5 ms·

> Even as the bombers were being assembled, defense officials were planning their replacement, but each plan was undone by its own complexity. First was a nucle

> Even as the bombers were being assembled, defense officials were planning their replacement, but each plan was undone by its own complexity. First was a nuclear-powered bomber able to stay aloft for weeks (too radioactive), then the supersonic B-58 with dartlike wings (kept crashing), and then the even faster B-70 (spewed highly toxic exhaust). Second system syndrome at its finest. Sounds like what they really want is a new implementation of roughly the same design as the B-52.

vinceguidry 11y ago
Good luck getting the Air Force to redesign a WW2-era plane. If there's one thing I learned reading the Boyd biography, it's that the Pentagon is constitutionally incapable of thinking pragmatically about technology.
- crikli 11y ago
  Sounds like a good read, are you referring to this? http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/dp/B000FA5UEG/ http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/d...
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Yeah. The Pentagon would rather burn billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on probable duds than iterate slowly on proven designs. Even after Boyd showed them conclusively how stupid that was.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      The Pentagon is, for practical purposes, forbidden from iteration because that's not how their process is structured. This hellacious chart [0], (which I love pointing out), is the official diagram for the Pentagon's weapons purchasing process. This process matches requirements in federal law. In other words, this process is mandated by Congress. How do you shoehorn iterative development into this? Where does it fit? It doesn't, so it doesn't happen. I hardly think Boyd was the first guy to show them how dumb they can be. [0]: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wal...
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  If The Pentagon Wars got only half of the problems right, this system needs to completely changed. People who decide how to spend the money should not be going to defense contractors when they retire. And a problem that Ike pointed out 62 years ago shouldn't take this long to be changed. How we elect our representatives is the root of the problem.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    I think the real problem is the generals. They're not politically accountable, they're actually not really accountable to anybody. When they stand firm, not even the President can really tell them no. But, ultimately, someone has to decide how our weapons are designed and built, I'm not sure how to come up with a better system.
    - stretchwithme 11y ago
      Congress pays for all these programs. It is not holding the military accountable.
ufmace 11y ago
From what I've read, it seems like a problem of being overly obsessed with the highest tech and most dramatic missions. Every new bomber is designed for the goal of nuking Moscow, including figuring out the best way to get past defenses. Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use ICBMs instead. What we really seem to have demand for is something that can carry a whole bunch of bombs cheaply and reliably in airspace that we already have air supremacy over. But apparently the Air Force can't get it's head around that design goal. Nobody seems to want to champion a cheap, dumb bomb truck plane that does simple stuff right every time. Instead, they keep going for the technological marvel designed for a goal that we'll probably never need to do and already have better weapons for anyways.
- dTal 11y ago
  You can't have a cheap, simple plane! Lockheed-Martin have to eat! (unless you can get some foreign chumps to sell you their cheap, reliable planes and order Lockheed-Martin's latest contraption, which will arrive Any Day Now - everyone wins!)
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use ICBMs instead." Look up "nuclear triad", "not putting all your eggs in one basket", and "suspenders and belt".
  - vpribish 11y ago
    I need a pants triad.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      Suspenders (braces if you're in the UK), belt, and elastic waistband.
  - ufmace 11y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of the value of having multiple weapons systems to do a critical job. But that doesn't mean that every new bomber must be designed to nuke Moscow. Let's make the bomber version of a 747 for when we need to attack Afghanistan or ISIS, something that we can crank out cheaply and is already proven and reliable. Then we can have another project to try and make a bomber that can hit high-value well-defended targets. Or at least decide how many billions of dollars we want to spend for a redundant weapon system meant for a deterrence mission.
azernik 11y ago
Which is what the Soviets did - Russia still operates Tu-95s whose basic design comes from the exact same period as the B-52, but they built new versions and retired the old ones right up to the fall of the Soviet Union.

vinceguidry 11y ago

Good luck getting the Air Force to redesign a WW2-era plane. If there's one thing I learned reading the Boyd biography, it's that the Pentagon is constitutionally incapable of thinking pragmatically about technology.

crikli 11y ago
Sounds like a good read, are you referring to this? http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/dp/B000FA5UEG/ http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed-ebook/d...
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Yeah. The Pentagon would rather burn billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on probable duds than iterate slowly on proven designs. Even after Boyd showed them conclusively how stupid that was.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    The Pentagon is, for practical purposes, forbidden from iteration because that's not how their process is structured. This hellacious chart [0], (which I love pointing out), is the official diagram for the Pentagon's weapons purchasing process. This process matches requirements in federal law. In other words, this process is mandated by Congress. How do you shoehorn iterative development into this? Where does it fit? It doesn't, so it doesn't happen. I hardly think Boyd was the first guy to show them how dumb they can be. [0]: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wal...
stretchwithme 11y ago
If The Pentagon Wars got only half of the problems right, this system needs to completely changed. People who decide how to spend the money should not be going to defense contractors when they retire. And a problem that Ike pointed out 62 years ago shouldn't take this long to be changed. How we elect our representatives is the root of the problem.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  I think the real problem is the generals. They're not politically accountable, they're actually not really accountable to anybody. When they stand firm, not even the President can really tell them no. But, ultimately, someone has to decide how our weapons are designed and built, I'm not sure how to come up with a better system.
  - stretchwithme 11y ago
    Congress pays for all these programs. It is not holding the military accountable.

ufmace 11y ago

From what I've read, it seems like a problem of being overly obsessed with the highest tech and most dramatic missions. Every new bomber is designed for the goal of nuking Moscow, including figuring out the best way to get past defenses. Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use ICBMs instead. What we really seem to have demand for is something that can carry a whole bunch of bombs cheaply and reliably in airspace that we already have air supremacy over. But apparently the Air Force can't get it's head around that design goal. Nobody seems to want to champion a cheap, dumb bomb truck plane that does simple stuff right every time. Instead, they keep going for the technological marvel designed for a goal that we'll probably never need to do and already have better weapons for anyways.

dTal 11y ago
You can't have a cheap, simple plane! Lockheed-Martin have to eat! (unless you can get some foreign chumps to sell you their cheap, reliable planes and order Lockheed-Martin's latest contraption, which will arrive Any Day Now - everyone wins!)
Turing_Machine 11y ago
"Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use ICBMs instead." Look up "nuclear triad", "not putting all your eggs in one basket", and "suspenders and belt".
- vpribish 11y ago
  I need a pants triad.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Suspenders (braces if you're in the UK), belt, and elastic waistband.
- ufmace 11y ago
  Yes, I'm aware of the value of having multiple weapons systems to do a critical job. But that doesn't mean that every new bomber must be designed to nuke Moscow. Let's make the bomber version of a 747 for when we need to attack Afghanistan or ISIS, something that we can crank out cheaply and is already proven and reliable. Then we can have another project to try and make a bomber that can hit high-value well-defended targets. Or at least decide how many billions of dollars we want to spend for a redundant weapon system meant for a deterrence mission.

azernik 11y ago

Which is what the Soviets did - Russia still operates Tu-95s whose basic design comes from the exact same period as the B-52, but they built new versions and retired the old ones right up to the fall of the Soviet Union.