B-2 and defense spending

[Steve Pace]

The odd couple. USAF Photo

 

[Stargazer]

Beauty and the beast... And just in case you wonder... beauty is on the right! When in flight, few aircraft are as ungainly as the B-52, few are as elegant as the B-2! Of course that's only a personal viewpoint...

 

[donnage99]

If they are a couple. b-52 is donald trump and b-2 is his wife sayin "why I'm still flying with him. And the worse thing is that though I'm much much younger, he'll dump me while he'll stay on until 2040 and fly with my replacement.

 

[Sundog]

If they are a couple. b-52 is donald trump and b-2 is his wife sayin "why I'm still flying with him. And the worse thing is that though I'm much much younger, he'll dump me while he'll stay on until 2040 and fly with my replacement.

ROFL!

I still love the old BUFF. I wish they would have re-engined them, though, with the four large TFs. For as much as they still use the old Buff's, I still don't know why the USAF hasn't just gone to Boeing and had them use either a 747 wing and tail or a 777 wing and tail, and just made a new bomber fuselage with a mid wing design and square/rectangular cross section fuselage as an "updated" replacement for the B-52. I know, it isn't "stealthy sexy" but it would be as use-able, if not more so, than everything they're using BUFF's for now. Not to mention, it would have lower operating costs and be easier to maintain.

Having said that, I love the B-2. There isn't anything that beats a flying wing, in terms of beauty, although the B-1 comes close. I can't wait to see that supposed "B-3" demonstrator Northrop is working on. I mean the one they're rumored to be building, as we've seen the patents (Four engines) and the artist concepts (two engines).

Thanks for posting that pic, it really gives a nice comparison of the two, they just need a B-1 in that picture to complete it.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for posting that pic, it really gives a nice comparison of the two, they just need a B-1 in that picture to complete it.

Ménage à trois ? LOL

 

[Ian33]

Nice to see all three together.

 

[Sundog]

Ian comes through with the pic! Thanks.

It's interesting to see them all together, because, by itself, the B-2 looks small to me in pictures, but seeing it with those two together, really gives an indication of it size. Believe it or not, the B-2 is one of the few operational USAF airplanes I haven't actually seen, except in pictures.

 

[Matej]

There are some. I think that the first one is the most known.

 

[quellish]

There are some. I think that the first one is the most known.

I have a few of all 3 in close formation, and some nice shots of a B-1B and B-2 in close formation. Every year at the Edwards Open House they do a formation flyby of all the test center aircraft and they group the bombers together.

 

[Sundog]

I would love to go to that airshow one day. That formation look's awesome. The closest I came to an airshow like that was an airshow at Grissom AFB, where one of the E-4B's actually put on a hell of a display and the B-52 performed a 360 degree low level turn that was measured in minutes, as in over a minute, not seconds, lol.

 

[Stargazer]

One thing any aircraft lover should do at least once is the annual flyby on French National Day (July 14). In only 5 minutes you see an impressive string of Rafales, Mirage F.1s, Mirage 2000s, Alpha Jets, C-135FR, E-3F AWACS, E-2C Hawkeyes, Xingus, Transalls, C-130 Hercules, and the Patrouille de France, all flying quite low above the Champs-Elysées, the world's most famous avenue after Broadway! And then come the helicopters, swarms of them: Eurocopters galore of course, Ecureuil, Dauphin, Puma, Tiger, Frelon types... It all ends with paratroopers landing right in front of the President. Unforgettable display of raw power, this flyby!

[Sorry for getting off-topic!]

 

[fightingirish]

A unique look inside the flight deck of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. A 360-degree panorama taken inside the flight deck of AV-20 (93-1087), the first fully operational Block 30 B-2. AV-20 was located inside U. S. Air Force Plant number 42 in Palmdale, California.

Link: http://www.airspacemag.com/video/Inside-a-B-2-Bomber.html
;D Yeah, I always wanted to see the rear part of the B-2 cockpit.
I presume the red rack in the back is for test equipment during test flights. In that area another ejection seat can be installed for a third crew member if so needed for some missions.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Looking through the B-2 related topics on this site, I can't believe the US never took up Northrop on their offer for another 20 or so B-2As. What a marvel of engineering.

 

[donnage99]

b-2's strength is only for first day of war. Fron second day foward, cheap bomb trucks like b-52 do a good job anyway. Getting more of the maintainance nightmares would not be a smart decision.

 

[bobbymike]

donnage99 - although a few more wouldn't hurt Loaded with a hundred or so SDB II's that would add a lot of additional "first night" aimpoints to the target list.

 

[donnage99]

It would hurt the budget.

 

[Apollo Leader]

A unique look inside the flight deck of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. A 360-degree panorama taken inside the flight deck of AV-20 (93-1087), the first fully operational Block 30 B-2. AV-20 was located inside U. S. Air Force Plant number 42 in Palmdale, California.

Link: http://www.airspacemag.com/video/Inside-a-B-2-Bomber.html
;D Yeah, I always wanted to see the rear part of the B-2 cockpit.
I presume the red rack in the back is for test equipment during test flights. In that area another ejection seat can be installed for a third crew member if so needed for some missions.

So does that particular B-2 have Jack Northrop's likeness etched on that one panel or was that photoshopped in?

As a long time B-2 enthusiast that's the first time I've ever seen a picture of what the rear of the B-2 cockpit looks like where the optional third crew member would have gone. Good find.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

b-2's strength is only for first day of war. Fron second day foward, cheap bomb trucks like b-52 do a good job anyway. Getting more of the maintainance nightmares would not be a smart decision.

It was my impression that most of the B-2 maintainance "problems" are little more than media hype and rumors. The "stealth coating will wash off in the rain" sort of nonsense. Considering how long it may take before we see a new strategic bomber for the USAF, I think Northrop's offer or even more B-1Bs would have been a wise decision. Attrition and age does take it's toll after all.

 

[Vpanoptes]

... Getting more of the maintainance nightmares would not be a smart decision.

Considering how long it may take before we see a new strategic bomber for the USAF, I think Northrop's offer or even more B-1Bs would have been a wise decision...

I seriously doubt that you could interest the USAF in more B-1's at any price, especially given the history of this aircraft in terms of reliability and upgrades. Maintenance nightmares indeed....

 

[sferrin]

b-2's strength is only for first day of war. Fron second day foward, cheap bomb trucks like b-52 do a good job anyway. Getting more of the maintainance nightmares would not be a smart decision.

It was my impression that most of the B-2 maintainance "problems" are little more than media hype and rumors. The "stealth coating will wash off in the rain" sort of nonsense.

And it's amazing how many lap that ---- up.

 

[donnage99]

I didn't want people to emphasize on the latter part of my statement, but the first part as well. b-2 is a first day of war machine, I think we have enough of them for that. Buying more of them would be a waste of tax payers money.

People tend to look at it as "extra capabilities, who wouldn't want?" However, military accquisition has always been "shifting the priorities." If u put the money on this table, it means money has to be taken out of another table. Extra B-2's would mean a loss in other part of our military.

If our stealth strike fleet isn't enough, there are various cheaper alternative to do it. How about external stealthy stores for the much more survivable f-22 fleet? That's probably a lot cheaper. With the coming of an entire fleet of stealthy strike platforms accross 3 branches, b-2's missions could be off-load to the f-35, saved for the few dedicated missions that f-35 couldn't do. In addition, JASSM and MALD-J would also give our current non stealthy platforms a capability against defended targets too. I think our current fleet of b-2's are more than sufficient until the NGB shows up.

 

[quellish]

I didn't want people to emphasize on the latter part of my statement, but the first part as well. b-2 is a first day of war machine, I think we have enough of them for that. Buying more of them would be a waste of tax payers money.

It's a moot point as no more can be produced.
Nonetheless, a large part of why it's perceived to be a "first day of war" system is because there are so few of them! Some of the B-2's unique capabilities are not used *because* there are not enough of them. First and foremost it was designed to penetrate, loiter, and find mobile targets - something it has not been used for.

 

[bobbymike]

I didn't want people to emphasize on the latter part of my statement, but the first part as well. b-2 is a first day of war machine, I think we have enough of them for that. Buying more of them would be a waste of tax payers money.

People tend to look at it as "extra capabilities, who wouldn't want?" However, military accquisition has always been "shifting the priorities." If u put the money on this table, it means money has to be taken out of another table. Extra B-2's would mean a loss in other part of our military.

If our stealth strike fleet isn't enough, there are various cheaper alternative to do it. How about external stealthy stores for the much more survivable f-22 fleet? That's probably a lot cheaper. With the coming of an entire fleet of stealthy strike platforms accross 3 branches, b-2's missions could be off-load to the f-35, saved for the few dedicated missions that f-35 couldn't do. In addition, JASSM and MALD-J would also give our current non stealthy platforms a capability against defended targets too. I think our current fleet of b-2's are more than sufficient until the NGB shows up.

donnage99 - everything you say is 100 percent accurate but but I worry about future conflicts with denied forward basing, the short legs of tactical aircraft (air refueling notwithstanding) and the proliferation of triple digit SAMs. Although we might be back to the "stealthy weapons/bombtruck" argument than the probable multi-billion dollar NGB.

That said, saying "it would be nice to have more super stealthy strategic bombers" is wishful thinking as it will not happen in the near term (or maybe the long term for that matter)

 

[donnage99]

Good point there. The short legs of tactical aircraft is a very valid point.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

(or maybe the long term for that matter)

I would prefer to not imagine our country is that screwed...

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would prefer to not imagine our country is that screwed...

You'd prefer not to *imagine* that, or you'd prefer that it *not* *be* *true?* Kinda different things. Example: I have no interest in believing or imagining that I'm attractive to the female of my particular species. I'd much rather is was *true.* But it ain't. And my believing otherwise ain;t gonna make it true. Just like believing that the US isn't in a deep dark hole isn't going to suddenly make the national debt vanish like a fart in the wind.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

You'd prefer not to *imagine* that, or you'd prefer that it *not* *be* *true?* Kinda different things. Example: I have no interest in believing or imagining that I'm attractive to the female of my particular species. I'd much rather is was *true.* But it ain't. And my believing otherwise ain;t gonna make it true. Just like believing that the US isn't in a deep dark hole isn't going to suddenly make the national debt vanish like a fart in the wind.

Not quite certain I fully understood what you were trying to say there, but yeah I would rather it not be true than just imagining it not to be true, and I'll vote accordingly. Gutting military spending for decades to come is no solution to the debt problem. Else we are going to end up like the UK where seemingly everything but defense is off-limit to budget cuts, and every year more is cut from defense in an attempt to cut the deficit.

 

[flateric]

I wonder what last posts has common with topic subject - I mean 'ATB: B-2 evolution and competitors'

 

[Sundog]

Gutting military spending for decades to come is no solution to the debt problem.

Actually, it is, considering the defense budget is 50% of our current budget. Go ask all of the unemployed people who can't find work, myself included, how "protected" we feel. But as Flateric posted, this doesn't belong here. It belongs in the bar. Back OT please.

 

[bobbymike]

Gutting military spending for decades to come is no solution to the debt problem.

Actually, it is, considering the defense budget is 50% of our current budget. Go ask all of the unemployed people who can't find work, myself included, how "protected" we feel. But as Flateric posted, this doesn't belong here. It belongs in the bar. Back OT please.

