B2 bomber stunt

[Exterous]

I know that's the ideal. What happens when the fancy B-2 bombers have met and/or exceeded airframe life after flying decades worth of training missions? We can't fire the line back up. So....?

Good point - the military has no experience with keeping planes alive long after the original lifespan. Certainly couldn't figure out how to extend the life of the A-10 thunderbolt II and all of the news about extending the lifespan of the B-52 to 2044 is fake. There is also the tiny chance that eventually the plane would be replaced\obsolete before the end of life is reached. They've done that once or twice in history

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Would it have been better to spend the same amount of money to fly around the US?

IMO, yes, it would. Much better.

 

[chucky2]

Good point - the military has no experience with keeping planes alive long after the original lifespan. Certainly couldn't figure out how to extend the life of the A-10 thunderbolt II and all of the news about extending the lifespan of the B-52 to 2044 is fake. There is also the tiny chance that eventually the plane would be replaced\obsolete before the end of life is reached. They've done that once or twice in history

So the advanced composites on the B-2 are going to be able to be extended like the simple Al on the A-10 and B-52? I hope so...

 

[EagleKeeper]

I know that's the ideal. What happens when the fancy B-2 bombers have met and/or exceeded airframe life after flying decades worth of training missions? We can't fire the line back up. So....?

How long have the BUFs been flying - that line is also closed.

When the airframe gets near the end of its lifespan, a new airframe is developed.

technology develops newer/better composites. IF they can be adapted to the existing airframe, they will. If not ...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Would it have been better to spend the same amount of money to fly around the US?

IMO, yes, it would. Much better..

and what would that accomplish.

1) You loose the real world training of over the water
2) You loose the interacting with other units that you would have to be in support of.

 

[DrPizza]

Just a semi-related thought, I've thought about a bunch of reasons both pro and against, but what about flying a B2 over NK airspace & dropping 10's of 1000's of leaflets meant to inform people?

My biggest con is that it could result in the mass extermination of people who read those by the NK regime. But, when you have an entire country completely in the dark, denied knowledge of reality...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

and what would that accomplish.

It would accomplish not further inflaming an inflammatory situation, not giving the NK psycho the attention he craves, and avoiding the chance of something going wrong and us ending up short a couple of young people and a billion-dollar airplane sent into harm's way unnecessarily.

I'd make less of a fuss over what would happen if something went wrong, if I didn't know that half the people here saying it was a great idea would be the first calling for heads to roll if something did.

And I have not yet seen a persuasive argument on the training angle. They could have done the exact same thing and dropped the bombs on some remote island. This was not about training.

 

[K1052]

So the advanced composites on the B-2 are going to be able to be extended like the simple Al on the A-10 and B-52? I hope so...

It's also probable the Air Force will have an entirely different platform to fill the B-2's role. Probably some stealthy hypersonic aircraft like what they've been working on for Prompt Global Strike.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just a semi-related thought, I've thought about a bunch of reasons both pro and against, but what about flying a B2 over NK airspace & dropping 10's of 1000's of leaflets meant to inform people?

My biggest con is that it could result in the mass extermination of people who read those by the NK regime. But, when you have an entire country completely in the dark, denied knowledge of reality...

Violating air space may lead to acts of war. It creates a panic that it's not leaflets being dropped.

 

[chucky2]

How long have the BUFs been flying - that line is also closed.

When the airframe gets near the end of its lifespan, a new airframe is developed.

technology develops newer/better composites. IF they can be adapted to the existing airframe, they will. If not ...

If not...then we've got a $2B per museum piece.

It's also probable the Air Force will have an entirely different platform to fill the B-2's role. Probably some stealthy hypersonic aircraft like what they've been working on for Prompt Global Strike.

Yes, I know...one cringes on what the price tag on those babies is going to be. With the boondoggle that is the F-35 project, my only hope is that we don't have Lockheed building it.

Chuck

 

[Exterous]

So the advanced composites on the B-2 are going to be able to be extended like the simple Al on the A-10 and B-52? I hope so...

I hope you realize that extending the lifespans was far more than just simple AL extending, particularly in the case of the B-52

 

[Exterous]

It would accomplish not further inflaming an inflammatory situation, not giving the NK psycho the attention he craves, and avoiding the chance of something going wrong and us ending up short a couple of young people and a billion-dollar airplane sent into harm's way unnecessarily.

