GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Air Force's commitment to new bomber a matter of debate

• 36686
  

  Having flown the B-2 "Spirit", I definitely rebuke the writer's intimation that the B-2 platform is an "awkward flier..." It is highly maneuverable at both high and low altitudes.

  Cal Posted November 6, 2007 9:57 PM
• 31269
  

  You have the Linebacker II operation in Vietnam wrong - what "got" the 18 B-52s was a planning structure trying to plya "12 O'Clock High" over a much more modern defense system. The "plan" (loosely called that) was rediculus! When a change was forced - they never lost another B-52. I think you need to get the facts straight rather than trying to "sell" the "we need a new bomber' program. I vote for drones - they don't need crew rest.

  James Takos Posted August 20, 2007 12:17 PM
• 31180
  

  Col Barson, with all due respect, as a B-1 pilot with 30 combat sorties, 360 combat hours and numerous (100+) combat weapon drops to my name, I can tell you 13+ hour sorties are not fun (being with a crew and the interaction is), but with all sincerity and humbleness, it is rewarding as all heck to know you are helping a comrade in arms who is having a much worse day than you. To hear the 50 cal gun going off over the radio while talking to a JTAC or hear him out of breath as he is running while on the radio, you realize real quick this is serious business. And after we drop our JDAMs on his target and hear his voice saying it was a "Good Hit" it is not about the fun. I think (and hope) the leadership sees this. Or maybe, in a much more pesimistic point of view, you are right and they will continue to let the 15C (and soon 22) guys have the fun. I guess we will see.

  EM Posted August 17, 2007 11:02 PM
• 31036
  

  I would agree with Rick about using a standoff missile carrier, except instead of developing a hypersonic bomber, why not develop hypersonic missiles for the carrier to use. The Boeing 787 would probably make an ideal platform. It is very unlikely that you would scramble a bomber from CONUS for an emergency mission thousands of miles away (which could take many hours). If there is need for that type of bomber support for a ground mission, then the capability should have been planned for and should be available at the time and location it is needed, not on-call from halfway around the world where problems such as weather could prevent its deployment. Of course lottering in a large flying weapons platform is not much fun, which tells you where Air Force leadership is focused.

  COL (Ret) John V. Barson, MC, MFS, USA Posted August 16, 2007 9:28 AM
• 31027
  

  How about the option of building modern high tech airborne stand-off launching platforms for Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs)? Perhaps modify C-17s or some follow on big cargo/tanker style bird to carry ALCMs in a type of rotary launching system. Fly to the edge of the adversaries' air defense capabilities, launch ALCMs, and return home for another load.

  However, no system will work if 30 years from now we have a generation of Americans who have never engineered, built or flown an airplane because we have "employed robust leverage of human capital to optimize the bottom line" by moving all our manufacturing jobs to China and hiring Eastern Europeans to operate all our air delivery systems.

  Rick Posted August 16, 2007 8:27 AM
• 31025
  

  Well written, thoughtful article.

  I think the real problem is one of culture. Truly brilliant non-rated officers get passed over in favor of less-qualified rated officers long after flying skills could possibly have any influence on executive management performance. The result is a senior leadership that wants to fly high and fast. The idea that an unmanned bomber could do the job better is a non-starter. The reason that the B52 is still flying and will continue for some time is because congress will not pay for the toys USAF wants. I truly believe that USAF needs to fix it promotion and command selection system so that it gets more mission focused leadership. I suggest that rated officers should not wear flight suits when they are in non-rated positions. Perhaps officers above the rank of Lt Col. should not be allowed to fly. And any command selection board for a non-flying command should have the candidates' records purged of any flying related information. Maybe USAF should be part of USMC, they seem to buy airplanes that have some relevance to their mission.

  COL, USA (R) Doug Daniel Posted August 16, 2007 8:20 AM
• 31013
  

  Why spend billions of dollars developing a bomber based on theoretical technology when they could spend trillions of dollar developing a laser that can just toast the enemy in a few seconds? It seems like a lot of tax payer dollars is being spent for designing systems that were obsolete before they are built or were supposed to use some gee-whiz technology that never would work.

  If we need to respond quickly, use a missile. If we need more heavy load bombers, build a few B-52 type bombers updated with proven technology. No mater what we build, some of them will be brought down. Thats the price of being a nation that constantly sticks its nose in other people's business.

  It's aggravating to see so much money spent on war and so little spent on piece.

  Robert M. Posted August 16, 2007 5:53 AM