It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bombers and Military Strategies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Some of this is partly rambling on my part, Don't Take Anything Personal!

We discuss aircraft, and their strengths and weaknesses, but everyone misses the critical peice of the puzzle: Strategy! It's not the weapons that win wars, it's when, where, and how they are used! Strategy is the art of warfare, and it decides if you win or lose. If we want to see the marits of bombers, we need to talk about Strategic Doctrine, not just indiviual aircraft.

The best stategy I've ever seen was in Gulf War 1. It was called decapitation, and it was based on on the ideas of Gen. Billy Mitchelle. The Idea was to strike a hard decisive blow at your enemy's top military and civilain leadership in the opening hours or days of a conflict. As GW1 proved, the concept works very well, when it is done right! To make the startegy work its best, you need to deploy a large amount of firepower quickly and accuratly. This is where Heavy Bombers, like the B-2, B-52, and B-1 become important. Yes, smaller aircraft can carry smart weapons, but they can't carry enough of them to be efficient. Read the Fallowing Senarieo, You'll see my point:

You need to ship 100 tons of food across the country. You have a tractor-trailer that can carry 20 tons at one time, and you have a light box truck that can carry 5 tons at a time. They are equal in reliability. Here's the question: would you rather make 20 trips with the small truck or 5 with the big one?

This shows you my point about why heavy bombers are more efficent then smaller fighters. Even with the most advanced and reliable smart bombs and precision guided missiles: If you have 30 seprate targets, you will need a minimum of 30 bombs to hit all of them! Making weapons more accurate and reliable, will NOT reduse the number of targets that need to be hit. More planes, mean more people(many of whom have families) in harm's way! in the long run, You are better off from a safty, an economic, and a strategic standpoint, Useing a smaller number of large, High-tech, heavy bombers, like the B-2, B-1, and B-52! This is why I think it's dumb to push smaller cheaper planes, like the F-35 and F-117, at the expence of the heavy bomber fleet. To add to my case I'll dispell some myths below:

MYTH#1: Light strike Aircraft are more accurate then heavy bomber.

FACT: That might have been true in WW2, but with today's smart weapons size no longer affects accuracy.

Myth#2: Fighter are more reliable then heavy bombers.

Fact: Reliability has to do with design, and manafacturing, not how big it is or how complicated.

Myth#3: Fighters are built with better reliabilty.

Fact: All aircraft for the military have to meet the comparable standards for reliability. (Remember: the B-52 is over 50 years old, None of the fighter designs we use today are even close to that age; bombers, like fighters, have improved since then.)

With some accurate, and current, information, the debate looks different! I wecome differencs of oppinion, but be ready to back up you oppinion with facts. Don't shoot down the idea of heavy bombers! Bombers are just as importante as fighters. You can't compare aircraft with different roles and say one can replace the other!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
ghost, I agree that bombers are just as important as fighters. Period.


BUT, the heavy bombers, with the exception of the VLO type (B2), cannot go in to the fray on Day 1 of the war against a mature enemy and help with the decapitation unless the fighter-bombers, electronic attack aircraft and cruise missiles have done the SEAD missions. Or the heavy bombers (B-52, B1) are dead. Unless that is you want to escort them with a bunch of peripheral craft.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare them against one another directly. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and they compliment each other well. Why does it have to be one over the other?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Air dominance against any potential enemy of the U.S. will probably be acheived in a matter of days, if not hours, in spite of all the enthusastic support displayed on ATS threads for russian/european/indian/chinese aircraft.
The need for an economical "bomb truck"with loiter capability over a target area that has been cleaned of SAM threats has been discussed in detail over the years, including a 747 modified to carry munitions.
A counter argument to the need for such a vehicle is that as accuracy and targeting techniques improve and the size of warheads continue to shrink, the old measures of bomb tonnage to achieve goals has changed, so that a lot more can be done with a lot less.
As a old Aberdeen instructor once told me, "Better a well aimed BB than the whole 8th Air Force dropping bombs aimlessly."



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Also our major bombers can travel a much longer distance with enormous payload much more efficiently than a small fighter jet could. Its also about efficiency, shock, and awe!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The old navy carrier admirals fought this fight against the newly minted USAF over 50 years ago. If you need to strike fast, do it from somewhere close to the target.
I think the money being spent on a futuristic hypersonic heavy bomber that strikes anywhere on earth from the continental U.S. within an hour could be put to better use elsewhere.
But then again, we probably already have such a beast at Area 51.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
You need to ship 100 tons of food across the country. You have a tractor-trailer that can carry 20 tons at one time, and you have a light box truck that can carry 5 tons at a time. They are equal in reliability. Here's the question: would you rather make 20 trips with the small truck or 5 with the big one?


