Two F-22 Raptors and a B-2 Spirit bomber deployed to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, fly in formation over the Pacific Ocean, April 21, 2009. The occasion marks the first time F-22s and B-2s, the key national strategic stealth assets in the Air Force inventory, deployed together outside the continental United States. U.S Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald
Just a short three months ago, I would have thought that was a staggering amount of money. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have shown me that I'm simply a man of no vision, and think small.
*Give or take a couple hundred million depending on whose unit cost numbers you use. I swagged mine from here.
And, unlike the recent Statue of Liberty fly-by photo-op, the White House allowed the Air Force to release the picture!
Note the Official Tune has changed. The White House now says the pix were taken from *inside* the 747, thus self-debunking the original rationale for the fly-by -- "We needed a pic of Air Force One against the NYC skyline."
If there's no decent conspiracy theories floating around about somethin', ya might as well start one, right?
Hmmm...depends on how much value you place on deterrence and the ability to project power globally. Do we need either of these systems in our current wars? No. Will we need them in a conflict involving a near-peer adversary? YES. I guess this also touches on the cost of nukes. Are they delivering value to the taxpayer even though we never use them?
At one time we had Polaris Subs and Minuteman Missiles, and Titans and Atlas' and Redstone's and all kinds of other some such kewl named fierce stuff that was never used or shot or slung at an enemy. Some of that stuff is still in holes around where I go fishing in Montana. In fact those holes allows me to still go fishing in Montana. Those holes and those subs cost a kings fortune and some queens also and maybe a jack or two...but I don't begrudge the tax man on any of it.
Then there is SDI that hasn't been cooked yet but did its job.
I carry auto insurance but hope I don't need it...and house insurance...and medical insurance. That picture is my country's insurance. (heh...heh...and yours too)
We only have 20 Spirits. That's it. That's all we'll ever have. We still have 90 BUFFs. The B-2 can carry 50,000 pounds of ordnance, while the B-52 handles 70,000 pounds. Wiki gives the "range" of the B-2 as 6,000 nm, but doesn't say if that's combat radius or ferry range. The B-52 has a combat radius of 3,000 nm, and ferry range of 8,700 nm.
Ah, you exclaim, the B-2 is stealthy! We need that for a modern opponent! Ok, suppose we do attack
Chinaa modern opponent. What will the Spirit do with 80 Mk 82 500-lb boms, or 16 Mk 84/JDAM 1,000-lb bombs? Are we going to send a billion-dollar plane with 80 500-lb bombs to thwack... what? Exactly? Airfields? Navy ports? Just how much damage will that get us?Look, the B-2 is a marvelous design,
bleedingleading-edge; state of the art. But it was designed to penetrate a state (the Soviet Union) that no longer exists with nukes. Right now the Air Force is spinning like mad to justify keeping the things. Heck, the Spirit needs a special climate-controlled hangar for maintenance, and the techs must go over the aircraft skin, re-patching the thing to maintain that tasty stealthiness, every time it flies.High cost, insane-high maintenance, no discernable strategic role; the only upside I can see is that the Spirits are a lot newer than the BUFFs.
There may be a good argument for this plane, but (obviously) I don't buy the "what about a modern opponent" argument, as aside from China there's no other realistic possibility.
A modern version of a B-52 (i.e. a flying truck) carrying expendable bomber-droids (cross a jet-powered UAV with a Tomahawk) in a mix that included HARM and stand-off technology would probably be more effective. If nothing else the system would require less maintenance than the B-2 does.
B-2: The 6000 mile range is without refueling. With one refueling, the B-2 can span the globe. The B-2 can carry more than Mk-82s and JDAMs...to include cluster munitions, GAMs, JASSMs, JSOWs, and Nukes. It's ability to penetrate a modern IADS gives it an advantage over the Buff. This means we can strike at and destroy any given opponent's most heavily defended high value targets. The deterrence factor here can't be overlooked. I believe it would be quite imprudent for us to plan all of our future defense acquistions on the idea that all wars will be like Iraq or Afghanistan. We have to maintain the ability to match up favorably with other industrial nations. And, we need the platform capable of getting near the target to launch one of your "bomber-droids" (I assume you are thinking JASSM or something like it). The B-52 has been a great plane, but is now nearing the end of it's life.
