Tell me again why the B-1 has never been able to replace the B-52?

[bigvette]

Sure the B-52 is a workhorse, but why hasn't the B-1 been able to replace the old '52's as was originally intended?

It seems to me that the B1's 4 engines would be better than the B52's eight, and that the range and payload would be just as good as well, when you account for the internal and external capabilities.

Also, I think the B1 has a lot less radar cross section than a B52, so again, is it a matter of the appropriate funds being allocated to the aircraft for the right equipment, (similar as well to the Navy's swing-wing airplane, the F14 and the Delta models for example,) or is the B1 simply just a design that didn't work.

I don't know about you, but I think the B1 is one of the sexiest aircraft in the sky, and after picking up a 1/48 scale model of a B1B I'm finding my self posed with these questions of which I have not the answers.

[bigvette]

Sure the B-52 is a workhorse, but why hasn't the B-1 been able to replace the old '52's as was originally intended?

It seems to me that the B1's 4 engines would be better than the B52's eight, and that the range and payload would be just as good as well, when you account for the internal and external capabilities.

Also, I think the B1 has a lot less radar cross section than a B52, so again, is it a matter of the appropriate funds being allocated to the aircraft for the right equipment, (similar as well to the Navy's swing-wing airplane, the F14 and the Delta models for example,) or is the B1 simply just a design that didn't work.

I don't know about you, but I think the B1 is one of the sexiest aircraft in the sky, and after picking up a 1/48 scale model of a B1B I'm finding my self posed with these questions of which I have not the answers.

[XyZspineZyX]

SPAM:
http://www.airwar.ru/photo/tu160-2/tu160_9.jpg



&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://images.google.fr/images?q=tbnhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gifGUwg4_1gi0C:www.aversi.com.ge/333rd/files/shots/su27crash.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

[XyZspineZyX]

1. It's much more expensive to operate than the B-52.
2. It's less reliable, experiencing lower readiness rates (e.g. during Desert Shield/Storm the entire fleet was grounded) and is cannabalized a lot.
3. It's systems have never worked properly (it had a sophisticated EW system whoose components somehow managed to jam *each other*, oddly enough). After over a decade of trying to fix it, they just out and out gave up a few months ago.
4. The need to penetrate the defenses it was designed to overcome has disappeared (the US won't be going to war with Russia anytime soon).

There's probably more, but bottom line is the Lancer is totally unnecessary for today's missions, which the Stratofortress can do just as well and for a lower price tag.

[XyZspineZyX]

That's one sweet Tu-160 pic.

[XyZspineZyX]

Which DESIGN was earlier, the one of the B-1 or the Tu-160?

[XyZspineZyX]

B-1A construction began in 1972, first flight in 1974. The re-tuned production B-1B flew in 1984, and was operational in 1986.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od13.htm

USSR ordered the Blackjack 1973 in response to the B-1, and the first flight happened late 1981. 36 Blackjacks were built when production stopped in 1992.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm


B1-B's (EDO) electronic defense contract renewed.
http://www.ail.com/03r0522.htm


http://www.nd.edu/~afrotc/photos/AF%20Pics/B2_B1_52.jpg




- I am a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants! - Cain

[bigvette]

Vympel wrote:
- 1. It's much more expensive to operate than the
- B-52.

I've heard this one before, and honestly I just can't figure this one out. The B52 has eight engines and it's airframe and avionics are 25+ years older than B1's. How can it be cheaper to operate? Did the USAF get sold a "hangar queen" that of like the Army and the Apache? If so, than why can't they just take the basic design and re-award it to another defense contractor like Northrop/Grumman (B2,) Boeing, or Lockheed?

When I say the fundamental design, I'm referring to the shape and size of the B1 - it to me looks perfect. Sure, perhaps they have some sh!t componets installed or ran the wires the wrong way, but why cannot this be fixed?

- 2. It's less reliable, experiencing lower readiness
- rates (e.g. during Desert Shield/Storm the entire
- fleet was grounded) and is cannabalized a lot.

Again, how can this be? If the manrfacturer made a POS, than I sure hope we got our money back because results like those are unacceptable. I'll take thke 4 GE F101's over the
eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans - how can 4 engines not be less maintenance and use less fuel than 8?
I thik the B1 is a great platform, and perhaps it just needs to be built by a company who knows what their doing?

- 3. It's systems have never worked properly (it had a
- sophisticated EW system whoose components somehow
- managed to jam *each other*, oddly enough). After
- over a decade of trying to fix it, they just out and
- out gave up a few months ago.

I thought they just received funds for a new EW system? And crap, why in the world if at the very least could they not just use what was in the B52?

- 4. The need to penetrate the defenses it was
- designed to overcome has disappeared (the US won't
- be going to war with Russia anytime soon).

But comparitavely, it can fly the same route with more payload and for longer distnaces than the B52, so what is the problem?


-
- There's probably more, but bottom line is the Lancer
- is totally unnecessary for today's missions, which
- the Stratofortress can do just as well and for a
- lower price tag.


Again, either the manufacturer sold a lemon or something hasn't gone right here.

[XyZspineZyX]

that phote with the B-1, B-2 and the B-52 looks fake (engineerd) the flight directions are not right, they'll collide with eachother if they continue to fly like this.

[bigvette]

Force_Feedback wrote:
- that phote with the B-1, B-2 and the B-52 looks fake
- (engineerd) the flight directions are not right,
- they'll collide with eachother if they continue to
- fly like this.
-

Good call - I agree.

[XyZspineZyX]

Hmm yeah, you're both right - the shot does seem like a fudge. I hadn't even noticed that.

Let me fix that, with a more realistic picture: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stushepherd.homestead.com/files/MonogramB1B2B52.jpg




- I am a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants! - Cain

[XyZspineZyX]

There is a couple of big beefs i have with the B1...

1. That rotary launcher in the bombbay...if your bombing a target do you really want to take multiple passes if your using unguided munitions?

2. When fully laden it cant get over your average mountain. And yes i know that if you reduce the fuel and bomb load you can but what is the point?



________________________________________

If its not broken, make it go faster!

[bigvette]

I love Boeing, both military and commercial, and so I don't mean this in a negative sense, but something tells me for mulitple reasons as to why that if Boeing had produced the B1 than there would be a lot more of them and the B52 would have retired after the first Gulf War.

Here's an ever better question - what can the B2 do so much better than the B1B or even B52 cannot? It would seem to me that such a big plane flying at high altitudes in the days where IRST is as common as it is, I'd rather take my chances in a B1 which at least has some speed and maneuverability.

[XyZspineZyX]

bigvette wrote:
- Here's an ever better question - what can the B2 do
- so much better than the B1B or even B52 cannot?

What can do the F-117
?


&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://images.google.fr/images?q=tbn:EQUsn7DptggC:www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft/bomber/futurebomber_4.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

[XyZspineZyX]

It can drop 2 bombs and fly away hoping not being shot at. (regarding teh F-117)

[XyZspineZyX]

all the problems (i heard at least this weekend at Whiteman AFB, MO) were fixed in like 98 or something, but the friggin higher ups decided that it would not be needed in future wars (as was said earlier) But man what a beeeeaaauuuutiful plane. and loud when right next to ya. but it sux that they did kinda what they did to the F-14, all based at one base (when not in conflict.) at least i think. Read that somewhere. later

[bigvette]

I'd rather have 100 B1s than 20 B2's, but hey, maybe I just don't like the fragility of the B2's.

[XyZspineZyX]

bigvette wrote:
- I just don't like the fragility of the B2's.

That's kind of irrelevant if no one can shoot at it.

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];} var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1) var o=a[i]}o.src="http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/blank.gif"</script>

[XyZspineZyX]

Hey jetmanf14 I was at Whiteman this past weekend too. IIRC B-1s are now located at two bases: Dyess (like the bird at the show) and Ellsworth.

The B-1 is awesome, but it usually shows up at just about every airshow. Nowhere other than Whiteman can a person see a B-2 on static display, multiple flybys, takeoffs, landings, etc. Needless to say I spent most of my time Spirit-watching.

