Can a New Stealth Bomber Make Up for America’s Crappiest Warplane?

Daily Beast ^ | 09/09/2015 | David Axe

[SeekAndFind]

The Pentagon sank $400 billion into the F-35 stealth jet—only to have it come up way short. So they’re working on a secret new bomber to handle the job instead.

Government officials and aerospace executives have met in secret. Engineers have drawn up blueprints, crafted components, and assembled prototypes, all under strict confidentiality agreements. Lobbyists are prowling the halls of Congress and the Pentagon, smiling, shaking hands, exerting influence.

For the first time in more than three decades, the Pentagon and America’s aerospace industry are uniting to build a big, expensive, high-tech stealth bomber. And that’s a huge deal for the U.S. military as it tries to compensate for another warplane program that has gone outrageously off the rails.

Thirty-four years after aerospace giant Northrop Grumman snagged a lucrative contract to build B-2 stealth bombers for the Air Force, the Pentagon is getting ready to pick a new bomber. The contest, which senior military officials will decide mere months or even weeks from now, pits two teams representing every remaining major warplane-maker in America.

On one side—Northrop Grumman, which lately has been honing its bomber-making skills by developing stealthy drones for the Navy. On the other side, a consortium of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which together manufacture almost all of the military’s current manned warplanes. The winner gets to build as many as 100 brand-new bombers for as much as $55 billion in total, replacing 1960s-vintage B-52s and B-1s from the ’80s.

The industrial stakes are enormous. “We expect a pretty robust competition,” General Mark Welsh, the Air Force’s top officer, said in a recent speech.

And for the U.S. Air Force, the stakes are even higher. When costs spiraled upward, the Pentagon canceled B-2 production in 1992. Northrop completed just 21 copies at around $2 billion apiece,

[RJS1950]

All true.

Funny that you use the fire hydrant imagery. Before I retired, I referred to the lack of focus on the mission by senior officers and that their primary focus was acquiring fiefdoms, recognition, and promotion like a pack of dogs circling a hydrant, nipping at each others asses, and marking their territories.

[Jim from C-Town]

I am not computer savvy and am not about to learn. Al I know is that I hated Windows 8. Even when it upgraded to 8.1 I would still hate to use my computer.

[867V309]

This is sounding like Windows 10.

Spyplane?

[RJS1950]

To build craft like the SR-71 it took officers with a mission orientation and vision to find the funding, hide it from the generals, and find the right people to implement a workable design and plan. The SR-71 was black and largely but secretly backed by the intelligence agencies. The line generals at the time were no more inclined to spend time and funding on an aircraft that didn’t dogfight or drop iron bombs than they are today.

The Navy equivalent at about the same time was the Poseidon system development. The admirals wanted nothing to do with launching ICBMs from Naval platforms.

[SZonian]

A big part of the problem in development is the USG oversight. How could that be such a problem?

1 deep offices where an individual who is a gatekeeper of sorts can hold up an entire process or program simply because they called in sick.

An apathetic attitude towards schedule because they don’t pay or get hauled before Congress to explain overruns or delays.

Requirements creep, where the services find some new widget or capability and insist it get added into the already finalized design...requires a redesign, re-analysis and time to retool and manufacture. Not to mention the weight gains of most additions that are the bane of aviation.

Mircromanagement from the USG insisting to have just about every item of minutiae approved by the USG instead of granting the contractor latitude in implementing the tasks.

The F117 went from contract approval in 1979 to first flight in 1981 to IOC in 1983...it can be done with other programs but the USG insists on getting its cut, at the contractors expense.

This is not counting of course the complexity of advanced sensors, systems, and fusion integration that the services are requiring as basically baseline capability.

[Dr. Thorne]

The F-35 performing aerobatics.

