More Shep weapon wankery

[MKSheppard]

Or, you know, Carter just has more credibility than Bush because he isn't a royal fuckup like Bush is.

Oh there's plenty of fuckups I can think of that can be attributed directly to Jimmah:

1.) Cancelling the B-1A, forcing SAC to have to rely on aging B-52s; and cancelling a superior plane compared to the later B-1B; it flew faster and higher than the B-1B; which was optimized for low level high mach attacks, at a much greater risk to AAA, SAMs, and bird strikes + mountains.

2.) Weak response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan --- oooh, we're going to withdraw from the Olympics in protest! I'm sure the Russians were shaking in their boots about that!

3.) Totally bungled response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Now, I can understand him wanting to take a diplomatic route first to prevent a major incident from happening and to exhaust the available options before maiming the Ayatollahs; but when it came down to actually doing something; i.e. military force, he totally fucked it up by the spades.

The Carter Doctrine

Proclaimed by Jimmah in his SOTU on 23 January 1980; the key part was

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

And then Jimmah completely fucked up the execution of his own doctrine in April of 1980. I won't go and blame Desert One on him; because we had serious problems with how we were going to plan and execute that doctrine; but his response to the failure of Desert One was to do nothing at all; there was no plan B which was "okay, the special forces guys have failed, we're going to invade and kick Iran's ass now."

It's the same reaction that pissed off a lot of Americans 13 years later when Clinton decided to withdraw US troops after the battle of Mogadishu instead of going and maiming wholesale the leaders and forces stupid enough to attack US troops.

[Keevan_Colton]

Or, you know, Carter just has more credibility than Bush because he isn't a royal fuckup like Bush is.

Oh there's plenty of fuckups I can think of that can be attributed directly to Jimmah:

1.) Cancelling the B-1A, forcing SAC to have to rely on aging B-52s; and cancelling a superior plane compared to the later B-1B; it flew faster and higher than the B-1B; which was optimized for low level high mach attacks, at a much greater risk to AAA, SAMs, and bird strikes + mountains.

A minor bit of military triva of real importance only to dipshits like you that masturbate over military hardware.

2.) Weak response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan --- oooh, we're going to withdraw from the Olympics in protest! I'm sure the Russians were shaking in their boots about that!

Yeah, what would you have suggested?
Starting a major war with them...or hey...we could always train and arm radical muslim nutters to fight them...that couldnt possible be a really bad idea, could it?

3.) Totally bungled response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Now, I can understand him wanting to take a diplomatic route first to prevent a major incident from happening and to exhaust the available options before maiming the Ayatollahs; but when it came down to actually doing something; i.e. military force, he totally fucked it up by the spades.

The Carter Doctrine

Proclaimed by Jimmah in his SOTU on 23 January 1980; the key part was

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

And then Jimmah completely fucked up the execution of his own doctrine in April of 1980. I won't go and blame Desert One on him; because we had serious problems with how we were going to plan and execute that doctrine; but his response to the failure of Desert One was to do nothing at all; there was no plan B which was "okay, the special forces guys have failed, we're going to invade and kick Iran's ass now."

It's the same reaction that pissed off a lot of Americans 13 years later when Clinton decided to withdraw US troops after the battle of Mogadishu instead of going and maiming wholesale the leaders and forces stupid enough to attack US troops.

Yeah, okay, war...we know you love it...but seriously...

[MKSheppard]

A minor bit of military triva of real importance only to dipshits like you that masturbate over military hardware.

I know you love me so much Keevan, and want to give me sloppy blowjobs; but really, can we stay on topic, and not veer off into debauchery?

Jimmah's brilliant idea to replace the B-52 in SAC frontline service was a 747 modified as an CALCM carrier; that's why he killed the B-1A.

And it's not a minor bit of trivia.

What if the B-1 hadn't been revived? Then our modern bomber force would be aging B-52s only good for cruise missile attacks on modern defenses, and just 20 modern penetration bombers; the B-2s, instead of 120~ (B-2 and B-1B).

Yeah, what would you have suggested?

Declare detente officially dead and issue massive build contracts to the defense industries -- everyone likes to say that the M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley, F-15, and F-16, etc programs all began under Carter; but Carter never would have funded them fully to the extent that Reagan did; we're still living off the 1980s mega-buildup.

Oh yeah, build SAC back up to a thousand bombers and start doing nuclear armed airborne alerts once again.

Starting a major war with them...or hey...we could always train and arm radical muslim nutters to fight them...that couldnt possible be a really bad idea, could it?

Actually, I'd do that too; except I would do it on a much larger scale.

Contrary to your beliefs, the US did not train or give money to the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden.

Pakistan and the other Arab states did.

I'd simply force out the other A-rabs and Pakistanis and massively fund only "moderate" Islamic movements and traditional Afghan movements (note: when I mean moderate, I mean someone who isn't a total nut like the Taliban or Iranians)

Yeah, okay, war...we know you love it...but seriously...

Look, more Patented Keevan Anti-Shep Trolling!

When you unambigiously declare such a doctrine of using military force wherever necessary, and then fail to actually follow it through; you make yourself (and your country) look like a laughingstock, and your credibility in foreign affairs falls; as you cannot reliably make veiled threats or comments which can defuse or de-escalate situations without the use of military force, only the IMPLIED use of military force.

[CC]

Or, you know, Carter just has more credibility than Bush because he isn't a royal fuckup like Bush is.

Oh there's plenty of fuckups I can think of that can be attributed directly to Jimmah:

1.) Cancelling the B-1A, forcing SAC to have to rely on aging B-52s; and cancelling a superior plane compared to the later B-1B; it flew faster and higher than the B-1B; which was optimized for low level high mach attacks, at a much greater risk to AAA, SAMs, and bird strikes + mountains.

Actually, that doesn't seem like a fault. The B-1A was designed to penetrate at low level and the B-1B is far superior at that. Yes, at low level there's a greater risk of AAA, MANPADS, and birds/mountains. On the other hand, in the context of World War III, there's not going to be all that much of it, most equipment being off in Germany and too much land in Russia for them to cover effectively that way anyhow, especially when you toss in stand-off weapons like SRAM. And the rather high expense of the B-1A was a good reason for cancellation. Packing a 747 to the brim with ALCMs would be a far more cost-effective way of hitting Russian targets.

Also, Mach 2 and 50,000 feet is just asking for SAMs and Foxbats/Foxhounds to eat you alive. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that was what was planned, I've never seen that in any source and it runs counter to the Air Force's historical change away from that with the similar capability B-58 Hustler, which went from high and fast to low altitude penetration.

[MKSheppard]

Actually, that doesn't seem like a fault. The B-1A was designed to penetrate at low level and the B-1B is far superior at that.

B-1A

In order to achieve the required Mach 2 performance at high altitudes, the air intake inlets were variable. In addition, the exhaust nozzles were fully variable.

Initially, it had been expected that a Mach 1.2 performance could be achieved at low altitude, which required that titanium rather than aluminum be used in critical areas in the fuselage and wing structure. However, this low altitude performance requirement was lowered to only Mach 0.85, enabling a greater percentage of aluminum to be used, lowering the overall cost.

B-1B

Since there was no longer any requirement that the aircraft be able to exceed Mach 2, the variable air intake inlets were no longer needed and it was possible to simplify them and to redesign them to reduce the radar cross section. The inlets are fixed and are also inclined in side view. Inside the inlet, there is an array of baffles that deflect incoming radar signals and prevent them from reaching the highly-reflective blades of the turbofan engines.

Yes, at low level there's a greater risk of AAA, MANPADS, and birds/
mountains. On the other hand, in the context of World War III, there's not going to be all that much of it, most equipment being off in Germany and too much land in Russia for them to cover effectively that way anyhow, especially when you toss in stand-off weapons like SRAM.

If there isn't that much equipment in Siberian Russia, why are we flying a low level ground penetration profile which:

1.) Makes us vunerable to even a ZSU-23-4
2.) Just about every army-level SAM system
3.) Chews into range and bombload

When we could simply fly at Mach 2.2 at 50,000+ feet, above all that stuff; and only the most modern interceptors and SAMs would be able to touch the Excalibur (the original name for the B-1A)

And the rather high expense of the B-1A was a good reason for cancellation. Packing a 747 to the brim with ALCMs would be a far more cost-effective way of hitting Russian targets.

Ah, the old "it costs too much!", therefore we must cancel it; with no insight of how costs are really done. The first couple of planes cost the most, since all the R&D costs are backloaded into them, along with production line set up costs.

The first three B-52s ever built, the A models, cost $29.3 million each.

The fifty B models built, the first combat ready BUFFs, were $14.4 million each.

But the B-52's really came down with mass production; the most produced model, the G Model; cost $7.6 million.

At the time of it's cancellation, the B-1A was costing $70 million a copy; on an order of 240 aircraft....using the B-52 cost reduction rates as a guide, the 239th and 240th production B-1As would cost $15.5 million.

Considering that only a few years earlier, we were paying $9 million for FB-111As....this price is acceptable.

Also, Mach 2 and 50,000 feet is just asking for SAMs and Foxbats/Foxhounds to eat you alive. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that was what was planned. I've never seen that in any source and it runs counter to the Air Force's historical change away from that with the similar capability B-58 Hustler, which went from high and fast to low altitude penetration.

