PDA

View Full Version : B-1B upgrades to PHASE II to provide Close-Air Support



oak1999
01-15-2012, 06:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4To-aMC6k

Ordie
01-15-2012, 09:29 AM
USAF trying to rationalize their existance again.

How much does it cost kill a bunch of bad guys with AK's and RPG?

Winger
01-15-2012, 09:54 AM
USAF trying to rationalize their existance again.

How much does it cost kill a bunch of bad guys with AK's and RPG?

They are needed. More so for another role than this one but instead of sitting on the sidelines waiting for that operation that will take full advantage of them it won't hurt to put them to work in the meantime.

Messiah UKF
01-15-2012, 09:55 AM
USAF trying to rationalize their existance again.

How much does it cost kill a bunch of bad guys with AK's and RPG?

I guess the paradigm has long been 'as much as it costs to ensure one of your own doesn't die in the process'

Still, the need for the B1 and other Cold War Era equipment seems a little... loose. I guess the potetial threat of more capable nations is enough to keep them ticking over.

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 09:56 AM
USAF trying to rationalize their existance again.

How much does it cost kill a bunch of bad guys with AK's and RPG?

Spoken like a Navy man.

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 09:58 AM
Still, the need for the B1 and other Cold War Era equipment seems a little... loose. I guess the potetial threat of more capable nations is enough to keep them ticking over.

The problem is if you get rid of bombers it'll take you 30 years to get them back. Not exactly turn-on-a-dime response.

jetsetter
01-15-2012, 09:59 AM
USAF trying to rationalize their existance again.

How much does it cost kill a bunch of bad guys with AK's and RPG?

The USAF should not have to rationalize their existence. A robust and powerful airforce is a necessity.

Messiah UKF
01-15-2012, 10:03 AM
The problem is if you get rid of bombers it'll take you 30 years to get them back. Not exactly turn-on-a-dime response.

Oh I'm aware of that, hence the point about 'future threats'. However, I still find their requirement questionable/interesting. Other nations have long forgone the use of dedicated bombers, especially with the advent of Guided Munitions. Besides capacity (or not?), what does a, say, B52 bring to the table that a sub platform with TLAMs doesn't?

(Please bear in mind that I'm questioning, not arguing. I.e. I'd rather enjoy hearing why they're still useful, given my relative inexperience on the matter)

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 10:10 AM
Oh I'm aware of that, hence the point about 'future threats'. However, I still find their requirement questionable/interesting. Other nations have long forgone the use of dedicated bombers, especially with the advent of Guided Munitions. Besides capacity (or not?), what does a, say, B52 bring to the table that a sub platform with TLAMs doesn't?

(Please bear in mind that I'm questioning, not arguing. I.e. I'd rather enjoy hearing why they're still useful, given my relative inexperience on the matter)

Uhm. . .Russia has the Tu-22M, Tu-95, and Tu-160. I'd hardly call that forgoing the use of dedicated bombers. The only reason China doesn't have them is they haven't been able to buy them (not for lack of trying). The UK had them until they could no longer afford them.

Messiah UKF
01-15-2012, 10:29 AM
Uhm. . .Russia has the Tu-22M, Tu-95, and Tu-160. I'd hardly call that forgoing the use of dedicated bombers. The only reason China doesn't have them is they haven't been able to buy them (not for lack of trying). The UK had them until they could no longer afford them.

Those are hardly the only nations on this globe, and the UK didn't cut their bomber fleet (entirely) on budgetary grounds. The V bombers' original role became obsolete due to the polaris program, and with the evolution of effective SAM systems, the effectiveness of high altitude bombing became questionable. They were briefly retasked as low level penetrator bombers, and performed the black buck sorties on the falklands, but that was a role the Tornado would eventually take up at the end of the 80's.

Essentially, with stand off weapons, guided munitions, increasingly adaptable and effective Sub platforms, multirole aircraft, I just don't personally understand the dedicated bomber doctrine, but would welcome some grounded reasonings?

Ordie
01-15-2012, 10:39 AM
Essentially, with stand off weapons, guided munitions, increasingly adaptable and effective Sub platforms, multirole aircraft, I just don't personally understand the dedicated bomber doctrine, but would welcome some grounded reasonings?

A bomber does only one thing. (Dump bombs)

A carrier can do many things.

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 10:55 AM
Those are hardly the only nations on this globe,


Given that the US, Russia, and the UK are the only nations who've ever HAD heavy bombers they're the only ones that matter. (Germany in WWII had medium bombers for the most part.)




I just don't personally understand the dedicated bomber doctrine, but would welcome some grounded reasonings?

Range, payload, versatility.

The Dane
01-15-2012, 11:27 AM
A bomber does only one thing. (Dump bombs)

A carrier can do many things.

B-2 have proven themselves a lot of times in Afghanistan. Especially during operations where top cover over a longer periode of time is needed. They can stay on station for a very long time and deliver incredibel firepower when needed.. and there by doing the same job that you would otherwise need several smaller fighterjets for.

Awesome bird..

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 11:48 AM
A bomber does only one thing. (Dump bombs)

A carrier can do many things.

Again, spoken like a navy man.

_GDS_
01-15-2012, 11:57 AM
in the video they mentioned "China Lake", i wonder what did they mean:
the company or actual lake?