[Nowhere Man]

I think we over engineer at times. First you cannot design a plane for every mission, some are made to bomb, others for fighting, others for intercepting, hauling things and so on. Yes, there are times one can crossover into another role like a fighter can carry bombs or a plane like the F-111 could make a fine interceptor against bombers but when you try to make a jack of all trade, you get a master of none. Sometimes you have economize too, instead of the F-35, I would keep making the F-18 for the Navy (and kept the F-14's), go with the F-15 Silent Eagle, keep the F-16 and A-10's and go along with something like the F-20 (uprated F-5) Basically aircraft technology has plateaued since the 1960's for the most part,the differences is with avionics and stealth, the latter I do think, IMHO, is a bit overrated.

I think overall instead of a new bomber made by committee, I think we'd be better off with the B-52 and B-1 for the foreseeable future.

I rmeember in 2003, they made a redesign of the Wright Flyer to celebrate the Wright Brothers 100th anniversary. They used computer aided drafting and design and the latest in materials and engine technology. I remember if flopped big time, yet the Wright brothers used basic things like wood, cloth and the basic engines of the day and made it work.

[Trumpinator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=489&v=5jLlzDZJmeU

The Pentagon Wars Full Movie 1998 Comedy, War

How this sort of thing happens.

The Pentagon Wars is a 1998 HBO film, directed by Richard Benjamin, based on a book of the same name (The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard) by Colonel James G. Burton, USAF (retired). Starring Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes and Richard Schiff, the film is a dark comedy describing the development of the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle.

Tagline: They aimed to build the ultimate fighting machine. They missed.

[Nowhere Man]

Look at all the ‘old houses’ from the 17 and 1800s, still standing - yes updates and improving amenities but the basic structure and frame still ‘good’.

Remember, it used to be called “Old World Craftsmanship” when people were actually PROUD of a job accomplished, of course people were ‘reconditioned’ that rather than have someone learn a trade and follow in ones elders footsteps, we need to put everyone behind a desk.

Reminds me of the Jimmy Carter Habitat for Humanity. As much as him being a bummer of a President and drifting into barking moonbatism from time to time in his later years, his volunteers for Habitat built a lot of good, strong homes. Some say as amateur and a volunteers, they might have used an extra nail or three to join wood together and this made tehe frames stronger.

Like a ‘great man’ once opined - “Maybe we should have picked our own GD cotton” he was probably on the right path.

Sad to say, he was/is right.

Hope someone got the name etc of those Germans ‘cheering’ the arrival of the latest batch of ‘refugees’ so we can ask them at a later date how ‘they’ enjoy supporting about 90 percent (I am being nice here) of them AFTER the lower rung of Germans citizens have been ‘knocked out of jobs, wages etc etc’ and the citizenry has to absorb BOTH groups.

We have the same problem with the Mexicans and others like the H1-B's we let in. Even though the latter still takes jobs away, the H1-B's are not always cheap. I temped at a company that brought them here in 1996 and I worked in accounting. I saw how much the H1-B's made, anywhere from $45K to $115K and this was 1996!

[wjr123]

I don’t know that any of you folks have any idea of what’s going on. The F-35 — good or bad — is an entirely new concept that depends upon software to function. Think of a pilot sitting in mid air with a (largely) unobstructed spherical view. Now think of a group of aircraft that are interconnected with each aircraft being exactly aware of the conditions within the sphere.

Now, get over the knife fighting concept of air to air combat. It’s as dead as the utility of a P-47. Anything that impinges upon the observed sphere is dead at a distance. Weapons are not like the 60’s — they work with a vengeance now.

Now add killer UAVs to the mix. The control sphere sends the AI out to the fringe to kill everything in an extended sphere.

This is a bitch to do and it has not been without real problems but it will change things in ways that we cannot imagine now.

[Kommodor]

This generation’s Kelly Johnson was laid off in the 0B sequestration cutbacks because he didn’t follow processes and kiss the right posteriors. All that’s left are the brown nosers and paper pushers, and a few competent people hoping to make it to retirement.

[spetznaz]

The most effective bomber we have had in the last half century was the B-52. They are still in service today. Instead of redesigning the wheel, why not update and manufacture a new series of B52 bombers?

When has the last B-52 been shot out of the sky by a belligerent, any one, Bueller, Bueller...

