First we have an airplane that in today's dollars cost 1.1 Billion dollars a piece.
Second we have a fleet of 19 of these airplanes.
Third we have two of them being sent on a transcontinental mission to drop a total of 45 JDAMs.
We have mission failure. We have a glamour shot. We have the USAF trying to justify a ridiculously expensive airplane while lobbying for more (NGB).
We have a service without a vision of the future.
Shoot down the idea that this was a silly waste of resources that ultimately wasn't needed and one that took support away from the main effort and all you're doing is ignoring the obvious.
Lastly...if the mission was so necessary for the success of the air war then why haven't they duplicated the effort? The Navy did with its Cruise Missile Strikes...the Brits did with its Tornado missions...the USAF has had F-15E's flying continously....so why no more B-2 missions?
Because it isn't necessary.
Time to put this turkey out of its misery. Kill the B-2 and save money. Put Nuclear strike in the hands of the Navy's Trident Missile Subs and be done with it.
UPDATE*
SMSgt Mac has a website called Elements of Power. Would you believe he has written a rebuttal to this post? Check him out.
By the same logic, the F-22 should be retired and the F-35 cancelled, since the F-15, F-16, F-18, and AV-8 have all done perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteUpdated versions of those aircraft should prove perfectly adequate for the foreseeable future and at considerably less expense than the F-35.
wrong.
ReplyDeletei'm not only talking about a bomber that costs more than an LPD but also a mission that no longer makes sense.
don't twist it.
the B-2 costs too much and its job is better done by tactical aircraft. the strategic mission is better carried out by missiles.
VLO aircraft is a FIRST-DAY-OF-WAR weapon, after all.
ReplyDeletePity that we must spend $trillions to turn make everything from pencil to erase in our arsenal "stealthy."
Well, our losses (in terms of erosion on purchasing power) would be other's gain, that's for sure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletebut is it a first day of war in the strategic sense?
ReplyDeleteif you're not going after tactical targets then doesn't it make sense to send a cruise missile after it instead of a B-2? or even a B-1? my argument is that the strategic bomber as a concept is dead.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePutting all your eggs in the SSBN basket wouldn't be wise. There's a reason they went with the Triad and it's just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. B-2s have their place, but I agree, this looks like a stunt.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
hey Horde,
ReplyDeletemy blog, my rules bitch.
sferrin...
ReplyDeletemy question to you is this. what is the most vulnerable part of the triad....
the bomber.
whats the most survivable.
the ballistic missile sub.
which part has been the most stagnant?
the land based portion. think about it. we've seen dense packing proposals, midget man missile proposals and finally we've just kept upgrading the existing missiles in the same hardened silos that were designed in the 50's and 60's.
The bomber is also the most flexible part of the triad. How many targets have SSBNs hit in the last 40 years? That would be zero. How many targets have B-52s, B-1Bs, and B-2s hit? Literally thousands. Each have their own strong and weak points. The weak point of the SSBN is one torpedo can knock out 24 D-5s with god knows how many warheads (D-5's can each carry up to 14 but typically don't). Now consider that only half the force (if that) is at sea at any given moment. 7 torpedos could take out your entire SSBN force. I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in THAT basket.
ReplyDeleteAs for ICBMs I'd actually say they're the safest. The only thing that can realistically kill it sitting in it's silo is another ICBM/SLBM and if ICBMs are flying it's pretty much hit the fan anyway. If you want to kill the ICBM force you have to hit 550 seperate, hard targets. If you want to kill the SSBN force you have to hit 7. Quite a difference. True, the other guy knows exactly where the ICBMs are while the SSBNs locations are less certain (in theory anyway) they still have to hit them.
-sferrin
still debatable sferrin.
ReplyDeletethink about the strategic bomber for a minute.
who else operates them? the Russians do but they've been switched to maritime assets. the B-52's for all intents and purposes is already a maritime bomber. the B-1 is being killed by the air force before its time because of maintenance costs (according to them) and then we have the B-2 ...
with the wars we're involved in and could be involved in i just don't see a need to send a bomber where a cruise missile can go.
oh and your comparison between the bomber force and the ICBM force is a false one. Jimmy Carter was right. the cruise missile was a better return on investment than the B-1 has been. i can hate his politics but on this he was right.
