Home > The Main Room > The Okie Corral > USAF needs bombers

USAF needs bombers

  1. https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/

    We have all of 7 B1b's fully fitted and capable and available for missions. Our B-52's are undergoing upgrades and only 33 of 75 are available for missions and out of those 33 some are always on permanent standby for nuclear missions. We "might" have 7 of 20 B2's ready to fight today. Friends we are in a world of crap should we have to fight right now. Believe me that this wretched condition is affecting out foreign policy right now and we are seen as weak by our enemies.

    How did it get this way? At the time of Gulf 1 the American military machine was fully capable of fighting two major war's and one mini "Korea like" one. Right now I doubt were able to fight even one major one and be garunteed a win. Just fighting a little crap pile like Iran would take our full attention.

    And its not just USAF but also the Navy is in poor condition and the other services are having trouble recruiting and retaining as well as getting decent gear to the troops. The USN desperately needs capable war ships and the sailors to man them.

    We are stretched thin.

    But the bomber situation is a real red flag because they are the one thing we have that nobody can match, tho China is changing the equation. Short term we have to get these B-52's re-engined and re-winged with new avionics. They are still capable platforms especially with stand off missiles/bombs and EW assets. I know we can't keep all those B1b's but we have to get a credible number up and running and soon. "7 available" is ridiculous. Theres no reason 15 of those B2's cant be available for missions because they are almost never tasked.

    And most of all we need new B-21's coming off the line and we need all 100 of them.

    And with it the new frigates, new cruisers, new boomers, more SSN's, hypersonics, Lasers ,and rail guns. New ICBMs, a next Gen stealth fighter, and most of all better pay and more troops. But most of all we need bombers. This situation is appalling, no wonder terrorist crapholes like Iran are running wild. Hell most of our allies cant even whistle up fighter planes or even a single submarine.

    WW1, WW2, Korea, 'nam, Falklands, Iraq/Iran, Israel/Arab, Paki/India, every single conflict has started because one entity has perceived real or imagined weakness weakness in military capability and/or national will. We need more bombers or we can pay with blood later.
  2. It seems like this should be filed under, “not shareable information”.
  3. We need drones. Thousands of them. And gamer kids to drive them. That’s the future. Not bombers.
  4. The Russians might sell us some TU-95s. That would be sweet.
  5. If you take politics out of the equation, we still have the ability to end a world war just as decisively as we did in 1944, and could have done in Vietnam. But socially and politically we don't have the stomach to unleash the hounds.
  6. That’s the thing. We really don’t. Not conventionally. When I was in we had many hundreds on instant alert. Now? We can spin up a few dozen. It’s appalling and imagine if another Democrat gets in?

  7. It's not like we don't spend enough money so what is going on?
  8. I still wish we would go ahead with the 747 Cruise Missile platform.
  9. Could you imagine the world today had we nuked Hanoi? HH
  10. Um 1945. And if you mean nukes then it wouldn’t just end the world war it might end the world
  11. 8 years of Obama, partially, B1b’s used in missions that’s stressed the airframes. Long duration loiter support over 4th world countries, partially. A post Cold War reduction. The belief the heavy bomber wasn’t needed anymore.

    Lack of spare parts and bad mAnagement. A limited run of B2’s post Cold War. We actually thought stealth was on its way out yet it never will be. Excessive cost over runs on other systems. To much money spent on welfare bums, and on and on.

    In short a perfect storm. I highly doubt USAF could even sustain bomber attacks in a protracted war now. During ‘nam we kept a huge fleet on instant standby with SAC AND sustained Rolling Thunder / Linebacker over NV, eventually bombing them to rubble, forcing them to the peace table.

    We did the same with North Korea.
  12. Bill Clinton kicked off the downsizing of the US military.
  13. Star Wars and a couple joy sticks could control the world !
  14. Time to move on.

    Sorry, but have to say, investing in old tech is just throwing money away.

    As far as bang for the buck, drones are the way to go, can't say more, as I have signed a lot of NDA's, but think outside the box, about smart bombs and drones. There is a much more effective, and reliable, cheaper alternative than manned aircraft.