The snarky answer would be 31 B-52s lost in Vietnam.

The straight/serious answer to a fellow FReeper is because the B-52H is a woefully obsolete aircraft that is only viable against low-technology adversaries that do not have a cogent air defense network. Against such an adversary, the B-52H is an amazing bomb truck that, with JDAM technology, is akin to fire from heaven as far as Jihadis are concerned. However, against an adversary with an advanced integrated air defense system (IADS) the BUFF is simply a big, slow, helpless flying target.

People don't like to hear this, but the same applies to the A-10. Yes, it has a 'titanium bathtub,' and yes, it has a big @$$ cannon, but it requires sanitized airspace to operate in. Put it against an adversary that can actually fight back and, armor or not, A-10s are done. (During the Cold War the joke among A-10 and Apache pilots was which would suffer the most if the Soviets ever came through the Fulda Gap).

Anyway, while all of the US' adversaries in the last four plus decades have not been strong (the likes of Somalia, Iraq, Grenada, Bosnia, Panama, Libya, Afghanistan), and thus a B52 would work well there, there is always the chance that the US may operate against the likes of China or Russia. BUFFs, for all their myriad advantages (and they are a strong workhorse, together with the B-1 Bone), would be dead.

[tanknetter]

One reason the B-2’s costs spiraled upwards was that the Congress kept cutting the numbers that were supposed to be bought. That meant that economies of scale were lost and the R&D costs for the entire program were spread over 21 aircraft rather than nearly 200.

[Kickass Conservative]

The A-10 is what the P-47 was in WWII, both Flying Tanks.

Heck, I’m beginning to think that the P-47 would be better than what the Military wants to replace the A-10 with.

[JoeFromSidney]

Regardless of the merits of the F-35, it and the new bomber will have totally different missions. Trying to link them, as this article does, is nothing but misleading propaganda. The bomber should be criticized on its merits, or lack thereof, without regard to the merits, or lack thereof, of the F-35.

[Jim from C-Town]

Could the same ultimately be said for the platforms of the Russians and the Chinese. Can they mount an adequate attack structure to gain air superiority over the U.S. in most theaters? If so how long could they hold it and could hundreds or thousands of unmanned armed aircraft offer so much resistance that we could overwhelm them.

Like I said I am not a military person. I never served & do not even read Jane’s.

[rlmorel]

The Wright Brothers spent less than a thousand dollars of their own money over three years to create a flying machine, designing it themselves, performing new science to get it right, and succeeded.

Langley (then the head of the Smithsonian) had $75,000 granted to him from the government and Alexander Graham Bell, and he failed miserably.

The lesson is, the further away from the mission you get, and the less accountability assigned for the money you spend, the more likely you are to fail.

Real capitalism works, but we aren’t operating in that environment with most defense spending.

[spetznaz]

The Chinese and Russian military machines are, simply put, unable to meet or defeat the US in a total War (and over virtually every category). While people like to smack the US over issues ranging from the 5.56 rounds alleged limited lethality all the way to the F-35 allegedly being a 'pig' (I've explained on other threads why I think the F-35, for all its faults, will go down as one of the more successful planes out there), the fact is that the US is still, on aggregate, over a decade ahead of anything the Russians and Chinese have.

That's not to say they wouldn't cause the proverbial 'broken nose' against the US, and attacking Moscow or Shanghai would obviously be significantly more complicated and taxing than attacking Kabul or Baghdad, but in a total (but conventional, since no one wins nuclear wars) war the American military machine, operating full tilt, is a beautifully scary juggernaut. There would be losses on American materiel (ranging from planes to ships), but the result would still be an American victory.

My only point in the previous post was that assets like the B-52 and the A-10 work great against a lower-tier threat, but against a top-tier/near-peer adversary would be liabilities. Which is why when people say, as I've seen in other threads, that the only planes the US needs are A-10s, they're mistaken. In the case of a real war against the likes of China or Russia, even though I honestly consider that a small probability, the US would employ assets that, under the right leadership, would make Americans proud.