GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Air Force envisions stealthy long-range bomber for 2018

• 56838
  

  Replacing B-52's with B-2s would be a huge mistake. Not only are the B-2's extremely expensive, but their capabilities don't stand up to modern day stealth standards. The B-2's will be retired before the B-52's I think. A modern bomber would definitly be nice, but I'm with congress on this one. We can't retire planes before we have somthing to replace them with.

  Chris Posted August 20, 2008 5:00 PM
• 33399
  

  I am definitley leaning to the side that the usaf needs new bombers. The b-52's are dating back to the 50's and are lumbering compared to fighter bombers. We need a medium size bomber that can have the range and the payload to be affective on the first day of the war, and can pass through SAM defenses.

  estelle Posted September 19, 2007 4:52 PM
• 33398
  

  I am definitley leaning to the side that the usaf needs new bombers. The b-52's are dating back to the 50's and are lumbering compared to fighter bombers. We need a medium size bomber that can have the range and the payload to be affective on the first day of the war, and can pass through SAM defenses.

  estelle Posted September 19, 2007 4:52 PM
• 32499
  

  The USAF definitely needs to replace it's bomber force. The B-52s are antiques, and having 3 different designs in service leads to a less effictive force. However, the USAF has far more pressing requirements than designing a brand new bomber from scratch. One B-2A should be fully modernized to B-2B standard, then Northrop Grumman should reopen the production line to produce a new batch of B-2Bs to replace the B-52H fleet that remains in service.

  jmint Posted September 8, 2007 5:58 AM
• 25673
  

  What about the option of retiring the B-52s and B-1's and modernising the existing B-2 fleet. Effort should be invested in upgrading the B-2's low observable surface finishes and processes to those used on the F-35, and to a lesser extent the F-22, which would take a substantial chunk out of the operating and maintenance costs of the B-2 fleet.

  The fleet could then be supplemented with a small production run of additional B-2's. No need for a new bomber design.

  Significantly increaing the utilization of B-2 vehicles, would achieve 'value for money' out of their service life, and would be a most cost-effective alternative than upgrading old B-52s and wearing the heavy non-recurring cost of a new subsonic bomber development program, which wouldn't provide any substantial benefit over the capability already offered by the B-2.

  jgarth Posted June 14, 2007 8:05 PM
• 25627
  

  I am a strong advocate of military readiness and capability, but wonder about this plan. Why retire the B-2 bomber, which is only 18 years old, when you are maintaining B-52's which date back to the 1950's? The same applies to the retirement of the F-117 stealth fighter, also a relatively new plane. What threat justifies this program? Don't we already have the best fighters and bombers in the world? Unless China, Russia or some other current or potential enemy is developing something better, I'm sure these funds could be better used somewhere else.

  Bob Posted June 14, 2007 11:21 AM
• 25610
  

  Why do we need any more planes, ships, subs or other strategic weapons systems? Our leadership so fearful of negative world opinion and collateral damage that we won't even go take out the al-Queda training camps we know are currently functioning in Iran. Our men are being killed by these trainees. Seems like an act of war to me. An immediate, devastating air strike would be justifiable. If we won't act under these conditions, I'm losing confidence that we would act in time against a more "global" threat.

  USAF Veteran Posted June 14, 2007 9:25 AM
• 25582
  

  More wasted tax dollars for a bomber we don't need. Just keep updating the B-52 fleet.

  Paul Posted June 14, 2007 5:29 AM