Should the US develop a new bomber?

[cwjerome]

Read this recently: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/09/defense-schwartz-air-force-new-bomber-091410/

I am mixed about a new bomber. I think new capabilities like prompt global strike, hypersonic cruise missiles, and others should be developed that can fill the gap in the areas of strategic power and deterrence. Yet there are some appealing aspects to a bomber platform, such as its versatility and ability to be recalled among others.

Plus Schwartz implies a new project would be more realistic in its cost and function. Nobody wants another B-2, the "2" standing for $2 billion apiece... we would need a reasonable workhorse of 100 or so that would last for years like the B-52.

The bomber fleet is old and small. There will have to be a decision point in the near future, 1-2 years. And as with any new military project, it's a give and take with other weapon systems with costs. Do we need it? Can we afford it?

 

[Brainonska511]

Bombers are useful in that they can loiter over a battle field area. A cruise missile can't really do that.

If we're going to build a new bomber, we should do it right:

-Build a prototype or two to work out the major bugs
-Then start assembly production - you don't have to get it perfect the first time, but each subsequent bomber should be better than the previous as problems are encountered and fixed. Incorporate fixes into the previously built bombers.
-Build different blocks if new technologies come up you want implemented as well. Stop moving the goal posts.
-If you say you're going to order X, order X. Don't constantly reduce the number ordered, as that also drives up price per unit. A big reason why the B-2 was the $2 billion bomber.

The F-117 program was a good example of a project run right. (Read Skunk Works for more details) Too bad it wasn't enough to kill the retarded B-1 project (a big waste of money).

 

[Freshgeardude]

I think UAVs are the inevitable future of air warfare.


they are remarkably cheaper, no human life at risk (on our side), can run for hours, and can be very stealthy.

This is right now. Lots of money is being invested in UAV tech right now which in a few years may yield completely undetectable and extremely powerful air crafts that can stay up for years at a time.


although all about UAVs are true, I still am amazed by our jet fighters, and dont want to seem them go. Its just on a monetary and human life scale, going to UAVs make sense.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Cause we can't, you know, wipe out the entire world combined about 40 times over right now. And there are all those HUGE major world powers up and coming that are nearly equal to us.


*boggle*


How about we do something USEFUL instead, like develop new energy, cures for diseases, new economic opportunities for the poor, environmental cleanup methods, safer foodstuffs, a better education system, scientific research, etc?

 

[Freshgeardude]

Cause we can't, you know, wipe out the entire world combined about 40 times over right now. And there are all those HUGE major world powers up and coming that are nearly equal to us.


*boggle*


How about we do something USEFUL instead, like develop new energy, cures for diseases, new economic opportunities for the poor, environmental cleanup methods, safer foodstuffs, a better education system, scientific research, etc?

earth to princeofwands

where do you think all of those useful ideas came from??

Nuclear energy came from the nuclear bomb, you know, military stuff.


besides, we arent out to use nukes nowadays and we need to use other miliarty strategies to conquer our foes

 

[PrinceofWands]

earth to princeofwands

where do you think all of those useful ideas came from??

Nuclear energy came from the nuclear bomb, you know, military stuff.


besides, we arent out to use nukes nowadays and we need to use other miliarty strategies to conquer our foes

ROFL yeah, all the discoveries in history were military...like penicillin, the polio and small pox vaccines, hydro-electric power, helicopters, the printing press...oh wait, that's right, MOST inventions came from genius individuals having NOTHING to do with military development whatsoever. Yes, there have been advances from military development too, but do you REALLY want to compare harms and achievements over the last four thousand years?

You're the only one who mentioned nukes. Without using a single one we can wipe out pretty much any coalition of nations you'd like to put together, with the ONLY potential exception being China, and then only because they have more people than we have bullets right now...but given our WWII production levels we could correct that in about 19 minutes.

WE HAVE NO MEANINGFUL ENEMIES!!! THERE IS NO IMPORTANT THEM!!! WE DO NOT NEED A WORLD SUPER-POWER MILITARY ANY MORE!!!

