Well as far as i’m aware NGB isn’t anything like this proposed B-1 AAM carrier in any way, shape, or form.

It’s a different solution to the same problem. Indeed, it’s a more flexible and efficient solution… if it works. Question is, what if it doesn’t? What if Chinese airspace turns out to be effectively impenetrable even to NGB? That’s where fallback options are needed, such as the option to engage PLAAF/PLANAF assets in the air even if NAVAIR/TACAIR are out of the picture.

You probably won’t see a niche platform like this flying in the forseeable future, but what you will see is the door being left open for such a platform to be fielded in relatively short order if the need arises: if NGB isn’t cleared for JDRADM I’ll eat my left foot.

Like i’ve said before it is not for myself to decide if there is a place for a B-1 AAM carrier. That privilege goes to the USAF and so far they have shown no interest at all, no hints, no nothing. They don’t want it and they know best. I’ll take their opinion above that of any keyboard warriors opinion everytime.

That’s ridiculous. If there’s one thing history has shown time and again, it’s that the military is absolutely brilliant at preparing for the last war.

You don’t have to think that stuffing a B-1 full of AIM-120Ds is a brilliant idea that should’ve been done yesterday – even I don’t think that – to acknowledge the issues driving the proposal. And if you’re denying that those issues exist then you really are in “fingers in your ears going la-la-la-la-la” territory.

If there is a KC-Y & Z (and I think there eventually will be) and they’re for a tanker/cargo aircraft, we might very well see that KC-330 vs. KC-777 faceoff.

KC-777 will win that one too. 😎

I think USAF should’ve planned to operate a single tanker type in future and that as such the A330 MRTT would’ve been the perfect choice. Indeed, this whole KC-X/Y/Z thing was put together during the Bush boom years, and those aren’t coming back for decades if ever. Maybe I’m wrong and the Pentagon has actually budgeted all this out using realistic assumptions re: future funding/outlays, but I wouldn’t bet on it, and the fallout if they haven’t isn’t going to be pretty either for taxpayers or the air force.

“Royal Air Police” indeed. Seriously, how did the UK get itself into this budgetary predicament? :confused:

it is folly to bet on large heavy long range AAM’s taking on modern nimble fighters

It’s certainly less folly than to believe that the United States is going to maintain air superiority over Taiwan in any pitched battle post-2020. Some of the assumptions this involves:

1. Our carriers are invincible!
2. Our handful of airfields are invincible!
3. Our tankers are invincible!
4. Our F-22s and F-35s will score 20:1 kill ratios!

Once China gets within a million miles of the United States technologically, it’s all over. China’s geostrategic advantages in this enterprise are overwhelming and have been balanced in the past only by their overwhelming technological inferiority. The tipping point is probably right about now. By 2025? Forget about it. You might as well ask the PLAAF/PLANAF to secure air superiority over Florida.

and the bombers are toast unless they can run away fast, not that different from a MiG-31.

Hence B-1R and not NGB.

I wonder if the Caribou replacement issue might not be playing into this C-130 vs. C-17 issue also, i.e. C-130J procurement prospects being squeezed from below as well as above, with likely contenders to replace the Caribou – most notably the C-27J – offering significantly greater capability than that aircraft and thus being potentially able to shoulder some of the load which has to date fallen on the C-130 fleet.

Good. Hope it falls through.

Any particular reason? :confused: