carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (02/15/91)
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Having seen the costing data for the F117A, I have to wonder: what's
the point of the B2? At ~$40M / F117A vs. ~ $600M / B2, you get 15
F117A / 1 B2. This is worse if the B2 end up (as is likely) at
~$1000M. What can 1 B2 do that 15 F117A's can't, especially with
respect to dropping nuclear weapons?
--
Alan M. Carroll "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired"
Epoch Development Team - Susan
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!cs.uiuc.edu!carrolldmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (02/18/91)
From: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) In article <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes: >Having seen the cost for the F117A, I have to wonder: what's >the point of the B2? At ~$40M / F117A vs. ~ $600M / B2, you get 15 >F117A / 1 B2. This is worse if the B2 end up (as is likely) at >~$1000M. What can 1 B2 do that 15 F117A's can't, especially with >respect to dropping nuclear weapons? Fly farther, one supposes. I suspect the Soviets will take a dim view to having KC-135's on station in a chain leading to Moscow and back :-) Also, the B2 will probably haul a load of bombs comparable to 15 F117A's. The B2 can't be 15 places at once, but it will probably carry stand-off weapons that the F117A may not. However, I can't see much point in building a single airplane that costs as much as a whole aircraft carrier used to. (What do they say, a billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it once did? :-) I think the military could get a lot more bang for its buck by building lots of cheap platforms. The problem with a massive, everything-including-the-military-kitchen-sink project like the B2 is that they build so few of them that the manufacturers don't benefit from institutional learning. I.e., if you build thousands of an item instead of tens, then you work most of the bugs out in the first few hundred, and the bulk of your run can improve in quality and efficiency. Why doesn't the military build cheap, long-loiter RPV's that cost less than a SAM? Then you could flood the enemy's airspace with them, and bankrupt his military with the need to shoot them all down. Or at least try to keep an eye on all of them, to decide which ones are threats. The technology should exist to build an RPV that could stay aloft for days. Build it like a sailplane with a 40:1 glide ratio. Put a small motor on it and a big gas tank. Cover the wings and fuselage with thin-film solar cells, with an auxilliary electric motor to spare the gas motor when the sun is out. With a good enough glide ratio, the craft might be able to gain almost enough altitude by day to glide down slowly at night, and not hit the ground before dawn. (Actually, this sounds a little far-fetched. With a 1 foot/sec sink rate, it would glide down from 20,000 feet in about 5 1/2 hours. So it would probably have to run the gas motor at night, unless it caught a thermal :-) How much would it cost to build such a plane? $100,000 maybe? For $1,000,000,000 you could have ten thousand of them, then. (And you will get economy of scale, so the unit price will drop farther the more you build, which doesn't happen with the B2.) Can any air defense system out there cope with ten thousand simultaneous threats? With all that junk in the sky, you could probably get to Moscow in a B-17. But whether piloted or not, shouldn't the military planners be a little wary about building a billion dollar airplane? It will wind up being so expensive that they won't want to send it into battle. Think of it---you're going to send this piece of equipment into hostile territory, when it costs more than a medium-sized city? Or what if a saboteur sneaks onto the base with a few pounds of plastique? Bang, there goes one billion dollars. Sheesh. A robust system distributes its strength over many moldules, such that the system as a whole does not feel so much the failure of any one module. -- Dan Mocsny Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (02/19/91)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Alan Carroll asked why buy all those expensive B-2s when you could
buy more F-117s.
Why did we buy so many B-52s when we could have bought F-111s?
What can B-52s do that F-111s can't? (Hint: Diego Garcia)
How big a payload does a B-52 carry, compared to an F-111?
The F-117 is really a replacement for the F-111 and the B-2 is a
replacement for the B-52, so think of it in this way.
Someone claimed that the B-2 will launch only nuclear weapons. That's
the B-1, not the B-2. The B-2 will carry conventional weapons.
Actually, the B-1 is being certified to carry conventional weapons not
that they've ungrounded them.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotdvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (02/20/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund)
>Why did we buy so many B-52s when we could have bought F-111s?
Mostly because the B52 was designed around 1948-1952
( XB-52 made its first flight in December 1952 ).
It was from the beginning a pure heavy bomber
built to drop Atomic bombs of diffrent sizes 10 kton to 200 Mton
and be able to deliver it over long distances.
I don't know exactly when F-111A made its maiden hop but I could
make a good guess. Around 1964.
The F-111A, C, D, E and F was designed as tactical bombers
able to penetrate heavily defended areas and well there deliver some not
so out-sized loads.
For example 4 Mk84 2000 pounds Iron
2 W80 Atomic bombs
Not at all in B52-class.
Once upon a time the US had a defence minister named McNamara.
He decided : Scrap B-52A, B and C.
Scrap also B-57 Hustler.
We will replace this with a combined fleet of B-70 and F-111.
