Vifam7 Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Taking out all the fancy ECM etc in the Kitty Hawk surely won't cost billions. Remember, the Gorshkov still needs 2 important things before it can be used at all with the MiG-29K: 1. Catapults. That's not cheap/easy to install in a ship that doesn't have them. I thought the reconfigured Gorshkov was going to use a ski-jump (just like the Kuznetsov) instead of a catapult.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 They keep changing things, that's part of the problem. It was built with a ski-ramp. They wanted the entire bow re-done to be a flat-top with catapults. Now they want a BIG ski-ramp for MiG-29's. And some say catapults on the ski-ramps! The ability of a catapult-less MiG-29 isn't much payload. An article I found that was dated earlier this month, says another 4-5 years of work is currently required to get the Gorshkov operational, at a cost of 2.7 billion. Buying 65 Super Hornets looks faster/cheaper/better all the time...
buddhafabio Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 They keep changing things, that's part of the problem. It was built with a ski-ramp. They wanted the entire bow re-done to be a flat-top with catapults. Now they want a BIG ski-ramp for MiG-29's. And some say catapults on the ski-ramps! The ability of a catapult-less MiG-29 isn't much payload. An article I found that was dated earlier this month, says another 4-5 years of work is currently required to get the Gorshkov operational, at a cost of 2.7 billion. Buying 65 Super Hornets looks faster/cheaper/better all the time... damn that is how long it takes us to build a carrier from the keel up and over half the cost.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Seems like the Indians have paid 1.5 billion(original agreed upon sum) but the Russians are asking for an additional 1.2 billion to complete the work. I'd be mighty pissed if I was the Indian Navy. But if they buy the 65 Shornets, that might sway the deal for the Indian Air Force's 200 jet order. The Russian Defence Industry should be mighty concerned about their sales revenue right about now. Things are getting interesting.
Apollo Leader Posted February 25, 2008 Author Posted February 25, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332038,00.html Well, it's a good thing there are 20 more of these things.... and thank God the production line got shut down so no more can be built. Why not? More then 20 of these awesome aircraft should have been built to begin with. Better for US defence and deterence and it would have been better from an economic standpoint of the program. Funny it was just a week or two ago the thought had passed my mind again about how much longer it would be before a B-2 would be lost either in an accident or in combat. Considering that no B-2 had ever been lost after almost NINETEEN years of testing, operation, and combat, this was definitely a testament to the quality of the aircraft and the efforts of the men and women that have kept this aircraft in the air for nearly two decades.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Why not? More then 20 of these awesome aircraft should have been built to begin with. Better for US defence and deterence and it would have been better from an economic standpoint of the program. Funny it was just a week or two ago the thought had passed my mind again about how much longer it would be before a B-2 would be lost either in an accident or in combat. Considering that no B-2 had ever been lost after almost NINETEEN years of testing, operation, and combat, this was definitely a testament to the quality of the aircraft and the efforts of the men and women that have kept this aircraft in the air for nearly two decades. Yeah but now its a 4.8% loss rate over 19 years. That puts it at the higher end of the scale I suppose? BTW, I always wondered about the 19 year of spotless records. I had always assumed that since its Super Secret, Super Ninja and is the most expensive thing on wings, the maintenance and pre-flight checks was 10x normal.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Wouldn't mind betting that this guy used to fly Buccaneers... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/25/777_flypast/ Bit of a silly stunt, but its possible the pilot thought he had more authority to do it than he actually did.
Lynx7725 Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 (edited) Wouldn't mind betting that this guy used to fly Buccaneers... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/25/777_flypast/ Bit of a silly stunt, but its possible the pilot thought he had more authority to do it than he actually did. Followup: Buc pilot or not, that's an insane thing to do in a loaded airliner over a busy airport. EDIT: Opps, thought he was at HK airport, he wasn't -- he was at a place called Everett. Still, was still risky to do. Edited February 25, 2008 by Lynx7725
kalvasflam Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Yeah but now its a 4.8% loss rate over 19 years. That puts it at the higher end of the scale I suppose? BTW, I always wondered about the 19 year of spotless records. I had always assumed that since its Super Secret, Super Ninja and is the most expensive thing on wings, the maintenance and pre-flight checks was 10x normal. The problem is that the US doesn't exactly have a replacement for the B-2 on the drawing board. Heck, given the low volumes, the attrition is a big deal. The only replacements are old B-1Bs, and even older B-52s. Too bad really, there should've been about 50 to 70 of these babies procured, so that one unit lost does not actually make a big dent. Alternatively, just build another 100 B-1Bs....
