[HardStarboard]

What's going on in Afghanistan that requires 200 B-52 sorties in the last six weeks.

I knew that the Taliban had threatened new uprisings, but if we need that much ordinance to subdue them again, they are far stronger and/or numerous than rumored.

The "close air support" tag on the missions implies that we are heavily engaged with sizeable Taliban units. You don't need a B-52 strike to deal with a small rag-tag group of terrorists.

Anyone got the "straight" scoop on what's happening?

[SandRat]

Bunker busters to collapse Caves????

[Tree of Liberty]

Just a WAG, but perhaps we're engaging Pakistani intelligence service personnel acting in support of the Taliban/Al Queda.

[COEXERJ145]

200 sorties doesn't mean all 200 involved combat. The B-52's are used because of their very long loiter time and many were most likely orbiting on call if necessary.

[mad_as_he$$]

Early Spring weeding. Mostly loitering waiting for $hit to happen. There will be Toweliban movement soon I am told. They are just not sure when.

[Robert357]

You don't need a B-52 strike to deal with a small rag-tag group of terrorists.

True, but as the article says....
Whenever we, as B-52 aircrew members, have the opportunity to shape the battlefield with our armament....."

I would hate to be on the receiving end of such a shaped battlefield.

If I might comment, the Canadian forces have been getting their butts kicked hard recently in Afghanistan to the point that the Canadian news has been getting on their leaders case. I sense that some of this might be an attempt to cut our northern neighbors some ground battlefield slack. But that is just speculation on my part.

[Tommyjo]

Using them as CAS. The B-52s can loiter for hours on station waiting for the call to put down JDAM onto targets.