The 2006 QDR called for the Air Force to develop a next generation bomber to be ready by 2018; an initiative that promptly went nowhere. Now, the very term “next generation bomber” is “dead” in the halls of the Pentagon, reports John Tirpak, citing comments made yesterday by Air Force Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements.
Breedlove says what is being discussed is something much smaller than the NGB would have been, and though stealthy, it will not be designed to penetrate dense SAM belts like the NGB. It will be more of a “utility infielder” for a family of strike platforms under consideration.
There is a “lively debate” going on at the Pentagon regarding long range strike and penetrating platform cost (very high) versus the cost of enemy guided missile defenses and battle networks (very low). Importantly, Breedlove said that for the first time, requirements for a major aircraft are not coming from Air Combat Command, but are coming down from OSD.
– Greg Grant
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe resurrect the FB-22 concept? A man can dream…
Well (looking under the hood) there’s two problems right there at the end:
RE: There is a “lively debate” going on at the Pentagon regarding long range strike and penetrating platform cost (very high) versus the cost of enemy guided missile defenses and battle networks (very low).
Then they are debating the wrong things. The discussion should be centered on what the value of the targets are, weighed against the costs of the means to attack them.
RE: Importantly, Breedlove said that for the first time, requirements for a major aircraft are not coming from Air Combat Command, but are coming down from OSD.
Service charters are to ‘Train and Equip’ so this must be Pentagonese for “you can only have a system that costs this much” versus the system you need to meet the requirements.
BTW: This development is unsurprising. I’ve been thinking of the Senior AF leadership as Stupid Businessmen in Blue, for reasons not the least of which include my former Lts and Capts now retiring as soon as possible after they make 0-6 because they have no confidence in the GO corps. Thank you Goldwater Nichols for politicizing the Zero promotion process even more than it was.
Oh, and get that Useful Idiot POS (Gates) outta there!
Well doesn't this tie into the discussion below on the B-1? It would be helpful if you could address some questions asked at the end of that thread. It sounded like you were in favor of cutting the B-1, yes? And you seemed to suggest no relevant role. Maybe I'm missing something but I see some contradiction in your posts….
But then I'm just a civilian…..not on a summer break
You are missing something if you see some contradiction in my posts. I have no idea where you ran off the tracks in that regard.
I was speaking as to the reality of what 'is' on the other thread. If we're going to play "what ifs", then if I were Emperor and HAD to cut a bomber program, I would cut the BUFF, keep the BONE, and reinstate the BONE's nuke capability. that way I'd have a highly survivable, responsive, and more modern platform for direct attack in medium to low threat environments and a very capable standoff weapon system for high threat environments. Given the most of the parts of the BONE are at least one generation newer than most of the BUFF's, and all those retiring fighters could provide a goodly chunk of all the core engine parts the BONE will ever need (or do a relatively minor mod to install F110s), the BONE would be a lot more supportable in the long run. Base the BONES with the attrition reserve fleet ala the BUFF, and you're all set.
We are on the path to make UAV's and stealth cruise missiles the deep penetration, precision strike first day-of-war assets, while manned aircraft serve as launch and command and control platforms, and strikers of degraded targets.
I would suggest the FB-22, but Lockheed has enough on their plate. That said, I think further development of Northrop's FB-23 concept could produce an incredible fighter-bomber.
Looking beyond this, perhaps the USAF should look at developing a UCAV similar to, but significantly larger than the X-45C and X-47B demonstrated by Boeing and Northrop.
In the long term, we STILL need a new strategic bomber, hopefully before 2030! Something that can replace the B-1B and B-52H.
Guess you forgot about the B2 Stealth bomber. Government didn't use their heads years ago when they reduced the final purchase quantity from over 100 aircraft they originally ordered to the twenty-three they ultimately purchased and accepted delivery of.
Doesn't take a whole lot of logic to figure out that Northrop Grumman was forced to roll up all their R&D costs into those 23 birds, rather than spread the costs out over the 100 or more the Air Force originally wanted. And then Government was considering investing more in the R&D effort on the NGB concept? WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY COMING FROM?
