Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
"What a pointless thought. What good would a bomber for Hawaii-PRC missions be if in all of Western Japan there's no possibility to use some paved surface for F-15 operations?
Sounds like fighting a lost war to me."
Nice strawmen all around. Who said there was no possibility of paved surface use in Western Japan? Who said the bombers would be staged from Hawaii? The main impact I was highlighting would be the reduction in fighter sortie rates which combined with their smaller payloads would have to be made up for by something else. Bombers for example.
"Yeah, but those in command would not send them into such an environment, for there is no need. They would be very safe over the ocean, hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base. There would be no AEW&C if this was not true."
Hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base still puts them within J-20, J-16 (Flanker family) radius.
AEW&C aircraft have pretty exquisite defensive suites and of course, by definition very good awareness.
Military tankers don't have the awareness and converted transport milk cows have nothing. Bombers are little reliant on AEW&C so the claim about crap offensive power is nonsense.
"If a bomber cannot go farther than a fighter-bomber because of threats, then its added range (size) is almost irrelevant. Stand-off missiles can be used with stand-off by definition, no need for a golden bomber."
Harping on range but forgetting about payload. Bombers bring both and that includes the ability to carry big standoff weapons that exceed the pylon/hardpoint limit of any Fighter-bomber in the inventory. I fully expect you to propose we convert transport aircraft into standoff weapons carriers at this point...
"The fact that he compared oranges and apples does, and I explained that already. Expensive or not depends on how great the utility of the item is relative to the price. Airliners are profitable. B-2 and the like aren't profitable."
He compared one VLA to another VLA; apples to apples. Surely if the deterrent effect of bombers works they pay for themselves many times over. And if the effect fails, then they can shorten a war which is generally salutary for profits across the board. I won't delve into the arguments for Military Keynesianism.
"Nonsense. Those weren't in question before the military spending doubled because everybody got hysterical about terrorism."
The ability to meet our treaty obligations was and is in doubt. Very publicly during the precipitous "peace dividend" drawdown of the 90's and now in the Obama era.
LRS-B actually helps meet the New Start treaty obligations whose counting rules are designed to emphasize the least destabilizing member of the triad, the heavy bomber. The B-1b has been denuclearized.
"Furthermore, hardly any treaty ally spends as much in %GDP on its military as the U.S. does."
And they should be chastised for it. Britain's current chicanery in meeting the 2% requirement by
including military pensions is absolutely disgraceful. But thanks to Russian mischief military budgets
seem to be on the rise in Europe. You also see similar budgetary rises in the Far East thanks to China's mischief.
"U.S.military spending is insanely wasteful because U.S.military power ambitions are hysterical."
US military power ambitions are what exactly? The status quo in the Far East and Europe?
How outrageous!
"Meanwhile, the government runs deficits and neglects infrastructure investments."
So how exactly would infrastructure "investments" be funded? By deficits.
May 29, 2015, 7:51:44 PM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written