• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Must-Haves of the Next Strategic Nuclear Bomber

Evilroddy said:
Oozlefinch:

You would suppress and destroy the SAM and AA systems with missiles and strike aircraft before sending in strategic bombers.

Just like in Korea, in Vietnam you ran up against Soviet "advisors" crewing air defense systems in and around Hanoi. Likewise if you press too hard in Syria it will likely not be the Syrian Arab Army but Russian advisors, regulars and maybe mercenaries who present a serious threat to US air power. But you know you can suppress and then destroy that threat even if more S-300's are delivered to Syria, Iran or even Iraq.

Please explain to me why your own military leadership wants to get rid of the B-1s and B-2s but keep the B-52s? They want delivery trucks and not money-pit, fifth-generation strategic bombers. The political/civilian leadership and the arms industry have other ideas unfortunately and that's bad news for US taxpayers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Sam systems and aa can also shoot down those missiles, and it also becomes a matter of the range of the missile vs the range of the sam battery. Keep in mind too this is counting third world countries with poor discipline running them. Russia has exported many of their systems especially to the middle east, and griped about how poorly they used them. Russian mobile sam batteries are meant to link together to create a greater radar effect, while at the same time exploit terrain and camo netting to make the harder to see by air or by radar, as well as noise and emission discipline to avoid detection by sound or thermal.

Most countries that have bought them have had them in the open, sticking out like a sore thumb on radar instead of using them behind terrain to mask them, they have also rarely if ever managed to link them to provide a unified radar system through sam batteries. In reality even the most crappy systems the soviet union had that are wildly available in the third world can down nearly any aircraft so long as they are used properly. Take for example the s-200, syria used them for almost everything, yet their main purpose is to combat bombers like the b-52, while not using many older systems like the s-25 and s-75 designed more for conventional aircraft. Prior to the s-300 every system did just one task well, and every system needed to work in unison with others to be effective, while many third world countries just pick on and use it for everything.
 
braindrain said:
Your link actually proved what I was saying. They are going to retire the B2 not because they don’t see a use for that type of bomber but because what will basically be the next generation B2 will be tacking it’s place.

Pretending the military doesn’t want a plane that does what the B2 can do is rather silly.

And how exactly can you say the AF doesn’t want a expensive 5th gen bomber when they are replacing it with something that will no doubt be even more expensive.
Click to expand...

Braindrain:

The B-2 bomber was envisioned and expected to operate well into the second half of the 21st Century when it was developed in the 1980's. Furthermore due to enormous cost overruns the people of the United States and the USAF only got 21 planes for their 40 billion dollar expenditure in late 1980's dollars. The planes were too expensive to earn their keep and are being retired early in order to create an artificial crisis so as to drive the perceived urgent need for an even more expensive replacement programme which is even more unsustainable. The same unbridled cost overruns grossly inflated the cost of both the F-22 and F-35 programmes and will very likely effect the B-21 pricing.

The expected cost per unit for the Northrop B-21 Raider is already between 550 million and 564 million (2017 US dollars) per plane depending on order size. That cost will almost surely balloon as other military aircraft procurement programmes have in the past. If an expected 100 units are ordered then that will run US tax payers between 55 and 56.4 billion dollars just for the planes, assuming the cost estimates remain at the stated level, which they won't. Assuming that the costs increase and factoring in the additional costs of maintaining, operating and arming these bombers, the US tax payer could be looking a programmes which could cost over a quarter to half a trillion dollars before the last plane is delivered and all future costs are factored in. That quite frankly is economically unsustainable for present and future US tax payers. These are total war level expenditure being made while the USA is technically at peace or more realistically is involved in "limited wars" and a large number of covert military conflicts.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44463.pdf

Missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons for MAD deterrence and for use in a thermonuclear war and much cheaper and modest bombers for delivering conventional payloads in the asymmetrical wars of US military interventions is a much more sensible and sustainable route to go.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
beerftw said:
In conventional missions you are correct the us decided the could do with conventional bombers, the soviet union felt the same way, as the kept the tu-95 and america kept the b-52, The divergence in thought comes down to speed vs stealth. The b-51 is not really that stealthy, it is only stealth from the bottom but vulnerable to systems in the air, the b-2 is full stealth, however it is subsonic, meaning if it did get caught it was pretty much done.
Click to expand...

Then you have the intermediate aircraft, the B-1. In many ways akin to the B-47, a transition jet between one concept and another.

By the time of the LANCER, the idea of B-52s launching nukes at the Soviets had largely died off. The BUFFs would be used at locations close to the shore, which generally were not worth a missile. And of course their conventional attack capabilities.