I;m sickened by all the liberals spending money we don't have and never will on financial reform, health reform, transportation reform, education reform, immigration reform, deep sea drilling reform, and all the other reforms coming down the highway, aiming for us taxpayers like deer caught in the headlights!
SO, MR. "WISE AND ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT", I REPEAT, WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY COMING FROM? Oh, sorry, I forgot … we now know China is now our biggest lender, so have no fear, taxpayers, it won't be long before they OWN us all, lock, stock and barrel! Then we'll really learn what "minimum wage" and no benefits is all about.
Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations, but it's time we all get fired up over this travesty before us!
Good Morning Folks,
This is just facing reality. With the demise of manned aircraft we are also seeing the demise of sophisticated and expensive Air Defense Systems which of course leads to the UAV. If one bothers to consider the bomber for a moment it have evolved into nothing more the a bomb caring aerotruck. The day’s of low attitude straight line bomb runs over a target are history and I doubt that they are missed by aircrews.
Note to the above paragraph. Before all of you get off on the S-300 ADS it has already been defeated in actual combat by none kinetic weapons and the famed S-400, well it appears that The Russian Federation has greatly over sold it abilities. The Chines are still 20-30 behind in making a successful copt of the Soviet S-300.
With them emergence of passive sensor based signal detection on US aircraft, just turning on of an active radar will be a suicidal act on the part of the crew.
The UAV bomber is just a cruise missile that is returnable to be rearmed, refueled, reprogramed and sent out again. If an enemy ADS should take one down its an economic loss, no POW’s.
As for our enemies, they have long ago learned not to make a “target rich environment” for US Heavy bombers. The trend in the UAV strike package is trending to the Viper Strike and a GPS/Laser guided 81mm mortar round vs. the Hellfire II and the GBU-12.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Those are nice thoughts and good goals to have, but the reality is we aren't there yet with our UAV technology. If we want a UCAV that can penetrate deep in a defensive environment and remain autonomous prepare to spend Megabucks and wait a a few years before we have something. That being the case, I think it's a hard sell to argue that now is a great time to kick off some more expensive R&D to get there as opposed to just forking over the minimalist sustainment dollars that are required to keep the existing war platforms going.
Exactly. That was my point. Until we have capable drones a level or two better and smaller more advanced versions of the weapons close at hand, it makes sense to work with what we've got. This seems the transition period and the biggest threats beyond the dirt wars are taking out somewhat defended assets and bettering defensive systems from known emerging threats such as missiles. Just an inexpert thought…
As far as kinetics, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (well maybe it does) to figure out that boosted acceleration of a heavy mass can cause a big blast. But rods from 60,000 ft would need a booster to get in the ten mach range. . Such a large bomb would require bombers. Laser pods of significant power with turret and power would also require a bomber. I assume these things are within reach….if we've not been working on that grail, there's a whole lot of misinformation on the web….
I wasn't aware that we have MOAB drones or hypersonic UAVs. I haven't heard of Laser drones either. Is it unreasonable to assume that until technology gets several levels better we need things that can lift large weapon and weapon systems to theater? The power requirements for battle field lasers requires a bomber, yes?
First people cried that the X-37 would violate weapons in space understandings, Then people cried ballistic missiles for kinetic weapons will violate treaties. So unless we've got something I have no clue about, why would we ditch the best means for lifting heavy things into combat? I can't tell you how frustrating it is not to get a straight answer for what seems like a clear question…..
Lots of trouble with your statements – When have we engaged the S-300 system? If you are implying the Israeli raids, they we not used against the S-300 system. I am unaware of any instance where we have engaged the S-300 system. I know we obtained copies of it wen the Soviet Union broke up, but that was many years ago, and is likely to have been upgraded significantly since then.
Where do you get your intel on the S-400 Byron. Since it has just been deployed, you sure seem to know a lot about the system. Also, the Chinese have already produced copies of the S-300 (know as the HQ-9 and HQ-15), so 20-30 years is more than just a little off.
Finally, the next major war, (Iraq and Afghanistan are not major wars in line with WW I, WW II, Korea, or even Vietnam), will not be won using Predators, or Viper Strike bombs.
If it was to be manned, I recommend it to be based on Lockheed Martin's ATT stealth cargo jet. A joint cargo bomber program will decrease the cost through mass production and shared components between cargo and bomber variants (and addition of tanker variants).