  15. The AF knows well that if they spend all their money then plead poverty, we’ll whistle up more to protect aircraft.

    Much like when cities cry they’ll have to axe firefighters because they know it’s a sure bet.
  16. Not presently.
  17. It took decades to degrade the capibilities. It will take decades to restore it. Cruise missles have their place. But the thing about a bomber.

    It can be launched. It can be retargeted, ordered to loiter outside of target area, refuel... Actually abort seconds before dropping bombs with little loss of abilities.
    That plane can return, land, refuel, maintenance and the same crew fly another mission the next day. Once a missle is launched. It either goes boom, or its destroyed remotely. (Far as I know they can't be recalled, reused)
  18. With precision guidance we don't need to drop as many as in the past. I think we could still deal with most countries.
  19. Ah, yeah.

    We were there 20 years ago.
  20. Don't we have a few thousand attack airctaft like the raptor and the strike eagles and the fighting falcons and the f-35's that can drop multiple bombs??
  21. At the time it made some sense.
  22. Yes but they have less range.
  23. A few thousand may be a bit high, well over a thousand easy.
  24. What's the point of that tech debt? Spend trillions to build/sustain modern bombers to drop dumb bombs? We have better means of destruction now.

    Plus, cyber is the new front anyways.
  25. If we get down to dropping tactical Nukes out of B52’s, it seems to me that the apocalypse has effectively happened.

    ETA, it looks like there are some applications for carrying cruise misses long distances.


    Perhaps a cost effective use for any worn-out B52’s would be dedicating them as permanent additions to the nuclear arsenal. Sure they might not fly, but with adequate OPSEC could bring just as an effective deterrent factor as their functional counterparts.
  26. For whatever it is worth, I was just talking to an Airman at Nellis, he works the flightline on 35's and 15's, and he said they do not deploy. Hmm......I would think if the SHTF, you would go wherever the needs were, then again, there could be very valuable assets in the LV area.
  27. I's be concerned if it wasn't damn near 2020, and every other military in the world wasn't in worse condition than ours.

    No one is going to attack us, they don't have the ability to do so and survive the retaliation.
  28. I really hate to be the adult in the room but.....

    The number of manned aircraft bombers is limited by the SALT and SALT 2 treaties.

    Included in the treaty is the number of land based I,C,B,M,'s along with the number of S.S.B.M.'s the type of missiles, and the number of warheads on each missile.

    When we tear up the treaty and begin to build more bombers..... what do you think the Russians will do.

    You will have another 1960's style arms race on your hands.

    Where the treaty failed is.... no one at the time factored in the rise of china.
  29. We’re not there now. We’ve exposed all sorts of issues with drone to ground combat.

    The claim that we are ready to replace manned aircraft entirely with UAV’s now is laughably incorrect. Much less 20 years ago.

    Might come a day that it happens, but it sure isn’t today.
  30. Heres the thing. Heavy bombers can go anywhere in the world and they can do it after launching from America. That and they carry a lot of bomb. A LOT of bombs. A lot of smart bombs even by just sticking inexpensive GPS tail kits on dumb bombs.

    Stealth bombers are extremely difficult to detect and even more difficult to get a target grade lock on. Remember the B2 has no verticle tails or wings unlike stealth fighters and have 8,000 mile range while carrying roughly the same as the B1b internally.

    Actually the B2 was originally designed to be a very high altitude bomber but USAF got nervous stealth wouldn't last so they redesigned it to be capable of low level penetration too, which was a mistake. The B-21 will be strictly a high Altitude Bomber which means it will be far stealthier, faster, and even the best AA defenses will be incapable of getting target locks on it. Add to that it will be a flying computer, if its even manned at all, and will be loaded with EW hardware and decoys.

    So a B-21 flying at 60,000' and 630 mph will be able to chuck out dozens of dumb bombs with tail kits with MM wave radar tri mode seekers which will be able to take out the entire air defense battery and then some. A few B1b's took an entire Syrian airbase out of action "the punitive nerve gas strike" by flying from Texas, or maybe Guam, and tossing some JASSM-ERs out well outside detection range and the 600+ mile missiles took out individual aircraft, hangars, and buildings even tho the Syrians knew they were coming. Israel has been flying circles in and around Syria, which has some of the best Russian AA gear, with their F-35I's and 4'th Gen with EW.

