4 ms·
There's operational/capability benefits that can be rationalized, but in terms of aquisitions it's probably cheaper and politically easier for USAF MIC to build
by maxglute 3y ago
There's operational/capability benefits that can be rationalized, but in terms of aquisitions it's probably cheaper and politically easier for USAF MIC to build billion dollar bombers, sustained by billion dollar basing and aerial tanking to drop million dollar smart bombs. There's inertia in terms of integration into existing systems and interservice history (drama) with each branch fighting for dollars and relevance over their piece of future long range strike mission. Don't discount the politics - the airforce is not going to NOT have expensive planes supported by expensive tanking fleet. The navy is not going to NOT have expensive carrier groups supported by expensive replenishment. The marines fine with pivotting to maritime strike missions, but they're a small. Army is bigger, have little role in IndoPac (really what B21's about - China), Airforce and Navy going to lobby against Army stepping on their turf.
PRC side stepped that by elevating rocket force (previously artillery corp) as it's own branch, PLA writing on long range strikes is more or less prompt global strike with ICBMs. They also don't really have a another choice since it would take decades to build up alternate power projection methods (carriers, bombers). They're still developing those options but in theory their near term equalizer is to spam 10,000 or even 100,000s of icbms to take out expensive reusable US platforms and other critical targets. And with PRC value engineering, at significantly less cost.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Army is bigger, have little role in IndoPac (really what B21's about - China), Airforce and Navy going to lobby against Army stepping on their turf The Army has our silo-launched missiles fleet. (EDIT: Never mind!)
- maxglute 3y agoICBM silo force (as in triad) is under Air Force. Army and airforce competed for control over ICBM in the 60s, and airforce ended up getting ICBMs, army engineers built the silos. As far as I know, army doesn't have long range strike options. Army was hampered until recently from even expanding to medium range theater options due to INF. Army's Space Missile Defense Command did test advanced hypersonic weapon AHW a decade ago. Airforce response was, too expensive per unit, too destablizing, basically piss off army, long range strike is our turf.
- TMWNN 3y ago>As far as I know, army doesn't have long range strike options. Army bought Tomahawk, thus putting it in line with the other services. <https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/army-picks-tomahawk-sm-6-for-mid-range-missiles/ https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/army-picks-tomahawk-sm-6...>
- ianburrell 3y agoI read discussion recently that Air Force ICBMs should be transferred to Space Force. Which makes a lot of sense and would spread out the nuclear triad. The Army is getting medium-range strike. They now have land-based Tomahawk missiles. They are also getting the LRHW hypersonic missiles with 1700 mi range.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> but in theory their near term equalizer is to spam 10,000 or even 100,000s of icbms Counting ones under construction (which are the vast majority), China is estimated to have a little under 500 ICBM launchers and probably not significantly more ICBMs than operational launchers. There's zero chance for them to "spam 10,000 or even 100,000s of ICBMs".