Posted on 02/11/2012 2:07:27 AM PST by U-238
After a decades-long streak of troubled weapon acquisitions, the Air Force is looking to get off on the right foot as it seeks to buy a new intercontinental stealth bomber.
The Pentagon’s new budget proposal gives the Air Force the green light to begin designing a new bomber with a target date for starting production in the mid-2020s. The goal is to acquire up to 100 new aircraft at a cost of about $55 billion.
But skeptics already are casting doubts on the plan. They consistently point to the B-2 batwing stealth bomber as a cautionary tale. The Pentagon spent hundreds of billions of dollars on that program only to end up with 21 aircraft, each with a $2 billion price tag. That is the reason, critics contend, why the Cold War era B-52 bomber — conceived in 1946 — is still flying and is projected to stay in operation until 2040.
The Air Force has learned tough lessons from past programs and is not about to repeat the mistakes, said Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff. “We are not going to do the B-2 again. … That is not in the cards,” he said Feb. 9 following a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The downfall of the B-2, experts have said, was its cost and overstated design. Also, because the Northrop Grumman production line was shut down early in the production, the price per unit soared as the cost was spread over 21 aircraft, instead of 132, as originally planned.
Schwartz said the new bomber should be less ambitious. “We are going to make our best effort to not overdesign an airplane,” he said. “We are not intent on delivering a capability that is extravagant.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaldefensemagazine.org ...
“The claim was documented within the article.
That’s what those little numbers are.”
Oh, puleeze—
Consider the source....
Don’t worry, I am.
Time is exactly their weakness.
It gives the recipient only a short time to decide that they had better retaliate with nuclear weapons, because no one will believe your weapon has only a conventional warhead. About as worthy an idea as the much-ridiculed conventional ICBM....
And yes, they will detect it.
I guess the real question about the LEO weapon would be about whether the U.S. will continue to hold the high ground in space. So far these days, it sure doesn’t sound like it.
I’d rather have a bomber on their coastline shooting an ALCM that flies stealthily at about 100 feet AGL.
“Don’t worry, I am.”
Then reconsider.
That’s drivel.
Who would back that up? No reputable source would.
“...their campaign came close to failure.” No it didn’t; there was never a question it would continue. The campaign continued past the first days of several losses, with almost no losses, and all strategic targets destroyed.
Whether a damaged aircraft is carried as a loss has no relationship to Linebacker 2, is not a political question at all, and has roots going back to WW2. It has mainly to do with logistics.
“Operation Desert Storm where the USAF enjoyed complete air dominance and spent six weeks blasting an exposed Iraqi Army in the open Kuwaiti desert but still did not bring about its collapse.”
This is an example of authoritative military writing?????
“The United States saved face, got its prisoners back and got a decent interval before South Vietnam was conquered by the conventional divisions of the North.”
What a joke. President Ford was handcuffed by the Congress. There was no conquering — only a nice drive for the tanks, which could have been obliterated in a couple of hours by B-52s.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
‘Woulda, coulda, shoulda...”
Wow, that was a devastating response....
You’d be about what... 13 ?
Using a Soviet report as a source...says it all, doesn’t it?
How is the MSNBC viewing these days?
B-52’s got murdered going into Hanoi.
At least 10% losses by U.S. numbers.
Fighter Pilots make movies.....
Bomber Pilots make history......
As was yours.
You’d be about what... 11?
It took the North two years to mount another offensive. That time, they got in pretty deep, but were repulsed with air power alone, as we were forbidden to get into the fray on the ground.
Killed so many, they had to wait another three years to grow enough people to try it one more time, this time without any US resistance, as we had pulled out 3 years earlier.Turning point? Oh yeah. Unmitigated disaster? Not so much.
Oh, here’s another guy with...
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
Shoulda...done
Coulda...did
Woulda....did.
You are of course entitled to your own set of facts, figures and stories.
Kind of highlights your thoughts and mental gymnastics better than the words you so eloquently and easily post. Kudos
In your own words, ‘we coulda whipped em but Kissinger was afraid of the Chicoms and the Ruskies’.
Bleat, bleat for sure...
Good luck in your endeavors, and for your own sake, not mine, do not believe all you read.
Grow up.
You’re no Freeper.
I recall the era too. Good luck to you too and for your sake, don’t believe everything you think you already know.
Grow up yourself.
You’re no FReeper either.
Nice response, child.
I’ve been here on FR for a long time.
But you — you’re a fraud.
There’s a box at the top of the homepage marked “sign out”.
Use it.
Poor response, baby.
You’re the fraud.
Sign out yourself.
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.