[XyZspineZyX]

Project88 wrote:
- The B-1 is awesome, but it usually shows up at just
- about every airshow. Nowhere other than Whiteman
- can a person see a B-2 on static display, multiple
- flybys, takeoffs, landings, etc. Needless to say I
- spent most of my time Spirit-watching.

Well for me, the B2 is not a plane is Boomerang..
B52 is Ugly monstruosity. An now the only good looking plane is B1, and they want to get rid of it?
That is plain Stupid.Form all US bomber , B1 is more adapted to low level attacks with precision munitions, even with dumb bombs. I just don't get it why get rid of it...Perhaps because its development cost where emeberasing for the Congress? Who knows...

Any way, Some one asked about B1 rotary launcher. Correct me if I am wrong but B2 also have rotary bomb bay.I can't see any problem with a rotary launcher with dumb bombs.

[XyZspineZyX]

Hmmm bombing slow? I think the B1 can create a hell of a rainshower.

http://www.airwar.ru/photo/b1/small/b1_03.jpg

http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/cfd/CFD4/New_Page/Pics/b1b+mult_stores.gif


Low altitude flying or fake?

http://nsgsun.aae.uiuc.edu/students/leodir/airplane/b1b.jpg


Board didn't allow it, so call me Sweeper.

[XyZspineZyX]

That last pic is fake, it has been discussed before, a couple of months ago.

[XyZspineZyX]

even if you don't believe the b-1 costs more than the b-52 to operate, you have to believe that the cost of each individual plane matters. at about six times the cost of a b-52, the b-1 only has slightly greater payload capacity, and less range. one would have a hard time convincing anybody that the b-1 is a better 'bang for the buck', so to speak.

the b-52 of today has modern avionics and weapons systems. you don't actually think that it has remained completely unchanged for the past five decades, do you? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[bigvette]

Again, I really think it is coming down to politics and budget. If the B1 was built by Boeing or Lockheed, it wouldn't be on its way out.

The plane was built to replace the B52 - and I think it does. Just like the F14, if they had built as many B1's as they did B52's spares and parts would not be an issue.

You think range is an isse? There is not a single target the B1 cannot hit that a B52 can with aerial refueling. As the B2 and Super Hornet have shown, if you have tankers, range is really not an important factor anymore.

The Air Force is facing budget crunches with it's F22 program, and it really saddens me when I read many intelligent Air Force officers who support further reducing the numbers of the F22.

Just like the B2, when you spend as much money R&D'ing the damn thing, you justify that exhorbant amount of money on the # of platforms you intend to buy. When you cut that intended # of platforms down to 10% of your original #'s, you have a platform that never would have been given approval to be developed for that exhorbant amount of money.

Well, the USAF can't get rid of their "Glass Jaw" B2's just yet, because the taxpayer paid 10X for each aircraft and they be damned sure to get their monies worth. Cutting back on any F22's at this point is just not acceptable, and so when it comes down to B52's vs. B1's, if the bottom line is that the B52 is cheaper, it stays.

I argue that the B52 is only cheaper because there were far many more built and thus parts are more readily accessible, as well as it's been around a lot longer and so more and familiar with it's maintenance. On top of that, the Boeing lobby has been hard at work ever since the B52 first flew nearly 50 years ago and you can rest assure that if there is money to be made for Boeing by extending the age of the aircraft, than they will be there to put up a fight. It's the Boeing way.

All I'm saying is that the B1 may meet the same fate as the F14 did. Sure, they made a few F14D's but most of them were powered by the wrong engine for their entire lifetime. In my opinion, the F14 will always be the plane that never was. Unfortunately, that is sounding like the new slogan for the B1, too.

[Charlie_52ndVFW]

- 1. That rotary launcher in the bombbay...if your
- bombing a target do you really want to take multiple
- passes if your using unguided munitions?

That thing will spit out the bombs in a heartbeat. Hydrolic controlled.... it just rolls and drops. Very quick.

- 2. When fully laden it cant get over your average
- mountain. And yes i know that if you reduce the
- fuel and bomb load you can but what is the point?

Well. most bombers take off with enough fuel to make it to altitute and meet up with the tanker. Its not practical to load it full for take off.

When my family lived in N. Dakota in the old days (1970's), we looked out of our base house, across the street, across a small field, and onto the runway. This was an excellent view when they did their scrambles. The Darts would be off in a heart beat, the tankers would roll, then the Buffs would roll. By the time the second buff was in the air, the runway and take off pattern would just be a black high way of smoke. The Buff's in the rear wouldnt be able to see a dang thing for quite a while after take off.

Anyway, moral of the story... tankers go off first and fuel them once they are in route to the bad guys home.

Also: If you look at the statistics for OIF (the are around the net), I think it was 145 KC-135's were used for OIF. Roughly 80 some off of them were from Diego Garcia alone and quite a few from the Europe bases. These were specifically for the buffs, lancers, and spirits.


http://www.52ndvfw.com/52ndCharlie.jpg (http://www.52ndvfw.com)

[XyZspineZyX]

at least they are trying to scrap them
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/tile.ashx?t=1&s=12&x=643&y=4446&z=12
http://www.thepepper.com/tucson_airplane_graveyard_pic.jpg

http://www.modern-ruins.com/boneyard/b52nose3.jpg

http://www.modern-ruins.com/boneyard/b52s3.jpg

http://www.virtualtucsonmagazine.com/vtmsections/valleypages/valleyimages/b53gilo.jpg

http://www.virtualtucsonmagazine.com/vtmsections/valleypages/valleyimages/b52long.jpg




__________________________________________________ __________
In an underdeveloped country, don't drink the water. In a developed country, don't breath the air.

[Charlie_52ndVFW]

Yup. And unfortunantly you cant buy them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

After the aircraft is considered de-militarized (I think it is 50 years since decommision date but not sure) you can buy them off the boneyard.

Cant buy the Buff's though because they are part of the arms reduction treaty.

Kinda of a bummer.... would love to cruise in a Buff.

http://www.52ndvfw.com/52ndCharlie.jpg (http://www.52ndvfw.com)

[XyZspineZyX]

I dont really understand how the private sale works...there are rumours of at least 1 F-16A being sold to a private buyer, and that it is under restoration

________________________________________

If its not broken, make it go faster!

[XyZspineZyX]

hey project88 that B-2 static was pretty cool. And something i really hadn't seen there ever was the weapons in front of the bomber. (non operational of course, but still cool to see the JSOW. ) I always love to see it fly (the spirit) but i wish it would make a really low pass from behind the hangers. That is something else about the B-1, what weapons are fully operational on it? I was tryin to think if all were approved. I mean somethin like an AGM-158. well cool, the B-1 flyby should have been lower, faster, and louder, but oh well it was still cool.

about the F-16, how sweet to take one up!

[XyZspineZyX]

Whew, I've got a lot to go over in this thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


About the pictures:

--that phote with the B-1, B-2 and the B-52 looks fake (engineerd) the flight directions are not right, they'll collide with eachother if they continue to fly like this.

It's not. That is a true, real life in flight picture. Different aircraft fly at different AoAs in level flight, this can be clearly seen in this photo. Besides, even if they were climbing or descending they are not on top of each other. When you see them up close and flying around a couple times a year, you get a better sense of this.

The B-2 is the closest, the B-1 is in the middle, and the B-52 is furthest. I can also tell they are safely separated from each other.


That second pic is not a pic, it's not a fake, nor was it ever intended to be. It's a painting and a darn good one too (I have it in my room at home http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Go to www.drublair.com (http://www.drublair.com) and see dozens of aircraft paintings of this quality. They will literally astound you (his A-10 painting will be the box art for the US lo-mac by the way).



'vette,

First, while the B-1b looks better on paper (and in fact looks better period--to some people at least), it does not have the best track record in service.

--It seems to me that the B1's 4 engines would be better than the B52's eight, and that the range and payload would be just as good as well, when you account for the internal and external capabilities.

That's true so the B-1 has the advantage here

--Also, I think the B1 has a lot less radar cross section than a B52, so again, is it a matter of the appropriate funds being allocated to the aircraft for the right equipment,

The B-1b also DOES have a much better RCS than the B-52, but it is by no means small or even a stealthy aircraft.