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Followup: Buc pilot or not, that's an insane thing to do in a loaded airliner over a busy airport. EDIT: Opps, thought he was at HK airport, he wasn't -- he was at a place called Everett. Still, was still risky to do. Everett's the factory. That was not a normal flight at all. I'm surprised there were even 50 people on board. Most delivery flights are almost completely empty, the only people besides the pilots being some high-up financial guys from the company to literally "sign the dotted line".
Lynx7725 Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Everett's the factory. That was not a normal flight at all. I'm surprised there were even 50 people on board. Most delivery flights are almost completely empty, the only people besides the pilots being some high-up financial guys from the company to literally "sign the dotted line". Even empty, it's still a risky thing to do. Had things gone wrong, it would be quite an expensive mess right there on the runway. I'm surprised to hear the tower gave clearance for such a big aircraft to do a low level pass with wheels up.
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Happens all the time for deliveries, sight-seeing, retirement flights. That's just "extra low". Airliners are far more agile and capable than most people realize--the pilots intentionally fly them "slowly and ponderously" so the old ladies on board don't complain (literally). A 757 can do a 45-degree takeoff angle for a while on a good day---but then half the passengers would be screaming. Same as being on the downwind leg at 500mph, putting the spoilers out, making a tight 180, and landing at 150mph 30 secs later... (which was quite common for the 880 to do in its heyday)
Lynx7725 Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Fair enough. I guess the passengers on that flight did get a flight they would remember...
F-ZeroOne Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Theres a famous story of how Boeings chief test pilot - Tex Avery? - rolled the 707 on its first test flight...
the white drew carey Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Theres a famous story of how Boeings chief test pilot - Tex Avery? - rolled the 707 on its first test flight... Tex Johnson. Although I'm not sure if it was the the first test flight, though. But I think it was the prototype.
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 It was "a" flight, but an early one. And it was the 367-80, which was the 707's prototype---and prototype in the true sense of the word, in that it shared zero parts with a real 707, and was only a "technology testbed of a very similar design".
F-ZeroOne Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Thanks for the corrections guys, I was being lazy and not checking...
VF-19 Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 \ A 757 can do a 45-degree takeoff angle for a while on a good day---but then half the passengers would be screaming. \ Not me! I'd be having a blast! I'd love to be in an airliner that's flying more like a fighter. Just give me the proper restraints so I don't go flopping everywhere in the cabin!
kalvasflam Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 A 757 can do a 45-degree takeoff angle for a while on a good day---but then half the passengers would be screaming. Same as being on the downwind leg at 500mph, putting the spoilers out, making a tight 180, and landing at 150mph 30 secs later... (which was quite common for the 880 to do in its heyday) heh heh, they still do this in Hawaii with Aloha airlines 737 from what I remember, although, the 180 probably isn't quite that tight. The poor Cathay Pac pilot, now he'll never get another job.....
Vifam7 Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Not sure but don't some airports almost require a pilot to pull up or bank sharply after take off because otherwise they run the risk of running into hills or buildings? Hong Kong's old airport was one of them IIRC.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Kai Tak in Hong Kong had the turn on LANDING, which was very difficult. And rare. Turning after takeoff is easy and common. As for Aloha doing high-speed approaches now---no way. 250kt limit for all aircraft below 10,000ft was imposed many years ago after a United/TWA collision over NYC.
Noyhauser Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 The problem is that the US doesn't exactly have a replacement for the B-2 on the drawing board. Heck, given the low volumes, the attrition is a big deal. The only replacements are old B-1Bs, and even older B-52s. Too bad really, there should've been about 50 to 70 of these babies procured, so that one unit lost does not actually make a big dent. Alternatively, just build another 100 B-1Bs.... It kinda does; the hypersonic bomber program is viewed as a follow-on program, even though its not likely to see service until the late 2020 time frame (if then). There was also Pentagon talk about equipping SLBMs with conventional warheads, which would essentially cover many of the same mission roles as the B-2 serves today. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf
Apollo Leader Posted February 26, 2008 Author Posted February 26, 2008 Yeah but now its a 4.8% loss rate over 19 years. That puts it at the higher end of the scale I suppose? BTW, I always wondered about the 19 year of spotless records. I had always assumed that since its Super Secret, Super Ninja and is the most expensive thing on wings, the maintenance and pre-flight checks was 10x normal. I think part of what equates into an aircraft's loss rate is also how many were lost over X many number of flight hours. It's not surprising that this was going to one day happen, but as a big fan and supporter of the B-2 program, it still hurt a lot to see one of these aircraft lay in a pile of flaming ruin.
