The B-1 and B-2 will be on the Chopping Block but Not the Buff

[Borillar]

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

I see. The B-2 costs an exorbant amount to operate and can't be replaced by other B-2s and USAF want's to replace it with a Bomber that does a better job, costs a quarter of the cost and has a much lower operations cots and that's a bad thing? Please stay on track. It's not about you. It's about USAF getting in a better bomber into the enventory and getting rid of the high cost birds that can't be replaced. Sounds pretty damned smart to me.

I’m happy that the AF is getting a better stealth bomber at a quarter of the cost of the B2. Half a billion per aircraft seems a bit exorbitant, but then again they are spending a hundred million per pop on the F-35.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...

Here is the opening paragraph from the original OP.

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It's about all 4 bombers. It explains why the B-21 must come into the inventory and why the other 3 are affected by each type. And I AM the OP. What are you drinking anyway. I want some. It must be really good to cloud your vision this way.

 

[westwall]

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...

Here is the opening paragraph from the original OP.

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It's about all 4 bombers. It explains why the B-21 must come into the inventory and why the other 3 are affected by each type. And I AM the OP. What are you drinking anyway. I want some. It must be really good to cloud your vision this way.

Your first sentence is a preparatory statement, the actual focus of the Op is the B-52, according to the accepted rules of the English language.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

I see. The B-2 costs an exorbant amount to operate and can't be replaced by other B-2s and USAF want's to replace it with a Bomber that does a better job, costs a quarter of the cost and has a much lower operations cots and that's a bad thing? Please stay on track. It's not about you. It's about USAF getting in a better bomber into the enventory and getting rid of the high cost birds that can't be replaced. Sounds pretty damned smart to me.

I’m happy that the AF is getting a better stealth bomber at a quarter of the cost of the B2. Half a billion per aircraft seems a bit exorbitant, but then again they are spending a hundred million per pop on the F-35.

You can directly thank the F-35 for the B-21 cost. They learned quite a bit making the F-35. It's the first of a long line of birds. The hefty price tag of the F-35 has a lot of R&D involved in learning how to make it. Because of this, the B-21 is many times the bird that the B-2 is and costs a quarter the amount. Yah, I know, half a billion sounds outrageous but 2 billion is just plain out of line. Of course, the B-2 did begat the F-22 and the R&D costs of the B-2 was absorbed into the F-22 and the F-35. The B-2 will only give the B-21 it's shape. They are way past stealth technology now that made the B-2. Just like the 6th gen fighter won't be using the F-22 nor the F-35 for it's stealth technology.

The reason the Buff has to stick around is the bomb load it can carry. The B-21 is smaller than the B-2. The B-21 won't be used for carpet bombing. That's the one thing that the Buff can't be beat at. The B-21 will be used for surgical strikes and Nuclear Delivery. In comparison, the B-21 could do a carpet like bombing but it would be more a throw run instead of the Buffs carpet.

In the next 10 years, things are going to get very interesting one would think.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...

Here is the opening paragraph from the original OP.

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It's about all 4 bombers. It explains why the B-21 must come into the inventory and why the other 3 are affected by each type. And I AM the OP. What are you drinking anyway. I want some. It must be really good to cloud your vision this way.

Your first sentence is a preparatory statement, the actual focus of the Op is the B-52, according to the accepted rules of the English language.

You are just trolling now disrupting conversation. If this were in a lodge, we would be calling for the Sgt at Arms to throw you out the back door.

 

[westwall]

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...

Here is the opening paragraph from the original OP.

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It's about all 4 bombers. It explains why the B-21 must come into the inventory and why the other 3 are affected by each type. And I AM the OP. What are you drinking anyway. I want some. It must be really good to cloud your vision this way.

Your first sentence is a preparatory statement, the actual focus of the Op is the B-52, according to the accepted rules of the English language.

You are just trolling now disrupting conversation. If this were in a lodge, we would be calling for the Sgt at Arms to throw you out the back door.

No, correcting your poor understanding of the English language is called "teaching". The fact that you whine about being corrected is trolling.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...

Here is the opening paragraph from the original OP.

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It's about all 4 bombers. It explains why the B-21 must come into the inventory and why the other 3 are affected by each type. And I AM the OP. What are you drinking anyway. I want some. It must be really good to cloud your vision this way.

Your first sentence is a preparatory statement, the actual focus of the Op is the B-52, according to the accepted rules of the English language.

You are just trolling now disrupting conversation. If this were in a lodge, we would be calling for the Sgt at Arms to throw you out the back door.

No, correcting your poor understanding of the English language is called "teaching". The fact that you whine about being corrected is trolling.

You are correct. This is a teaching moment. What you are teaching is that you are a troll with a severe reading problem. You do know you are looking like quite an ass on this one, don't you.

No soup for you.