 

[Freshgeardude]

ROFL yeah, all the discoveries in history were military...like penicillin, the polio and small pox vaccines, hydro-electric power, helicopters, the printing press...oh wait, that's right, MOST inventions came from genius individuals having NOTHING to do with military development whatsoever. Yes, there have been advances from military development too, but do you REALLY want to compare harms and achievements over the last four thousand years?

You're the only one who mentioned nukes. Without using a single one we can wipe out pretty much any coalition of nations you'd like to put together, with the ONLY potential exception being China, and then only because they have more people than we have bullets right now...but given our WWII production levels we could correct that in about 19 minutes.

WE HAVE NO MEANINGFUL ENEMIES!!! THERE IS NO IMPORTANT THEM!!! WE DO NOT NEED A WORLD SUPER-POWER MILITARY ANY MORE!!!

lol nuclear power has been imo one of the greatest modern inventions.


and yes I agree, many inventions come from private people, but with the government wanting to tax the higher bracket more, innovation is going to fall

 

[PrinceofWands]

lol nuclear power has been imo one of the greatest modern inventions.


and yes I agree, many inventions come from private people, but with the government wanting to tax the higher bracket more, innovation is going to fall

Bullshit. Nuclear power was something, but didn't completely reshape the landscape (especially in America where it saw little use). In the US it provides less than 20% of total usage, and only 18% worldwide. It's ridiculously expensive, has VAST environmental impact, has no permanent disposal solutions currently available, can only be deployed in limited areas, is a target for espionage and vulnerable to attack, etc. Basically nothing changed in most of the world as a result of nuclear power...at least so far.

Innovation isn't now, nor has it ever been, about money. Most of the greatest advancements in human history were by individual people who saw little for their efforts and died paupers. Not from companies, not from governments...from poor individuals. Yes, there are other sources, but MOSTLY that's where all innovation, advancement, and discovery come from throughout all of history. This will in NO way be diminished by taxation. In fact, increased taxation, if spent correctly, would INCREASE individual advancement by providing proper social services and education opportunities to more people who may be the ones to make these discoveries (by the way, trickle down is 100% lying ignorant bullshit, if that's what you were alluding to).

The top tax rate from 1935 to 1965 was over 80%, yet we saw a period of technological advancement unmatched...at least since the initiation of the industrial revolution.

 

[dawp]

not if it ends up like the B-2. too expensive and too few.

 

[irishScott]

ROFL yeah, all the discoveries in history were military...like penicillin, the polio and small pox vaccines, hydro-electric power, helicopters, the printing press...oh wait, that's right, MOST inventions came from genius individuals having NOTHING to do with military development whatsoever. Yes, there have been advances from military development too, but do you REALLY want to compare harms and achievements over the last four thousand years?

You're the only one who mentioned nukes. Without using a single one we can wipe out pretty much any coalition of nations you'd like to put together, with the ONLY potential exception being China, and then only because they have more people than we have bullets right now...but given our WWII production levels we could correct that in about 19 minutes.

WE HAVE NO MEANINGFUL ENEMIES!!! THERE IS NO IMPORTANT THEM!!! WE DO NOT NEED A WORLD SUPER-POWER MILITARY ANY MORE!!!

Well ARPANET, the grandfather of the internet was originally designed as a network to allow scientists to communicate in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. It was developed by DoD.

And we do need a world super-power military. Why? To ensure we remain a world super-power. As for upcoming enemies, uh... China much? Sure they're not a military threat now, but in a few decades why not? They've made no secret about their desire for expansion or their willingness to use their military to brutal extremes.

And potentially even further down the line, what happens when someone finds an effective way to stop an incoming ICBM and render them obsolete? It'll eventually happen.

Bottom line, allowing any significant part of our nation to atrophy simply because it isn't needed right this moment is a bad thing.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well ARPANET, the grandfather of the internet was originally designed as a network to allow scientists to communicate in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. It was developed by DoD.

And we do need a world super-power military. Why? To ensure we remain a world super-power. As for upcoming enemies, uh... China much? Sure they're not a military threat now, but in a few decades why not? They've made no secret about their desire for expansion or their willingness to use their military to brutal extremes.

And potentially even further down the line, what happens when someone finds an effective way to stop an incoming ICBM and render them obsolete? It'll eventually happen.

