Posted on 04/03/2007 3:24:24 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It would probably cost as much or more to build more B-52s and KC135s as a new design would cost. The C-130 J is basically a new plane - new wings, new engines, new electronics.
“C-130...So the design is 30 years old...”
The first C-130 flew 23-Aug-1954 - 53 years ago. It does everything it was designed to do and a bunch of stuff it was NEVER designed to do. Great plane.
Hey, we could use the old B-52's as transports for House and Senate members.
Wrap them in plastic, strap a chute on them ..... bombs away !!
Our strategic bomber fleet may be old but it still does the job.
I talked to a young AF mechanic this weekend about the ‘old’ planes, he pointed out that they KNOW the craft thoroughly and have de-bugged it. I agree, use the old designs - don’t saddle the force with unproven ‘innovative’ designs until they’ve been vetted!
You said: The B-1 is a beautiful airplane, looks like it is flying 600 MPH while on the ground. BUT, it was designed to drop nukes.. Has a limited capacity in a non-nuke war
My thoughts:
I don’t know about cost/efficiency vs other aircraft, but the B1-B can carry a bunch of stuff other than just nukes.
Snipped this from Wikipedia so I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but in general this jibes with what I remember reading:
Armament: 24 GBU-31 GPS-aided JDAM (both Mk-84 general purpose bombs and BLU-109 penetrating bombs) or 24 Mk-84 2,000-pound general purpose bombs; 8 Mk-85 naval mines; 84 Mk-82 500-pound general purpose bombs; 84 Mk-62 500-pound naval mines; 30 CBU-87, -89, -97 cluster munitions; 30 CBU-103/104/105 WCMD, 24 AGM-158 JASSMs or 12 AGM-154 JSOWs.
As you can see, many of these are conventional weapons.
The same article notes that:
The B-1 is a highly versatile, multi-mission weapon system. The B-1B’s offensive avionics system includes high-resolution synthetic aperture radar, capable of tracking, targeting and engaging moving vehicles as well as self-targeting and terrain-following modes. In addition, an extremely accurate Global Positioning System-aided Inertial Navigation System enable aircrews to autonomously navigate globally, without the aid of ground-based navigation aids as well as engage targets with a high level of precision. The recent addition of Combat Track II radios permit an interim secure beyond line of sight reach back connectivity until Link-16 is integrated on the aircraft. In a time sensitive targeting environment, the aircrew can receive targeting data from the Combined Air Operations Center over CT II, then update mission data in the offensive avionics system to strike emerging targets rapidly and efficiently. This capability was effectively demonstrated during operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
My thoughts again:
Add to that the ability to fly at supersonic speeds, low-altitude terrain tracking, an amazing suite of radar countermeasures and intercontinental range (without refueling) and I can think of a bunch of uses in conventional warfare.
It’s probably not the cheapest way to get things done, but still one hell of a plane on or off the runway.
>>>Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America’s recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.<<<
The B-52 frame and shell is old—the last B52 was completed in October 1962—but the plane has been significantly upgraded over the years with modern electronics and weaponry. It is still a remarkable plane, even by today’s standards. It travels at 650 mph at a ceiling of 50,000 feet, and has a range of 8,800 miles without refueling. It can carry up to 70,000 pounds of bombs and weaponry.
By contrast, the B-17 Flying Fortress used over Europe in World War II had a cruise speed of 182 mph, a ceiling of approximately 35,000 feet, and a maximum range of 2,000 miles (with no bombs). It could carry 4,500 pounds of bombs on what were considered long-range missions of that day of approximately 800 miles.
Someone should tell President Bush that he, and not Congress, controls military spending.
At least they aren’t fueling up Star Fighters, B-36’s and B-47’s.
OTOH, if the Pentagon had any horse sense left, they would buy several thousand McClellan saddles, just in case.
Criminal negligence on the part of congress and the klintoon administration.
Yup. Probably a fossilizing B-52 or KC-135.
...and the phrase ‘slow bleed’ finds another meaning...
Bottom line, (IMHO) Why do we need to reinvent the wheel. Buy more of the same design and call the fleet upgraded. Why go thru the R&D cycle, and perhaps get an inferior product (whitness the Osprey fiasco).
I say:
It isn’t that simple. The drop in procurement devastated the defense manufacturing infrastructure. I worked in the defense electronics area for about 20 years, starting at the beginning of the Reagan defense boom. When first George HW Bush and then the Clintons slashed procurement, the industry was hard hit. Firms who built cheaper communications components were helped by the wireless boom. Those who built both commercial and military switched over to all commercial. Many firms sold or dropped their military lines (the cost of maintaining a MIL-Spec quality system not being worth the small returns from the lower volume) and of course many firms who specialized in state of the art MIL-quality components were gobbled up or went out of business altogether. Our company sold and moved the designs and product line to another state. Unfortunately, since the new owners didn’t retain the existing staff, they found that they were often unable to meet the same specifications. Our highly skilled assembly staff (soldering components 20/1000ths of an inch square under a microscope) and technicians and engineers almost all found jobs in other industries. This didn’t happen in the electronics area alone, its just the area I’m familiar with.
The Air force bought large quantities of spares of the key components we supplied for the countermeasure systems of the F-15E and the B-1B, among others, but I’m sure the shelf life on these are running out, and it would be difficult even today find a supplier to meet the specs we met.
Unless large runs are involved, you also end up with a lot of $900 hammer stories. If you ever heard the details of that story, as I recall, the custom spark-resistant hammer had been bought at a competitive price when originally procured in some huge quantity. When the DOD ordered up a few more, they were faced with legitimate tooling costs that increased the cost to $900 per.
With a new design, you do have the R&D costs, but you can engineer it using what is available now, and don’t have to pay exorbitant prices to tool up for old designs.
Just my 2 cents
Well said. Agree 100 percent, coming from a DE background.
The “$900 hammer” scenario will look cheap soon (actually now) because of supplier contraction starting appx. 1990.
I still see a DC-2 (c-47)flying around here. I also hear there are Catalina PBYs around.
I flew in the KC-135A back in the 70’s and 80’s and most of the aircraft were as old as I was. We called it the “steam jet” because it used 5,581 lbs of de-mineralized water for thrust augmentation to our under powered J-57 engines. At least the “R” model has plenty of power with the new CMF-56 engine. I buried a lot of friends that didn’t make take-off roles because they had a catastrophic loss of power. Boeing makes one hell of an airplane, but it is time for the idiot’s in Congress to pony up some funding or forget about every being able to project “Airpower” anywhere in the world. But then again I’m sure that is the Liberals master plan. The Air Force is currently down sizing their support career fields to buy the F-22 “Raptor” and the F-35 “Joint-Strike Fighter.” Pretty soon the Air Force should be able to anything with almost nothing (a quote from the Jimmy Carter days).
***My 900th thread posted and counting...***
I wish I could start more threads but someone always beats me to it.......So I just set back and snipe.
Yeah, and chances are that .50 cal wasn't made that long ago either!
I don’t think the Navy plans to fight with Old Ironsides today though, would you want to?
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.