I realize the plane is super expensive to build/maintain. The spin-off technologies we derive from it, will make the cost more palatable. We are moving towards pilot-less aircrafts of many varieties...but we aren't there yet. For me, the B-2 gives the CINC (yes, even Tovarish Obama, the dear leader) the big stick that Teddy R. once boasted of.
The B-2 Spirit is not my favorite aircraft...but I do understand its purpose. The combination of stealth and nuclear bombs had one purpose...but now, the combination of stealth and precision conventional bombs has a new purpose, which is distinctly different from the B-52.
The B-2 is not intended to show up and start dropping piles and piles of bombs on airstrips in an attempt to crater them until they're inoperable. They're intended to drop single bombs on key targets that disable things far out of proportion to the amount of ordnance dropped.
For example, one single bomb right into the top floor of the ATC tower, a bunker buster into the building holding the ordnance, or maybe just 80 bombs hitting 80 airplanes on the ground. Compare a single aircraft destroying an entire enemy fighter or bomber wing on the ground, in a single strike, versus attempting to use those F-22 Raptors to destroy those fighters or bombers in the air, 8 at a time (assuming each F-22 destroys an enemy aircraft with a single AMRAAM and then rearms). Or maybe, instead of dropping that "bunker buster" into an actual bunker, use it to penetrate something different. Drop it into the engine room of a destroyer...and every one of the other 19 medium-sized warships in the area.
Now don't get me wrong, I "like" the F-22s much better than the Raptors, they're my second "favorite" airplane in the inventory. If I had to pick an airplane to fly, or hell, if I were the SecDef and had to pick one program to keep (F-22 or B-2, and yes I realize one program ended before the other went into production), I would pick the F-22. But seeing as we have both...they DO both have very useful roles.
I doubt that very, very much. I'm not saying it won't be forcefully retired [much as the A-10 could likely be forcefully retired] without anything available to properly fill its role, but it DOES have its own distinct use.
Anyway, we wouldn't need to go THAT old-school. We just need to use airplanes without fly-by-wire flight controls. Maybe get a bunch of old MiGs from our buddies in the East. Or do we still have F-4s in mothballs somewhere?
And it can't fly in the rain. Or in moderate icing conditions. Or if we don't have total Air Superiority.
It's only *stealthy* from the front.
They're intended to drop single bombs on key targets that disable things far out of proportion to the amount of ordnance dropped.
Which assumes perfect knowledge of the target area. Took the ChiComs a while to get over that whole "Ooops -- we bombed your embassy in Serbia because we thought it was still a tank park" thing.
Or do we still have F-4s in mothballs somewhere?
Davis-Monthan. We still have F-105s in mothballs there. Of course, it'll take a good, long while to get them flyable again...
That wouldn't be a problem if we still had SR-71s to get up-to-date imaging on a few hours' notice, but nooooo, we don't need them, satellites can do their jobs, right? Sure they can.
Davis-Monthan. We still have F-105s in mothballs there.
Um. Let's keep those ones in storage. I never really liked that plane...
Plus it was *loud*.
Two Thuds flying overhead would mask the sound of a flight of five inbound Hueys. Almost...
We can still get use out of it, and we will. It's a bomb carrier with range so it'll be of value for a long while. But, imo, it also has given benefit from the work done to create it. Lessons learned on one new airframe or major readdressing of any weapon system are in the bank for later development needs.
Long term investments. Both for what they can do in the here/now, but also as stepping stones to later developments. Fall off the curve and it can cost hella lots more than what the welfare redistributors claim when they kill programs. Saddly enough, though, there are programs that do need killing along the way. That only serves to confuse the issue.
