US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
anzha said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

12 years later and the Bone still had a 52% readiness rate. Doesn't sound figured out to me.
Click to expand...
cherry-picking. Check the readiness ratings for that year. It was all down across the board.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Yet also as pointed out the rate dropped as operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan wore the birds out. Airframes have a number of flight hours to them and at over 30 years old with only limited investment in recap they are tired. Same Reason the F15C is getting moved to retirement. They have been flown to the edge of the wings falling off.
 
A

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
cherry-picking. Check the readiness ratings for that year. It was all down across the board.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Click to expand...

Readiness rates in 1999 and 2000 were, iirc, 51% each. Those were before the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

I'll hunt down a cite. It was on FAS, iirc, since the US gov didn't put out the regular reports on readiness until relatively recently.

Even so, 1994 51% nine years after introduction. 1999/2000, 51% which is around 13/14 years later and in 2017 31 years later...51%.

The bird is a lemon and always has been.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Only three countries retain them the United States of America, Russian Federation and Peoples Republic of China. The DPRK might have a bomber or two of the old H5 rusting in a hanger.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
At this stage I feel strategic bombers are more of a prestige weapon than a practical one. The fact that countries formerly with the abilities to produce them, like the UK, have dropped them speak volumes. Maybe B-21 can change this.
Click to expand...

It is practical for regional power projection. It is cheaper than using missiles.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
SM-6 intercept test. Probably against some sort of HGV or MaRV. Hasn't it long been verified to be quite capable against typical missiles and ballistic targets? If it's now still struggling with intercepting lower tier ballistic missiles (read slower speeds e.g. rockets), it would never have made it this far. It would have no chance against HGVs and MaRVs from AShBM or even modern ballistic missiles of all sorts. Therefore it's likely they're testing against high tier threats of those categories to have missed... assuming it legitimately missed and this isn't some sort of psy-ops. Then again, they would have much more reason to show and present capability to adversaries than to falsify a fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top