4 ms·

> the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?

VLM 13y ago
A solved problem, you launch cheap cruise missiles until you obtain relative superiority.
- greedo 13y ago
  Cheap? Hardly. A Tomahawk is far north of $1M a shot, and JASSM is above $1M as well.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Yes, dirt cheap. Even if you use Hollywood accounting like "flyaway costs" you can get 100 Tomahawks for the cost of one F-35, and the point of the wargame was you only get roughly one sortie per F-35 unless you have air superiority. So economically its far cheaper to not build one F-35 while buying 100 Tomahawks, then cruise missile every airfield, than to lose your entire stock of F-35 on one sortie. Another way to phrase it, is every sortie you can either lose all your F-35, or "lose" one by not buying it and carpet bomb every single enemy .mil airfield minutes before the F-35 sortie. It seems pretty obvious which is cheaper, even before we get into pilot training costs and the long length of the .mil pilot training pipeline, etc.
    - greedo 13y ago
      You have to include launcher costs: either an SSGN like the modified Tridents, or the SSNs that carry them. Plus, with an aircraft, you can use it multiple times, and often in unique and unexpected ways. A missile, not so much. Plus, TLAM isn't expected to be very survivable in a contested environment, especially around S300/S400 sites. That's the impetus for developing the troubled JASSM.
      - chiph 13y ago
        The GLCM launchers got treatied away with the Soviets. The transporter/erector/launcher was a 8x8 MAN truck that had good off-road capabilities. Compared to a sub, they're dirt cheap.
        greedo 13y ago
        Yep, the INF treaty gutted them, and that's why we rely exclusively on SSGNs, SSNs, and the B1/B52 for delivery. All of which are extremely expensive. We're also range limited with cruise missiles by the same treaty, though I'm not sure if it's still in force since the dissolution of the USSR.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      The thing to do is to launch 100 Tomahawks so that you can then use stealth aircraft to trash the SAM sites and interceptor aircraft that reveal themselves to shoot them down.
      - greedo 13y ago
        The problem is that against a peer opponent with S300 or higher SAM networks, the TLAM will get shot down.
  - dkhenry 13y ago
    Enter the Rail Gun http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagn...
  - astrodust 13y ago
    The bombs they drop are not free either, some of the smart munitions cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
    Once you factor in the entire program cost and logistics footprint, the Tomahawk is the absolute cheapest way the US military has to put a bomb on a specific spot on the map.
    - SEJeff 13y ago
      That's why we fired 1 tomahawk (on average) every 12 seconds for the entire 48 hours of the opening to the war in Afghanistan. It is mind blowing to think how destructive that was
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Tomahawks work ok against midrange opponents, but I suspect that the Chinese have SAM systems that can knock them out of the sky, given their lack of stealth capabilities and low speed. Given that the Chinese government can hit a satellite from the ground, I think they might be able to target something that is 500mph and radar-visible.
jzwinck 13y ago
They hang back while you launch ICBMs?
tptacek 13y ago
Didn't he answer that? The A-10 also turns out to be a useful bit of materiel, but it too relies on other equipment to provide air superiority.
- zobzu 13y ago
  yeah.. the A10 will do well against pure fighters... nope, it won't. i'd rather be in a B2 and avoid the fight. The A10 is not made for the same type of missions thought. it can fight helicopters and ground forces, while avoiding light AA and light air support. funny how the planes here, like on youtube, are rated by reputation, and not by knowledge, experience, or dare i say, facts.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    His point was that we have different planes for standoff air superiority against serious hostile fighter jets, and (implicitly) than the F-35 can be "good enough" for air-to-air while optimizing for it's air-to-ground mission.
bradleyjg 13y ago
Check to see if you are in a Tom Clancy novel, because you certainly aren't in any war the US is plausibly going to be involved in. Every country with fighters >= 4.5th generation is locked into either nuclear or economic (or both) MAD with the US. What would China's economy look like after they decided to launch an invasion of Taiwan? SEAD, CAS, precision bombing, cargo and personnel transport -- these are missions that our military will actually be called on to perform, not the dogfighting the fighter pilot mafia wishes was needed.
- tlear 13y ago
  Successful invasion of Taiwan? Most likely mad boom, total economic and political dominance of Asia would do that. Not to mention internally it would cement the government for a generation or two