Would it? How do you know for absolute certainty? The last time we showed a perceived weakness regarding our commitment to SK the NKs invaded. As for something going wrong - you don't avoid that by not flying to SK - there is always the chance of that

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As for something going wrong - you don't avoid that by not flying to SK - there is always the chance of that

There's only a chance of it if you send the planes on a mission like this. Which is why it should be done only when absolutely necessary, not as a PR stunt to "reassure our allies" (who should be providing their own reassurance anyway).

 

[chucky2]

I hope you realize that extending the lifespans was far more than just simple AL extending, particularly in the case of the B-52

I'm sure it was. You all have convinced me...fly the mofo's until the wings, er, wing falls off. I don't even know why I thought to question it, given that money isn't real to the Fed anyways, so what does it matter if we could save a decade or two on a critical uber expensive airframe. Boeing can use more money probably anyways, sooner is better than later I'd guess...

Chuck

 

[EagleKeeper]

Just a semi-related thought, I've thought about a bunch of reasons both pro and against, but what about flying a B2 over NK airspace & dropping 10's of 1000's of leaflets meant to inform people?

My biggest con is that it could result in the mass extermination of people who read those by the NK regime. But, when you have an entire country completely in the dark, denied knowledge of reality...

Propaganda delivered by the Imperialist United states and their lackey SK.
If you see one, report it; do not touch it. The imperialists have coated a deadly poison onto the paper. Many have already been killed by picking up the papers.

Violating air space may lead to acts of war. It creates a panic that it's not leaflets being dropped.

If they can not see the B2; not an issue.

War already exists because it has not been terminated.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It would accomplish not further inflaming an inflammatory situation, not giving the NK psycho the attention he craves, and avoiding the chance of something going wrong and us ending up short a couple of young people and a billion-dollar airplane sent into harm's way unnecessarily.

I'd make less of a fuss over what would happen if something went wrong, if I didn't know that half the people here saying it was a great idea would be the first calling for heads to roll if something did.

And I have not yet seen a persuasive argument on the training angle. They could have done the exact same thing and dropped the bombs on some remote island. This was not about training.

Unless the island was off the coast of Korea with similar landscape as the target area, it is worthless.
Range, weather and support are required for such an exercise. It was training. for the pilots, interface groups and support organizations.

It also sends a message to China that we have the capability and to the NK leadership that they are not immune to something that they can not see.



Also, how impressive would it be to drop a bag of flour on Catalina Island to China and NK? They can do the same; drop a bag of rice on an island off their coastline. Would you be impressed?

 

[cwjerome]

It would accomplish not further inflaming an inflammatory situation, not giving the NK psycho the attention he craves, and avoiding the chance of something going wrong and us ending up short a couple of young people and a billion-dollar airplane sent into harm's way unnecessarily.

I'd make less of a fuss over what would happen if something went wrong, if I didn't know that half the people here saying it was a great idea would be the first calling for heads to roll if something did.

And I have not yet seen a persuasive argument on the training angle. They could have done the exact same thing and dropped the bombs on some remote island. This was not about training.

There might be something to say about "inflaming" the situation over there, I can see both sides. Flaunting a particularly high profile mission is not something that happens everyday. But the Realist/Realpolitik consideration is a factor, and how countries deal with each other sometimes boils down to some time-proven old school activity. I would never ever put our military actions at the mercy of a belligerent nation and it's important to demonstrate our will and ability to train and conduct operations at a time and place of OUR choosing, and not letting someone like NKorea dictate how we run our business. But I can see your point in this situation as it was obviously a demonstration of force meant to convey some "extra" message.

I have a harder time figuring out your reasoning for the bold. Our army, navy, and air force conduct training missions all over the world. Some are very joint exercises that involve a lot of moving parts and integration of forces. It's not the same to jump in and go bomb a random island in isolation, it's part of a much larger scenario that involves many other resources and participants in the simulation. Comprehensive, realistic training is extremely useful and important.

 

[Fern]

-snip-.

And I have not yet seen a persuasive argument on the training angle. They could have done the exact same thing and dropped the bombs on some remote island. This was not about training.

