stealth Bomber?
the Next Gen Bomber:
200 mph
unlimited range, no refueling
linger in theater for weeks
Hover and VTOL
no runway needed… unprepared fields
AMPHIBIOUS/ocean
200 ton payload (mixed defensive/offensive)
and/or Airborne Laser platform
carries/delivers Company strength ground forces
deploys X-F47 UCAV
stealthy as B-2 (or better)
cheaper to build/operate than other aircraft
what’s not to love?!
AIRSHIPS! (NOT BLIMPS)
Just think. The president in 2040 will say of the B-52, “Since it has worked for so long, we can not forsee a need to replace it.”
Hey soonergrunt:
How’s this for odd? I agree with you (mostly). : )
A rather interesting thought just occurred. Ultimately, the Navy was forced to retire their Battleships. The concept was deemed no longer necessary. One wonders how long it will be before someone declares that bombers are simply no longer necessary.
geez guys dont you know we need that money for illegal immigrant healthcare and paying acorn to pad the census.how about un-defaultable 500,000 mortgages for people who only make welfare benefiets as their income.whats with you white people trying to oppress others inthe new age of the chosen one.
just kidding were all screwed.
Maybe I read the news about NGB incorrectly, but I believe the current thought is to postpone, not cancel, the “current” design(s), until a better assessment is made as to the composition of a future strategic nuclear force structure.
That tells me that there’s a likelihood that there will be additional reductions in the levels of strategic nuclear warheads and that the NGB may not have a role as an alert element for the nuclear force structure.
That’s not to say that NGB won’t possibly be required to carry and deliver a nuke, but that probably the NGB may not need to be designed for that specific role (read – hardened).
That certainly changes the design parameters and certainly lowers the cost as possibly an NGB hardened for use in an all out nuclear conflict is not required.
So what does NGB become ? And what is the current design ?. Did I read something with a 2000 mile range ?. What’s that about ?. A Strike Eagle has that !.
The current fleet of B52′s, B1′s and B2′s have proven their worth, with each platform having certain useful characteristics that we want to retain in a future bomber, be it the carrying load and range of the B52 and B1, or the ability o penetrate sophisticated air defensive systems of the B2.
If nothing else, the monies spent on a platform such as the B2 is well spent if only for the deterent capabilities to a potential enemy (NK, Iran, China) knowing that we can attack and hit targets as desired and needed. Having that potential IS a deterent, no question about it and is something we do need to plan to replace as existing platforms age and need to be retired.
But we have some time, and with the need to retire the ALCM’s in 2018 coupled with a potential elimination of using bombers in a nuclear retaliation mode, the time frame changes. Can the B52 life be extended beyond 2018 ?, yes, but why bother ?, if it no longer has a nuclear deterent role and the conventional role can be carried by the B1 and B2.
Question is, can we build a “B2 Light” with similar spec’s at 1/5 the cost ?.
And how much money can we allocate to a replacement for the Minuteman III and it’s varied warheads, as well as the Trident D5, as well as the boomers ?. All of this stuff is going to need replacing I(and what a HUGE political issue that will be !) and the costs need to be factored in, so ANYTHING we can do to keep the numbers down, both in terms of overall quantities of weapons as well as the associated costs, is a good thing.
LG
President Osama has bigger problems than the NGB. He needs to work closer with Janet Reno II in the DHS to keep an eye on all those right wing veteran terrorists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
His butt kissing of the Saudis and payoffs to Hamas will help end the “war on terror”. Oh, wait, it’s not a war on terror anymore… It’s a police action, no that’s not it, oh right, it’s the “Overseas Contingency Operation”.
Also, he will ban all ammo, so war will not be necessary, besides we can obtain Peace through words alone. The 9/11 terror attacks against the US were just lapses in communication and misunderstandings anyways.
I wonder if he is thinking of putting serial numbers on all the terror bomber vests. That way they will be easier to track those poor misguided souls when they decide to do Allah’s will.
