Obama says kill the new bomber and delay the tanker

[JungleJett]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003070256

 

[whalefat]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003070256

We're too busy with wealth redistribution and social justice to care about these minor issues. The Air Force needs to replace more than just those two aircraft.... I don't know why I ever had the feeling that I'll fly 135s for the next sixteen years.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

R U on the KC-135T??

I flew the -R.

cliff
GRB

 

[satpak77]

I can see new tankers, but another bomber? what is wrong with the $1 Billion each B-2?

 

[hindsight2020]

I can see new tankers, but another bomber? what is wrong with the $1 Billion each B-2?

Um, 20 B-2s can't hack the whole mish. They're expensive as hell and have abysmal MC rates. The B-1s have got the chit flown out of them; they're literally canibalizing the fleet to keep up. The Buffs are so old it's painful to fly (I'd know..) and meet, at best, a permissive environment requirement. Anything more than that I might as well take a freggin' B-24 with me cause that's about the edge I got in that gunfight. I'd literally be better off taking an FB-111 from the boneyard today, no questions asked (at least it'd take less people than the Titanic to take a heading, forget glass panel).

The bomber fleet is not doing substantially better than the tanker fleet I'm afraid....

 

[Otto77]

Well this is great. Basically they are waiting to lose a crew and a plane. Oh the crew loss wont be a big deal to them but a loss of a tanker especially a KC10 would be a big loss for mobility etc.

As for the bombers..sure what country needs to worry about securing air dominance and advancing technology (extreme sarcasm). We are too worried about taking money and passing it out to others.

CHANGE you can believe in.........

 

[LR25]

Why do we need bombers?

M1 tanks?

Balistic missles?

Arent those things used for war, atleast preventing a war?

The US has shown we will NEVER uphold our sovrienty, much less use our arsenal to go to war.

We (the USA) have shown that we will not react militarily when needed. Anybody recall what happened with the pirats in the Indian Ocean when the US Navy just sat and watched while the Indian Navy had to come out and lob a few rounds to destroy the pirate mother ship.

So what good are bombers, carriers, missles?

Pathetic!

 

[whalefat]

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. We don't make political decisions for the most part. Sounds like you're just trying to stir up trouble, facts show that you're just an ignorant... you not the first and won't be the last to put on that kind of humiliating display.

 

[Buckeye]

Under the current administration the military will be veiwed like supplemental insurance, the longer we go with using the less likely we need it. Plus the current administration wouldn't know or understand anything to do with strategic planning or fleet replenishment...hell they can't pay their taxes let alone figure out the economy.

 

[LR25]

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. We don't make political decisions for the most part. Sounds like you're just trying to stir up trouble, facts show that you're just an ignorant... you not the first and won't be the last to put on that kind of humiliating display.

I guess that was directed my way?

I do know what I am talking about.

This site where people write alot of opinion, its just that.

If I am wrong with the very limited example I gave, then you can disprove it. Be my guest.

Simple fact is, there are no more warriors running our miltaries, but instead Harvard grads or other Ivey leauge suits.

Something tells me your not going to disprove, your just another opinion based aggitator.

I just read the facts. I'm the messenger. I'll be waiting for you to call BS on me.

I'll fore warn, if your not a student of history, you might want to have the google standing by.

Also, I never was directing my comment towards Commanders on site, I have nothing but respect for the uniform and the brave men and women serving.

 

[pilotyip]

Yes but we can buy what, 300 AC-12's of the cost of 1 B-1? Think of all the rated billets that opens up.

 

[Redmeat]

Our two biggest long term threats, China and India, will not beat us with bombers. They will beat us with economic strategy.

Have you counted how many cars are in the parking lot of your local Walmart?

 

[satpak77]

tankers I can see, yes (kinda like gas stations)

bombers, I am wishy washy on. I don't know if we need to build a brand new bomber, with R/D time, cost, etc etc. We are talking 10 years from drawing board to flightline.

my 2 cents

 

[timmay]

The only good thing that could come out of this is if the Pentagon can learn to cut out all the red tape on these new designs thus lowering costs dramatically. When the Skunk Works built the SR71 (in my opinion the single greatest achievement in aviation since the Wright Bros.) it took them only 18 months to have the airplane flying today without computers! Now it takes close to 10 years. It has gotten so bad most companies are avoiding the military contracts all together. The original cost of the B2 was supposed to be under 500M after all the red tape it now is approaching 2 Billion a copy. I read the government stores warehouses full of paperwork from auditors on these airplanes that nobody has ever read and just like the economy the spending cant go on forever.