The ATT program has a 1000nm radius range at half-fuel load at takeoff last I heard. Not nearly enough range for a LRS asset. And why only LockMart's approach?
everybody has great ideas,but the problem with uav's is cameras only see so much,they can't see what else is going on around them,you need humans eyes especially in bombers.losing 30-40 uav's could cost more then a couple of bombers,crews don't like to lose an aircraft or their lives.war cannot be fought by remote control,to many things can go wrong.it's one thing using cruise missles on a target because you can destroy it if need be,but once a uav drops a bomb,there no turning back.in a manned bomber,the crew can decide if they need to drop a weapon or not.if you think electronics is the way to go,think about all of the electronic garbage on your car,if it breaks down,it cost a fortune to fix it.
Ok, I'm not a wingnut so I am just going to throw out my idea and hope you guys don't make too much fun of me.
How about a UAV just large enough to carry one or two 2000lb bombs that fit into pockets in the underside of the aircraft? Don't just make the bombs round, make them into lifting bodies that can glide or with small booster rockets to extend range after release.
Add on a couple of small anit-radiation missiles to suppress air defenses and maybe a couple of air to air missiles to make it more exciting for enemy fighters that might get in the way. Could an AIM-120 be programed to do both?
Launch 5 or 10 to arrive on target about the same time from different directions to make it a little harder to track them.
Bruce, the AGM-154 JSOW is a "smart" glide bomb with a variety of different payloads and is comparable to a 1000 pound JDAM. I imagine we could do the same on a larger scale, although at that weight you probably want some form of propulsion like on the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile.
The USAF's next generation air-to-air missile JDRADM will among other things, feature an anti-radiation mode allowing it to home in on radar sources. I have some doubts over the idea however, as the warhead will be closer in size and weight to that of the AIM-120 than the AGM-88 HARM. Yet JDRADM sounds very close to what you are visualizing, and in the air-to-air role is supposed to replace most AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9X Sidewinders.
Since when are cruise missile system flexible enough to strike critical time sensitive targets? Where is the UCAV technology that could give the remote operator anything approaching the situational awareness a bomber crew would have in the cockpit? Where is a method of operating UAVs that does not suffer systemic risk from attack on satellite communications? And since when have we decided to jettison the bomb leg of our strategic triad?
Until the above questions and many others are answered, talk of a UCAV to REPLACE a NGB is pure fantasy.
As for replacing the bomber with some "lower end" platform, isn't that what the F-35 is for? If it's not a "utility infielder", why are we buying 2000 of them? This is clearly self-deceiving BS designed to cover for Gate's and Co's evisceration of our air power.
Gates is a savy political and bureaucratic operator with a terminally mistaken strategic vision, the exact sort of character needed to do the maximum amount of damage possible to our armed forces. He and the rest of the Obama admin need to be shipped out ASAP. 2012 could not come soon enough.
The 2006 QDR called for NGB in 2018. Based on the F-35 complex program performance who still thinks that would even be possible? So why not:
1) Recalibrate requirements on advanced stealth/LO UCAV and larger unmanned system. Given 8 years of priority and funding a better unmanned NGB would be more likely than a manned platform in the same time frame. Cheaper too. Less loss if lost.
2) Continue to upgrade B-2 and B-52H's for interim HB roles.
3) Push next-gen stealth cruise missles with ER and better smarts and networking capability.
4) Produce dedicated high energy weapons platforms and systems for high value target and EMP exploitation.
Saw an article, oh maybe 25 years ago about the soviets comp[aining about the stealth bombers and how their war costs were out of control…etc, etc and so our government decided to streeetch a B-52 to where it had 6 bomb bays, 24 engines on 6 wings and absolutely filled up the radar scope, making it impossible to lock on a target BECAUSE it was so big. And everyone was happy then. Russia got their cost factor down, we just went to Davis-Monthan and got busy…everybody was happy. Kinda funny but now that I look at it, yeah, a missile would get confused. Just kidding anyway.