The B-1 was a new philosophy in both design and attack profile. It is "semi-stealth", and would use it's high speed to race towards the border. Then, it would change configuration and penetrate "low and slow", attempting to slip in below the RADAR of the Soviets, using the terrain and locations of enemy RADAR to slip in unseen. Not unlike a WWII era submarine running on the surface to get to an attack location, then diving for it's stealth attack.

In the modern era, the BUFF and LANCER are both pretty much obsolete as a nuclear bomber. Advances in both RADAR and missiles would give them short lifespans against the Soviets or Chinese in an initial attack. But they are both awesome conventional bomb trucks in an uncontested airspace, which is how they are used today.

If things ever got hot with Russia or China, do not expect the B-52 to appear until the US got complete air superiority and had worked down the majority of the ground to air threat. At the time that most of the air threat was eliminated, you might however likely start to see the B-1 start to make it's appearance. This would be so that the B-2 and later aircraft could move on to more difficult to reach targets.

However, the B-52G might make a return. The biggest difference between these two aircraft was that the G series carried cruise missiles, and the H (the only one in use today) carried bombs. In the event that the New Cold War ever went hot, I would be shocked if there were not plans and equipment laying in warehouses to convert some of the H series back into G series for this purpose. Then they could move to the edge of the battle area and launch their missiles form safe areas before returning.

Notice however that as always, I do not even talk about the use for these aircraft as nuclear platforms. If that ever happens, everything is going to be over long before they were ever used for that purpose. I almost never discuss a nuclear war (other than in the range of a limited local strike) as anything other than at most a "3 day war". Missiles largely make such uses obsolete.
 
Evilroddy said:
Braindrain:

The B-2 bomber was envisioned and expected to operate well into the second half of the 21st Century when it was developed in the 1980's. Furthermore due to enormous cost overruns the people of the United States and the USAF only got 21 planes for their 40 billion dollar expenditure in late 1980's dollars. The planes were too expensive to earn their keep and are being retired early in order to create an artificial crisis so as to drive the perceived urgent need for an even more expensive replacement programme which is even more unsustainable. The same unbridled cost overruns grossly inflated the cost of both the F-22 and F-35 programmes and will very likely effect the B-21 pricing.

The expected cost per unit for the Northrop B-21 Raider is already between 550 million and 564 million (2017 US dollars) per plane depending on order size. That cost will almost surely balloon as other military aircraft procurement programmes have in the past. If an expected 100 units are ordered then that will run US tax payers between 55 and 56.4 billion dollars just for the planes, assuming the cost estimates remain at the stated level, which they won't. Assuming that the costs increase and factoring in the additional costs of maintaining, operating and arming these bombers, the US tax payer could be looking a programmes which could cost over a quarter to half a trillion dollars before the last plane is delivered and all future costs are factored in. That quite frankly is economically unsustainable for present and future US tax payers. These are total war level expenditure being made while the USA is technically at peace or more realistically is involved in "limited wars" and a large number of covert military conflicts.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44463.pdf

Missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons for MAD deterrence and for use in a thermonuclear war and much cheaper and modest bombers for delivering conventional payloads in the asymmetrical wars of US military interventions is a much more sensible and sustainable route to go.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You do realize that nothing in your posts refute my claims. And it in fact shows that your claim that the military no longer wants expensive 5 gen bombers to be all the more untrue.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Then you have the intermediate aircraft, the B-1. In many ways akin to the B-47, a transition jet between one concept and another.

By the time of the LANCER, the idea of B-52s launching nukes at the Soviets had largely died off. The BUFFs would be used at locations close to the shore, which generally were not worth a missile. And of course their conventional attack capabilities.

The B-1 was a new philosophy in both design and attack profile. It is "semi-stealth", and would use it's high speed to race towards the border. Then, it would change configuration and penetrate "low and slow", attempting to slip in below the RADAR of the Soviets, using the terrain and locations of enemy RADAR to slip in unseen. Not unlike a WWII era submarine running on the surface to get to an attack location, then diving for it's stealth attack.

In the modern era, the BUFF and LANCER are both pretty much obsolete as a nuclear bomber. Advances in both RADAR and missiles would give them short lifespans against the Soviets or Chinese in an initial attack. But they are both awesome conventional bomb trucks in an uncontested airspace, which is how they are used today.

