B-52......
-
Hmm i noe that the NGF will be due early nxt year....but will mindef stop there...i been thinking that RSAF might want to get a bomber plane like B-52 stratofortress......it can be station at France or even USA and further enhance SAF's capabilities......
-
er... the point of tis post???
-
For mindef to consider a bomber plane!Originally posted by RaTtY81:er... the point of tis post???
-
And who r we going to bomb ? The B-52's are old skool and i don't even think the USAF uses em anymore !
-
they use them to launch AIR cruise missle i think........pretty impressive payload..Originally posted by ben1406:And who r we going to bomb ? The B-52's are old skool and i don't even think the USAF uses em anymore ! -
of course they bloody use them!
what do you think carpet bombed in afghanistan and iraq?
These venerable but well updated and upgraded aircraft are the only things capable of laying down such heavy ordnance right now - and for the forseeable future.
but does Singapore need them? no.
the B-52 fills a very specific role within the US military strategy.
There is no such role in Singapores armed forces, and certainly no infrastructure or support system to support such a heavy investment [they need alot of maintenace] in aircraft and manpower and equipment.
Singapore is a small state with a small armed force, geared for a limited conventional military role. Any bomber role would be better filled by multi-role, felixble aircraft that can do many things other than just be a huge lumbering target that carries thousands of pounds of bombs or cruise missiles.
Singapore already has aircraft that fills this role - from the recently retired A-4's to the Tiger II's to the F-16's.
these are more than capable.
There is no need for a B-52 or any kind of dedicated bomber role in singapores military.
Why do you think the former Soviet Union, China and the Us are the only main nations that still use strategic bombers?
No one else does because:
1) they dont need it
2) modern multi-role aircraft can do the bombing if so required.
3) cheaper cost per unit in above than in dedicated bomber platforms.
its no use looking at a picture and saying 'thats cool! lets have one!'.
Theres a rhyme and reason for everything. [and a bean counter behind you..] -
weren't they using the B-1B Lancer ?Originally posted by zoik:of course they bloody use them!
what do you think carpet bombed in afghanistan and iraq?
These venerable but well updated and upgraded aircraft are the only things capable of laying down such heavy ordnance right now - and for the forseeable future.
but does Singapore need them? no.
the B-52 fills a very specific role within the US military strategy.
There is no such role in Singapores armed forces, and certainly no infrastructure or support system to support such a heavy investment [they need alot of maintenace] in aircraft and manpower and equipment.
Singapore is a small state with a small armed force, geared for a limited conventional military role. Any bomber role would be better filled by multi-role, felixble aircraft that can do many things other than just be a huge lumbering target that carries thousands of pounds of bombs or cruise missiles.
Singapore already has aircraft that fills this role - from the recently retired A-4's to the Tiger II's to the F-16's.
these are more than capable.
There is no need for a B-52 or any kind of dedicated bomber role in singapores military.
Why do you think the former Soviet Union, China and the Us are the only main nations that still use strategic bombers?
No one else does because:
1) they dont need it
2) modern multi-role aircraft can do the bombing if so required.
3) cheaper cost per unit in above than in dedicated bomber platforms.
its no use looking at a picture and saying 'thats cool! lets have one!'.
Theres a rhyme and reason for everything. [and a bean counter behind you..] -
B-1B Lancers have serious issues with them, and they dont field nearly enough operational Lancers compared to the B-52's..
i think roughly equal numbers of BUFF's and Lancers were operational in the wars of 2002/2003, Lancers werent even certified to carry normal bombs before Gulf War 1.
So much so that the B-52 is expected to outlive the B-1B in service by some 20+ years..
Not long ago serious cracks [eg. in the critical wing roots] and structural defects grounded the entire fleet of Lancers, and out of the 100 manufactured, perhaps half that number are operational in any real terms.
The Lancer has been plagued by alot of technical difficulties [earlier this year the whole Lancer fleet was grounded with undercarriage problems], added to that its fleet has dwindled to half what it was; the B-52 has twice the number of Lancers in actual active service.
The B-52 by comparison has enjoyed a much happier operational life than the Lancer ever did.
However, the Lancer is best mid-range answer, making a holy trinity with the still-capable B-52 and the stealthy B-2.. -
BUFF = Big Ugly Fat Fucker = B-52's nickname during vietnam warOriginally posted by zoik:i think roughly equal numbers of BUFF's and Lancers were operational in the wars of 2002/2003, Lancers werent even certified to carry normal bombs before Gulf War 1. -
*claps hands* well done, i was wondering if someone was going to ask about that..
['Fella' was used when they didnt want to sound crude..] -
you want an aircraft carrier as well ?Originally posted by kaka_22:Hmm i noe that the NGF will be due early nxt year....but will mindef stop there...i been thinking that RSAF might want to get a bomber plane like B-52 stratofortress......it can be station at France or even USA and further enhance SAF's capabilities......