    The Raider will carry everything from B-61-12 nukes, a dozen at a time, the new stealthy long range nuclear cruise missile, the new hypersonics, new anti-ship missiles, and everything in between. ALL of the ordinance smart munitions, and a lot of them, while remaining almost impossible to detect. If we had 100 of them right now you think Iran would be causing trouble?

    Thats what heavy bombers bring to the table.
  31. To any nation that doubts our military capabilities, I just have one thing to say...come at us, bro!
  32. You speak very highly about what an airplane that doesn’t exist yet can do.
  33. Nuclear SUBS....(who knows where they are)
  34. Nellis’s squadrons conduct weapons and tactics training for the rest of the Air Force. Their squadrons stay home because they’re the instructors for everyone else.
  35. What job does this young man have, that he works on two airframes. That's pretty unusual, I think.
  36. I agree...strategic bombing is a relic of the past. There are too many technological advanced weapons that can do this cheaper, faster and with less risk to crew members.
  37. Well we're about to spend $50 billion+ on the next gen bomber so maybe you should tell the military bombers are relics.

    LRS-B – the US Air Force’s next-generation bomber
    The B-1B and the B-52 bombers are expected to be phased out with the introduction of a new stealth bomber fleet in the 2020s. The US Air Force issued its request for proposals in July for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), with Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team thought to be in contention.

    "The next-gen bomber is absolutely essential to the future of US power projection," said Paul Scharre, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security. "A foundation for credible deterrence is the ability to strike someone, and the [LRS-B] will sustain that capability for the future."

    In recent years, the US Air Force’s bomber fleet has proven itself in a number of warzones including Iraq, Afghanistan and the intervention in Libya. As shown with the 2013 mission to Korea, US bombers continue to be a valuable deterrence asset as well. Commanders will hope that upgrades to the B-1B, B-2 and B-52 will continue their combat effectiveness and deterrence capabilities for years to come.

  38. Our readiness is s h I t and I agree with the author.
    Our procurement/acquisition is more than broken. We piss away more money that is even imaginable. I see govt civilians by the ton who do nothing and get paid huge dollars.
    I have zero faith in our ability to fight anybody.
    Ask me how I know.
  39. Since the military has been fighting the longest constant war in US history, without a draft, they certainly seem capable of fighting.
  40. Missiles and plenty of them
  41. We have not won s h I t since WW2 and that is with a lot of help.
    We are winning more using Trump's economic and cyberwarfare methods.
    Unfortunately, China, NK and Russia do very well with these methods.
    The US has been subverted by Commies which should be quite obvious.
    That is warfare waged left of armed conflict. It works.
    But I don't know anything. Just 30 years in the Army and 10 years as a contractor for the Army.

  42. LOL.
  43. Just popped into the Okie while perusing the classifieds.

    I can honestly say that the amount of man-hours that has been put in at Whiteman over the last 6-12 months, those airmen would be awful pissed with the assessment of only 7 ready B-2's right now. There were more than 7 ready when I was there in April.

    That's all I can say because that's all that they could tell me. But I did get my pic taken in front of the bomb bay doors. Because it's the only part they can photograph you in front of. LOL
  44. Holy ****, look who stumbled in.
  45. Nice to see you post again. Hope it continues.
  46. I don’t know. I didn’t know their work was particular to one plane.
  47. That makes sense. I was watching an interesting show recently about the Russian MIGS. In the Korean War our B-29’s were being shot down by the MiG-15. Our aircraft at the time, just couldn’t match the Mig’s performance. Later, as we introduced new aircraft training was conducted at Nellis with some MIGS that we got hold of. We trained and developed tactics to fly with MIGS and defeat them.
    The Smithsonian Channel, "Air Warriors" has some great shows.
  48. The test model "probably" does exist. The actual B-21 will make its maiden flight for the world to see in about a year. We have its predecessor, the B2, already flying and already capable of everything I'm saying.

    USAF already released the B-21's design specs which is what I'm quoting. Do you think I'm just making them up?

  49. When it comes to military tech, specifically aviation related, it is not think.