Bankrupted Dotard USAF use WW2 warplanes & early retire bombers due to budget!

[Ang4MohTrump]

How to keep Kuai Lan with PLA while borrowing trillions of dollar from PRC?

American media is asking this question, not answered.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-soon-have-deadly-light-attack-aircraft-24356

The Buzz
The Air Force May Soon Have a Deadly Light Attack Aircraft

Dave Majumdar

February 5, 2018

TweetShareShare

The United States Air Force has decided not conduct another OA-X Light Attack Aircraft demonstration during actual combat operations in the Middle East.

Instead, the service will continue to experiment with various sensors and data networks onboard the Textron Aviation AT-6 Wolverine and the Sierra Nevada/Embraer A-29 Super Tucano—which are the two leading contenders for a new OA-X aircraft—at bases in the United States. The idea would be to gather data for a future rapid procurement of one of the aircraft for service with the U.S. Air Force.

"Rather than do a combat demonstration, we have decided to work closely with industry to experiment with maintenance, data networking and sensors with the two most promising light attack aircraft — the AT-6 Wolverine and the A-29 Super Tucano," Heather Wilson, secretary of the Air Force, said in a statement. "This will let us gather the data needed for a rapid procurement."

Recommended: Stealth vs. North Korea’s Air Defenses: Who Wins?

Recommended: America’s Battleships Went to War Against North Korea

Recommended: 5 Places World War III Could Start in 2018

The Air Force had originally signaled its interest in deploying both the AT-6 and the A-29 into actual combat operations in the Middle East after the initial Light Attack Experiment it had conducted in August 2017. But after further analysis, the Air Force has decided to continue experimenting with the two aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona from May to July later this year.

According to the Air Force, the new experiment will focus on logistics and maintenance requirements, weapons and sensor issues, training syllabus validity, networking and future interoperability with partner forces. The service will also experiment with “rapidly building and operating an exportable, affordable network to enable aircraft to communicate with joint and multi-national forces, as well as command-and-control nodes.”

The Air Force has tried to procure a low cost light attack aircraft several times over the previous decades, but such efforts have inevitably floundered. However, given the sheer strain on the combat air forces, the service is looking at the OA-X as a means of taking the strain off its fourth and fifth-generation fighter force. Simply put, it makes no sense to use a stealthy $140 million Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor—which costs tens of thousands of dollars per hour to fly—to destroy a drug lab in Afghanistan that cost only several hundred dollars.

"This effort to find a lower-cost and exportable aircraft for permissive environments is directly in line with the National Defense Strategy," Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff said. "A light attack aircraft would not only provide relief to our 4th and 5th generation aircraft, but also bolster our interoperability, so we can more effectively employ airpower as an international team."

Indeed, after decades of flying over uncontested airspace using expensive fourth generation fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-16 and the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle to engage insurgents, the Air Force seems to have recognized the wisdom of investing in aircraft that are specifically tailored to that mission.

“The light attack effort supports our nation’s defense strategy to counter violent extremism on a global scale, alongside allies and partners,” the Air Force said in a statement. “A light attack capability could sustain competence in irregular warfare, maximize capability from financial investment, and harness existing, innovative technologies. A light attack aircraft option not only offers additional value and flexibility, but also accelerates modernization of current and potential partner forces who do not require advanced fighter aircraft.”

Indeed, international partnerships have been a component of the OA-X project since its earliest days. The service notes that five allied nations sent observers to the first phase of the Light Attack Experiment, and the Air Force plans to invite additional international partners to observe this second phase of experimentation.