It's in just about every source written about the B-1A.

And here we have the SAM and MiG-25 fallacy thrown in for good measure!

If you repeat that thrice, perhaps Stuart will show up and school you

[Frank Hipper]

How can you use a B-52 production cost reduction as the model for the B-1A?

[Ace Pace]

How can you use a B-52 production cost reduction as the model for the B-1A?

While the cost reduction would be quite differant, Shep is right in that the first models are the most expensive(they have to cover R&D, setting up the production lines, etc.) and later on, costs drop, sometimes drastically as with the B-52.

[CC]

B-1A

In order to achieve the required Mach 2 performance at high altitudes, the air intake inlets were variable. In addition, the exhaust nozzles were fully variable.

Initially, it had been expected that a Mach 1.2 performance could be achieved at low altitude, which required that titanium rather than aluminum be used in critical areas in the fuselage and wing structure. However, this low altitude performance requirement was lowered to only Mach 0.85, enabling a greater percentage of aluminum to be used, lowering the overall cost.

From your own source:
No defensive armament was planned, the B-1A relying on its low

-altitude performance and its suite of electronic countermeasures gear to avoid interception.

Not to mention that every one of the study programs was for a plane making a low altitude penetration. AMSA, which later was the B-1A, called for a plane with a range of 6,300 miles, 2,000 of them at very low altitude. One might also wonder why a terrain following radar was installed if not for such low altitude flights.

If there isn't that much equipment in Siberian Russia, why are we flying a low level ground penetration profile which:

1.) Makes us vunerable to even a ZSU-23-4
2.) Just about every army-level SAM system
3.) Chews into range and bombload

When we could simply fly at Mach 2.2 at 50,000+ feet, above all that stuff; and only the most modern interceptors and SAMs would be able to touch the Excalibur (the original name for the B-1A)

Because there's not enough of those ZSU's to provide effective defenses and the SAMs will have severely reduced radar coverage thanks to flying beneath their radar horizons. There's also the fact that you can fly below the effective altitudes of the missiles (I believe ground clutter would be the cause here). SA-6a, for instance, has a minimum altitude of 100m.

Ah, the old "it costs too much!", therefore we must cancel it; with no insight of how costs are really done. The first couple of planes cost the most, since all the R&D costs are backloaded into them, along with production line set up costs.

Actually it looks like they're quoting the production prices of the aircraft, rather than entire program development cost per unit.

It's in just about every source written about the B-1A.

You mean every source aside from the one you gave and volume II of Knaack's Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems?

And here we have the SAM and MiG-25 fallacy thrown in for good measure!

If you repeat that thrice, perhaps Stuart will show up and school you

I'm sorry, but how are the Foxbat and S-200 (and later incarnations of both) fallacies with regards to Mach 2 and 50,000 feet?

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck are we talking about the B1 bomber? Shep, to assure me that this is not just another case of you hijacking a thread in order to spread military-wank all over it, can you name a single foreign-policy setback the United States suffered in the last 30 years where the availability of B1 bombers would have changed the outcome for the better?

[CC]

and only the most modern interceptors and SAMs would be able to touch the Excalibur (the original name for the B-1A)

Despite the dire predictions of the missile wankers no truly credible threats to the similarly performing (to the XB-70) SR-71 appeared during it's entire 25-year service history, and none were ever lost to enemy action even though numerous SAMs were fired at them. How people get from that to 'high-level bombers were and are sitting ducks' I don't know.

As a bit of a devil's advocate a few questions (that I've been wondering about lately anyhow):
1. How many weapons systems or upgrades were introduced by the Soviets for the purpose of countering the A-12 or SR-71?
2. How many times did MiG-25s or MiG-31s fire upon the SR-71? Certainly they've said that they were within the firing envelope with missiles locked on multiple times, simply that they did not receive an order to shoot them down.
3. How many times did an SR-71 try to penetrate heavily defended air space against well-equipped and well-trained foes? SA-2s over Hanoi don't really count given they aren't designed for intercepts that high (though it can be done, as certain U-2 pilots will state).

[MKSheppard]

From your own source:
No defensive armament was planned, the B-1A relying on its low-altitude performance and its suite of electronic countermeasures gear to avoid interception.

I see you missed the part where they reduced low altitude speed from Mach 1.2 to Mach 0.85; that's about only 150 MPH faster than the already in-service B-52. What is the point of spending all that R&D money to get something with a marginal speed increase over existing B-52s if low altitude speed is what we desire?

Not to mention that every one of the study programs was for a plane making a low altitude penetration. AMSA, which later was the B-1A, called for a plane with a range of 6,300 miles, 2,000 of them at very low altitude. One might also wonder why a terrain following radar was installed if not for such low altitude flights.