-
someone should read about dale brown....and his books about area 51...Originally posted by crazy monkey:you want an aircraft carrier as well ?
they use a B-52 for experiments....
don wanna sae much just buy the book and read....not bad ba...
if u understand it... -
OMG DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG A RUN WAY DOES B-52 NEEDS...Originally posted by kaka_22:Hmm i noe that the NGF will be due early nxt year....but will mindef stop there...i been thinking that RSAF might want to get a bomber plane like B-52 stratofortress......it can be station at France or even USA and further enhance SAF's capabilities......
OMG OMG OMG......................... -
Not to mention , the B-52 is quite slow on the air even though it can fly quite far around the world..Originally posted by kaka_22:Hmm i noe that the NGF will be due early nxt year....but will mindef stop there...i been thinking that RSAF might want to get a bomber plane like B-52 stratofortress......it can be station at France or even USA and further enhance SAF's capabilities......
Don't forget B-52 needs aerial escorts...
and if once get shot down ...you lost lotsa $$..
B-52 is more of conventional bombing ...you don't wanna risk killing too many civilians... -
no need aerial escorts...Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Not to mention , the B-52 is quite slow on the air even though it can fly quite far around the world..
Don't forget B-52 needs aerial escorts...
and if once get shot down ...you lost lotsa $$..
B-52 is more of conventional bombing ...you don't wanna risk killing too many civilians...
i believe just mod their electronics..and ther launchers can liao...
wheeeEEEeee~
imagine B-52s carrying AIM-9s and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for AA duties...then a couple of GPS-guided bombs for ground attacks...then AGMs for tank-busting duties...
equip wif the latest in ECM and ESM...
then somemore have the range to fly far and wide...
w00t enemy see also can go fly kite liao -
Yep imagine your B-52s can carry AIm-9s and AIM-120 for dogfight, yes pulling 9G till enemy see already also fight run away laughing !!!Originally posted by Lance_han:no need aerial escorts...
i believe just mod their electronics..and ther launchers can liao...
wheeeEEEeee~
imagine B-52s carrying AIM-9s and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for AA duties...then a couple of GPS-guided bombs for ground attacks...then AGMs for tank-busting duties...
equip wif the latest in ECM and ESM...
w00t enemy see also can go fly kite liao
You jammed people missiles, also no use, so big target, all fighters planes have something call gun, which can shoot !!! Turkey shoot !!! -
Then versus enemy aircraft how? Its too slow and clumsy to outfly enemy fighters... Singapore needs cruise missles not B-52sOriginally posted by Lance_han:no need aerial escorts...
i believe just mod their electronics..and ther launchers can liao...
wheeeEEEeee~
imagine B-52s carrying AIM-9s and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for AA duties...then a couple of GPS-guided bombs for ground attacks...then AGMs for tank-busting duties...
equip wif the latest in ECM and ESM...
w00t enemy see also can go fly kite liao 
-
hmmm can sae tat tis is also the biggest WEAKNESS of the united states armed forces....Originally posted by zoik:of course they bloody use them!
what do you think carpet bombed in afghanistan and iraq?
These venerable but well updated and upgraded aircraft are the only things capable of laying down such heavy ordnance right now - and for the forseeable future.
but does Singapore need them? no.
the B-52 fills a very specific role within the US military strategy.
There is no such role in Singapores armed forces, and certainly no infrastructure or support system to support such a heavy investment [they need alot of maintenace] in aircraft and manpower and equipment.
Singapore is a small state with a small armed force, geared for a limited conventional military role. Any bomber role would be better filled by multi-role, felixble aircraft that can do many things other than just be a huge lumbering target that carries thousands of pounds of bombs or cruise missiles.
Singapore already has aircraft that fills this role - from the recently retired A-4's to the Tiger II's to the F-16's.
these are more than capable.
There is no need for a B-52 or any kind of dedicated bomber role in singapores military.
Why do you think the former Soviet Union, China and the Us are the only main nations that still use strategic bombers?
No one else does because:
1) they dont need it
2) modern multi-role aircraft can do the bombing if so required.
3) cheaper cost per unit in above than in dedicated bomber platforms.
its no use looking at a picture and saying 'thats cool! lets have one!'.
Theres a rhyme and reason for everything. [and a bean counter behind you..]
all its weapons system is geared towards ONE kind of mission...not realli multi-mission capable...but then again the weapons system is virtually the best when employed in tat particular mission -
aiyah...i see also blur liao...but B-52s in the first place also retain its MGs in the rear of the aircraft...and btw...i nv said anything about dogfight....rather i think best for the B-52 is as an all-weather multi-mission capable\standoff weapons platform with an added role of low-atitutide penetration weapons system...Originally posted by storywolf:Yep imagine your B-52s can carry AIm-9s and AIM-120 for dogfight, yes pulling 9G till enemy see already also fight run away laughing !!!
