Posted on 09/21/2013 2:04:31 PM PDT by ClaytonP
One of the most distinctive features of U.S. military power is the Air Force’s fleet of heavy bombers.
....
However, after 80 years of steadily developing better bombers — basically, since it entered World War One — the U.S. ceased spending money on new long-range strike aircraft following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There aren’t many bombers left.
All of the bombers are old.
No new bomber is waiting in the wings.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
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!
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.
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
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.
Looks like a LOT of planes:
http://deanoinamerica.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-boneyard-at-davis-monthan-air-force-base/
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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?
We used B-1’s and B-2’s on bombing missions in Afghanistan.
“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.
Wow.
I'd suggest that we make some SR-71 based bombers for the future.
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.
Fortunately aerodynamics don’t change. The B-52 was apparently a GREAT design, transcending the decades.
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.
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.