Slapout:
Granted, a Saturn 5 was a mighty machine and it could probably throw a heavy ground penetrator. But it was also mighty complicated and expensive, so much so that it might be as or more expensive than a bomber. Plus it would still be a ballistic missile and it could only do one thing; put a warhead on a point target one time.
A B-2 is just an airplane that can go a long way, carry a lot and penetrate air defenses. An imaginative person can do a lot with a weapon like that.
Pretty soon the Air Force might need only ground crews...
And a few Internet addicts to remotely pilot their multi-gazillion dollar intercontinental strategic UAV doom doohickies. So, give it 20 or 30 years and somebody will stand up in the Senate and ask "Why are we paying for an Air Force that doesn't actually put combat pilots in the air anymore?" Then the fur will fly...
Last edited by Norfolk; 12-28-2007 at 10:40 PM.
Carl, disagree again. The Saturn 5 is very simple and the costs to develop it pale compared to Aircraft even in adjusted dollars. You can see the actual booster at the Redstone Arsenal at the Huntsville,Al. Space museum. They may still have the prototype at Kennedy Space Center (not sure) but trips to both places are well worth it.
When MIRV technology became available the Saturn 5 would have the ability to hit multiple targets in parallel. Penetration strikes are often multiple hits on the same target...one to break through and one to achieve the final effect on the target...agin missiles can do this very well.
Again their is no need for the delivery system to penetrate hostile air space...so why have a plane to do it? Only the warhead needs to get there.
Because missiles travel so fast there's know need to launch until it is the final option.....Air Planes flying around are far more provocative then missiles for this reason. also our enemies know how cheap and how much better missiles are which is why they are developing their missile technologies instead of wasting their money on black airplanes.
Bombing in any form is an Artillery Strike the plane makes it more complicated and longer to respond unless it on station as opposed to have a missile battery on call by the ground force commander who can hit what he wants to hit in minutes with missile artillery.
Having said this I think the Air Forces main missions should be constant ISR probably with satellites more than anything (not sure just a thought) and leave the bombing to us...Army. A second priority mission is Strategic Airlift get the Army to the AO.
Third and a big one the Air Force is good at coming up war games and Strategic Thinking materials... not a real jazzy job but vital to our national security.
And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.
PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.
They have the Saturn V at Kennedy... I was recently there and they have the whole enchilada suspended from the ceiling. Monster does not describe it well enough. I've got a picture of the wife and kids standing underneath it...
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Yep!
It is absolutely staggering to stand next to a machine of such immense proportions. Not to mention that the entire thing had less computer power than my calculator.Originally Posted by selil
Adam
Slapout:
I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.
Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.
True our enemies are developing missiles; but the reason those missiles vex us is because they may be used for throwing nukes. For throwing nukes, nothing beats a missile. I don't think we would very worried about North Korean or Iranian missiles if they were only going to deliver h.e. warheads.
The US has a rather different purpose in mind, and airplanes can often fulfill that purpose better that missiles.
As far as arty vs. CAS, people like Cavguy have the experience that makes their opinions really count; but as a civilian who only knows what he's read, CAS has some real value to it.
1. Saturn V development was inexpensive in comparison to other programs due to its simplicity in design.
2. Its parts due to thier large size were actually easier to work with. Where it got nuts is with the wiring and sensors.
3. Fueling was not only time consuming and expensive, it was very dangerous.
4. Liquid fueled rockets must be monitored constanlty when fueled. It is unfeasable and dangerous to leave them fueled for long.
In conlcusion I have to say ther is NO way a liquid fueled rocket is practical nor economical. They require an army to maintiain and monitor thier functions. A second army to deal with it if something goes wrong. Modern solid fueled rockets are far more practical.
Adam
Adam
What chance is there Navy will roll over if Air Force goes for a nuclear power in orbit?
Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?
My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:
I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?
Navy... They are spaceships. Airforce for Orbit to the ground missions. Navy for outside of orbit. Just my opinion.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
I did not understand the question as purely military as you refer to "ownership of space exploitation missions"...which is one of NASA's main missions. In the purley military part other folks here are better at that then me.
Yes, a creative person can do a lot and overcome enemy air defenses, but the damn things can't get wet. They are spending a fortune upgrading the computers in these planes, but they can't find a way to get rid of this "little" problem.
Adam
What do you mean by this? They can't fly in rain? I am not trying to be a smart-aleck, I just never heard of this problem.
No, the skin coating gets dinged. All they will officially say is they will suffer damage in the rain (it is not easy to strip and replace this stuff.) I thousands of small dings would most likely result in aerodynamic problems, but I am not sure to what extent (if its minor the computers will take care of the instability.) Thousands of little dings would also decrease its stealth capabilities. I am unable to guess to what extent, but it would depend on the amount of damage. Moisture can also develop inside the airframe. This may cause mechanical and electrical problems whether or not it freezes. If it freezes it may take up to 24 hours to thaw. I also would speculate that its low heat signature design prevents it from de-icing itself effectively. Most jets simply use the heat of their engines in order to prevent and/or remove ice from the airframe. Certain planes (normally non-jets) utilize boots or electric heating systems. If it developed ice on its surface, it would greatly if not completley diminish its stealth capabilities. Also, the layer of ice changes the aerodynamics. Many planes (not certified and sometimes even those certified for icing conditions) literally lose all lift while flying in icing conditions due to even thin ice formations greatly effecting the planes aerodynamics.
Beyond this it must be kept in a climate controlled hangar in order to prevent the build up of moisture in side the plane which can lead to mechanical and electrical problems. It would be unfeasable to station them at foreign airbases for this reason.
These are some strong reasons why we stopped at 31. We needed them to deter and/or threaten the Russians (and everybody else), but they are not practical for general use given their limitations.
Adam
For anyone who may not have noticed or remember, we discussed this a bit in Air Powers Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare.
Adam
Adam L:
I will read up on the B-2's problems. I don't think airframe and wing icing at cruise speed would be much of a problem though. Jets normally cruise fast enough that aerodynamic heating (or something like that) keeps ice from from forming.
Yes, normal jets do one hell of a job of keeping ice off of them due to both thier engine heat and at higher speeds the heat generated. The B2 is not a highspeed jet. Also, with the airflow so even across such a large surface, I doubt it heats up as much as a normal airframe. My concern about the potential for icing on the B2 is due to its abilty to reflect and not absorb heat. If the airframe is able to stay cool as to not be detected by infared at altitude (which is quite an accomplishemnt) it either is staying very cool or somehow is that effective at absorbing infared.
Adam
They say economics. . .
. . .is the study of the competition for scarce resources. And this is fundamentally a question of economics. The United States, as a hegemonic power (and I mean that in a value-neutral way), has the unfortunate responsibility of having to be prepared to deal with all threats to itself or the supporting international system. I think the services fear that politicians or the public wont swallow the enormous costs of maintaining what amounts to dual forces - unchallengeable conventional forces and forces capable of all sorts of irregular warfare. As a result, there's intense pressure to prove their viability in both arenas (the Air Force in COIN, e.g.). Personally, I think Iraq has/is showing there's enough dual capability (like Army heavy or mechanized brigades have shown) to keep these costs from being prohibitive, but the services feel the budget cuts are coming once Iraq winds down and a new administration (particularly a Democratic one - and I say that as a liberal) comes into office, and thus feel the need to prove their worth.
Ken made the point on the first page that we go through these cycles where everyone gets all hot and bothered over the issue of the moment, and can lose long-term strategic foresight and perspective. I'd take it a step farther, with respect. I see this as the heir to the old American war tradition of being woefully unready, then kicking into enormous overdrive once war finally came. Not that the focus on COIN is unnecessarily overcompensating for our pathetic ignorance of it beforehand, but it is the hot "fad" of the moment, regardless of whether it becomes the mainstay of US operations in the future or not.
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Quick Anecdote
Friday we were working a tactical problem where a theoretical BCT (Brigade Combat Team) found itself 72 hours in front of the follow on BCT and had a limited opportunity to seize a bridge head and an enemy center of government. The situation quickly turned bad as we suddenly found out that this BCT had several enemy mechanized divisions between 12 and 24 hours out and the BCT only had 48 hours of ammo and fuel - OK staff make your tactical decisions. BTW the weather is bad and the enemy has relative air parity and their are no TLAMs (Tomahawk Cruise missiles) - you got what you got for 72 hours.
What is wrong with this picture? Well for starters since when did we go to war without our Air Force recently? Where are the all weather strike capabilities that would certainly be there under the conditions (be they from any of our war fighting services)? Who can claim even relative air superiority against us - anywhere? How about the satellites and J-Star type ISR assets that would have told us that a corps sized element was on the move further then 24 hours out - and the JFACC piece that would have ensured that these divisions were at least fixed (as in unable to move or reposition)
Now - I give you the point of the exercise was to stress the influence of logistics during tactical operations - but this is not the first time as a ground guy I've seen us assume away the advantages we know we will have because we have built the world's best air force (and I'd argue- the second and third best as well) for unknown reasons. Why do we do that? Is it because we don't own them and never want to rely or depend on the USAF? Because we believe that such conditions as those stated could happen? I don't know.
However, the USAF provides us (and our allies) an advantage across the spectrum of war that no one else enjoys. It often provides deterrence options just by being on the ground somewhere where the enemy cannot strike. In the past I have not agreed with everything USAF MG Dunlap has written, but I believe it is true that in the aggregate of our capabilities - the USAF as it exists offers us an asymmetric advantage that offers a wide range of possibilities throughout the spectrum of conflict.
One of the hard questions to answer these days for ground force construct/organizational planners is how much of what will we need in the future? One thing worth considering is that during a conventional phase of a war large, amounts of PGMS delivered by air, rocket artillery, cannon and missile fires combined with the means to target enemy C2, armor, artillery, mobility & CSS assets and clusters of ground forces are a sweet advantage that offers up options to ground commanders. While we've proved you need lots of ground forces to help secure a population beyond those required to terminate a regime, we also proved that ground combat power is exponentially enhanced when you combine it with the threat of air superiority. Is it reasonable to assume we will always go to war with our Air Forces and other advantages available? What does this say about the types of ground forces we can develop if we make that assumption?
I think acknowledging that the Air Force as it exists provides us incredible advantages during the high intensity - major combat operations phase of a war, and may offer us flexibility as we look forward in considering how much of what we require by type to meet our ground service commitments in other phases of a war - be it Phase 0 thru Phase 5. These advantages might allow us some flexibility in force design across the DOTLMPF (Doctrine, Organizational, Training, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities) spectrum that allow us to focus limited resources and better achieve our ends.
From a ground perspective - I never want to be without air superiority, and if the USAF can provide options that allow us to consider the future battlefield differently - then I'm all for those options too. We have to be careful about inferring the wrong lessons from the current conflict and applying them to the future - we also need to look at where are real shortfalls were, and how we can address those. Ken had mentioned we don't often consider things like balance and consistency of equal value with other attributes - more wisdom from a guy whose heard this tune a time or two (or 4
Best, Rob
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks