Northrop Grumman
Posted on 09/09/2015 10:14:50 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
A former commander of the USAF’s bomber force says 80 to 100 new Long-Range Strike Bombers are not enough to meet American national security objectives, and the service should consider buying more to rejuvenate its “withering” combat fleet of Boeing B-1s and B-52s.
In his testimony to Congress 9 September, Lt Gen Robert Elder, who directed the 8th Air Force before his retirement, said the production target released by the air force is too few, even though the new aircraft will be more capable.
“Our capabilities are withering and we have less than 100 combat-ready bombers with an average age of 38 years,” he told members of the House Armed Services Committee.
“The newer B-52s remain potent but are few in numbers, and my belief quite frankly is the 80 to 100 aircraft is not going to be enough to replace the B-1 and B-52 fleet, even though it's capability against the target set will be greater.”
He says there needs to be more aircraft to satisfy the number of rotational commitments currently being experienced.
This view was seconded by the two other witnesses, Washington defence analysts Mark Gunzinger of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research. The witnesses, and some members of congress, also stated the air force should speed up the procurement and beat the current 2030 full operational capability date.
The quantity and schedule concerns come as the air force prepares to award a bomber development contract to either Northrop Grumman or a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team. It also comes one week after the air force stated that the competing bomber designs are more technologically mature and deliverable than previously disclosed.
As of this month, the air force has 158 bombers (63 B-1s, 20 B-2s and 76 B-52) which average 39 years of age, and only 96 are currently funded for combat service. Gunzinger says today’s 20-aircraft B-2 fleet can muster just 12 combat sorties on any given day, and without a sizable order of new bombers, American won’t be able to overcome the air defences of sophisticated adversaries.
“If we don't buy the LRS-B, well, then the B-2 eventually will not be able to penetrate into China, into Iran, and some other areas. The B-1s and the B-52s already can't penetrate into those higher threat areas,” he explained.
During the briefing, several lawmakers including Paul Cook and Steve Knight, who both represent aerospace hubs in California, expressed tentative support for the next-generation bomber programme, so long as it doesn’t overrun initial cost estimates was the case with the Lockheed Martin F-22, F-35 and Northrop B-2 projects.
“I will support this, as long as we keep the price down and it accomplishes the mission,” says Knight, who also questioned whether it would be wiser to pursue three overlapping bomber procurement programmes than just one example designed with a 50-year operating life. He says "flying the wings off" a single type makes the US force less flexible to emerging threats.
Northrop Grumman
"The newer B-52s" means from 1962 as I recall... the 'H' models.
BUILD the frikkin' things !!!
Or do you have to say "muzzie faggot may I ?"
what enemies do we have?
1. The mainstream media. 2. The Democrat Party. For number 1 and number 2.
When asked about our “withering combat fleet”, Obama only said, “Yes I Did”!
The B-1B is still the preeminent Bomber in the word.
Save the big money for Hyper-sonic strike development.
Oh, and swarms of fighter drones controlled by F-35's datalink and fire control.
If you are only going to do sorties every couple days?
The B-70 was an interesting plane. BTW, I think they brought back a B-57 or two for use in Afghanistan IIRC, the refurbished planes last flew in 1969. I’d like to see them build new B-52’s as well, maybe with 4 instead of 8 engines perhaps. I’d like to see them bring back the F-111’s too. For “shats and giggles” toss in some B-36’s and B-58’s too. B-)
On top of which, the B-2 details are tippy-top secret. Every time one takes off, there is the chance, however faint, that something will go PING and the Bad Guys will be able to paw thru the wreckage. (Actually, the Russians and Chinese no doubt know as much as Northrup about the B-2, but it's important that American civilians don't know.) Air Force generals lose sleep over these things.
Who will fly them?
James Stavridis, a retired U.S. admiral and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, slammed the Obama administration Sunday for repeated military cuts despite the fact that the country remains engaged in “real combat operations.”
“We have already cut defense … about 30 percent over the last 10 years, and we’re still at war,” Stavridis explained during remarks on a New York radio show Sunday, according to the Hill. “We’re actively involved on multiple continents in real combat operations. We should not be drastically reducing our troop levels.”
Just watch out for the vortexes coming off the horizontal surfaces.
Just repurpose some B-767s
How would you move the wing? What about center of balance?
The U.S. not only needs new bombers, we need a bigger and better equipped military across the board. Even worse, we need a brand of military leader who knows what to do when the shtf, very much unlike the current CIC. Odumbo has gotten rid of several of those types so now its time to rebuild.
America is currently outsourcing everything.
We need to bring back jobs to America. Stop running ever increasing deficits, and build up our very own nation once again.
This article is completely right on.
It always made sense to me to have two classes of planes: one each for use against high tech and low tech adversaries, respectively.
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.