Bush is planning on unleashing B2 bombers on Saddam??

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: glenn1

Think about it. You sound like the guy that was telling the Air Force back in the day that the B52 was unncessary when we had "perfectly good" B29's and B36's laying around.

Heck, there was probably some guy like him around a few thousand years ago, saying, "hey Og, ugg... club cost way too much. Here, use rock instead, them still perfectly good to kill charging saber tooth. Me even upgrade you to bigger, heavier rock."

LMFAO! 😀

I mean, I agree with the fact that we could be without the B-2 NOW, since warfare isn't attacking big bad armies anymore or attacking c3 targets. But they were designed during the cold war, when nukes were prevalent, and it was necessary to have a stealthy bomber for MAD.

I'd argue that there STILL is a need for stealth in our Air Force. The F22 has a fraction of the RCS of an F15 and the the new JSF that was designed AFTER the Cold War uses stealth technology.

The B1B was designed to replace the B52. The B2 was designed to deliver ordinance behind enemy lines using stealth. Instead of wasting our energies on an airplane that is almost as old as my dad, I say that we focus our energies on making our two NEWEST bombers the best they can be.

the b52 is perfectly suited to its role. theres no need for stealth in the roles the b52 takes. neither of the other bombers can do what the b52 does. the payload is higher (by a lot, i think its 3x what the b1b is), the maintenence is pretty inexpensive, and it can operate from bases all around the world. they've tried to replace the b52 at least 3 times and it hasn't happened yet, and given the effectiveness at what it does they probably won't come up with a better plane until the current b52s rust out. heck, they'd probably just run a few through an assembly line if that happened. the electronics in it are state-of-the-art and the engines will be if boeing gets its way and replaces them all with 4 leased 777 engines (which would be rotated in every 3 years, so it would pretty much always have state-of-the-art engines)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NFS4
SuperTool, would you rather spend $2 billion dollars on a state of the art war plane with superior speed, stealth, and surviability, or spend $2 billion retrofitting 50 year old war birds?? Think about it. You sound like the guy that was telling the Air Force back in the day that the B52 was unncessary when we had "perfectly good" B29's and B36's laying around.

Boeing is currently trying to sell the Air Force on a b-52 engine retrofit. 2 777 engines produce more thrust than then 8 BUFF engines and have a lower cost of ownership.

I still think it's like trying to put an LS1 in a 1980 Chevrolet Chevette. I can understand routine maintenance for the almost 50 year old plane, but any serious upgrades to the aging platform don't seem very effective in the long run. Let the B52 run its course for now, and let the B1B and B2 take over its place eventually.

The retrofit will save money and lower maintance costs(according to boeing). New engines will allow the b-52 to us off the shelf parts, since only b-52 has b-52 engines. If they Air Force is going to keep the airframe for another 40 years, it sounds like a decent plan.

 

[NFS4]

the b52 is perfectly suited to its role. theres no need for stealth in the roles the b52 takes. neither of the other bombers can do what the b52 does. the payload is higher (by a lot, i think its 3x what the b1b is),

B1B: Max internal payload, 75,000 lbs (Max external, 59,000 lbs)
B52: Max internal payload, 70,000 lbs
B2: Max internal payload, 40,000 lbs

 

[ElFenix]

hmmm... ok maybe i was thinking of the b2 and its payload since boeing doesn't list numbers for the b1b

there are plenty of interceptors that can reach b52 flight levels, but i didn't say the b52 should bomb enemys that have those. in fact, i said enemy's that can't hit something at 50,000 ft, which would preclude the use of such interceptors.

 

[PsychoAndy]

The problem is mainly wing stress. Look about 3/4 of the way down. I'm surprised that they're still using a 40 year old platform, let alone extending it to 80 years, at best.

Edit: Might as well put links for the B1 and B2 for reference.B1B2

 

[Random Variable]

Didn't the DOD say last summer that they wanted to buy like 40 more B-2's?

 

[NFS4]

The retrofit will save money and lower maintance costs(according to boeing). New engines will allow the b-52 to us off the shelf parts, since only b-52 has b-52 engines. If they Air Force is going to keep the airframe for another 40 years, it sounds like a decent plan.

I still don't understand the need to pump more $$$ into an elderly fleet when we have two newer weapons that can get the job done. Sure, the Cold War may be over now, but we've got two relatively new planes that can get the job done. If we had to consolidate our fleet, I'd definitely chunk the old airframes instead of pissing all over our "fresh meat".