Both the B-52 AND the B-1b will NEVER fly in an area with strong air defenses from aircraft or missiles. Even with all the jamming in the world they are still pretty defenseless (although Marshall-Law will have more to add to this) in the whole scheme of things. While this has gotten better with the B-1b over the years, it sill is a problem.

The B-1b and B-52 will both fly in the same kind of threat environment. There is a difference though, the EW system of the B-52 actually works. The EW system of the B-1b is one of its largest problems and money pits.

In everything above the B-52 and B-1b will be about the same with even a slight advantage to the B-52 (because it actually works reliably)


--I've heard this one before, and honestly I just can't figure this one out. The B52 has eight engines and it's airframe and avionics are 25+ years older than B1's. How can it be cheaper to operate? Did the USAF get sold a "hangar queen" that of like the Army and the Apache? If so, than why can't they just take the basic design and re-award it to another defense contractor like Northrop/Grumman (B2,) Boeing, or Lockheed?

While actual in-flight costs may be less (admittedly, I don't know anything about the flight costs of a B-52 and B-1b), the avionics have had vastly more problems than the B-52 which have been very costly, the EW systems is another aspect that has already been stated, and the aircraft is simply an extremely complex design (mechanically). There is just a lot of stuff on a B-1 that can (and does) break. Just think about it, besides the Tu-160, the B-1b is the largest aircraft flying with swing wings (themselves one of the most complex, costly, and heavy mechanical devices put in an aircraft).

Yes, the B-52 is 25+ years older than the B-1b, but that means there is also 25+ more years of experience, many of them in combat too. This is an often overlooked aspect of flying combat aircraft. By that time, people know what to expect, they know what will go wrong, and they know what are the best things to do to fix it. This is something I would never have thought of before being in the glider program at the Academy. We switched over to new gliders last year after flying the old ones for 20 years. There have been some major problems that have finally crippled the program a couple of weeks ago (I'd rater not get into it, find some newspaper articles if you really want to know more) after trying to cope with them over this year. The procedures learned over the 20 years of operation learned and taken for granted by all of us became obvious how important they are when the new aircraft came.

While the B-1b has been in for a while, it has seen no where near the level of service as the B-52 and comparatively no combat except for the last 2 years. I suspect this is a major aspect relating to B-52 and B-1b operations.

This makes the B-52 have a VAST advantage in this area.


--Again, how can this be? If the manufacturer made a POS, than I sure hope we got our money back because results like those are unacceptable. I'll take thke 4 GE F101's over the
eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans - how can 4 engines not be less maintenance and use less fuel than 8?
I thik the B1 is a great platform, and perhaps it just needs to be built by a company who knows what their doing

Ever heard of the C-5?

--I thought they just received funds for a new EW system? And crap, why in the world if at the very least could they not just use what was in the B52?

They did, but there were so many new problems with the system that was designed to fix the old problems, it was using so much money, it was not that much better, and it could not be fixed, so they just gave up.

--But comparitavely, it can fly the same route with more payload and for longer distnaces than the B52, so what is the problem?

Combat payload is just about the same and the ultimate range is not a factor since we have such a great tanker system. The days of flying over the vast expanses of the USSR on a tank of gas are over. That can easily be seen by the B-2 missions from the CONUS to where ever in the world they are going, then flying back.

They can drop the same weapons so that is not a problem either.

In this category, neither have the advantage.


--I love Boeing, both military and commercial, and so I don't mean this in a negative sense, but something tells me for mulitple reasons as to why that if Boeing had produced the B1 than there would be a lot more of them and the B52 would have retired after the first Gulf War.

What, because Boeing is the bomber builder? While this does have some credence (Boeing has built the worlds best bombers, I don't care what country you are from, you have to admit that: B-9, B-17, B-29, B-50, B-47, B-52) that argument does not hold weight. Boeing also built one of the best US fighters in the interwar years, but you don't see any Boeing fighters around now do you?

North American clearly made some of the best US designed fighters (P-51, F-86, F-100) but they were quickly replaced with other fighters once they lost their edge by other companies aircraft.

(plus the B-1b IS technically a Boeing Aircraft now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


--Here's an ever better question - what can the B2 do so much better than the B1B or even B52 cannot? It would seem to me that such a big plane flying at high altitudes in the days where IRST is as common as it is, I'd rather take my chances in a B1 which at least has some speed and maneuverability.

Does this even need to be asked? Well, in a word, survive.

You seem to forget a word called Stealth. The Stealth of the B-2 is much better than even the F-117 (and talking a number of years ago to a person who worked on the RCS of the B-2, even though it is a larger aircraft it has an overall lower RCS). The B-2 (along with the F-117) are the only aircraft that have an outstanding first night survival capability over extremely high-threat environments. While the Baghdad air defenses were not at the same level they were in '91, the F-117 and B-2 were the only aircraft allowed over the city for the first few days until air dominance was achieved.

You also bring up IRST systems. You also do know they are highly over-rated. The B-2 is also designed with these in mind with IR absorbing paint and engine exhausts that cool the engine heat. It's the B-1b I would be scared to fly in over high threat areas. Just look at the heat the B-1bs engines pump out.

The B-1b, B-52, and B-2 all fly about the same speed as it is and I never thought I would see B-1b and 'maneuverability' in the same sentence.


--I'd rather have 100 B1s than 20 B2's, but hey, maybe I just don't like the fragility of the B2's

I would rather have both. Or rather 20 B-2s and 50 B-52, but I'll take all three (which seems to be our stance anyway).

--The Air Force is facing budget crunches with it's F22 program, and it really saddens me when I read many intelligent Air Force officers who support further reducing the numbers of the F22.

I don't consider them intelligent officers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



1. That rotary launcher in the bombbay...if your bombing a target do you really want to take multiple passes if your using unguided munitions?

The B-1b only uses the rotary launcher when launching AGM-86s. When dropping bombs it uses normal bomb racks like every other bomber.

The B-52 also has a rotary launcher, but once again, only when AGM-86s are used.

2. When fully laden it cant get over your average mountain. And yes i know that if you reduce the fuel and bomb load you can but what is the point?

I don't know where you get this from. When fully laden, it flies just fine.



That is plain Stupid.Form all US bomber , B1 is more adapted to low level attacks with precision munitions, even with dumb bombs. I just don't get it why get rid of it

Low level attacks IS stupid. That is what the B-1 was designed for when low level attacks were in vogue back in the 80s. It was supposed to reduce losses, but there was a reason why in 91 all allied aircraft were ordered to start flying their aircraft high. There is also why allied losses dropped like a rock after that happened.

Taking the B-1b at low altitude in combat will make it one of the least survival combat aircraft in the West.

This was something that Tornado pilots found out the hard way when it got that less than enduring combat record.



Overall the B-52 is the better aircraft in actual service. Of course on paper, its not as good, but it's cheaper to operate, is more capable (with the newest Buff upgrades), has much better reliability, has a outstanding combat record, has years of experience behind it in both wartime and peace time, it has the same combat load of the other bombers, it's not a hanger queen, and it has an aura behind it that no other aircraft in history has had both for allies AND enemies (when was the last time a soldier surrendered simply because B-1s were operating in the area?). Much of this is impossible to put a price tag on or to be given a numerical value. The B-2 need to be the first aircraft kept, but the BUFFs come right after them (in terms of importance in combat).

I'm sure BTR can give even more of an earful and put actual dollar values to the operation of the different aircraft along with some other stuff I did not state or am privy to.


http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[bigvette]

Good post, AFAcadet. What I was refferring to about Boeing being the conglomerate in the large aircraft industry was not nescessariliy pointed at Boeing being too big, but rather perhaps was the B1's initial manufactuer not up to the task of taking it's design off the drawing board and making it a reality?

Would Boeing have done a better job of this back in the 70's, (I think so.) And if Boeing owns the rights now, why cannot they fix this imperfection to what would otherwise be an outstanding platform? If the B1 gadgets are too fancy, then why can't they stick in the B52's crap and just live with that?