In more ways than one. For instance, when we lost our steel industry, we not only lost the capability of producing battleship armor (with more uses than merely armoring battleships), we lost the formula for its composition.
Which is 'nother reason the Navy nixed the idea of using BBs for littoral combat -- we can't even make normal repairs on 'em.
The B-2 has its job, but I wouldn't be surprised if budget cuts over the next couple of years force it into retirement like they did with so many other systems that were quite useful but expensive to use and maintain (yes, that includes the SR-71).
If that happens, with the surviving B-1s all in the ANG (whoever thought up that?) and the B-52s running out of airframe life rapidly with a shooting war going on that requires long transits to get there and back again, we might just see the USAF running out of long range bombers.
Remember there aren't a lot (100, 200 at most) of B-52s left and they're going on 50 years old. Something like 70 B-1Bs, and now 19 B-2s (after the crash last year).
If the B-2 is retired to save money (and they won't survive in the boneyard without expensive maintenance either, so they're for the shredder), the B-1 in the nuclear deterrent role, and the B-52 getting ready to fall apart, things are going to be spread mighty thin up there.
It's past time to get serious about building a new longrange bomber to really replace the BUFF in the conventional role. Both the B-1 and B-2 were intended to do so, but I feel both being survived (if barely in the case of the B-1) by it.
Of course the USAF (and especially the white house) seems to be in another era of "missiles can do everything without needing a pilot in the cockpit" just like they were in the early '60s (and we all know how that ended).
Combine that with the fighter jocks being firmly in control of the pot of gold, and chances we'll see another big bomber are slim at best, unless someone with the charisma of general Le May steps up to the task.
Just asking.
Necessity the mother of all invention? Sorta like John Wayne and John Carroll at the end of Flying Tigers?
Yes, I know the Spirit has a more versatile load capability, but I was trying to visualize a general "break things and kill people" utility. Since air power after WW2 usually broke down to air superiority, recon, and CAS, I was trying to fit the Spirit into that mix.
I have to ask, again, just which IADS do you expect to fight, in the next quarter-century, which would require the B-2? Let us first eliminate members of NATO and/or members of the Anglic Alliance. Then take away Japan. Just what does that leave? Israel, Russia, and China. India, maybe, although they are arguably members of the Anglic Alliance.
Please allow me to remove Israel from the pool. Please? :) I've already addressed India. So we have Russia, and China. Now. Just what sort of scenario can you envision which requires US Air Force incursion into either Russian or Chinese airspace? Aside from China invading Formosa? And even then, we wouldn't need B-2s, we would need either joint stand-off weapons, or close-in stuff. Or do you believe we should violate Chinese airspace to defend Formosa? Is that why we keep the Stealth Bomber alive, just to defend a small Asian island country?
I don't expect all future fights to approximate Iraq or Afghanistan. I do expect them -at least the next quarter-century) to approximate US Air Force air superiority. The zoomies have managed to establish themselves amongst rare company, which would include the naval Pax Britannica and infantry Pax Romana. Again, I ask: just what specific mission demands the B-2?
We still have a big stick with B-52s, B-1s, ICBMs, JDAMs; even Strike Eagles and Apaches. Again, where does the B-2 fit in? In a real-world scenario, not a hypothetical Dr. Evil invulnerable Air Defense way?
Josh: true, the B-2 can nail all sorts of targets with SDBs; but that's also true of Strike Eagles, Falcons, Super Hornets, and (increasingly) Predators. So just why do we need these bombers? True, it is theoretically possible to mount a "one bomb, one kill" attack on an air wing. On the other hand the Norden bombsight was once the penulitmate war-winner, with its "pickle-barrel" accuracy. The Norden had the technical capability, but actual day-to-day performance fell far below the event, to the extent that Curtis B. LeMay eventually chose "bomb on the leader" for his units in the Eighth Air Force.