VLM 13y ago

A solved problem, you launch cheap cruise missiles until you obtain relative superiority.

greedo 13y ago
Cheap? Hardly. A Tomahawk is far north of $1M a shot, and JASSM is above $1M as well.
- VLM 13y ago
  Yes, dirt cheap. Even if you use Hollywood accounting like "flyaway costs" you can get 100 Tomahawks for the cost of one F-35, and the point of the wargame was you only get roughly one sortie per F-35 unless you have air superiority. So economically its far cheaper to not build one F-35 while buying 100 Tomahawks, then cruise missile every airfield, than to lose your entire stock of F-35 on one sortie. Another way to phrase it, is every sortie you can either lose all your F-35, or "lose" one by not buying it and carpet bomb every single enemy .mil airfield minutes before the F-35 sortie. It seems pretty obvious which is cheaper, even before we get into pilot training costs and the long length of the .mil pilot training pipeline, etc.
  - greedo 13y ago
    You have to include launcher costs: either an SSGN like the modified Tridents, or the SSNs that carry them. Plus, with an aircraft, you can use it multiple times, and often in unique and unexpected ways. A missile, not so much. Plus, TLAM isn't expected to be very survivable in a contested environment, especially around S300/S400 sites. That's the impetus for developing the troubled JASSM.
    - chiph 13y ago
      The GLCM launchers got treatied away with the Soviets. The transporter/erector/launcher was a 8x8 MAN truck that had good off-road capabilities. Compared to a sub, they're dirt cheap.
      - greedo 13y ago
        Yep, the INF treaty gutted them, and that's why we rely exclusively on SSGNs, SSNs, and the B1/B52 for delivery. All of which are extremely expensive. We're also range limited with cruise missiles by the same treaty, though I'm not sure if it's still in force since the dissolution of the USSR.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    The thing to do is to launch 100 Tomahawks so that you can then use stealth aircraft to trash the SAM sites and interceptor aircraft that reveal themselves to shoot them down.
    - greedo 13y ago
      The problem is that against a peer opponent with S300 or higher SAM networks, the TLAM will get shot down.
- dkhenry 13y ago
  Enter the Rail Gun http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Electromagn...
- astrodust 13y ago
  The bombs they drop are not free either, some of the smart munitions cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
  Once you factor in the entire program cost and logistics footprint, the Tomahawk is the absolute cheapest way the US military has to put a bomb on a specific spot on the map.
  - SEJeff 13y ago
    That's why we fired 1 tomahawk (on average) every 12 seconds for the entire 48 hours of the opening to the war in Afghanistan. It is mind blowing to think how destructive that was
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Tomahawks work ok against midrange opponents, but I suspect that the Chinese have SAM systems that can knock them out of the sky, given their lack of stealth capabilities and low speed. Given that the Chinese government can hit a satellite from the ground, I think they might be able to target something that is 500mph and radar-visible.

jzwinck 13y ago

They hang back while you launch ICBMs?

tptacek 13y ago

Didn't he answer that? The A-10 also turns out to be a useful bit of materiel, but it too relies on other equipment to provide air superiority.

zobzu 13y ago
yeah.. the A10 will do well against pure fighters... nope, it won't. i'd rather be in a B2 and avoid the fight. The A10 is not made for the same type of missions thought. it can fight helicopters and ground forces, while avoiding light AA and light air support. funny how the planes here, like on youtube, are rated by reputation, and not by knowledge, experience, or dare i say, facts.
- tptacek 13y ago
  His point was that we have different planes for standoff air superiority against serious hostile fighter jets, and (implicitly) than the F-35 can be "good enough" for air-to-air while optimizing for it's air-to-ground mission.

bradleyjg 13y ago

Check to see if you are in a Tom Clancy novel, because you certainly aren't in any war the US is plausibly going to be involved in. Every country with fighters >= 4.5th generation is locked into either nuclear or economic (or both) MAD with the US. What would China's economy look like after they decided to launch an invasion of Taiwan? SEAD, CAS, precision bombing, cargo and personnel transport -- these are missions that our military will actually be called on to perform, not the dogfighting the fighter pilot mafia wishes was needed.

tlear 13y ago
Successful invasion of Taiwan? Most likely mad boom, total economic and political dominance of Asia would do that. Not to mention internally it would cement the government for a generation or two