Thing about the B-2's Sol is that they are a sunk cost and they are flexible. Sure this operation probably could have been achieved without them, but others may not. Why throw away a perfectly good investment when it has a demonstrated capability to perform it's mission?
ReplyDeleteAlso 45 JDAM's were launched from 3x B-2's on this particular mission, but that is by no means the full extent of their capability, they can carry 16x 2000lbs JDAM's each true, but much larger numbets of smaller JDAM's and even 16x 2000lbs landing on targets is a LOT of hurt to be brought in a single strike.
B-2A's don't need refuelling or escorts and you need at least 8 tactical strikers to achieve the effect that one B-2A brings...
The cost starts adding up when you see what it takes to equal the range, payload and penetration capability the B-2A provides...
The nuclear mission may nt be much use anymore but it's very useful in conventional roles, though I admit the Bone probably could have achieved this particular misssion too...
i get your points...and to be honest i see where Sferrin is coming from too Aussie Digger....
ReplyDeletei guess my biggest complaint is the fact that the USAF brought an asset in all the way from the continental United States, provided it with 4 aerial refuelings...dropped 45 jdams and they have USAFE sitting there not even fully committed to the effort.
it just smacks of hollywood soldiering.
Solomon: Let's look at the bomber vs cruise missile arguement for a moment. The cruise missile needs something to take it into launch range so you're going to need either a sub, a ship, or a bomber to take it there because they can't make it on their own. Then consider it's payload. Tomahawk is limited to a 1000lb warhead (CALCMs are up to "3000lb class" whatever that means- it certainly doesn't mean it's warhead weighs 3000lbs). There are a LOT of targets that are immune to a 1000lb warhead. And if you take the bomber out of the equation you can't use the CALCM because it's not surface launchable. You could make a bigger cruise missile (Snark was fighter sized with a 6000lb+ warhead and intercontinental range) but it'll cost ya. And what if the target required a MOP-sized warhead? Your cruise missile would be the size of a Backfire anyway and you want to just throw it away at the end of one mission? How do you train with it? How many do you buy and at what cost?
ReplyDeleteConsider the 45 JDAMs the B-2s dropped. They were almost certainly the 2000lb variety (making them twice the size of a Tomahawk warhead) and capable of killing harder targets than the Tomahawk. Also you can't simply say "X number of Tomahawks are cheaper than a B-2" because you have to include the cost of their launch platform. Fill a B-2 with fuel and it flies to the middle east and back. What does it cost to get a Burke or SSN to the Med to hit Libya? How long does it take and how much does it cost to man and support the platform for the duration?
-sferrin
The biggest advantage a strategic bomber has over tac-air is the fact that it can be launched from the mainland United States and hit targets anywhere in the world. While I agree the Libya mission may have been a glamor shot, it doesn't invalidate the usefullness of the strategic bomber. If we need to go into a country that has no friendly neighbor to launch strikes from, USAF bombers will be the quickest way to get bombs on target, followed by naval assets (assuming said country has a coastline).
ReplyDeleteAlso remember that the B-2 and B-52 are the only assets capable of dropping the M.O.P, and if Iran or North Korea ever goes hot that weapon will absolutely need to be deployed.
And I don't completely buy the glamor shot argument as of yet, because if it where then the USAF brass would not stop blabbing about its usefullness and showing pictures of Libyan SAMs being obliterated by B-2 dropped JDAMs. So far, the USAF, along with the U.S military effort as a whole has been fairly hush-hush. How many cockpit video feeds of us killing Libyan targets has the Pentagon released so far?
zero.
ReplyDeletethe pentagon has released no footage of the strikes.
interesting.
"Now consider that only half the force (if that) is at sea at any given moment. 7 torpedos could take out your entire SSBN force. I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in THAT basket."
ReplyDeleteOk two things, first subs at the pier can launch their birds and hit most any target in the world anyways, so even if they are not at sea they are still about as effective as a land based silo assuming the tubes are loaded.