The folks in Congress can bitch and moan all they want, but the fact of the matter is the B1B and B2 are here and we've got to do something with them. And if it comes down to what planes to devote our resources to, I'm not going to put my efforts into a 50 year old plane.

 

[ElFenix]

we'd have to buy 75 or so b1s to replace them and something like 150 b2s. are b1bs even made anymore? sounds harder to do than replacing some engines.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NFS4

The retrofit will save money and lower maintance costs(according to boeing). New engines will allow the b-52 to us off the shelf parts, since only b-52 has b-52 engines. If they Air Force is going to keep the airframe for another 40 years, it sounds like a decent plan.

I still don't understand the need to pump more $$$ into an elderly fleet when we have two newer weapons that can get the job done. Sure, the Cold War may be over now, but we've got two relatively new planes that can get the job done. If we had to consolidate our fleet, I'd definitely chunk the old airframes instead of pissing all over our "fresh meat".

The folks in Congress can bitch and moan all they want, but the fact of the matter is the B1B and B2 are here and we've got to do something with them. And if it comes down to what planes to devote our resources to, I'm not going to put my efforts into a 50 year old plane.

It boils down to total cost of ownership.

The B-2 can currently take off from one location in the world. It requires a special climate controlled hanger to protect is radar absorbing coating and such.

the B-1 is swing wing design that was built for speed at all costs, also not cheap to fly. You would not believe the the man hours required for every single hour of flight for this thing.

The b-52 can take off from almost anywhere and is relativly inexpensive to fly.

Of course if the Air force were to buy 100 b-1s and 100 b-2s, the cost of maintance would drop like rock.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we'd have to buy 75 or so b1s to replace them and something like 150 b2s. are b1bs even made anymore? sounds harder to do than replacing some engines.

The b-2 production facilitys still exist, maybe the b1-bs exist as well?

 

[PsychoAndy]

The thing is, we don't need 100 more B1's and 100 more B2's.

 

[XMan]

The B-2 can currently take off from one location in the world. It requires a special climate controlled hanger to protect is radar absorbing coating and such.

They can take off from Diego Garcia as well as Whiteman.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

A new production run of B-2s would be $735M each.

According to the manufacturer . . . the same that was going to build 132 for $20B in the 1980s. Of course it gets cheaper if you make more b/c you spread out development costs over the total production run. But if we went with the CA rep trying to secure this windfall for his district some nimrod in the future will claim B-2s cost $735M a piece. We've already wasted a lot so we might as well find appropriate uses for these Turbo Rs. I'm opposed to inappropriate uses of the B-2 or use for the sake of positive press. It's perfectly reasonable to intimidate the evil doers but rolling these pearls out just b/c we've got them is just plain stupid.

Peace, love, and happiness site . . . with nice table comparing B-1B, B-2A, B-52
While the 509th Bomber Wing has 21 B-2s, it employs over 1,000 maintenance personnel.(4) The Air Force has stated that the B-2 will not be combat effective until the ratio of flying hours to maintenance hours is 1:7.5. Currently, the B-2 requires an unprecedented 24.6 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flying time--a 1:24.6 flying to maintenance ratio.(5)

Even the Air Force does not want more B-2's. According to Air Force Secretary Jim Roche, the current B-2 fleet is adequate "but we don't need any more of them. From a structural perspective, it's a 1980s airplane that is very expensive to own and operate and also has certain limitations."(9)

My guess is the USAF doesn't want to be saddled with maintaining the needy, yet exceptional aircraft.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: X-Man

The B-2 can currently take off from one location in the world. It requires a special climate controlled hanger to protect is radar absorbing coating and such.

They can take off from Diego Garcia as well as Whiteman.

They can take off from Diego Garcia, but no facilities exist there to house them, Yet.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

A new production run of B-2s would be $735M each.

According to the manufacturer . . . the same that was going to build 132 for $20B in the 1980s. Of course it gets cheaper if you make more b/c you spread out development costs over the total production run. But if we went with the CA rep trying to secure this windfall for his district some nimrod in the future will claim B-2s cost $735M a piece.

The research and development is done at this point. $735 is probably a very realistic cost per unit for a new production run.

 

[Mister T]

what we need to do is design a new bomber to replace the B52.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Mister T
what we need to do is design a new bomber to replace the B52.

ANOTHER bomber?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Mister T
what we need to do is design a new bomber to replace the B52.

ANOTHER bomber?

