A new bomber. Anyone think the AF procurment people can get this right?

[Ram]

FINALLY someone in this thread mentions that there might be a difference between DMPI and DPI.

[Disco_Nav963]

Not to beat a dead horse, but a discussion with a fellow BUFF dude over beers last night got me thinking of a real world example that we could use to parse out some of the numbers talk above and get to an answer. The real answer is always "It depends," but let's use Libya as a case study. I've heard references to both the BONE's carriage capacity and tanker bridge issues as the reason for the decision to use BONEs vs. BUFFs ("The choice was easy to make: The B-1s could carry double the number of bombs that the B-52s could carry, and tankers were still in short supply," says the AFA article).

Based on the reference to "double the number of bombs" I'm guessing we're talking about GBU-31s here... 24 per BONE on 3 CRLs vs. 12 per BUFF on 2 HSABs. None of the published literature (and I have read nothing on the high side about the details of ODYSSEY DAWN, nor would I reference it here anyway) talks about how many weapons were released, since it was a two-ship, let's say 48. I'm talking generalities here because I know nothing about the B-1's performance manual, but I do know she has a shorter range than the BUFF (7,456 statute miles to the BUFF's 8,800)... approx. 85% of the BUFF's unrefueled range. We also know that they can trade a bay full of iron per extra 10,000 lbs of fuel if they want to carry the extra fuel. I'm guessing they didn't though, because that would have diminished their comparative advantage over the Octosaurus. We also know that the BUFF carrying 12 GBU-31s externally carries a fuel penalty that the BONE doesn't have to deal with /w all internal weapons. So bottom line: assume AFRICOM wanted 48x GBU-31s worth of effects, and therefore no internal fuel tanks for purposes of this illustration.

I don't know what kind of divert fuel the BONEs carried on this mission or what kind of the BUFF would have carried. I have no idea how many ARs were involved. I don't care. We can do a WAG cost comparison without knowing those numbers. The following are the great circle distances between Barksdale/Minot/Ellsworth to Benghazi (pulled from https://www.gcmap.com/), all statute miles:

KBAD-Libya: 6,248

KMIB-Libya: 5,825

KRCA-Libya: 6,091

Doing the math, a BUFF would fly 1.3 times its Wikipedia max range on a round trip from Minot, or 1.4 times the max range on a round trip from Minot. A BONE would fly 1.6 times its max range on the round trip from Ellsworth. So comparing single ship to single ship, the fuel argument favors the BUFF. However, we're talking 4 ship of BUFFs to do the same job a 2 ship of BONEs did. Multiple the above numbers by 4 and 2 respectively, you get a 5.7 multiplier from KBAD, a 5.3 multiplier from Minot, and a 3.3 multiplier from Ellsworth. So without knowing exact numbers, you can see the approximate relationship and we can figure out pretty quickly what cost more in terms of gas.

Now let's compare operating costs using the Wheeler numbers from above. I took the round trip distances for all three bases and divided each by the statute mile equivalent of 420 knots groundspeed. Don't know what the winds were; don't know what KTAS BONEs cruise at high altitude, just looking for a good WAG comparison. Taking the round trip time we just got, I multiplied by $72,000/hr for the BUFF and $63,000/hr for the BONE... Then multiplied the BUFF results by 4 and the BONE results by 2. We get $7,451,031.06 for 48 GBU-31s from KBAD, $6,946,583.85 from Minot, and $3,177,913.04 from Ellsworth.

Whether we're looking at gas costs or operating costs for the bombers only, the B-1 cost about half as much as the BUFF would have cost to get the supported commander his desired effects.

The score changes if you change criteria like the weapons and distances involved. If you already have bombers in your AOR instead of a bringing them in for a one shot mission from CONUS, and you need GBU-38s instead of GBU-31s for instance, the B-1 can only carry two more weapons and with less fuel efficiency (18 weapons vice 16 -- though Dyess recently tested a new rotary launcher that would up that to 48), kind of balances out. Only B-52s can carry CALCM of course. Here's another angle: each Bomb Wing only has so much sortie generation capacity. If a contingency pops up and you need 24 bombers generated, you have to wait longer asking Ellsworth to generate all 24 versus asking Ellsworth for 6 and Dyess for 6 and Whiteman for 4 and Barksdale for 8, etc. There's a benefit to diversification. Just based on the BUFF's role in Desert Storm, Noble Anvil, and Iraqi Freedom I highly doubt my jet has seen its last conventional conflict.

