So we are building new stealth bombers

[theprestige]

... at this point, Russia is at least a couple of generations behind U.S. designs.

Seems like it might be nice--in the context of world peace--for America to maintain this lead.

But trying to make sure Iran has a fighting chance of protecting a nuclear weapons program from outside interference is also a policy option that exists.

 

[NoahFence]

Seems like it might be nice--in the context of world peace--for America to maintain this lead.

That is rich. In order for us to have world peace, the US needs to be on top militarily.

Too funny. Past performance is no guarantee of future results and all that?

 

[Arcade22]

Gotta spend them trillions on something so it might just be on weapons that wont be used in combat since they are far too expensive. At least they will look good in a hangar or museum somewhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what are we replacing - one that is too old (B-52), or one that is too expensive (B-2)?

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.

 

[crescent]

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.

That's fair enough. But why does it need to be stealth? We already have stealth bombers. This is at least the fourth attempt to replace the B-52: XB-70 Valkyrie (cancelled), B-1 (cancelled), B-1b (in service), B-2. Each one was touted as replacement for the B-52, but each one was made too complex and expensive, which made it relatively cost effective to keep the B-52's going.

It is even remotely possible for the government to keep the design simple enough and cheap enough to be an actual B-52 analogue? I mean something that is cheap and versatile while robust enough to be functional against mid-technological opponents, although perhaps less useful in the unlikely case we go to war in some situation where there is near technological parity.

I get that the B-52 is very, very old. I also think it is impossible to replace. Under the current political and procurement systems, we will end up with something that will be too complex and expensive. We have lost all ability to do simple and low cost.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's fair enough. But why does it need to be stealth?

Because every war plane from now on needs to have stealth. It's too important an attribute to leave out on anything manned. And now that we have quite a bit of experience making stealth planes, it's also not nearly as costly as it used to be.

It is even remotely possible for the government to keep the design simple enough and cheap enough to be an actual B-52 analogue? I mean something that is cheap and versatile while robust enough to be functional against mid-technological opponents, although perhaps less useful in the unlikely case we go to war in some situation where there is near technological parity.

The problem is that even mid-level adversaries like Iran can buy pretty high-end air defense systems from Russia.

We have lost all ability to do simple and low cost.

Perhaps. A large part of that is casualty aversion. But we're not going to stop being casualty averse any time soon, so we have to operate within that constraint, and that constraint makes everything significantly more expensive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you under the impression that all future conflicts will look like the present conflicts?

No clearly they will look like WWII. That was the reason we got a bunch of tanks the army didn't want a few years ago after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It wouldn't suprise me to find that similar statements were made early on in the F35 programme.

It was the hot new inexpensive multiservice jet after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We have lost all ability to do simple and low cost.

How does that help the defense industry? No cost overruns is where the profit is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is that even mid-level adversaries like Iran can buy pretty high-end air defense systems from Russia.

And how many days will such a system remain in function against cruise missles, drones, F 117, F22, F35 and the B2?

 

[theprestige]

That's fair enough. But why does it need to be stealth? We already have stealth bombers. This is at least the fourth attempt to replace the B-52: XB-70 Valkyrie (cancelled), B-1 (cancelled), B-1b (in service), B-2. Each one was touted as replacement for the B-52, but each one was made too complex and expensive, which made it relatively cost effective to keep the B-52's going.

Not quite true.

The XB-70 was cancelled because the requirement for a high-altitude, high speed strategic bomber was obsoleted by the advent of missile technology--both SAMs and ICBMs.

The B-1 fell into the trap of not only solving the same problem as the XB-70, but also being promoted at a time when it was imagined that the B-2 would make all other bombers obsolete.

The B-1 was reinstated as the B-1B, which improved on the original design by increasing low-observability and by optimizing for low-altitude high-speed bombing. This was a niche not filled by ICBMs, nor by the B-2 (which by this point was properly understood to be a niche platform itself, not a single solution to every strategic bombing scenario).

It is even remotely possible for the government to keep the design simple enough and cheap enough to be an actual B-52 analogue? I mean something that is cheap and versatile while robust enough to be functional against mid-technological opponents, although perhaps less useful in the unlikely case we go to war in some situation where there is near technological parity.

Technology constantly gets cheaper and more accessible. Mid-tech opponents don't settle for 1990s mid-tech; they'll upgrade to 2020 mid-tech just as eagerly as the high-tech opponents upgrade to 2020 high-tech. An aircraft that handily defeats 1980s mid-tech will be useless against those same opponents in 2020.

A good bomber to use against 2020 mid-tech opponents will be cheap relative to 2020 high-tech bombers. It will have good low-observability characteristics and probably advanced electronic warfare suites. It will have much better data link integration, and it will probably be crew-optional. It will also probably be more versatile, capable of being pressed into a high-tech role where conditions permit or require.

I get that the B-52 is very, very old. I also think it is impossible to replace. Under the current political and procurement systems, we will end up with something that will be too complex and expensive. We have lost all ability to do simple and low cost.

Going forward, the simple and low cost bombers will almost certainly all be drones. And they will almost certainly be simple and low cost only relative to other systems of the same basic generation.

And I'm not sure that "simple and low cost" is the right metric anyway. For sure the world's air defense systems are not going to remain simple and low cost.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. For the rest of us, I'd say there's value in maintaining at least a small fleet of bombers capable of defeating the latest and greatest defenses, even if they have to be complex and expensive to do it. Indeed, the ability to field complex and expensive technologies is one of the US's greatest strategic advantages.

 

[Ziggurat]

No clearly they will look like WWII. That was the reason we got a bunch of tanks the army didn't want a few years ago after all.