Also, just like the F117 that was shot down over the Baltics, the B2 is not immune to threats. If they were as invincible as the USAF would like the world to believe, they wouldn't waste the taxpayers dollars by flying combat sorties out of MO! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The B1 is much better suited for high-speed, low-level penetration than the B52 or even the B2 in my opinion, (size, speed, agility.) What F15E flies in over their target at FL20 in a hostile envrionment? ONLY a B2 or F117, and even then they are not guaranteed to be safe. Until the F22 comes online, a stealh aircraft has to leave behind their fighter escort if they want to remain undetected while "in hot."


I still say the B1's problems should be fixed, and pwehaps even Boeing can come up with a B-1X or something, with all the problem areas fixed. Flying B52's for the next 50 years sounds ridiculous to me, and I'll never buy into the UCAV theory so I see it as the only responsible thing to do. The B52's need to be replaced and the B2's are not fiscally feasible to do so.

[XyZspineZyX]

- Would Boeing have done a better job of this back in
- the 70's, (I think so.) And if Boeing owns the
- rights now, why cannot they fix this imperfection to
- what would otherwise be an outstanding platform? If
- the B1 gadgets are too fancy, then why can't they
- stick in the B52's crap and just live with that?

I don't know, my understanding of the mechanics behind the aircraft and the programs themselves is not to the same level of operational usage. This would be something BTR would be much better able to answer.

- Also, just like the F117 that was shot down over the
- Baltics, the B2 is not immune to threats. If they
- were as invincible as the USAF would like the world
- to believe, they wouldn't waste the taxpayers
- dollars by flying combat sorties out of MO!

It is actually more than people think and the AF can't go full out on what it can do. They can only give glimpse into its capability. It must be killing the pilots when someone asks them what that 'stealth button' does and all they can say is "ummmm... it makes us REALLY stealthy."

Anyway, the B-2s are flown out of MO for two main reasons. The first is the B-2 Does require some facilities other aircraft don't need. Until OIR, MO was the base to have them. Now Diego Garcia has them and combat missions can be flown from there.

The second reason is something people not connected to the AF or doctrine would not as readily catch. Over the past few years, the AF has been transitioning into a global force using air and space assets unmatched anywhere in the world. One aspect of that-satellites-has been seen for the last few years, but expect that type of stuff to boom in the future. Another aspect is global reach. This is something the airpower advocates since the beginning had been prophesying. Later on, when technology matured, it was something the AF put large amounts of time and energy attempting to achieve--read SAC. Now its here.

To remove all doubts of the nay Sayers and to show the doctrine and concepts are sound what do you do? You prove it by doing it. And doing it. And doing it. And doing it. Not simply during peace time, but when it counts, when bullets are flying and things are going boom.

The extremely long range missions with the B-2 demonstrated that:

The USAF is truly a global reach force. You can point your finger on ANY point on the globe, and in a few hours a single B-2 can take off from the CONUS, fly to ANY point on the globe non-stop, even in first-night high-threat air defense airspace, attack 16 (soon to be a couple hundred plus) extremely high-value, individual and separated targets with outstanding precision, exit the airspace unharmed, and return non-stop back to the CONUS (that by the way is something the B-2 has over the B-1b and B-52 they will NEVER have nor any other aerospace force even comes close too).

By flying these missions with the B-2 to the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq we have proved that global reach is not some obscure theory or doctrine, but its here and it works. It proves to the AF, the military in general, the US government, our allies, and any potential threat the true capability of the AF, what we can do if our allies needs help, and that any potential adversary can look forward to when their most important targets anywhere on the globe are destroyed within a few short hours, and that this capability is not only a one shot thing, but can be done over and over and over again in combat if needed.

So in effect, some of the reason the AF flew the Spirits out of MO is exactly the opposite reason you stated.

Wow. that turned into a soapbox :\

The F-117 loss was not due to a technology failure, but a tactics breakdown and a stupid pilot.

- The B1 is much better suited for high-speed,
- low-level penetration than the B52 or even the B2 in
- my opinion, (size, speed, agility.)

I agree with that.

- What F15E flies
- in over their target at FL20 in a hostile
- envrionment?

ALL of them. Every single last one. Not one below that altitude (dictated by threat levels and operational needs). Those whose pilots want to see their family again. All the ones that come back to base. The ones who don't end up as a kill marking on some gun barrel. The ones the SA-7 missed. The one that does not end up a burning hole in the desert.

Hopefully I put that in enough ways to make it clear to everybody. Like I said before, low level is a thing of the past. It was a theory that was not sound from the beginning and killed vastly more people than it saved.

From Gen Horner during the Gulf War:

"During Desert Shield, I had laid down the law to the wing commanders at the bases: no low-level tactics or training unless they could explain to me why they wanted their aircrews to do it. I expected a great gnashing of teeth, wails, and moans (low level keeps coming back, like a monster at the end of a horror movie). In the event, however, only two commanders came forward to argue for low-altitude tactics--Colonels Hal Hornberg of the F-15E wing and Tom Lennon of the F-111 wing. ... ...But after a few days of real combat, real bullets, and unfortunately, real losses, both wings pitched out the low-level operations and joined their friends at medium altitude. ... ...When I asked the F-16 and A-10 wing commanders why they didn't ask to go back to flying among the rocks, their answer was simple: "We want to survive this war." Why, then did the F-111s and F-15Es have to find out the hard way? I thought about that long and hard after the war."

The results are clear for the Gulf War, the losses came in hard and fast when aircraft were at low level (yes even for the A-10s). This is true for every war. Guns kill more people than SAMs or aircraft. When they went higher, the losses went down (A-10s too when they flew above 10,000 feet). The F-15Es and the F-111s learned the hard way and F-15E have been up there too since then.

For all you people wondering, when Storm started, the aircraft like the A-10 went back down and losses went back up, but it was more important to give support to the troops on the ground during that time. The same is true for the newer combat instances in Afghanistan and OIR. Aircraft stayed high until troops needed help, then they went back down losses go up.

Pretty much all aircraft tool around above mid-altitude (including F-15Es and B-1bs because of this).


- ONLY a B2 or F117, and even then they
- are not guaranteed to be safe. Until the F22 comes
- online, a stealh aircraft has to leave behind their
- fighter escort if they want to remain undetected
- while "in hot."

As well as every other aircraft in the inventory (except helicopters I guess and they have not had a good track record). Nothing is guaranteed to be safe either.

- I still say the B1's problems should be fixed, and
- pwehaps even Boeing can come up with a B-1X or
- something, with all the problem areas fixed.

A B-3 or something is on the drawing board, but that would be a LONG ways down the road if it even gets anywhere.

- Flying
- B52's for the next 50 years sounds ridiculous to me,
- and I'll never buy into the UCAV theory so I see it
- as the only responsible thing to do.

I will be surprised if BUFFs fly for that long too. I would not mind it though if they stay effective.

- I'll never buy into the UCAV theory so I see it
- as the only responsible thing to do.

I don't know where I stand on the UCAV yet. Coming from someone who is trying to become an AF pilot, and very close to being one after wanting it most of my life, I don't like it either.

But coming from a technology and AF forward looking standpoint on things such as the JSF, F-22, B-2 and a new generation of weapons, I guess I have to keep an open mind and see how things go.


I like the B-1b a lot too. It's one of the best looking aircraft flying now (especially when you see it in person or fly over), but the mission it was designed to do is not here (low-altitude high-speed penetration), it has major problems with its livelihood (its EW system) that has been worked on since the design has been introduced and the newest system was scraped not long ago because it was a dead end too, it has bad maintenance troubles and high operating cost because of it and has little to no capability over the B-52.


http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[XyZspineZyX]

AFACadet for such a BUFF lover, i got the wrong icon/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif the B2/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ..
Kidding..

Q: What special facility does the B2 need and why?




Message Edited on 06/19/0310:12AM by tomcat1974

[XyZspineZyX]

- Q: What special facility does the B2 need and why?

I'm not exactly sure myself, but I remember seeing this article on af.mil a while back:

http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=11003625



http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[XyZspineZyX]

holy mother of god....

how many B52's are there?

I wonder if they were all operational, with a full bomb load.