 

[DrainBamage]

This actually makes sense, bottom line they don't want to be managing four types of bombers and all three existing ones are due for major upgrades. B-1 can outperform a B-52 in many roles but it is far more expensive (both upgrade path and operating costs) and by treaty cannot carry nuclear weapons. B-2 is also ready for a major upgrade that would be far more expensive than B-52, it also costs a lot more to operate.

So they'll end up:
100 B-21s
75 B-52s

B-21 will handle penetration of contested environments while Buff does non-contested or standoff missile truck. Interestingly USAF will end up with far more nuclear weapon capable bombers than they have today (from 95 to 175) since both will be able to carry LRSO and B-21 will be qualified for B61 nuclear gravity bomb just like B-2 was.

I don't think this makes B-2 a waste since B-21 wouldn't be at it's current cost or capabilities without US experience with B-2 and F-35. B-2s wil retire after a 30+ year operating life that included kicking down the door in Iraq and Kosovo when airspace was still mostly denied to non-stealthy aircraft due to IADS in place.

 

[harmonica]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

air power is for ''quick'' on call support for troops in trouble/pre-assault fire/just plain close air support
the troops have lasers that can pinpoint the target exactly
the B 52s carry a lot of bombs and can remain on station a long time
THawk cruise missile about $800,000....smart bombs about $50,000
THawk warhead 1000 lbs...JDAM up to 2000lbs
Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia
drones can't carry as many or as large
cruise missiles usually fired from ships--far from battlefield
etc etc
ICBMS???!!??!!

 

[Borillar]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

air power is for ''quick'' on call support for troops in trouble/pre-assault fire/just plain close air support
the troops have lasers that can pinpoint the target exactly
the B 52s carry a lot of bombs and can remain on station a long time
THawk cruise missile about $800,000....smart bombs about $50,000
THawk warhead 1000 lbs...JDAM up to 2000lbs
Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia
drones can't carry as many or as large
cruise missiles usually fired from ships--far from battlefield
etc etc
ICBMS???!!??!!

Well, one of the bomber roles is delivery of nuclear weapons. A ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile can do that.

 

[harmonica]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

air power is for ''quick'' on call support for troops in trouble/pre-assault fire/just plain close air support
the troops have lasers that can pinpoint the target exactly
the B 52s carry a lot of bombs and can remain on station a long time
THawk cruise missile about $800,000....smart bombs about $50,000
THawk warhead 1000 lbs...JDAM up to 2000lbs
Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia
drones can't carry as many or as large
cruise missiles usually fired from ships--far from battlefield
etc etc
ICBMS???!!??!!

Well, one of the bomber roles is delivery of nuclear weapons. A ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile can do that.

roger that--but there are many jobs the B52 can do--another plus
planes can be '''re-used'''--ICBMS and CMissiles no
versatility .....

they were part of the SAC TRIAD--nuke capable planes, subs, and ICBMs
there are not many times we have used nukes--so that is really irrelevant

 

[harmonica]

as I was about to post--their nuke capability is much lower than before
The B-52 Is Getting Out of the Nuke-Dropping Business

 

[DrainBamage]

Well, one of the bomber roles is delivery of nuclear weapons. A ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile can do that.

A bomber can do it a little differently, since can function in a tactical nuclear environment.

For example, if it was decided that a nuclear weapon was needed to eliminate some deep underground North Korean nuclear weapon facility because intelligence indicate they were planning a strike, a B-61 nuclear gravity bomb delivered by a B-2 bomber would be best solution.

You don't need an ICBM with 3 450kt warheads, or an SLBM with 8 475kt W88s, that's far overkill and you'd have a ballistic trajectory on a nuclear weapon flying very close to both China and Russia. B-61 has a dialable yield (down to less than a kiloton) so could be used to take out something with a ground hit without as much collateral damage or creating a regional event with fallout. They are also being upgraded to have a GPS guidance kit similar to a JDAM so you'd have a CEP measured in meters that is far more accurate than ballistic alternatives.

A cruise missile like ALCM would be another reasonable alternative, but you still need a bomber to launch it and it wouldn't be as accurate as B61 bomb.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

air power is for ''quick'' on call support for troops in trouble/pre-assault fire/just plain close air support
the troops have lasers that can pinpoint the target exactly
the B 52s carry a lot of bombs and can remain on station a long time
THawk cruise missile about $800,000....smart bombs about $50,000
THawk warhead 1000 lbs...JDAM up to 2000lbs
Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia
drones can't carry as many or as large
cruise missiles usually fired from ships--far from battlefield
etc etc
ICBMS???!!??!!

Well, one of the bomber roles is delivery of nuclear weapons. A ICBM, SLBM, or cruise missile can do that.

Here are a few problems with those.

ICBM is not that accurate. Sure it can hit within a mile but that means smaller ones may not do that much damage on the centers that are needed to hit.

SLBM has the same problem since they are really ICBMs shot out of tubes in Subs.

The Cruise Missile is sort of accurate but they are slow flying and might be neutralized by many methods.