Second destroying them at sea is a different matter. Unlike the B-2 an SSBN has a tactical combat capability on par with an SSN (That would be like a B-2 having the A/A capability of an F-15.) The SSBN is survivable not just because its next to imposable to detect (remember that UK/France SSBN collision?) but they are also capable of defending them selves.
Lets talk B-2's and the raid in Libya.
ReplyDelete[ok]
First we have an airplane that in today's dollars cost 1.1 Billion....
[irrelevant, unless you are making the case they are too expensive to use? If a similar aircraft were to be bought today in significant numbers the cost would be about 3/4 that. Know what a 747-400 fully kitted out costs? Compare the costs of cruise missiles to the cost of JDAMs...or maybe 'somebody' already did.]
Second we have a fleet of 19 of these airplanes.
[We have 20. We HAD 20, then we had 21, now we have 20. 16 are 'Combat-Coded']
Third we have two of them being sent ... to drop a total of 45 JDAMs.
[We had three that dropped 45 2000lb JDAMS (of 48 possible). Given historical performance, it’s more likely each aircraft carried an extra in case one hung, than all 3 were hung stores). What counts is: did they hit what they were supposed to hit? In any scenario, the B-2 was the lowest risk option to deliver the goods.]
We have mission failure....USAF trying to justify...lobbying for more
[You'd know better if you read your e-mail or my post I referenced.]
We have a service without a vision... [No the AF has big problems, but that isn't one of them...unless you get to the civilian leadership level. BTW: Services 'train & equip', Combatant Commands fight wars, Ergo B-2 use wasn't the AF's call.]
Shoot down the idea....ignoring the obvious.
[WTFO? Define 'main effort'. All those non-LO aircraft are probably able to fly in relative safety because of B-2 and cruise missile attacks on whatever resembeld and IADs and C4I. Don't blame the AF because Ghaddafi (or however the world is spelling it these days) didn't have more hard targets available.]
Lastly...why haven't they duplicated the effort? The Navy did etc...so why no more B-2 missions?
[Again, its 'Libya'. What's to bomb? Iraq was low on 2klb-worth targets in about three weeks in '91. Serbia was low on 2klb JDAM targets after a couple of weeks (It would have been less if the Air Boss had had his way, and it was a moderately industrialized nation. Also, who knows there won't be more to come if needed? Alternatively, how many of the other platforms are revisiting inneffective earlier stikes]
Because it isn't necessary.
[That's a mighty big "Long Range Blind Spot" you got there.(Google that phrase if you like)]
Time to put this turkey out of its misery...Navy's Trident Missile Subs...
[First reference Glenn A. Kent's "Thinking About America's Defense: an analytical memoir" on why there is a Triad. Second, because bombers are sitting on the ramp and not flying alert at the moment doesn't meant they can't if the need arises. If they're airborne, they're at least as hard to negate as a SLBM carrier, and they're a lot less vulnerable to counter-fire than a boomer if the bombers are LO.]
You've got some good instincts but they tend go more awry the farther you get away from your experience and knowledge base. Of course if you're just being outrageous to generate blog traffic, well then...Brilliant!
Ignore the trolls BTW. They're the main reason I don't register at Ares: It's like troll-paper.
Let me get this right, get rid of an asset - a capability - to strike anywhere in the world against any system because it doesn't fit your view of what is needed for this fight? First, not sure you have the picture. No surprise there. Second, let's be honest - this isn't about capability but instead the funds needed to preserve USMC projects which, from reading this blog, are clearly tragically underfunded. So let's get real - this isn't about a unique capability as much as it is about the long knives of the coming budget battles. And it is this point that truly concerns me.
ReplyDeleteAs we face the inevitable draw-down in response to current "priorities" and a self-generated economic crisis, any gains in joint warfare so painful paid for in the past ten years will turn to dust in the ensuing panic to preserve core missions that may or may not be relevant today. When was the last amphibious landing on a contested shore? Based on the logic you so crudely wield to debase the B-2, than one has to ask what value is a Marine Corps focused on taking the beaches?
Level heads will say the USMC is a vital component to our nation's ability to project power, just as a bomber that can access anywhere in the world and deliver precise force at a moments notice. A credible amphibious capability to threaten distant shores is invaluable, just as is the capability to strike any target on the planet or the ability to vertically envelope the enemy through airborne operations. All serve to keep our enemies, current and future, on notice.