 

[LR25]

The B-52 was drawn on a napkin, made into a balsa model the next day.

And when the last rivet was smashed into place, it looked almost identical to that balsa model.

What minds!

And aggreed, Kelly Johnson was a man way ahead of his time.

The P-51 was also another incredible story. From drawings to flight, less than 6 months.

 

[AvroGuy]

both of you guys are describing single mission aircraft. It is easier to do that than it is today. Now a new design has to be multi-mission capable. what ever that is for a bomber..Maybe lowlevel as well as high alt bombing. what ever. When Kelley Johnson was around, they gave him a requirement and kept it at that requirement. Didn't change it every few months forcing the company to redesign. That is what is wrong now.

 

[deadstick]

When Kelley Johnson was around, they gave him a requirement and kept it at that requirement. Didn't change it every few months forcing the company to redesign. That is what is wrong now.

Bingo!

The Army is 1 for 3 in the new helicopter game. ARH and Comanche both died because of this. It took the ARH only 3 years after the 20+ yr debacle that was the Comanche. The Lakota (1 "success") is an off-the-shelf Euro-whopper that, from what I understand, is coming up short. One issue is 130 degree interior temp, no a/c, and you have to keep the doors on/closed. That's great for a medevac -- now everybody gets heat stroke, too.

 

[DOVPILOT]

Where's he next Ronny Reagan when you need him!!!:uzi: Obama uh.

 

[SSDD]

Wouldn't building airplanes create/sustain high paying manufacturing jobs?

I'm just saying...

 

[LR25]

Wouldn't building airplanes create/sustain high paying manufacturing jobs?

I'm just saying...

Sure, in China, India.

Oh, you meant right here in the USA. Them days are over.

Heck, our Gov. cant even get US built heli's to replace the H-3's for Marine 1.

 

[timmay]

both of you guys are describing single mission aircraft. It is easier to do that than it is today. Now a new design has to be multi-mission capable. what ever that is for a bomber..Maybe lowlevel as well as high alt bombing. what ever. When Kelley Johnson was around, they gave him a requirement and kept it at that requirement. Didn't change it every few months forcing the company to redesign. That is what is wrong now.

The A12 actually had two other variants in the works one as an interceptor and the other a bomber. However the AF didnt bite and went with the B1 instead But I get the point of your reply.

 

[AvroGuy]

The A12 actually had two other variants in the works one as an interceptor and the other a bomber. However the AF didnt bite and went with the B1 instead But I get the point of your reply.

The YF-12A was smoke and mirrors. Yes there was a few built and the AIM-54 predecessor was built for the thing but I stand on the smoke and mirrors thing.
Cover for the CIA to get thier A-12's.

 

[flyf15]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

 

[AvroGuy]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

well that is an interesting idea. I know where you can get some 74 classics real cheap. Maybe even some 744 real cheap with the economy.

 

[hindsight2020]

As far as the bomber goes....

The B-52 is just a bomb truck. Why not buy some 747s, 767s, 777s, or 787s (depending on how much you want to pay and the capability you want to have), put some bomb bays in them, hardpoints on them, electronics and other goodies on the inside, and call it the B-52 replacement? Sure its not perfect, and would require some reworking and modification of the airframe, but you now have a cheap, off the shelf, immensely reliable, available today, subsonic non-stealth bomber. Save the B-1s and B-2s for the more specialized stuff.

If you pick the 767, you now also have commonality with the KC-767 (if that ever shows up) too. Heck, put some detachable refueling equipment on it and some fuel tanks in the bomb bays and let the bomber also be the new tanker. Put a cargo door on it and let it carry a lot of the palletized cargo thats currently being carried around by much more expensive C-17s. Equip it to have other electronics and equipment put in the bomb bays, main deck, or hardpoints and you can replace a lot of the specialized -135 variants running around too.

What it all comes down to is that for many of these jobs, all you really need is a medium-large aircraft that can carry a significant payload cheaply, reliably, safely, over a respectable distance. This aircraft doesn't have to be a new design... Boeing has gotten pretty good at designing airplanes that do just that. Everything beyond that is just what you decide to load onto it that day. Sure, its not going to be as perfect as a special new build design for that specific mission, but we could have it tomorrow instead of 20 years from now, and at a quarter of the cost.

