5 ms·
...replacing a tactical bomber with a strategic bomber is a bit of a leap. And B1s are -expensive- to keep flying. That's one reason why they're first to be con
by icegreentea 16y ago
...replacing a tactical bomber with a strategic bomber is a bit of a leap. And B1s are -expensive- to keep flying. That's one reason why they're first to be considered to retire. B2s cost a lot too, but they're stealth and B52 are just... well, remarkable is the only word.
Btw, I think you ended up replacing your FB-111s with Super Hornets.
On the side, I'm sad that you guys are retiring your F-111s. Once they're gone, there'll be noone left to do dump and burns. Voosh!
- jacques_chester 16y agoIt is a leap, but at least it would be a leap up. Neither the Super Hornets nor the JSFs which will replace them have the range and load that the FB-111 had. For many mission profiles cruise missiles would do just as well -- better, actually -- but sometimes you don't want precision, you want to bust up a whole bunch of shit at the same time. That's the sweet spot for bombers. During the Timor independence crisis the forward deployment of 6 FB-111s from New South Wales to Darwin caused a buildup of troops and armor on the Indonesian side of the border to disperse and return to base. FB-111s were originally purchased to fill a strategic role. Australia has a nuclear technology establishment. It's an open secret that we only have it to keep some degree of potential bomb-making knowhow on hand. But we don't have a rocketry organisation, so for that threat to remain credible you'd need a bomber that could carry an unrefined, bulky warhead. That's gone. It was, in the context of the times, a quite nuanced deterrence which avoided prompting a regional arms race.