Comments on: NGB Stopped For START http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:55:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: paulhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7780 paul Fri, 01 May 2009 16:30:28 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7780 What a load of impotent work....We have nukes. Its like a mask... What a load of impotent work.…We have nukes.
Its like a mask…

]]> By: hesshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7752 hess Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:39:31 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7752 re-open the lines and build new ones... no sense in re-creating the wheel... will cost less then something soo advanced that we will never use! atleast the costs associated with running these things will go down.. plus i mean the current ones are projected to have a 100 yr shelf life... these things last a long time! build more! re-open the lines and build new ones… no sense in re-creating the wheel… will cost less then something soo advanced that we will never use! atleast the costs associated with running these things will go down.. plus i mean the current ones are projected to have a 100 yr shelf life… these things last a long time! build more!

]]> By: Bryan Wallenhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7585 Bryan Wallen Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:43:20 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7585 Why not go for the best of both worlds?The B-52 can do some things very well and, if we replaced the engines on it with new off the shelf aircraft engines, assuredly last several more decades. I've read that the overwhelming majority of its maintenance hrs go into keeping those ancient engines working.We're always going to need stand-off platforums for delivery of ever-more sophisticated missiles...why not keep it going BUT also acknowledge that a penetration weapon is needed? It might end up being that the FB-22 variant that was discussed some years ago would be the only thing that is budgetarily possible...but to tie your hands by committing to nothing...that is better?I wonder if we'd be discussing the need for a NGB if we'd gone ahead and built 50-75 B-2's back when the prodn line was active? I understand that everyone had decided its time had passed (while it was being made) but to stop at a force of 21 of them didn't seem wise, either. Why not go for the best of both worlds?

The B-52 can do some things very well and, if we replaced the engines on it with new off the shelf aircraft engines, assuredly last several more decades. I’ve read that the overwhelming majority of its maintenance hrs go into keeping those ancient engines working.

We’re always going to need stand-off platforums for delivery of ever-more sophisticated missiles…why not keep it going BUT also acknowledge that a penetration weapon is needed? It might end up being that the FB-22 variant that was discussed some years ago would be the only thing that is budgetarily possible…but to tie your hands by committing to nothing…that is better?

I wonder if we’d be discussing the need for a NGB if we’d gone ahead and built 50–75 B-2’s back when the prodn line was active? I understand that everyone had decided its time had passed (while it was being made) but to stop at a force of 21 of them didn’t seem wise, either.

]]> By: DC2 Jenningshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7556 DC2 Jennings Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:20:45 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7556 All of this is speculation. How bout some facts:How many of these would we actually build considering we only have 21 B-2s and 187 F-22s? The NGB is going to cost at least the $2B the B-2 cost.The NGB, unless designed for conventional bombing only, is going to cost a lot and we are going to have a few. So why even build it when we still have ICBMs and SSBNs?j2 All of this is speculation. How bout some facts:

How many of these would we actually build considering we only have 21 B-2s and 187 F-22s? The NGB is going to cost at least the $2B the B-2 cost.

The NGB, unless designed for conventional bombing only, is going to cost a lot and we are going to have a few. So why even build it when we still have ICBMs and SSBNs?

j2

]]> By: Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Rethttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7544 Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:25:36 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7544 If that NGB decision was made in anticipation of negotiating positions later - the people making the decision have no idea how to negotiate. So the decision was almost certainly made that we could just live with our 1950s era bombers (the B-52 will have to be a big part of our bomber force for years to come) and hope that a future Administration will refresh our systems - before they fall out of the sky through sheer metal fatigue. And the way it is going (recall we built hundreds of B-52s, we built 100 B-1s, we built 32 B-2s) the next bomber built will consist of two airframes. But back to negotiating - we should plan on building lots of very flexible bombers and plan to negotiate the ability to keep them. Adversaries of the future could attempt to keep up with us (building lots of fragile Blackjack bombers) or they could negotiate honestly. If we trade away all of our assets years before we even start negotiating - why would other countries take us seriously? If that NGB decision was made in anticipation of negotiating positions later — the people making the decision have no idea how to negotiate. So the decision was almost certainly made that we could just live with our 1950s era bombers (the B-52 will have to be a big part of our bomber force for years to come) and hope that a future Administration will refresh our systems — before they fall out of the sky through sheer metal fatigue. And the way it is going (recall we built hundreds of B-52s, we built 100 B-1s, we built 32 B-2s) the next bomber built will consist of two airframes.
But back to negotiating — we should plan on building lots of very flexible bombers and plan to negotiate the ability to keep them. Adversaries of the future could attempt to keep up with us (building lots of fragile Blackjack bombers) or they could negotiate honestly. If we trade away all of our assets years before we even start negotiating — why would other countries take us seriously?

]]> By: Wee-Beyhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7494 Wee-Bey Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:01:56 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7494 bobbymike, why not triple it? bobbymike, why not triple it?

]]> By: bobbymikehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7474 bobbymike Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:43:31 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7474 Yes it is! I am a defense hawk who would double the DOD budget if I was president. Thought my sarcasm was evident after quoting the John Lennon jingle. Yes it is! I am a defense hawk who would double the DOD budget if I was president. Thought my sarcasm was evident after quoting the John Lennon jingle.

]]> By: Bill R.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7473 Bill R. Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:13:22 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7473 I hope that was a joke! because the second we get rid of our military we would be invaded. These countries that want us to give up nukes and down size our military would love nothing more than to rip your peace loving butt (along with your friends & family) out of your house and stomp your guts to death. Make no mistake about it , there is no place for weakness in this world ,nor weak presidents . I really don't like the direction our president is taking us in. As an average citizen, I was mad as hell about these big banks ,and greedy CEOs , taking ,taking ,and taking with no regard for this country or it's citizens. Then when their company goes belly up we are asked to pay for it. Our politicians give our country away it seems like on a daily basis , and we the average middle class citizen has to pay for it all. We give money to countries that hate us and what we stand for,as if we can buy their friendship. And now we are being asked to give up our security ! I hope that was a joke! because the second we get rid of our military we would be invaded. These countries that want us to give up nukes and down size our military would love nothing more than to rip your peace loving butt (along with your friends & family) out of your house and stomp your guts to death. Make no mistake about it , there is no place for weakness in this world ‚nor weak presidents . I really don’t like the direction our president is taking us in. As an average citizen, I was mad as hell about these big banks ‚and greedy CEOs , taking ‚taking ‚and taking with no regard for this country or it’s citizens. Then when their company goes belly up we are asked to pay for it. Our politicians give our country away it seems like on a daily basis , and we the average middle class citizen has to pay for it all. We give money to countries that hate us and what we stand for,as if we can buy their friendship. And now we are being asked to give up our security !

]]> By: bobbymikehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/22/ngb-stopped-for-start/#comment-7470 bobbymike Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:40:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=5939#comment-7470 I say let's totally disarm no matter what the rest of the world does and when they see how peace loving we are they will follow suit and love and kindness will break out across the land."All we are saying is give peace a chance" I say let’s totally disarm no matter what the rest of the world does and when they see how peace loving we are they will follow suit and love and kindness will break out across the land.

“All we are saying is give peace a chance”

]]>