VF-19 Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 David: Now that looks like fun. I wonder what it feels like from both the extreme front of the cabin and the extreme rear! Mind you the only plane I've ever been on was one of Westjet's 737, and on that flight I had both turbulence (fun, no really, it was fun!) and a slight shocker of having another jet liner blast past below my window. Sadly, I didn't think to get a picture...
kalvasflam Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Kai Tak in Hong Kong had the turn on LANDING, which was very difficult. And rare. Turning after takeoff is easy and common. As for Aloha doing high-speed approaches now---no way. 250kt limit for all aircraft below 10,000ft was imposed many years ago after a United/TWA collision over NYC. Didn't mean high speed, just the rather fast bank in. Should've made that clearer. It's pretty fun to ride on it that way the first time, when you see the runway moving away from you in parallel, then the pilot does a bank. Not high speed, but really interesting if they did do it at high speed. On the hypersonic bomber, love the idea, but with our procurement involved, we'll end up with five units, each costing $10 B. Though, the idea of SLBMs filling the same role is kind of silly. How many SLBMs would we have to procure here? Let's assume they MIRVed the darn thing, it'd still be limited to about 240 targets per sub. Then the reloads, etc, etc. What a pain.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 We ARE doing the conventional SLBM thing. 4 Ohio class have already been converted, including the Ohio itself. 154 Tomahawks per sub. (7 missiles times 22 tubes---the other 2 tubes are converted to diving chambers for SEAL deployments etc) Also, the treaty restrictions are actually "total warheads deployed/available", not actually dictating how they are assigned----to effectively meet the requirements, the Ohio class always had 10 per missile, 24 missiles. But now that some Ohio subs are not carrying any nuclear warheads, we can bump up the Trident II D5 to its full capacity of 14 warheads per missile on the remaining subs, and still stay under the total number of deployed warheads required. The first 8 Ohios only had the 8-warhead Trident I C4, while the remaining had the 14-warhead (only carrying 10 due to treaty) D5. 4 of the C4-equipped ones were the ones converted to SSGN's, while the other 4 were upgraded to the D5 to fill the gap and retain the total number of warheads in the fleet by increasing the remaining ones to a full 14-warhead load. (I have an uncle who served on several SSBN's as a missileman, so I have quite an interest in them) Finally----for quite a while, the majority of the US's nuclear destructive power has been in the SSBN's. The B-2 and B-52 may be more visible, but their actual capacity etc is nothing compared to the Ohio class. The 18 Ohios have more power than the entire rest of the US military put together.
Noyhauser Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 We ARE doing the conventional SLBM thing. 4 Ohio class have already been converted, including the Ohio itself. 154 Tomahawks per sub. (7 missiles times 22 tubes---the other 2 tubes are converted to diving chambers for SEAL deployments etc) Also, the treaty restrictions are actually "total warheads deployed/available", not actually dictating how they are assigned----to effectively meet the requirements, the Ohio class always had 10 per missile, 24 missiles. But now that some Ohio subs are not carrying any nuclear warheads, we can bump up the Trident II D5 to its full capacity of 14 warheads per missile on the remaining subs, and still stay under the total number of deployed warheads required. The first 8 Ohios only had the 8-warhead Trident I C4, while the remaining had the 14-warhead (only carrying 10 due to treaty) D5. 4 of the C4-equipped ones were the ones converted to SSGN's, while the other 4 were upgraded to the D5 to fill the gap and retain the total number of warheads in the fleet by increasing the remaining ones to a full 14-warhead load. (I have an uncle who served on several SSBN's as a missileman, so I have quite an interest in them) Finally----for quite a while, the majority of the US's nuclear destructive power has been in the SSBN's. The B-2 and B-52 may be more visible, but their actual capacity etc is nothing compared to the Ohio class. The 18 Ohios have more power than the entire rest of the US military put together. Thats not the Tomahawk program, which really is an outgrowth of the failed Arsenal Ship programs from the 1990s. The Pentagon has invested into programs that would convert some Trident, Peacekeeper and Minuteman missiles into conventional attack weapons. It would use kinetic penetrator warheads to attack heavily defended high value targets as a first strike, much like a B-2 was designed to. The CRS brief I linked above has most of the details.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Ack, sorry, wrong SSBN conversion program.