Come ta think of it back o two lifetimes ago, when i was tracking something on Radar and he flew too close to the Missile Ack side of it, the Radar didn't know where to lock and DID lose track. Filled up the TV screen of the site too. Had to break lock and wait, then reacquire. If it was real life I'd have been dead, lucky it was a test.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/inde…
Ban the Bomber
It use to be that you could write and contract on a relatively small list of specifications, which have now been replaced by voluminous Requirements and Capabilities that tell the contractor how to suck eggs.
To make matters worse the new breed of Tech Savy Officers that rotate into procurement or requirement positions want to impress their "Boss's" with how they can change things to make a better mouse trap and receive better OERs. No wonder we have cost over runs, delays and cancelled programs.
Can't we just go back to basics and get something built that can change in future upgrades.
Wow Maxtrue you linked to the most sensible post I think Sweetman's put up in a decade. It ain't perfect, but close enough. I had to do a Bio check on Breedlove and found exactly what I suspected I might find: a career Lawn Dart driver with no breadth of experience. "Somebody" has installed a rubber stamp fighter meat-servo.
This guy couldn't polish the shoes of a Lt Gen Dave Deptula, whom I hope is retiring because he wants to and not because he got tired of the chumps at the top. There are one or two other Airpower-with-a-big-A people still lurking at or near the top, but none so capable AND politically adroit as Deptula.
The air will be the new "no mans land" of WW3. Stealth fighters with HARM missiles (or a next gen replacement) might not be sufficient to totally neutralize an enemy's AD; but our doctrine is about finding enemy nodes to strike. However in the case of a large country like China they can be safely parked deep in the heartland, which would require an "onion" strategy of gradually peeling back the country until we can strike deeper and deeper. Even then, the ability to go "deeper" depends on how well we detect their AD and whether or not they choose to unmask.
Still not totally sure if we're looking at the problem correctly; and I suspect a paradigm shift is likely in the next decade or two..
Well, do we really need a new one?
While it's expensive to keep our B-2s around, it's still a lot cheaper than building a new airplane. The fact is, the combination of Tomahawk missiles and GPS guided bombs have nearly eliminated the need for a large strategic bomber force. A single B-2 could carry enough conventional bombs to hit every first day target in Iran in one flight. Now, the reality of such a bombing campaign would require additional aircraft, but you get the point. There's not a *need* for another bomber.
RE: A single B-2 could carry enough conventional bombs to hit every first day target in Iran in one flight."
It would take 'quite a bit' longer.
First 'Day One' is a euphemism for what takes many days, and in the case of even a fairly low-tech IADS (as in Kosovo-Serbia in '99) an enemy can shepard his resources to keep the risk high for non-LO aircraft for perhaps the duration.
If one used Desert Storm target sets as a baseline, there would be ~2350 deeply buried, hardened or (infrastructure 'hard target' aimpoints spread among ~475 target sets where a bomber could most effectively, and in most cases be the only aircraft weapon system capable of, servicing the target sets. Iraq in 1991 was a moderately industrialized medium sized country. Iran is far more industrialized and far larger, which makes it a much tougher nut.
There are only 20 B-2As in service, and probably only half of those are ready for action at any given time. The B-52H is very old and rather vulnerable to AA defenses, and there is talk of the B-1B being retired.
I think we do indeed need a new strategic bomber by 2030 or so.
It's true that we only have a limited number of them, but even if only 10 are ready for action, that's still enough to support any military action we could engage in, with the exception of a full scale land invasion of China.
Assume for a moment that we are forced to engage a large near-peer state in warfare. Naval vessels can launch Tomahawk missiles from 1500 miles away. These fly low to the ground, and so far have successfully evaded radar networks. We have thousands of them, on hand, right now. We also have B-2s on hand which can take out the best air defense grids. With refueling, they can fly all the way around the world. F-22s can be launched from Japan and bomb coastal sites. That's all first day bombing that is not concerned with how good your air defense grid happens to be. After the first day, the bomb trucks can come in and be safe from return fire.
Eventually, we will need another bomber. Eventually, B-52s just won't be able to stay in the air anymore. But it is not today. Will we need it by 2030? Maybe. But this is definitely something that can be pushed back a while.
