Should the Vulcan have been replaced (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Standard operating procedure is to drop two guided bombs from high altitude, which will destroy pretty much any target.

And can you provide that "SOP?"

My point is that a standard strike is 2xPWIV or JDAM (even which is overkill in most situations). The other bombs the B-52 can carry basically act as deadweight given the paucity of targets.

Again, I think you better check your sources, unless you're now trying to compare a B-52 to an F-117? Do you realize the different roles and missions you're talking about?
 
Last edited:
And can you provide that "SOP?"

Given that it's only been a few days since I was briefed by a GR9 pilot on operations in Afghanistan, yes. Seems fairly standard in the USAF as well.

Do you realize the different roles and missions you're talking about?

The COIN mission is the only one available at the moment. There aren't that many targets available. You could dream up some scenario with lots of targets that the B-52 would be more useful to bomb but chances are there will be some IADS present and survivability goes way down.
 
It's worth mentioning that heavy firepower like the B-52 is part of the REASON for the scarcity of targets. People keep their heads down when they know moving openly invites oblivion.
 
Given that it's only been a few days since I was briefed by a GR9 pilot on operations in Afghanistan, yes. Seems fairly standard in the USAF as well.
GR9? I could tell you that no such "SOP" exists in the USAF and I'll stick my neck out and say the same for the Navy and Marines. I work with the USAF and sometimes have acess to generic operational directives and if you could tell me a specific signed and delivered "SOP" coming from a specific MAJCOM regarding this, I'll eat my shoes.

The COIN mission is the only one available at the moment. There aren't that many targets available. You could dream up some scenario with lots of targets that the B-52 would be more useful to bomb but chances are there will be some IADS present and survivability goes way down.
You don't use a B-52 for COIN operations. With that said your assertion that COIN missions are the only ones available is kind of far fetched as I doubt you're currently in Afghanistan to make that determination. You claim you've had this brief with a GR9 pilot, well if true I bet that same pilot has little or no insight into where and when the USAF will decide when to use a B-52 in the region. With that said there have been missions that only a B-52 could accomplish and it will take more than "two bombs" to complete such missions....

B52 carpet bombing 'can oust Taliban' - Telegraph

CNN.com - B-52 backs U.S. forces in Afghanistan - Dec. 2, 2002

And admittedly there are times when a B-52 isn't effective...

B-52 attacks 'lack vital element of surprise' - Telegraph

Bottom line, when you have an enemy hiding out in a concealed area where no JDAM could find them, you send in a B-52. When you have a known target that requires pinpoint accuracy, you won't use a B-52, its that simple. To diminish the B-52's role in the current conflict in Afghanistan is nonsense unless you grasp an understanding of their targets and how they are deployed and to compare the mission of any of the heavy bombers deployed to Afghanistan and their missions flown to some of the other strike aircraft that can carry out as you put it "a two bomb raid" is like comparing a pair of socks to a tractor.
 
Last edited:
...and the B-52 is a strategic asset. Certainly the argument can be made that the B-52 is not the most effective weapon to keep on station 24/7 in Afghanistan where we have protected bases for UCAVs/strike airplanes. But unique missions in the area and strategic deterence with Asia are still the name of the game in overall world affairs. The B-52 is old. But not obsolete yet.

And it's use with high energy non-lethal payloads makes it a weapon platform that is not fully publicized nor utilized at a fully operatonal level. And the ECM platform keeps getting deferred, but continually rises from the ashes. You can bet those capabilities are fielded at a squadron level, even without fully operational funding.
 
Great points Matt - like I heard a Buff driver once say - "deploying a B-52 is like building a highway overpass over your enemy's head then lobbing bombs on top of them."
 
This subject is like keeping battleships in mothballs...tricked the other nations into smelting theirs into kitchen appliances...then roll them back out when needed.

Anyway the RAF would have to have in their Operating procedures the requirements for Strategic Aircraft

Some of these missions include:
1. COIN
2. Sea Lane Interdiction ( This is great with a B52 and harpoons)
3. Eliminating those dang carpet problems (remember the scene on TV during Desert Storm when thousands of Iraqis surrendered to a handful of soldiers? Well, the nite before we expend a crap load of ordinance which was approaching its shelf life from Vietnam and carpet bombed an area near the bunkered soldiers....the rubble bounced!!)


There is also something to be said of being able to launch from within your country, knock the snot out of a target half way around the world and then recover from whence ye launched.

Yes I agree that the RAF should have a strategic air arm. Problem is can the UK afford it and is it's foreign policy going to support it?
 