If things ever got hot with Russia or China, do not expect the B-52 to appear until the US got complete air superiority and had worked down the majority of the ground to air threat. At the time that most of the air threat was eliminated, you might however likely start to see the B-1 start to make it's appearance. This would be so that the B-2 and later aircraft could move on to more difficult to reach targets.

However, the B-52G might make a return. The biggest difference between these two aircraft was that the G series carried cruise missiles, and the H (the only one in use today) carried bombs. In the event that the New Cold War ever went hot, I would be shocked if there were not plans and equipment laying in warehouses to convert some of the H series back into G series for this purpose. Then they could move to the edge of the battle area and launch their missiles form safe areas before returning.

Notice however that as always, I do not even talk about the use for these aircraft as nuclear platforms. If that ever happens, everything is going to be over long before they were ever used for that purpose. I almost never discuss a nuclear war (other than in the range of a limited local strike) as anything other than at most a "3 day war". Missiles largely make such uses obsolete.
Click to expand...

I wish the b-52 would carry cruise missiles, the russian bombers even the antique tu-95 can carry them with enough range to hit nearly anywhere on earth well before they entered the air space they were firing on. The tech is not impossible, russia has had it for quite a while and america I am sure has had designs for it. This would make the b-52 very valuable as it could perform strikes with cruise missiles like a ship, but with the ability to launch from various countries and be there in short time instead of taking days or weeks on the ocean.
 
beerftw said:
I wish the b-52 would carry cruise missiles, the russian bombers even the antique tu-95 can carry them with enough range to hit nearly anywhere on earth well before they entered the air space they were firing on. The tech is not impossible, russia has had it for quite a while and america I am sure has had designs for it. This would make the b-52 very valuable as it could perform strikes with cruise missiles like a ship, but with the ability to launch from various countries and be there in short time instead of taking days or weeks on the ocean.
Click to expand...

We destroyed most of them as part of the 1992 START I treaty, and the remainder as part of the New START treaty in 2013.

But there is nothing that would prevent us from installing the launchers on the remaining H series. We simply do not do so because of the treaties. The same modifications were made to the B-1 LANCER. But once again, there is nothing technologically preventing us from restoring that capability. We simply do not do so for treaty compliance.
 
braindrain said:
You do realize that nothing in your posts refute my claims. And it in fact shows that your claim that the military no longer wants expensive 5 gen bombers to be all the more untrue.
Click to expand...

braindrain:

Very well. I retract my ill-considered words from post #37 and return to my words of post # 35.

The military may want new 5th Generation strategic bombers but the United States cannot afford them. The military has stated that it intends to maintain the B-52H fleet despite the high costs of operation and maintenance in preference to keeping the newer and more modern B-1s and B-2s (if that claim is to be believed). Thus their stated preference is to keep the B-52s over the newer bombers even if B-21 bombers may never appear if politics and economics cancel the program despite the $ 23 billion dollars already sunk into the B-21 programme.

That will become clear if and when the Republicans have less power in the two houses and the presidency and more fiscally responsible people attempt to impose some much needed fiscal discipline on the weapons procurement policies and military budgets of the US Government, at least for a few years. There is a difference between what the military wants and what the military needs given fiscal restraints. Right now with an annual budget of 700 Billion dollars per year (and when expenditures in national security related areas bring the total above a trillion dollars per year) something has to change. The deficit of the USA is now equal to the military and related expenditures of the US and that deficit and the accumulated debt it swells annually is a much greater threat to national security than Russia, China or Iran except in the most warped Dr. Strangelove estimations.

I still strongly believe that likely the B-i and definitely the B-2 withdrawal from service plans are just a a ruse; a strategy to force the continued funding of the B-21 before the sword of Damocles drops on the Pentagon and the US arms industries in a post-Trump and likely Democrat dominated immediate future. Politics and greed, not serious considerations of the best and most economical pathway to national security is driving this.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its not the F-35 AI which he is describing its a combat AI developed by one of the universities that can defeat our best pilots 99.9% of the time and exceeds them by several orders of magnitude in running a more than one unit. It basically a restricted AI/ expert system that utilizes a neural net algorithm, the US Air Force trained on the basics and over a relatively short time learned to kick the hell out of computers and then eventually the best we can offer. This is regardless of how perfect the information it uses is. Its a very impressive system.

An article: https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
Click to expand...

But that is what is publicly known. If the Defense Department has a truly effective AI program, nobody on this forum would know about it.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Must-Haves of the Next Strategic Nuclear Bomber

defense-large.JPG




An incredibly difficult task in light of the rapid advances in most spheres of technology.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the stealth plane that Trump wants to swap out his Air Force One for? He wants one because "they're invisible, can you believe it? They're totally invisible". I think Wonder Woman had one of those invisible planes too.
 
