Comments on: Giving up on NGB for a Nuke Free World

By: Don Whitson

Don Whitson — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:45:12 +0000

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.

By: chris_liverpool

chris_liverpool — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:47:08 +0000

@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.

By: clyde

clyde — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:09:26 +0000

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!!!!

By: Curtis

Curtis — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:57:10 +0000

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.

By: chris_liverpool

chris_liverpool — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:33:04 +0000

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.

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:24:29 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:16:38 +0000

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.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:33:32 +0000

By: Ptsfp

Ptsfp — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:24:09 +0000

*** 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.

By: William "Ace" Kincaid

William "Ace" Kincaid — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:35:21 +0000