Bottom line, allowing any significant part of our nation to atrophy simply because it isn't needed right this moment is a bad thing.

And surrendering to the military industrial complex is far, FAR worse. There were VERY good reasons the nation was formed without a standing military, and even after starting one it was kept minimalist as much as possible. The expansion of the military, and the executive use thereof, is probably the greatest failing of American evolution.

 

[Strk]

Bullshit. Nuclear power was something, but didn't completely reshape the landscape (especially in America where it saw little use). In the US it provides less than 20% of total usage, and only 18% worldwide. It's ridiculously expensive, has VAST environmental impact, has no permanent disposal solutions currently available, can only be deployed in limited areas, is a target for espionage and vulnerable to attack, etc. Basically nothing changed in most of the world as a result of nuclear power...at least so far.

Innovation isn't now, nor has it ever been, about money. Most of the greatest advancements in human history were by individual people who saw little for their efforts and died paupers. Not from companies, not from governments...from poor individuals. Yes, there are other sources, but MOSTLY that's where all innovation, advancement, and discovery come from throughout all of history. This will in NO way be diminished by taxation. In fact, increased taxation, if spent correctly, would INCREASE individual advancement by providing proper social services and education opportunities to more people who may be the ones to make these discoveries (by the way, trickle down is 100% lying ignorant bullshit, if that's what you were alluding to).

The top tax rate from 1935 to 1965 was over 80%, yet we saw a period of technological advancement unmatched...at least since the initiation of the industrial revolution.

I hate to break it to you, but the US produces more energy from nuclear power than any other country. It does suck that it hasn't been as embraced as it should be though.

 

[Modelworks]

I hate to say it but we need to take another look at space based weaponry. I think that is where the greatest threat lies now. The biggest thing to change war was the invention of satellites. Before satellites the only way you had of knowing if an enemy was coming was radar , if it was close enough, or spotters. Things like Pearl Harbor do not happen anymore because of satellites, you just can't sneak attack or do troop movements with them watching.

The countries with the best ability to knock out satellites or block communication to them will have the advantage. Destroy the military gps and you cripple our weapons guidance. A lot of it has fall back options but without gps it loses a lot of capabilities.

I know an engineer who quit DoD work because they replaced wire guided munitions in his department with gps. He said, and I agree, it was one of the worst decision they could make. Wire guided munitions were self contained systems .

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, the military industrial complex just keeps working overtime to justify there own existence.

I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep worrying about a imagined threat of not having enough bombers.

Since the advent of smart munitions we don't need massive bombers with that kind of carrying capacity. ROV's with loitering capability carrying smart munitions will be the future and are in current developement.

Cruise missiles have already been developed with that kind of loitering capabilty anyway. Sounds like Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrump Grummin need some more welfare money.

 

[piasabird]

unmanned bombers.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

we spend more than what, the COMBINED amount of the 15-17 next biggest militaries? and we still have thousands of nuclear missiles. I'm sorry, but a modest reduction in military spending, canceling funding for a new presidential helicopter, cutting down our nuclear missile stockpile to 1,000 or less, etc. won't make the US a paper tiger.

the military is important for our national security, not a license to waste money, spend recklessly, and shroud itself under "national security" for convenience.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Maybe we should decide on a new tanker first?

 

[CycloWizard]

The top tax rate from 1935 to 1965 was over 80%, yet we saw a period of technological advancement unmatched...at least since the initiation of the industrial revolution.

Nonsense. The current rate of innovation is far higher by any measure than it ever has been. I'm not saying that this result is or is not caused by a lower tax rate, but it's absurd to say that the rate of innovation has somehow decreased with time.

 

[SamurAchzar]

And surrendering to the military industrial complex is far, FAR worse. There were VERY good reasons the nation was formed without a standing military, and even after starting one it was kept minimalist as much as possible. The expansion of the military, and the executive use thereof, is probably the greatest failing of American evolution.

You make it sound as if military spending is the biggest problem of the US. Both the military R&D AND military procurement are about $250b combined, which is not a small amount, but nothing approaching most of the controversial civil issues.
The MIC has many positive effects - it helps train loads of engineers, it provides countless jobs, and perhaps most interestingly, it's one of the last strong export industries that are left in the US. If you want to reduce spending, cut personnel. Cutting R&D programs is foolish.