They could probabl carpet bomb the world.

lol

&lt;script>var
YourPicName="http://wynhou.freeservers.com/Su.jpg"; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

[XyZspineZyX]

AF:

Nice post. Sure the global reach is there but the effiency isn't. We, the US, haven't fought a real country with real POWER.

I don't think the doctrine would hold water as any bomber flying from CONUS, their efficiency rate would be in the pooper particularly the B-2. Specialized tasks due to its stealth capability is great but having a country with some adversarial capability is another. For quick sortie rate in which ordnance can be disposed in a hurry, the doctrine isn't efficient.


As for the F117, why was the pilot stupid?


VVanks,

Majority of the B-52s were destroyed due to the START/SALT talks. The, then USSR, wanted to see the B-52 destroyed at Arizona via satellite for proof.

[bigvette]

Exactly what I was going to counter AFAcadet back on, Jewels - what happens if the B1's have to go into an area where air superiority has not yet been achieved? Like you hinted Jewels, I think the outcome will be much differnt. We must be careful not to use verbatim the lessons learned from the last two Gulf Wars in that there was virtually no real air threat.

What was that old article about F14D's on station on a CVN Being able to deliever just as much ordinance on a target half way around the world as a B2 in the same time frame? At least an F14D can shoot back at any air threats.

As far as mission procedure and flight levels, I was referring to when an aircraft goes in on target. I know for example the F16s being limited with a harddeck so as not to come into range of the known SAMS/AAA Iraq had left, but being able to drop your GPS guided munitions from those high altitudes I fear will not always be possible, (air threats, high altitude SAMS, etc.) When that advantage goes, NOE is the way to go and the B1 can do it better than both the B2 and B52.

[XyZspineZyX]

Here's a good analogy IMHO:

What would you do in a boxing match:

As per the doctrine:

Would you go for the big blow (punch) to get him knocked out in the first round.

Past wars:

Or would you take jabs at a more effective rate to wear your opponent down?


The former will tire you out and if successfull, could lessen the length of time of the war. Although the man in your corner would be irritated as hell as you might run the risk of running out of gas if the tactic proves as a failure.

Think Blitzkrieg.


The latter, proven method. Massive sortie rate due to the short hop distance where replenishment of power is always in reserve.

Think what happened after the Blitzkrieg. The outcome of the war?


Julian

[bigvette]

But that Blitkreig would have overall been a successful tactic had Germany invaded Britain as they originally intended, rather than abondoning such hopes after the firece defense by the RAF.

[XyZspineZyX]

bigvette wrote:
- But that Blitkreig would have overall been a
- successful tactic had Germany invaded Britain as
- they originally intended, rather than abondoning
- such hopes after the firece defense by the RAF.
-
The Blitzkrieg tactic was exceptional
but the main reason that that the Germans didnt invade britain was their inability to land a sufficient amount of men and armour on the british coast. They would not have been able to achieve this with any of the coastal regions within easy reach of the French coast. ie. The places they could have landed large amounts of barges (their only real option) would have had to travel much to far across the open water to achieve any sort of surprise. they did develop some massive gliders for this sort of action but these needed their own power as the larger aircraft were not large enough.

So what does that leave the germans? Paratroopers, enough to get maybe a town or 2 but not enough to hold the country. Hitler really expected that Churchill would capitulate and agree to stop hostilities after the fall of France, and then he could attack Russia.


________________________________________

If its not broken, make it go faster!

[bigvette]

Good perspective on history, there Coolie. I always understood it as Hitler made the wrong tactical decision when he abandoned the Battle of Britain and refocused his attack on Russia but as you point out, he may very well have not had any other viable alternatives.

[XyZspineZyX]

Man, you guys are making me write...


a lot... I'm glad it's summer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Jewels,

--Sure the global reach is there but the effiency isn't

heh, I like hearing 'efficiency' in the same general vicinity of war time operations. We all know war is one of the most efficient off all human endeavors. (I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Anyway, you are correct and that is one of the reasons facilities were built on Diego Garcia.

--I don't think the doctrine would hold water as any bomber flying from CONUS, their efficiency rate would be in the pooper particularly the B-2. Specialized tasks due to its stealth capability is great but having a country with some adversarial capability is another. For quick sortie rate in which ordnance can be disposed in a hurry, the doctrine isn't efficient.

It's not intended to be efficient nor is it supposed to be used all the time for that reason. With most of what I write here, stuff is lost in the translation. AF doctrine is in many instances complex and hard to convey, especially in something like a forum with people having no common background (professionally). In addition, much of the doctrine is based off writing by many people that adds a lot, but can't be conveyed either. On top of that, you are getting my translation (from someone who is not even a 2nd LT yet, but who has spent years of his own time studying the subject in as much depth as possible).

That leaves gaping holes for various reasons (different backgrounds for different people--making different people understanding the same idea differently, information that I think is common basic knowledge, but in fact is not, me just not writing things clearly). That is why someone like BTR is so much better at something like this. He has real world experience (unlike simply discussions with knowledgeable people, classes, and geeky book work in my case), and knows how to better convey ideas to people. Hopefully I'll get better in that over the years.

I guess that turned into a sort of disclaimer. :|

Anyway, extremely long range missions like this are possible, not just as theory, but in practice. These are not intended to be solely used, but as simply another tool in the tool box.

I think we can all agree that MAD is neither efficient, nor will it be used often (hopefully ever), nor is it good for every situation, but it's AF doctrine, and the potential and possibility to use it is there.

The same is true for CAS missions, interdiction missions, SEAD missions ect, ect, ect. They are all different, they all accomplish different goals, and they are best used in some cases, but not others. These bombing missions are no different.

A whole lot is still left out in this description, but in this format and with the time I have, its the best I can do.

For a good basic introduction to this, I would recommend "Air Campaign" by Col. John Warden. It's pretty dry and involved, but the concepts he laid out in the early 90s are a lot of the same type of thinking and planning used today.

--As for the F117, why was the pilot stupid?

The major problems were with the planning of the stealth missions. Some ******s decided to have the F-117s fly the EXACT same routs every time. A 4 year old can figure out what that cad lead to.

The problem with the pilot were two things. The weather was not the best, so he decided to fly under the cloud cover (a big no-no I'm sure you can guess). That may have been ok, but the pilot could not either lock up his target, or could not find it, so he made multiple passes over the target. On his second or third pass he was shot down by a number of optically guided SA-3s. The technology did not fail, stupid people did.

--Majority of the B-52s were destroyed due to the START/SALT talks. The, then USSR, wanted to see the B-52 destroyed at Arizona via satellite for proof.

True. There are about 50-60 BUFFs now.

'vette

--Jewels - what happens if the B1's have to go into an area where air superiority has not yet been achieved? Like you hinted Jewels, I think the outcome will be much different. We must be careful not to use verbatim the lessons learned from the last two Gulf Wars in that there was virtually no real air threat.

The B-1b will be sitting ducks. They have nothing over the B-2. You are also correct (at least IMO) on your assessment of stealth aircraft in defended airspace. We can see from all the last wars that stealth aircraft can freely operate over enemy territory even with extremely dangerous air defenses (SAMs, AAA). While Afghanistan was no a biggie for air defenses, and I'm not sure about this newest stint in Iraq, Bosnia had pretty good air defenses and Iraq had the best in the world in '91.

While stealth technology was proven in these cases, air defenses were not a major problem (even though during DS it was expected to be and the F-117s were sent in by themselves anyway). From the performance of the technology against ground defenses, one can infer the same would be true of air defenses (and even to a greater extent for various reasons), but I'm not in a position to make any definite statements on that.

--What was that old article about F14D's on station on a CVN Being able to deliver just as much ordinance on a target half way around the world as a B2 in the same time frame? At least an F14D can shoot back at any air threats

I read that article too. There were some major aspects left out in the article though. A couple off the top of my head, they did not take into a count the time a carrier would have to sail to a needed point and be ready for ops. You are also not going to send a F-14D into the same airspace as a B-2 because only the Spirit would make it back at the end of the day. They will not be flying the same missions, they will not be tasked with the same kind of targets and the B-2s will not be needed as long as an F-14D.

--As far as mission procedure and flight levels, I was referring to when an aircraft goes in on target. I know for example the F16s being limited with a harddeck so as not to come into range of the known SAMS/AAA Iraq had left, but being able to drop your GPS guided munitions from those high altitudes I fear will not always be possible, (air threats, high altitude SAMS, etc.) When that advantage goes, NOE is the way to go and the B1 can do it better than both the B2 and B52.

I understood what you meant, but what I said directly addressed that. I don't really feel like repeating it all again except there are pretty much zero instances NOE flying will save more lives and aircraft than it kills. This have been proven time and time again since Vietnam, yet people who don't understand the past still persest on using it (before more people die, and they too decide to fly high again).

--Here's a good analogy IMHO:

--What would you do in a boxing match:

--As per the doctrine:

--Would you go for the big blow (punch) to get him knocked out in the first round.

--Past wars:

--Or would you take jabs at a more effective rate to wear your opponent down?

I'll take the first one any day. Less people die on either side and the war ends faster. The concept of things like B-2 missions from MO anywhere in the world is based on that and it has been proven in every war since DS. If you need to make a quick, deadly strike a couple hours after hostilities break out somewhere (say a DPRK attacks the ROK), the B-2 is your only real option now (and will be the only one until carrier groups steam into port, or other stealth aircraft deploy). Even the USAF and ROK aircraft stationed in the ROK will be in no position to fly such offensive missions on such crucial targets in such highly defended airspace. For operations with plenty of build up time such as OIF, you can simply use aircraft in the theater to do the same thing, but with elements of the second too.

--Think Blitzkrieg.


--The latter, proven method. Massive sortie rate due to the short hop distance where replenishment of power is always in reserve.

--Think what happened after the Blitzkrieg. The outcome of the war?

Proven, true, but old and an outdated concept. To understand what I mean by this, you would have to read some military stuff on your own.

The outcome of the war was that the Germans lost. Besides for taking a bigger bite than they could chew, their blitzkrieg doctrine had some flaws. They were good at mobility, ground combat, and supporting the troops, but when that was not the name of the game what happened? Complete and utter defeat. Where was Germany's long-range heavy aircraft, able to strike at other targets besides troops? Where were their defensive strategies to be used when they were not attacking? As stated by Coolie, where were the amphibious forces?

They had a doctrine (and thus weapons and tactics) that was good for one aspect of the war, but utterly worthless for the rest of it. They were not ready for the unknown aspects of war.

Another book that I found pretty interesting was "Every Man a Tiger" by Tom Clancy and Gen Chuck Horner (the guy in charge of the entire air war for the coalition during DS). It's a long book, and a lot of the first part would go over people head if they were not in the AF, but putting things together, you can see the thought process behind a modern air war and they way the future is pointing.

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[bigvette]

AFACadet wrote:
- I read that article too. There were some major
- aspects left out in the article though. A couple
- off the top of my head, they did not take into a
- count the time a carrier would have to sail to a
- needed point and be ready for ops. You are also not
- going to send a F-14D into the same airspace as a
- B-2 because only the Spirit would make it back at
- the end of the day. They will not be flying the
- same missions, they will not be tasked with the same
- kind of targets and the B-2s will not be needed as
- long as an F-14D.

That article was making the point in the aspect that in Afghanistan where there are no enemy aircraft and little to no air defenses the B2 is not needed, and the F14's can accomplish the same task. A B2 is only good as a deterrant to potential enemies that actually possess viable air force and air defenses, otherwise our B52, B1s, F15, F16, F18, and F14's can do the same jobs. The AF was just trying to use the B2's so they were not criticized for spending all that money and not being used. We didn't "need" the B2's in Afghan or GW2, and would not need them unless we went into Korea or China.


- I understood what you meant, but what I said
- directly addressed that. I don't really feel like
- repeating it all again except there are pretty much
- zero instances NOE flying will save more lives and
- aircraft than it kills. This have been proven time
- and time again since Vietnam, yet people who don't
- understand the past still persest on using it
- (before more people die, and they too decide to fly
- high again).

You cannot tell me that in an area where there is a valid SAM threat (both high and low altitidue SAMS being present) as well as an enemies Air Force that actually fights back the pilot of any aircraft not stealth is still going to ingress at any altitude which warrants a Flight Level denomination for all the bad guys to see on their radar screens?

Vietnam proved that when the enemy has high altitude SAMs that can hit you up to FL60 that you are safe no where, and trying to fly under their coverage until the weasels can take out a sam site is the only way to go. Look at every war since Vietnam the US has been in, when has an oppossing enemies Air Force actually "defended" their air space?

[XyZspineZyX]

- The AF was just trying to use the
- B2's so they were not criticized for spending all
- that money and not being used. We didn't "need" the
- B2's in Afghan or GW2,

Agreed. The Afghanistan deployment especially was a classic case of everyone 'getting their turn', whether they were truly needed or not.

- and would not need them
- unless we went into Korea or China.

I doubt they'd be needed for North Korea- their air defense system is even more pathetic than Iraq's. China yes though, since they do have a small number of credible double-digit class SAMs.

[britgliderpilot]

I've been reading Every Man A Tiger recently too . . . . now I was going to quote that but I've just realised it may have been somewhere else where I read the point.

Nevermind.

It was either from Horner or from Ben Rich that wars are now planned to last a maximum of about 90 days - after that you run out of ammo. So that would be Blitzkrieg.


It's a dammned good book . . . . and I think it's a good point, low altitude flying is more or less useless now.
It still has some valid points - the Tornado JP233 attacks on Iraqi runways were hugely effective, but in that process they did lose a lot of aircraft. Somewhere along the line they switched to aiming eight bombs in a row along the runway from medium altitude, and that seemed to work just as well.


It's an interesting point, though.
As with Germany, the US is now very good at winning wars fast, but not so good at what goes on after.
The exact points obviously don't apply - but you'd probably have to agree that post-war relations with the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan have left a little lacking. I'm not sure whether I've just got this idea from the media, which whether I like it or not wil be a little biased, but the problems US troops have in their sections of occupied Iraq don't seem to be happening in the sections occupied by the Brits . . . .

In Afghanistan, of course, all westerners seem to be being attacked . . . .

What the hell, that's drifting off topic and isn't relevant. Ignore.


Glider pilot . . . . twist and turn

[XyZspineZyX]

'vette

--That article was making the point in the aspect that in Afghanistan where there are no enemy aircraft and little to no air defenses the B2 is not needed, and the F14's can accomplish the same task.

Yes, I forgot about that part of the article.

--A B2 is only good as a deterrent to potential enemies that actually possess viable air force and air defenses, otherwise our B52, B1s, F15, F16, F18, and F14's can do the same jobs.

True, but that does not mean you should not be ready for that threat (not that I think you were saying we should not be ready, I understood the difference)

--The AF was just trying to use the B2's so they were not criticized for spending all that money and not being used. We didn't "need" the B2's in Afghan or GW2, and would not need them unless we went into Korea or China.

Afghanistan and Iraq both had a good deal of threats (with one obviously more than the other).

Just because they were not the best in Afghanistan and Iraq's had been degraded from having the world's best air defense system in 91 does not mean they did not exist. In each case, the B-2s were used in the first couple of nights while these air defenses were still there. After the threat was gone, so were the B-2s.

Could we have done well without the B-2s? Most likely. Did using B-2s save the lives of non-stealth pilots and aircraft? Maybe, maybe not. If it did, we would not know about it. If it didn't, we would ask why the B-2s were not used. Either way, it does little good to talk about it now.

Do you just want the B-2s to sit around during a war only to wait for something to happen in the DPRK or China? The B-2s were built for one purpose: to bomb stuff--really well (well two if you count deterrence). It did that mission, and it did it well.

--You cannot tell me that in an area where there is a valid SAM threat (both high and low altitude SAMS being present) as well as an enemies Air Force that actually fights back the pilot of any aircraft not stealth is still going to ingress at any altitude which warrants a Flight Level denomination for all the bad guys to see on their radar screens?

