Shek

I rarely post in this forum, so I hope I'm not double posting. An interesting look at air power.

Read more here, Why the Pentagon doesn't want you to know its bombers finally work. - By Gregg Easterbrook - Slate Magazine

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

gf0012-aust

Just as an adjunct to this. I'll copy in some op infp on the B1 in a CAS role for a given period. It was originally presented to me as part of an internal discussion where a USAF planner was countering some comments about the "uselessness" of the USAF in Strat Bombing and CAS roles.

================================================== ========

HistoricalDavid

Those figures are obviously simplistic. Those individual 75,000 bombers (a lot of them being -17s, -24-26s) obviously don't have the payload of modern bombers. Modern bombers can also use precision-guided munitions which means a hell of a lot less are required to hit one target. Okay, there's still less destructive firepower around. But what the hell do you expect? The United States had just participated in two gigantic aerial campaigns aiming at flattening two powers into submission. Obviously it's gonna get rid of a few if it doesn't have any more campaigns like that to fight. Vietnam, you say. True, I say, except it ended in 1973 for the US and so did the Cold War in 1991. Obviously we're gonna have fewer bombers and more emphasis on logistics-friendly smaller fighters now that there are no conflicts against powerful nation-states or potential conflicts against nuclear semi-superpowers. If you want to maintain such an obscenely huge force, then fine, but you gotta conjure up the tax dollars.

Jimmy

Exactly. The reason we dont have a 10k airframe bomber fleet anymore is that we dont NEED one. Instead of hurling 2000 bombers loaded to the spine with bombs to hit a ball-bearing factory, we send a B-52 loaded to the spine with PGMs, and we put one in the middle of the assembly line and another in the top drawer of the filing cabinet in the boss's office. Then that BUFF moves off and hits a few more targets, then loiters in case a time-sensitive-target is spotted, then he goes home.

SRB

This is stupid.
Today we have cruse missiles, smart bombs and advanced rocket artillery and still someone want mass of heavy bombers?
Also todays wars are much different than WW2 or Vietnam. It is most interesting why we dont talk about US infantry of that time? Number of soliders in that wars was much higher than today. No. You will only hear we had much more bombers in past than today and it is very bad. To me it is classic air force BS we need more money we need advanced fighters, radars and missiles , and they are sorry because they dont have more B-52 so give them more money from tax for bigger B-52 fleet.

To me US army is the one which need more money not airforce.

__________________

USSR EXPERIMENTAL SPITFIRE

Jimmy

The Air Force is hardly clamoring for a new bomber. They want one, sure. But its well on the back burner right now, behind a dozen other priorities that DO need more money. New fighters, tankers, upgrades to C-130s, C-5s, C-17s, A-10s, etc. Oh yeah, and trying to avoid the massive personnel cuts that are occurring as we speak.

Also, I've not heard ANY plans to build any new B-52s or even return some of the mothballed airframes into service.

But yeah the Army needs more money too.

braindead

Is the B-1R project just the makers wet dream or is there some work going on it?

__________________
....

SRB

Gregg Easterbrook:
"the Pentagon plans to spend a gasp-inducing $320 billion on thousands of new fighter jets, but has nothing budgeted for new bombers for at least another decade; the Air Force actually says the Kennedy-era B-52 bomber will remain in service until 2037—when any still capable of getting airborne will be 80 years old."

Maybe some part of USAF is calling for new bombers, I dont know. Right now it is total unimportant.

Parihaka

.

Attached Images

image001[1].JPG (218.8 KB, 134 views)

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Jimmy

Ok, that's bad ass.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

JMH

In a war with the Peoples Republic of China the USAF and the Pentagon would quickly learn of a pressing need for more heavy bombers. If a conventional war is fought against a numerically superior enemy, than those superior numbers need to be neutralised by superior firepower. Smart weapons are great, but they are expensive and limited in numbers and would not be sufficient enough to stop a 12 million man Communist Chinese Army. Overwhelming firepower from the air and sea could stop such an army only if there are sufficient numbers of delivery systems to sustain heavy losses and still be available to deliver that firepower in a great enough volume to be effective.

Jimmy

Smart weapons are not necessarily expensive. JDAMs are actually pretty cheap. The US is unlikely to engage in any kind of war where we need fleets of heavy bombers...modern warfare just doesnt call for that kind of attack anymore. There's no target in the world that we cant hit in a better way.

Those large armadas of bombers were necessary because they so inaccurate...there was no guarantee they'd hit their target unless they sent a ridiculous number of planes and just tried to level the target and everything around it. And even then it didnt always work.

The US employs its heavy bombers in such a way as to avoid heavy losses. That's the reason behind the B-2, and putting a ground-attack capability into the F-22. To knock out the ground threats to the B-1s and B-52s. Meanwhile the Raptor and F-15 sweep the skies clear of air threats. If the area is likely to have too high an air threat for the sweepers/escorts, there are standoff weapons that might be more appropriate.

Garry

The army of 12 million man consumes more than 12,000 tons of supplies (food, water, medicins, fuel, ..... soap.... ) without seeing battle. This is more than 240 railway carts (50 ton capacity) daily of food and supplies...... if you don't supply this army for 20 days it is GONE....

As for firepower - artillery and MLRS can do MASSIVE FIREPOWER job much cheaper and faster than calling for strategic aviation....

Remember what was done to 3 Chinese divisions during Damanskiy battle when 90 boarder guards were supported by BM-21 Grad MLRS....

-{SpoonmaN}-

Bombers have their place when they're needed, as was the case during the early Afghan campaign, where the B-1 was the star performer.
I personally think the USAF will do fine with their existing fleet for now, although I'd give very strong thought ton studying the possibility of using the fleet of Hercs as a 'Jeep' aircraft that could be reconfigured as bomb-trucks (like in A-stan), AEW, surveillance and gunship roles. My idea would be to have them able to reconfigure through modular equipment changes.
This would give the USAF a bit more mass and flexibility. The B-1R idea has some mileage in my opinion if the funding can be found, as I said the Lancer has found itself a role now that the maintenance issues have been rectified, and it would be cheaper than a new plane altogether, while at the same time providing the USAF with a long-range, high payload, survivable aircraft to loiter over targets and perform the 'grand tour' after the Raptors and JSFs have destroyed the high-end AD threats. So no, the bomber is not dead, it's just being redifined.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."