When you really need to get the job done

Interesting to see this article pop up.

This lends more support for mine and others opinions here that fancy stealth bombers aren't even used to do the very large majority of work of the USAF.

B-2s are nice for stadium flyovers and first night radar site bombing (don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the B-2), but when you need to smash an enemy into oblivion, you call the BONE.

We need the B-1r OR another type of platform, not 100 shiny toys that will be put on Airshow display.

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: BigTrain

They are not looking for precision...i find all this fancy weaponry useless...chasing down toyotas and the like

a reply to: BigTrain

Not a fan of zerohedge, but I find this to be amusing...

If the USAF cannot sustain a trickling battle against a poorly armed, medieval enemy, fighting a superpower military is obviously beyond its capability.

www.zerohedge.com...

I think someone should alert Mr. Durden that the US has more than just the Air Force that fly in the military which is why we are a super power.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Also I dont think he was factoring in the different rules of engagement and battle tactics used by these guerrilla fighters on a government budget. I know we can go toe to toe with any power on this Earth, with the only challenge without a certain outcome known being Russia. China has the man power and the production capacity, but I think their battle doctrine is too untested for a real deal modern clash of the empires style of fighting.

Not enough soldiers with ACTUAL urban warfare combat experience, or even jungle, arctic, desert and maritime fighting experience. The only other powers with ALL of that experience today is NATO and Russia.

The article mentions we are running out of bombs, but I have my suspicions. How could we be dropping so much ordnance and not be having a significant impact?? The defense companies must be working on an as needed basis per orders. Clearly someone miscalculated the Air Force budget for this year if they are having trouble maintaining stock.

Its not as the Defense companies dont already have a # ton in stock They are just like any other company. They will have product on hand and produce as they are sold.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
You are right about the Air Force not being the only US armed force in the air.
Not a lot of folks know that the Navy flies more, and the Marines also, however
I'm not familiar with the Marines mission. I was aircrew in the Navy for 6 years.
Logistic support is also a vital mission. Unless you've been there, you can't know
the value of something you may think is a toy.

a reply to: BigTrain

Yes, we need a mach one bomber that has less than a 50% mission capable rate, requiring $3B in upgrades to keep flying.

I've said it before, go work on one and tell me how amazing it is. The B-1 is an utter POS.i used to think it was a great airplane, then I met them in person and realized how absurdly difficult they are to maintain.

As for a new platform, it would be nice to get more than one or two uses against modern defenses. It doesn't matter of you have fast bombers if they can see you coming from 200 miles away. New missiles are going to start hitting your fast bombers from well over 100 miles.

The latest S300 system has an engagement range of about 125 miles. The S400 is even better. Even at mach 2, they'll be picked off before they can do more than launch cruise missiles.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

They were still replacing a lot of the ordnance used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then when they started dropping on Isis, they were approaching the minimums they need on hand in case of another conflict.

The current campaign in Syria and Iraq seems to be utilizing the Air Force more than the Navy or Marines. I found their budget for this fiscal year and next years proposals. My main concern is why are they running out of ordnance?? (I see Zaphod explained that for me)

www.saffm.hq.af.mil...

scroll to page 19 for the tables and charts.

It is clear they made sure to order more munitions for fiscal year 2016.

I believe they were hoping last year on Russia not becoming involved in the campaign and exposing some of the things they have. The result is they had to go into overdrive and start dropping bombs in order to match the progress being made by our rivals, bombs they did not have money in the budget to replace. They plan on making fireworks next year though if the proposed budget and procurement is anything to go by.

JDAMs are ordering 2000 more for 2016, over 3000 more Hellfires for next year, and more than a tenfold increase for small diameter bomb. Clearly the Air Force intends on staying in stock next year, which tells me we are not going anywhere.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

They've been spreading out the cost over years as much as possible, to allow as much funding as they could for necessary aircraft upgrades and replacements.

They have used a lot of ordnance in those two nations that still needs replacing. The Navy and Marines don't have the same need to replace and upgrade aircraft the Air Force does. They have a younger fleet at their call than the AF does. The Navy air fleet is in the 14-18 year old range, as opposed to the Air Force having an almost 30 year old fighter fleet, and even older bomber fleet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yes, yes that does make more sense. They are planning to retire the A-10. I'll miss that beast. But with the upgrades to our Helicopter fleet and the increased reliance on drones, the only advantage left on the A-10 is speed and range. Both of those are somewhat negated though what with FOB's and air strips all over the region now for quick resupply.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

It's terrifying to see what they've done to the Air Force over the last 20 years or so. In the next 10 years they have four or five multi billion dollar aircraft replacement programs that are reaching the point they have to happen, instead of they want them to happen.

Another point is that while the B-1 is supersonic, they're not flying a Hi-Lo supersonic profile. They're flying a subsonic, high altitude penetration. So their speed is irrelevant.

WELL that's ffn disturbing.

Someone needs to drop a knowledge bomb in here in relation to how often and how long have we actually been dropping bombs on Isis and who else have we been killing. (Other than those in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan because we all know those numbers aren't true)

a reply to: BigTrain

When you really need to get a job done, you need to get close enough to get some high velocity spatter on your sleeves, not do it from the sky.

Bombing is a hammer, where what is required is a scalpel.

a reply to: BigTrain

ZeroHedge didn't get the point: US military is able to drop 20,000 precision munitions and run sustained combat operations with thousands of sorties.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And if there are 20 incoming cruise missiles onto the SAM site, will its commanders say, "hey don't bother shooting at those, we're waiting to hit the B1?" or will they shoot missiles into the cruise missiles?

And then the next day? The S-300 and the long range missiles are very impressive, but the long range ones are quite expensive.

a reply to: mbkennel

And do you really think they aren't going to have layered defenses, because they didn't think about that?

Yeah they're expensive, but for some reason I don't think that is going to be a concern if a bunch of bombers are inbound.

The Navy's aircraft are getting pretty long in the tooth as well. They don't last as long when every landing is a controlled crash and every take off is 0 to 120 in 400 ft. EMALS is supposed to help this, but, it isn't operational yet.

a reply to: JIMC5499

They are, but the Navy has the advantage, because when the Air Force was ordering no aircraft, or a small number of F-22s, the Navy was getting fairly large numbers of Rhinos.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This quote is actually really bad Zaphod, what your saying here is actually quite scary....

You're saying essentially that the go-to platform for the USAF in this engagement, the one thats doing all the heavy-lifting, the one thats basically being relied upon, is some utter POS bird that can barely fly and deserves junkyard status....

What does that say about the USAF? Either you're wrong, or we are a giant, over-hyped clown show??

On a side note, do you really think the brass will send 50 shiny toys to bomb the desert? They don't even use the B-2 as it is today, i can't follow using brand spanking new stuff either. Hell they still send the B-52 to do work. Id say if history is any guide, 50 new B-1R's would be used much more than 100 new B-3s. Or, build half and half.