History, Politics And Current Affairs

Micael wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:29 pm You know I think I like a stealth bomber better in this color than in black. Plus it’s got a distinct flying saucer vibe going from the front.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:30 pm

Micael wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:29 pm You know I think I like a stealth bomber better in this color than in black. Plus it’s got a distinct flying saucer vibe going from the front.

Feels Cylon.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:30 pm

Micael wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:29 pm You know I think I like a stealth bomber better in this color than in black. Plus it’s got a distinct flying saucer vibe going from the front.

Feels Cylon.

Pdf27 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:35 am What it should have been

clancyphile wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:56 pm Great... we need 150 of these.

And when can we get some more Bones and Varks?

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:42 am

clancyphile wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:56 pm Great... we need 150 of these.

And when can we get some more Bones and Varks?

Never. Both are way out of date and far too maintenance intensive.

Double the B-21 order instead.

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:52 am

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:42 am

clancyphile wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:56 pm Great... we need 150 of these.

And when can we get some more Bones and Varks?

Never. Both are way out of date and far too maintenance intensive.

Double the B-21 order instead.

We do need something fast and long-range with a decent payload, though.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:17 am

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:52 am

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:42 am
Never. Both are way out of date and far too maintenance intensive.

Double the B-21 order instead.

We do need something fast and long-range with a decent payload, though.

We do, but we also need something we can afford. The F-111s have been gone for years, and the B-1s (if they’re even still around) are or were in a situation similar to the British Nimrods; effectively so sufficiently different from each other that they’re effectively individual aircraft designs. IIRC they also have structural problems and have always had serviceability issues.

Same with the B-2s. Maintenance is hella expensive and serviceability is atrocious.

We can probably use tactical fighters with tanker support or cruise missiles as a stopgap for conventional bombing while we build B-21s.

If it’s nuke stuff against a peer competitor, we turn keys and cease caring cause most of us are dead.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:17 amWe do, but we also need something we can afford. The F-111s have been gone for years, and the B-1s (if they’re even still around)

are or were in a situation similar to the British Nimrods; effectively so sufficiently different from each other that they’re effectively individual aircraft designs. IIRC they also have structural problems and have always had serviceability issues.

James1978 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:40 am

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:17 amWe do, but we also need something we can afford. The F-111s have been gone for years, and the B-1s (if they’re even still around)

There were still 45 B-1B in service as of 2021.

are or were in a situation similar to the British Nimrods; effectively so sufficiently different from each other that they’re effectively individual aircraft designs. IIRC they also have structural problems and have always had serviceability issues.

Bit of an over generalization with the Nimrod comparison. As I understand it, the early aircraft off the line did match that description - and they were the first ones retired.

As for serviceability, my recollection of something read many years ago, was that for a long time maintenance wasn't properly resourced. Sometime back in the 1990s (IIRC), the Air Force did an experiment where they picked a squadron and gave the maintenance troops sufficient staffing and resources, and lo and behold availability rates jumped.

We also ran them hard during GWOT. It was the B-1s, not the B-52s, bearing the brunt of On-Call JDAM work. And they were built in a different era and were never designed for 20 years of war. We've flown them past their life expectancy, and unsurprisingly it's showing. Years at low level beat the birds up, and I suspect we'd be seeing the same with the B-52s if they'd stuck with low level ops.

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:26 amB-21 has excellent range and payload, beyond what I'm asking for. Speed, not so much. We need something that can cover theater distances at supercruise and carries enough of a payload. (One thing we might need it for is air superiority in the Pacific. I am not just worried about War Plan Yellow (that's going to be irrelevant by 2040 or so, IMNHO), but also War Plan Orange (Orange may or may not be the new Black, but it may very well be the same old Orange once China goes back to warlords and bandits).

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:26 am

B-21 has excellent range and payload, beyond what I'm asking for. Speed, not so much. We need something that can cover theater distances at supercruise and carries enough of a payload. (One thing we might need it for is air superiority in the Pacific. I am not just worried about War Plan Yellow (that's going to be irrelevant by 2040 or so, IMNHO), but also War Plan Orange (Orange may or may not be the new Black, but it may very well be the same old Orange once China goes back to warlords and bandits).

Pdf27 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:31 am

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:26 amB-21 has excellent range and payload, beyond what I'm asking for. Speed, not so much. We need something that can cover theater distances at supercruise and carries enough of a payload. (One thing we might need it for is air superiority in the Pacific. I am not just worried about War Plan Yellow (that's going to be irrelevant by 2040 or so, IMNHO), but also War Plan Orange (Orange may or may not be the new Black, but it may very well be the same old Orange once China goes back to warlords and bandits).

Why build high speed capability into the platform and not the weapon? That adds a vast amount of cost and compromises for a pretty niche capability.

OSCSSW wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:16 pmYou better start worrying about your sanity Pdf27 .
I've strongly believed that.
Got to match the bow to the arrow and vice versa. Enough said!

1. Very fast response time from target identification to destruction. As repeatedly emphasised by the former boss here in his essays on SAM systems, that's a function as much as anything else of the rest of the system. The aircraft component can improve things by reducing transit times (having a fast cruise speed or weapons system) or by reduced signature allowing them to loiter close to potential targets while awaiting authorisation to strike.
   It should be noted here that this is a relatively niche capability - the number of fleeting targets of this type which are identified in a non-permissive environment is quite small (usually the platform that identifies targets of this type is close enough to kill them), and the US appears to be developing hypersonic weapons specifically to attack targets of this exact type.
2. To complicate the job of an adversary air defence system by giving them a reduced time to identify, track and destroy your incoming aircraft. Note that there are significant engineering trade-offs here: if you want to fly fast, you're going to have reduced range and increased signature. The easiest way to square this circle is to reduce the size of the penetrating aircraft - which directly reduces signature. The simplest way to do this is make it a one-way mission and take out the talking freight, by doing the penetration with a missile rather than a manned aircraft. Fundamentally, putting the performance into the weapon not the platform.
3. To act as a booster stage for the weapon, meaning that it does not have to accelerate to supersonic speeds and so can have more performance for a given mass. For a fighter aircraft, this is a major bonus - they are already designed to service time-critical and easily identified targets (incoming bombers), for which supersonic performance is critical. Adding supercruise capability is a very significant benefit here, since it greatly increases the achievable interception range. Problem is as noted above, this is a very niche capability for a bomber - ground targets are harder to identify, and are rarely as time-critical. In addition, the weight of weapons is much less critical since neither the weapon nor the platform need extremely high manoeuvrability. This means that it's feasible to put a big booster on the weapon to do the same job, and the overall impact on the system as a whole is much better.

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:04 amI’d add a fourth one - cost. A fast bomber is reusable the way a missile is not. If resources or production capabilities are relatively limited, that may be a significant factor.