Not quite a perfect analogy
If im shipping 20tonnes of goods across the country, it all goes to one place at the end of the trip - the distribution warehouse. Then I use local trucks to deliver a tonne to each store. The diesel tractor is more efficient at pulling that 20tonne load over large distances, while the small delivery vehicle is better for innercity deliveries etc.



This shows you my point about why heavy bombers are more efficent then smaller fighters. Even with the most advanced and reliable smart bombs and precision guided missiles: If you have 30 seprate targets, you will need a minimum of 30 bombs to hit all of them! Making weapons more accurate and reliable, will NOT reduse the number of targets that need to be hit. More planes, mean more people(many of whom have families) in harm's way!


Ahh, I think this is wrong tho.

You need to hit 30 targets - 10 planes hitting 3 targets each actually reduces the potential issues of a loss. Each time the B-52 hits a target, it has an equal chance of being shot down and thus an euqal chance of the mission being scrubbed because the delivery vehicle was now unavailable. Also theres the time factor - a B-52 roaming around hitting each target in turn tkaes a considerable amount of time, more than 10 figthers hitting 3 targets each. You loose a fighter, you lost at most 3 targets. You loose the bomber, you have potentially 30 more targets to hit. You assi8gn a bomber to the mission, targets 3 - 30 have now been alerted to the fact that theres something happening, and can prepare before being hit. You assign fighters, each target is hit so fast they will have little to no time to prepare.



MYTH#1: Light strike Aircraft are more accurate then heavy bomber.

FACT: That might have been true in WW2, but with today's smart weapons size no longer affects accuracy.


True.



Myth#2: Fighter are more reliable then heavy bombers.

Fact: Reliability has to do with design, and manafacturing, not how big it is or how complicated.

Myth#3: Fighters are built with better reliabilty.

Fact: All aircraft for the military have to meet the comparable standards for reliability. (Remember: the B-52 is over 50 years old, None of the fighter designs we use today are even close to that age; bombers, like fighters, have improved since then.)


A fighter has 2 engines (1 in some cases) - they take less maintenance than a 8 engined B-52. A fighter can be in the thick of it faster than a B-52.

A bomber role really hasnt changed much in the past 50 yeasrs - take a sh*t load of high explosive and put it on target. By comparison, fighters roles have changed, been updated, theyve had to deal with new countermeasures, theyve had to go faster, longer ranged, you name it. A fighters mission role has increase dramatically, while a bomber has but one role to fulfil.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
Also our major bombers can travel a much longer distance with enormous payload much more efficiently than a small fighter jet could. Its also about efficiency, shock, and awe!!!


Yeah, loiter time and global reach. And with RPV's and stand-off cruise missiles, you could fill a BUFF with joysticks and use it for a robotic aircraft carrier.

Kind of like the old Navy airships that carried biplanes...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I kind of like the idea of a medium sized stealth bomber. The B-2 while an excellant aircraft is too costly to use effectively. I was reading about the loss of the F-117 over Kosovo in the 90s and realized what a propaganda victory that could be achieved if a B-2 is either shot down or crashes due to a mechanical failure. What is needed is a less costly aircraft with reasonable stealth capabilities. With this aircraft you use say 10 of them with both gravity and stand-off precision guided munitions and take out all of the targets at the same time. BOOM!! War over.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Heavy bombers are good but each heavy bomber you put up you have to have a complement of fighters to protect it.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by itmg]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
If huge bombers are so good,then why build the F-117 earlier? Simple,because, big cargo planes have poor penetration ability. You will not be able to just fly over a S-300 like that,unlike a F-117. B-2s might be able to do that,but they are limited in number in the first place.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Missiles, however, have excellent penetration capability, and the Gulf wars have shown that against a prepared defence, cruise missiles and stealth play an essential knock down role in the opening stages.
After that, if bombing in support of ground operations is needed, being able to call down ordinance in quick time requires a platform from which to drop them from.
The arguements for big bombers then, is time and economy, suited to the nature of the conflict.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
If huge bombers are so good,then why build the F-117 earlier? Simple,because, big cargo planes have poor penetration ability. You will not be able to just fly over a S-300 like that,unlike a F-117. B-2s might be able to do that,but they are limited in number in the first place.


Not according to my sources! I have 10 or 12 different books on the history of Stealth Technology. According to my sources, The Reason that the F-117 was built first was as a risk reduction mesure! The Pentagon and the Air Force wanted to gain some experince with Stealth technology, before they committed to it's full scale use, so they built a cheaper, less advanced aircraft to learn off of! Think about it, Why do you think almost all of the internal hardwear for the F-117 was "Off the Shelf" Technology? The planes were built using spare hardwear from older aircraft. They were not willing to put the latest technology into stealth aircrafts untill they were sure they had most of the bugs out of the system.