That will help to update Heaven’s virgin inventory, they can match 70 virgins to each of the serialized vests…
Welfare, we handed, billions upon billions for farmers not to plant crops so the price would go up and you and I could foot the bill. You say welfare? I went into combat at a time all the kids were going to college and playing war on Sat. & Sun., we called them weekend worriers cause most never seen combat, got to wear a uniform, and draw some pay, and Vaction 2 weeks once in a why. It took 7 people in the rear to put me in the bush. Other branches a lot more. Just reasently it became OK to say you are a Vietnam Vet, and not long ago the VA desided to recognize us as Vets, so now 4 out of 5 that claim to be a Vietnam Vet is a poser. Guys in the rear area that was around when there was incoming, are taking all the money that was men for the true fighting man that had been pushed to the limit, So when you talk about Welfare, state which one. Some of the ones are my brothers that this country tured their backs on after fighting a war for 11 cents an hour and had to send that home for the wife and new born, do the math. And to the impeach Obama croud, You aszholes put Bush in office to attack a country that did nothing to us, and after the Shock and Awe, which was DEPUTED URAIEUM, YOU CHEERED TO HAVE OUR TROOPS STAY THERE TILL THEY LIGHT UP AND GLOW IN THE DARK.So mr. republican if you were there, remember you are the reason you children may end up deform and you will have to say bye to them at an early age. It ain’t funny honey, the got us in the ICorps area with over 2,355,000 gallons of Agent Orange. Spayed where I eat, sleep, and drank whatever water I could find. I would have thought you republicans would have been a lot smarter by now, after all, the first Bush had a test run in Quwait, remember, Oh, that’s right, Rush Limbaugh, never said it, Fox did all they could not to report it, the republican owned media didn’t say much. And republicans are to lazy to seek the truth, you go ahead and use your PC to play game and insult the democrates that are trying to save your lives, it all goes full circle, when it piszesz you off like it did me, and you care about the worrier himself, you might want to change channels, and look at the news of other countrys. Well, if I made you mad, you have two choses, insult me, or wise up before your a night light.
We won’t need the NGB, or the f-22. We are going to be friends with all our enemies now, lol…
What’s up with Pakistan? They are our ally on the “Overseas Contingency” and they can’t even kick the Taliban out of their own country. Geez..
We will have to have the Department of Homeland Security send some disgruntled right wing veteran combat troops over there to help I guess.
There is nothing wrong with developing anachronistic weapon systems just for reasons of Cold War nostalgia. They should just be user pays – fund it out of the veterans welfare budget.
These comments are confusing. Last time I checked, NGB was a medium-range bomber with more of a focus on providing support to ground forces under higher-threat defense conditions. Has that changed?
These comments bug me too Earlydawn. This isn’t a political blog, if you don’t have something intelligent to say about the topic on hand, and god forbid you use evidence or common sense to back up your arguments, then don’t post your comment.
Not that I would presume to tell others what they can and can’t say. But if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, leaving out the conservative bile against liberals (such as myself), would go a long way. Not all liberals are the PETA idiots or other idealistic (i.e annoying and nearly useless) people.
If I want to hear conservatives whine about Obama or other crap I’ll tune into Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, I don’t need hear it here too. So please, stick with defense tech, and leave the rest behind.
Bambooviper,
Yep thats the bamboo i remember from military.com.
Nice rant though..
” DEPUTED URAIEUM, YOU CHEERED TO HAVE OUR TROOPS STAY THERE TILL THEY LIGHT UP AND GLOW IN THE DARK.”
What?
“…you might want to change channels, and look at the news of other countrys. Well, if I made you mad, you have two choses, insult me, or wise up before your a night light.”
Hmm Bamboo dude i dont realy watch any TV maybe in the morning or while im eatin. And sence i eat realy fast ussually thats not for long and those are ussually cookin shows. ;D
I dont watch FOX anymore now than i do CNN (havent watched that for a long long time).
Sorry you were in vietnam but that time is over the service you knew is changed.
As far as the “change channels, and look at the news of other countrys”.