That leaves the Bomber. Yes, the Bomber dropping bombs is the more vulernable but it's also the most accurate. It can drop bombs within feet of where it's intended. And that includes Nukes.

By having all 4 types, you make your enemy spend oodles of money to defend against all 4.

 

[longknife]

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It goes with cost of operation as much as how versatile the bomber is.; It's the fact that the B-2 is extremely high in operation costs. And they can only get about half of them operational at any given time. Just flying around, the stealthy paint chips which degrades the stealth capability. This means when it degrades enough the whole B-2 has to head for the Paint Shop and have it repaired. This includes at least 3 days of cure time. Plus, the cost of actual operation is one of the highest per unit in the AF.

Then there is the Bone. They are running out of parts for it. They are Cannibalizing from the boneyard at too high a rate. They know the Bone is not long for the world so they aren't spending a lot of money on new parts when the Boneyard has been well stocked. Then there is the Bomb bays. In order to carry more bombs, they used a shorter bomb bay than the Buff. it's slightly shorter. With the new long ranged air launch cruise missiles that are longer than the bomb bay, it has to get closer to fire it's weapons. Making it less important than the Buff which can fire, drop, etc. everything in the AF inventory short of the MOAB. Plus, the Bone has a much higher operating cost than the Buff. The Bone was being looked at as a Missile Truck since it could carry more than 16 AMRAAMs. But with the F-15 being modified to carry 12 of them that pretty well negates the need. Plus, the F-15 does have offensive capabilities where the Bone doesn't have any. Once it launches, if it's too close to the fight, can't disengage. It becomes a missile magnet.

The B-21 can be made at a fourth the cost of the B-2. Plus, like everything else, it's borrowing heavily technology from the F-35 and expanding on it. It ends up making the B-2, in comparison, a wright flyer.

The AF only wishes 2 types of bombers. It's almost impossible to support all 4 so they had to make a choice. And the Buff will be flown by the Grand Kids of the original crew that once flew them. They will be in service at least until 2050. Meaning that the Buff will be around for at least 70 years in one for or another. The Buff went into service in 1955 making it already in service almost as long as the C-130 which was put into service 1954.

Amazing the B52 will outlast them both
Over 65 years and still going strong

I remember sitting on a horse atop the hills overlooking March AFB outside of Riverside, CA when the very first Buffs were landing and taking off. It was the most awesome thing I'd ever seen in my very young life.

 

[harmonica]

some dam good engineering

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It goes with cost of operation as much as how versatile the bomber is.; It's the fact that the B-2 is extremely high in operation costs. And they can only get about half of them operational at any given time. Just flying around, the stealthy paint chips which degrades the stealth capability. This means when it degrades enough the whole B-2 has to head for the Paint Shop and have it repaired. This includes at least 3 days of cure time. Plus, the cost of actual operation is one of the highest per unit in the AF.

Then there is the Bone. They are running out of parts for it. They are Cannibalizing from the boneyard at too high a rate. They know the Bone is not long for the world so they aren't spending a lot of money on new parts when the Boneyard has been well stocked. Then there is the Bomb bays. In order to carry more bombs, they used a shorter bomb bay than the Buff. it's slightly shorter. With the new long ranged air launch cruise missiles that are longer than the bomb bay, it has to get closer to fire it's weapons. Making it less important than the Buff which can fire, drop, etc. everything in the AF inventory short of the MOAB. Plus, the Bone has a much higher operating cost than the Buff. The Bone was being looked at as a Missile Truck since it could carry more than 16 AMRAAMs. But with the F-15 being modified to carry 12 of them that pretty well negates the need. Plus, the F-15 does have offensive capabilities where the Bone doesn't have any. Once it launches, if it's too close to the fight, can't disengage. It becomes a missile magnet.

The B-21 can be made at a fourth the cost of the B-2. Plus, like everything else, it's borrowing heavily technology from the F-35 and expanding on it. It ends up making the B-2, in comparison, a wright flyer.

The AF only wishes 2 types of bombers. It's almost impossible to support all 4 so they had to make a choice. And the Buff will be flown by the Grand Kids of the original crew that once flew them. They will be in service at least until 2050. Meaning that the Buff will be around for at least 70 years in one for or another. The Buff went into service in 1955 making it already in service almost as long as the C-130 which was put into service 1954.

Amazing the B52 will outlast them both
Over 65 years and still going strong

I remember sitting on a horse atop the hills overlooking March AFB outside of Riverside, CA when the very first Buffs were landing and taking off. It was the most awesome thing I'd ever seen in my very young life.

During a Max Effort, when you have the tankers and bomber sharing the same runway, it's a sight to behold. Every few seconds one lifts off followed closely by another. Maybe 100 bombers and 70 tankers. The air is thick with fumes, the ears are ringing from the noise. The Blood pressure goes up. It's an impressive sight.

 

[Inmar]

The old and respected American gentleman is all playing in airplanes