Leader Says Future Bomber Won’t Go Solo

the fact is the B52 was and still is the most cost effective jdam truck the US has out there. An F16 because it can carry not nearly the same amount of bombs is much more expensive per bomb and as the US will not face a large scale conventional war anytime soon the B52 approach seems to be best for now.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
the fact is the B52 was and still is the most cost effective jdam truck the US has out there. An F16 because it can carry not nearly the same amount of bombs is much more expensive per bomb and as the US will not face a large scale conventional war anytime soon the B52 approach seems to be best for now.

Its cost effective because its paid off and theres a large surplus of spares for the airframe - the USAF stockpiled a lot in the 1960s and 1970s, and then stripped down retired airframes before they were scrapped. This has proven to be so cost effective that during the 1990s the USAF ruled out a B-52 reengine program because they had enough spare engines for more than 25 years of operations, and it was cheaper to pay the extra fuel costs and maintenance cost of engine replacements than buying new engines for the fleet.

Once that spares mountain expires, the B-52 is going to get expensive very very quickly.

Swapping overly complicated systems from the aircraft to on the ground or elsewhere is still merely changing one vice for another . The country that produces the most lower tech , overall cheaper and simpler designs will defeat the one that produces just the opposite in a conventional war .

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by Astr0


Demanding respect hardly nets it.

The impracticality of UCAV swarms still exists. It doesn't matter how many stars someone has on their collar - they can't change the laws of physics or economics.

"Swarms" have their place. It's not in carrying standard ordnance. Their advantage is in recon, tactical awareness, and certain specialized ordnance packages (or some offensive/defensive equivalent).

Once that spares mountain expires, the B-52 is going to get expensive very very quickly.

This entirely depends upon how the fleet is maintained. If spares are, again, ordered by the mountain, then they will not be all that costly to maintain. If they order them on an as-needed basis or in smaller quantities, they are going to get very expensive to maintain.

Of course - the cost of ordering a mountain of replacement parts would be similar to contracting an entirely new airframe with a similar mountain of parts - so, you'd have to make a choice.

Again - laws of economics and industry.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Demanding respect hardly nets it.

Young man, I do not care how long you have been on this forum, but I do care very much so that when discussing a subject you remain civil.

Note I said civil. Your reading and comprehension skills are sorely as lacking as your manners. I do not demand respect but the ATS borads certainly do demand manners and decorum.

The impracticality of UCAV swarms still exists. It doesn't matter how many stars someone has on their collar - they can't change the laws of physics or economics.

Actually were you to go to Afghanistan and speak to certain survivors of NATO air attacks you will be told of a UAV system that hunts in packs - four to eight at a time and they are the single most feared air system in theatre as far as the enemy are concerned.

So I suggest you go gain a few stars and find out for yourself just how relevant to war fighting the swarm UAV concept actually is.

Actually were you to go to Afghanistan and speak to certain survivors of NATO air attacks you will be told of a UAV system that hunts in packs - four to eight at a time and they are the single most feared air system in theatre as far as the enemy are concerned.

A single pack is vastly different from a 'swarm.' Remember what I said about data and networking? Regardless of what network structure you assume, you'll run into 'soft-caps' pretty quick.

It's also hardly the 'future' of aircraft. Like I said - you're running smaller aircraft with smaller payloads, ranges, etc.

Young man, I do not care how long you have been on this forum, but I do care very much so that when discussing a subject you remain civil.

Note I said civil. Your reading and comprehension skills are sorely as lacking as your manners. I do not demand respect but the ATS borads certainly do demand manners and decorum.

My reading comprehension is virtually infallible. I know what you typed, and I know what you want from me.

The report button is provided for a reason. Go ahead and mash away at it. I'm not quite sure how a difference of opinion could be more tame - but, if it's that important to you....

So I suggest you go gain a few stars and find out for yourself just how relevant to war fighting the swarm UAV concept actually is.

Please note it was an E-3 who leaked thousands of pages of sensitive information (and had access to that information).

Half the time, the people with stars on their collar have little idea how a weapon system actually factors into combat. That is what they have aids and a bunch of E-4s and 5s to brief them for.

Recall the F-105? That was a multi-star creation. It was going to be a fighter, supersonic bomber, and be capable of out-running any threat it would face. Of course, someone in that room full of Chair Force generals forgot to factor in physics.... Just look up the history on the F-105 to know how that turned out for them.

The enlisted community runs the military. A base in Germany recently had an issue where the vast majority of the base was comprised of E-4s, who, literally, ran the base at just about every level. It was the "E-4 Mafia."

In the military - you ask your OIC about funding and authorization to step outside of the implemented policy. You go to someone who actually works on the system to figure out how it works. My background is in electronics and Avionics.

The "pack" or "swarm" concept is certainly a powerful one - but you are going to run into problems with scaling it up. You are also going to run into problems with the sizes of the aircraft involved and their performance characteristics. Granted- there's no reason why a B-52 could not be rigged into the swarm - you're going from a swarm concept to a fully automated combat network (SKYNET, anyone?) that replaces human combat roles.

One only has to look at Aegis and the USN to see the direction things are going to be heading for the Army and Air Force: network aware target acquisition and engagement based on localisation.

Add in "smart" munitions that can deploy and redirect / change flight path based on threat assesment and avoidance and it's not hard to see that any particular F16, F15, F18, F22, F35, B1, B2, B52 may be carrying ordinance destined for a target.

Originally posted by Azador
Does that mean the ticket price of the bomber alone will be cheaper but by the time you factor in the support network it would be just as expensive?

I read into this as there is a redundancy factor in the combined system that provides a more complete tactical view and a better timing of strike, better evasion of AA systems etc. All that combined may be well worth the price.

A single pack is vastly different from a 'swarm.' Remember what I said about data and networking? Regardless of what network structure you assume, you'll run into 'soft-caps' pretty quick.

Controling swarms of aircraft on the same radio frequency is no problem.

Your computer if its on cable is on a shared network and each computer sends a request and gets back information. How often has your computer ever sent a request and got back data that was sent to someone else.

Using the same data sharing you could run a 1000 drones on one frequency. You could even frequency hop while controlling the aircraft.