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 01:26 PM
in the video they mentioned "China Lake", i wonder what did they mean:
the company or actual lake?

China Lake is where the USN tests it's weapon systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Weapons_Station_China_Lake

The Dane
01-15-2012, 01:42 PM
I wonder if they have been modified for delivering GBU-39's yet??

Soldat_Américain
01-15-2012, 02:29 PM
How about they invest in actual tactical aircraft...you know something that can take a hit and strafe multiple times...whilst if need be still be able to bug out.

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 02:37 PM
A bomber does only one thing. (Dump bombs)

A carrier can do many things.The majority of 'things' a carrier can do, it can only do because it carries bombers. It cannot attack inland targets the way long-range bombers can, limiting its power projection envelope to a few hundred miles inland at most.

Today's battle plans mainly have a single ultimate method of achieving the objective; putting ordnance on target. The primary platform for doing that these days is obviously aircraft; i.e., bombers (including attack aircraft). Missiles have not yet been able to replace manned bombers.

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 02:48 PM
How about they invest in actual tactical aircraft...you know something that can take a hit and strafe multiple times...whilst if need be still be able to bug out.

See what B-1s have been doing in Afghanistan for your answer.

scrybe
01-15-2012, 02:56 PM
How about they invest in actual tactical aircraft...you know something that can take a hit and strafe multiple times...whilst if need be still be able to bug out.

They did, kind of. They just picked up that little prop-plane dealy they use for drug trafficking intervention in South America.

Edit: Embraer Super Tuscano (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/check-out-the-super-tucano-counterinsurgency-fighter-plane-in-action/)

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 03:21 PM
Oh I'm aware of that, hence the point about 'future threats'. However, I still find their requirement questionable/interesting. Other nations have long forgone the use of dedicated bombers, especially with the advent of Guided Munitions. Besides capacity (or not?), what does a, say, B52 bring to the table that a sub platform with TLAMs doesn't?

(Please bear in mind that I'm questioning, not arguing. I.e. I'd rather enjoy hearing why they're still useful, given my relative inexperience on the matter)Large bombers can deliver a massive, crushing area bombardment repeatedly and cost-effectively, and can do so literally from the other side of the globe. Cruise missiles are great for high-value non-mobile pinpoint targets, but not so good for area targets like dispersed and dug-in troops or an extensive system of fortifications. Also, you might read up a little on the psychological effect on enemy troops of being on the receiving end of a B-52 strike.

Our heavy bombers have also been used for their ability to loiter over the battlefield for very long periods of time. In Afghanistan, B-52s sit on station overhead for ten hours or more at a time. They carry JDAMs, and respond instantly to requests from ground troops for strike missions. It must be extremely comforting for our guys to know that they have JDAMs on tap within a few minutes whenever needed.

An additional task that can only be performed by big platforms like the B-2, B-1B and B-52 is destroying fortified deep underground facilities. Heavy bombers are the only platforms that can deliver our large 'bunker buster' bombs for attacking deep reinforced bunker facilities. Cruise missiles cannot do that. The only other option is ICBMs with penetrating nuclear warheads, and the drawbacks there are painfully obvious. If an attack on Iran by us is launched, B-2s carrying the GBU-57A/B 'massive ordnance penetrator' 30,000 lb. bomb and GBU-28 'bunker buster' 5000 lb. bomb will be one of our most important weapons systems for crushing Iran's nuclear weapons production capabilities.

Another mission that only bombers can realistically do is hunting mobile missiles. An enemy is going to position mobile missiles as deep as possible within their defended airspace. The mobile missile carrier vehicles will only expose themselves briefly to set up and fire. In such a scenario, we would be using B-2s stationed overhead to perform the sort of direct surveillance and instant response with precision guided weapons that can successfully engage such weapons systems. Even if a mobile missile system were detected by satellite surveillance, by the time the intel was passed to an offshore ship that could launch a TLAM, the enemy missile would be fired and the carrier vehicle would have already scooted back under cover to reload before the TLAM could arrive at the target's location. Stealthy long-range penetration bombers are the only realistic option for hunting mobile missiles at the present time. If we are forced to attack Iran, again this capability will be a vital part of the operation.

One other point.... A sub firing TLAMs can deliver a fearsome amount of firepower. But we only have a few converted Ohio-class cruise missile carrying subs. Other attack subs can carry a dozen TLAMs, but they do not have the massive firepower of the Ohio-class platform. However, we have an even better method of bringing that kind of force to bear on a rapidly developing situation. All of our enemies know that we can have several B-52s or B-1Bs, each loaded with literally dozens of stealthy cruise missiles just outside their air defense zone in a matter of a few hours, no matter where they are in the world. The ability to bring such tremendous precision firepower to bear so very quickly is a powerful deterrent to something like, say, a surprise invasion of Taiwan, or an invasion of the south by the norks. The knowledge that your whole nation's command structure, infrastructure, military supply system and transportation grid, as well as armored columns and troop concentrations can be laid waste between breakfast and lunch on a moment's notice definitely keeps the ambitions of many dangerous national leaders in check.

The Navy and smaller ground attack aircraft can do a lot, but they just cannot replace long-range bombers. Our NATO allies can afford to get rid of their long-range bombers because they know we will be there to do that mission where it is required.

Ordie
01-15-2012, 04:57 PM
^^^^^
A Navy P-3C can do even more than a bomber.