Funny then that the B-1A prototypes were built in high altitude anti-flash schemes, not low-altitude camouflage. Also, funny then that the B-1As had an encapsulated ejection system, which really is of no use except in high speed, high altitude ejections.

Because there's not enough of those ZSU's to provide effective defenses and the SAMs will have severely reduced radar coverage thanks to flying beneath their radar horizons.

Watch as the commies spoof your radar altimeter so that you do CFIT into the ground by making it think that it's higher than it really is; or make you fly into army-level SAM envelope by making it think it's lower than it is. Also, that radar altimeter is a nice beacon saying "hi, I'm here!".

Or comrade socialist gull/hawk/bird will make brave sacrifice for the mozerland by hitting your windshield and making you spin in. Or the crew will misjudge altitude and CFIT. Low altitude accidents account for 37% of all B-1B losses.

Actually it looks like they're quoting the production prices of the aircraft, rather than entire program development cost per unit.

With bureaucrats and congresscritters, you can never tell.

I'm sorry, but how are the Foxbat and S-200 (and later incarnations of both) fallacies with regards to Mach 2 and 50,000 feet?

Top sustained speed of the MiG-25 is only Mach 2.5, and it has a combat radius of only 186 miles at full afterburner. At an altitude of 50,000 feet; the MiG-25 is only going to have a 330 mile speed advantage over the B-1A; the B-1A can always turn away, and force it into a tail chase; which will require the MiG-25, at a distance of 140 miles, 18 minutes to close to the rough maximum envelope of his AAMs, some 40 miles. By that point, the MiG-25 will be running on fumes or very close to it. In contrast, he only needs six minutes to close with the B-52.

As for the SA-5 (S-200), while it has a Pk of roughly 50% against the B-52, it's Pk falls to 25% against the B-1A.

(A missile has to be twice as fast as it's target for a Pk of 25%, 3 times as fast for 50%, and 4 times for 75% when dealing with manuvering targets)

So by switching to a B-1A based force we've essentially made a not-insignificant proportion of the Soviet Air Defense Network obsolete. (The B-70 would have made 95+% of it obsolete)

[MKSheppard]

Why the fuck are we talking about the B1 bomber?

Because it's cancellation was a key issue in the entire "Carter is weak on defense!" issue that's been used against Jimmah ever since his failed re-election campaign.

You'll note that I also mentioned other issues like:

1.) Carter's botching of the Iran Crisis issue by essentially doing nothing and letting the Iranians walk all over him. You'll note that I also don't hold Jimmah responsible for Desert One, due to pre-existing problems within the military such as co-ordination between the different services; but for his lackadaisal response after it had failed. Americans are accepting of failures and defeats, as long as they're followed up by a ruthless application of firepower and us winning in the end.

2.) His feckless response to the Invasion of A-Stan. "ooh we'll pull out of the Olympics in protest! that'll show Brezhnev!" While he may have started the funding of the Mujihadeen, funding under his administration was chump change; only $30 million; of which probably only $9-12 million reached the Mujihadeen due to corruption in the supply route.

It doesn't matter how fanatical you are or how strongly you believe in Allah; guerilla wars are not cheap. Reagan by the mid 1980s was pumping about half a billion dollars a year into the Mujihadeen. I just can't see Jimmah going that route and openly wholeheartedly spending that money to kill Commies in Afghanistan by Proxy.

It would be destabilizing.

Shep, to assure me that this is not just another case of you hijacking a thread in order to spread military-wank all over it

See my points above.

can you name a single foreign-policy setback the United States suffered in the last 30 years where the availability of B1 bombers would have changed the outcome for the better?

Well, let's see. We would have 240+ heavy bombers, and all of them being modern types capable of penetrating advanced enemy air defenses, instead of just only 115~ (20 B-2s, and 97 B-1Bs).

We'd have much more aircraft capable of longer loiter times over remote areas (cough afghanistan cough) raising probability of us actually nailing OBL.

We could have forced an end to the Cold War a couple of years earlier, with a concerted post-vietnam military buildup across the board; of which the B-1A was just one part. Instead, we wasted precious time trying not to "provoke arms races" thanks to the imbecility of Jimmah the Peanut Farmer.

[MKSheppard]

I just remembered another strike against Jimmah.

CVV!

He was against building the Nimitz Class, arguably the most successful instruments of American Diplomacy, all 98,000 tons of each one!

According to Carter, due to cost overruns and delays, the Nimitz was essentially a failure, and he wanted a much smaller ship instead:

"CVV was the major program, an outgrowth of Zumwalt's earlier T-CBL, proposed by Ford and championed by Carter. It would have been oil-fired and considerably smaller, with a much smaller air wing, than a repeat Nimitz. T-CBL was built to a cost ($550m in FY73 dollars) and so was not designed like ships are normally designed - starting with a threat analysis and a mission - but with a price-tag.

