Here we go again! Do we really need a $550 million dollar bomber? (enemy, generations)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]Another alternative (actually proposed during the late 1970s by Harold Brown Carter's Sec. of Defense) that has been vigorously rejected by the USAF is using commercial jet transports like the 747 (imagine the bomb load one of these would carry) or 767 as bombing platforms or stand-off strike planes using ALCM to strike the enemy from over a thousand miles distance. Large commercial transports have the same flight characteristics, range and are already used as tanker planes (The new KC-46 is based on the 767 modificed to be a tanker plane) so its is not difficult to accomdate the planes in our current air force infrastructure. There are hundreds of such planes sitting in mothballs so new ones would not have to be built, Boeing still makes parts and the modifications would not be so expensive. An added benefit for the flight crews is they would log hundreds if not thousands of hours in the same type of planes operated by commercial aviation and thus would be attractive candiadates for pilot positions (They also wouldn't have to shake some of the bad flying habits pilots bring with them after having flown tactical planes like the F-15, 16 or 18. ).
That actually sounds like a damn good idea, why was it rejected? Not enough $$$ for the MIC?
Because there is no Soviet Union anymore, our troops aren't locked in a staring contest with armored divisions anymore. We already spend a huge amount on defense, more than the next 10 or so countries combined. We're going to be fighting a different kind of war, not one that needs strategic bombers to carpet-bomb cities into oblivion. You saw what happened in 2003 in Iraq, what happened in 91 in Kuwait. We're already dominant; why do we need to be more dominant?
Hello? The idiot in chief has spent the past 5 months trying to provoke nuclear powers Russia and China. O restarted the Cold War.
The irony is, with all the financial and political power now concentrated in NYC and DC, it would only take 2 nukes to destroy the system.
The vulnerability of concentrated power is concentrated power.
That actually sounds like a damn good idea, why was it rejected? Not enough $$$ for the MIC?
Sounds like a good idea, but I suspect a low-wing design will cause trouble in dropping ordnance where the main wing spar goes. Still, if the idea is to develop a basic bomb truck for flights in uncontested airspace - and if the use of civilian airframes isn't zoomy enough for the USAF - why not get to work on the C-17?
Sounds like a good idea, but I suspect a low-wing design will cause trouble in dropping ordnance where the main wing spar goes. Still, if the idea is to develop a basic bomb truck for flights in uncontested airspace - and if the use of civilian airframes isn't zoomy enough for the USAF - why not get to work on the C-17?
It's not as if the B-52 is much more high-tech; they still need escort fighters, and they can still be taken down by outdated MiGs and anti-aircraft guns, as shown in Vietnam.
Hello? The idiot in chief has spent the past 5 months trying to provoke nuclear powers Russia and China.
And a B-52 style bomber would be soooo useful in a nuclear confrontation, because...
I carried a rifle during the Cold War, I remember the Cold War, and this ain't it. The 3rd Shock Army isn't poised to roll through the Fulda gap any more. Russia has trouble getting her total GDP to approach Germany's.
And a B-52 style bomber would be soooo useful in a nuclear confrontation, because...
I carried a rifle during the Cold War, I remember the Cold War, and this ain't it. The 3rd Shock Army isn't poised to roll through the Fulda gap any more. Russia has trouble getting her total GDP to approach Germany's.
Well, B-52s would work just to get some nukes dropped. It'd pretty much be a one-way trip though, so you'd likely be better off using ICBMs or SLBMs and just let the pilots go back to their families.
Of course we do! Without this airplane the builders, parts and energy suppliers would have to compete in the worldwide commercial aircraft market and forgo a nearly certain $300 million profit per unit. Would you deny an industry existence just because it will likely cost us half a trillion dollars we would have to borrow. Would you deny the bankers the interest. How could you be so short sighted and selfish.
I CAN! We cannot afford to be the cops of the world and protect European or anyone else's investments at our expense and their benefit. These companies are the Welfare State that is destroying our economy.
While I agree with you, it's only up to a point. As much as we don't need to waste money on worthless weapons so politicians can buy votes and favors with taxpayer money, we do need to maintain our technological edge. We need to fund technological advances in defensive and offensive weapons, as opposed to just buying weapon systems to keep some politicians cash cow alive.
We do need the best and brightest minds creating the better mouse trap, or else we lose the people with the expertise and skills. It's no different then the medical field. Just because we have defeated polio and smallpox and invented penicillin did not mean we close our medical universities and laboratories.
Western nations and free people do have enemies in the world, and just like new strains of bacteria and virus are a danger. We cannot afford to ignore them until we have an epidemic in the US. So too are the weapons of war our enemies are developing a threat we need to prepare for. We create vaccines to defeat a virus, not just to treat the symptoms, just as we need weapons to defeat our enemies. Neither of these processes are cheap.
NO!!! We absolutely don't. And we all know that this 550 million dollar number is waaaaay off anyway. It probably costs 20 to 30% more when it's all said and done.
The speed of Eisenhower's coffin turning in its grave must be at wind turbine speeds at this point.
Anyway...this interview is pretty interesting. And of course you're gonna get the company line from a General.
You're funny. I don't see Red Army tanks in Germany. China is just being China. Did you live through the Cold War?
The irony is, if 2 nukes got launched at NYC and DC, thousands would be launched everywhere.
You're funny. Yes I did live through the Cold War. I recall the Cuban missile crisis when another idiot Democrat almost got us all blown to smithereens. A few years later the Soviets had nuke laden subs parked off our shores.
With nuclear powers, there will be no tank battles. For that matter, with submarines, there are only two kinds of ships, subs and targets.
Dems are suicidal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