It can stay aloft for 14 hours without refueling.

It has 18 hard points for bombing.

It can drop paratroops.

It can act as a recon aircraft.

It can act as a communications and command aircraft.

It can brew a nice cup a coffee.

And it has a crapper to take a dump.

All in the same mission.

Can a B-1 do all that?

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 05:03 PM
^^^^^
A Navy P-3C can do even more than a bomber.

It can stay aloft for 14 hours without refueling.

It has 18 hard points for bombing.

It can drop paratroops.

It can act as a recon aircraft.

It can act as a communications and command aircraft.

It can brew a nice cup a coffee.

And it has a crapper to take a dump.

All in the same mission.

Can a B-1 do all that?

A B-1B can break Mach 1, fly at 50,000 feet, and swing it's wings back and forth. Can a P-3 do that? Oh and it can blow big afterburner flames too. Can a P-3 do that? :roll:

The Dane
01-15-2012, 05:07 PM
^^^^^
A Navy P-3C can do even more than a bomber.

It can stay aloft for 14 hours without refueling.

It has 18 hard points for bombing.

It can drop paratroops.

It can act as a recon aircraft.

It can act as a communications and command aircraft.

It can brew a nice cup a coffee.

And it has a crapper to take a dump.

All in the same mission.

Can a B-1 do all that?

It can't attack target's(on land) on its own(no targeting pod).. but it would be very cool if it could! :)
But I would probably rather spend the money on a new AC-130J.. when talking about big turboprops.

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 05:09 PM
^^^^^
A Navy P-3C can do even more than a bomber.

It can stay aloft for 14 hours without refueling.

It has 18 hard points for bombing.

It can drop paratroops.

It can act as a recon aircraft.

It can act as a communications and command aircraft.

It can brew a nice cup a coffee.

And it has a crapper to take a dump.

All in the same mission.

Can a B-1 do all that?I assume you are joking, as such an utterly retarded post could not possibly be meant seriously.

Ordie
01-15-2012, 05:20 PM
I was a P-3 air crewman for 5 years.

We've done all of the things I've mentioned. Including taking a crap.

Its a versatile aircraft.

Ordie
01-15-2012, 05:24 PM
A B-1B can break Mach 1, fly at 50,000 feet, and swing it's wings back and forth. Can a P-3 do that? Oh and it can blow big afterburner flames too. Can a P-3 do that? :roll:

Why do you need Mach 1 when the Taleban can barely run?

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 05:30 PM
Why do you need Mach 1 when the Taleban can barely run?

Do you think the Taliban are the only people we need concern ourselves with for the next 40 years? Sounds remarkably short-sighted.

toad
01-15-2012, 05:33 PM
See what B-1s have been doing in Afghanistan for your answer.


x2



already proving their worth.

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 05:44 PM
So he was serious. Astonishing! :cantbeli:

The Dane
01-15-2012, 05:44 PM
The only downside I can see on the B-1 is its maintance.. very demanding bird in that regard. It takes 50 hours work on the ground keeping it flying for 1 hour.. But it offers some capabilities that can't be neglected(massive attack-fast response) and is today, with recent years upgrades, very versatile. So it makes good sense keeping a good number of them operational IMO..

bravosixniner
01-15-2012, 06:50 PM
x2



already proving their worth.

Not anything that a fighter couldn't do more efficiently. Need to provide air support ASAP? Use a Strike Eagle. Need something to loiter? Use an A-10. Loiter and recon even longer? A Predator parked overhead with Hellfires.

B-1s are there but their not needed. Unless the situation changes and Terrys start doing NVA style frontal attacks coming over the Pakistan borders in waves then theres no real need for them. The Taliban aren't fools, they know asymmetric warfare. The usefulness of B-1 is negated by them operating in small numbers, blending in with civilians and hitting us at our weakest with the use of IEDs.

Rakki
01-15-2012, 06:58 PM
And once a sub fires all of its TLAMs, what happens next? How long is the reloading cycle?

While a carrier can indeed launch air strikes, it takes a lot more fighters to deliver the same bomb load as a dedicated bomber. If you want to try match that load, you are going to need more sorties, more tanker support.... and you are still not going to reach the same range.

And the US has not gone up against an opponent with a tough air defense system for a long time... Iraq put up the hardest fight so far during Desert Storm, and that wasn't saying much.... And while a B-2 can deliver the same bomb load and the same range, if some trick of the radar does manage to "break" the stealth, it's a dead duck.

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 07:01 PM
Not anything that a fighter couldn't do more efficiently.

You should let the USAF know. They seem to disagree with you. :lol:

Ordie
01-15-2012, 07:04 PM
More smart weapons= fewer sorties from a carrier.

So much so, the firepower of a 1970's carrier air group is is equivilant to half an air group today.

We may see a smaller carrier air group with a large deck for flexibility.

The Dane
01-15-2012, 07:04 PM
Not anything that a fighter couldn't do more efficiently. Need to provide air support ASAP? Use a Strike Eagle. Need something to loiter? Use an A-10. Loiter and recon even longer? A Predator parked overhead with Hellfires.

B-1s are there but their not needed. Unless the situation changes and Terrys start doing NVA style frontal attacks coming over the Pakistan borders in waves then theres no real need for them. The Taliban aren't fools, they know asymmetric warfare. The usefulness of B-1 is negated by them operating in small numbers, blending in with civilians and hitting us at our weakest with the use of IEDs.