You jammed people missiles, also no use, so big target, all fighters planes have something call gun, which can shoot !!! Turkey shoot !!!
ho boh??? -
The B-52 does not have many outer pylons. Most of the ordance is loaded internally. And the B-52 is ageing. And Spore have B-52? Sorry guys I am afraid the B-52 is no longer in production.Originally posted by Lance_han:no need aerial escorts...
i believe just mod their electronics..and ther launchers can liao...
wheeeEEEeee~
imagine B-52s carrying AIM-9s and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for AA duties...then a couple of GPS-guided bombs for ground attacks...then AGMs for tank-busting duties...
equip wif the latest in ECM and ESM...
then somemore have the range to fly far and wide...
w00t enemy see also can go fly kite liao -
hehe..relax..just a thot of mine...Originally posted by SBS3624G:The B-52 does not have many outer pylons. Most of the ordance is loaded internally. And the B-52 is ageing. And Spore have B-52? Sorry guys I am afraid the B-52 is no longer in production. -
Nah the lancers werent used in GW1 because of a cracked engine port or something that grounded the whole fleetOriginally posted by zoik:B-1B Lancers have serious issues with them, and they dont field nearly enough operational Lancers compared to the B-52's..
i think roughly equal numbers of BUFF's and Lancers were operational in the wars of 2002/2003, Lancers werent even certified to carry normal bombs before Gulf War 1.
So much so that the B-52 is expected to outlive the B-1B in service by some 20+ years..
Not long ago serious cracks [eg. in the critical wing roots] and structural defects grounded the entire fleet of Lancers, and out of the 100 manufactured, perhaps half that number are operational in any real terms.
The Lancer has been plagued by alot of technical difficulties [earlier this year the whole Lancer fleet was grounded with undercarriage problems], added to that its fleet has dwindled to half what it was; the B-52 has twice the number of Lancers in actual active service.
The B-52 by comparison has enjoyed a much happier operational life than the Lancer ever did.
However, the Lancer is best mid-range answer, making a holy trinity with the still-capable B-52 and the stealthy B-2.. -
it was the cracked wing root as i mentioned.
no, they werent certified to do what the BUFF was doing at the time of GW1.
The Lancer was still a product o the cold war, it had been cancelled once in its lifetime already, and it was still, as they say, 'maturing'..into its bomber role.
One problem was that the Lancer was still geared up for the tactical nuclear/stand-off strike role - whereas the BUFF had spent decades being used in both roles - nuclear and conventional - it had already done its 'maturing' decades previously and was ready to fight, anytime, anywhere. The Lancer wasnt.
For an aircraft to switch roles and carry certain types of bombs it must go through process, tests, and certification.
at the time of GW1, the Lancer hadnt done this, or was going through this and so wasnt allowed to partake in the war until it was certified to do so.
The rest of the fleet has only recently been upgraded to carry and deploy the joint direct munitions, which was used by a small number of Lancers in afghanistan and iraq.hmmm can sae tat tis is also the biggest WEAKNESS of the united states armed forces....
possibly for any other country, but not for the united states and anyone who works with her in joint ops.
all its weapons system is geared towards ONE kind of mission...not realli multi-mission capable...but then again the weapons system is virtually the best when employed in tat particular mission
each singular role platform can perform to its best capabilities that one role - and be focused on it without having to worry about anything else that a multi-role would have to.
multi-role is cost-effective, but not always combat effective.
singular role also means you travel in a package - and multi targets are harder to engage than just one..
imagine a multi-role platform has to roll in, take out the aerial defenses before it can get to the target, cope with aerial combatants, and then do it all again on its return journey.
a singular-role platform can go in and just focus on say bombing the target, while another knocks out all the aerial defenses while several more keep aerial combatants at bay - that way theres a higher percentage of aircraft coming home, and of the mission being a success.
Wild Weasel missions in the Vietnam war proved that this kind of concept was effective - before, when a mulit-role aircraft had to everything, it was basically being tied down because it was trying to do too much - and it became a much easier target for doing so..
example package: BUFF or Lancer goes in, with maybe two bombers, two 15s for fighter cap, 16s carry harms for air defense suppression [modern day wild weasels], and a couple of 15s and 16s for extra bombing.
the bombers can get on with their role and concentrate on dropping more ordnance than any of the other multi-role aircraft put together..and dont have to carry other ordnance, because the 15s and 16s are taking care of that..
multi-roles are good for smaller ops, maybe less lethal ops, and surgical strikes, and they do well for countries that cannot afford everything that goes
with the modern mixed bomber package that the us model has [and has been shown to work very effectively].
Not to say that the us doesnt operate multi-role aircraft effectively - they do - these are fielded faster and more effectively than any of the bomber fleet could, simply because their role doesnt cover say what a 15 or 16 or even an 18 does, they can be on-station and doing whatever thats required of them fast.
but get them on a multi-bomber mission dropping huge amounts of ordnance, maybe over a wide area? get the BUFFs and Lancers [and perhaps now the B-2's] for that.. -
B-2A better....can have paranomic view up in the sky...good of the pilot
actually the trick is the paint....if we can develope it then we are basically home free, less the design -
Why not?Originally posted by crazy monkey:you want an aircraft carrier as well ?