Fit For Natalie Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 In other news, the rumor is that SecDef Gates (with Bush's approval) will be offering the USS Kitty Hawk to India, if they agree to buy 65 Super Hornets to equip it. (since Russia is still years and billions away from finishing the Gorshkov for them). Why the hell didn't he offer that to us last weekend? We are (apparently) buying Super Hornets and we (apparently) need some sort of carrier.
Noyhauser Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Didn't mean high speed, just the rather fast bank in. Should've made that clearer. It's pretty fun to ride on it that way the first time, when you see the runway moving away from you in parallel, then the pilot does a bank. Not high speed, but really interesting if they did do it at high speed. On the hypersonic bomber, love the idea, but with our procurement involved, we'll end up with five units, each costing $10 B. Though, the idea of SLBMs filling the same role is kind of silly. How many SLBMs would we have to procure here? Let's assume they MIRVed the darn thing, it'd still be limited to about 240 targets per sub. Then the reloads, etc, etc. What a pain. What would we need a B-2 for really then? Right now the B-2 is completely underutilized as a platform. It was designed with one purpose in mind; as a first strike nuclear strike platform. In other roles it performs fairly poorly. While it might be able to carry the most payload of any bomber, Its got by far the highest operating cost of any the aircraft operated by USAF, and is basically a glorified hanger queen. That means its cheaper and more effective to send several F-15Es or a Bone, which is usually the case. In the initial combat operations in Iraq in 2003, the B-2 flew 50 sorties, B-1Bs 225 and B-52s 280. Since then, as far as I can tell, the B-2 hasn't flown another mission or done so sparingly, while B-1s and B-52s fly almost continuously. The same happened during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, where B-2s mostly operated at the start of the operation, with other aircraft conducting the bulk of the subsequent attacks. With the B-2 losing its technological edge and its numbers decreasing through accidents/unserviceability ect, an SLBM system can supplement the B-2 as a first strike platform, hitting targets the spirit might not able attack safely. It wouldn't require a new missile production as existing units could be retrofitted with these kinetic vehicles. You wouldn't use these weapons throughout the conflict, much like you probably wouldn't use B-2 in that role because its prohibitively expensive to do so. These weapons would be considered silver bullets, only to be used against the most high value targets other systems cannot strike safely. If available during Kosovo or in Iraq, you might have seen only one or two missiles fired at the very start of the operation, and thats it. 30 million a missile compared to approximately 1 billion dollars + lifecycle costs for a B-2 actually stacks up the capability fairly well. There are problems, particularly with risk of escalating nuclear tension, but given its low cost I'd say its actually a fairly inexpensive way to maintain a conventional first strike capability along side the B-2
kalvasflam Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 (edited) What would we need a B-2 for really then? Right now the B-2 is completely underutilized as a platform. It was designed with one purpose in mind; as a first strike nuclear strike platform. In other roles it performs fairly poorly. While it might be able to carry the most payload of any bomber, Its got by far the highest operating cost of any the aircraft operated by USAF, and is basically a glorified hanger queen. That means its cheaper and more effective to send several F-15Es or a Bone, which is usually the case. In the initial combat operations in Iraq in 2003, the B-2 flew 50 sorties, B-1Bs 225 and B-52s 280. Since then, as far as I can tell, the B-2 hasn't flown another mission or done so sparingly, while B-1s and B-52s fly almost continuously. The same happened during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, where B-2s mostly operated at the start of the operation, with other aircraft conducting the bulk of the subsequent attacks. With the B-2 losing its technological edge and its numbers decreasing through accidents/unserviceability ect, an SLBM system can supplement the B-2 as a first strike platform, hitting targets the spirit might not able attack safely. It wouldn't require a new missile production as existing units could be retrofitted with these kinetic vehicles. You wouldn't use these weapons throughout the conflict, much like you probably wouldn't use B-2 in that role because its prohibitively expensive to do so. These weapons would be considered silver bullets, only to be used against the most high value targets other systems cannot strike safely. If available during Kosovo or in Iraq, you might have seen only