As for the limited number of B-2's built, I'm positive that had to do with Politics, and not strategy. Remember, A politician can put their fingers into anything, even if they are clueless about it! (The Rest of this Argument would better be addressed in another thread!)

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost


As for the limited number of B-2's built, I'm positive that had to do with Politics, and not strategy. Remember, A politician can put their fingers into anything, even if they are clueless about it! (The Rest of this Argument would better be addressed in another thread!)


Another important consideration in all weapons development in the 80's and 90's were treaty limitations. This is why the F117 is classed as a fighter, even though it has no air-air capability. Also, for every additional B-2 made a B-1 or B-52 would have to be taken out of service. Therefore the capabilites gained by an additonal B-2 is only the penetrating capability - the US would actually loose some ability to deliver large numbers of bombs when needed.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
You need to ship 100 tons of food across the country. You have a tractor-trailer that can carry 20 tons at one time, and you have a light box truck that can carry 5 tons at a time. They are equal in reliability. Here's the question: would you rather make 20 trips with the small truck or 5 with the big one?


This seems like an oversimplification.
It depends what the roads are like. You might not be able to use the big truck all the time. Maybe it is too slow and the food will spoil before it gets there whereas the smaller truck could be faster and refrigerated.



MYTH#1: Light strike Aircraft are more accurate then heavy bomber.

FACT: That might have been true in WW2, but with today's smart weapons size no longer affects accuracy.

Myth#2: Fighter are more reliable then heavy bombers.

Fact: Reliability has to do with design, and manafacturing, not how big it is or how complicated.

Myth#3: Fighters are built with better reliabilty.

Fact: All aircraft for the military have to meet the comparable standards for reliability. (Remember: the B-52 is over 50 years old, None of the fighter designs we use today are even close to that age; bombers, like fighters, have improved since then.)


Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


Myth#1 Well heavy bombers are a more vulnerable target which impacts their usefullness.

Myth#2Agreed. Different aircraft are intended for different roles. Put the rund peg in the round hole

Myth#3 Is actually Myth#2 worded differently.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde

Originally posted by ghost
You need to ship 100 tons of food across the country. You have a tractor-trailer that can carry 20 tons at one time, and you have a light box truck that can carry 5 tons at a time. They are equal in reliability. Here's the question: would you rather make 20 trips with the small truck or 5 with the big one?


This seems like an oversimplification.
It depends what the roads are like. You might not be able to use the big truck all the time. Maybe it is too slow and the food will spoil before it gets there whereas the smaller truck could be faster and refrigerated.



MYTH#1: Light strike Aircraft are more accurate then heavy bomber.

FACT: That might have been true in WW2, but with today's smart weapons size no longer affects accuracy.

Myth#2: Fighter are more reliable then heavy bombers.

Fact: Reliability has to do with design, and manafacturing, not how big it is or how complicated.

Myth#3: Fighters are built with better reliabilty.

Fact: All aircraft for the military have to meet the comparable standards for reliability. (Remember: the B-52 is over 50 years old, None of the fighter designs we use today are even close to that age; bombers, like fighters, have improved since then.)




Myth#1 Well heavy bombers are a more vulnerable target which impacts their usefullness.

Myth#2Agreed. Different aircraft are intended for different roles. Put the rund peg in the round hole

Myth#3 Is actually Myth#2 worded differently.


Well James, I have to credit you with finding my mistake! Myth#2 and Myth#3 are the same thing, the words are just different(I didn't realize the mistake when I posted this the first time). Sorry! What I had intended to point out in Myth#3 , is that fighters are more vulnerable in some ways, because of their shorter range. Fighters are always base closer to the front lines, which makes them more vulnerable to attack. Heavy bombers like the B-2 and the B-52 can be base hundeds of miles behind friendly lines, where you have more time to react to an incoming attack. The unrefuled Range of a fighter is measured in Hunderds of miles, on the other hand, the range of bombers is measured in Thousands of miles!

MY point to this thead was that it is a bad idea to replace bombers with fighters (which is waht the US seems to be doing). I think we're better off developing new heavy bombers to replace old ones, instead of going to small strike-fighter like the F-117! We need a balance, and the USAF is ignoring this critical fact! I'm not bad mouthing fighters, I'm saying We NEED BOTH!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Dear all,

I will post on this tonight when I have enough time to do it properly.

Cheers

BHR..

[edit on 21-3-2005 by BillHicksRules]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join