There are 20 B-2s, of which 16 are combat-coded. The rest are in a test configuration (usually 1) or depot/heavy maintenance at any given time. A significant percentage of the 16 are dedicated to the SIOP (think 'strategic') mission and I believe have never been released from that mission even during wartime. So you probably have somewhere south of 10 available for spanking wayward tyrants. Plan accordingly.
Opine
As a former USNer, a LM employee, a MDC employee, and having been involved as a Loggie for the various EMD phases of mulitiple aircraft, I would offer this.
1. The Aerospace Corps need FUTURE contracts. Multiple thousands of folks need paychecks.
2. The USAF, USMC, USN air fleets are getting D… old. Most are in the end of mulitiple conversions. FUTURE contracts are needed just to keep up the flow of used up aircraft to the desert.
3. Strategic bombing vs Tactical bombing, is an age old discussion. Never was resolved and will not be now. Point here, is that the grunts on the ground, should but do not, have a voice in that discussion.
4. There is a major point missing in the posts, the article and the reality of our world.
Nuclear responses are not an option, hence a NEW Nuc bomber of what ever style will never get funded. The Leftist Isolationists have trumped that argument.
bt
Finally, the days of endless funding, over multiple years of EMD, production and ops testing are done. The USA Treasurey is broke. We are simply beginning the reality checks that we should have done, in the early 90s. The COLD WAR Strategists are retired, and we are well rid of them.
end
Semper FI
We probably will not prevail.
Like in the commercial, "How much does all this 'stuff' cost? Perhaps millions."
Stop with the useless programs like new uniforms and there will be plenty of funds for what's really necessary.
I got an idea, instead of every six months a new uniform change cause the bad guys steal ours then you don't know if they are the good guys or not, put velcro on the front or back and have about 7 different colored panels to attach to the front and back. Reason for this is only seven days in a week and really now, whoever heard of a 'digitally camouflaged' tree? I just kidding though but I saw a episode from 'F-troop' long ago about this subject and it was pretty funny. Corporal Agarn: Private! I know you're in there. Come out of there right now." Indian Chief: "If you think that trees talk…, maybe you go lie down in medicine man's tent for awhile?"
Good Morning Folks,
I know the statements below won’t scored any point with the right wing ideologists here, but they are the way it is.
Some misconceptions going on here. First off the MOAB is drag dropped weapon from a cargo plane, think C-130′s. Two were made in 2003 for Iraq and Afghanistan neither used in combat, one dropped just to see how big of a crater it would leave in the desert, it was a biggie. The second MOAB is still in the Air Force’s inventory, assumingly at MacDill AFB. Fl. The MOAB has nothing to do with the UAV discussion.
The B-2′s only three have been configured for the conventional mission, the one that melted on Guam was the forth. The B-2 made a few missions in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, it’s to costly to operate and at $2.1 billion 1980′s per copy no one wants to risk and air craft in “real” combat. The remaining B-2′s are tasked to the nuclear mission and are based at Barksdale AFB La.
The B-52H 76 are still in the air with 44 tasked to the nuclear mission. That leaves 32 B-52H’s for other missions.
All of the still active B-1B’s somewhere between 36-60 are tasks for the conventional mission. The B-1B’s are expected to be all retired by the end of the decade or sooner.
The number of US bombers right now assigned to the conventional mission is some where between 50-75 aircraft. On any given day n the war zone it appears that there are 2-3 (B-52H or B-1B’s) bombers available for combat missions. From official daily Airpower Summaries, it appears that the B-52′s and B-1′s are infrequently called upon for combat missions.
The use of one and two thousand bombs by the US is pretty much over. The reason of course is physical collateral damage and injury or death to non-combatants. The US has finally come to its senses, if we blow it up we have to rebuild it, if we kill innocents we not only have to pay we don’t make friends either. Of course there is common sense which says that if 5Kg. placed on target with a circle of accuracy of <1 meter will do the job, why use a 1000 Kg. weapon that will will pretty much destroy or kill everything in a 500 meter circle.
Caret bombing by heavy bombers has shown in BDA Studies of WW II, Korea, Vietnam, First Gulf War and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be expensive and ineffective.
