As storm clouds gather in the background multiple B-2 Spirit aircraft land for aircraft recovery Aug. 24, 2016 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The B-2s low-observable, or “stealth,” characteristics give it the ability to penetrate an enemy’s most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most-valued, heavily defended targets while avoiding adversary detection, tracking and engagement. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jovan Banks)
Washington Examiner: Why the US sent nuclear-capable B-2s from Missouri to strike ISIS
When U.S. commanders wanted to destroy remnants of the Islamic State who had regrouped in camps in Libya, they pulled out one of the biggest arrows in the U.S. quiver: the B-2 stealth bomber.
A pair of the radar-evading batwing bombers flew a 30-plus-hour round trip mission from their base in Missouri to deliver more than 100 bombs to wipe out the camps Wednesday night, killing an estimated 80 Islamic State terrorists.
The decision to rely on long-range nuclear-capable bombers based in America's heartland to carry out a strike halfway around the globe in North Africa prompted some observers to wonder if the U.S. was trying to send a wider message about the long reach of U.S. military.
Read more ....
Previous Post: It Cost The U.S. $8.8 Million To Send 2 B-2 Stealth Bombers Halfway Around The World To Kill 80 ISIS Fighters In Libya
WNU Editor: So instead of using a few dozen fighters/bombers they decided to use 2 B-2 bombers. That is their explanation, and they are sticking with it.
10 comments:
The reasons given seem valid. To suggest they are "sticking to it" implies they are being less than truthful. There seems no evidence to support this.
Also, I'm sure the "radar evading" capabilities were a major factor. Other less expensive options in the region likely don't have this to same extent the B-2 does. ISIS is a VERY tough enemy, far tougher than we are being told. To tell the people the truth risks completely collapsing the US economy and probably much of the world.
If someone was trying to send a "message" to Russia and China, it was sent loud and clear. The US military is spread to thin and less expensive more conventional options that the US has are not up to the task of taking out an ISIS camp of the type here. As such, the "message" sent and reinforced is the US military does not and likely will not at any time in the foreseeable pose a credible threat to Russia or China. As such, meaning no disrespect to anyone I think the "message" theory can be dismissed.
Isis have radar? Nope. It was a warning to China and Russia and North Korea that was heard loud and clear.
Why would you need stealth to strike isis? Kobane was bombed in clear daylight by non-stealth strike aircraft and not a single one was hit. Isis actually tried to use an old Soviet artillery piece as AA..
Correct it obviously wasnt aimed at or needed for isis ( 1940 stuka would suffice)but a mrssage to china and kim.
Fazman,
ISIS have radar? They probably do. This is ehy radar evading bombers would need to be used. If this was a "sarning" to Rusdia, China, North Korea or anyone else, they got it "loud and clear" and are lwughing hysterically at the Americans. The Americans don't have a less expensive platform in their arsenal that was closer to the scene that could have handled this reinforcing the editors theory that the US mikitary is spread way to thin. Of course those who are paying attention and have not been rendered stupid by their ideology already knew this.
The "message" was in fact sent loud and clear. The US military is spread way to thin and does not pose a credible challenge or threat to Russia, China, or North Korea in their respective regions. As stated, those who have been paying attention already knew this assuming they haven't allowed ideology to blind them.
As for 1940 stuka, ISIS is a far tougher enemy tgan Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever were or likely ever could have been. As such, planes or other weapons of that era will not be sufficient to defeat an enemy of this type. With said ISIS is not the enemies of that era nor is today's Ametica the same country it was then. As such, a winning strategy will be much different thsn the ones used in WW2.
Now, when you want to send a "message" to Russia, China, or North Korea, please use Aussie military forces to do this. When it it is your country, your loved ones, your young men and wonen, and your people in the firing lines I think you'll be a bit more circumspect.
The most likely explanation is the one given. There is no evidence to disprove it. Another possibilty is Barack Obama wanted to leave office with a bang. As such, use a "hammer" to show your toughness when a "chisel" would have sufficed. If so, he only reinforced what a complete idiot he is. Of course those paying attention and not blinded by ideology already knew this!!
$8,800,000 to kill 80 jihadi's and 4 $17,000 used Hilux pickups.
Probably more.
$4.8 trillion and climbing.
Aizino,
I think you are largely correct here. Aircraft launched from the US have a certain advantage. I'd add though there are sone downsides. It costs more and fewer planes are available that can do this sort of jobs. As such, our options will be a bit more limited. With that said with good Intelligence we could probably offset the limitations to a great deal if not entirely.
Also, as mentioned in the article, this type of plane doesn't need to cross the airspace of other countries. This could have been a factor. With timing being of the essence there may not have been time to get the neccessary clearences to overtly certain countries to reach the targets.
You mention Spain and the Iraq war. At the first sign of trouble, the Spanish turned tail and ran. Americans thought Spain was an ally. Some are still bitter over this betrayal.
I was under no delusion. No western European nations are allies of America. At best, they are strategic competitors and at worst enemies. Now that the United Kingdom has been freed from the EU, there is a possibility that we can be friends but America needs to proceed with extreme cautikn here.
Caecus,
Each situation is different. In the case of Kobane, perhaps the US had help from people on tbe ground to disable certain defenses so the attack could hapoen in broad daylight without stealth. While few if any will help the Americans, the Iranians and the Russians have a vested interest in beating ISIS. As such, if the Americans are eager to do the heavy lifting someone might pass info on to them. Without such assistance it seems unlikely an attack in broad daylight not using stealth could be successful.
Also, this enemy has demonstrated an amazing ability to adapt. Their defenses may have improved since Kobane.
Jay,
Thanks for the numbers on this. I didn't share them because they are easy enough to find online by anyone wishing to do so. I tend to forget some are to lazy to do so.
Such an expenditure might make sense if these targets are of extremely high value, timing is of the essence, there is extremely solid Intelligence on the location of the targets, and there is risk involved in securing overflight petmission of countries in the region as ISIS has operatives everywhere who could notify the targets. Unfortunately the credibility of the US government is pretty near zero. As such, such an expenditure combined with the risk seems unjustified.
Before some want to engage in such things they should think about taking it from their seniors, their poor and challenged, from funds needed for their infrastructure, and saddle their children with the massive debt to do such fruitless things. While some seem to view Americans as expendable. I'm pretty sure they view their own with more value. When some are at risk, some will probably be much more prudent.
This action only reinforces how thin the US military is spread. A "message" to Russia, China, North Korea, or anyone else seems unlikely. ISIS is strong. These powers are far stronger. They are likely laughing hysterically at us. I don't think the Pentagon is that stupid to try and send a "message" to anyone when it's own forces are currently hard pressed to defend the US mainland let alone send "messages" to world powers like Russia or China or a regional power like North Korea.
Perhaps BHO wanted to go out with a flash. While I wouldn't think the military leaders would cooperate with such pettiness perhaps they would. Regardless this isn't a good situation.
B
Non-stealth aircraft including drones and helicopters from so many nations (US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Turkey, Russia, Jordan, etc) have been flying over IS territory in broad daylight for years now without any losses. Even the lost Jordanian F-16 can't be conclusively ascribed to IS fire.
I think it's pretty clear that IS do not have the capability of engaging high-flying targets including airliners which would be a huge problem for the region. They do have the usual AA cannons, and MANPADS, but they are only a threat to Syrian jets which have obsolete technology and have to fly much lower than their counterparts.
Secondly, if IS are as strong as you claim they are, how is it that the Russians and Iranians would know exactly where these AA systems are, and who went in there to take them out?
Post a Comment