one or two missiles fired at the very start of the operation, and thats it. 30 million a missile compared to approximately 1 billion dollars + lifecycle costs for a B-2 actually stacks up the capability fairly well. There are problems, particularly with risk of escalating nuclear tension, but given its low cost I'd say its actually a fairly inexpensive way to maintain a conventional first strike capability along side the B-2 Ok, here is what the B-2 is good for. It has the ability to retarget all the way up to the point the bombs are dropped. It has the range that isn't available to the tactical bombers you've mentioned. And it can hit moving targets, unlike conventional SLBMs, which pretty much locks in a target set in mind once you press the button. Delivery of nuclear weapons was the original designed function, but at the end of the day, it is still a capable platform for penetrating heavily defended areas and is still recallable, and can still be retargeted midway. Conventional SLBMs can't do that. You pointed out that B-2 is losing its technological edge, doesn't that mean that the B-1Bs and B-52s are also more vulnerable at the same time. If the other bombers can't penetrate the area, and if the target is moving, then your conventional ballistic missiles are worthless. So, what options would you have left beyond the stealth bomber. As for the silver bullets, that's only as long as the targets are stationary, and why would you do this if you could just overwhelm a target with cruise missiles anyway. That's why you have the SSGNs in the first place. Edited February 26, 2008 by kalvasflam
Noyhauser Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Ok, here is what the B-2 is good for. It has the ability to retarget all the way up to the point the bombs are dropped. It has the range that isn't available to the tactical bombers you've mentioned. And it can hit moving targets, unlike conventional SLBMs, which pretty much locks in a target set in mind once you press the button. Delivery of nuclear weapons was the original designed function, but at the end of the day, it is still a capable platform for penetrating heavily defended areas and is still recallable, and can still be retargeted midway. Conventional SLBMs can't do that. You pointed out that B-2 is losing its technological edge, doesn't that mean that the B-1Bs and B-52s are also more vulnerable at the same time. If the other bombers can't penetrate the area, and if the target is moving, then your conventional ballistic missiles are worthless. So, what options would you have left beyond the stealth bomber. As for the silver bullets, that's only as long as the targets are stationary, and why would you do this if you could just overwhelm a target with cruise missiles anyway. That's why you have the SSGNs in the first place. First I never claimed it was a replacement, only a supplement. On top of that you're overstating your case about retargeting. A B-2 is already limited in its "retargeting" by what bombload it carries, which can be 6 to 12 hours old. An SL/ICBM can hit any part of the world in the space of 35 minutes or less depending on the base, pretty competitive when it comes down to the planning cycle. One of the biggest reasons for the use of ballistic missiles is its penetration capability. When operational a kinetic kill vehicle travelling at 4km a second will be the most effective hardened penetrator in the U.S.'s arsenal... far more effective than the GBU-28, the top air droppable weapon. Tomahawks are pretty poor penetrators, and are generally a poor substitute overall. They are not stealthy and quickly lose the element of surprise as they approach their targets subsonically. Moreover its not that much more cost effective. A first strike with eight reentry vehicles spread over 40 million dollars is five million per warhead. Each Tomahawk costs about a million each, and will likely have a higher failure rate. In anycase, this is a program that is already in its final stages and will likely be fielded in the next five years or so... so there is not much point arguing as to whether we should go ahead with it at this point or not, because its effectively already here.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Not me! I'd be having a blast! I'd love to be in an airliner that's flying more like a fighter. Just give me the proper restraints so I don't go flopping everywhere in the cabin! I'd be careful about what you wish for... Different class of aeroplane, but I saw a news article once about some Silicon Valley high flyer who paid for a ride in a MiG-25 (may have been a MiG-31, can't recall exactly now). He was about my build - in other words, light - and by the time they came down he practically collapsed onto the tarmac, and looked liked he'd been done over with a cricket bat [1]. Theres a reason why they invented G-Suits... [1] Substitute "baseball bat" for preference, but I know which one I'm grabbing when the zombie apocalypse starts...
Recommended Posts