The Bomber Question

Air Force Magazine ^ | 12/1/2010 | By John A. Tirpak

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The Air Force hasn’t been told when to begin work on a new long-range strike aircraft, or even what it should be able to do. The Air Force is hoping there’s a new bomber included in the Fiscal 2012 defense budget planned for release next month. If there is, it will be the centerpiece of a new portfolio of long-range strike weapons systems, which will encompass standoff missiles, older bombers, airborne electronic attack (AEA), carrier-based aircraft, and possibly a quick-reaction missile able to hit any global target within an hour.

Deliberations on the long-range strike system have been a subject of fierce controversy within the Pentagon for months. In September, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, said the "debate is still raging" about the precise mix of systems necessary to carry out the mission in an affordable way. One senior USAF official said in October the subject had become a "third rail … touch and die" subject that couldn’t be discussed outside the inner circles of the Pentagon.

[freedumb2003]

Is there anything even in the conceptual stage to replace the Lancer?

And I just have to assume the B-52 will continue until the year 3,000 or so as a large-scale ordinance deployment platform.

[okie01]

The traditional process of setting requirements for a bomber—developed by Air Combat Command and ultimately vetted by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council—was discarded.

Rather, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates personally has final say on the aircraft’s capabilities, based largely on inputs from his undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, Ashton B. Carter, and the head of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shop, Christine H. Fox.

Three civilian bureaucrats making a determination that veteran USAF guys should be making.

This is not going to end well.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B, created from the existing aircraft. It would have advanced radar and air to air missiles. It would have a speed of Mach 2.2 but the range of the plane would be cur down.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ping

[Seaplaner]

Adversaries will not wait while the US gets its long-range strike act together, and there are penalties for further delay.

Mister Obama has seen fit to cancel the F-22.

Ask yourself..."what would Bill Ayers do?", and one suspects that you have an answer re a new, and much needed USAF bomber.

.

[Nowhere Man]

IIRC, the original B-1A was supposed to go at Mach 2+.

[Nowhere Man]

Well, we could always put the 31 surviving B-47’s back into service. /sarc>

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Correct.The B-1A was the original B-1 design with variable engine intakes and Mach 2.2 top speed.Only four prototypes were built by Rockwell and none were actually manufactured.

[Nowhere Man]

I think the first prototype was built in 1974. It is kind of interesting that we are considering reviving the original B-1A, with some enhancements, after Carter cancelled it in 1977, more than 30 years later.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Your right

[NeverForgetBataan]

“The Air Force is hoping there’s a new bomber included in the Fiscal 2012 defense budget planned for release next month”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ya....... I hope there’s a new Corvette sitting in my garage on Christmas morning.

Dear Air Force,
Confucius say:
You can hope in one hand and SH!T in the other...... And see which one fills up faster.

MONEY DOESN’T GROW ON TREES!!!!! Fix your B-52s and B-1s and STOP your job justifying, - “Oh please daddy buy-me-a new-bomber procurement programs”.

If you had not noticed, the private sector is having a bit of difficulty generating enough tax revenue to just pay for
salt shakers in your godd@#$ mess halls.

Very Sincerely Yours,
The Private Sector Tax Payer

[PIF]

Well, we could always put the 31 surviving B-47’s back into service. /sarc>

---

I’m a proponent of returning to Sopwith-Camels and hand dropped ordinance... think of the money we’d save!

[rbg81]

The chance of a new bomber being started under Obama is nill. Maybe he will allow a conceptual study, but that’s about it. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he canceled the F-35 as well.

[RoadTest]

I think we should work on a prototype for a New Politician instead. Our bombers are way ahead of their development.

[rbg81]

Why not just open up the old assembly lines for the B-52 and B-1B? I think they are mothballed. It would be relatively cheap as the support structure (including avionics and software) already exist.

[rbg81]

It always killed me to see them cutting the wings off those B-52s.

[Nowhere Man]

I’m a proponent of returning to Sopwith-Camels and hand dropped ordinance... think of the money we’d save!

How about DC-3's? You could have one guy at the back door tossing out crates of dynamite over the enemy. B-) That reminds me of the one M*A*S*H episode of "5 O'Clock Charlie" where one North Korean pilot would always show up at 5 O'Clock in an old plane and toss over a small bomb near the 4077th.

[PIF]

How about DC-3’s?

---

Nah, DC-3s cost too much... wood, hog glue, and fiber are the wave of the future in airpower... We are broke, according to some here, and need to pull in our financial horns big time.