So we are building new stealth bombers

[The Don]

This is not an argument: it's a deliberate attempt to misunderstand the point. It does not flatter you to post such things.

Now...read the exchange - ACTUALLY READ IT - and you will see how my post makes sense, and how that drivel of Syrian Air Defense is just that - Drivel. It's the Russian Defenses that are the real issue.

Russia Today making any sort of claim about anything to do with Russia, its armed forces or missile systems it may or may not have provided is simply not a reliable source.

If you get angry and defensive about someone criticising your source - find a better one.

 

[Jules Galen]

Russia Today making any sort of claim about anything to do with Russia, its armed forces or missile systems it may or may not have provided is simply not a reliable source.

So...are you denying that the S-400 SAM System is deployed in Syria - for that's all that source was meant to substantiate - and you would have known that had you actually bothered to carefully read the exchange.

 

[jimbob]

Russia Today making any sort of claim about anything to do with Russia, its armed forces or missile systems it may or may not have provided is simply not a reliable source.

If you get angry and defensive about someone criticising your source - find a better one.

So...are you denying that the S-400 SAM System is deployed in Syria - for that's all that source was meant to substantiate - and you would have known that had you actually bothered to carefully read the exchange.

No, the bit about US and Turkish airstrikes having stopped since then.

ETA: Ant the bit that you responded to was this:

Second, what exactly is your logic, here? Syria has air defenses. The US is flying bombing runs with other planes that can be threatened Syrian air defenses. In what sense do you think that US bombing runs are currently at risk from Syrian air defenses? Since obviously the defenses are there and the bombing runs are happening anyway.

Syria has air defences. The US is using aircraft that can be threatened by these air defences. You are saying that is wrong.

That was obvious.

 

[theprestige]

Wrong!!!

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-22-s-takes-first-shot-against-ground-not-air-target

Thanks for this! Last time I checked, the Air Force seemed to be showing no interest in the the strike role for the F-22. I'm glad they're actually using it as a bomber after all.

Wrong!!!

https://www.rt.com/news/323815-syria-s-400-us-airstrikes/



Why are you so WRONG! Do you actually read before you post?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

First, Syria has--and has long had--air defenses other than the S-400:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Defense_Force

US planes have been making bombing runs in Syria in spite of these defenses. And, as crescent has pointed out, the US has continued to make bombing runs even after the deployment of the Russian S-400s.

Second, while the F-22 has been bombing in Syria, it does so much less often than other planes in the US inventory:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ther-war-fighting-aircraft-survive-syria.html

Therefore--assuming that no F-22s have flown since the deployment of S-400s (which has not been shown)--this may be due to the normal operational tempo of the F-22 squadrons, rather than any special fear of the S-400. This possibility seems likely, since the US continues to strike in Syria with other planes that are even more vulnerable to modern SAMs.

Your claim seems to be that the US is too afraid of the S-400 to risk its F-22s over Syria. Your support seems to be a debunked RT article (is there any other kind?). That being so, I'm not convinced that your claim is accurate. Clearly the US is willing to risk other planes in the face of the S-400. What makes the F-22 any different?

 

[theprestige]

Also, why all the shouting, Jules Galen? Did the F-22 piss in your cornflakes this morning? Lie to you about Santa Claus, perhaps?

 

[jimbob]

Why would the Syrian regime want to shoot down aircraft that are helping them by weakening the most powerful opposition to the regime? Obviously the aims of the US and the Syrian regime are mostly opposed, but in this case the interests coincide.

Shooting at US aircraft would be an ideal way to provoke US airstrikes on the regime as well as ISIS.

 

[theprestige]

It means they will not have the numbers to operate they way they are saying they want to.

Ah, that makes sense.

One trend I've been seeing lately, especially for the latest stuff, is that the military projects big numbers, and then scales back the procurement at some point.

My interpretation is that we're essentially in an "inter-war" period. So a lot of this stuff is basically just interim designs. When it comes to the actual fighting the US does these days, it usually falls back on the tried-and-true systems, or crash-builds the system it actually needs.

If a major war seemed likely, B-3 procurement would skyrocket. In the absence of a major war, B-3 procurement will probably drop off as you say. Then, if the need arises, procurement will either ramp up again, or something else will be built to fill the gap, and lessons learned from the B-3 program will be applied.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If Syria took a shot at a US aircraft then Syrian air defences would cease to exist in very short order. I have read some drivel in this thread but the idea that the US Air force is frightened to fly over Syria in case they get shot at takes the biscuit.

 

[jimbob]

If Syria took a shot at a US aircraft then Syrian air defences would cease to exist in very short order. I have read some drivel in this thread but the idea that the US Air force is frightened to fly over Syria in case they get shot at takes the biscuit.