RobertU said:
But that is what is publicly known. If the Defense Department has a truly effective AI program, nobody on this forum would know about it.
Click to expand...


They have several. The one from University of Cincinnati is just one on many. Not to mention every DOD contractor.
 
HumblePi said:
Isn't this the stealth plane that Trump wants to swap out his Air Force One for? He wants one because "they're invisible, can you believe it? They're totally invisible". I think Wonder Woman had one of those invisible planes too.
Click to expand...

Please, stop getting your information from tin hat sites.

And no, stealth does not mean invisible. I have been saying that in here for years now. Stealth is not invisible.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Please, stop getting your information from tin hat sites.

And no, stealth does not mean invisible. I have been saying that in here for years now. Stealth is not invisible.
Click to expand...


He was referring top the F35 but he LITERALLY believes it's invisible, "you can't see it, you really can't see it!" He's such an embarrassment to this country because he's an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrWUrMK5d4
 
Oozlefinch said:
Because they are using things based on their technology, obviously.

But I can not understand why the Center for Science in the Public Interest would be getting a royalty from anybody for anything. They make and design nothing, and are a non-profit group.

Do you have a reference for this claim?
Click to expand...
CSPI is subject to the SECs disclosure rules. Is a corporation that encrypts computer code so no one can hack it and it oversees this code to prevent attacks on it.
 
And I’m appalled most of you lost the idea where battlefield management will be helping bring the B2 onto target.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Please, stop getting your information from tin hat sites.

And no, stealth does not mean invisible. I have been saying that in here for years now. Stealth is not invisible.
Click to expand...

Stealth meant they were invisible to Republicans who claim they are against deficit spending.
 
RobertU said:
Stealth meant they were invisible to Republicans who claim they are against deficit spending.
Click to expand...

It is a perfect defensive project

Create invisible equipment. When the government comes and asks where it is, just state it is invisible like the project requires. Then the government can order 100 more
 
Tom Horn said:
CSPI is subject to the SECs disclosure rules. Is a corporation that encrypts computer code so no one can hack it and it oversees this code to prevent attacks on it.
Click to expand...

Reference, or what you are saying means nothing.

And the Center for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit organization. It has nothing to do with the SEC.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Reference, or what you are saying means nothing.

And the Center for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit organization. It has nothing to do with the SEC.
Click to expand...
look up CSP inc. their quarterly reports tell you how many royalty units they sold, how many they installed, and how much they got paid for each action during each quarter past for the last two and a half years. They install it in a Hawkeye, and use their own people to either operate it or train someone else to operate it. They will be updating all Hawkeyes in the carrier fleet to this specification.
 
Tom Horn said:
look up CSP inc. their quarterly reports tell you how many royalty units they sold, how many they installed, and how much they got paid for each action during each quarter past for the last two and a half years. They install it in a Hawkeye, and use their own people to either operate it or train someone else to operate it. They will be updating all Hawkeyes in the carrier fleet to this specification.
Click to expand...

No.

I am not going to do your work for you. If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove what you are saying is accurate and true. Do not simply make some kind of claim, and then demand others to look it up and verify it for you.

You must validate your own findings, and do your own research.

Now provide us with some kind of link that talks about CSP Inc and the Hawkeye. Because as far as I know, that is a Northrop-Grumman project.
 
Oozlefinch said:
No.

I am not going to do your work for you. If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove what you are saying is accurate and true. Do not simply make some kind of claim, and then demand others to look it up and verify it for you.

You must validate your own findings, and do your own research.

Now provide us with some kind of link that talks about CSP Inc and the Hawkeye. Because as far as I know, that is a Northrop-Grumman project.
Click to expand...
10-Q1 cspi-10q 20180630.htm 10-Q @ sec.gov
 
They call it the E2D program and the install is under their HPP product revenues
 
Oozlefinch said:
We destroyed most of them as part of the 1992 START I treaty, and the remainder as part of the New START treaty in 2013.

But there is nothing that would prevent us from installing the launchers on the remaining H series. We simply do not do so because of the treaties. The same modifications were made to the B-1 LANCER. But once again, there is nothing technologically preventing us from restoring that capability. We simply do not do so for treaty compliance.
Click to expand...

Imagine how awesome it would have been on those syrian strikes where instead of waiting for ships to show up, we could have used b-52 bombers and have struck in less than 24 hours. We need them back for sure, bombing capability is ok but with something with a radar signature the size of texas striking from a range is much more beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom