mkellytx said:
Airplane said:
Its worrisome that they are still talking about this. If they don't let the buff die a dignified death, we will never procure enough of the 21s. Based on the length of time they say it will take, it sounds more like an effort to flip money to a contractor than it sounds like a much needed defense initiative.
Or an effort to extend the life of a lower cost per flying hour, more available, nuclear certified cruise missile carrier with plenty of flying hours left on the airframe.
[quote author=Airplane]
Its a shame they denuked the bones because that's a more surivivable platform than the 52s. The 52 should have been the conventional bomber platform... Seems like everything is done ass backwards in the DoD. An upgraded bone with agm129s is what we SHOULD have. Not a re-engined buff.
More survivable how? Low level? Gravity bomb only (SIOP)? The BUFF does carry and use more conventional bombs than the Bone, I've personally seen one drop 3 different types of conventional bombs on one bomb run (5 x GBU-31, 2 x CBU-103, 3 x Mk82), I conducted that test flight. With 1760 in the bay 3 different types of smart bombs on the same run is possible.
AGM-129 was retired for a reason...but for the sake of argument the Bone would be external carry and a complete pig. All of the engine thrust in the world won't make up for the small wings and fuel burn will be terrible considering how low it will cruise with that kind of load. The draw on tankers would be terrible. The old girl does quite nicely with externals under the wings and can cruise at efficient altitudes.
I have first hand knowledge of both airframes and would make the exact same decision to replace B-1's with B-21's and re-engine BUFF's and give them a new strategic cruise missile. The old girl still has plenty of life left in her.
[/quote]
Well, we all have experience then don't we? The 129 was designed to be carried externally and handle the aerodynamic loads. The bone has always been a bit of a compromise. It certainly never broke any altitude records. What it did do was have a superior offensive/defensive suite and very high speed at very low altitude in all atmospheric conditions with near fighter maneuverability and a smaller RCS.
If you want to have a discussion on what is better... A big slow lumbering med/high altitude aircraft which is easily tracked or a high speed low in the weeds penetrator, the. I suggest starting a new thread.
The 129s so called issues were easily fixable and if you want to talk about what's the better ALCM, I would suggest its quite obvious which we should have in service today and its not the one that was developed when Led Zeppelin was still touring.