Comments on: Bye bye B-2

By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » B-52 down in Guam

ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » B-52 down in Guam — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:21:04 +0000

[...] is the fourth military crash at Andersen AFB this year (see also Bye bye B-2). Is this just a reflection of increased activity at the base and can be chalked up to statistical [...]

By: jtb

jtb — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:05:05 +0000

Why, exactly, do you wish for WW2? Do you wish for more dead American aviators? More dead Germans?

Or are you just breathing through your mouth again?

Let’s get one thing straight. You need to rethink your rather callous view of others, or you’ll never really live your own life…

Sacrifice is heroic; but wishing it on others is craven.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:23:56 +0000

The Air Force Task List is an interesting little document outlining a broad array of different missions assigned to the USAF, although it is far from complete. Check it out here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/afdd/afdd1-1.pdf

By: Arcane

Arcane — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:13:37 +0000

I really am appalled at just how simplistic people’s opinions are concerning airpower and just how diverse the threats and missions out there are, which is why we need such a great diversity of aircraft. As technology has improved, we’ve been able to cut down significantly on how many different airframes we need, but that has in no way simplified the complexity of air warfare. If anything, it has become more complex in nature and few know just how many different types of missions the Air Force is tasked with. I wish people would recognize that, but it seems like the armchair generals are dominating the debate without having any clue as to how things really work.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:09:16 +0000

dj,
You’re right about the F-111. It was an excellent aircraft, but the mission capability rates on it were deplorable and the amount of manpower needed just to keep it flying was what forced us to get rid of it and stick with the A-10. Same thing happened to the Wild Weasel variant of the F-4; it took more than a decade to get the F-16 up to the same standard as the F-4, but ultimately manpower costs and low mission capability rates killed it. There are a myriad of other jet aircraft that excelled in the CAS role, as well, that no longer exist for the same reasons, like the A-4 and F-100. As for more recent aircraft, the F-16 has done a much better job than was expected, although its speed limits what targets it can hit, just like what happened with the F-111, A-4, and F-100, thus the need for the A-10.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:32:54 +0000

I feel cheated by the video, it shows a B-2 on the still pic but just a bunch of lame smoke in the actual video. Boo!

By: dj

dj — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:32:27 +0000

For you A-10 fans,

During the Gulf War whic aircraft killed the most armor?

F-111

How did the A-10 kill most of the armor it killed?

With Air to ground Rockets.

The Gun is more of an intimitation tool in Afghanistan than anything else these days. The F035 needs to be brought in in as many numbers as possible, it is a great platform. Retiring the A-10 means more F-35s with EOTS.

By: Arcane

Arcane — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:15:22 +0000

The problem is they are milking for the wrong thing. CAS is where more capacity needs to be built, not strategic bombing.

This is highly debatable. The A-10 is proving to be more than adequate and operational requirements have limited the need to deploy more than 20% of the fleet at any one time. While it is true that a replacement for the A-10 when it is retired within the next 20 years is necessary (right now the F-35 is going to replace it), the fact of the matter is that our strategic attack capabilities are in a state of decline. The B-52’s aging problems and the B-1’s declining mission capability rates are cause for serious concern. I doubt the Air Force will use this B-2 crash as a means to further its advocacy for a new bomber when the decline of the B-52 and B-1 fleets have been more than adequate to convince Congress of the need for it.

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:11:00 +0000

@Dan tdaxp The motivation of the RMA was the slashing of defense budgets in the immediate post-cold war. RMA appealed to the need to “do more with less” as illustrated by Arcane’s comment. Better tech made each piece of kit more expensive, but since it also made the kit more effective we could field less (not to mention there was no longer a fear of a full out conventional war). NCW kind of innovated against this in the mid-to-late 90s with the concept of swarming — having lots of cheap “bots” controlled by a mothership. In a way this was a re-implementation of the wartime policies of massive numbers of cheap gear to throw at the enemy, with the bonus of not having to use “cheap” men (as Arcane pointed out). Swarming became more prevalent in the late 90s and early 2000s as you know.

@Jeff The problem is they are milking for the wrong thing. CAS is where more capacity needs to be built, not strategic bombing. Of course moderation of the strategic pendulum must be maintained, and bombers will be necessary for any future contingency against China or Russia. 20 B-2s may be enough for that kind of deterrence now, while $1.2 billion could buy about 100 Warthogs. (I admit I am ignoring the long lead times for procurement, but the general consensus is LIC will still be around over the next few decades).

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:47:25 +0000

The Air Force may “milk” this incident for more bombers. Why not? U.S. defense spending will be increasing across the board on Air power, so why not let this open the door to a discussion of tactical bombers.

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:11:20 +0000

One effect of the RMA (and the post-cold war) has been fewer numbers of more expensive kit. However DangerRoom thinks the leadership will use this incident for milking more bomber funds.

Is this a fair criticism? IIRC, Bush in 2000 made a big splash by supporting RMA, which implies its recent program… Has RMA really pushed down numbers compared to pre-RMA post-War?

By: Arcane

Arcane — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:08:11 +0000

It makes me pine for the old days of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission raid in Germany, 1943. 147 of 376 B-17 Flying Fortresses were lost in the two target raid that lasted three and a half hours. Two months later during the second Schweinfurt raid 77 of 291 B-17s were lost in three hours. Glorious!(?)
You pine for it? First of all, the 147 and 77 numbers that you mention were not how many actual aircraft were shot down, but rather totals of aircraft shot down and deemed unrepairable after returning home. Less than half of the 147 lost in that one raid were shot down.
Secondly, almost a thousand men lost their lives in those raids. If every B-2 were to be shot down tomorrow, the most who would die would be 40.
Third, I won’t go into how superior in every possible respect the B-2 is to WWII era bombers, but it should be noted that back then the dominant question was, “How many dozen bombers will it take to destroy a single bridge?” Today, the question is, “How many bridges can we destroy with a single bomber?” 20 B-2s could have done in a matter of hours what it took thousands of B-17s to do over a matter of weeks.