Yes I can. Here are some more tidbits:

Talking about the Thuds (and how it got its name) in Vietnam flying at low level to stay away from SAMs:

"They hit the ground because of mistakes in Air Force tactics. In the erroneous belief that one would avoid enemy defenses that way, tactics in those days emphasized flying at low level"

more:

"The 111s themselves, with their distinctive, ungainly look, were easy to spot; and because they were flying close off the ground, visual acquisition was a snap."

It keeps coming:

"The July 24 attack on the radar SAM site proved to be such a catastrophe that it served as an exemplary lesson in tactics and survival. The tactics were wrong on two counts: First, since it was thought that SAMs were 100 percent effective, it was concluded that aircraft had to under fly them. Second from the Strategic Air Command commanders who were planning and running operations in Vietnam came bomber stream tactics--that is, large numbers of jets flying in trail over the target.
Both tactics derived from various historical and peacetime experiences--the bomber stream from World War II, and flying low level from lack of experience fighting against radar-guided SAMs."

Another:

"In principle, flying low to defeat SAMs was far from unreasonable. The SA-2 radars the Air Force faced in Vietnam were limited to seeing targets at about 1,000+ feet above the ground, while the early-warning radars that fed them target information were limited to much higher altitudes. From that perspective, it made sense to come in low and fast. Unfortunately, the commanders failed to recognize that at low-level, the guns were a much greater threat than a SAM. In point of fact--and experience was to bear this out--SAMs were not 100 percent effective. Even when they are flying within a SAM's range, and a missile is locked onto them, pilots have a chance. They can always acquire the SAM visually and out fly it, even if they don't have the Radar Warning Receivers, ECM pods, chaff, or flairs that pilots now have."

Enemy fighters are the reason we have aircraft like the F-15C and AWACS. enemy radars are the reason we have RIVET JOINT aircraft as well as EC-130s, EA-6Bs, jammer pods, chaff, RWRs, HARMs, and F-16CJs as well as harm equipped F/A-18s.

You can always detect a radar and kill it. You can always detect a SAM radar and kill it. You can fly around the airspaces were SAMs are dangerous. You can design stealth aircraft that makes radar guided SAMs as well as radars in general next to useless. You can train pilots how to look for SAMs and you can catch them early and with training, have good chances for evading them.

You can strike the fear of God into SAM operators so that they will either not fire their missiles, or if they do, they will keep guidance off.

You can attack the integrated air defense systems to knock out all coordination between centralized command and SAM sites or early warning radar sites.

You can kill aircraft on the ground before they even get a chance to take off. Or you can put the fear of God into the pilots so they can't take off. You can destroy the large airfields so enemy air operations can't continue under any conditions. (all the above has in fact happened since every war after Vietnam)


There aren't any weapons designed to kill AAA guns, there aren't any aircraft designed to kill AK-47s or millions upon millions of bullets scattered around the area of operations (you can plink AAA guns or kill troop or vehicle concentrations, but these can all be done easily from outside the enemy weapons range).

You can't detect AAA guns (except the few that are radar guided) and you can't detect hundreds of thousands to millions of assault guns or machine guns. You can't know when you are being targeted by a MANPAD and unless you see it in the couple second flight time, you will not detect it (this is slowly changing though).

There are no countermeasures for a bullet, no amount of jammers, chaff or flairs will stop one once fired. You have very limited time for MANPADs, or else need an aircraft that can continually pump them out over enemy territory (not just over the target).

AK-47s don't need centralized command and integrated air defense systems. A lone soldier or citizen with a weapon can easily point it into the air and fire. Although their chances of hitting are very slim, the chance for a golden BB is always there (that one bullet from that one gun, shot just at the right angle and time hitting that one spot on the aircraft--it happens all the time).

A manual AAA gun or assault weapon needs no aiming system and training is not needed. With hundreds or thousands of bullets flying at you, some are bound to hit.

In addition to the enemy weapon side, there is always the small trouble of the ground being right below you. It does not take much to go into it (controlled flight into terrain is one of the biggest pilot killers then and now). Any emergency you have at low altitude will give you that much less time to cope with it or bug out if need be.

And the results speak for themselves. The vast majority of aircraft killed have been at low altitude from simple guns or cheap MANPADs.



I don't know how much more clearly I can get it than that...

--Vietnam proved that when the enemy has high altitude SAMs that can hit you up to FL60 that you are safe no where

It proved EXACTLY the opposite

--and trying to fly under their coverage until the weasels can take out a sam site is the only way to go.

They do help the situation very well. Weasels allow aircraft to fly at altitude even better and with more safety, they are a very important aspect of an air war.

--Look at every war since Vietnam the US has been in, when has an opposing enemies Air Force actually "defended" their air space?

To name a few:

Libya they sent up a number of MiGs who fired on the Tomcats. In addition, during the actual attack, the air defenses were pretty active. Where did the losses come from? Low altitude F-111s.

Desert Storm (Iraq had the worlds best and most advanced, as well as deadly air defense system in the world. Using Russian equipment, it was put together by the French and called the KARI air defense system (Irak spelled backwards by the way). This system posed a significant problem to the coalition and heavy losses were both feared and projected. Stealth at this time was unproven and many of the people putting together the air war (as well as some of their pilots) did not even think it would hold up to the KARI network. Iraq's aircraft also had the potential to cause major problems (even if their presence simply caused aircraft to jettison their weapons and not be able to attack a target. This was backed up by watching air battles during the Iran-Iraq war with AWACS aircraft flying out of Saudi Arabia)

Well, tactics were sound, stealth worked, the lessons from Vietnam were learned, some really crazy (but brilliant) ideas worked, everyone in the military was well trained, and the addition of information warfare won the day.

Somalia, where around 5 Black Hawks were shot down (4 in one day), not by missiles, but RPGs and assault weapons.

Various operations in the Balkans who had MiGs and some good air defenses and used both.

The years and years of Operation Northern and Southern Watch in which Iraq launched thousands of SAMs, tried to send up a couple aircraft and thousands of rounds of AAA.

Afghanistan where MANPADS, AK-47, and RPGs caused vastly more damage than their MiG 21s and SA-3s.

OIF where Iraq used it's degraded (but still there) air defense system of AAA, SAMs, MANPADs, and ground weapons to fire on aircraft. Once again, you can see where the losses came from.

gliderpilot,

That must have been another book. Horner never said anything about that (in fact, everything he said pretty much indicated they were able to have extended operations).

--It still has some valid points - the Tornado JP233 attacks on Iraqi runways were hugely effective, but in that process they did lose a lot of aircraft. Somewhere along the line they switched to aiming eight bombs in a row along the runway from medium altitude, and that seemed to work just as well.

True, they were very effective, but the losses were the reason Tornado's stopped all low altitude flying (and the JP233 is now longer an option now) and the USAF gave up Dunduralls (sp?).

--I'm not sure whether I've just got this idea from the media, which whether I like it or not wil be a little biased, but the problems US troops have in their sections of occupied Iraq don't seem to be happening in the sections occupied by the Brits . . . .

A little bit true, a little bit by the media. I'm sure the Brits are having some trouble too (I've seen a couple pictures of Brits attempting some crowd control). Hopefully that will start to quiet down as more and more of the Baath party and their minions in the street are captured.

Afghanistan is another story and mostly media spin. Most of the country is fine, is a small amount of people coming in from other countries now. As you can see, its nothing like it was in the 80s after Russia's invasion. I know a person here going over there soon to help the people there, so I'll be interested to hear what he says.


http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[XyZspineZyX]

I just got back from Iraq a few weeks ago and say what you will, but I saw firsthand with my own two beady little eyes a strike of 14 Apaches (I counted 'em) rolling out full of Hellfires. Do the math on that. No joke at all. I saw them doing that every day for weeks. Hangar queen my dying aching ***, Furthermore, I was a Marine and yet I am praising Army gear. That should tell you something

script>var YourPicName="http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/images/rafale-036.jpg";var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i

[XyZspineZyX]

- Just because they were not the best in Afghanistan
- and Iraq's had been degraded from having the world's
- best air defense system in 91 does not mean they did
- not exist. In each case, the B-2s were used in the
- first couple of nights while these air defenses were
- still there. After the threat was gone, so were the
- B-2s.

