B.Smitty

Even though it is actually in service (and perhaps not the worst cancellation ever) I vote for the early cancellation of the B-2A.

We should have built a minimum of 50-75 block-upgraded aircraft. Preferably enough to allow us to retire the B-52 and B-1B.

If we had done so, we would now not need to be looking at a new and likely expensive long-ranged strike platform.

ArmchairGeneral

Why would you want to retire the BUFF? As long as we have the B52 and the Warthog, we are the coolest, hands down. I thought the Comanche was pretty cool, and seemed like it would have been very versatile. Other than that, and the F14D, I gotta go with Sniper; most of the programs needed to be shut down.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

TillerNOS

I am in total agreeance here. Any simple search on the ST-21, or the ASF-14 would see the "supercruise capability" and a myriad of other things. I don't think maintenance would have been a bother anymore either, considering they would have been new ACFT...but C'est La Vie!

hello

Don't forget the normal "non-Super" Hornets. They're still around. It's E/F/A/K-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G Hornet/SuperHornet/Growler. I think the worst cancellations are the A-12 Avenger, F-14E "ST-21" and Comanche. Was the A-12 really an attack plane to get the "A" name, or was it like the A-12 Oxcart?

B.Smitty

Because the B-52s are ooooold. We're having to be more and more creative finding spares & fixing them as time goes on. Plus, Buffs and B-1Bs just can't be used the same way B-2s can.

A B-2 can go downtown in a high-threat environment and deliver 80 cheap 500lb JDAMs per sortie on separate targets (with potential for up to 200 SDBs in a dense-pack arrangement). OTOH, a B-52 or B-1B will have to stand off & fire a smaller number of expensive JASSMs or CALCMs.

Besides, "coolness" doesn't win wars. (and personally I think an upgraded B-2 is far cooler anyway)

A common heavy bomber fleet would allow upgrade dollars to be applied fleet-wide, and would lessen the burden on maintenance, training and support. There was a study done a while back that suggested a common, somewhat smaller fleet of B-2s could perform the same missions as a larger fleet of existing bombers and cost less over their lifetime, even with the B-2's higher purchase price.

I think canning the Comanche was the right move. Armed aerial recon can be done far better and safer with UAVs these days. No need for an extremely expensive, stealthy helo, IMHO. In more permissive environments, the Bell ARH is all we need.

The F-14D was becoming a maintenance burden and was in need of significant upgrades. IMHO, could've gotten by with keeping it around for a while, with moderate upgrades to it and the F/A-18C/D until the JSF was ready. And then go with an all Hornet/JSF fleet.

jgetti

It was really an attack plane. Shaped like a large Dorito, it was to carry lots of ordinance and an obscene amount of internal fuel.

HistoricalDavid

...And B-2s would always be too few in number to deliver the heavy loads once enemy air defences are down.

I don't think it would be a technical nightmare to somehow adapt the other two for SDBs.

The B-1B was specifically designed for fast and low penetration of enemy airspace.

I highly doubt that. The other two simply have much greater payload capability and are simply much cheaper. The B-1 in particular is much faster.

My God, what a nightmare.

The ST-21 would have provided even better long-range cover than the F-14, and would make a Hornet/JSF look almost completely impotent in comparison.

The F-35B also has its own problems of being overweight, having a almost pathetic payload, short range, and costing in excess of $100 million per unit at the same time.

Oops, sorry, I forgot to mention - it's not even out of the prototype stage. :p

Yes, the ST-21 probably would have been more expensive to maintain, but the sheer capability would be worth it. You can't put a price on a CVBG and its crew.

The Flying Dorito. What a brilliant name.

B.Smitty

How do you figure? I'd say 200 SDBs per aircraft is a pretty decent load. And we can't always count on the enemy IADS disappearing early in the conflict. The Serbs kept theirs more or less intact the entire time.


No, of course not, but if there's a threat of high-altitude SAMs, the B-1 and B-52 will be relegated to stand off platforms, as the B-52 was in the Balkans.

Yes, and that penetration mode has gone by the wayside with the advent of stealth.

Take it up with the study's author -

Major General Jasper Welch, “Analyses of U.S. Requirements for Conventionally Armed Bombers,” July 1994

They don't have an "aimpoints per sortie" advantage when they're forced to use cruise missiles from far away due to the threat environment.

Is long-range air cover really all that important these days? We aren't worried about fleets of Backfires anymore. Besides the F-35C should have very good range.

Last time I checked, the USN is buying the F-35C, not the 'B'. And it doesn't have a "pathetic" payload. It has external hardpoints like every other tactical aircraft. However, unlike the ST-21, it can go stealthy with internal ordinance.

So? The ST-21 never even made it that far!

hello

Flying Dorito was actually it's real nickname because of it's triangle shape. It was supposed to carry 2 AMRAAMs, 2 HARMs and a couple of 500 or 1000lb GPBs or LGBs.



It's cancellation caused massive layoffs at McDonnel Douglas and General Dynamics and caused such a waste of money that the NATF, to replace the F-14, replacements for the EA-6, and replacements for the S-3 were all cancelled in a chain reaction and out of this was born the Superbug! Behold!



(Pictured is the SH in tanker config to replace the S-3)

Here's a link for the A-12 Avenger "Flying Dorito". And then you have the Osprey having succesfully entered IOC months ago. My, the USAF/USN/USMC do some real crazy things. Here in India, though, the LCA comes on slowly as usual, while MiG-21s continue to fly until 2015.

jgetti

That was the nickname.

hello

F-35C is being bought by the USN, not F-35B. Every time someone mentions "F-35", someone else says "F-35B". It's presumed that F-35 means F-35B. You can't compare the F-35C to the F-14 yet because the F-35C has never flown, and will make it's first flight and enter LRIP in late 2008/early 2009, by which time the last F-14D will be long gone. BTW, it's past the prototype stage. That was the X-35C. Now I think it's in SDD(System Design & Development). F-35A will enter LRIP in September, Band C in 2008/2009.

Anon

The F-35A that's flying now is still a developmental bird. It is definitely not representitive of a production model, and there is still the potential for HUGE problems to creep up. In fact, it's not at all uncommon for that to happen at this stage.

hello

Currently the only problems creeping up are the price, which is creeping it's way up past 100 million USD a plane(B model), and the weight of the B. The F-22s price creeped up to 338 million USD a plane.

Captain Drunk

What an utter waste, don't you think? When with that same amount of money, you could have a whole squadron of nuclear-capable Su-30MKIs - more destruction for less money

Anon

Last i heard the A B and C models were all overweight(yes, even the A).

The B is by far the worst, but the C, followed by the A both have had extensive weight issues as well. And now is the time when avionics and software issues REALLY start to rear their ugly heads.

The A will probably make it into service, but i doubt it's going to be trouble free from this point, and i fully expect the unit price to climb at least another 10 million per for the A model.