Save the very expensive and specialized aircraft we have in small numbers (B-1, B-2, C-17, KC-10, etc) for when a mission requires its capabilities.

Oh that's a remarkable idea, and has been thought of in the lower circles, but mother Boeing won't let it happen on the cheap, for which reason it'll never happen. I've heard around the peanut gallery that the 75- was built with a military bomber application possibility in mind (rumor quotes the high standing gear as an indication for such intent). Now that's be a bad ass permissive environment bomber, get my drink on with a couple eastern european (non-union for sure) FAs while retaining the ability to stand up and stretch (STS)..easiest air medal anyone would ever get, but I digress (AF medals is for another day)...

At any rate I don't think it will happen. What makes the BUFF old makes it relevant (sadly...as I tap on 8 eyechart steam gages to get em unstuck for a simple engine start.), in the yet again renewed emphasis to the nuke mission (and I'll keep it OPSEC friendly). These requirements would make any off-the-shelf modification costly (thanks DOD contractors!) and would defeat the purpose of visiting the commercial off-the-shelf option. Furthermore, it is mother blue's intention to phase out the buff dramatically if they are to take on another bomber airframe. Which they can't afford to do with the whole GSC thing. Also, thinking GSC will inherit all the buffs and ACC will get their new conventional bomber is a pipedream, though said attitude would be par for the course of the part of ACC... The name of the budget game is called "either/or" baby.

Honestly, I rather fly FB-111s, those suckers are still mint condition sitting in their shrinkwrap, if it weren't for START treaty shenanigans we'd have the -111 providing the critcal EW and gap-fill bomber missions we are so crassly botching right now. ACC would get a huge boner for something with afterburners (read love affair with the B-1) and they know the Buff is currently on track to outlive the Bone (again, unbelivable our state of affairs in the bomber world). But that [FB111s] will not happen either.

So we'll get asked to do more with less as usual and our bomber capes will continue to rely on the hope that a major non-permissive skirmish doesn't happen until 2040. Good luck with that. I do beleive the 2018 bomber won't happen in the proposed timeline, they're sitting on their hands up there in the Pentagon and if they think they're gonna come up with a new design option for said timeline they've hit their heads. Hell, I just read the Tu-95MS are model year 90s, if that doesn't cause indignation on the US bomber world somebody needs to check the koolaid cause that punch is spiked.

 

[LR25]

Theres something not right with that analysis.

The P-3 replacement, the P-7 is a 737.

I was told that the cost of cutting a bombay in the belly is not that easy, for some reason. Also the Navy was offered a new P-3 "P-3 2000" and it would have been a alot cheaper because of the R&D of the 737.

I have no first hand knowledge, just know a bunch of P-3 guys.

 

[HoursHore]

The problem with an off the shelf boeing 7 something design is there is already a ton of stuff where the bombs would go. ACM, Fuel Tanks, etc. Its not as simple as cutting a hole in the bottom of the plane. Whole systems would have to be redesigned.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Wouldn't building airplanes create/sustain high paying manufacturing jobs?

I'm just saying...

Sure would, for people in Europe. The Marine 1 contract and the Tanker projects were both given to European manufactures by the Bush Administration and Bush's Pentagon.

It took Obama coming in and putting the skids on these projects to say enough is enough. No more of the Republicans sending all of our good high paying jobs over seas for the Brits and the Indians to get all the work while we sit here at home unemployed.

I'm just saying.....

 

[bagasticks]

I think we should just bomb our enemies with love and song. . . . not napalm and death. . .

The muslims and commies just want our friendship. .

 

[pilotyip]

P-7

Theres something not right with that analysis.

The P-3 replacement, the P-7 is a 737.

I was told that the cost of cutting a bombay in the belly is not that easy, for some reason. Also the Navy was offered a new P-3 "P-3 2000" and it would have been a alot cheaper because of the R&D of the 737.

I have no first hand knowledge, just know a bunch of P-3 guys.

The P-7 was a Lockheed super P-3 with engine and props like the C-130J; it was killed by then Sec of Def Dick Cheney. The 737 P-3 substitute is the P-8. Notice I said substitute, because nothing will ever replace the P-3.