DoD’s budget boosts funds for F-35, spec ops

[unhappycamper]

DoD’s budget boosts funds for F-35, spec ops
By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 28, 2010 21:16:09 EST

The Pentagon’s 2011 budget will seek nearly $11 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while also putting $4 billion toward a new long-range bomber and boosting funds for special operations forces, according to a draft overview of the spending request obtained by Defense News.

The Obama administration’s 2011 Pentagon spending request follows a tumultuous 2010 Pentagon budget process that saw Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancel, restructure or otherwise alter about 50 major U.S. weapon programs.

Due to be sent to Congress on Feb. 1, the new budget will call for the termination of yet more programs while doubling the purchase of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft, according to the summary document, titled “Overview — FY 2011 Defense Budget” and labeled “Draft — Predecisional.” And as in years past, the budget will push to finally kill purchases of the Air Force’s C-17 cargo plane and an alternative engine for the F-35.

“Since taking office, Secretary Gates has taken decisive action to increase the capabilities available to our deployed forces — especially those forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the summary says. “The FY 2011 budget builds upon his previous actions, which Congress generally has supported, and advances the emphasis on current conflicts.”

Despite that current-war focus, the summary also describes a 2011 budget request that “funds a robust program to develop and procure superior aircraft to guarantee continued air dominance over current and future battlefields.”


Rest of article about this $239,000,000 dollar pig in a poke at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/defense_budget_summary_012810w/

[Sherman A1]

1. Oh, goodie the long range bomber makes a come back

what a wonderful idea..... :sarcasm:

Yes, we must build a new long range bomber because our B-52's & B-2's are getting old, etc..............

Yeah, Right (because a cargo plane or converted airliner to serve as a bomb truck over controlled airspace or rigged with standoff weapons for penetration of hostile airspace simply can't do the job at a much, much lower cost.

[Angleae]

2. Cargo planes/Airliners can't be converted to bombers.

They're structurally different. You can't simply cut a hole in the bottom (and passenger deck for airliners) and still expect it to have the same structural integrity. As far as the B-52's getting old, the youngest is 48 years old. Aircraft do not age gracefully.

[midnight armadillo]

5. i don't buy it

Why would it not be possible to structurally reinforce a 767 fuselage for bomb duty? Or at least start with its wings engines etc and re-engineer the center fuselage for this purpose? The 767 freight version has around 108,000 lbs of payload, the B-52 at just about the same length & wingspan 70,000 lbs. You can hardly claim the 767 isn't a strongly built aircraft.

Or you could start with a 747-400 at ~250,000 lbs of payload. That's a lotta bombs. This would be a heck of a lot cheaper than spec'ing and buying a B-52 replacement from the heinously corrupt and inefficient Lockheed-Martin.

[Sherman A1]

7. Then we cannot use the Boeing replacement for the P-3 Orion?

Hmmmm?

The P-8A Poseidon has a cruising speed of 815 km/h and a maximum speed of 907km/h, with 30 million flight hours. Each CFM56-7 engine receives 27,300 pounds of takeoff thrust, and in flight the plane can reach a service ceiling of 12.5 km. While empty, it weighs 62 ,30kg, and it has a maximum takeoff weight of 85,370kg. The P-8 is based on Boeing’s 737-800, and is the first militarized version of that series. It features raked wingtips rather than blended winglets and six additional body fuel tanks. The US Navy has been searching for a replacement for the P-3 for roughly two decades

Yeah, I know the B-52 is old, but a cargo/airliner bomb truck can survive in a controlled airspace as it would not have to perform violent maneuvers and in a hostile airspace there are stand off weapons such as cruise missiles. These aircraft are also structurally sound enough for great amounts of weight and cycles, they just aren't really cool lookin toys to the AF guys.

[Angleae]

10. They also cost 3x a 737-800

$264 million vs $81 million. And they have a small, 5 position weapon bay in what is now the aft cargo bay. In order to have a heavy bomber and use all the payload capacity you need to cut out the passenger deck and you can't do that without strengthening the airframe in other ways otherwise it will rip apart. A simple B-52 replacement would not cost too much, the problem is the AF guys want all the fancy toys/stealth capability/whatever that will push the cost into the stratosphere. A P-8 type conversion on a 767-300 would cost about $525 million each, a 777 would cost nearly $1 billion and neither would be able to use its full payload capacity due to space limitations.

[Sherman A1]

11. We agree on a B-52 replacement type

But even the 767/P-8 thing is going to cost more than the standard airliner due to the internal goodies (electronics, ejection seats, air to air refueling equipment, etc) that will be on any aircraft of it's type so that is a cost that you will pay in any event no matter the airframe.

I am all for bring back the B-52 (or even the B-36 which is my personal favorite) to replace worn out equipment and naturally it would be upgraded with the latest engines & electronics (that only makes sense).

The first question to ask is why do we need it and where do we envision it will be used? If it's against such forces as the Taliban, etc we control the airspace and frankly tactical aircraft are probably better suited. Something more in the A-10 class or alike for ground support as opposed to a strategic bomber.

If it is against a perceived foe of another nature, what is it that we need to strike that needs a deep penetrator? Can such not be accomplished with stand off weapons that do not expose the crew to hostile airspace? Could drone types be used?

I think we really need to consider the basis of what we are trying to accomplish before we spend money on another strategic bomber.

[Thothmes]

12. P-8A is not a true bomber

It will carry a few air drop torpedos, depth charges or smart gravity bombs. Also be configured to carry a missiles on wing pylons. ASW does not require a large weapons load.

[PacerLJ35]

3. Uh, that won't work

The next generation bomber has to be able to be survivable, and I'm sorry but a C-17 or C-130 with a few bombs under the wings (totally disregarding the engineering to do that for this point) wouldn't last more than a few seconds if shooting started between us and a real threat.

[midnight armadillo]

6. How many b-52's have been lost?

How many have been shot down in combat in the last 20 years? 0. In Vietnam - 30.

[Sherman A1]

8. Uh, Yeah it would

and if not we have a problem with the P-8

[gratuitous]

4. And I thought I was just kidding around

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7572838#7573712

Turns out I was exactly right, which doesn't happen all that often.

[Statistical]

9. "while doubling the purchase of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft" n/t