Why not give the money to NASA
And then if any enemy pops up use them to nuke it form orbit, it's the only way to be sure..
Northrop wins $55bn contract for next-gen bomber – as America says bye-bye to B-52
The US Department of Defense has announced that Northrup Grumman will be supplying its next generation of Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) to replace the aging B-52 and B-2 fleets. Youtube video "Over the past century, no nation has used air power to accomplish its global reach -- to compress time and space -- like the United …
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 08:59 GMT Google
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
Though the US is not too keen on it.
The Space Preservation Treaty was a proposed 2006 UN General Assembly resolution against all space weapons. Only the United States of America voted against the treaty, with Israel abstaining.
The resolution No first placement of weapons in outer space, which emphasizes the prevention of an arms race in space and that "other measures could contribute to ensuring that weapons were not placed in outer space." 126 countries voted in favor to 4 against (Georgia, Israel, Ukraine, United States),
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space#Outer_Space_Treaty
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 09:11 GMT Robert Helpmann??
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
Space based
weapon systemsweapons of mass destruction are specifically forbidden by international treaty.It is within the bounds of the Outer Space Treaty to develop space-based platforms using conventional weapons, which would presumably allow a country to place a large mass in orbit and simply nudge it down onto the heads of whomever that country happened to be having an argument with at the time. I would prefer that this loophole be closed as I would not want the chance of falling rocks to be included in my local weather report, but it seems to be on the table.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 22:00 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
which would presumably allow a country to place a large mass in orbit and simply nudge it down onto the heads of whomever that country happened to be having an argument with at the time.
A set of smaller masses which resist ablation and can reach earth surface. No explosive necessary. Several hundred ceramic slabs hitting the ground at a few hundred m/sec can deliver a combined energy of a decent size nuke.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 10:22 GMT Random Yayhoo
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
No. The energy dissipated by the projectiles must be less than the fuel required to give them that energy...call it 100t of hydrazine at the upper limit of a large ICBM. The tiniest nukes generally admitted have yields of 1kton of TNT, which equates to around the same mass of Hydrazine. Yes, spreading the effects broadly is more efficient. But the dissipation of energy in reentry drops that right back to a fraction of the original 100t....IOW, no nuke.
PS a "decent" nuke means typically 100-200kton TNT equivalent. The figure is higher for most nuclear gravity bombs.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 14:31 GMT Vic
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
The energy dissipated by the projectiles must be less than the fuel required to give them that energy
Sure - but it's not about the energy. There's plenty of that, even if it's less than a nuke.
The weapon is effective because you don't see a boost phase - that might have happened years before. One little retro rocket on an orbital vehicle and you've got a super-fast strike with almost no notice...
Vic.
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 09:21 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
> Space based weapon systems are specifically forbidden by international treaty.
Someone still thinks "international treaty" is in force.
The US alone has raped "international treaty" so hard in the last two decades (and with impunity) that its ears are bleeding.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 19:39 GMT imanidiot
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
Even the US isn't brazen/stupid enough to risk a spacebased weapons system race with Russia and/or China. The whole MAD strategy goes out the window if you or your opponent can launch a strike that lands in minutes, well before you can properly react. This stuff wasn't just shelved because it was a bad idea. It was such a bad idea that even the US and USSR realised it was a Bad Idea™.
-
-
-
Friday 30th October 2015 00:21 GMT Sampler
Re: Why not give the money to NASA
erm...all those replying with serious comments on space based weapon treaties do realise I was just quoting Aliens right?
I find the whole rather hypocritical, we're going to spend an unimaginable amount of money on planes to kill people over resources rather than fund flying out into space where unimaginable amounts of resources exist..
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 20:04 GMT Bleu
Re: replace the agわing B-52 and B-2 fleets?
Clandestine nuclear weapons facility?
Only one around is called Dimona.
Fat chance of the USA bombing that any time soon, let alone acknowledging that it exists.
Not that I am saying it should be bombed, only that their bomb-making should be shut down.
Nuclear-weapons free Middle East?
What a joke, and their USA colony sabotages any diplomacy to that end.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 16:31 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: replace the aging B-52 and B-2 fleets?
Clandestine nuclear weapons facility?
Only one around is called Dimona.
"Clandestine" rather implies that you don't know whether there are others.
(Which is not to say that I'm necessarily in favor of spending billions of dollars on new bombers, mind. It's a complicated area, in technical, political, social, and ethical dimensions, and somehow I don't expect a few sentences in an online forum are going to contribute anything significant to the discussion.)
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 03:24 GMT Herby
Just remember...
The current fleet of B52's are typically older than the flight crews that actually fly them. Many of the original airframes date from the 50's or 60's. Something needs to be done, and it will cost $$$. Of course, they could modify a 767 airliner and add bomb bay doors, and it might just work. That would be too simple.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 04:20 GMT IvyKing
Re: Just remember...
A modified 767 probably would not work, being low wing, the wing box is in precisely the place you want the bomb bay to be. There's a reason that the big bombers such as the B-36, B-47 and B-52 had high wings. The 767 airframe was not designed the take the stresses of combat flight. Finally, the big fans on the 767 engines make really nice radar reflectors.
The newest B-52 airframes rolled out of the Boeing doors in 1962, although the avionics have been replaced many times since then.
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 14:10 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Just remember...
"I wonder how a Vulcan-shape would work as a design starting point."
Badly.
It doesn't have the carrying capacity for high level bombing and it's not strong enough for the turbulence encountered in sustained low level operations (which is what eventually forced them to be retired)
Vulcans were obsolete within 3 years of their introduction. Ever since then the missions they were given were ways of justifying keeping them flying.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 19:16 GMT Vic
Re: Just remember...
it's not strong enough for the turbulence encountered in sustained low level operations
The Vulcan was pretty good at low-level ops; it was the Victor that couldn't handle the stress. So they were converted into tankers.
There was concern about stress-cracking in the wings, so a modification was developed to patch the wing root after a certain number of flying hours. Only one Vulcan was ever actually patched - XH558, and that just a couple of years ago.
Vulcans were obsolete within 3 years of their introduction
Well, I spent some time with Martin Withers last year, and he doesn't agree with you.
Vic.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 04:44 GMT Mark 85
Re: Just remember...
At one point back in the 70's, Ithere was much discussion about re-opening the line at Boeing and rolling out new B-52's. as the bomb weight and the range were needed. The cost of re-tooling the line was prohibitive. Per Wikipedia, they will probably be in the inventory until around 2040.
The B2 can carry about half the bomb load of the B-52 but can carry the "bigger bombs" that the 52 can't carry and flies faster and higher. As it is now, there's only 21 B-2's even though more were proposed.
I imagine this new plane will be very stealthy, very fast, and carry less of a load. Unless it ends up like the F-35...
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 05:48 GMT Fazal Majid
Re: Just remember...
The cost was prohibitive because Boeing would rather sell $800M bombers than $55M ones, and invented excuses. The whole concept of advanced manned bombers is as archaic as battleships or horse cavalry. The Russians can shoot them down whenever they want, and you don't need the fancy tech to bomb the likes of ISIS, just a cheap, cost-effective warhorse like the B-52.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 09:48 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Just remember...
The cost was prohibitive because the development costs for a 100 aircraft programme became spread over 21 aircraft when some bright spark decided they needed to make cost savings. Once you've done the R&D you don't save much, if any, by cutting back on the production run. A lesson the bean counters on either side of the Atlantic seemingly refuse to learn.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 10:56 GMT naive
Re: Just remember...
I would hate to see them go, my earliest memory of them is the footage on the 8 o'clock news, where they were bombing the hell out of commies in Vietnam, for me the B52 is the image of American power, probably like the Iowa's were to an earlier generation. The 8 JT3D (a.k.a. TF33) engines make great sound, i miss them since the Greentards banned them for use on the nearby commercial airport some 25 years ago. If there was a Nobel prize for engineering, the engineers at Boeing designing the B52 and the 707 (KC-135 and Awacs) would have been awarded with it, since both airframes are both still in use 60 years after conception, same goes for the engineers at P&W designing the JT3D (TF33) engines.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 12:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Just remember...
where they were bombing the hell out of commies in Vietnam
Ineffectually, whilst also raining napalm on civilians, and spraying dioxins all over the environment in the bizarre defoliation programme.
for me the B52 is the image of American power,
Errr... the US was kicked out of Vietnam, so that's not really a good image of American power, is it? And arguably the B52 plus B1 and B2 didn't stop the US getting kicked out of Afghanistan or Iraq (ignoring the token forces still there), didn't help deter the Russians in Ukraine, and have been largely ineffectual in defeating IS. On the basis of the evidence, the new bomber is a pointless piece of military bling, a bit like the Ford class carriers and my own country's QE class carriers.
Now, given that the US government spend more than they take in tax, to the tune of $10,000 dollars per second, or thereabouts, how will they afford this new toy?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
I'm sorry if this comes across as anti-US, it isn't intended to be. Your and my government have virtually indistinguishably stupid foreign and defence policies, and because both of our countries have entrenched political classes they repeat the same expensive mistakes time and again, whilst enthusiastically spending money that our children will have to repay (in addition to any student debt our kids may start their careers soaked in). Spending money on assets that really defend your interests is a good thing. Spending money on exporting death-from-the-sky to distant lands doesn't pass that test in my book.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 12:33 GMT MondoMan
Re: B52s/B2s...
Actually, B52s and B2s are quite effective when used properly, as in the 2001 air attacks that helped drive the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. The big bombers are able to loiter for many hours at high altitudes out of range of guns and portable AA missiles, providing on-demand precision bombing using the (relatively) ridiculously cheap GPS-guided JDAMs.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 14:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: B52s/B2s...
as in the 2001 air attacks that helped drive the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan
Up to a point and temporarily, as it now appears.
I would agree that the air force softened up and supported, but the only reason that the Taliban were temporarily removed from power was actually the grunts on the ground taking and holding territory. About 5,000 allied soldiers didn't come back, and in excess of 20,000 were wounded, which shows the limits of air power even for the richest country on the planet, with the most heavily armed and technologically advanced military on the planet.
Doesn't look like all that high glamour air power was too effective fighting against a bunch of bearded rag heads, mostly armed with improvised explosive devices, carrying a light machine gun designed seventy years ago, and some propelled grenades designed fifty five years ago.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 14:13 GMT Alan Brown
Re: B52s/B2s...
Ledswinger is correct.
Airpower can suppress opposition but ground forces are needed to drive them out and political will is needed to keep them out. You can't indefinitely occupy a country whose inhabitants don't _want_ to be occupied and you don't win hearts and minds by dropping bombs on some bystander's family (on the other hand, doing so is one of the best recruiting tools for terrorists that exists)
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 15:02 GMT Fatman
Re: B52s/B2s...
Alan,
I wish more people understood what you do. For the PowerPoint educated masses, allow me to """bullet point""" what you have said:
1) Airpower can suppress opposition but
2) ground forces are needed to drive them out and
3) political will is needed to keep them out. (Didn't the USofA get schooled in that lesson in VietNam?)
4) You can't indefinitely occupy a country whose inhabitants don't _want_ to be occupied and (Soviets in Afghanistan?)
5) you don't win hearts and minds by dropping bombs on some bystander's family (again USofA in Iraq and Afghanistan)
6) (on the other hand, doing so is one of the best recruiting tools for terrorists that exists) case in point: ISIS
What is a shame is the USofA's BIG DICK military mentality.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 17:52 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: B52s/B2s...
1) Airpower can suppress opposition but
The opposition comes from your own voters.
Stealth aircraft look cool and you don't get many dead pilots if you stay high enough.
2) ground forces are needed to drive them out and
Why would you want to drvie them out, good enemies are hard to find these days.
3) political will is needed to keep them out.
Commies are funny now and since we have fracking we don't even want to keep them out of countries that have oil
4) You can't indefinitely occupy a country whose inhabitants don't _want_ to be occupied and (Soviets in Afghanistan?)
That's why the Brits always split the country and let them fight each other - works for centuries.
5) you don't win hearts and minds by dropping bombs on some bystander's family
Only hearts and minds of congress matter. As long as you build the bomber in their constituency they will support you.
6) (on the other hand, doing so is one of the best recruiting tools for terrorists that exists) case in point: ISIS
ISIS mostly kill other people that we would be killing. We will get round to re-doing the terrorist league tables next year.
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 20:07 GMT Youngone
Re: B52s/B2s...
@ YAAC
You make the very good point: Only hearts and minds of congress matter. As long as you build the bomber in their constituency they will support you.
The point here is not to build bombers, the point here is to provide pork to the right Congressmen's constituency.
If some bombers come out of the programme, that will be a nice bonus.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 22:42 GMT Mark 85
Re: B52s/B2s...
Doesn't look like all that high glamour air power was too effective fighting against a bunch of bearded rag heads, mostly armed with improvised explosive devices, carrying a light machine gun designed seventy years ago, and some propelled grenades designed fifty five years ago.
Yep.. that's why the grunts love the A-10 for air support. The B's are strategic and use them for tactical just doesn't make any sense. It's like tossing a nuke when a hand grenade will do the job.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 22:40 GMT Mark 85
Re: Just remember...
Ineffectually, whilst also raining napalm on civilians, and spraying dioxins all over the environment in the bizarre defoliation programme.
Ah.. no. I was there. Attack aircraft did napalm for the most part. C-130's did the Agent Orange as you needed something low and slow for that.
However, I do agree with the rest of this.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 06:03 GMT A Non e-mouse
Crew
The lack of mention about the new aircraft being uncrewed must mean that it will be supervised by a sack of meat. The big question is: Why?
You need lots of systems to keep the sack of meat alive, and it's not very good PR back home when you loose a sack of meat. If this is a long range bomber, the sack of meat is going to have a real dull job for the flight out and back watching the autopilot.
Why can't you use a drone or a cruise misisile?
-
Thursday 29th October 2015 06:16 GMT ShadowDragon8685
Re: Crew
Because you don't want a computer making the final decision about whether or not to release potentially nuclear ordnance, A Non e-mouse.
Drones can be jammed. If they have to be sent up against a technologically advanced country like Russia, there is a non-trivial chance their command systems can actually be spoofed, allowing the enemy to turn them back on you, or at least give them orders to (a) nosedive into the ground, or (b) turn off their radio and land at an enemy airbase to be captured properly. Hell, some asshole in Iraq with a laptop figured out how to tap into the video feeds from the damn things.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