The Raptor is a pure air superiority fighter. Different role; different mix.
I might add here that current USAF plans envision the BUFF to soldier on until 2040.
I'll also add that the apparently-most-popular nickname for the F-16 is "Viper," taken directly from Battlestar Galactica. Heh, indeed!
BillT brings up an excellent point; just how do we get this excellent targeting data to wipe out these modern air-defense systems, or air wings? Please recall that current methods require boots on the ground -usually within visual range- for precise targeting. And just how are we going to accomplish this on mainland China, or Russia, again? Since no one has yet established a valid threat from an otherwise-specific "modern air-defense system" yet?
Me, I still heart the F-104. That thing was da bomb. Very kewl.
BillT also mentions (to my mind) the vital point of domestic steel production, although I was not aware we had lost the freaking formula to make battleship armor! No knowledge is ever worthless, especially military knowledge.
I repeat to Mr. Wenting: the Air Force envisions use of the B-52 until 2040. And we have a countable number in the boneyard. And I re-iterate, and agree with John's question: "what about we take large cargo aircraft and make 'em bomb trucks?" Something I referred to in my original comment. Ahem. :)
Me, I envision something parallel to the C-135 Herky-bird; one of the most durable and versatile planes ever developed. Not, perhaps, in actual design, but in form and function. The A-10 also comes to mind.
Sometimes high-tech is not the optimal solution...
You have me removing many would be adversaries from the equation...why? Japan certainly doesn't factor into this discussion...agreed. The European Union? I wouldn't be quite so quick to write them off as a potential future adversary (I know this will generate a ton of argument...so be it). I would also hesitate in completely removing India from the mix. However, in the interest of a fun argument, we will omit the EU and India...and Israel. So, we are left with China and Russia. I suppose you simply forgot about North Korea. Also, I can only presume you don't believe that Chinese and Russian technology ever proliferates throughout the world. IMHO, we need to include Iran, Syria, & Venezuela.
One of the nice attributes the B-2 has, is its ability to loiter in hostile airspace. Why is this important? I think by now the world realizes US technological superiority in finding/killing threat high value targets. Thus, many threats now factor in a sort of "hide and seek" approach to protecting their important weapon systems that are mobile. For those targets that aren't mobile (such as bunkers, buildings, factories, etc.), great effort is placed on advancing their capabilities at CCD&O.
I suppose we can argue all day long on the value of the B-2...I simply believe it does have a role to fill in the overall defense strategy of the US. UAV/UAS/DRONE/ whatever the name du jour...will grow in capability and will spark greater interest. Platforms that are more cost efficient will be given serious consideration. I understand all of that, along with a defense budget that will suffer under our current administration. Perhaps the Dear Leader can hire Kucinich to establish that Department of Peace....who knows. Bottom line...I will always be for any technology that improves crew survivability...until those new pilot-less HK Drones from Skynet come online.
BTW...its not "zoomies", its Aerospace Defenders of Freedom...or wingnuts.
I think Kirk's point about loiter time sticks. We are used to fighting in permissive environments where any aircraft (even those with the radar cross-signature of an ocean liner) can loiter because the opposition air forces and AAA has been swept away, or held to a comfortable limit.
If you ever have to fight in genuinely contested airspace, the B-52 is still going to make a great standoff weapon truck, but its days of penetrating non-permissive airspace are likely well behind it. You still need something high-capacity to sit behind enemy lines and bomb the mobile assets when they scurry out from under rocks and road overpasses. And do it many, many times before shuttling back to base for more ordnance/fuel.
Lots of countries have good IADS as Kirk mentioned. One hopes we will never be at war with any of them. But I wouldn't plan my defense budget around that assumption. Britain and Japan were formally allied from 1902-1922, technology sharing and the whole nine yards. It wasn't so long after that that they were busy killing each other.