While I think your logic is laughable, you do service by cuing up the coming fight over roles and missions. If level heads do not prevail, than we may see inter-service fighting that would overshadow the trauma of the 1960s and 1970s. Talk to those who served during that time and you will hear tales of outright stupidity that make debating the value of the B-2 or the USMC appear silly. Let's hope we don't go down this road again, one that will cost a greater deal of blood and treasure in a future conflict.
In the coming fight in Congress all services will face scrutiny. Do we rally the wagons to save our own service or do we support each other and preserve a join force with dominant and decisive capabilities? Be careful wielding the sword, my friend. It has two edges.
read my words on this Anonymous.
ReplyDeletei'm doubting the efficacy of Strategic bombing in the form that the USAF currently practices it.
i am in no way doubting tactical bombing or even interdicting supply lines, troops etc....
but i just don't believe that strategic bombing has a place in the current way that we fight war.
civilian casualties are to be avoided. against immobile targets it makes more sense to send a cruise missile...against mobile targets it makes more sense to send either tactical fighters or smaller precision missiles.
I dont think there is a video available from the B-2 strikes. No EO pod like Sniper and I cant recall hearing about an internal EO system. You cant have an UAV video the strikes unless it to is VLO because you lose stealth. The AF might have SAR pics but i doubt they would release those. Post strike BDA pics are probably the best we are going to see. Any video released from other airborne assets will have to be screened by the political side of the Pentagon not just PAOs.
ReplyDeleteApart from which the 'most advanced air superiority fighter in the world' cannot even talk to other friendly aircraft,what sort of balls up is that.
ReplyDeleteThe excuse not to fit link 16 is that it would compromise the stealth capability of the F22,well if it can't enter the battle space because of its lack of communication the best stealth plane in the world is grounded.
What the hell use is that,except for a complete and utter waste of the US taxpayers money.
@Michael: Do you really believe the USAF bought the F-22 so it could sit on the ramp for it's whole career? Use your head.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
There is an issue of this debate that has not been brought up. Libya had a very weak IADS. It has old radars, outdated communications, thirty year old SAMS, and poorly trained operators. It has not changed much since the last time we bombed Libya in in 1985, in fact it is probably much less capable.
ReplyDeleteSolomon is right that we did not need the B-2 for this mission, but this is a very low threat mission. If Libya had SA-20s or HQ-9s and modern systems for command and control, VLO aircraft like the B-2, F-22, and the F-35 in the future would be vital. Legacy 4th generation aircraft and possibly even TLAMs would have a tough time against a modern IADS with modern SAMS. Bottom line is I believe it is a mistake to make judgments about the future of air warfare by what is happening in Libya. It is not the future or even the present of air warfare, it is the past.
well said Lou G.
ReplyDeletei don't know what the future of aerial warfare is.
i don't even have a position on it....just opinions...but i have to ask you this.
we're about to start development of a NGB...is it viable or should we be pursuing another form of deep strike?
I am concerned that by the time we have the NGB, which is being built for the highest end threat, that threat will have alternate ways to target it. Maybe hypersonic cruise missiles or conventional ballistic missiles with a MARV capability will be a more viable way to project power against a peer competitor.
ReplyDeletei don't mean to take up too much of your time but i keep looking at the work being done with high energy weapons and think that they're the future at least as far as defense and even attack....conventional multiple war heads or multi directional attack (don't remember what the navy calls it) with hypersonics sound like winners too. i like it.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, other countries are posing a real problem for the US because they have decided that they are going to attack us where we are weak. (I think some dude named Tzu talked about that.) The have decided to not go toe to toe with us after we have brought all of our power into theater. I think a major war against a neer equal power will look very different in the future. We need a different type of force to be prepared to fight in this arena.
ReplyDeleteWith this being said, I think the demise of the manned fighter or the aircraft carrier is overblown. We need thinking men in aircraft to overcome the fog of war and countermeasures (like jamming or taking over the signal of a UCAV). We need carriers (large or maybe small) to power quickly for contingencies like Libya.