Some of the biggest strides in electronic development, materials and aviation (including space exploration, early NASA days) were the direct result of military programs.

Apart from that, don't forget that the reason US sustains its debts and massive resource consumption is the most powerful military in the world. Perhaps it's unjust, but it's extremely convenient.
Unless you want to compete with China and India for resources and global control, I suggest it's kept this way.

As for the bomber itself, unless there is a way to develop stealthy aircraft for a fraction of the procurement budget of the B-2, I think it's not necessary. Longer range UAVs, cruise missiles and expansion of the navy strike force are better options. A B-52 operating in a hostile environment is a sitting target, unless air defenses are taken out, which requires a large scale war effort and not always desirable politically.
The one thing it's good for is hammering a target for days on end, but with today's warfare, making long round trips to home bases is pretty wasteful.

I think the future is in the sea, as a launch platform for improved UAVs, JSF-type strike aircraft and cruise missiles.

 

[ElFenix]

Wow, the military industrial complex just keeps working overtime to justify there own existence.

I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep worrying about a imagined threat of not having enough bombers.

Since the advent of smart munitions we don't need massive bombers with that kind of carrying capacity. ROV's with loitering capability carrying smart munitions will be the future and are in current developement.

Cruise missiles have already been developed with that kind of loitering capabilty anyway. Sounds like Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrump Grummin need some more welfare money.

i dunno about relying entirely on something that needs constant radio contact with a base to work... seems... jammable... or hackable...



anyway, bombers nowadays don't fly over the target, they launch smart munitions.

A B-52 operating in a hostile environment is a sitting target, unless air defenses are taken out, which requires a large scale war effort and not always desirable politically.
The one thing it's good for is hammering a target for days on end, but with today's warfare, making long round trips to home bases is pretty wasteful.

I think the future is in the sea, as a launch platform for improved UAVs, JSF-type strike aircraft and cruise missiles.

as i said, B-52's don't really go over the target. and as much as the sea might be an good place to launch UAVs and missiles from, the B-52 can get those missiles to the area a lot quicker than moving a ship can. (and i'm sure they're working on an air-launch UAV that can be deployed from a B-52, if they haven't already done so)




an SSTO bomber might be interesting. 60 year old pipe dream, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Moonbeam]

We should develope a drug that cures fear permanently. It's what we are actually looking for from our Military, a pill that helps us sleep at night.

But it can't ever work because what we fear has already happened and we are haunted by things we do not know we feel.

We live our lives trying to fix a wound we do not know we have and thus condemn ourselves to endless warfare. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword because he doesn't know he is already dead.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'd vote no.

UAVs and cruise missiles seem to fit the kinds of fighting we actually do these days. (Along with attack helicopters and A-10s)

Bombers are big, slow targets that will just keep getting more vulnerable to missiles and eventually guns (rail, particle, laser).

If we were ever in a serious war with Russia or China it would probably go nuclear anyway.

 

[MotF Bane]

No.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I hate to break it to you, but the US produces more energy from nuclear power than any other country. It does suck that it hasn't been as embraced as it should be though.

Which amounts to less than 20% of the power we use. Whereas France obtains 78% of their power from nukes. Overall, however, it's still less than 20% of world power.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nonsense. The current rate of innovation is far higher by any measure than it ever has been. I'm not saying that this result is or is not caused by a lower tax rate, but it's absurd to say that the rate of innovation has somehow decreased with time.

When was the last major disease cured? When was the last world changing invention? The last massive infrastructure overhaul/improvement phase? The only thing we've seen in the last few decades is small improvements and proliferation of consumerism, alongside serious decay and weakening. You cannot compare an extra 10 points in sysmark to launching a rocket into space. You cannot compare coke zero to the polio vaccine. What we have today is nothing compared to what went on during prior periods.

This is actually normal, as invention and innovation are largely cyclical. The point, however, was that high taxation is NO barrier to innovation and can in fact encourage it (since it's done by individuals, NOT companies or monied research).