LMAO, exactly my thoughts. 😉

 

[Mister T]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Mister T
what we need to do is design a new bomber to replace the B52.

ANOTHER bomber?

Most definitely... start designing today and maybe we can have it delivered by 2020

How about these specs:

Max payload of 100,000 pounds with an unfueled range of 10,000 miles @ Mach 1
Lets also increase the flight ceiling to about 65,000 - 70,000 feet (so it can fly about 10,000 feet above most fighters)
Then we minimize the radar cross section given the above mentioned requirements.

 

[SuperTool]

Let's follow the naming convention and call it B-3 after its cost of $3B

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The research and development is done at this point. $735 is probably a very realistic cost per unit for a new production run.

My point is the USAF doesn't want them b/c they are expensive to build (I don't care if you narrow the cost to $734,856,943.04 it's still money poorly spent), difficult to maintain, and of limited albeit specialized utility. The last update I remember mentioned $2 to $4B to get the line prepped and THEN estimated production costs were $735M per. Before you know it some twit is saying "build more so we can get our money's worth. My point is that every NEW B-2 constructed is a waste of money.

Actually, the R & D is never done, particularly in flying money pits like the B-2. I think the actual proposal is for a "stripped-down" version to be called the B-1C . . . for Cheap, Clunker, Crap, Cancerous drain on Taxpayers . . . you name it!

Despite the B-2's checkered career, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Bill states that the Air Force may need to buy 40 additional B-2s. This amendment was offered by Representative Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-California), who represents the Northrop Grumman Palmdale plant where America's current fleet of 21 B-2As were made. McKeon's proposal calls for restarting the Palmdale production line at a cost of $2 to $4 billion and buying a stripped-down version of the $2.2 billion B-2A called the B-2C, which would cost at least $735 million a copy. The proposal increases the current B-2 fleet from 21 to 61 planes (21 B-2A + 40 B-2C) and has sparked an intense debate over whether the bomber can deliver on all of its promises and is worth at least $30 billion in additional spending.(1)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The research and development is done at this point. $735 is probably a very realistic cost per unit for a new production run.

My point is the USAF doesn't want them b/c they are expensive to build (I don't care if you narrow the cost to $734,856,943.04 it's still money poorly spent), difficult to maintain, and of limited albeit specialized utility. The last update I remember mentioned $2 to $4B to get the line prepped and THEN estimated production costs were $735M per. Before you know it some twit is saying "build more so we can get our money's worth. My point is that every NEW B-2 constructed is a waste of money.

Actually, the R & D is never done, particularly in flying money pits like the B-2. I think the actual proposal is for a "stripped-down" version to be called the B-1C . . . for Cheap, Clunker, Crap, Cancerous drain on Taxpayers . . . you name it!

Despite the B-2's checkered career, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Bill states that the Air Force may need to buy 40 additional B-2s. This amendment was offered by Representative Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-California), who represents the Northrop Grumman Palmdale plant where America's current fleet of 21 B-2As were made. McKeon's proposal calls for restarting the Palmdale production line at a cost of $2 to $4 billion and buying a stripped-down version of the $2.2 billion B-2A called the B-2C, which would cost at least $735 million a copy. The proposal increases the current B-2 fleet from 21 to 61 planes (21 B-2A + 40 B-2C) and has sparked an intense debate over whether the bomber can deliver on all of its promises and is worth at least $30 billion in additional spending.(1)

I dont know what the b-2c would be, or how stripped down or how upgraded it would be. I dont think the military has every downgraded a piece of equipement during a new production run.

Will 10 years of flying experience aid a next production run to drop maintance requirements. Probably.
Do we need a few more of them so we can preposition them in more than one place. Yes.
Will the fleet size remain at 21. No.
Are all 21 available at all times. No.
Is it a bit of a relic of the cold war? Somewhat.
Does it fulfill its mission. Yes.

Will it eventually be replaced by a UCAV? Yes.

 

[Pastfinder]

The B-2 was originally designed with the knowlesge that around 100 would be built, not 21. Thus, cost went up per aircraft because only 20 were made (1 was a testing model). $725 million would make sense if say 100 were built. President Bush was thinking of buying more or them...





NSF4, I thought you were an "ace reporter?" 😕

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
Northrop Grumman is/was manufacturing a 35,000-pound "bunker-buster" that could be carried by the B-2.

My wife works at Northrup Grumman. 😀😀😀😀😀😀 They just got bought out by L3Communications though...

 

[Mister T]

c'mon, no one likes my new bomber idea 🙂