So size, capability and to a lesser extent electronic sophistication had to be sacrificed.

Also, uniquely, no air-group was specified. An air wing would have had to be hobbled together to suit the size of the ship, not any tactical mission. The number of aircraft quoted would run variously from 52 to 65 with no justification on how those numbers were reached.

The design though seems to have been optimized for strike missions with the A-7 and would not have been a multi-role carrier like the Nimitz.

At full load she would displace 58,897 tons, 44,500 tons light. There would have been 2 catapults and 2 elevators - a 50% reduction in capacity over a Nimitz. There were fewer ammunition elevators as well so the aircraft elevators would have to pull double-duty.

The design was poorly balanced for air operations with fuel for 1.35 days of air operations but ordnance for 4.5 days in a strike configuration, a product of the ships design priorities. This discrepancy got worse if the ship was carrying fighters instead.

Hangar deck height was a paltry 19 feet 6 inches. Half of the Kennedy's unreliable high-pressure plant was all that could be accomodated within the limited volume available.

The ship could only make 27.8 knots clean with 26.2 knots sustained, well below the 30 knot minimum requirement. The machinery was considered vulnerable to side hits because of its densely packed nature given the limited available volume in the small hull.

Defensive weapons would consist of 3 CIWS but no point defense missiles as on larger carriers.""

[CC]

I see you missed the part where they reduced low altitude speed from Mach 1.2 to Mach 0.85; that's about only 150 MPH faster than the already in-service B-52. What is the point of spending all that R&D money to get something with a marginal speed increase over existing B-52s if low altitude speed is what we desire?

Because speed is not the be all and end all perhaps? Apparently you missed the part where they reduced the speed so as to use aluminum in critical areas rather than titanium, thus reducing cost.

Funny then that the B-1A prototypes were built in high altitude anti-flash schemes, not low-altitude camouflage.

Now, it may be that I'm colorblind. Or it may be that the National Museum of the USAF lies about the picture on their B-1A page. But that doesn't look like high altitude anti-flash white. Looks more like camouflage to me. Also notable is that more flight test hours were of low altitude performance rather than supersonic.

Also, funny then that the B-1As had an encapsulated ejection system, which really is of no use except in high speed, high altitude ejections.

Which is good with a plane that is designed for Mach 2 performance. It does not however mean that it would have attempted to penetrate in that manner.

Watch as the commies spoof your radar altimeter so that you do CFIT into the ground by making it think that it's higher than it really is; or make you fly into army-level SAM envelope by making it think it's lower than it is. Also, that radar altimeter is a nice beacon saying "hi, I'm here!".

Yes, I'm sure that a radar with a range on the order of two miles, directed downwards, is a great beacon. Or not. And of course, the Soviets had masses of sophisticated EW gear lying about everywhere for the purpose of ensnaring American bombers this way, right?

To my knowledge, such a kill has happened precisely once, when an Iraqi Mirage F1 was diving on an EF-111 Raven. That would seem to indicate that kills of that nature are more in the realm of Murphy's Law rather than a routine thing.

With bureaucrats and congresscritters, you can never tell.

The source you quoted is a congresscritter?

Top sustained speed of the MiG-25 is only Mach 2.5, and it has a combat radius of only 186 miles at full afterburner. At an altitude of 50,000 feet; the MiG-25 is only going to have a 330 mile speed advantage over the B-1A; the B-1A can always turn away, and force it into a tail chase; which will require the MiG-25, at a distance of 140 miles, 18 minutes to close to the rough maximum envelope of his AAMs, some 40 miles. By that point, the MiG-25 will be running on fumes or very close to it. In contrast, he only needs six minutes to close with the B-52.

How do you propose that the B-1A detect GCI controlled Foxbats 140 miles away? That'd take a rather powerful air to air radar system, which I've never heard of being mounted on the B-1A. Wouldn't that actually exceed the range of the AWG-9 then in service?

As for the SA-5 (S-200), while it has a Pk of roughly 50% against the B-52, it's Pk falls to 25% against the B-1A.

(A missile has to be twice as fast as it's target for a Pk of 25%, 3 times as fast for 50%, and 4 times for 75% when dealing with manuvering targets)

I'd love to see your source for that. Presumably you got that from an aeronautics text or perhaps a primer on surface to air missiles?

And might I suggest giving credit where credit is due with regards to that post on CVV? Or are you Mark F? Note also that, though CVV is an atrocity and I'm glad we never did it, Carter was continuing the policy of the earlier Republican administration in supporting it.

[MKSheppard]

Because speed is not the be all and end all perhaps?