The era of the heavy manned bomber is coming to a close regardless of what happens in the current budget crisis.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
We just fired off the X-51 hypersonic mach 6 ramjet missile a while ago….that thing is probably impervious to interception, so who needs the NGB anyway =P
Manned strategic bombers are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. All of the arguments for strategic bombers still exist, however, I do not see where that mission cannot be better performed by a fleet of unmanned vehicles. Unmanned bombers without all of the expensive equipment to maintain a crew would be cheaper; could carry more ordinance; and would likely fly faster and higher than a manned bomber making them less vulnerable to attack. Neither would they need a lot of flight time to keep the crews skills sharp. I do not see, though, how we can get away from manned tactical bombing missions at this time.
Right-Wing Ideologues…Heh. Too funny. A few minor corrections to Pollyannaish fantasizing are in order.
1. The US has long sought to minimize collateral damage through better and more accurate weapons –and smaller ones when they can do the job. This does not mean the need to use heavy weapons has disappeared – quite the contrary. Little weapons don't burrow and as I noted in the response to a comment above, there are thousands of aimpoints in even a moderately industrialized medium-size country that require 2K pounders or heavier.
2. The US hasn't 'carpet bombed' anything since the jungle-jarring Arc Light missions in Vietnam. The last time anyone precision dropped an unguided 'stick' in anger was in Operation Allied Force and that was to cut runways away from civilian populations by B-52s (maybe B-1s too – don't have my reference mat'ls handy).
continued…
Just to make a slight correction, B-52G bombers from Wurtsmith airforce base spent the entire first gulf war carpet bombing republican guard troops. An enitre army was devestated out of action when the ground war began. This will continue to be a needed and effective tool used intermitantly. The problem is we will design all of our weapons to reduce collateral damage but war culture will most likely change to a all or nothing attitude in the future similar to WWII, and that could leave us short.
Byron's definition plays fast and loose with the term 'Carpet Bombing'.
From my full response at: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2010/06/debun…
–Carpet Bombing in modern usage describes attacking a large area, such as a city, in pursuit of total destruction or terror and without an explicit target of military value (like a patch of jungle with unknown inhabitants). It is often used (inaccurately) to describe 'Bomber' Harris’ campaigns including the bombing of Dresden or (just as inaccurately) LeMay’s fire-bombing of Japan in WWII. After Vietnam there have been AREA TARGETS (ex runways/airfields, military installations, army formations in defilade, CAVE COMPLEXES, etc) where sticks of unguided bombs have been laid down, but these areas are comparably small and compact compared to ‘carpet bombing’ a city.–
I would only add here that the corrupted use of the term tends to be most frequently used by the hardest left of the so-called peace activists. I see them as seeking to shape the use of the term to apply to any attack using unguided weapons even when used in precision attack.
continued from above…
3. The B-2 was dropping multiple GATS/GAM and JDAMs against buried leadership facilities and cutting runways and taxiways using heavy precision weapons. Most famously (not infamously like a PRC embassy) the B-2 dropped a bridge in downtown Belgrade in one pass that all other attacks had failed against. Future need? Well NoKo has many thousands of deep targets and the PRC is burrowing like everyone else.
4. Citing bomber Ute rates in a counterinsurgency as a measure of bomber value is not quite as pointless as citing Army Infantry effectiveness in OAF. At least you can claim the possibility of bomber attack is shaping the enemy actions.
5. All B-2s can perform the 'conventional mission', as they were designed to be able to from their conception. They are all based with the 509th BW at WAFB, Mo. and Global Strike Command levies the SIOP mission requirements. 6. Removal of the heavy bomber (manned or otherwise) from the arsenal would simply allow potential enemies to hold assets out of reach of economical/practical attack. But the Left Wing Idiotarians don't seem put off by the idea. As an aside, I want heavy unmanned bombers to practice flying loaded over Byron's house maybe, but not mine.
Good MOrning Folks,
SMSgt. Mac. The US did in fact carpet bomb in the 1991 Gulf war and most embarrassing of all Tora Bora was carpet bombed bombed by B-1B’s and bin Laden walked out.
Regarding the Vietnam “Arc-Light” I’ve been on the ground and our unit did BDA sweeps through the ares of a couple of these and we didn’t find any signs of VC/NVA units or individual being trapped in these raids. A lot of vegetation destroyed, and some very large holes left. I understand from those who served later in this are “Rome Plows” were used instead of carpet bombing.
