re: US Air Force unveils picture of new stealth bomber

quote:

---

No. No. And No.

---

Nice rebuttal. Why don't you explain why we need to invest 100s of billions more in relatively vulnerable long-range bombers to maintain a credible strategic deterrent or retaliatory capability.

I can only assume this is some sort of service parochialism by your SN. Or you're nearing retirement and looking to get hired onto the contract.

I agree with you about the carriers, btw. Though it won't be within 30 years. Probably closer to 45.

quote:

---

Why don't you explain why we need to invest 100s of billions more in relatively vulnerable long-range bombers to maintain a credible strategic deterrent or retaliatory capability.

---

Three very simple reasons for maintaining the air leg of the triad:

1. The air leg is the only that is a clear and visible deterrent. Even Russia gets this. That's why they continue to fly their Bear bombers on these long range missions. The US does this often with B-52s and even B-2s.

2. The air leg provides flexibility and a better means of escalation than the other two. I'm not going to say much more on this because I don't want to risk saying something classified.

3. The bombers are also needed for conventional conflict. Fighters simply can't carry the payload and don't have the range necessary; particularly in the Pacific AOR.

You can thank the Marines for a lot of that cost.

Correct.

quote:

---

1. The air leg is the only that is a clear and visible deterrent. Even Russia gets this. That's why they continue to fly their Bear bombers on these long range missions. The US does this often with B-52s and even B-2s.

---

I guess I get that from a strategic messaging point of view. But let's not conflate that with deterrence. Adversary decision makers don't need to see our subs to know that their patrols place them in position to be the first option in the case of a nuclear escalation. Yes aircraft are the most visible. Which is why, as I mentioned, they are also the most vulnerable and defeatable.

quote:

---

2. The air leg provides flexibility and a better means of escalation than the other two. I'm not going to say much more on this because I don't want to risk saying something classified.

---

Well I honestly can't imagine what about that would be classified without going into specifics. They are the easiest "strike" to recall once an order is given. And in a situation requiring measured escalation, increasing our patrols etc does offer, as mentioned before, more options for strategic communication. Those are about the only real advantages in flexibility I think relevant. And that's not worth 100s of billions.

quote:

---

3. The bombers are also needed for conventional conflict. Fighters simply can't carry the payload and don't have the range necessary; particularly in the Pacific AOR.

---

The Navy would bear the brunt of strike responsibilities for most plans in that AOR--TLAMs and carrier-based strikes. The bombers we have in place now are sufficient for their role. Now I'm all for the upgrade if it's free. It becomes a matter of "is it necessary" and is it worth the cost.

quote:

---

2. The air leg provides flexibility and a better means of escalation than the other two. I'm not going to say much more on this because I don't want to risk saying something classified. 

---

Bombers can carry something else that ICBMs and SLBMs can't - tactical nukes.

quote:

---

Meet the B-21.....

---

I just hope this doesn't become another B-36 type situation.

quote:

---

B-36s featured six 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major' radial engines mounted in the pusher configuration. This unusual configuration prevented propeller turbulence from interfering with airflow over the wing, but could also lead to engine overheating due to insufficient airflow around the engines, resulting in in-flight engine fires.

The large, slow-turning propellers interacted with the high pressure air flow behind the wings to produce an easily recognizable very low frequency pulse at ground level that betrayed approaching flights.

The B-36 was arguably obsolete from the outset, being piston-powered, coupled with the widespread introduction of first generation jet fighters in potential enemy air forces.

In particular, the United States Navy saw it as a costly bungle, diverting congressional funding and interest from naval aviation and aircraft carriers in general, and carrier–based nuclear bombers in particular.

---

This was after the Truman administration forced the Navy to scrap what would have been the first supercarrier, the USS United States.

I just worry that the future belongs to unmanned aircraft, which have a higher upside.

quote:

---

at a cost of $550 million each

---

That will be well short of the true cost

quote:

---

That will be well short of the true cost

---

Yeah, no chance it's that cheap

Laugh if you want. Doesn't change my stance. Way too much to lose at this stage of my career to risk saying something on a message board that could come back to bite me in the arse.