Speed along with bombload are the primary factors in strategic bomber design. If you fly faster, you get to your targets faster, and are much harder for the defense to catch.

But that doesn't look like high altitude anti-flash white. Looks more like camouflage to me.

Looks like Anti-Flash White

The first mockup of the B-1Aa built in 1971 was in anti-flash white.

The first three B-1As were painted in antiflash white; and only the fourth was put into a desert camouflage scheme.

The same AMSA studies you cite for low altitude penetration also showed that high altitude supersonic capability allowed greater flexibility and reduced vunerability while transiting lightly defended areas quickly (like say....siberia)

Which is good with a plane that is designed for Mach 2 performance. It does not however mean that it would have attempted to penetrate in that manner.

Considering the B-52 fleet only went to low altitude penetration when they had become totally outclassed by soviet air defenses...I'd say yes, the B-1A would penetrate high and fast. Considering that everyone, when they were going against a third rate power with knockoff soviet air defense (Iraq) in 1991 went to high and fast after a lot of unexpected low level losses....

Yes, I'm sure that a radar with a range on the order of two miles, directed downwards, is a great beacon. Or not.

You can detect a radar much further away than it can detect you. Inverse Square Law. Plus it can't be totally downwards looking. It has to look well ahead of the flightpath, because at Mach 0.85 penetration on the deck, you need advance knowledge of what is ahead of you.

And of course, the Soviets had masses of sophisticated EW gear lying about everywhere for the purpose of ensnaring American bombers this way, right?

To my knowledge, such a kill has happened precisely once, when an Iraqi Mirage F1 was diving on an EF-111 Raven. That would seem to indicate that kills of that nature are more in the realm of Murphy's Law rather than a routine thing.

At the altitudes and speeds that low altitude penetration takes place at, a discrepancy of 50-150 feet caused by jamming is enough. Splat.

Plus we get all the nice other tricks like:

1.) Cables Strung Across Valleys.

and

2.) Radar Reflectors....easy to make... they're just three circular metal disks welded together in the x y and z planes with the center of each circle common to all three. Then you put it into a light plastic case. Then you put it on a power line....radar sees reflector, sees "ground", commands a pullup, which exposes it to enemy radar and other fun things.

The source you quoted is a congresscritter?

I have no idea. However, congressmen just love to quote total R&D and tooling prices backloaded into aircraft costs as excuses to kill a program.

How do you propose that the B-1A detect GCI controlled Foxbats 140 miles away? That'd take a rather powerful air to air radar system, which I've never heard of being mounted on the B-1A. Wouldn't that actually exceed the range of the AWG-9 then in service?

Uhm. You are familiar with ECM, and the Inverse Square Law? The B-1A's ECM suite would detect the Foxbats OR the the ground radar and provide a directional hack on their locations (one bonus of high speeds, it makes triangulation on radar sources much easier) long before the enemy radar would be able to get a clear return on the B-1A.

Then it's a matter of sending a SRAM towards the radar 100+ miles away....which is easily workable with a 50,000 ft Mach 2 profile, as the SRAM can fly further than it would from a low altitude launch.

Splat. No more radar, and the Foxbats are back to their own radars.

If the soviets get cute, and try AWACS, well then, that kills a low altitude penetration profile just dead...due to a nice thing called "look down capability"

I'd love to see your source for that. Presumably you got that from an aeronautics text or perhaps a primer on surface to air missiles?

It's based on Stuart's statement that

To give you some idea of the magnitude of the challenge facing SAM defenses, a SAM capable of getting a 50 percent Pk (probability of a kill) against a B-70 would have to have a maximum speed of Mach 9, a range of over 250 miles and a maximum ceiling in excess of 200,000 feet.

And might I suggest giving credit where credit is due with regards to that post on CVV?

I did put it in quotation marks, anyway. I found that on Secret Projects Co Uk

[CC]

Speed along with bombload are the primary factors in strategic bomber design. If you fly faster, you get to your targets faster, and are much harder for the defense to catch.

Never said it wasn't a primary factor. However, I did say that it was not the be all and end all. One of those same primary factors you forgot to mention was affordability. In this case, a gain in one primary factor (affordability) was judged to be more valuable than the expense of another (speed).

The first three B-1As were painted in antiflash white; and only the fourth was put into a desert camouflage scheme.

And the fourth was the one built to production standards interestingly enough.

Considering the B-52 fleet only went to low altitude penetration when they had become totally outclassed by soviet air defenses...I'd say yes, the B-1A would penetrate high and fast.

IOC of the B-1A would have been after they were already outclassed by Soviet air defenses. You'll already have the S-300PT in operation by this point of time and Foxhound soon to come.

Considering that everyone, when they were going against a third rate power with knockoff soviet air defense (Iraq) in 1991 went to high and fast after a lot of unexpected low level losses....