Well, the B-70 was scrapped due to costs
and all SAC had left was 200 B-52G and H
and about 80 FB-111.
Then they decided this :
Lets build the B1A.
Carter decided to postpone B1A ( swing-wing faster-than sound heavy bomber )
Reagan decided to build B1B ( B1A but heavier and with more fuel )
He also decided to build B2 for thoose occasion then the B1B wouldn't be
able to do their job because of a to dense air-defense
or to knock-out SS22, 23 and so on.
B2 is simply expected to do this :
Find railway-based SS23's and drop a SRAM on it. No SS 23.
Then the B1B was trustable the FB-111 would be moved to TAC and
redesignated as the F-111K.
F117 as a succesor to the F-111. ( Is it meant as this :-) ).
F117 has to low combat-radius and pay-load.
No offense.
dvlssd@cs.umu.se
Umea, Swedenjohna%gold.gvg.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (John Abt) (02/21/91)
From: John Abt <johna%gold.gvg.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> In article <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: >From: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) >In article <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com> carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes: >>Having seen the cost for the F117A, I have to wonder: what's >>the point of the B2? At ~$40M / F117A vs. ~ $600M / B2, you get 15 >>F117A / 1 B2. This is worse if the B2 end up (as is likely) at >>~$1000M. What can 1 B2 do that 15 F117A's can't, especially with >>respect to dropping nuclear weapons? >...However, I can't see much point in building a single airplane that >costs as much as a whole aircraft carrier used to. (What do they >say, a billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it once did? :-) This thread reminds me of a great 60 Minutes quote a few years back where someone compared the lethality of a Bradly Fighting Vehicle with 2000 Chrysler Cordovas each equipped with a 50 caliber machine gun. Of course the military has, in the past, tended towards large high-tech projects, sometimes with questionable cost effectivity. The recent cancelation of the Navy stealth is a significant event in that it signals that the trend may have reversed itself - finally. The hard data provided by the current conflict will go a long way to factor in some reality - where it is needed. John Abt
alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) (02/21/91)
From: voder!nsc!berlioz.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) In article <1991Feb19.031553.16283@cbnews.att.com> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > >The F-117 is really a replacement for the F-111 and the B-2 is a >replacement for the B-52, so think of it in this way. > Actually, I don't think we will ever see a replacement for the ole BUFF. Congress should declare the B-52 an endangered species and make it a felony for anyone to damage or destroy one. :-) -- Alan Hepburn "An idea or belief is not necessarily true National Semiconductor Corp or false because your parents, friends, Santa Clara, Ca you, or your children have believed it." mail: alan@berlioz.nsc.com Abel J. Jones
madmax@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (02/21/91)
From: madmax@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) >Then they decided this : >Lets build the B1A. >Carter decided to postpone B1A ( swing-wing faster-than sound heavy bomber ) >Reagan decided to build B1B ( B1A but heavier and with more fuel ) >He also decided to build B2 for thoose occasion then the B1B wouldn't be >able to do their job because of a to dense air-defense Not exactly, President Carter decided to scrap the B1 program. Everybody thought that this was crazy. However, at that time the majority of the world was unaware that Carter was dumping the B1 in favor of the B2 and stealth technology (it was fairly black program at that time). Reagan should get very little credit for development of weapon systems (with the possible exception of SDI); he just spent our tax dollars to buy them. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu my opinions are my own. [mod.note: This is straying close to politics. My view is that this is an instance where politics affecting appropriations can be a valid topic here, *so long as* the postings remain factual and aren't arguing about the correctness of the decisions made. Let's be careful out there. - Bill ]
gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) (02/23/91)
From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond)
>>>>> On 18 Feb 91 06:20:14 GMT, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) said:
Daniel> However, I can't see much point in building a single airplane that
Daniel> costs as much as a whole aircraft carrier used to.
Daniel> I think the military could get a lot more bang for its buck by
Daniel> building lots of cheap platforms.
The problem is life-cycle costs. Once purchased, it is MUCH cheaper
to maintain, man and supply 1 plane than a largeish capital ship.
This is alledgedly the "benefit" of smart/hi-tech weapons - (almost)
anything that reduces the people required (or likely people losses) is
worth it because the major long-term cost of an army is the people.
Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnbswilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (02/23/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Ah, I just got Jane's All The World's Aircrafts 1990-91. Quickly, I looked up the Northrop's B-2 and Lockheed's F-117A ... The armament of B-2: Boeing Advanced Applications Rotary Launcher in each of two side-by-side weapons bays in the lower centrebody. Total capacity of 16 SRAM II or AGM-129 ACMs. Alternative weapons include B61 tactical/strategic and B83 strategic free-fall nuclear bombs, MK 36 1,000 lb sea mines, Mk 82 500 lb bombs (maximum 80) and M117 750 lb fire bombs. The armament of F-117A: "Full range of USAF tactical fighter ordnance" including one 907 kg (2,000 lb) BLU-109 low-level laser-guided bomb; or AGM-65 Maverick ASM. Internal carriage only. Some interesting info on Lockheed's F117A Steath Fighter: The designations F-19, AR-19, and AR-2 were erroneously applied. Although US fighter designation re-started at F-1 in 1962, it is believed that Soviet-built aircraft acquired from friendly nations and brought to the US for secret evaluation have occupied the numbers F-112 to F116. According to test pilot Park, the F-117A's design was dictated more by steath requirements than aerodynamics. The XST (Experimental Steath Technology, known for the 5-7 proof of concept/demonstrator aircrafts) demonstrated a tendency to sink rapidly onto the runway when in ground effect, and the F-117A's USAF nickname of "Wobblin' Goblin" was derived from a controllability problem which is understood to have been improved since it entered service. Three F-117As have crashed. The aircraft is said to be capable of supersonic speeds, but to be restricted to subsonic operations reportedly following a tail surface detachment during high speed flight. The US Air Force defines maximum speed as "high subsonic." Steve Williams | "An expert is a person who has made all the Department of the Navy | mistakes which can be made in a very narrow David Taylor Research Center | field." -- Niels Bohr, Danish Scientist
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (02/26/91)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> I wrote: >Alan Carroll asked why buy all those expensive B-2s when you could >buy more F-117s. >Why did we buy so many B-52s when we could have bought F-111s? Obviously, I misspoke here, since the B-52 production run ended in 62, before the F-111 flew. I should have written something like: Why did we keep our B-52s once we got F-111s? or Why did we get F-111s when we could have bought more cheap B-52s? >What can B-52s do that F-111s can't? (Hint: Diego Garcia) What can F-111s do that B-52s can't? (Hint: terrain following) >How big a payload does a B-52 carry, compared to an F-111? >The F-117 is really a replacement for the F-111 and the B-2 is a >replacement for the B-52, so think of it in this way. A number of people called me on the error, but not one seemed to understand that "little" bombers (F-111, F117) and "big" bombers (B-52, B-2) each have their own role and that we need both types of aircraft. The Gulf War has certainly made this clear--think of how difficult it would be to carpet bomb with F-111s and F-117s. You'd need an incredible number of sorties. Of course the B-52 isn't suitable for delivering the smart ordnance that the F-111 and F-117 deliver. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) (02/27/91)
From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) In article <1991Feb26.011655.5357@cbnews.att.com> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: : :I wrote: : :I should have written something like: :What can F-111s do that B-52s can't? (Hint: terrain following) :Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer In the 200+ hours I spent aboard B-52's, more than a third was spent at altitudes of 500' or less AGL. A disproportionate amount of the time I spent fixing systems on the BUFF (we never called it that then, only the "aluminum overcast") was on the TERRAIN CLEARANCE radar and TERRAIN CLEARANCE computers. I will admit that in the current definitions, terrain following is even lower, less than 200' AGL, but the impression left was that the B-52 does not fly low level missions. I spent many hours staring UP at the mountain and hill tops from the inside of a flying B-52. Lee "Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei." |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/28/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> >A number of people called me on the error, but not one seemed to >understand that "little" bombers (F-111, F117) and "big" bombers >(B-52, B-2) each have their own role and that we need both types >of aircraft. However, it's not entirely clear that the B-52 replacement needs to be as expensive as the B-2. A recent issue of AvLeak points out that the Gulf War has punched a hole in the B-2's official justification that you could fire a Scud through. :-) The B-2's big job in a nuclear war is supposed to be locating and destroying mobile missiles. In other words... in small numbers, far from home, without air superiority, against the most sophisticated opponents available, in forested or snow-covered terrain, it is supposed to do what has so far proved impossibly difficult in Iraq. Oh really? I actually agree with Mary that a new big bomber is needed. But it needs to be something that the US can afford in substantial numbers, so that it can be risked in combat in something less than an all-out nuclear war. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (03/14/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Feb18.062014.14787@cbnews.att.com>, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes; > The technology should exist to build an RPV that could stay aloft > for days. Build it like a sailplane with a 40:1 glide ratio. [...] It does -- such a vehicle has been flying for several years. Boeing built one that was featured on an Aviation Week cover a few years ago. I don't recall the exact dimensions, but it was quite large with a wingspan comparable to that of a DC-9. Endurance was on the order of a week, at altitudes above 50,000 feet. Power was by supercharged piston engine. The mission for these aircraft is long duration surveilance and atmospheric study. The problem with 'em as attack aircraft is that they have a very slow flight speed and limited payload. Even if we launched a large number of them, they'd be easy to shoot down with AAA. There'd also be plenty of opportunity for the enemy to protect assets from attack. A more reasonable approach would be to build a large number of terrain hugging, jet powered, autonomous attack aircraft. They're called cruise missiles, and we just used a whole bunch of 'em in the Gulf. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com