I know that the situation on the ground have changed.. but I can name quite a few situations in 2006/2007 where B-1 capabilities was much appreciated, when ISAF moved into Helmand. The one I know best of is when UK an DK units defended the city center in Musa Qaleh. But.. they were also attacked almost constantly and in the begining also by frontal attacks by relatively large taliban groups. The B-1's were at least praised highly be the Danes for their ability stay on station and drop bombs or just show of force. A B-1 just doing a high speed low level is a mighty, scary for the enemy hopefully, experience!

Edit: similar situations in Sangin, Now Sad, Gereshk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 07:10 PM
More smart weapons= fewer sorties from a carrier.

So much so, the firepower of a 1970's carrier air group is is equivilant to half an air group today.

We may see a smaller carrier air group with a large deck for flexibility.

We're already seeing that. Today's airgroup is only about 2/3 what it was back in the day. Used to have ~90 aircraft deployed on a carrier, now it's more like 60-ish.

Ordie
01-15-2012, 07:12 PM
You should let the USAF know. They seem to disagree with you. :lol:

How many B-17 equals to one F-15E.?

How many Vietnam era F-4's equals to one F-15E.?

How many B-1 Equals to one F-15?

Can they all trump the B-52 in terms of capacity, range and numbers of sorties?

Elbs
01-15-2012, 07:14 PM
More smart weapons= fewer sorties from a carrier.

So much so, the firepower of a 1970's carrier air group is is equivilant to half an air group today.

We may see a smaller carrier air group with a large deck for flexibility.


How many bombs is a Super Hornet going to lug around considering the ranges involved in keeping a CVBG away from shore? And what are you going to refuel them with? The KA-6s are gone. The S-3s are gone. Unless you're near USAF tanker support (in which case, might as well use organic AF assets anyway) left refueling strike packages with your own Super Hornets. You end up with a smaller strike package.

Sorry. Carriers are useful, but long range bombers offer a set of capabilities that is hard to match and they're not going away for a while.

Elbs
01-15-2012, 07:16 PM
How many B-17 equals to one F-15E.?

How many Vietnam era F-4's equals to one F-15E.?

How many B-1 Equals to one F-15?

Can they all trump the B-52 in terms of capacity, range and numbers of sorties?

Consider that by 2009-ish, B-1s had dropped 40% of the bombs over Afghanistan while flying less than 10% of the sorties.

Ordie
01-15-2012, 07:16 PM
We're already seeing that. Today's airgroup is only about 2/3 what it was back in the day. Used to have ~90 aircraft deployed on a carrier, now it's more like 60-ish.

Makes sense.

The Dane
01-15-2012, 07:18 PM
Consider that by 2009-ish, B-1s had dropped 40% of the bombs over Afghanistan while flying less than 10% of the sorties.

That's what I'm talking about! ^_^
Didn't know the numbers.. Impressive!!

Ordie
01-15-2012, 07:19 PM
How many bombs is a Super Hornet going to lug around considering the ranges involved in keeping a CVBG away from shore? And what are you going to refuel them with? The KA-6s are gone. The S-3s are gone. Unless you're near USAF tanker support (in which case, might as well use organic AF assets anyway) left refueling strike packages with your own Super Hornets. You end up with a smaller strike package.

Sorry. Carriers are useful, but long range bombers offer a set of capabilities that is hard to match and they're not going away for a while.

FA-18E Super Bug tankers that can fly at the same speed as the FA-18E.
The smarter the weapons, the fewer you need them.

The Dane
01-15-2012, 09:02 PM
FA-18E Super Bug tankers that can fly at the same speed as the FA-18E.
The smarter the weapons, the fewer you need them.

Yeah.. if the enemy keep being as stupid as you think they are, and don't develop. But.. that's not possible; digg the dude up and ask him yourself(The dude: Darwin)!

C.Puffs
01-15-2012, 09:42 PM
How many B-17 equals to one F-15E.?

How many Vietnam era F-4's equals to one F-15E.?

How many B-1 Equals to one F-15?

Can they all trump the B-52 in terms of capacity, range and numbers of sorties?

You keep thinking in "we're only fighting cavemen" terms. Myopic, and that's being charitable.

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 09:56 PM
Iran

2014: The Supreme Leader of the Ruling Council, Ali Khamenei, has died (some say he was poisoned). A new extremely radical imam has become the third Supreme Leader. Iran exploded its first nuclear device in 2012, and now has a production line turning out weaponized nuclear warheads for its Shalab 3 IRBMs and converted C802 cruise missiles. The Supreme Leader, believing he has been chosen to bring about 'the time of the Hidden Imam', orders immediate preparations for a massive strike on Israel, Saudi Arabia, several other Arab Gulf states, and American military facilities and assets in the region. Mossad finds out about the plan and notifies Washington. The President orders a conventional strike aimed at eliminating Iran's capability to produce or deliver nuclear weapons, and destroying their nuclear and missile research facilities.

The Navy orders its Mediterranean carrier battle groups to steam to the Arabian Gulf. Their planes will be limited to attacking only coastal southern Iran, as carriers transiting the Straits of Hormuz is far too risky. The single American carrier group in the Gulf is ordered to remain in port at Quatar to avoid the danger of submarines, prelaid sea floor mines and stealthy small missile boats.