Ah which ones…the ones run by state media? The
BBC where i can be ashamed i wasnt born in another country? Maybe aljazzera? All news is slanted get a huge amount of it or THINK about what that person is telling you. Ask yourself how that person or his/her agenda will be benefited by that story.
Surprise i used to be a liberal. Was born democrate once asked a guy why they would ever vote republican.
Then i started looking at what happened in th world ppls attitudes.
Then i decided both parties are full of it and you cant trust poloticans.
So thats how i came to vote i looked at the people around me. Collected the information from many sources and though logicaly.
So please stop getting pissed cause i wont toe the line or be a sheep to my “betters”.
Instead of build a poor NGB with poor capabilities, it will be better to build a twenty Falcon hypersonic like Bomber with th capabilities to drop bomb in two hour in the world its a better dissuasion than a subsonic NGB. Wiht futur fighter like pak-fa a hypersonic UCAV will be better.
@ Bambooviper,
Sir,
I can understand your angst towards the US goverment, a lot of Nam’ers feel a bit of resentment towards the way they were treated. Don’t start with the “you weren’t there” BS. My father was killed there in ’68 and i did my time… Panama & Desert Shield/Storm. This isn’t the forum to spout off at the world for things that happened 40 years ago… it makes you sound like that gorilla, at the zoo, that vomits up it’s lunch and eats it again for the entertainment of old ladies and young children.
Your statements about DU are incorrect. Those rounds were only used as long as there was armor to use them against… they switched over to HE a long time ago.
The goverment has been pissing down the necks of the military for a long, LONG time now… back before YOU were born. The only reason republicans get my vote is because they support the armed forces… unlike the demotards that force retirement on lifers and close military bases left & right. Every time a demo is C-n-C, our military gets weakened. Uncle Willie was the worst. You can check the numbers but i believe that he cut our forces by a third.
Lastly, you REALLY should proof read your posts… the way it was written makes you out to be an ignorant rube with an axe to grind. Your anger is justified but this isn’t the time or the place.
The U.S.A. squandered the strategic initiative of 105 B-2 Bombers and only built 22 of them, 21 of which are still in the active B-2 fleet. Had we built 105 B-2 Bombers, we could have retired the B-52s. Shame on liberal politics, which have resulted in putting our brave air crews at risk in aircraft that should have been
Wat happened to our nuclear “triad”..there will be no nuclear weapons free world. Thats a pipe dream. The B-52 is long in the tooth, but still capable. B1-B, B-2, how many do we have? Another platform will be needed, and it may be a UCAV.
Didn’t Carter try to diffuse the last arms race by giving up a bomber, notably, the B-1? Some bad ideas never go away. Bombers are need more for long range tactical strike than strategic bombing. How about asking the Russkies to give up some of their long range missiles?
The DOE spent $25B to maintain our existing nuclear arsenal in 2008. That is 1/3 of our total DOD procurement for that same year. We now use supercomputers (and the money associated with that leased time) to run tests and ensure our arsenal is still safe since we no longer do underground tests.
We still have a nuclear triad (SSBNs, B-2s, ICBMs) that is very effective. This triad was created so that if the B-2 mission didn’t work the target (and the rest of the world) would still be eliminated.
It is my understanding the NGB is being cancelled or delayed because nobody wants to pay at a minimum $2B per airframe when we are splitting hairs over buying the $100B+ F-22.
The reason we are restarting SALT is because of the money we spend maintaining our arsenal.
The B-1 was cancelled because it sucked as it still does. That is why they were never used in combat until their existence had to be justified in Afghanistan.
DC2
Long range bombers aren’t very useful, the only job they’ve been doing over the last few decades is drop conventional, precision bombs, and the JSF will do that just fine. In a situation where you need to bomb Russia or whatever, they don’t make sense either, ship launched cruise missiles make more sense, and in that case the navy has us covered 10 times over. If we lose our ships, ICBM’s still make more sense than launching an aircraft loaded up with mini-ICBM’s. I don’t get it… let the thing die.
Right now I would worry about the fire south of the border than needing a plane to bomb Russia. Better than that, How about a tanker to refuel your NGB.
