New AF bomber
10-31-2015, 07:35 AM
#42
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by KA350Driver
Anyways, back to the topic on hand. This entire project will be a complete waste of money. My personal opinion is that long range strike, be it manned or unmanned, and even tactical aviation to a lesser extent, will be obsolete by the time this bomber is operational. It's like the battleship of 1941, everyone can see the writing on the wall but they just don't want to admit it. The fact is that naval vessels can launch cruise missiles thousands of miles and hit any target in the world. The same can he said of land based cruise missiles. The same can be said for CAS. Mortars, artillery and surface to surface missiles are becoming more accurate and more flexible by the day and they don't require near the logistics train or training costs of developing and manning a bomber and tactical aircraft force. Obviously our capability to do that isn't there yet but it could he before trillions are spent on this bomber. And it would be a more efficient use of our tax dollars. We'd be better served spending money on more naval vessels, both surface and subs, and more advanced ground based fire support systems than wasting money on a long range bomber fleet.
This is the "technology solves everything" argument, and the foundation of the pro-F-35 crowd.
Often times, war is inconveniently dirty, risky, and dangerous.
Back to topic: Sadly, this contract seems to be a "Let's give Northrop a contract, since they haven't had a big contract since the B-2, and just a pittance with the Global Hawk."
10-31-2015, 03:55 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
It WILL be a disaster, and is a waste of money.....but if you think CAS---or long-range strike, for that matter---can be done by Mortars, arty, and cruise missiles.....it makes me think you don't have first-hand experience in either.
This is the "technology solves everything" argument, and the foundation of the pro-F-35 crowd.
Often times, war is inconveniently dirty, risky, and dangerous.
Back to topic: Sadly, this contract seems to be a "Let's give Northrop a contract, since they haven't had a big contract since the B-2, and just a pittance with the Global Hawk."
This is the "technology solves everything" argument, and the foundation of the pro-F-35 crowd.
Often times, war is inconveniently dirty, risky, and dangerous.
Back to topic: Sadly, this contract seems to be a "Let's give Northrop a contract, since they haven't had a big contract since the B-2, and just a pittance with the Global Hawk."
I do have first hand experience. I was a Marine grunt in Fallujah and Ramada in 2004. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loooove CAS, but the technology is there to make most CAS obsolete. Mortars and arty now have GPS guided rounds just as accurate as a JDAM. HIMARS has a range of hundreds of miles, if not more. ISR UAVs are already down to the company level giving the guy on the ground the same bird's eye view as a pilot. If we put money into enhancing these capabilities even more it significantly reduces our logistics burden and makes deconfliction of airspace a non issue. Of course there will still be a need for some CAS platforms. I'm thinking specifically of SOF forces operating on their own far away from traditional fire support platforms.
As far as long range strike, obviously were not there either, yet. But we can invest in that capability as well. Both from naval vessels and from ground based systems.
This will not only be more responsive, flexible and responsive in the long run but will also be exponentially less expensive. I'm not saying we should do this today, or next year or maybe not even in 10 years but it's the direction we need to be headed. Not in the direction of a trillion dollar long range bomber that will result in nothing but a redundant capability that will only be used because poured so much money into it that we feel we need to justify it.
10-31-2015, 05:34 PM
#44
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
KA:
That's interesting; I had not heard of GPS mortar rounds, but I'm from an older-school of CAS.
But the remark: "as accurate as JDAM" is the crux. Sometimes bombs aren't optimum (extreme danger close), and high-calibre airborne guns ARE.
But for that, I prefer a lower-tech airplane with lots of loiter and weapons....think we're only the same page there.
The public thinks cruise missiles can hit any target, but they are of course range and PAYLOAD limited....really, the modern equivalent of Doolittle's raid: damage, but often not enough to change the order of battle.
Bombers fall in two categories: bomb-trucks (BUFF), stealth deep strike (B-2), and one that falls in-between.....
Like you, I see no pressing need to develop yet another stealthy deep-strike aircraft.