The B3 is something that the air force desperately wants. I'm not sure why you're bringing up tank refurbishments that the army didn't want.

 

[theprestige]

Russia also sold Syria "state-of-the-art" anti-air systems:

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

Which didn't prevent the IAF from entering, striking, and destroying their target, w/o losses.

A mission that took careful planning and preparation, state of the art weapons and electronic warfare systems, and an Israeli commando unit on the ground. A mission that almost certainly provided valuable lessons learned to the Iranian military, who will no doubt apply those lessons and many others in the operation of their own defenses.

What Israel was able to accomplish against Syria in 2006 is no guarantee of what the US will be able to accomplish against Iran in 2016, or in 2026. Why do you choose to rely on the hope that the US can afford to stand still, while Iran most assuredly will not?

 

[Travis]

It wouldn't suprise me to find that similar statements were made early on in the F35 programme.

Absolutely. The F35 was supposed to be just like the F22 only way, way cheaper.

We all have seen how this went.

My own prediction is that the new bomber (B3?) will end up being so expensive with so few of the technological goals being met that it will be scaled back, produced in lower numbers with very high per unit costs that ultimately makes it too valuable to actually use. This leads to the creation of a brand new bomber project that aims to meet all previous demands and more but also cheaper!

And so it goes.

 

[crescent]

Absolutely. The F35 was supposed to be just like the F22 only way, way cheaper.

We all have seen how this went.

My own prediction is that the new bomber (B3?) will end up being so expensive with so few of the technological goals being met that it will be scaled back, produced in lower numbers with very high per unit costs that ultimately makes it too valuable to actually use. This leads to the creation of a brand new bomber project that aims to meet all previous demands and more but also cheaper!

And so it goes.

My theory is that it will be complex and expensive, and see limited use. The B-52 will finally age out, and modular systems will be developed to insert into cargo planes to drop munitions off the rear cargo ramp, networking with ground troops, other aircraft, and satellites to target the bombs. They'll use that more than any of the more expensive planes because it will be much cheaper.

But they will still push for the B-4 to overcome the shortcomings of the B-3. On that much, we clearly agree.

 

[theprestige]

My theory is that it will be complex and expensive, and see limited use. The B-52 will finally age out, and modular systems will be developed to insert into cargo planes to drop munitions off the rear cargo ramp, networking with ground troops, other aircraft, and satellites to target the bombs. They'll use that more than any of the more expensive planes because it will be much cheaper.

Ironically, transport aircraft are a great candidate for "simple and cheap". But only if you don't pile on complexity and cost by trying to make them into multirole bombers instead.

 

[quadraginta]

What evidence would convince you that this is a necessary improvement in capability?

Good question. Wadda ya got?

I know you're not asking me to dream up hypothetical evidence?

 

[theprestige]

Good question. Wadda ya got?

I haven't got anything at the moment; it's not a claim I've been all that interested in trying to prove.

I know you're no asking me to dream up hypothetical evidence?

Of course not. I'm wondering if you have some idea of the criteria by which you would judge whether a particular weapons program was justified.

 

[BStrong]

A mission that took careful planning and preparation, state of the art weapons and electronic warfare systems, and an Israeli commando unit on the ground. A mission that almost certainly provided valuable lessons learned to the Iranian military, who will no doubt apply those lessons and many others in the operation of their own defenses.

What Israel was able to accomplish against Syria in 2006 is no guarantee of what the US will be able to accomplish against Iran in 2016, or in 2026. Why do you choose to rely on the hope that the US can afford to stand still, while Iran most assuredly will not?

I don't know where you got that from my post and I'm certainly not advocating war w/ Iran, but my point is this:

Whatever term of art someone applies to weapons technology coming out of the former Soviet, what they're giving away or selling is not anywhere near the US technology standard.

Let me go a little farther.

The US and the former Soviets have poured every type of weapon from basic small arms to advanced air defence systems into the ME and have provided extensive training to end users for extended periods of time and the client states involved have not ever expanded their war fighting capabilities much above using small arms and basic crew served weapons - case in point - Iran never progressed past the human wave attack in the war against Iraq, and Iraq, who we supported in material and instruction could never put together the basics of the combined arms attack - they could not, even with US communication and US instruction coordinate Air, Armor, Artillery, and Infantry assets in the attack or the defense. One of my friends was sent to Iraq as an instructor in that period, his recounting of his difficulties in attempts to train Iraqi Army forward observers would be unbelievable (using binocs and a compass were beyond local understanding) had I not have had my own education in the subject matter via a contract I worked w/ Vinnell to instruct the SANG (Saudi Arabian National Guard) in small arms - Please believe me when I say this - In The Middle East Profiling for a camera and celebratory gunfire are universal skills, Infantry fighting, not so much. If it comes down to shooting unarmed civilians they can be relied upon. If it calls for fire and movement under effective return fire they go TU asap. That's been my overall experience in Saudi, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, in order.

You should have no problem finding articles on the 'net detailing the failure of The US in training Afghans, Iraqis' Syrians etc. for military or LE service.

If Russia sends their troops to use their products it's one thing, if it's locals running anything more complicated than an AK, RPG or DShk, there's not much threat to be faced.

 

[NoahFence]

Because every war plane from now on needs to have stealth. It's too important an attribute to leave out on anything manned. And now that we have quite a bit of experience making stealth planes, it's also not nearly as costly as it used to be.



The problem is that even mid-level adversaries like Iran can buy pretty high-end air defense systems from Russia.



Perhaps. A large part of that is casualty aversion. But we're not going to stop being casualty averse any time soon, so we have to operate within that constraint, and that constraint makes everything significantly more expensive.

So what's wrong with using Drones?