It's new...it's expensive....should we be doing this?

So there is going to be a big news event soon where the maker of the next generation long range bomber is announced.

Let us look at the missions needed for long range strike and see what can be done.

With uncontested air space (or near obsolete defenses) we don't need stealth.

Contested air space:

Close air support. The U.S. does not put in troops where air space may be contested. History shows that when this happens, our land casualties climb. This is not friendly for the 24-hour news cycle.

For interdiction missions: that is hitting targets behind the enemy lines which are composed of various land fighting forces, lines of communication including dropping bridges, POL/munitions, headquarters and so on, stealth may be useful. But that might not involve a manned aircraft. Fixed, known targets; some moving targets.

Deep strike, which is usually airfields, and various infrastructure that an enemy doesn't want to lose which doesn't always fall into the category of interdiction. Again, if the threats are modern, we probably do not want to use manned aircraft.

Let us (again) look at Operation: ALLIED FORCE, in 1999. In that campaign against weak'ish threats we were able to suffer acceptable losses and get a resolution out of the air campaign. That is debatable depending on your point of view. Of more interest is that even though the threats were weak, we were unable to come anywhere near destroying the mobile, surface to air threat. Take that same pattern of air campaign and add S-300, S-400, mobile, surface-to-air threats and associated network sensor systems.

Then add enemy combat aircraft that are parity or better.

The chore for the readership of this blog: can you find better solutions than a $500M-plus unit cost stealth bomber to subdue an enemy?

I am on the side of a non-stealth, long-range bomber that in-turn, can manage a bunch of drones way out front (see video below).

The "joint-force" will have to come up with something too. And, long-term, with sore budgets, we might not even need a United States Air Force.

Army Aviation and the U.S. Navy.

D.C. and friends are caught up in the next stealth long range bomber which, will in no way be on time, or on budget.

I like long-range strike and ISR. I don't know if an insanely expensive, stealth, long-range bomber is the way to kick down the door, and keep up a sustained strategic bombing campaign lasting weeks, where the IADS may, or may not be subdued.

Air campaigns should also fit within a budget.




.