Yes, whereas it's quite plausible that the US would rather use assets that are familiar to the Russians where they can do the job in order to reduce the amount of intelligence assessment of the F22 in operation available to the Russians. Stealth isn't going to be much of an issue with ISIS.

 

[fuelair]

It was the hot new inexpensive multiservice jet after all.

Milking the old cash-cow...it's a skill!!!!!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, that makes sense.

One trend I've been seeing lately, especially for the latest stuff, is that the military projects big numbers, and then scales back the procurement at some point.

My interpretation is that we're essentially in an "inter-war" period. So a lot of this stuff is basically just interim designs. When it comes to the actual fighting the US does these days, it usually falls back on the tried-and-true systems, or crash-builds the system it actually needs.

If a major war seemed likely, B-3 procurement would skyrocket. In the absence of a major war, B-3 procurement will probably drop off as you say. Then, if the need arises, procurement will either ramp up again, or something else will be built to fill the gap, and lessons learned from the B-3 program will be applied.

And of course the reason cited for the drop off will be massive budget overruns.

 

[The Don]

So...are you denying that the S-400 SAM System is deployed in Syria - for that's all that source was meant to substantiate - and you would have known that had you actually bothered to carefully read the exchange.

Jimbob covered it nicely. The Russia Today article claimed that the S-400 SAM System has caused US airstrikes to cease. That's clear propaganda.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wonder if we'll gift the old, useless stealth bombers to a nice middle-eastern country so they can use them against us in a few years.

More likely destination = Davis Mothan. (see also F-117's ultimate fate?)

We are replacing the B52's. My point was that we cannot replace the B52's with more B2's. It's not suitable for the role.

Not to mention that the production line's been cold for well over a decade ... and the state of the art in LO and reduced RCS has advanced somewhat.

By many different means. Stealth is not invisible to radar. We covered long wave radar way back in this thread. In the end, the myth of stealth and the reality are quite a bit different.

The fashionable folks discuss reduced RCS these days, and orders of magnitude more and less than a standard cross section IIRC of a common aerospace aluminum alloy and its reflectivity.

Whether or not we need to keep making manned bombers, even with a drone option, I am unsure of. As there has been enough back and forth on this in the thread, my concern is whether or not it will get bloated like the F-35, which has become a non trivial millstone around the neck of defense acquisition at a time when dollars are getting tighter.

Will the lessons of F-35 be both learned and applied to this program? I wonder. The aerospace industry has contracted again, as Lockheed Martin just bought up Sikorsky. Those who have expressed concern over how well the oversight of contracts and development programs for new hardware have ample reason to be concerned.

So do I.

 

[Delvo]

This news is a week or two old, and not related to where the thread drifted, but there doesn't seem to be another thread about this plane yet...

This allegedly "secret" (to people who know absolutely nothing about this kind of stuff until it's printed on the soapboxes some equally-uninformed ideoloblog decides to hand out) plane's name has been announced, and was selected from a list of suggestions sent in by the public in a contest.

It's called the "Raider". It's in keeping with the general style & attitude of military aircraft names, but I'm glad at least it's not another one named after birds (or even insects), rough weather phenomena, or supernatural entities. Part of why they picked this one is also in honor of the Doolittle Raid, the last surviving member of which attended its official naming event.

Months earlier, they had also announced what number it would be given: not B-3 as most people had presumed, but B-21... because it's the first bomber of the 21st century (and likely to end up the main/only one for most of the middle of it)... ... but I think really because somebody thought those syllables sounded cooler when pronounced. They've officially abandoned sequentiality, so there's no reason to ever expect another military plane to get numbered in sequence again.

"B-21 Raider"... named in public from suggestions entered in a public contest, shortly after the primary contractor was named in public, based on general goals/requirements that had been discussed in public for years... but it's a big nasty scary grimdarkevil Reich-wing conspirasecret, so now that I've told you, I need to kill you. And myself.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Nah, it just means there is 18 secret models in between.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The government has been trying to imitate industry for years, so abandoning sequentiality is no surprise.

 

[theprestige]

The government has been trying to imitate industry for years, so abandoning sequentiality is no surprise.

slowpoke.jpg

 

[Ziggurat]

The government has been trying to imitate industry for years, so abandoning sequentiality is no surprise.

Hundreds of years from now, archeologists will be baffled about why Windows 95 was between Windows 3 and Windows 7.

 

[Jules Galen]

Hundreds of years from now, archeologists will be baffled about why Windows 95 was between Windows 3 and Windows 7.

Yeah...well wait until one of those future archaeologists loads a copy of Window 98 on their Artificial Intelligence Network...and kills the Artificial Intelligence with a massive Blue Screen of Death. Then, when Time-Travel is invented, a hit team will be sent back into the past (1970's) to eliminate everybody working at Microsoft.

But...we don't live in that Time Line.

 

[The Big Dog]

It will always be Bomby McBomberface to me