U.S. Air Force
Jerry Hendrix, Defense One: The US Air Force Needs More Bombers Than It’s Asking For
The only problem with the B-21 Raider acquisition strategy is that the minimum purchase should be 164 of the stealthy jets, not 100.
In a future combat zone dominated by advanced 3-D air search radars, directed-energy weapons, electromagnetic railguns, and hypersonic missiles, there is still room — indeed, a strong requirement — for the new B-21 heavy bomber. Analysis suggests that the United States needs a lot of them, far more than the 100 new bombers the Air Force currently desires.
To prosecute a major, sustained long-range strike campaign within an anti-access/area denial environment dominated by China’s HQ-9 or Russia’s S-400 missiles, the Air Force needs to add a minimum of 164 B-21 bombers to the nation’s older but nonetheless relevant B-52 Stratofortress and B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. This is because heavy bombers, whose form and function have been honed in hot and cold wars over a century, can perform missions and hit targets that no other platform can. (Find a detailed explanation for this determination in “Higher, Heavier, Farther, and now Undetectable?”, my recent report written with Air Force Lt. Col. James Price and published by the Center for a New American Security.)
Read more ....
WNU Editor: So .... the original request for 100 bombers to meet U.S. needs was wrong .... we now need 164. Any bets that a few years from now that this number of 164 will also be judged to be too small, and we will need over 200?
2 comments:
How DARPA works. Estimates and realities:
https://youtu.be/WH6V9A2RLQ4
In determining how many bombers we need, we need to properly assess the threats facing the United States. They are in order of the most dangerous threats, 1.)an all out nuclear attack by Russia. The combination of our aging nuclear arsenal, substandard training of the personnel, and low morale among the personnel combined with Russian cyber attacks may make a retaliatory response problematic, 2.)an Islamic terrorist attack involving the use of suitcase nuclear weapons along with some combination of dirty bombs detonated across multiple metropolitan areas simultaneously, and 3.)an invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, both of them, or either one of them or both of them in some combination with their allies.
In terms of most likely to occur, scenario 2 is still most likely even though scenario 1 poses the greatest danger. Unfortunately both scenarios 1 and 3 have become far more likely with the current boneheaded stupid actions of Congress to impose sanctions on Russia.
It is based upon the analysis of the threats posed to the United States that we determine how many bombers we need. Bombers are of little to no use in any of these scenarios. As such, we do not need 100 and we definitely do not need 164.
How many bombers do Canada and Australia have for example? I suspect it is far fewer than 100 or 164. Australia and Canada are both more secure than the United States, their citizens are healthier, wealthier, have a lifestyle that few Americans can dare hope for, and they opportunities for advancement far beyond what 99.9999% of Americans can ever dream of.
I would suggest studying the military postures of these countries and trying our best to implement something similar. Americans may not be on the level of these countries but it is something to aspire to.
Post a Comment