So we are building new stealth bombers

[theprestige]

You are thinking of bi-static radar. Different technology. Early radars were long wave and can detect position.

Fair enough. Do you have a cite? I'd like to learn more.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This isn't my first rodeo. I'm well aware of the ad hominem in the room.

So.

Enough about what doesn't convince you, and why. What would convince you?

So are you saying don't have financial and the fun of new toys as incentives to get them to impact their recommendations?

It is rather like should an industry be the one to write the regulations it has to abide by?

 

[Doubt]

Fair enough. Do you have a cite? I'd like to learn more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar

Not a great article. But it does point out that it is not precise enough for targeting a missile by itself. Unless the missile had a huge warhead.

I would not be surprised to see existing radar guided missiles equipped with secondary infrared tracking gear. Current heat seakers don't have much range but can already track a plane just off the heat on the leading edge of the wings.

Early radars used mechanical oscillators to produce their frequency. This was typically done with an electric motor. The great leap forward in radars came from the UK when they produced the magnetron. That kept the Germans from spotting their radar signals since the Germans did not know about them. Also led to the microwave oven.

I suspect that new long wave radars are not using mechanical oscillators.

 

[theprestige]

So [...]

No.

It is rather like should an industry be the one to write the regulations it has to abide by?

It's rather like rejecting their recommendation based on their assumed corruption is an affirmative claim that carries its own burden of support. Otherwise it's just an ad hominem.

And, again, what would convince you, if not the analysis of military experts and the review of the legislature?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No.


It's rather like saying that rebuttals to an argument should attack the argument, not the arguer.

At least we are going back to the good old days where we needed to beat the Russians and their totally made up capabilities that all our experts were sure they had. And when all your position boils down to is an argument from authority, well you need to look to undermine the authority.

 

[Modified]

There will be 100s of thousands of people involved in this project by the time you look down the whole supply chain. Probably 10s of thousands actively involved in the design and test phases across a raft of specialties.

It is a near certainty that I am working on it, though I'll probably never know for sure.

 

[theprestige]

At least we are going back to the good old days where we needed to beat the Russians and their totally made up capabilities that all our experts were sure they had. And when all your position boils down to is an argument from authority, well you need to look to undermine the authority.

Or you could simply state what would convince you.

Anyway, if your rebuttal depends on undermining the authority, then you should probably get started on that. Right now you've just got begging the question on top of ad hominem.

But like I told quadraginta, I'm already assuming that you've rejected the authority. I'm already not even bothering to make an argument from that authority.

So let's move on: What would convince you?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or you could simply state what would convince you.

Anyway, if your rebuttal depends on undermining the authority, then you should probably get started on that. Right now you've just got begging the question on top of ad hominem.

But like I told quadraginta, I'm already assuming that you've rejected the authority. I'm already not even bothering to make an argument from that authority.

So let's move on: What would convince you?

That a likely enemy exists that it would be needed for. It all seems like the way people claim Star Wars won the cold war. To destroy america all we need to do is be convinced to buy more and more expensive weapons systems that are not useful against the actual foes we fight. This will destroy our economy because who would ever bother do spend that much on something useful like education or improvements to infrastructure?

 

[Belz...]

It's right there in my post, which you quoted in its entirety.

I've just read it again and I can't find it. Perhaps you could highlight it.

Sometimes it's nice to have the pilots actually on board the aircraft.

Why?

 

[theprestige]

That a likely enemy exists that it would be needed for.

I'll see if I can dig something up.

But.

Demonstrating a likely enemy is almost certainly going to depend on interpretations from expert analysts. You've already rejected analysts in the US military, along with members of Congress and their advisors. Is there an analyst community with suitable expertise whose opinions you trust?

It all seems like the way people claim Star Wars won the cold war. To destroy america all we need to do is be convinced to buy more and more expensive weapons systems that are not useful against the actual foes we fight. This will destroy our economy because who would ever bother do spend that much on something useful like education or improvements to infrastructure?