Additionally, the Air Force is also sending an important signal to would-be contractors Textron and Sierra Nevada: the service is no longer merely billing the OA-X program as an experiment but rather a precursor to a rapid procurement. “The Air Force expects to have the information it needs to potentially buy light attack aircraft in a future competition, without conducting a combat demonstration, based on data collected during the first round of the experiment and future data anticipated to be collected in the next phase of experimentation,” the service said in statement.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

Image: U.S. Air Force



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...raft-might-be-more-vulnerable/article/2649005


The Air Force isn't worried its new light attack aircraft might be more vulnerable
by Travis J. Tritten | Feb 13, 2018, 6:10 PM

The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano A-29 is one of two finalists being considered as a smaller, lower-cost addition to the Air Force's current aircraft lineup. (U.S. Air Force photo by Ethan Wagner)
Sign up for News from Washington Examiner

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/dont-retire-stealth-bombers-budget-better/

Don’t Retire Our Stealth Bombers
By Jerry Hendrix

• 
  

February 14, 2018 9:00 AM

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

A B-2 Spirit bomber during an aerial refueling over the North Atlantic Ocean in 2014. (Photo: Technical Sergeant Paul Villanueva)
It’s more cost-effective and smarter strategically to maintain them.

When a local community government has trouble getting its books to balance or it simply desires additional tax revenue to expand local government, but it does not have support from the community, it will often pursue a “firehouses and police stations” strategy. Rather than identify low-end nonessential services or perhaps cut back on its internal bureaucracy, local government officials will select highly visible “sacred cows” — essential services such as firehouses and local police precincts — as the targets for cuts. With this sleight of hand, bureaucrats aim to balance the budget or free up funds for new pet projects, because they know that the public will never accept such cuts. It is a common tactic that is easily recognized by political analysts.

Well, it’s clear that the United States Air Force has recently decided to put some “firehouses,” in the form of highly capable B-2 stealth bombers, on the line in order to win additional funding from the Congress as the Air Force moves into production of its new B-21 Raider bomber.


This week, as part of the president’s budget rollout, the Air Force will be issuing its new “Bomber Vector” roadmap, which will detail the acquisition and retirement plan for our 21st-century bomber force. The roadmap will include the production schedule for the 100 new B-21 Raiders, as well as the retirement plan for older bombers such as the 1980s-era B-1B bombers.

However, in a surprising move, the Air Force’s Bomber Vector roadmap also includes a plan to retire all 20 of the service’s nuclear-capable, stealthy, B-2 Spirit bombers. These iconic, black flying wings have served as the backbone of the nation’s long-range penetrating strike force for the past quarter-century. The Air Force is arguing that, given the upfront costs of acquiring the new B-21 bombers, it can no longer afford to maintain the older B-2 aircraft.

Even the most cursory analysis of the global security environment highlights long-range penetrating strike as the critical emerging mission requirement, especially in light of the expansion of anti-access area-denial capabilities, which include advanced surface-to-air defensive missile capabilities. This analysis suggests that the Air Force will need more bomber capacity than can be supplied by its 100 new B-21 bombers.

In fact, multiple reports from various analysts reveal that the Air Force will need a minimum of 160 penetrating, long-range strike bombers if the nation decides to execute a sustained campaign against a rival great power. Against this strategic context, any proposal by Air Force leadership to retire a key component of the nation’s nuclear strategic triad and diminish our overall capacity to penetrate modern anti-air defenses can only be viewed as a blatant attempt to coerce Congress into raising its overall budgetary top line.

Comments
At this stage, what should the Air Force be doing, and what should the Congress ask it to do as part of next year’s National Defense Authorization Act? Perform an overall assessment of the service’s real strategic requirements given the current and future security environment. This assessment should consider whether the service’s current balance between long-range and short-range aircraft makes sense in light of expanding anti-access area-denial technologies. Additionally, given that both the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy call out great-power competition broadly and China and Russia specifically as future threats while also recognizing that transnational terrorism will remain as a strategic challenge, we must ask: Does the Air Force’s future aircraft inventory make sense? It currently plans to field just shy of 2,000 fifth-generation, short-ranged fighters while building only 100 new, long-ranged, all-aspect stealth, penetrating bombers. Is that sufficient?

We see some signs of innovation within the Air Force’s overall plan, such as adding cheaper, simpler, light-attack aircraft to its inventory to perform day-to-day attacks against terrorists driving white Toyota pick-ups around the desert (probably not the best use of a $100-million-per copy fifth-generation fighter). Nonetheless, we need more emphasis in the Vector roadmap on the future threats that will pose the greatest danger to our nation.