All of this needs to be done in the most austere fiscal environment imaginable. The best arguement against the NGB is it might not be survivable by the time it IOCs and the US is $14,200,000,000,000 in debt!
I know who Sun Tzu is, I was trying to be glib. (obviously didn't work.)
ReplyDeleteInteresting place we have gotten ourselves into. I believe the US needs to establish what our priorities are and stick to them. What is in the best path to ensure the future of the United States. Prime example; Is it in America's best interest to spend huge amounts of money on systems to protect other countries from PRC hegemony, considering our dire fiscal situation?
I do not have an answer for this question. I think both sides of the answer have merit.
don't even worry about him Lou G.
ReplyDeleteyour meaning was crystal clear...we all understood except for that troll...
which is why his comments along with another insect have been deleted.
@Lou G: It's likely the B-2 wasn't used for its stealth ability but because of it's range, payload, and systems. Can a B-52 carry 16 2000lb JDAMs with as little support? The B-1B? And what if target locations weren't precisely known ahead of time? The B-2 has two big-ass AESAs to look around with. The B-1B and B-52 are limited by comparison in that regard. Don't get caught up in "it's stealth therefore the only reason they might have used it is because it's stealth". A low RCS isn't the only thing the B-2 has going for it.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
i don't think thats true Sferrin.
ReplyDeletei believe the B-52 easily out ranges the B-2...about the AESAs i don't know...
a little google foo has the B-52 having the highest mission rates...and to be honest the only advantage that the B-2 has is stealth and speed.
ReplyDelete@ Lou G
ReplyDeleteThe double-edged diplomacy we face these days is that: If we don't step in, things tend to spin out of control and the whole region becomes destabilized; on the flip side, once we step into a conflict, we tend to step too deep into it that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for us to step out.
Sphere of influence. PRC is an expansionist in action, just not in word. If we don't step into a region where we previously didn't have interest in, it's quite likely that others will. "Rare earth metal" is a prime example of an expanding PRC sphere of influence gone unchecked; no shot was fired.
It is highly doubtful whether isolationism will ever work again in this time of age....
It is just as doubtful whether NGB, JSF or greater military strength in general will make any bit more competitive (or even relevant) in global arena. To me, all of them collectively translate to: waste of our money/fiscal resources.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSferrin,
ReplyDeleteSo what are they going to do with it,please enlighten me instead of making vague remarks that mean nothing.
It's been sat on the ramp for the last few years gaining plaudits from everyone involved for it's performance in what?
Exercises,nothing else.
Apart from not being able to enter the battle space,I am informed that the maintainance on its stealth coating far outweighs the time it spends in the air.
So please give me the benefit of your knowledge and tell me facts,instead of off the cuff remarks,or is the lack of information because you don't have any.
Actually, it was a pre-emptive strike against the 'Cruise Missile Cultists' I saw coming after your 'Stars and Losers' post and another post-a really disjointed one on TLAMs and 'sunk costs'- were linked to in 'Frago'.
ReplyDeleteHi Solomon I strongly disagree with you here.
ReplyDeleteYes the B-2A is horribly expensive but how much of that is due to the production numbers being cut from 132 down to 21? Also consider the advances in stealth technology made since then. The materials used on the F-35 for example are much easier and cheaper to maintain.
As it stands now the USAF's bomber fleet is good for the near future but will need a new aircraft in the long term. The B-52H continues to provide excellent service but even with its ECM it is a big target. While a retirement date of 2040 has been stated on occasion, I fear that all of the use they have gotten in Afghanistan may move this up earlier.
I've always loved the B-1B. Partially because it looks badass and is capable of going supersonic. Yet these are likely to be retired before the last B-52H. Supersonic variable sweep wing aircraft don't age quite as well as other designs.
Until NGB comes online the B-2A is easily the most survivable bomber in our fleet and provides that capability to penetrate deep into territory protected by advanced air defense systems.
With all of the improvements made in stealth materials and design since the development of the B-2, I truly believe the NGB can be rather affordable if we don't go slashing the production numbers. While I would love to see a supersonic NGB, in reality it is going to be subsonic and probably resemble the B-2A in many ways.