In 1957, the US had a small budget surplus. US military spending was a higher percentage of GDP, and US tax revenues were lower in 1957 than they are today. I don't think it's military spending that is killing America.

 

[theprestige]

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.

This is a fair point, as far as it goes. However, I don't think that it is a sound strategy, nor a reasonable demand to make of our pilots, to assume that Russian tech will always lag behind, and that Iranian troops will always be incompetent to the necessary degree.

It's a fact that today a B-52 could not penetrate Iranian airspace unscathed. There is a floor to how low Iranian vulnerability can be. That floor will undoubtedly get higher over time. It makes sense to keep as much space between floor and ceiling as possible.

And then there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

It turns out that third-party troops, using obsolete Russian air defense systems, can in fact shoot down US stealth planes.

 

[Trakar]

They're talking about a billion dollars per plane or so. Yeah, it'll probably run over that, and probably by a fair amount.

But seeing as how they are about to launch a new aircraft carrier that is over 1,000 ft. long, has two nuclear power plants on it, can carry over 90 modern combat aircraft, and engage in 160 sorties per day for a month at a time, all for around $13 billion ... $1 billion for a stealth bomber sounds like a pretty substantial price tag.

The B-2 cost $730 million a copy in 1997 dollars. So $1 billion is in the same ballpark.

The real question is how badly we need to spend $80 to $100 billion on a huge new fleet of stealth bombers. Have threats that require more and newer stealth bombers ( above the ones we already have) increased that much in the twenty years or so since Congress decided we didn't, and the twenty or so we already had was enough?

Or is this just the defense industry keeping itself employed?

Most of the current price ranges I see for a B-2 are in excess of $2.2B a pop, so 80 Billion is probably more like 30 or so bombers. The "B-3" - Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), is smaller, about half the payload of the B-2, and is estimated to be around half a billion a copy but that's on paper before any metal has met the mill, and probably well more than a decade before a prototype lifts from any runway. Development alone will likely eat at least a third of that funding (if not 2/3).

 

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Much faster OODA loop.

 

[theprestige]

Why?

In addition to the consummate advantage of a faster OODA loop, which Ziggurat already mentioned, it eliminates the risk of the enemy terminating the attack by severing the link between the human making the decision and the weapon system being used.

 

[tsig]

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

I doubt they will look like WWII.

 

[KDLarsen]

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.

The KC-X program being a prime example of that

 

[tsig]

Russia is selling cutting-edge air defense systems to Iran.

Bombers that can penetrate those defenses are a critical component of the current agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program. That is, Iran promises not to develop nuclear weapons, and the world retains the option of halting such development by force if Iran reneges on that promise.

China is expanding its sphere of military influence in southeast Asia. This includes modern air defense systems. The ability to counter this expansion if China becomes belligerent is one of the guarantors to world peace. South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan (among many others) rely in large part on US military capability to safeguard their sovereignty and trade routes against Chinese expansionism.

In cases such as these, it is the diplomat's job to find peaceful solutions that benefit all parties. It is the military's job to prepare for the other thing. These new bombers are, simply put, the military doing its job, and rightly so. We should all welcome the diplomatic solutions. We should not take the existence of a diplomatic solution in the present as a reason to stop the military for preparing for future eventualities.

The US military had been planning for war with Japan, for fifty years before Pearl Harbor. For most of that time, the plans were not needed. But when they were needed, they were already mature, and the capability was ripe. This was exactly as it should have been. The same principles apply today.

You mean the US planned to lose most of it's battleships right at the beginning?

 

[tsig]

If we weren't faced with a crumbling infrastructure down here on Earth I'd probably be a little happier about those shiny new bombers

As you drive on the deteriorating roads bypassing the failed bridge you can look up in the sky and see nothing, listen and hear nothing then have pride that America has such weapons.

 

[tsig]

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.

I hear Dubai is in the market.

We give them the bombers then we have to build fighters to defend against them then we give them the fighters and have to build better bombers. Rinse, repeat, go bankrupt.

 

[tsig]

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 role is? The Stealth wandering around the skies looking for a mission.