The bottom line is that the Air Force is going to need more long-range penetrating strike bombers then it currently plans for within its budget.

The bottom line is that the Air Force is going to need more long-range penetrating strike bombers then it currently plans for within its budget. It will need more than the 100 B-21 Raiders that it plans to buy. In fact, it will probably need close to 150 of these aircraft if it is to be able to execute a sustained bombing campaign against a near-peer, great-power competitor. It will also need every one of the 20 B-2 Spirits that the Air Force retains in its inventory. Their low-stress, flying-wing structural design should enable these aircraft to fly for decades to come, much as their B-52 antecedents have. It’s true that their stealth characteristics do come with higher maintenance costs, but these are nowhere near their one-for-one replacement costs, and the nation needs these aircraft to meet its national-security requirements. The Air Force should stop threatening to close firehouses. It should manage its budget to meet strategic requirements.


Jerry Hendrix — Jerry Hendrix is a retired U.S. Navy captain, an award-winning naval historian, and a senior fellow and director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security.
More in National Security & Defense

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...s/news-story/a57e54c4d18ee3398484c2e2494c70d9

B-21 Raider stealth bomber: USAF budget calls for early retirement of B-1, B-2 bombers
THE United States is set to retire its most potent aircraft, the B2 ‘Spirit’ stealth bomber, early. But another must now fly until it is 100 years old. The reason is ... Top Secret.

Jamie Seidel
News Corp Australia NetworkFebruary 13, 20183:26pm

• Video
• Image

1:15
/
7:27
Autoplay

US Bomber Takes Off From Guam's Andersen Air Force Base. Credit - Airman Audra Young/Airman 1st Class Phillip M Guadiana-Gomez, US Defense Department via Storyful

Ads by Kiosked
THEY’ve been icons of United States power for decades.

The intimidating, black, bat-winged stealth bomber — the B2 “Spirit”.

The sleek, fast swing-wing B1 “Lancer”.

Nothing in the world compares to the nearly 30-year-old B2. Only Russia has anything like the Lancer.

So why is the US Air Force seeking to spend so much of its $US156 billion for the next financial year on keeping its ever-shrinking fleet of 66-year-old B-52 “Stratofortress” in the air?

It’s a secret.

The current US bomber fleet. The B-2 "Spirit", top, with the B-52 "Stratofortress" and B-1 "Lancer". Picture: USAFSource:Supplied

Ads by Kiosked
AGE WEARIES THEM

The US Air Force yesterday detailed its plans for the future. as part of its new budget bid.

It involves retiring two out of its three types of strategic bomber by 2030.

But the B-52 is somehow expected to stay in service through the 2050s.

There are sound reasons.

The B2 “Spirit” is an incredibly expensive beast to keep flying. Every one of the 21 examples the USAF bought in the early 1990s was individually hand crafted. So spares are a serious problem.

The B1 “Lancers”, while cheaper, are still complex pieces of machinery. They’re some 15 years older. And of the 100 built, only 20 are still flying.

The flying dinosaur that is the B-52 was built in large numbers in a much simpler era. Out of the original 744, about 50 remain in service. There are plenty of spare parts laying around in aircraft “boneyards”. And it is cheaper to update components, such as the aircraft’s electronics and engines.

RELATED: China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter “fully operational”

“With an adequate sustainment and modernisation focus, including new engines, the B-52 has a projected service life through 2050, remaining a key part of the bomber enterprise well into the future,” General Robin Rand says in a statement.

But does the US Air Force truly believe the B-52 is capable of doing the job of a B2 “Spirit”?

No.

There’s another factor at play.

One the USAF won’t talk about. At all.

The B-21 “Raider”.

An artists rendering released by Northrop Grumman depicting a concept for the B-21 "Raider". With the early retirement of the existing US bomber fleet, much rests on whether or not this project is on time and on budget. Picture: Northrop GrummanSource:Supplied

Ads by Kiosked
MONEY DOESN’T TALK

The US military has a credibility problem when it comes to weapons procurement.

