Comments on: New Bomber to Focus Heavily on ISR http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Sat, 26 May 2012 02:10:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SMSgt Mac http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191352 SMSgt Mac Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:15:27 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191352 True, IF they keep the previous set of requirements, but one of the things that sank the last effort was the glaring inability to hit parts of the globe with enough firepower down the road. If the AF isn't asleep at the wheel this time, the NGB will be subsonic and payload will be at least 30K (60k is optimum) and the unrefueld range will be >4000nm. True, IF they keep the previous set of requirements, but one of the things that sank the last effort was the glaring inability to hit parts of the globe with enough firepower down the road. If the AF isn’t asleep at the wheel this time, the NGB will be subsonic and payload will be at least 30K (60k is optimum) and the unrefueld range will be >4000nm.

]]> By: DualityOfMan http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191335 DualityOfMan Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:51:50 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191335 The "2018 bomber" is supposed to be medium-sized (in the vein of the F-111) while the "2037 bomber" should be a heavy strategic bomber to replace the B-52, B-1, and B-2. The “2018 bomber” is supposed to be medium-sized (in the vein of the F-111) while the “2037 bomber” should be a heavy strategic bomber to replace the B-52, B-1, and B-2.

]]> By: SMSgt Mac http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191274 SMSgt Mac Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:30:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191274 Concur on both counts Concur on both counts

]]> By: @Earlydawn http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191268 @Earlydawn Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:24:14 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191268 The new Air Force bomber is a medium-range stealth / low-observable design. It fills a different niche then the long-range, massive payload capability. The new Air Force bomber is a medium-range stealth / low-observable design. It fills a different niche then the long-range, massive payload capability.

]]> By: TMB http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191259 TMB Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:01:13 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191259 As JMatt brought up, it seems like a lot of our weapons programs would be a lot cheaper and faster to build if we stick with the basics. The army asks for a rifle, and after 10 years and half a billion dollars they're handed a rifle, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, sniper rifle, and an iphone rolled into one that weighs 25 pounds and tells them "no thanks." Same rules seem to apply with the F-35, EFV, Bradley, and probably the last couple ship designs the Navy has churned out. I don't know if its Congress' fault, the services, or industry, but KISS doesn't seem to apply when it comes to weapons acquisition. As JMatt brought up, it seems like a lot of our weapons programs would be a lot cheaper and faster to build if we stick with the basics. The army asks for a rifle, and after 10 years and half a billion dollars they’re handed a rifle, grenade launcher, rocket launcher, sniper rifle, and an iphone rolled into one that weighs 25 pounds and tells them “no thanks.” Same rules seem to apply with the F-35, EFV, Bradley, and probably the last couple ship designs the Navy has churned out. I don’t know if its Congress’ fault, the services, or industry, but KISS doesn’t seem to apply when it comes to weapons acquisition.

]]> By: William C. http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191267 William C. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:38:33 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191267 Quite a shame because I think we really need more than 100 when you consider the B-52s will probably start retiring earlier than planned due to all of the use they are getting in Afghanistan. Then again we should have gotten 500+ F-22As if you ask me. Quite a shame because I think we really need more than 100 when you consider the B-52s will probably start retiring earlier than planned due to all of the use they are getting in Afghanistan.

Then again we should have gotten 500+ F-22As if you ask me.

]]> By: William C. http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191266 William C. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:36:32 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191266 From my understanding it is very likely to have nuclear weapons capability, thus it is very likely to manned. From my understanding it is very likely to have nuclear weapons capability, thus it is very likely to manned.

]]> By: William C. http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191264 William C. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:32:07 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191264 If you could ever find that Powerpoint I would love a copy. Indeed the F-22 was mismanaged not by Lockheed but by the government. In my opinion not buying a full complement of F-22s was a massive mistake. Now there is far too much pressure on the F-35 program which has many hurdles to overcome still. If you could ever find that Powerpoint I would love a copy. Indeed the F-22 was mismanaged not by Lockheed but by the government. In my opinion not buying a full complement of F-22s was a massive mistake. Now there is far too much pressure on the F-35 program which has many hurdles to overcome still.

]]> By: SMSgt Mac http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191262 SMSgt Mac Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:27:49 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191262 part 2: What some call Einstein's Razor is most appropriate for Defense: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." It is the complexity of the battlefield that drives the complexity of the tools. The only thing unchanging is the nature of Man. It is now as it always has been, and I contend as it always shall be. OK, whoa -gotta stop. ...Must not get me started on philosophy.... Yours in the Common Defense- part 2:
What some call Einstein’s Razor is most appropriate for Defense: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” It is the complexity of the battlefield that drives the complexity of the tools. The only thing unchanging is the nature of Man. It is now as it always has been, and I contend as it always shall be. OK, whoa –gotta stop. …Must not get me started on philosophy.…
Yours in the Common Defense–

]]> By: SMSgt Mac http://defensetech.org/2009/12/18/new-bomber-to-focus-heavily-on-isr/#comment-191261 SMSgt Mac Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:26:54 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5244#comment-191261 The F-22's System Operational Requirements were finalized in March, and the YF-22 was selected for development in August 1991. RE: Complexity vs. Simplicity. This again is more a matter of perception than reality. Older systems only seem simple in light of today's technology, and we forget that those older systems were once the 'Advanced' this or that of their time. There is NO advanced weapon system that is mature out of the box, and I would submit the infantryman of 1917 would find the M4 (or AK) as much a complex mystery as a WW1 ace would find the F-22. Most people don't know that the KISS acronym came out of aerospace (as in Keep it Simple AND Stupid) by the guy who brought us the most advanced (for their day) systems in the sky at the time. The F-22’s System Operational Requirements were finalized in March, and the YF-22 was selected for development in August 1991.
RE: Complexity vs. Simplicity.
This again is more a matter of perception than reality. Older systems only seem simple in light of today’s technology, and we forget that those older systems were once the ‘Advanced’ this or that of their time. There is NO advanced weapon system that is mature out of the box, and I would submit the infantryman of 1917 would find the M4 (or AK) as much a complex mystery as a WW1 ace would find the F-22.
Most people don’t know that the KISS acronym came out of aerospace (as in Keep it Simple AND Stupid) by the guy who brought us the most advanced (for their day) systems in the sky at the time.

]]>