B-2 bombers are loaded with massive ordnance penetrator and bunker buster bombs to attack nuclear facilities in deep underground reinforced bunkers. Other B-2s and B1-Bs are loaded with JDAMs to hunt mobile missiles and attack inland facilities. As the bombers head for Iran, drones are sent in from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and Afghanistan, and satellites tasked, both to attempt to locate mobile missiles. Air Force F-15Es and Navy F/A-18s with EA-18Gs in Quatar and Saudi Arabia are tasked with finishing the SEAD mission, sinking Iran's naval assets and attacking power plants, C3I installations and Republican Guards barracks, all along the coastal regions of Iran. They cannot penetrate inland because of the density of Iranian air defenses, and the fact that they are keeping most of their RADARs turned off and SAM launchers hidden until America aircraft are overhead.

All the deep strikes on all targets are handled by heavy bombers for the hard and mobile targets, and cruise missiles for softer stationary targets launched by Navy assets from Quatar, the Gulf of Arabia and the eastern Med. Air Force F-15 and F-16s are tasked with stopping any cruise missiles launched from Iran, while Patriot batteries and Aegis cruisers and destroyers target any ballistic missiles that are successfully launched.

In the initial strike, the huge penetrating bombs dropped by B-2s completely destroy underground facilities. The B-2s and B-1Bs run rotating missions, keeping bombers overhead at all times to swat mobile missile launchers the moment they come out of hiding. Intel provided by Kurd separatist rebels and specops teams helps pinpoint missile vehicles for the bombers overhead. The mobile missiles are taken out, one by one. The Iranian plan to launch a nuclear attack is thwarted. Without the heavy bombers, the mission could not have succeeded.
----------

North Korea

2015: The new leader, Kim Jong Un, proves to be more liberal than any of the old hardline generals can stomach, slowly but steadily instituting social, economic and democratic reforms. The generals decide that the only way to honor the ideals of the revolution is to launch a military coup, and then invade the south and reunify the entire Korean peninsula under Communist Party rule, kicking out the Americans once and for all.

As the coup unfolds and Kim Jong Un is captured and executed, American forces go on alert. Carrier battle groups are deployed to the Yellow Sea and the western Sea of Japan, and Marine expeditionary forces steam for South Korea. The 82nd and 101 Airborne and 2nd Mountain Division are airlifted to Kusan Airbase. As North Korean forces mass on the border, the American President, in cooperation with the President of South Korea, orders a preemptive strike on North Korea.

The strike and its limitations are similar to the Iranian scenario above. The carriers must maintain a certain distance from the shore due to the danger of minisubs and prelaid sea bottom mines. Carrier aircraft lack the range to penetrate deep into the northern part of North Korea to and loiter there to attack the mobile missiles. They lack the capacity to destroy the hardened silos and deep bunkers that cruise missiles cannot deal with. As IRBMs and ICBMs are launched, they are taken out by Aegis cruisers and destroyers,. Their launch locations pinpointed, the heavy bombers circling overhead immediately move in and destroy the hidden silos or mobile launchers. B-52s rain down huge amounts of ordnance on the troops and armor massed on the border, with the South Koreans attacking the smaller units and survivors who push across the border. B-52s with JADAMs remain on station over the border region for weeks as isolated groups of fanatical North Korean commandos and other small units that refuse to surrender are slowly mopped up. Again, the mission would have failed and the missile sites could not have been taken out without the heavy bombers.
----------

China/Taiwan

2017: In the 2016 elections, the pro-independence faction won big and swept into power. The new Taiwanese President has submitted a bill declaring independence from China to the Yuan (legislature), and it looks like it is certain to pass. The Chinese government is infuriated, and orders the PLA to put together an invasion plan. There are intel rumblings about a possible Chinese military reaction, but nothing definitive. The Chinese government orders combined force military maneuvers, which the American and Taiwanese governments assume are merely posturing.

The first real sign of trouble is massive additional troop movements towards China port cities close the Straits of Taiwan. The American President orders three additional carrier battle groups to steam for Japan. Satellite photos show that every coastal and river ferry on the coast is also moving towards the Straits, along with a large number of cargo ships. All of China's submarines put out to sea, and air patrols increase dramatically. Ferries begin loading troops and mobile tactical ballistic missile launchers start to roll out of their shelters and set up for launch. Two of the three additional carrier groups are a couple days away.

The attack begins with a saturation barrage of missiles against selected targets on Taiwan, and an heavy artillery bombardment of the islands of Quemoy and Kinmen. Some of the missiles are intercepted, but most get though. Airports, airbases, naval bases, ports, military storage yards, vehicle depots and more are heavily damaged. Many Taiwanese Air Force aircraft are destroyed on the ground, and some navy ships are damaged in port. Air attacks from the mainland begin in earnest as the invasion fleet moves out from Chinese ports into the Straits.

The carriers, as they approached Japan, came under attack by Chinese ballistic missile antiship weapons. Almost all of these were shot down by Aegis air defense systems, but one warhead got through, striking the flight deck of the U.S.S. George Bush and putting it out of action. Our attack subs are knocking off Chinese diesel subs one by one, but have been unable to penetrate the sub screen far enough to attack the invasion fleet.

The President orders the carriers to withdraw, and orders B1-B and B-52 bombers from Guam to attack. The bombers are carrying 500 and 2000 pound LASER-guided bombs. They come in behind a screen of F-22s launched from Japan and F-35s that have flown from our carriers to Taiwan. Drones designate targets. The bombers start dropping their dozens of bombs, one by one. Each bomb takes out a ship. Soon there are literally hundreds of ships burning and sinking, and thousands of men and bodies in the water.

Meanwhile, several flights of B2s have been destroying mobile missile launchers along the Chinese coast en masse, leaving them as piles of twisted, flaming wreckage. Cruise missiles from Navy ships and subs have strewn Chinese runways with cratering munitions and attacked hardened aircraft shelters, ending the bombing attacks and removing the fighter screens protecting them and the invasion fleet.

When it becomes undeniable that the invasion force is being decimated, the tactical ballistic missile launchers are silenced and air assets are grounded or destroyed, the Chinese admiral in charge of the fleet orders a full retreat. The invasion has failed. Again, without the heavy bombers, it could not have been repelled.
----------

Of course, P-3 Orions could have solved all three scenarios because they have a galley and a crapper. But then, the B-2 has a galley and crapper as well, and even makes a nice cup of coffee. Do not tell Ordie! It will break his heart. :lol:

The Dane
01-15-2012, 10:11 PM
^ Wow.. Impressive post to answer Ordie :) Especially since he's probably piss drunk by drinking rum! :P
B-1's time is runing out, but can easily see them in service for another decade. or so..

The Dane
01-15-2012, 10:25 PM
^ Wow.. Impressive post to answer Ordie :) Especially since he's probably piss drunk by drinking rum! :P
B-1's time is runing out, but can easily see them in service for another decade. or so..

B-1 and B-2's joint capabilities should be replaced by a supersonic stealthy long range bomber..(that are 'easy and cheap' to keep flying, compared to the current bomber force.. B-2, B-1.. AND B-52.

B-1's other capabilities(CAS) should be replaced together with AC-130H(and older versions), with a decent number of new AC-130's that can deliver both 'small'(30-40mm(Bushmaster 2-3 or 4) projectiles, 120mm gun(possiblility of using guided rounds, based on a 3 meter mortar barrel) plus a large number of smart SDW's(underwing).

Edit : And at least one targeting pod.. two would be awesome(and operators for each of course)

Edit2 : when the platform is developed, I amuse that a multi-mode SDW is available(GPS and Laser - like GBU-49).

Edit33: LOVE B-1.. best looking bomber ever. Saw 2 B-1's flying low-level(fast, but subsonic) when I was on my bicycle, heading home(to my village from a farm a couple of miles away from home)after playing with a friend at his families place(big farm=fun!).

They almost blew us of the road(Johnny was there also)... It's almost 25 years ago, I recall now :( Time, goes fast! But.. those two totally blew my mind. Seen some them on air shows since.. not quite the same!

Ought Six
01-15-2012, 10:35 PM
I think the next generation bomber will be a large aircraft that carries not only bombs and missiles, but a lot of expendable drones as well that act as decoys, strike and defensive craft. Imagine a bunch of stealthy drones descending down in front of the penetrating bomber, jamming enemy RADARs and comms, attacking RADAR sites, SAM sites and enemy fighters; even launching counter-missiles to shoot down enemy long-range AAMs and SAMs.

Another interesting heavy, long-range aircraft idea would be a stealthy, very high altitude aircraft or drone that can carry a sh1tload of long-range AAMs and a nice sensor package, including an LPI RADAR. It can sit up there above the air battlespace plinking enemy aircraft from on high. It would be quite the air dominance force multiplier.

Then again, perhaps I have been reading too much Dale Brown.

Oh, and the correct term for what Ordie is getting hammered on is grog, matey. :D

kjerdman
01-18-2012, 05:02 AM
FA-18E Super Bug tankers that can fly at the same speed as the FA-18E.
The smarter the weapons, the fewer you need them.

I know the Rhino can refuel the other planes on a 1 for 1 basis, but what does this extend the combat radius too?

goose36
01-18-2012, 05:14 AM
B-1 and B-2's joint capabilities should be replaced by a supersonic stealthy long range bomber..(that are 'easy and cheap' to keep flying, compared to the current bomber force.. B-2, B-1.. AND B-52.

B-1's other capabilities(CAS) should be replaced together with AC-130H(and older versions), with a decent number of new AC-130's that can deliver both 'small'(30-40mm(Bushmaster 2-3 or 4) projectiles, 120mm gun(possiblility of using guided rounds, based on a 3 meter mortar barrel) plus a large number of smart SDW's(underwing).

Edit : And at least one targeting pod.. two would be awesome(and operators for each of course)

Edit2 : when the platform is developed, I amuse that a multi-mode SDW is available(GPS and Laser - like GBU-49).

Edit33: LOVE B-1.. best looking bomber ever. Saw 2 B-1's flying low-level(fast, but subsonic) when I was on my bicycle, heading home(to my village from a farm a couple of miles away from home)after playing with a friend at his families place(big farm=fun!).

They almost blew us of the road(Johnny was there also)... It's almost 25 years ago, I recall now :( Time, goes fast! But.. those two totally blew my mind. Seen some them on air shows since.. not quite the same!


pretty sure AC-130 only operates at night.