Many projects — billions of dollars over budget — have simply had to be abandoned.

The F-35 stealth strike fighter is being billed as “too expensive to fail”. Little wonder: it’s the most costly — and delayed — military project in history.

And there are no fallback options.

DELVE DEEPER: Can Australia’s first F-35’s actually fight?

After 20 years of gestation, it still has serious teething problems. They’ve even had to invent a new designation — “initial operational capacity (IOC)” - to justify putting incomplete aircraft into active service.

So is the solution to find new and better methods for project and risk management?

Perhaps.

Making how much is being spent on a project, how much progress is being made, and what problems it may face Top Secret also helps.

Such is the case with the next-generation bomber, the Northrop Grumman’s B-21 “Raider”.

The US Air Force is only saying how much it hopes each aircraft will cost. It lists the major contractors. It won’t reveal the value of the contracts it has issued.

The argument goes that contract cost details would allow competitors — such as China and Russia — to “extrapolate” details of the bombers’ design.

EXPLORE MORE: Can the US still tame China’s ‘dragon’?

But it would also allow government oversight committees to figure out if they’re getting what they’re paying for — and how much they’re actually paying.

Such things have been a major embarrassment to the USAF when it comes to the F-35.

But it insists everything about the B-21 is going exactly as intended, so there is no need to worry ...

A US Air Force B-1B Lancer prepares for takeoff from Guam to conduct a bilateral mission with South Korean F-15 and Koku Jieitai (Japan Air Self-Defense Force) F-2 fighter jets in response to escalatory action by North Korea. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

http://www.heraldnet.com/business/stealth-bomber-to-replace-b-1s-and-b-2s-b-52s-keep-flying/

Stealth bomber to replace B-1s and B-2s; B-52s keep flying

There have been several discussions about replacing the B-52’s engines to decrease maintenance costs.

• Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:36pm
• Herald Business JournalAviation and space

Air Force’s new stealth bomber will replace B-1s and B-2s while older B-52s keep flying

By Samantha Masunaga / Los Angeles Times

The U.S. Air Force plans to phase out its B-1B and B-2 bomber fleets as the new B-21 bomber, currently being built in Palmdale by Northrop Grumman Corp., becomes operational in the mid-2020s.

That would leave the Air Force of the future with the B-21 and the aging Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber, which first became operational in 1952, during the Truman administration. Both the B-1B and the B-2 are decades younger, faster and present smaller radar targets than the B-52. But the older plane can carry a lot of weapons and it’s far cheaper to operate.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said in a statement Monday that the service will update its B-52 bombers, which like the B-2 and B-21 can carry nuclear weapons. She said the Air Force would fund development of replacement engines for the B-52 and that it would continue to modify the B-1B and B-2 aircraft “to keep them relevant until the B-21s come on line.”

The timeline of the planes’ retirement will depend on the B-21 production and delivery schedules.

The news was first reported Sunday by trade publication Aviation Week.

The Air Force’s active bomber fleet is currently comprised of 75 B-52s, 62 B-1Bs and 20 B-2s. The service has said it plans to buy 100 B-21s by the mid-2030s for at least $80 billion, though the exact amount is classified.

Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the move to phase out the B-1Bs and B-2s is likely budget-driven. The Air Force needs to modernize and reinvest in a number of its key assets, including its fighter jets, bomber forces and unmanned systems, and that is a “daunting challenge.”

But he said the phase-out would exacerbate an already-existing shortage in long-range strike capability.

“Premature retirement of viable long-range strike weapons is just going to make that problem worse,” Gunzinger said. “I would keep the B-2s as long as they have useful operational lives. I would try to get every year I can out of them.”

Originally envisioned as a fleet of 132 nuclear-capable bombers, the Air Force ended up getting only 21 B-2 aircraft as costs increased and the Cold War ended, leading to questions about why the aircraft was needed. The B-2 was ready for combat by 1997.

That small number of planes meant that the cost per flying hour is more expensive than that of the other two current bombers. But Gunzinger said a lot of money has been put into the B-2 over the years to “improve their capabilities.” Stealth maintenance and technology has improved over the years, but overhauling a B-2 bomber has traditionally been a major, and costly, task.