The Russians don’t care about counting rules… they’re building new fighters and new bombers anyway. It’s too bad the Air Force is run by politicians with brass on their shoulders rather than real warriors. If the AF had real warriors for leaders, the AF leadership would not be the corrupt d|ckless wonders that they are.
-In less than one generation we would find we no longer have the technical expertise or world lead in a myriad of important technologies.
If you want proof of the validity of that statement look no further than NASA. They regularly send rocket engineers down to Huntsville for them to examine the Saturn V rocket engines and structural components so they can figure out just how to build a rocket! Seems the forgot how to do it!
Schrott,
Maybe when you can get over whatever issues you have about those “slutty” (really dude) liberals you will realize that screwing the military is a truly bipartisan initiative.
Oh, and the cancelling of all of these programs is at the request of who? Robert Gates. Who appointed this guy? But don’t worry, you just stay in your own reality of everything being the liberals fault. If that is what makes you feel better at your inaction to holding your government accountable to the people of this country. Just sit in your recliner and complain.
However, please stick to the topic at hand.
DC2
I wonder if the B-52 is going the way of the venerable battleships. You know, we don’t need them, mothball them.
Oops, we need them, we better upgrade them and get them in service. Nah, we don’t need them anymore, mothball them, ad infinitum…
don’t worry lads, maybe we can outsource defense to the chinese for a knock down price.
I wonder if the B-52 is going the way of the venerable battleships. You know, we don’t need them, mothball them.
Oops, we need them, we better upgrade them and get them in service. Nah, we don’t need them anymore, mothball them, ad infinitum…
Posted by: Ptsfp at April 23, 2009 03:54 PM
LOL
Replacing the Iowas with destroyers is kinda like gettin rid of the F18 and telling everyone not to worry your replacing them in another 20 years with something 5 times the cost that wont work and cant accually do the job thats needed.
The US needs new transports and tankers. If possible, standardizing the tanker fleet instead of maintaining a bevy of planes big and small, old and new. Don’t know if FCS is going to produce promised weight savings so new transports must anticipate small and large FCS.
Also will an advanced NGB really be necessary? B-2′s can be the “first strike” NGB in heavily defended areas. B-52 and B-1 would become the “bomb truck” for areas no longer a major threat to the bomber force.
Buy 125 Boeing-787s. Modify them with bomb bays, air refueling capabilities and appropriate avionics packages. Immediately scrap all the B-52s, B-1s and B2s.
That solves a currently impossible DOD budget dilemma. I look forward to my consulting fee in the mail.
*** NEWS FLASH ***
Due to the increasing cost of defense, Washington is planning on outsourcing it’s NGB.
Initial negotiations are currently in progress with UPS and FEDEX for bomb delivery. Bombs will be delivered on time and as a part of the FCS, the campaign Generals can monitor the bombing progress from a desktop web portal.
Buy 125 Boeing-787s. Modify them with bomb bays, air refueling capabilities and appropriate avionics packages. Immediately scrap all the B-52s, B-1s and B2s.
That solves a currently impossible DOD budget dilemma. I look forward to my consulting fee in the mail.
Posted by: William “Ace” Kincaid at April 24, 2009 10:35 AM
——————————–
Can a 787 handle the shock of dropping multiple 2000lb or more bombs?
Can it hit these targets accuratly can it do this over and over without having the airframe made worthless.
Airliners are not bombers.
I personally thought that Dr. C. Paul Robinson, Dr. Stephen M. Younger, Dr. John S. Foster, Adm. Michael Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, SECDEF Robert Gates in conjunction with Heritage Foundation would have established a pro-nuclear weapons alliance that would have persuaded the Congress to approve new nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, I thought 9/11/01 should have been the future baseline (=wake-up call) to understand for the Congress that it would be in the US national interest to adopt future nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, once again, and if Iran test an atomic bomb, the Taliban, and/or al-Qaeda seized the Pakistani nukes, Pres. Obama and Congress would do nothing with 99.99% certainty regarding the future US nuclear weapons policy.
