B-3 Bomber announced

Quote: AZDuffman

.... You get a dictator tells them to paint a sign saying "BABY MILK FACTORY" and lay it in the rubble and the press runs with it.

What are you talking about? Doctors without borders wants US brought up on war crimes for bombing this hospital. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/us-bombs-afghanistan-hospital-kills-9-civilians-injures-37-tosses-it-collateral-dama Not sure if that's what you are insinuating? That looks pretty horrific to me.

Quote:

Need to spend more time fighting insurgents and learning to occupy an enemy.

We need to create some more enemy's first.

The Pentagram is absolutely the very best at gearing up to fight the last war.

The Chinese have already demonstrated being able to shoot satellites out of space. They have ship destroyer missiles that travel supersonic right off the deck of the ocean. If you just want to make work for retiring multi-star generals and have the MIC make more trillions, I see your point. But big floating targets for lazers in the sky, makes no sense to me.

We already have space weapons, why you want to teach pigs to fly?

The Russians have the ability to disable our finest battleships electronically:
The source was quoted as saying that the U.S. destroyer Ross was moving along the edge of Russia's territorial waters and heading in their direction.

"Apparently, the Americans have not forgotten the April 2014 incident when one Su-24 practically 'blacked out' all of the electronics on board the newest American destroyer Donald Cook," the source said." I read at rumor than when the Donald Cook got to shore, 34 officers quit? Probably a rumor.

The wars now are financial, body's are propaganda. You want them all dead, go bio or chem. Doing it the old kinetic method makes prosthetic limb makers a great investment.

I think a bit like the Wiz, and bit like Stalin also. If you got to have war, try to win OK? There is little logic behind building manned war craft anymore. Drones are sacrificial, cheaper and you don't need to maintain life support systems, etc. Look at the F35 boondoggle, a trillion dollars wasted and the Russkies can take it out pretty readily.

Just push the big red button and get it over with. War is a racket, General Smedley Butler;http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Is this just some fantasy: http://osnetdaily.com/2015/10/russian-jamming-system-blocks-all-nato-electronics-inside-bubble-600-km-in-diameter-over-syria/

Quote: petroglyph

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the Iraq war when they did just what I said.

Quote: Wizard

This is getting out of my area but seems to me that big heavy bombers are relics of the cold war. We should be emphasizing drones.

Per the article it seems to imply the B-3 could be manned or unmanned. The question then becomes do we need a drone this big?

Quote: Face

"Strike" I won't argue.

I win the internet!! :)

Quote:

Go ahead and call it the A117.

That's what it should have been called from the start. But the news were full of "Stealth Fighter" buzz.

Quote:

LOL! Methinks it's a bit frail for that. I mean, I don't know how it was designed, but I can't imagine a stealth plane being reinforced to sustain damage.

Damage? You fly close tot he radar installation with the cloak of invisibility on, and drop bombs on it. Magically you're never detected and fly away at your leisure. I'm sure it's on the sales brochure ;)

Quote:

Plus, if it ended up being good at it, they might finally retire the A-10. I would literally cry.

I thought the F-117 had been retired already.

When they get around to an A-10 replacement, I've one wish: Two Gatling guns.

Quote: AZDuffman

Per the article it seems to imply the B-3 could be manned or unmanned. The question then becomes do we need a drone this big?

I don't see how or why.

As I said before, the carpet game is gone. Sure, when all you had was dumb bombs, you needed a carpet to ensure a hit. Flying in-country was risky; you didn't want to do it more than you had to. So one flight to hit one thing that you can't miss, and have to use dumb bombs to do it? Better bring a hundred and lay the whole place low.

That's over. Now we pick our way right to the target. Send in a Strike Fighter with HARM's to blind the enemy and neutralize the air threat. Have the Navy toss a few Tomahawks to burn down the now blinded air defenses. The path clear, send the Strikers in with JDAMS and AWACS to specifically take out the one thing you wanted taken out. Go home and blast Kenny Loggins.

Where does the bomber come into play? I've been deeply into war coverage ever since Desert Storm, and I see no spot for it to occupy. Even when it was army vs army in a mechanical battle, we cleaned them right up. The infamous "Turkey Shoot". Laid waste to the entire division using not much more than Apaches and good old fashioned mechanized cavalry. Our newest battles are all guerrilla, and that's a whole new ball game. If in the sticks, we usually have a Longbow. It peeks over a ridge, blasts an installation, and then a Predator cleans up what's left. If in an urban setting, we're using F-18's and Tomahawks to surgically strike, then send in men to doorbust. Again, where does the bomber fit?

It doesn't. A bomber has capacity and range. With a payload of several million tons and a range of the whole planet, the USNavy already has that covered.

Quote: Nareed

When they get around to an A-10 replacement, I've one wish: Two Gatling guns.