??? Iraq most certainly did not have the world's best air defense system. That honor belongs to the USSR.

[XyZspineZyX]

Not in 91 they didn't.

The intigrated air defences set up by the French was the most advanced system in the world using the newest technology.

In addition, over cities such as Baghdad, there was no other place on earth that had such a dense amount of AAA and SAMs in one spot. The next closest country with air defences as dense was North Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

The USSR was up there (most likely 2nd) but in the 91 timeframe, Iraq was clearly much more advanced and dense than anything in the USSR.

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[XyZspineZyX]

LOL

Get real.

- The intigrated air defences set up by the French was
- the most advanced system in the world using the
- newest technology.

Sorry, SA-2s, SA-3s, and S-60 57mm air defense guns are not new technology. They are the 'pointy' end of the spear, and quite frankly, they were blunt pieces of ****. The only system worth a damn was Roland, and it's hardly a credible long range AA missile, it's more for battlefield use.

S-300P systems, however, were, at the time, and still are cutting edge in their latest iteration, and are specifically designed for long range, medium-high altitude air defense.

- In addition, over cities such as Baghdad, there was
- no other place on earth that had such a dense amount
- of AAA and SAMs in one spot. The next closest
- country with air defences as dense was North Vietnam
- during the Vietnam war.

It's the quality of the weapons, not their density, that makes a good air defense network. Which was amply demonstrated in 1991. Iraq's air defense equipment was overwhelmingly obsolescent and ineffective.

- The USSR was up there (most likely 2nd) but in the
- 91 timeframe, Iraq was clearly much more advanced
- and dense than anything in the USSR.

Ludicrous. I suggest you research the PVO and it's forces more thoroughly. The MiG-31 interceptor force and ground-based missiles under it's command in particular. Though it had masses of SA-2s and SA-3s as well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I also direct you to the Red Army's fully integrated, mutli-level battlefield air defense assets, starting from the Igla MANPADS, then the Strela-10/Shilka (and Tunguska) regimental level combination, the Osa-AK (and Tor-M1) division level systems, and the Buk-M1 Army, and S-300V Front level SAM systems. None of which the Iraqi Army possessed, much to their detriment.

[XyZspineZyX]

Damn no edit function.

Just to conclude:

The reason the French 'KARI' system failed was because the systems it supposedly intergrated sucked. Every weapons system that made up the actual destroy enemy forces (so they can't take apart your intergrated system) was either too obsolete to matter (SA-2,SA-3,SA-6, thousands of useless AA guns of various types- all easily jammed or just plain avoidable), or too few to make any difference (Roland, Osa-AK, etc). In fact, as I recall, quite a few Coalition air losses were due to the MANPADS systems- especially the SA-16 GIMLET (Igla). A whole is only as good as the sum of it's parts. Give Iraq actual current air defense systems and I would agree that it was the best.

[XyZspineZyX]

You need to do some more research as well and see what Iraq actually did and how the allies defeated it, other than that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue with you. If it makes you happy, change 'advanced' to 'deadly.' If you don't agree with that, take some time to look back in history and see what constitutes a deadly air defense network and it what kind of defenses most aircraft losses took place.

Iraq did put up a good defense and gave plenty of headaches--while it was working (which lasted from a few minutes it a couple days depending on how you look at it).

The point is the integrated air defenses are only good while the integrated part of it is there. After that, it's pretty worthless.

Integrated air defenses are easy to find, and very susceptible to attack.

You kill the centralized command needed for an IAD system to work, and you make everyone work on their own not knowing what the other battery or airfield is doing. You kill the search radars and you have made them blind and made them loose their ability to control interceptors. You do a mission like they did a couple days into DS and you scare the SAM operators s***less so that they don't even turn on their radars. That makes any IAD network, no matter how good, about as useful as coat in July (for you northern hemisphere people http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Ok, I'll make it so that it makes sense to the people who live upside down, and like it-about as useful as a rowboat in the Sahara.

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

[XyZspineZyX]

My opinion why...

The BUFF had better systems than the B-1. It wasn't until recently that the B-1 got an integrated GPS system. Many of the pilots from Lancer squadrons went out and spent there own money on commercial models and had the Crew Chiefs hook them into the aircraft.

The B-1 Was designed for high-speed, low level penetration ala the F-111. Low level strike missions, as has already been pointed out, are pretty much a thing of the past. SA-2 and SA-3 SAMs are not well known for their low-level performance but systems like the S-300 make it highly unlikely that low level flying will ever again be in vogue except for A-10 pilots.

The Readiness level of B-1 squadrons is/was abyssmal. Part of the reason is political; another part is the WONDERFUL supply system the US goverment had initiated. A further problem was personnel retention.

From what I have been reading the B-52 will continue to serve, upward to 2025 and maybe beyond. There is talk of new engines for it ( I will try to find the picture on the web...) taken from the 747.

The B-1 may be infinitely more sexy, but the BUFF has proven to be the more effective, and efficient, bomber. That is why it has not been replaced by the Lancer...

Out of missiles; out of bullets...Switching to harsh language!

[XyZspineZyX]

Vympel wrote:
- 1. It's much more expensive to operate than the
- B-52.
- 2. It's less reliable, experiencing lower readiness
- rates (e.g. during Desert Shield/Storm the entire
- fleet was grounded) and is cannabalized a lot.
- 3. It's systems have never worked properly (it had a
- sophisticated EW system whoose components somehow
- managed to jam *each other*, oddly enough). After
- over a decade of trying to fix it, they just out and
- out gave up a few months ago.
- 4. The need to penetrate the defenses it was
- designed to overcome has disappeared (the US won't
- be going to war with Russia anytime soon).
-
- There's probably more, but bottom line is the Lancer
- is totally unnecessary for today's missions, which
- the Stratofortress can do just as well and for a
- lower price tag.
-
-
Mostly true - the B-1 is now MUCH more mission capable than it was during the Gulf War because they have had over a decade to work out the kinks.

Also, the B-52 has be reborn: it is no longer a low-level penetration bomber (which is the role of the B-1). It is now a standoff weapon platform, specializing in JDAM and cruise missle delivery, but offering the option of less sophisticated munitions as well.

[XyZspineZyX]

I just got back from Barksdale AFB and learned some interesting things.

I asked one of the BUFF pilots this question and got a response I was not expecting at all. In fact it goes against all common sense.

In short, the Bone can't keep up with the BUFF.

The Lancer can carry a whole lot more payload, but the BUFF can carry a whole lot more kinds of weapons.

But here is the clincher. The B-52 was designed as a high altitude bomber. The B-1b was designed as a low-altitude high speed bomber. The low altitude mission is not an option anymore, and so the Lancer must fly high like everyone else. But with the b version, it's out of its element. In places like Afghanistan, the B-1b struggled to get up high enough with its payload to stay out of the threat circles. It ended having to fly lower in the thick of things being shot at by AAA and SAMs.

The pilot said that he flew on a mission in Afghanistan where a B-1b was supposed to fly with them. Believe it or not, the B-1b could not keep up with the 50 year old BUFF. I had to have him say it again, because I did not believe it. But he reminded me that again the B-1b was designed for low level and with a full weapons load and full fuel, it struggles.

He said the B-1b is an amazing aircraft for what it was designed for and did it well, but the mission is out.

Of course there is some bias being the BUFF was his weapons system, but he was telling first person combat experience.

I also talked to an old B-1b EWO (he also was an EWO in B-52s). He said he would take the B-1b any day and that it really does not have the problems everyone says it does and the EW system works just fine. But he stopped flying during the low level days when the B-1b was much better at that altitude.

It still gives me a chuckle thinking about a 50 year old bomber out performing a sleek, swing-wing, afterburner equipped aircraft 30 years younger.


---While actual in-flight costs may be less (admittedly, I don't know anything about the flight costs of a B-52 and B-1b),

Oh, I almost forgot. We were told by the finance department that a B-52 costs $6,000 per flight hour to operate.

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

Message Edited on 07/11/0311:28PM by AFACadet