But, if terrorists attacked Washington, DC with a stolen nuke? It would be to late for Congress and Pres. Obama to adopt a future US nuclear weapons policy, and missile defense.
In summary: Do not forget political correctness is lethal for thyself (US), not the adversaries of US.
PS: Previously posted at LANL: The Rest of the Story, 4/6/09 6:13 PM.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2009 08:16 PM
I personally thought that Dr. C. Paul Robinson, Dr. Stephen M. Younger, Dr. John S. Foster, Adm. Michael Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, SECDEF Robert Gates in conjunction with Heritage Foundation would have established a pro-nuclear weapons alliance that would have persuaded the Congress to approve new nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, I thought 9/11/01 should have been the future baseline (=wake-up call) to understand for the Congress that it would be in the US national interest to adopt future nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, once again, and if Iran test an atomic bomb, the Taliban, and/or al-Qaeda seized the Pakistani nukes, Pres. Obama and Congress would do nothing with 99.99% certainty regarding the future US nuclear weapons policy.
But, if terrorists attacked Washington, DC with a stolen nuke? It would be to late for Congress and Pres. Obama to adopt a future US nuclear weapons policy, and missile defense.
In summary: Do not forget political correctness is lethal for thyself (US), not the adversaries of US.
1. Because nukes will protect the homeland from asymmetrical threats? Our present inventory of nukes didn’t impress OBL, so how would new ones do it? Nukes and nuclear deterrence don’t work on groups hiding in the sea of other nation-states.
2. Again, seizure of nukes by AQ etc in various locales isn’t going to be effected by procurement of NGB, new nuclear weapons and new delivery systems. Iran might be another story. And assuming POTUS and congress will do nothing is a straw-man needed for the next argument.
3. I think everyone is agreed that when the nuke goes off it’ll be too late. But again buying more bombers doesn’t address counter-terror and nuclear proliferation issues for non-state players.
As for Iran it’s hard to tell whether or not they are truly willing to develop “peaceful” nuclear power. There are plenty of systems like mixed uranium oxides that can provide lots of power but keep uranium levels diluted to the point that their use in nukes is difficult, if not impossible. However, it also leads to the possibility of dirty-bomb material. So in the end it’s not a matter of trusting Iran with “peaceful” nuclear power; but the big issue is whether or not we trust Iran in the first place.
Buy 125 Boeing-787s. Modify them with bomb bays, air refueling capabilities and appropriate avionics packages. Immediately scrap all the B-52s, B-1s and B2s.
That solves a currently impossible DOD budget dilemma. I look forward to my consulting fee in the mail.
Posted by: William “Ace” Kincaid at April 24, 2009 10:35 AM
——————————–
Can a 787 handle the shock of dropping multiple 2000lb or more bombs?
Can it hit these targets accuratly can it do this over and over without having the airframe made worthless.
Airliners are not bombers.
_______________________________
Will the airframe be durable enough to drop 2000lb bombs? Well it would be going outside the design specs, I suspect that it prob. could get away with it – but testing, and modification to make it more durable will most likely be required.
Will it be able to hit accurately over and over again? Yes. to put it simply. Almost all if not all bombs dropped in combat recently have had precision guidance built in. The accuracy comes from the bomb, not the bomber. Besides, adding in new systems for this type of thing would be expected.
All in all I believe that airliners could be modified to become bombers, but it wouldn’t be free. A new design would be needed (say Boeing 787Military) which would cost alot of money, though far less than that required to commision an entirely design.
Whilst such initial costs may at first seem prohibitive, it should be noted that the maintanence savings would be immense. Just how much is the annual maintenence cost for a B-52? Custom making any unavailable old replacement parts must cost a small fortune – and take time. Airframes must be unavailable due to maintenence a considerable fraction of the time. Regular maintanence checks will need to be longer and more rigorous for such an old airframe. The list is endless.
Anyone who’s ever had a vintage car knows that it looks beautiful, and drives wonderfully, but don’t drive it across the country as it will brake down on you far more often than a new car – that could do the same effortlessly.
