Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I still think re-engining the B-1B with F119's (or even F135's) would be WAY cool; maybe even that new GE adaptive-cycle engine (F136?)? Would that be called a B-1C?
P.S. Looks like somebody REALLY put a lot of thought into this option:
"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
B-1B will be gone for good
Re-engined B-52H, B2 and LRSB will constitute the strike command bomber portfolio
Interestingly, the Russians are giving up on their new bomber design and looking to re-engine the White Swans
I don't know about the B-1B going away. It has a lower cost per flight hour, can carry more, faster, and is newer than the B-52s. They certainly paid dividends deploying PGMs in our recent Middle East adventures.
I still think re-engining the B-1B with F119's (or even F135's) would be WAY cool; maybe even that new GE adaptive-cycle engine (F136?)? Would that be called a B-1C?
P.S. Looks like somebody REALLY put a lot of thought into this option:
I'm actually surprised the air force is more into re-engining considering the potential cost savings in fuel and maintenance. My only guess is that they've already bought a bunch of spares for the existing engines on the fleet.
WASHINGTON — The US Air Force has moved rapidly to parade drawings of its latest economy-swallowing clusterfuck before Congressional committees to secure production funding. The new images of the B-21 bomber were unveiled at a Capitol Hill press conference given by Air Force Secretary Deborah James before her testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Unkillable Programs.
“Just look at it,” James said. “Doesn’t it get you going too?” she asked in a tone a congressional described as “nearly breathless.” An aide had to escort the secretary back to her seat.
At Northrop Grumman headquarters in Falls Church, Va., an anonymous project engineer was “flabbergasted” by the testimony. He requested anonymity on the grounds that he was not authorized to gloat on the record.
“I can’t believe they bought it!” he said. “We spent all of three hours on the design, and [the Air Force] has committed to $200 billion in engineering costs alone. Am I awake?” Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), the contractor selected to build the taxpayer nightmare, saw its shares rise 43% on Friday.
With a reported cost pushing $550 million per unit, the B-21 is not expected to enter testing until 2025, which is still before the F-35 is scheduled to be operational. It is never expected to enter combat.
“You’re joking,” James said when asked about combat. “There’s no way you could risk this thing in the field. Have you seen the price tag?”
“We’re building on the success of the Joint Strike Fighter program,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh. “The American people asked for more firepower. This aircraft delivers. It’s bigger, bolder, and blacker than the B-2, and with an impressive 500 pound payload, it can flatten an entire Taliban playground. And of course, it’s more versatile than the A-10.”
“And, it will be built in all 50 states, American Samoa, and by prison labor at Guantanamo Bay,” he added.
The briefing concluded with each executive in attendance tossing a stack of $100 bills onto a ceremonial bonfire, signalling the beginning of another decades-long orgy for aviation contractors. The program’s 30-year cost is projected to be $6.9 trillion — more than the cost of every war ever fought, combined.
Although some remain skeptical of the aircraft’s potential, it is accepted that the program will have a net positive impact. “They did say that the project leadership will be outsourced to local vocational schools, so that’s a step forward,” remarked a congressional staffer. “But what the fuck are they thinking with another stealth triangle?”
The Air Force will never get ride of the B-52. First off,will the new bomber carry a similiar payload as the B-52? Plus the Air Force doesn't want to lose the argument that the age of the Air Force aircraft is older than most of the retired members who flew them and any new aircraft will cause the average of the aircraft to jump up about 30+ years and that argument will no longer be a valid argument to buy new bombers.
Skier...never? There is so much you can do to overcome metal fatigue. They will stop flying when they reach a place where it becomes too uneconomical to operate them.
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Skier...never? There is so much you can do to overcome metal fatigue. They will stop flying when they reach a place where it becomes too uneconomical to operate them.
"January 1st, 2100. The United Nations Space Command anounced today the return to duty of the first re-upgraded SB-52Y, a modified SB-52C, itself a modernized B-52H." :D
Skier...never? There is so much you can do to overcome metal fatigue. They will stop flying when they reach a place where it becomes too uneconomical to operate them.
. . . or the wings start falling off, whichever comes first . . .
"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Well, I think that is when it will become too uneconomical to maintain.
I expect to see them cranking for about 20 - 25 years...that's about it.
And by then I don't know if we will need a manned strategic bomber.
When a new bomber costs $7 billion, it's economical to raise old B-52s from the bone yard, re-engine them, train whole new crews, develop new tactics and new weapons, make new History Channel shows, and prove to the world that welfare programs and the B-52 are both eternal.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There does reach a point of diminishing returns. There comes a point where tactics and the hard work of maintainers and logisticians just can't keep something going.
And stopped watching the history channel (doesn't deserve a large H) years ago.
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Tweet
Comment