Notwithstanding the lack of pertinence to the topic please tell me how a DOD budget of $535 billion is 50% of a $4 trillion federal budget. Defense spending has been shrinking as percentage of the federal budget for decades it was not at 50% since the 1950's.

I wish it was 50%, $2 trillion for national defense sounds about right to me

 

[OM]

Notwithstanding the lack of pertinence to the topic please tell me how a DOD budget of $535 billion is 50% of a $4 trillion federal budget.

...You obviously have no experience with book juggling at the Federal level

 

[donnage99]

Notwithstanding the lack of pertinence to the topic please tell me how a DOD budget of $535 billion is 50% of a $4 trillion federal budget. Defense spending has been shrinking as percentage of the federal budget for decades it was not at 50% since the 1950's.

I wish it was 50%, $2 trillion for national defense sounds about right to me

It's not $535 billion for sure. That's only for the "National Defense" catergory, which only represents half of discretionary spending (and this figure does not include Afgan and Iraq, nor mandatory spending, and I'm unsure if black budget is included or not).
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_discretionary/

lol, $2 trillion is about the amount of tax money the federal gov collects annually. A budget of that figure would mean every tax dollars go into building weapons

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Honestly, I don't support cutting a dime from defense. In fact more should be going to procurement in my opinion. We should be working to cut the money lost in the typical red tape/bureaucratic/incompetence mess, and funnel that back to getting and developing what we need.

 

[bobbymike]

Honestly, I don't support cutting a dime from defense. In fact more should be going to procurement in my opinion. We should be working to cut the money lost in the typical red tape/bureaucratic/incompetence mess, and funnel that back to getting and developing what we need.

I agree if Gates' latest initiative can actually cut bureaucratic waste AND if those saving go to procurement that will be a good thing

 

[Skybolt]

Fiscal 2010 US Defense budget is, including base and supplementary expenses (Iraq an Afghanistan), 663.7 billions. A big sum, but not THAT big. The loans to Spain's banks only by European banks total 600 billions euro, for example, which is more or less 800 billion dollars. The black budget is part of the base budget. You have to add part of the DOE budget, accounting for nuclear weapons and materiel. Before you ask, the intelligence budget as a whole was 49.5 billions in calendar 2009 for the so-called NIP (National Intelligence Program), that is, the civilian agencies and part of agencies (FBI counterilligence arm, for example or the State services). So, all in all, the "defense" (within brackets) US budget is now hovering around 700-710 billion dollars yearly (fiscally). The others, much higher totals (max 1.2 trillions) that circulate in the Internet are arrived to adding a lot of other budget voices (even half the NASA budget, all the State budget, Homeland Security, etc...), and even interests on debt accruing from past espenses, wich is ridicolous: how do you break up and account the total debt ? Why not calculating Medicare total with the same method ?

 

[SOC]

Notwithstanding the lack of pertinence to the topic please tell me how a DOD budget of $535 billion is 50% of a $4 trillion federal budget. Defense spending has been shrinking as percentage of the federal budget for decades it was not at 50% since the 1950's.

It's easy, you have to only use the buttons on the left side of your calculator.

 

[sferrin]

Notwithstanding the lack of pertinence to the topic please tell me how a DOD budget of $535 billion is 50% of a $4 trillion federal budget. Defense spending has been shrinking as percentage of the federal budget for decades it was not at 50% since the 1950's.

It's easy, you have to only use the buttons on the left side of your calculator.

On my calculator, 50% of $4 trillion is $2 trillion. What kind of calculator are you using?

 

[bobbymike]

As importantly defense spending does not have an unfunded mandate hovering around $50 trillion (yes trillion) for promises made to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security recipients.

 

[Skybolt]

Promises, promises.... (we must add the "diabolic" emoticon, this one >:> )

 

[SOC]

On my calculator, 50% of $4 trillion is $2 trillion. What kind of calculator are you using?

Scott, I find it hard to believe that your sarcasm detector is broken