-Max2-
01-18-2012, 08:45 AM
More smart weapons= fewer sorties from a carrier.

So much so, the firepower of a 1970's carrier air group is is equivilant to half an air group today.

Weapons may be more accurate but the payload and range of the aircraft carrying them decreased. The ability to haul large bombloads over long distances is now an ability which todays carriers dont have anymore since the retirement of the A-6 and F-14. The current all-F/A-18 air wing is too short legged and can barely project power. In Afghanistan where persistence is paramount can it get to the fight and stay there with just CVW assets ? Nope, the Navy cant play without Air Force tanker assets.

The Dane
01-18-2012, 10:57 AM
pretty sure AC-130 only operates at night.

Depends on the threat level. It's being used during daytime in Afghanistan, when needed..

James
01-18-2012, 10:52 PM
See what B-1s have been doing in Afghanistan for your answer.

A couple of years ago while in A'Stan we were getting hit pretty frequently from the Pak border. During one engagement I was observing the area when there was a huge explosion. I later learned that some SF guys near by had called in a B-1 which dropped a 2000 lb. JDAM. The aircraft itself was so high we never saw nor hear it.

Now that I am sitting safe at home, I can understand why some might say that wasn't the most economical use of the platform, but when things were a little heated over there it was very comforting to know that we had such support.

The Dane
01-18-2012, 11:01 PM
Edit. nvm...

mkellytx
01-19-2012, 12:07 AM
in the video they mentioned "China Lake", i wonder what did they mean:
the company or actual lake?


China Lake is the range up further north in the high desert just north of Edwards. It's part of the 2508 range and out in the middle of nowhere, hence you can drop live bombs and blow stuff up. Once upon a time I actually conducted a number of missions on said range, until I found too many Cat I DR's... The answer to your question is that CL is the closest place to Edwards that you can play with live ordinance in a realistic way.

Bomber Tester

mkellytx
01-19-2012, 12:23 AM
^^^^^
A Navy P-3C can do even more than a bomber.

It can stay aloft for 14 hours without refueling.


Ditto with the Bone, with AR 24-30hr is the norm. Only real limitation is crew rest.



It has 18 hard points for bombing.


24 2,000# class weapons, up to 84 500# bombs or naval mines.



It can drop paratroops.


Got me there, but better to sit in a rocket seat ;)



It can act as a recon aircraft.


Really good DAS, TGP with ROVER and other data links. OK for recon



It can act as a communications and command aircraft.


Probably not as many com lines, but 4 A/C with OTH capability is better than a fighter...



It can brew a nice cup a coffee.


Any self respecting aircrew these days would bring a thermos of good coffee. That said, you can brew coffee on a Bone, they even used to have ash trays...



And it has a crapper to take a dump.


So does a Bone, but general bomber etiquate is that the first person to dump buys the rest of the crew dinner. It's a chemical flush toliet.



All in the same mission.

Can a B-1 do all that?

Most, but not all. Let's see a P-3 do a rapid reaction and transit supersonic and self designate a laser JDAM on a moving target...

Bomber Tester

James
01-19-2012, 04:29 AM
Crap Puff?.. **** him.
He can read, and that's that..
Try him 1-1.. I'm ready-

Soon(or tomorrow) :..

While I'm not quite sure how to translate your post, it seems pretty insulting. Please refrain from such in the future.

Kaplanr
01-19-2012, 08:58 AM
I hear CAS, I think of Skyraiders and Corsairs getting low and close - like an A10. Isn't using a B1 for CAS like using an Abrams to deliver the mail?

kjerdman
01-19-2012, 01:54 PM
I hear CAS, I think of Skyraiders and Corsairs getting low and close - like an A10. Isn't using a B1 for CAS like using an Abrams to deliver the mail?

Not really. The Bone has terrain-following navigation modes, doppler navigation, radar altimeters, and inertial navigation suites. It can get in low. In some instances in Afghanistan, they weren't even used to launch bombs, and would just fly in low and scare the s*** out of the Taliban.

But in general, when you have a platform like the Bone and it has it's targeting systems, just like other comments have said, it can fly high and still deliver accurate munitions.

dbamil
01-19-2012, 02:02 PM
IF NKorea did somehow go crazy and launched a full scale attack against S Korea, B-1 with close air support capability will be crucial. Things will happen quickly and being able to get a few B-1s with dozens of bombs that can fly in directly from US, loiter around a few hours waiting/attacking, within hours or days of the start of a conflict will be crucial. Sure there are bases in Japan/Guam but B-1s would be critical asset to have.

Sure P-3 allows you to take crap but that doesn't matter when S Korean/USFK are in a hot war.

mkellytx
01-19-2012, 11:02 PM
I hear CAS, I think of Skyraiders and Corsairs getting low and close - like an A10. Isn't using a B1 for CAS like using an Abrams to deliver the mail?

Off course even these days A-10's are flying CAS from medium altitudes, especially the C's with the new avionics and TGP's. Low and slow is a great way to get shot up by everyone with an AK... The area where the Bone shines is A-stan since they can be based someplace safer and easier to get gas bombs to that doesn't require the Russians, Pakistanis or airlift. Endurance is better and 4 crew make working radios, TGP's and programing DMPI's a lot easier than the single holers. Rover these days make the low stuff obsolete when the guys on the ground get the same view as the guys in the air. The only time for low are shows of force, which 400 Klbs moving faster than 0.9M at 200 ft AGL is definately more intimidating than a Hog, if they have ear drums after the show...