The B-2 even according to the Air Force it had no unique conventional mission and on four of the 21 airframes were modified for the conventional mission, three are left. The Air Force has completely withdrawn the B-2 from the conventional role. To correct you SMSgt Mac the B-2 was never designed nor intended for the conventional mission, to preform the conventional mission four airframes were ,at a high cost, modified and a suite of weapons, since the four B-2′s modified for the conventional operations never received the electronic package they never dropped the JADAM had to be developed just for those four bombers.
The conventional role the Air Force envisioned for the B-2 was as a stand off attack weapon that could remain outside air defense missile systems. The problem of course was that the terrorists never bothers to buy any ADM systems.
Your #6 statement is so absurd and just plain nonsense that it doesn’t even rate a response. Your personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject only reflects the desperation or the right wing to make any kind of argument or this issue.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I'll thoroughly debunk your fantasie at my place where I have the space, but here's a teaser:
From the ‘B-2 Stealth Bomber Fact Book’, Rev 3. dated November 1992, citing the B-2 Weapon System Specification dated November 21, 1981 we read:
–From its inception, the B-2 statement of requirement has included conventional capability.
“…provide the capability to conduct missions across the spectrum of conflict, including general nuclear war,…nuclear engagements less than general war, conventional conflict, and peacetime crisis situations.”
Hmmm. Ad Hominem attack. Decry retaliation. Make an Ad Hominem attack. Don’t take swings if you can’t stand getting smacked. And once again, I’ve shown you lead the way in lack of knowledge.
I worked the B-2 Program at Northrop. All Aircraft were designed and intended to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons. Your wrong about JADAMs. My wife worked on that program, and thats all I can say about that.
There is insufficient perceived incentive to maintain the robust, full spectrum combat capability the USAF used to have. It will continue to dwindle away to nothing, unless an enemy does us the favor of waking us up from our stupor of short sighted incompetence.
If I had a time machine, I would:
1. go back to 1991 and re-cast the F-22 as a truly multi-role replacement for the F-117 and keep the tooling to build more if neccessary, and limit the buy to 100 total aicraft-1 combat wing with an FTU for exprienced fighter pilots coming in from other MWS, plus flight and operational test.
2. Keep all the F-111s, FB-111s, B-52s, B-1s and A-6s we've retired since then.
3. Extend the buy of 225 F-15Es to 400 F-15E aircraft plus 200 F-15G "Thud Hen" aicraft.
4. Solved our tanker problem by re-manufacturing "old" 767, 757, and 747 airliners in to Cargo, tanker, and C2/ISR aicraft.
5. Manned UAVs with UAV operators – not overqualified fully rated pilots – and included enlisted that WANTED the job as aerial gunners (remote)
hahaha.. That's a pic of a current prototype UNMANNED drone that is capable of carrying SMALL warheads…. Not a future bomber!
Seems like the wisest comment above addresses the need to define what we want to be able to do, that we can't already do, or already don't have in the pipe-line to meet that requirement(s). Since this should be obvious to the most casual of observers it seems apparent that neither USAF nor OSD have again made this the basis of developing an aircraft of any type. Not that this is anything unusual. Ho-hum, biz as usual, so, where's the RFP?
I'm afraid Gentlemen what we are seeing is the beginning that most previous empires have come to. We are at a point where we can no longer affford to modernize our armies, and support our expensive civilian tastes. A lot of great empires have broken up soon after reaching this point. We can not afford the F-35 which I like, and can not afford to continue supporting large standing armies. We can set our sights on beautiful designs of amazing machines but we will never see them. We must start thnking in terms of what will we do if our government collapses from economic hardship. It is a possibility, and as a member of the reserves I worry what the future will bring to America. So if this sounds sad, I am sorry but we must realize there is a paradigm shift coming. One that doesn't have high tech stealth aircraft in it.
To be or not to be? Are we ready to die as a nation to make a small portion of our population of marxists happy? Anyone have any idea what its like to fight a war without air cover or a well planned preemptive strike like in Iraq? Either we will have to [for survival] build new effective airframes or buy them from foreign nations. Fighting without planes is suicide.
Agree. Ask the marines who were at Khe Son.