The problem with modding airliners to be bombers is that the fuselages’ strength is similiar to that of a balloon. Is the skin of the fuselage, plus the pressurized interior.
When you start cutting big holes in the frame and skin for bomb bay doors, and depressurize said bombbays, you fatally weaken the frame.
You have to build an entirely different fuselage section, but I suppose you could still use the wings, and engines.
‘nother piece of bad news. While the necessary bomb load has rapidly decreased due in part to smart munitions, the amount of support equipment on the plane has increased. Smart weapons need data links to load up GPS coordinates, some need cooling air and power for thier onboard electronics. Big weapons like cruise missiles need rotary launchers, and the hardware to mount and spin them.
Another piece of bad news, an airliners’ wings are effectively too low to mount up large pylons. Like the B-52s. External stores would increase drag and decrease speed and range anyways.
So what do you finally wind up with? A ridiculously expensive aircraft with no stealth, subpar performance compared to its airliner brethren, a mediocre payload, and low longevity due to its fragile wings and landing gear. Its slower then a B-52 with half the payload and no where near the effective service life.Compared to the B-52, your plane will certainly yield greater fuel economy, possibly even greater range, but will still be limited by the endurance of the crew (The same wall that effectively limits the range of both the B-52 and the B-2 spirit.) The B-52 can pack more ordinance, put out more jamming, take more Gs’, take more battle damage, and will still be flying when your plane is grounded for corrosion and stress crack issues. Its an idea that is penny wise and yet pound foolish.
You are on the right track though. Ditch the stealth, ditch the supersonic requirements, ditch all the super-fancy expensive mumbo-jumbo and just build a straight forward long range bomb truck that can pack just about any weapon you can think to stick on it.
1) Nuclear warfare isn’t going to happen-because if it does-there’ll be nothing left to win. The Russians know that, and, maybe even Obama and Billary do too-who knows?? Stranger things have happened.
2)ICBMs make a lot more sense than expensive bombers-launched from subs, ships, siloes-they don’t need the expensive stealth, airframe, air refueling, ect. and, they’re plenty accurate enough and fast.
3)The AF doesn’t have a good record in regards to accquisition and nuclear stewardship, anyway.
4)This NGB LOOKs like a high tech nightmare-I’m no aerospace engineer, but this NGB is definitely experientmenting with some novel airframes, and, like th eOsprey and EFV, it’s guaranteed cost over run.
5)The NGB might make a good bargaining chip with the RUssians, if China didn’t already own our treasury.
Best bet, just come with Russia, and say “we can’t afford this crap anymore than you can, so let’s get serious. How we gonna disarm?”
The reality, is that nuclear weapons are built in deterence-doesn’t matter if you get eh first strike, you’re still screwed. So, why talk big when we can’t spend big? At this AIG-Chrsyler bailout point, if we got into an arms race with China or Russia, we could very well lose!!!!
@curtis
a well reasoned argument. A new design meant specifically for carrying a big bomb payload without all the bells and whistles, with minimal maintenence costs being a serious consideration
The survivability is ofcourse a continuing issue with such an airframe. make it a UAV? longer endurance but vulnerability to disruption of the satellite network? Alternative comprimise? make it stealthy – this is the line of reasoning that led to the overly costly B2.
There are arguments on both sides of the debate, but looking at past reasons to have a triad of nuclear defense (ICBM, Bombers and Nuclear Subs), it begs the question, what if any differences in mans approaches will change in the next century. I imagine not a lot in the next 25 to 50 years. So if the NGB is to potentially penetrate areas like Pakistan and well protected areas say like the next “Russia” with well defined/defended hard and nuclear hard targets then it becomes clear the low observable capabilities of a B-2 with very current electronics is a must. The ICBM’s will if necessary (I hope we never have to) complete the first round of target removals, but the manned need to evaluate and dispense the second round of offensive weapons is a vital key and important component in this end game scenario. I trust two or more operationally ready personal to make those type decisions.