• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Bye bye for the Bone(B-1B)?

i can't imagine they would give away the capability the b-1 has without having something better. what else can handle the low altitude-high speed thing?
 
I can imagine it being axed as it was designed for a war against the Soviet Union, not small groups of terrorists. Many have the notion that the Soviet Union was our only major enemy and we no longer need weapons to fight against such a force. Many may also be highly mistaken, but we so enjoy repeating our mistakes.
 
Scrap the Bone, put the B-25 back into production - perfect for taking on the terrorists in their mud huts and bolt holes... `specially the 75mm cannon variant...:ernae:
 
That was an interesting article. I sense a conundrum or dilemma here for weapon systems and their designers.

Weapons systems take many years from conception to operation. Yet, it seems that the methodology of warfare is changing more quickly than the time frame to develop a new weapon? You throw that in with the fickleness of a politician and you could have a series of 4 1/2 inning baseball games.
 
stansdds said:
I can imagine it being axed as it was designed for a war against the Soviet Union, not small groups of terrorists. Many have the notion that the Soviet Union was our only major enemy and we no longer need weapons to fight against such a force. Many may also be highly mistaken, but we so enjoy repeating our mistakes.
Click to expand...


Quite right. Consider the potential need for deep, rapid strikes in the future in likely hotspots like Iran (and other parts of the M.E.), NKorea (and other parts of Asia) , and a few other interesting areas. Foolish to let this capability go -
 
Beautiful plane to look at. I hope a few make it into the museums.

The current role of an intruder bomber is probably being handed over to quickly developing remote piloted aircraft. Compared to the advanced theory, lower production and operating costs of these new gen planes, the B-1 seems absolutely prehistoric. New counter-technologies will probably focus on aircraft control signal jamming, or control interventions.

Hell....I'm beginning to feel prehistoric just thinking about it.....I remember when the B-1 was considered the unobtainable combat plane of the future.....
 
cheezyflier said:
i can't imagine they would give away the capability the b-1 has without having something better. what else can handle the low altitude-high speed thing?
Click to expand...

The question is whether that capability is still needed or not.

If you need a bomb carpet, you'll call in B-52s. If you need penetration strikes, you'll send Tomahawks or B-2s.

Where does the B-1 fit into there?
 
Clinton found out the hard way that cruise missles don't always do the trick. I think this is a capability we need to keep.
 
Bjoern said:
...Where does the B-1 fit into there?
Click to expand...

The (resurrected, subsonic) B-1 was just an insurance policy for the B-2 which was a very high-risk programme.
That risk has now been minimised, so the answer is: nowhere.
 
Wing_Z said:
The (resurrected, subsonic) B-1 was just an insurance policy for the B-2 which was a very high-risk programme.
That risk has now been minimised, so the answer is: nowhere.
Click to expand...

maybe...maybe not..
[YOUTUBE]FFsYcK5lWrQ[/YOUTUBE]
 
The Bone is a good bomb truck. Really, that's what helps in Afghanistan. Troops can call in Bones with the Sniper pod installed and drop a single bomb exactly where the TACP/CCT wants it.

Does it need to go fast? Perhaps. Does it need to be a low-level penetrator? Not right now. But 10 years ago we didn't need a bomb truck. Will we? Who knows...?

I could see replacing the B-52 with a highly modified airliner that has rotary launchers and Sniper pod capabilities. But not the Bone.
 
If it works, is effective...

...and will save US lives, color it gone with the crowd in power now.

Kent


P.S. And the need for it's original capabilities is just heating up again.
 
And FYI-- my post wasn't...

...referring to the views held by senior military commanders (they know a good "kinetic" system when they see one). Rather I was referring to the current civilian regime in the US.

K.
 
BIG MISTAKE!!!

The air force brass wants more money to by the F-35. I say, keep the bone, reduce the F-35 buy, a lot, and with the money saved buy some f-18'S.

Don't got the way the Brits did with the TSR. Penny wise, pound foolish!

My 2 cents worth
 
Bjoern said:
Originally Posted by Railrunner130
Troops can call in Bones with the Sniper pod installed and drop a single bomb exactly where the TACP/CCT wants it.
Click to expand...

Can't the B-52 do that as well?
Click to expand...

Well exactly, and in fact just about anything can do that including a blimp.
Probably better, because loiter in theater is one of the most-sought-after attributes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top