Better have afterburners, then. Pull the trigger and you might well end up going backwards ;)

Quote: Nareed

" I don't know how they ever bought the sole exception A-10 (also a favorite of mine; it's more a gun with a plane built around it).

That is also one of my favorite planes. I love the utilitarian look of it.

Quote: Face

Where does the bomber come into play? I've been deeply into war coverage ever since Desert Storm, and I see no spot for it to occupy.

We haven't used nuclear weapons in 70 years....

You the idiot meme "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had"? I call it idiotic because there was no urgency to invade Iraq (which was a massive blunder in any case, even if I thought different at the time). America could have waited months or years and built up the armed forces to the level they needed to be.

But it's true in the sense that in case of an unexpected war, you will have to fight with what you have. So why not have all you can get to begin with?

In case of a war that threatened the existence of the US, or perhaps even of a close ally, the B1s and B2s would take to the air with nukes in their bellies. They'd fly "patrols" and, in case they're ordered to, can make in a moment's notice to an enemy target and drop their nukes.

Quote:

Better have afterburners, then. Pull the trigger and you might well end up going backwards ;)

Maybe. I was thinking of the regular A-10 gun, plus more like a Gatling/Hotchkiss cannon for the new one.

Quote: Nareed

In case of a war that threatened the existence of the US, or perhaps even of a close ally, the B1s and B2s would take to the air with nukes in their bellies. They'd fly "patrols" and, in case they're ordered to, can make in a moment's notice to an enemy target and drop their nukes.

I believe the U.S. has nuclear armed bombers in the air 24/7 every single day just in case the call comes.

Quote: Nareed

But it's true in the sense that in case of an unexpected war, you will have to fight with what you have. So why not have all you can get to begin with?

I suppose, but I still don't see it.

Gone are the days of nukes the size of sedans that require a man on top fiddling with settings. Right this second, there is not a single patch on Earth we couldn't hit with a nuke. We have huge missiles with 10,000km ranges. We have nuclear armed subs. They even, for a time (I think since discontinued) had nukes that fit on Strike Fighter hard points. An F-15 could carry a nuke just as easy as it carried an AGM-88.

I must ask again, what purpose would a bomber serve? Range and capacity. The Navy already has it covered. And if someone somehow disables all XX of our nuclear capable subs, AND obliterates the entire midwest, AND shuts down our B1 / 2,... what is the B3 gonna do? Where is it more capable? What hole is it filling?

The hole in the crony's pockets =p

Quote: Nareed

Maybe. I was thinking of the regular A-10 gun, plus more like a Gatling/Hotchkiss cannon for the new one.

The A-10 has flight settings just for that gun, did you know that? Since the gun's positioning is off-kilter and it's so hugely powerful, activating it causes the entire plane to yaw sharply to the left. You need to flip a switch so the plane knows to automatically apply rudder when you fire.

Perhaps you can sell the two-gun version as an upgrade. One less flight system to increase its survivability ;)

We need to keep producing new systems because they serve as deterrents. The fact that your potential enemy has more advanced munitions actually keeps the peace.

Whether we, as a country, are willing to use the systems we have to inflict damage on others, including the loss of "innocents" is the real question. If our enemies know that we are not willing to pull the trigger on a hospital they will certainly use that information to their advantage.

If the only tool in our toolbox is a nuclear bomb that we will not use, it is as good as useless. It is better to have several other, 'right sized" options available. Heavy bombers capable of carrying "Daisy Cutters" are a "right sized" option. I say build it so we don't have to use it. But if we need to use it, use it to win, not to "contain".

Quote: Face

I must ask again, what purpose would a bomber serve? Range and capacity. The Navy already has it covered. And if someone somehow disables all XX of our nuclear capable subs, AND obliterates the entire midwest, AND shuts down our B1 / 2,... what is the B3 gonna do? Where is it more capable? What hole is it filling?

The hole in the crony's pockets =p

Redundancy and flexibility. Plus I suppose they'd retire the B-52s for sure, maybe the B1s as well.

BTW how hard would it be to convert a B1 to a really large and insanely expensive executive jet? It's the only large supersonic aircraft (though I think it tops out at Mach 1.2 or so, far from the Concorde's 2.something+). If there isn't even a passageway between cockpit and bomb bay, the whole pipe dream vanishes in a puff of smoke. I already said it would be insanely expensive to do, but also to operate.

Quote:

The A-10 has flight settings just for that gun, did you know that?

Yup. It's also one of a few planes that don't change trim when it deploys the speed brakes. They open above and below the wing, so trim stays the same.

Quote:

Perhaps you can sell the two-gun version as an upgrade. One less flight system to increase its survivability ;)

Oh, it would be a whole new design. Call it the A-19 or A-50 or whatever (A-20?) With a real glass cockpit and actual automation this time, thank you. Just keep the turbofan engines, the high fuel efficiency, the short take off run, the "ground loiter" capability (which will never be employed), etc.