The RAAF is having a similar debate with our F-111 fleet. For thirty years they have provide great security for Australia in the maritime strike role, and nothing in the region was capable of intercepting the,. Remains the case today, and the ordinance carried by the aardvarks is truly awesome (at least in the regional sense). But they are to be retired ( if not already retired, to be replaced by a similar number of "Super Hornets". Now I dont know jack about the new F-18s, but I will bet my last dollar that they are not as capable in the strike role as the old F-111.

The F-18s are a temporay expedient, to be replaced by the F-35, if and when it flies properly..... Maybe that bird will fill the gap, but I have my doubts.

In the context of a large country like Australia, with limited resources, ther is no question that aircraft are more cost effective than missiles. In fact I doubt that missile can undertake the long range maritime strike role that the F-111s were able to do
 
I think your logistics tail on the F-111 is huge compared to the F-18. But one does have to wonder what RAAF is giving up with respect to range and payload.
 
I like the idea of a heavy subsonic bomber for the RAF.

But...the Vulcan was obsolete by the 1960s as soon as SAMs and Mach 2 fighters came out.

Even the B-52 would be a bad place to be with S-300 and modern MiGs and Sukhois about.

I would rather spend the extra on body armour and more helicopters....this is what the British military needs...right now.
 
Well said. Especially with respect to the body armour and helicopters. Especially the helicopters. You guys are in real need there.
 
The RAAF is having a similar debate with our F-111 fleet. For thirty years they have provide great security for Australia in the maritime strike role, and nothing in the region was capable of intercepting the,. Remains the case today, and the ordinance carried by the aardvarks is truly awesome (at least in the regional sense). But they are to be retired ( if not already retired, to be replaced by a similar number of "Super Hornets". Now I dont know jack about the new F-18s, but I will bet my last dollar that they are not as capable in the strike role as the old F-111.

The F-18s are a temporay expedient, to be replaced by the F-35, if and when it flies properly..... Maybe that bird will fill the gap, but I have my doubts.

In the context of a large country like Australia, with limited resources, ther is no question that aircraft are more cost effective than missiles. In fact I doubt that missile can undertake the long range maritime strike role that the F-111s were able to do

You're right to have doubts concerning the short-ranged, marginally stealthy F-35's actual ability to efficiently perform all the tasks expected of it. You might find this interesting:

Assessing JSF Air Combat Capabilities

BTW, didn't your govt. just order 14 of them for the low, low price of $3.2 billion? I wonder how many F-15E's you could get for that much...

JL
 
BTW, didn't your govt. just order 14 of them for the low, low price of $3.2 billion? I wonder how many F-15E's you could get for that much...

JL

F-15Es that could be around for say the next 20 years.....

Where the F-35s could be around for the next 50 years....And have more capabilities.

How's that saying go - penny wise, dollar foolish?!?
 
It's interesting to see how the Cold War fighter-on-fighter attrition debate compares with the modern day narrow penetration mantra.
 
The only F-35's that are gonna be around fifty years from now will be in museums. The continuing advances in computer, pattern recognition, sensor, and missile propulsion technology will see to that.

BTW, anybody remember the economical, 'all things to all airmen' TFX?

Thought not...

JL
 
"The appearance of B52s cheered anti-Taliban commanders, who have spent the past week deriding American "pin pricks", and raised their hopes that the enemy positions might at last collapse. As a B52 barrelled across the sky, its four vapour trails clearly visible, the whole landscape appeared to shake.

It sent down one salvo of bombs, setting off a series of at least 15 explosions over a distance of half a mile, before returning for a second attack. Previous air raids on the strategic sector of the Taliban front line guarding the approaches to Kabul have been carried out by smaller fighter-bombers which release one or two bombs at a time."

Link provided by FlyboyJ
B52 carpet bombing 'can oust Taliban' - Telegraph

I like what they said here. Especially what is said in bold. I cant even beleve we have been compairing the Harrier weapons to the B-52. I would much rather have a B-52 on station than a Harrier anyday.
 
The only F-35's that are gonna be around fifty years from now will be in museums. The continuing advances in computer, pattern recognition, sensor, and missile propulsion technology will see to that.

BTW, anybody remember the economical, 'all things to all airmen' TFX?

Thought not...

JL

And again, I'd like to know the source aside from your biased opinions where you come up with that statement? If anything, it would be very realistic that the F-35 would see a 50 year life span considering the F-15 has been around 35 years (and probably got at least another 10 years ahead of it) and the F-117A lasted 25 years, and the only reason why the 117 went away is because of the F-35....

The TFX? now THAT was waste of money.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back