Even the conventional bomber B-1B, which was ready for combat in 1986, is newer than the B-52. Gunzinger said there have been several discussions over the years about replacing the B-52’s engines to decrease maintenance costs and increase fuel efficiency, a plan that could cost $7 billion or more.

“From a strategic perspective, from a force planning perspective, prematurely retiring bombers doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Gen. Robin Rand, Air Force Global Strike Command commander, said in the Monday statement that the B-52 has a projected service life through 2050 “with an adequate sustainment and modernization focus” that would help the plane continue to be a “key part of the bomber enterprise well into the future.”

——

©2018 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

———

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194):

—————

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

Ang Moh Trump have to fund money to pay for his new (cost cut budget bomber) B21, which is claimed to be @$550M vs the @$2B B2B. Even so, the dramatically cost cut version will be expected to INFLATE to billions as usual from the Designed Low-Cost plan. To find money to buy each of these, they have to cut away maintenance cost by EARLY RETIREMENT of 10~15 older bombers. In the final over result, it is a drastically down-sized strategic USAF fleet. Still without any expected edge over PLA. MAGA is only weaker than before, both relatively and absolutely. The reason is PLA's development and enlargement beef up ultra rapidly, at speed never seen before in this world.

 

[steffychun]

Jerry Hendrix is full of shit.

 

[JohnTan]

The chinks have little fight in them even if they were armed with the best weapons money can buy. The Japs proved that long ago when they sank the chink's expensive Beiyang fleet. Even if the yankees charged the chinks today with only their fists, the yankees would still own the chinks.

 

[Tony Tan]

The chinks have little fight in them even if they were armed with the best weapons money can buy. The Japs proved that long ago when they sank the chink's expensive Beiyang fleet. Even if the yankees charged the chinks today with only their fists, the yankees would still own the chinks.

Your knowledge is reversed absolutely. Your brains Edema already?

When Americans sent 50K to tanks, planes, helicopters, jets, bombers, carriers, millions of troops to Vietnam the Chinese & Viet defeated them to evict them from Vietnam with essentially only AK-47. Americans can not win even with 100X technological and war machine advantages. Chinese are well known to fight and win with little old and out-dated arms, even WW2 against Japs and Korean War against USA. A matter of fact is even FOOD & WATER was way insufficient supplies and can still defeat enemies. Lots of Chinese guerrillas using only weapons taken from killed Japs.

 

[congo9]

Your knowledge is reversed absolutely. Your brains Edema already?

When Americans sent 50K to tanks, planes, helicopters, jets, bombers, carriers, millions of troops to Vietnam the Chinese & Viet defeated them to evict them from Vietnam with essentially only AK-47. Americans can not win even with 100X technological and war machine advantages. Chinese are well known to fight and win with little old and out-dated arms, even WW2 against Japs and Korean War against USA. A matter of fact is even FOOD & WATER was way insufficient supplies and can still defeat enemies. Lots of Chinese guerrillas using only weapons taken from killed Japs.

That was 50 years ago. They can afford to waste life like water.
Now with ever richer Chinese, their son's and descendant are like Jewels. China can't afford losing young verile men like before. If most of the young man die during the war, where is Xi going to find money to feed the tens of million old folks ?

 

[taksinloong]

That was 50 years ago. They can afford to waste life like water.
Now with ever richer Chinese, their son's and descendant are like Jewels. China can't afford losing young verile men like before. If most of the young man die during the war, where is Xi going to find money to feed the tens of million old folks ?

That is the only CORRECT Way!

Must continue till eternity!

The modern civilization WRONGLY VALUES LIVES, and caused Populated to Explode and Resources Squandering to Exhausting Level to baselessly Pamper these billions of useless humans. This is a GLOBAL TOTAL EXTINCTION SUICIDE! Was must be done in the correct way to eliminate human lives and education must be corrected that lives are to be treated like dirts! That is the only way to be in accordance with the laws of natural and universal balance- lasting forever.