As far as I'm aware, the change was made after we effectively shut down the Iraqi air defense because there was no longer a threat except from low level IR and AAA. Makes sense to go to where there is the least threat.

You can detect a radar much further away than it can detect you. Inverse Square Law. Plus it can't be totally downwards looking. It has to look well ahead of the flightpath, because at Mach 0.85 penetration on the deck, you need advance knowledge of what is ahead of you.

Much further in this case, is what, 8 miles? It should be well within range of regular radars at that point in time.

At the altitudes and speeds that low altitude penetration takes place at, a discrepancy of 50-150 feet caused by jamming is enough. Splat.

Mind demonstrating that the Soviets had all the equipment and doctrine to so do with that jamming?

Plus we get all the nice other tricks like:

1.) Cables Strung Across Valleys.

and

2.) Radar Reflectors....easy to make... they're just three circular metal disks welded together in the x y and z planes with the center of each circle common to all three. Then you put it into a light plastic case. Then you put it on a power line....radar sees reflector, sees "ground", commands a pullup, which exposes it to enemy radar and other fun things.

Evidence that the Soviets had plans to so distribute such equipment over expected lines of attack?

Uhm. You are familiar with ECM, and the Inverse Square Law? The B-1A's ECM suite would detect the Foxbats OR the the ground radar and provide a directional hack on their locations (one bonus of high speeds, it makes triangulation on radar sources much easier) long before the enemy radar would be able to get a clear return on the B-1A.

At 50,000 feet, the B-1 is going to be dealing with rather a large number of radars, not to mention that the Foxbat can keep its radar off until within a short range or use IRST.

If the soviets get cute, and try AWACS, well then, that kills a low altitude penetration profile just dead...due to a nice thing called "look down capability"

Look-down, while much improved over "can't see squat", isn't as long ranged as it would otherwise be if memory serves.

It's based on Stuart's statement that

To give you some idea of the magnitude of the challenge facing SAM defenses, a SAM capable of getting a 50 percent Pk (probability of a kill) against a B-70 would have to have a maximum speed of Mach 9, a range of over 250 miles and a maximum ceiling in excess of 200,000 feet.

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a much more verifiable source. Even old SA-2s managed to get fairly close to SR-71s at 80,000 feet (within a mile, usually detonated above and behind, not enough left for terminal maneuvers at that altitude) and one SR-71 flight was aborted due to the planned path taking it over an active and forewarned SA-2 site (an intelligence leak that was caught in time). Against other than very basic SAMs such as the aforementioned SA-2 (which I believe is the only SAM to have ever been fired against an A-12 or SR-71, I can't find mention of any other), its the ECM gear that is the critical factor, not speed or altitude.

I did put it in quotation marks, anyway.

And failed to give any credit to the original author.

[Coyote]

Shep, CC...

Remember, weapons systems get canceled for a lot of reasons... some of which have to do with the actual capabiities (or not) of the system, but also because of other, seeming unrelated (or moderately related) reasons: budgets, to appease a voting bloc, to make a 'statement' to a perceived audience, etc.

In fact, I'd say that many times a weapons system's pass or fail actually has very little to do with its capabilities, and more to do with the other. more fuzzy factors...

[Darth Wong]

I love the way I asked Shep for an example of a foreign policy setback suffered by the US as a result of not having B1 bombers, and he replied that they didn't have enough bombers

[Starglider]

I love the way I asked Shep for an example of a foreign policy setback suffered by the US as a result of not having B1 bombers, and he replied that they didn't have enough bombers

Massively larger air force = much more political influence + pressure to get some use out of the hugely expensive investment = more likely to resort to blowing stuff up = win, from Shep's point of view.

[Big Orange]

In other words, many of the catastrophic bungles we've had to clean up in the last few years are traced back to the inabiulity of the Carter Administration to see reality. Look at it this way: the Air Force to this day lacks a good and proper new bomber to replace the B-52 fleets because Carter refused to fund the B1. The M1 tank program was delayed because Carter's half-assed funding. We lost a lot of human intelligence resources (spies) because Carter thought that there was no need for spies and satellites could do the job better.

Keeping the B-52 sounded like a "if it's not broke why fix it?" kind of solution, although holding back the M1 Abrams was perhaps a more notable mistake but not fatal in the general strategic scheme of things when the later Patton tank variants were adequate against what the Soviets had deployed in the late 70s and 80s (I heard the Patton tank performed quite well during Gulf War I for a then relatively ancient tank), however getting rid of many spies abroad obviously seemed like a far greater mistake and potentially fatal in the context of the Cold War or even today.

