4 ms·

There is money going toward the development of a replacement for the B-52, although the exact form it will take is still up in the air/under wraps. Suffice to

There is money going toward the development of a replacement for the B-52, although the exact form it will take is still up in the air/under wraps. Suffice to say that the "Next Generation Bomber" project currently has funding. Two observations along these lines, however: * The B-52 originally was the US Air Force's all-purpose bomber when it rolled out in the 50s. It was a conventional heavy bomber, a strategic nuclear bomber, and a cruise missile platform all in one. Over time, however, the USAF's bombing roles have become split; the B-1 now takes on the role of a conventional bomber, while the B-2 is used for deep-penetration strikes and standoffs. * One big hurdle in the development of a B-52 replacement is the limitations on the number of strategic bombers allowed under the New Start treaty. The US cannot easily develop new nuclear-capable bombers under this treaty, and thus must keep a chunk of the B-52 fleet around to maintain the nuclear capability.

jacques_chester 13y ago
My understanding is that a major role of the B-52 these days is tactical support. It can carry a very large number of small, laser-guided bombs; can loiter over a battlefield for about a day and flies high enough that it can't be harmed by shoulder-fired weaponry. Conceptually it fills the role of a very large drone.
bradleyjg 13y ago
The nuclear triad always seemed a bit circular to me. We have three main means of delivering nuclear weapons, so it must be a good idea to have three different means of delivering nuclear weapons. I don't see it. With geographic diversity and at least one delivery system that is mobile and easy to hide we should be more than capable of asserting a second strike capability. What's really needed from a modern bomber is a high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times. Cheap to build and operate would be great too. Super stealth as well as high speeds and maneuverability are simply expensive distractions. For the rare situation where we need to deliver something like a conventional bunker buster deep inside of territory that we don't wish to first completely destroy the AA cababilities of first -- i.e. an Osirak type mission -- we still have 20 of those $2 billion B-2s.
- spartango 13y ago
  I think specifying the requirements for a modern bomber is made difficult by the variety of ground attack missions a "bomber" might fulfill. The requirements of "high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times" closely fit the description of a close air support role, which has been the primary role for bombers and strike aircraft in recent years (Iraq and Afghanistan). With that said, there are certainly other roles for bombers; missions where strategic facilities, supply lines, and bases/defenses must be destroyed. These are rooted in more conventional warfare than we've seen recently, but I'm less than convinced that they would be rare in a major conflict. These conventional missions demand speed and stealth not only to penetrate evade enemy air defenses, but also to keep up with intelligence on mobile/time-sensitive targets. This timely delivery problem is hard to accomplish with small numbers of loitering aircraft or where the target has advance warning. Also, given the proliferation of advanced mobile SAM and radar systems, I'm unsure of the assumption that US aircraft will have clear skies in a future conflict. Certainly in the early days of any conflict this will be untrue, and those are the days where strategic bombing will be most valuable; disrupted enemy infrastructure allow ground forces to move without resistance. Thus, I think there's a need for both roles--CAS and penetrating bomber--and it seems to me that the USAF is actually tackling these separately, efficiently. While the Reaper lacks a large payload, it seems that the large numbers providing spatial coverage will have sufficient munitions in aggregate. The B-2 was designed to be the penetrator.
- greedo 13y ago
  The nuclear triad is designed so that technical advances can't obsolete any one leg of the triad. Currently, ICBMs are vulnerable, and are out of favor due to the accuracy of SLBMs and ICBMs in a first strike role. So we put our emphasis on SSBNs and stealth bombers. Now what do we do if an opponent manages to work out an effective means of tracking our boomers on patrol? Perhaps some odd trail of bioluminescence kicked up by the sub's wake underwater; who knows. Then we're down to one leg. B2s. We only have 19-20, and they can only fly so many missions, plus their bases a vulnerable to ICBMs and SLBMs as well...
  - bradleyjg 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago

My understanding is that a major role of the B-52 these days is tactical support. It can carry a very large number of small, laser-guided bombs; can loiter over a battlefield for about a day and flies high enough that it can't be harmed by shoulder-fired weaponry. Conceptually it fills the role of a very large drone.

bradleyjg 13y ago

The nuclear triad always seemed a bit circular to me. We have three main means of delivering nuclear weapons, so it must be a good idea to have three different means of delivering nuclear weapons. I don't see it. With geographic diversity and at least one delivery system that is mobile and easy to hide we should be more than capable of asserting a second strike capability. What's really needed from a modern bomber is a high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times. Cheap to build and operate would be great too. Super stealth as well as high speeds and maneuverability are simply expensive distractions. For the rare situation where we need to deliver something like a conventional bunker buster deep inside of territory that we don't wish to first completely destroy the AA cababilities of first -- i.e. an Osirak type mission -- we still have 20 of those $2 billion B-2s.

spartango 13y ago
I think specifying the requirements for a modern bomber is made difficult by the variety of ground attack missions a "bomber" might fulfill. The requirements of "high munition capacity, a large combat radius, and long loiter times" closely fit the description of a close air support role, which has been the primary role for bombers and strike aircraft in recent years (Iraq and Afghanistan). With that said, there are certainly other roles for bombers; missions where strategic facilities, supply lines, and bases/defenses must be destroyed. These are rooted in more conventional warfare than we've seen recently, but I'm less than convinced that they would be rare in a major conflict. These conventional missions demand speed and stealth not only to penetrate evade enemy air defenses, but also to keep up with intelligence on mobile/time-sensitive targets. This timely delivery problem is hard to accomplish with small numbers of loitering aircraft or where the target has advance warning. Also, given the proliferation of advanced mobile SAM and radar systems, I'm unsure of the assumption that US aircraft will have clear skies in a future conflict. Certainly in the early days of any conflict this will be untrue, and those are the days where strategic bombing will be most valuable; disrupted enemy infrastructure allow ground forces to move without resistance. Thus, I think there's a need for both roles--CAS and penetrating bomber--and it seems to me that the USAF is actually tackling these separately, efficiently. While the Reaper lacks a large payload, it seems that the large numbers providing spatial coverage will have sufficient munitions in aggregate. The B-2 was designed to be the penetrator.
greedo 13y ago
The nuclear triad is designed so that technical advances can't obsolete any one leg of the triad. Currently, ICBMs are vulnerable, and are out of favor due to the accuracy of SLBMs and ICBMs in a first strike role. So we put our emphasis on SSBNs and stealth bombers. Now what do we do if an opponent manages to work out an effective means of tracking our boomers on patrol? Perhaps some odd trail of bioluminescence kicked up by the sub's wake underwater; who knows. Then we're down to one leg. B2s. We only have 19-20, and they can only fly so many missions, plus their bases a vulnerable to ICBMs and SLBMs as well...
- bradleyjg 13y ago