So we're back to where we began -- it depends. The question is do we want to piss away options by getting rid of an MDS? I vote no. How the politicians and bureaucrats will come down, I have no idea.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Disco_Nav963

[daynightindicator]

words

assumptions pretty much correct. however, the whole unrefueled range argument is kind of irrelevant. 1) tankers were (relatively) easy to allocate to the mission. 2) mission execution and divert options drive the range issue, not fuel capacity.

This came down primarily to who could service the sheer number of targets required and in what timeframe. Package considerations also played a role - if you use more than 2 bombers you probably need to start upping the number of escorts/vuls required. Not sure about the BUFF but Bones don't usually fly 4-ships. Airspeed is important as well - these were the deepest strikes in the entire campaign, so escort vuls were limited and more striker speed = gooder.

I f*cked up earlier in the DMPI/DPI thing. Bottom line in the OOD mission was that a certain number of targets needed striking and AFGSC decided the Bone was the right platform for that specific mission.

So we're back to where we began -- it depends. The question is do we want to piss away options by getting rid of an MDS? I vote no. How the politicians and bureaucrats will come down, I have no idea.

Absolutely not. I hope sequestration does not happen.

[BQZip01]

assumptions pretty much correct. however, the whole unrefueled range argument is kind of irrelevant. 1) tankers were (relatively) easy to allocate to the mission. 2) mission execution and divert options drive the range issue, not fuel capacity.

Complete shack on divert options (overall). BUFF options are relatively small since they have a 140+ ft taxiway requirement thanks to the tip gear. However, there are some places in Europe that can do the trick as well as Lajes.

This came down primarily to who could service the sheer number of targets required and in what timeframe. Package considerations also played a role - if you use more than 2 bombers you probably need to start upping the number of escorts/vuls required. Not sure about the BUFF but Bones don't usually fly 4-ships. Airspeed is important as well - these were the deepest strikes in the entire campaign, so escort vuls were limited and more striker speed = gooder.

Well, that depends... [/WIC mantra]

If volume was an issue, MORE B-52s might have been preferable as they could be split up to take out more DPIs over a wider area. With 4 BUFFs, you could cover more locations, but with fewer bombs. I'm just saying that there are other ways to look at it. This problem would have been solved with internal weapons carriage upgrades the BUFF has been complaining about for 20+ years.

As for the 4-ship comment, BUFFs do train for 4-ship formations. I've personally been involved in a 4 bomber on 3 tanker mission

Bottom line in the OOD mission was that a certain number of targets needed striking and AFGSC decided the Bone was the right platform for that specific mission.

Pretty sure AFRICOM/EUCOM made that call with some ACC lobbying. I don't think AFGSC said "Don't use our bombers! Take the ones that ACC has!" (though I've been proven wrong in the past...)

Edited April 13, 2012 by BQZip01

[daynightindicator]

Complete shack on divert options (overall). BUFF options are relatively small since they have a 140+ ft taxiway requirement thanks to the tip gear. However, there are some places in Europe that can do the trick as well as Lajes.

Well, that depends... [/WIC mantra]

If volume was an issue, MORE B-52s might have been preferable as they could be split up to take out more DPIs over a wider area. With 4 BUFFs, you could cover more locations, but with fewer bombs. I'm just saying that there are other ways to look at it. This problem would have been solved with internal weapons carriage upgrades the BUFF has been complaining about for 20+ years.

As for the 4-ship comment, BUFFs do train for 4-ship formations. I've personally been involved in a 4 bomber on 3 tanker mission

Some other things that I'm sure were considered was availability of FOLs that could support the re-arm and re-launch portion. This mission was actually two sorties, not a round-trip.

That's cool that you guys do 4-ship stuff, I didn't know that. We have strong proponents of 4-ship in our community (I'm not one of them) but it's not something we actively train to or qualify FLs for.

I think the escort vul was a major limfac for this as well. Slower would have made things worse.

Pretty sure AFRICOM/EUCOM made that call with some ACC lobbying. I don't think AFGSC said "Don't use our bombers! Take the ones that ACC has!" (though I've been proven wrong in the past...)

Not sure who made the call (above my paygrade) but AFGSC had a major role in the execution of the mission.