Band name, or possibly a cologne?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
B-1's and B-52's as flying arsenals of air to air missiles?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
An article on this today concerning the B-1.
A Bomber for the Navy
https://othjournal.com/2019/04/15/a-bomber-for-the-navy/
A B-1B releases a LRASM during early trials of the AGM-158C anti-ship missile. The B-1 is the first aircraft to become operational with the weapon.
Dibs.
It’s certainly is an interesting concept. Setting aside the issues with maintenance, funding, and manning, having the capability on the Navy side would be extremely useful, even if they were only used as LRASM trucks.
I’ve worked with RAW Hobbs, and he knows his stuff (he’s one of the Bone guys who is actually smart on naval considerations).
@Brett327 are you saying there are holes in the employment concept or just in the logistics?
I’ve worked with RAW Hobbs, and he knows his stuff (he’s one of the Bone guys who is actually smart on naval considerations).
@Brett327 are you saying there are holes in the employment concept or just in the logistics?
Since we're spending money, you could also resurrect some old WWII squadrons with great lineage...
I like the concept but B-1's are maintenance nightmares, the way we maintain birds the Navy would quickly end up with only a handful of flyable aircraft.
Yeah, but a whole lot of promise too.
Not just LRASM but any ASCM and even mines. While the bombing of Japan got the most press and the submarine offensive worked well the aerial mining campaign by B-29's was the coup de grâce for the Japanese merchant fleet towards the end of WWII. Mining the chokepoints in the 'first island chain' would be a difficult obstacle for the PLAN to overcome and make our job easier in WESTPAC in case of a conflict. And with the USAF running the bombers I'm not sure how high on the priority list sea control missions will be in a war.
"Sino-American War of 2030 USAF Target Priority List"
- Beijing
- Shanghai
- Shenzhen
- Tianjin
- Dalian
- Wuhan
- Xi'an
- Chengdu
- Kim Jong Un's House
- Great Wall of China (let's make it just OK!)
- Disney World
- US Naval Academy campus
- Sea Control
Unfortunately now there are a lot less bombers and those left will likely have more missions to do in event of a conflict with China. Given that most air bases east of Guam could possibly be rendered inoperable pretty rapidly our bomber fleet would likely be tasked with a disproportionate share of missions, probably leaving the Navy's priorities about where Griz put them.
It would be a great tool for the Navy to use, but VPB ain't happening again anytime soon.
If the military needs the capabilities the B-1B brings, then the USAF should continue to operate it. Switching it over to another service, essentially starting from scratch, seems like an extraordinary waste of resources for a legacy airframe.
If someone said the primary mission of the Bone is ASUW it'd be a pariah community regardless if it stayed AF or came to the USN. The AF would want nothing to do with spending blue dollars on a USN mission and the USN wouldn't like it because it wasn't invented here. Probably the best way to make it work would be for it to stay USAF but fund the SUW mission from USN dollars kind of like how SOCOM funded the HCS squadrons.
as flash mentioned, MIW was hugely successful against Japan but it took a lot of wrangling and the USAAF had to run out of cities to burn before they considered it. But for the resources that were expended it was one of the best bang for the buck operations in WWII. but it wasn't sexy and it didn't fit in with the doctrine that USAAF was trying to prove.