Eisenhower must be shaking his head.....
That's interesting; I had not heard of GPS mortar rounds, but I'm from an older-school of CAS.
But the remark: "as accurate as JDAM" is the crux. Sometimes bombs aren't optimum (extreme danger close), and high-calibre airborne guns ARE.
But for that, I prefer a lower-tech airplane with lots of loiter and weapons....think we're only the same page there.
The public thinks cruise missiles can hit any target, but they are of course range and PAYLOAD limited....really, the modern equivalent of Doolittle's raid: damage, but often not enough to change the order of battle.
Bombers fall in two categories: bomb-trucks (BUFF), stealth deep strike (B-2), and one that falls in-between.....
Like you, I see no pressing need to develop yet another stealthy deep-strike aircraft.
Eisenhower must be shaking his head.....
10-31-2015, 06:43 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
The public thinks cruise missiles can hit any target, but they are of course range and PAYLOAD limited....really, the modern equivalent of Doolittle's raid: damage, but often not enough to change the order of battle.
11-03-2015, 03:59 AM
#46
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by Packrat
I guess you meant "uninformed." However, you're Freudian slip indicates your bias is that the "boots on the ground" can do no wrong. Or that, somehow, calling in an airstrike on a known hospital is somehow justified by the "fog of war."
You would be completely wrong. Until Vietnam at least, American soldiers didn't commit war crimes. Lt. Calley came along and slaughtered an entire village of innocent people. Is it any wonder that the returning soldiers were met with the epithet "baby killers."
Then along comes Dick Cheney and his neocons who convinced their little puppet, George that it was entirely legal to torture prisoners as long as they were Muslim. Heck, we can even fly them to countries where its allowed. I guess they forgot that when the Japanese used the waterboard, it was the U.S. that cried "War Crime!".
So now its OK to bomb a known hospital staffed by foreign doctors because you suspect there are enemy combatants inside.
Its exactly that attitude that will turn the public against the military just like it did in Vietnam. And I hope NEVER to experience that again. 99% of the guys in the military serve with honor and should be treated as such. Then some knucklehead does something like this and the entire military gets a black eye.
And the excuse, "Sure a hospital got hit, but it was staffed by a bunch of French bleeding heart liberals" doesn't hold water.
Its a war crime and someone needs to get prosecuted for it or American credibility goes right out the window.
You would be completely wrong. Until Vietnam at least, American soldiers didn't commit war crimes. Lt. Calley came along and slaughtered an entire village of innocent people. Is it any wonder that the returning soldiers were met with the epithet "baby killers."
Then along comes Dick Cheney and his neocons who convinced their little puppet, George that it was entirely legal to torture prisoners as long as they were Muslim. Heck, we can even fly them to countries where its allowed. I guess they forgot that when the Japanese used the waterboard, it was the U.S. that cried "War Crime!".
So now its OK to bomb a known hospital staffed by foreign doctors because you suspect there are enemy combatants inside.
Its exactly that attitude that will turn the public against the military just like it did in Vietnam. And I hope NEVER to experience that again. 99% of the guys in the military serve with honor and should be treated as such. Then some knucklehead does something like this and the entire military gets a black eye.
And the excuse, "Sure a hospital got hit, but it was staffed by a bunch of French bleeding heart liberals" doesn't hold water.
Its a war crime and someone needs to get prosecuted for it or American credibility goes right out the window.
You try to paint neocons as criminals, but somehow forget the current Commander in Chief. You know, the one actually responsible for the act you detest.
Love the humor, however unintended it may be, none are so blind as those who will not see.
Your real problem Rat is that you think just one side has the answer, the truth is that neither side has ever gotten close to the answer.
“Folks, it's time to evolve. That's why we're troubled. You know why our institutions are failing us, the church, the state, everything's failing? It's because, um – they're no longer relevant. We're supposed to keep evolving. Evolution did not end with us growing opposable thumbs. You do know that, right?”
― Bill Hicks
11-06-2015, 07:27 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