No, it wasn't about training.

The training aspect popped up because (IMO) it's relevant to concerns of cost. It isn't an extra cost if they switched from flying around the USA (or other international training flights) to flying over there and back.

As far as why they flew there, I think I explained that in post #15. You may not agree with it and that's understandable. But as for me, their reasons seem, well, perfectly reasonable. IDK if it will work out well, but I certainly understand their POV.

I don't see any well defined 'road map' for dealing with the succession of crazies that run NK, so I'm willing to give them some lee way if what they are doing reasonable.

Fern

 

[RampantAndroid]

I'm sure it was. You all have convinced me...fly the mofo's until the wings, er, wing falls off. I don't even know why I thought to question it, given that money isn't real to the Fed anyways, so what does it matter if we could save a decade or two on a critical uber expensive airframe. Boeing can use more money probably anyways, sooner is better than later I'd guess...

Chuck

We've got 20 of them left. I imagine that they will all live on long enough that their airframe won't be why we ground them, but rather that radar will have advanced far enough to make them overly expensive non-stealth bombers. That's the real limiting factor here. Once they can be easily spotted, they lose all advantages they have over the B1B or the B-52. If it comes to the point where we decide to update them, the government will pay for new parts or new whatever else on a one-off basis.

 

[Jaskalas]

If they can not see the B2; not an issue.

War already exists because it has not been terminated.

The stealth... okay, maybe.

Now find palm and apply face. Your contention of "war already exists" is ill conceived. I'm talking actions, not threats. If someone is scared of a nuclear bomber over their heads, they're likely to order a suicide move. A one last hurrah assuming it's the last thing they'll ever do.

You back an animal into a corner, and it's going to bite. That's why you don't violate airspace.
You have no ground to claim such a state currently exists.

 

[Exterous]

There's only a chance of it if you send the planes on a mission like this. Which is why it should be done only when absolutely necessary, not as a PR stunt to "reassure our allies" (who should be providing their own reassurance anyway).

There is always a chance something goes wrong. Do you think that the US is some magical place where no accidents happen - that something can only go wrong if you fly to another country?

This is absolutely not just about reassuring our allies which has been mentioned many times here. This is about sending a message to NK that we are still interested in this area. Do you not take note of the established history of NKs aggression when they think we aren't taking note of the area?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There is always a chance something goes wrong. Do you think that the US is some magical place where no accidents happen - that something can only go wrong if you fly to another country?

I find this wholly unpersuasive.

You can die in a car accident going to the grocery store, but the chances are much higher that you will on a 3,000 mile trip across the country. You can become a marathon runner and die of a heart attack, but it's more likely that it will happen if you're a 400-pound couch potato. This isn't rocket surgery.

This is absolutely not just about reassuring our allies which has been mentioned many times here. This is about sending a message to NK that we are still interested in this area.

That was already conveyed by the joint military exercises, which NK had already responded to. The B2 bombers were a deliberately provocative, completely unnecessary stunt.

 

[Exterous]

You can die in a car accident going to the grocery store, but the chances are much higher that you will on a 3,000 mile trip across the country. You can become a marathon runner and die of a heart attack, but it's more likely that it will happen if you're a 400-pound couch potato. This isn't rocket surgery.

There's only a chance of it if you send the planes on a mission like this

:hmm: How can you say there is only a chance if you send someone on a mission like this if you acknowledge that they could have an accident anywhere?

The B2 bombers were a deliberately provocative, completely unnecessary stunt.

Your opinion and an unsubstantiated one shared by almost no one - even people on far opposite sides here on P&N.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

:hmm: How can you say there is only a chance if you send someone on a mission like this if you acknowledge that they could have an accident anywhere?

No mission means no chance of an accident. A less risky mission means less chance of an accident. A more risky mission means more chance of an accident.

Your opinion and an unsubstantiated one shared by almost no one - even people on far opposite sides here on P&N.

I've provided arguments to substantiate my position. You and everyone else are of course welcome to disagree, but an argumentum ad populum is pretty unimpressive.

 

[Agent11]

If we do have to nuke them it will be a B2 dropping it. Just in case they were under the misapprehension that B2's were propaganda now they know better.