Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US navy deployed B-1B supersonic bombers and guided-missile destroyer to South China Sea
International Business Times ^ | June 9th, 2017 | Nandini Krishnamoorthy

Posted on 06/09/2017 8:52:04 AM PDT by Mariner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Gen.Blather

The B is slower than the A but it is still supersonic. Just 1.25 instead of 2.2.


21 posted on 06/09/2017 10:08:45 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

The USN and the USAF run STRATCOM. They share resources. If the USN needs bombers to perform a mission they request them from the USAF.


22 posted on 06/09/2017 10:48:22 AM PDT by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Good point. They Navy doesn’t have B1s.


23 posted on 06/09/2017 11:11:36 AM PDT by Uncle Sam 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I ran across and article that the USN was considering bringing Kitty Hawk out of reserve and back into service because of the ongoing issues with the Ford. That would give us an additional flat top if it can be put back into action at a reasonable cost.


24 posted on 06/09/2017 11:13:48 AM PDT by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: henkster
"Army bombers have taken off from carrier flight decks before."

Yeah, but that was when the bombers were smaller than the carrier ...

25 posted on 06/09/2017 11:14:50 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Ex Scientia Tridens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Not so.

At altitude the B-1B is supersonic.

At 100ft it is high subsonic.


26 posted on 06/09/2017 11:38:32 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Kim Jong Nork for his own good needs to make a quick but thorough study of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf in the 6 months before Desert Storm. It might give him a caution and a sense of foreboding.


27 posted on 06/09/2017 10:15:13 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

The carriers steam at 300 mph.


28 posted on 06/09/2017 10:17:11 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
US navy deployed B-1B supersonic bombers and guided-missile destroyer to South China Sea
29 posted on 06/09/2017 10:22:40 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

The carriers steam at 300 mph, and they have flight decks that can expand up a mile long!


30 posted on 06/10/2017 6:14:24 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Leaky-Leaky Comey, heÂ’s so Charmin. A thousand sheets to the wind. The Comey Comedy continues!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I guess the B-1B is the biggest, most powerful tactical bomber ever.


31 posted on 06/10/2017 9:39:14 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Takes a lot of ponies to get supersonic on the deck. Also the took a lot of sharp edges of the B-model to reduce its radar cross-section. May have cost the plane some stability at trans-sonic speeds, which would ruin your whole day very quickly.


32 posted on 06/10/2017 9:42:44 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sarge83

Possible if you had a pile of money. But the “Shitty-Kittie” was stripped of her arresting gear prior to her mothball. Her engineering spaces were in very bad shape because of missing a major overhaul. Too many deployments and too little yard time will shorten a vessels life.


33 posted on 06/10/2017 9:46:08 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

During her final deployments the Kittyhawk was essentially the world’s largest helicopter carrier.


34 posted on 06/10/2017 9:49:26 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

That’s a good way to look at it.

And why not?

START II took them out of their strategic role, removing all “nuke” capability. The Russians inspect them annually.

But they deliver 20-25% more payload of all types than the B-52, have newer avionics/EW/Radar etc., and can fly at 100ft altitude @ 700mph, or at high altitude @ 900mph.

And their combat radius is over 5,000 miles without external tanks or refueling.

A formidable strike weapon by any measure. A dozen of these would ruin your day.


35 posted on 06/10/2017 11:15:02 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

True but the money would be a forgotten if we needed an extra carrier for a few years because the Ford class isn’t as advertised and so far hasn’t been. As you say it is a pile of money to be spent somewhere.


36 posted on 06/12/2017 10:47:39 AM PDT by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson