Check Six Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 It's super annoying for you guys to quote pictures and have giant pictures in your signatures when all you are doing is having a Twitter-sized conversation. Yeah, I know what you mean. It's equally annoying when someone posts something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread's content.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 And I think US have more pressing matters than restarting the Cold War, even with a new bomber... Somebody needs to send Putin the memo on that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It's equally annoying when someone posts something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread's content.... You two work well together. The Ace and Gary of ARC. Since you have such angst about OT posts, do me a big one - review your last 4 posts and tell the group what they have to do with the subject of this tread. Sorry I got you so upset by that inflammatory post of mine, I was just trying to make a point that there really is no need for the LRS-B and I feel it's waste of increasingly scarce taxpayer dollars. Just my opinion, if you want to make a point that we need a few hundred of these, have at it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I was just trying to make a point that there really is no need for the LRS-B and I feel it's waste of increasingly scarce taxpayer dollars. Then you should be emphatically behind the new bomber as the old ones are astronomically costly to maintain over time as they age. One of my friends wrote his Masters Thesis on how many hours a B-52 flies before its more economical to just build a new B-52 as the cost just skyrockets at a certain point. Seeing as the youngest B-52s are hittnig 50 years, its a safe bet they hit that that mark long ago. And that is before we get into operational effectiveness. Like many things at one point replacement becomes cheaper rather than maintaining into forever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Somebody needs to send Putin the memo on that... yup Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caiotfjr Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Somebody needs to send Putin the memo on that... Putin may seem to want to restart the Cold War. After all, it's his only chance to maintain his populistic speech, to offer some glimpse of the past when USSR opposed, with equality or superiority, NATO countries. Also, the Cold War involved a situation of parity, where none of its players had the strength to alter the status-quo Forget the Fulda Gap theory and the seemlingly unstopable onslaught of mechanized armies that could reach the English Channel in a 3-day war, supported by a 3-1 superior number of tactical fighters, while it's long range aviation would neutralize NATO reserves and reinforcements based in UK AND the opposing forces wouldn't toss a not so well placed (it didn't need to be) tactical nuclear bomb in the midst of the mayhem, wich would effectivelly escalate the conflict to a full exchange. Russia today has an inferior number of tanks, artilery, helicopters, etc, most of them of a generation older than NATO's weaponry (which includes former Warsaw Pact subjects, like Poland and Hungary). The only field where it maintains parity to Western countries is exactly at nuclear weaponry, by compliance of all parts to international treaties Western european countries aren't activelly threatening Russia, but for the purposes of Putin's speech, he presents them as doing exactly that. But all those BS is just "politics as usual". Also, he won't search in these forums to see what people are saying to justify those speeches. It's just WE shouldn't pay attention to a buffoon. For me, I began modeling because I like planes. I don't know too much about the employment, tactics and such and I won't enter actively in those discussion, just will try to learn something. However I've lived in the Cold War. And I don't want to go back to those times, when we tried to "think the unthinkable". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sabre Freak Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 IBTD! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Putin aside we have seen strategic bombers getting workouts since 1991. from conventional conflict to unconventional conflict. Replacement is necessary if the US wants both the strategic and tactical advantages it enjoys today. B-52s are old, and B-1s and B-2s were never acquired in the numbers needed in the first place, with spare parts results to match. Even then Strategic bombers have been dropping in proportions well beyond their small number. in some conflicts 70 percent of munitions dropped are from just ONE of the big three listed above. So in short if the US is going to keep going to war (safe bet) whether they are big or small conflicts LRS-B will have a role, even more so when you look at what WACO mentioned they are expected to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 A couple of points before this thing goes completely off the rails... 1 - Yes, the contract award was protested. The Air Force anticipated--nay, expected--this action, and as a result, has prepared for this contingency. The entire structure of the competition, bid, and selection process was designed to be as protest proof as possible. Just as all defense contractors now build the expense of a protest into their bid process, the Air Force has begun to build the expectation of one into their selection process, in an attempt to stay as above board as possible and to prevent this from being a long, drawn out process. In this case, I think the process will be fairly short, and the claim will be unsubstantiated. The selection process for the LRS-B was as "protest proof" as you could possibly make it, and they've been extremely careful in the language used at all points along the timeline. Summarizing: the AF is ahead of the contract protest game this time. 2 - This selection process was not run by the Air Force's traditional acquisition community, but by the Rapid Capabilities Office. That means it was developed differently, relies more on proven, demonstrated, and off-the-shelf technologies, as well as open architecture, and is far more mature than most acquisitions programs at the selection point. The press releases don't say the aircraft has flown already (they also don't say it hasn't), but they are very clear that major component testing, risk reduction, and integration planning has been thoroughly demonstrated. The whole point of RCO is to be able to put something in the field, ASAP. I don't think we're looking at a decades long development timeline at this point. EMD, DT&E, and OT&E timelines will take a few years, no doubt. However, I think this system at large is far more mature than most folks realize at this point. The majority of the timeline until IOC will involve setting up the appropriate logistics chains, basing support, and developing the operational TTPs to integrate its capabilities into joint force employment. 3 - LRS-B is not solely about replacing the "big wing" strategic bombing capabilities. It's about enabling a whole new set of capabilities built around what has historically been called the prompt global strike initiative, counter-A2/AD, realizing a host of capabilities gaps identified by Air-Sea Battle, enhancing over-the-horizon Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Assess in a single, rapid targeting, network enabled platform, etc. In short, there's a whole bunch of stuff they want this thing to do that is above and beyond a traditional bomber model: serve as an LO node in a forward ISR network, providing OTH SA and rapid strike capability, act as a penetrating platform for HVT and emergent/fleeting/heavily defended TST environments, provide direct inputs to combat cloud information in a contested environment, support long range strike against an A2/AD adversary in a regionally denied environment, etc. So now the naysayers are thinking, "well, if it's going to do all of that stuff, then it won't be fielded rapidly." In my opinion--and my opinion only--a lot of this stuff probably already exists. You've already got RQ-170 with much speculated LO ISR and OTH feed capabilities, you've got LRASM and other LO network centric weapons capable of being supported from BLOS sources, they're working aggressively on hypersonic strike weapons, etc. What you don't have is a single platform which can integrate all of those capabilities. I believe that is the goal for LRS-B....take a bunch of existing stuff that's been fielded to meet emerging needs and put them all together in a single, coherent, long-range strike capable platform. And further, keep it open architecture to be able to integrate future capabilities as they emerge. So yes, there is an operational need for this thing, and it goes beyond traditional strat bomber missions. The problem with "dusting off and updating" the B-2 is, we've only got 20 of them. The B-1 and B-52 are not capable of meeting all these requirements. And the fighter LO platforms do not have the persistence being sought by LRS-B. 4 - There have been a lot of lessons learned after the next generation tanker, F-22, F-35, LCS, Paladin, CSAR-X, and other acquisitions programs. This program has undergone an evolution of program changes, names, and funding alterations (Next-Gen Bomber, anyone?). What has NOT changed, however, is the fact the Air Force recognizes the need for a new strategic strike asset with a slew of new capabilities. I think the USAF at large has recognized and adapted its acquisition process to correct previous mistakes. Of all the acquisition programs currently in play, this one displays the most signs of being intelligently, deliberately, and carefully managed. Frankly, I hope it stays in the RCO world for a while, because they've done a great job so far. I think it has a very high probability of fielding on-time, and meeting its capabilities milestones. Meh, it's no A-10. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Meh, it's no A-10. Regards, Murph Case closed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Edited November 13, 2015 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.