Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Disturbing Facts About America's Dwindling Bomber Force
Forbes ^ | 8-16-2013

Posted on 09/21/2013 2:04:31 PM PDT by ClaytonP

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: PIF
In a House hearing, the AF implied it might have to cut all the B1s due to sequestration.

All branches said they cannot function in any wartime scenario or even minor spats like Iraq if sequestration is fully implemented.

After the fire, the Navy will scrap the brand new USS Miami which would cost 400 mil to repair.

The Army cannot repair damaged vehicles because personnel cuts will make that impossible.

There is no money for infrastructure upgrades and little for repairs.

IOW Obama has turned us into sitting ducks!

21 posted on 09/21/2013 2:44:44 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
We chopped a buncha older B-52’s to make the Ruskies happy.

At the time, I thought that was borderline criminal. Now, even more so. I think there are B-1s mothballed at Davis-Monthan AFB, but not certain how many. My guess is not more than 30.

You can do a lot with upgrades. And, yes, it should be possible to manufacture these again if necessary. I once heard that all the factory machinery for every bomber line was mothballed—hope that is true. With the coming bankruptcy of the USA due to entitlements, I think the probability of a new bomber is about zero.

22 posted on 09/21/2013 2:46:27 PM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Just thinking out loud here, but if there were another war where long range bombers were needed, it would be over before we could dust off the blueprints.

If there were another war under this regime, I don't know whose side I would be on. And that is the saddest thing I have ever had to say in my 64 plus years on the planet

23 posted on 09/21/2013 2:52:02 PM PDT by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Warfare also boils down to economics to a very large degree. For the cost of one $500 million New Heavy Stealth Bomber you could buy 500 $1 million cruise missiles that are launched from stand off distance from much cheaper platforms or even ground launchers or subs. What would give the best “bang for the buck”?

Maybe our latest stealth will work against the latest in radar and thermal detection technology. But all the billions of $ of stealth will do no good on a clear day and a sharp eyed fighter pilot.


24 posted on 09/21/2013 2:54:08 PM PDT by Wildbill22 (They have us surrounded again, the poor bastards- Gen Creighton Williams Abrams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Looks like a LOT of planes:

http://deanoinamerica.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-boneyard-at-davis-monthan-air-force-base/


25 posted on 09/21/2013 2:55:30 PM PDT by Carriage Hill (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Someday, the USA will have 10 working bombers.

They will cost $100 billion each.

This is how the all bureaucracies manages things - to increasing scarcity and increasing cost.


26 posted on 09/21/2013 2:57:48 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9wQGidG2M


27 posted on 09/21/2013 3:00:55 PM PDT by Carriage Hill (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

28 posted on 09/21/2013 3:00:56 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

29 posted on 09/21/2013 3:01:27 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

Our bomber nuclear leg of the triad is B-52s and non-stealth cruise missiles. . .”

Yes. With the potential to add the B-2. . .if ever the decision was made to bring back nuclear strip-alert. (NSA Warning, I wrote “Nuclear” so this thread is now being monitored.)

“I admit I am no expert, but gravity bombs? Against S-400 SAMs?”

Conventional ALCM against SAMs, not bombers themselves.

“And concentrated at only three bases??? Maybe a “bolt from the blue” is unlikely, but why invite it with a tempting target?”

That is why we have two other legs of the triad. Most likely scenario is gradual escalation and bombers provide the option of launching and holding (in US airspace or outside), and can be recalled. Missiles cannot be recalled or destroyed in-flight.

And three bases because we don’t have enough platforms to have more than three permanent bases. Besides, in times of increased nuke tensions, options include dispersing the bombers to other airfields. . .

“It seems we are using old systems with old tactics against a SAM threat that continues to evolve, even against stealth if you believe the Russians.”

First, I don’t believe the Russians. Second, as mentioned earlier, ALCM would be the weapon of choice if stand-alone bomber package. If part of a package, then F-22’s would be used to ‘knock-down the door” to attack AD so the bombers can flow. . .much like the F-117’s did the first night of Gulf War I.

“Maybe it is time to retire the bombers, like the battleship,”

Maybe, but the third leg of the triad would be gone and that is something very troubling.

“and focus on missile technology.”

We have PGS systems under design that would allow conventional weapons to be delivered via missiles anywhere world-wide within an hour, even when maneuvering to avoid over-flight of select nations. (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c405f7367697748a0488de7077054cba&tab=core&_cview=1)

PGS systems would use a low ballistic trajectory and have a completely different plume so no confusion from other nations that monitor missile launches. Only bad thing now is LM is the primary for PGS development and is having a very difficult time developing the weapons delivery pod. Boeing, on the other hand, has a developed and flight proven concept that could be fielded almost immediately. (No, I do not work for Boeing).

A lot of people observing PGS development from the sidelines think LM was chosen because the LM platform “looks” like a hypersonic plane, whereas the Boeing weapons pod is cone-shaped and less “sexy” looking.

Cheers.


30 posted on 09/21/2013 3:07:01 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

I posted “Conventional ALCM against SAMs, not bombers themselves.”

Meant to post: “Conventional ALCM’s launched from bombers against SAMs, not bomber dropping gravity bombs of any stripe against a SAM.”


31 posted on 09/21/2013 3:09:40 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

People are stone insane.

I was just told by my email provider that every single landline in Norway would be gone in max 4 years, to be replaced with ip-phones and mobiles.


32 posted on 09/21/2013 3:11:55 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama: the bearded lady of the Muslim Brotherhood))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor

“I recall quite a few military pundits saying close quarter combat was a thing of the past so maybe we should abandon the bayonet.”

I believe it was also our fearless (clueless) leader that said the same thing. And he knows what he’s talking about, after all, he’s the one that cammo’d up, low crawled across Pock-e-stan and used a Bick pen and a rubber band to kill OBL. Or hadn’t you heard?


33 posted on 09/21/2013 3:13:11 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

We used B-1’s and B-2’s on bombing missions in Afghanistan.


34 posted on 09/21/2013 3:13:58 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

“But all the billions of $ of stealth will do no good on a clear day and a sharp eyed fighter pilot.”

True enough. . .if he survives to the merge.


35 posted on 09/21/2013 3:15:23 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

Wow.


36 posted on 09/21/2013 3:16:27 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
Fortunately aerodynamics don't change. The B-52 was apparently a GREAT design, transcending the decades.

I'd suggest that we make some SR-71 based bombers for the future.

37 posted on 09/21/2013 3:31:53 PM PDT by Paladin2 (h)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Do you or anyone else think for second that we don’t have some black project aircraft to fill these roles? When are we going to get some disclosure of the aircraft that have been flying for the past 30 years?

The last to get unveiled was the Boeing Bird of Prey, another aircraft with 30 yr old features. I’m sure they have something to unmothball in case we need to carpet bomb something that precision strikes won’t do.


38 posted on 09/21/2013 4:02:19 PM PDT by drunknsage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Fortunately aerodynamics don’t change. The B-52 was apparently a GREAT design, transcending the decades.


Yes, but it has the radar cross section of a flying barn. Even with the best electronic warfare (jamming) systems available, the best strategy is not to be seen. While it did fine aginst the ot the 1960s/70s technology that Iraq had, the B-52 is probably very vulnerable to modern [Russian] SAM systems.


39 posted on 09/21/2013 4:15:11 PM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Problem is that the B-52 can fill several roles that would require several new systems to replace.

From large area carpet bombing to loitering with large, ready missile loads, it can do a lot of things that would require multiple programs, and megadollars, to replace.


40 posted on 09/21/2013 4:36:59 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Well, it is what the Sheeple voted for....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson