Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The obvious answers, related to current world security threats, would be Russia and China. There are a host of other third world countries that have purchased advanced SAM systems as well.Ok. Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.
So now we're back to you saying there is nothing the B-2 can do that the B-1 cannot, but are again adding in requirements for additional aircraft for the B-1 mission like F-22 air superiority assets and SEAD growlers.That's why the F-22 is supposed to take them out first. That is after all its job.
Myth, I can't believe anyone still believes this shit and you sometimes even see people claiming same about F-22. Birds and heavy weather are more of a maintenance issue for B-2 than other planes, but neither prevents it from flying or going into combat.And yes, in some ways I DO have tunnel vision. I like things that WORK. The B-2 can't fly when it rains. That's kind of a major hindrance don't you think?
I was USSTRATCOM so was once pretty solid on most things related to US bombers, obviously moreso in strategic roles than tactical.The thing is though, I am current. And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.
It is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be guided by the use of GPS. Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealth-bomber refit contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the U.S. Air Force's B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton MOPs
While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.
The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.
“Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS’s assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets,” the report said.
The Warthog, with all its warts, cannot compare with the incredible failure that's called "F35". The wonderful crown in The Pentagon's Crown that was supposed to be shown off at the recent Farnborough Air Show - but failed to appear. Due to yet another disgrace.
Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?
We have had warthogs return with so much battle damage and land safely that it amazes the groundcrew that they were even able to continue flying. This aircraft is designed to take a tremendous amount of damage, and continue to fly.
And there is no way any other aircraft in the inventory could do what the A-10 did in this engagement.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx
Ok. Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.
Damned near anybody. It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes! The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.
This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).
You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.
Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?
Nothing in our current military inventory is safe from harm. The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships. And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
I see a lot of Patriot users there! France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1. The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.
The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.
The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated. Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2). The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude. High altitude though and they are safe.
We have B-2s. We have B-1s. So again your point about initial cost is completely irrelevant in whether the plane is worthless, and the bullshit about it not being able to fly in the rain is a myth dispelled in the 90s.No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2. That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need. The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.
They were the first over Baghdad because lots of radar guided missiles, they were used in Kosovo for certain missions (like F-117) because of radar guided missiles. They can take off from Missouri and hit any target in the world, which isn't something you can guarantee SEAD support on.The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile. Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.
For 200th time, we have B-2s. You can't trade them in, we are discussing whether they are worthless which initial cost has no bearing.Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them! So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000. In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.
Interesting =
Welcome - Defense One
While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.
The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.
Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRSs assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets, the report said.
Damned near anybody. It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes! The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.
This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).
You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.
Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?
Nothing in our current military inventory is safe from harm. The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships. And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.
The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated. Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2). The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude. High altitude though and they are safe.
Upgrade the electronics in it...and I see no reason an SA-2 Guideline couldn't take down a Lancer. Mach 3.5, can touch 80,000', and the huge warhead means it doesn't NEED to hit.
The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.
I worked for a guy who was a Marine Pilot and he flew an A10.
He freakin loved it.
The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.
But that is only 1 out of 3 models. And it has minimal impact on the other 2.
And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around. The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program.
However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they had to incorporate VSTOL capabilities.
They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.
What? The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?
That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too. I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon. Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea. If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.
They didn't.
As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.
F-35Bs combat radius is 450nm.Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.
Hey if you can't make a point with facts just make up some shit right?Yes, they are worthless. They cost more than any other aircraft to operate, are less reliable than most, can't fly in the rain, and are so expensive that the brass won't risk them in any meaningful war. They would not send them in to strike targets in Russia for instance because they would almost certainly get shot down.
Ahh but you already talked about the additional aircraft needed to work with your B-1s and B-52s for SEAD and air superiority. So no, a B-1 can't strike anywhere in the world, it depends on how heavily defended the target is because you might need a carrier and/or a base with F-22s within range.As far as striking anywhere in the world, so can the B-52 and the B-1. Hell the F-15 Strike Eagle can too. It's only limit is the pilots endurance.