James
01-20-2012, 02:51 AM
I hear CAS, I think of Skyraiders and Corsairs getting low and close - like an A10. Isn't using a B1 for CAS like using an Abrams to deliver the mail?

Maybe so, but the whole point is to support the people on the ground. I doubt anyone ever said "A B-1? No, never mind, we don't need that. Can we have an F-18 instead?"

Dankster
01-20-2012, 06:20 PM
I can see Ordie's point about using Orions. IMO there is some vaildity to using such aircraft like that in a COIN scenario, but as others have pointed out heavy bombers are useful in many other potential conventional scenarios, in addition to still being useful in their current roles for COIN operations.

The Dane
01-20-2012, 06:31 PM
B-1 show of force in Musa Qaleh(at 0.34 and 1.30), down low

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rD333aKOEw

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 06:34 PM
is that from 2006?

The Dane
01-20-2012, 06:44 PM
is that from 2006?

Yup ... ;)
Pretty crazy operation.

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 06:47 PM
i know.....;-)

The Dane
01-20-2012, 06:50 PM
i know.....;-)

Are you Royal Irish.. or Pathfinder?

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 06:53 PM
not either

Laworkerbee
01-20-2012, 06:54 PM
A couple of years ago while in A'Stan we were getting hit pretty frequently from the Pak border. During one engagement I was observing the area when there was a huge explosion. I later learned that some SF guys near by had called in a B-1 which dropped a 2000 lb. JDAM. The aircraft itself was so high we never saw nor hear it.

Now that I am sitting safe at home, I can understand why some might say that wasn't the most economical use of the platform, but when things were a little heated over there it was very comforting to know that we had such support.

Made me think of Clean in Apocalypse Now; Charlie don't never see them or hear them, man.

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:02 PM
we had them come screaming in low down the valley in sangin in 2006....not show of force though....freaking bombing the F@! outa terry and his mates....did a lot better than some of the RAF pilots we had on call then

i cite this (one of our OC's at the time):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/officer-condemns-rafs-role-in-afghanistan-as-utterly-useless-417140.html

quote: In one of the e-mails, obtained by Sky News, the major gave examples of the failure of air support. "From my point of view, controlling and directing air, arty and mors [artillery and mortars] is the best way to influence the battle," he wrote. "The RAF have been utterly, utterly useless.
"Twice I have had Harriers in support when c/s on the ground have been in heavy contact, on one occasion trying to break clean.
"A female Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorous rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], and then strafed our perimeter missing the enemy by 200 metres."
In contrast to the RAF, the US Air Force had been "fantastic", according to the major.

Laworkerbee
01-20-2012, 07:07 PM
fired two phosphorous rockets

Proof that British forces are using chemical weapons in Afghanistan :lol:

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:10 PM
you trolling again!!

he was a firebrand that major...and his blokes loved him...

anyway,

back on topic!

Pete031
01-20-2012, 07:25 PM
Why do you need Mach 1 when the Taleban can barely run?

This post is retarded. When grounds troops are in contact, they need CAS quick.... I know I owe my life to the USAF, a couple of times over, and 9 times out of 10, it was a B1 coming to our rescue.

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:26 PM
Why do you need Mach 1 when the Taleban can barely run?

so that it can get to you quick for its loiter position....

The Dane
01-20-2012, 07:37 PM
B-1 show of force in Musa Qaleh(at 0.34 and 1.30), down low

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rD333aKOEw

Btw: OT.. but love the UK soldier reponds to Carl Gustav.. lol :D

Edit: Ups.. wasn't supposed to be a new post.. tought I was just editing the original???
Sorry..

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:40 PM
well he prob not understand the danish for "standby-firing!!"...lol

The Dane
01-20-2012, 07:41 PM
well he prob not understand the danish for "standby-firing!!"...lol

No.. think it took him by surprise.. lol ^_^

Pete031
01-20-2012, 07:43 PM
I spent a bit of time in Musah Qaleh before the Brits and Danes got there.... I think there was a Recon platoon from 10th mountain, or 173rd Airborne there.... Sketchy place. Greendzflash, were you in Fob Price by any chance?

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:44 PM
yep...early on...that is one tall tower...took some shots from there.

check my album for pics of fob rob...thats well early though....it defo dont look like that now!!

Pete031
01-20-2012, 07:46 PM
Well, this was before FOB Rob... do you remember, a group of Canadians who went on a long Range Patrol with your PathFinder group?

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:48 PM
no mate soz...

we were going everywhere in 2006...

everyone was werent they!

Pete031
01-20-2012, 07:49 PM
Yeah.... I chatted with a Sniper there, who was from South Africa... I enjoyed working with your guys.

greendzflash
01-20-2012, 07:50 PM
i know him...hes out now
doing CP

Pete031
01-20-2012, 07:51 PM
PM Sent....

The Dane
01-20-2012, 07:56 PM
yep...early on...that is one tall tower...took some shots from there.

check my album for pics of fob rob...thats well early though....it defo dont look like that now!!

I think you guys(UK) will take control of FOB Price next month, again.

On-topic.. I hope Ordie and other sceptics are convinced about keeping the Bone in action now. By foreigner's weirdly enough?
Hehe..