Carter just released a book about the Middle East in which he likened Israel's policies towards the Palestinians to those of apartheid-era South Africa towards blacks. Any criticism of Israel in this country will get you smeared as a Jew hater. The fact that Carter (rightly) put Olmert and Aryan Sharon in the same boat as P.W. Botha is a triple-whammy because right-wingers don't like being reminded that they were fanwhores for South Africa when the country was run by racist, fascist thugs. The fact that Shamir and Sharon were also big time fanwhores for Botha's regime is another embarassment.

Some critics have panned the book as one sided, naive and simplistic, although I may take the criticism with a grain of salt (but I haven't read it to form a fair opinion of the book and Carter himself). And as bad as Israel is in it's own way you've got to keep things in perspective - what about the profound sexism, theocratic asshattery and murderous fanaticism so manifest in the Islamic Middle East? That is why I'm not too quick to feel totally sorry for the Palestinians (their leaders anyhow, not the blameless women and kids).

I remember a while ago someone E-mailed me on my personal website link to say that I'm obviously an anti-Semite. I E-mailed her back saying that "People like you don't understand <blah blah blah>" and she promptly replied "People like you? You're proving my point! You're an anti-Semite!", even though she never gave any indication that she was Jewish and I certainly wasn't talking about race. They look for any excuse to lob the "anti-Semite" bomb.

Is anybody aware of the boy who cried wolf? And as I said a million times before I swear the word "anti-Semite" has devolved into a oxymoron or brainbug in the context of the Middle East, where the hatred and prejudice primarily stems from theocratic religious intolerance rather than biological racism stemming from late 19th century anthropological pseudo science. Either way the term has been greatly cheapened and has highly dubious origins anyway (it was coined by a bigot because it sounded more "technical").

[FedRebel]

I love the way I asked Shep for an example of a foreign policy setback suffered by the US as a result of not having B1 bombers, and he replied that they didn't have enough bombers

Massively larger air force = much more political influence + pressure to get some use out of the hugely expensive investment = more likely to resort to blowing stuff up = win, from Shep's point of view.

Or...

More powerful air Force > Soviets are forced to spend what little remains in their Treasury attempting to counter > USSR collapses quite abit sooner as a result

Or...

More Powerful Air Force = Soviets shit their pants like they did in the sixties and come to the table

Fear in of itself can be a powerful deterent and a worthy investment

Bask on "topic"

Carter was cautious in his actions, too cautious to be specific. He didn't want to inadvertently start WWIII.

Atleast Carter didn't start full scale wars with undersized armies, or authorize war plans that make Hitler look like Napoleon

[Vympel]

More powerful air Force > Soviets are forced to spend what little remains in their Treasury attempting to counter > USSR collapses quite abit sooner as a result

That the Soviets were spent into oblivion by the US (particularly as a result of the Reagan build-up) is one of the enduring myths of the Cold War. And it's just that, a myth. Soviet defence spending was flat in the relevant period. They did not react at all to Reagan's arms buildup by splurging more money. It's just not so.

[Chris OFarrell]

More powerful air Force > Soviets are forced to spend what little remains in their Treasury attempting to counter > USSR collapses quite abit sooner as a result

That the Soviets were spent into oblivion by the US (particularly as a result of the Reagan build-up) is one of the enduring myths of the Cold War. And it's just that, a myth. Soviet defence spending was flat in the relevant period. They did not react at all to Reagan's arms buildup by splurging more money. It's just not so.

Shhhhh don't say that, you'll cause all the Tom Clancy fanboys to break out in rage

[Vympel]

More specifically-

As CIA analysts discovered in 1983, Soviet military spending had leveled off in 1975 to a growth rate of 1.3 percent, with spending for weapons procurements virtually flat. It remained that way for a decade. According to later CIA estimates, Soviet military spending rose in 1985 as a result of decisions taken earlier, and grew at a rate of 4.3 percent per year through 1987. Spending for procurements of offensive strategic weapons, however, increased by only 1.4 percent a year in that period. In 1988 Gorbachev began a round of budget cuts, bringing the defense budget back down to its 1980 level. In other words, while the U.S. military budget was growing at an average of 8 percent per year, the Soviets did not attempt to keep up, and their military spending did not rise even as might have been expected given the war they were fighting in Afghanistan.

So it was spending for weapons procurement that was virtually flat from 1975 onward. The growth rate from 1985 onward, as a result of decisions taken earlier (nothing to do with Reagan's much vaunted defense buildup)- was minor. No attempt to keep up, and no appreciable effect in that ballpark from even the war in Afghanistan.

One might also note the utterly laughable chart that was used by Weinberger to justify the massive spending increases.

[Stark]

I thought the idea of US/USSR competition destroying the USSR was more about other projects, like the space program etc.

PS This is not Shep wankery without pics of tanks.