Why Not the B-1 Instead of the A-10?

[Lawman]

Don't forget campain contributors / lobbyists.

They aren't the same thing?

[ComingLeft]

Retire the Buff, start retiring the oldest 135's

You are out of your element. Both those aircraft will still be around when everyone posting here is eligible for retirement. Mass is still taught as a principle of war, right?

KC-10 will be sacrificed for the KC-46. B1 for the next-generation bomber. F-16 will have the longest life in the fighter world. Unfortunately, the F-15E will just be retired, no trade except maybe for our pensions.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[pbar]

The B-1 won't be traded for the new bomber because we won't ever get a new bomber. However, the B-1 is next on the chopping block and I give it no more than five years. With the looming massive increases in entitlement spending due to the baby boomers retiring en mass, there is no way we can afford a new bomber given all the other priorities (and Air Force preferences). I'd bet an entire year's salary that we never get it. Of course, the Air Force will make a show at getting it so as to keep the Navy fighter fleet from getting too much money but in the end, it's toast. I'd also be shocked if we end up with more than 500 F-35s.

[KState_Poke22]

[quote name="Clark Griswold" post="379406" timestamp="

The B-1 or the A-10 is not a good choice as the two do completely different missions (primarily). Why isn't the choice between the B-52 or the B-1? Both legacy bombers, both with similar capabilities, but one with more life, more survivable.

Retire the Buff, start retiring the oldest 135's, Hercs and bases with no runways...

[Clark Griswold]

You are out of your element. Both those aircraft will still be around when everyone posting here is eligible for retirement. Mass is still taught as a principle of war, right?

KC-10 will be sacrificed for the KC-46. B1 for the next-generation bomber. F-16 will have the longest life in the fighter world. Unfortunately, the F-15E will just be retired, no trade except maybe for our pensions.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it. Mass is important but it has to be combined with quality, balance the two but the AF doesn't seem to know that, where was the mass when we only bought 187 of the planned 500-700 F-22s? I hate to say it but the Navy seems to have a better procurement strategy, they got the SuperHornet and Growler on time and reasonably on budget, so they have sufficient quantity with great quality.

Legacy systems just get that much harder to support as Diminishing Manufacturing and Vendor Scarcity come into the later stages of the MWS life-cycle. Exit that death spiral before it wraps up too tight.

One is nuclear and one is not, that makes a difference.

True, but the B-1 could be put back into the Triad. Difficult and short term expensive but long term cost savings could be realized.

We have to decide (and by that Congress has to get its big fat snout out of the process) what do we want the AF to be? Very big but very old or SLIGHTLY smaller and much newer.

[di1630]

I don't think its a B-1 vs A-10. Something needed to be cut to pay for the shitshow we know as the F-35 due to congress and USAF leadership simultaneously screwing the pooch. But here are the facts:

1. The B-1 v A-10 CAS argument is flat out dumb. The B-1 can drop bombs in Afghanistan....it can't do CAS in many other scenarios effectively. Likewise the A-10 Can't launch JASSM, carry 30 JDAM or fly supersonic. You can't call the B-1 an attack platform or the A-10 a bomber.

2. Leadership is horrible at predicting future conflict. China/Russia....Probably not where we see action next.

3. Needed weapons. Again leadership has a poor history. Anyone read about the A-16? We need a balance of deterrent airframes (B-2, F-22, F-35) and ones that will do the work everywhere else (F-16, F-15E, A-10)

4. Contested environment? We talk as if radar threats are the only ones out there. AAA/manpads....Good luck F-35. The A-10 was designed to operate in an environment where speed and stealth aren't the important factors. Any legacy fighter is toast versus the newest SAMs, not just a hog.

5. Afghanistan has ruined the definition of CAS.

[Buddy Spike]

The B-1 can be multi-role

Nothing would make Raptor guys happier than a bunch of B-OneRs ready to shoot off their load behind them.

[Wing Sweep]

AT6B,

24 is the answer to your question.

By definition, a JASSM is a type of Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). You are referring to ALCM and JASSM as if they are different, when one (JASSM) is a type of the other (ALCM).

To answer the thread question... three points:

JASSM

maritime

survivability B-1>A-10

The A-10 is one of the best platforms in the inventory. Based on strategy, tactics, economy of force, future air order of battle, politics, etc... I think the CSAF has the right picture. Perhaps there are alternative options, but I haven't seen or heard of one that makes better sense. Anyone out there see any better options on open sources? It's a dirty poop sandwich menu we're all looking at and we're all going to take a big bite out of one of the sandwiches on the menu.

Edited May 10, 2014 by g2s

[SurelySerious]

By definition, a JASSM is a type of Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). You are referring to ALCM and JASSM as if they are different, when one (JASSM) is a type of the other (ALCM).

There's a good chance he was referring to the AGM-86B ALCM. The AGM-158 is not an AGM86B. B-1s aren't carrying the AGM-86B.

[xcraftllc]

Geez I really opened up a can of worms with this one!

Well I suppose my original question has been answered in the form of: "it's complicated". I suppose this thread was doomed to end up taking the same path as the massive sequester thread which could be compiled into a book at this point! I wanted to leave stuff like the F-35 and ObamaCare out of the argument but I guess it's all a giant pool of inter-related issues. The good old days of the Fighter Mafia are long gone. It seems that we are destined to learn our lesson the hard way again until a new generation of John Boyds and Pierre Spreys rise out of the mess to try to save it.

I suppose the problem isn't whether to cut the A-10 or B-1 but rather that we are having to choose to cut one at all.

Since the thread has already departed its original course, I suppose I can throw in a quick 2 cents on the F-35. To say it's a failure or should be cancelled is an entirely separate argument, but I do believe that Lockheed and our leadership failed the original JSF mission: To solve the problem of fewer fighters, fewer training hours, and rising costs by making an affordable and efficient aircraft that is made more cost effective through parts commonality and mass production. As we know it now, the F-35 will be more expensive, consist of fewer aircraft, and fewer training hours due to it's higher operating costs, significant parts differences, and lower production rates (~3000 compared to the F-16s ~4500+). We need to get our $*** together.

Edited May 11, 2014 by xcraftllc

[Wing Sweep]

SS,

Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. I thought he was referring to air launched cruise missiles in general terms and not the AGM-86 specifically.

[pawnman]

There's a good chance he was referring to the AGM-86B ALCM. The AGM-158 is not an AGM86B. B-1s aren't carrying the AGM-86B.

Sure. Why would anyone want the more advanced cruise missile when you can lob the legacy ones?

[D-ron]

Sure. Why would anyone want the more advanced cruise missile when you can lob the legacy ones?

Because the JASSM doesnt have a nuclear warhead.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[papajuice77]

Geez I really opened up a can of worms with this one!

Well I suppose my original question has been answered in the form of: "it's complicated". I suppose this thread was doomed to end up taking the same path as the massive sequester thread which could be compiled into a book at this point! I wanted to leave stuff like the F-35 and ObamaCare out of the argument but I guess it's all a giant pool of inter-related issues. The good old days of the Fighter Mafia are long gone. It seems that we are destined to learn our lesson the hard way again until a new generation of John Boyds and Pierre Spreys rise out of the mess to try to save it.

I suppose the problem isn't whether to cut the A-10 or B-1 but rather that we are having to choose to cut one at all.

Since the thread has already departed its original course, I suppose I can throw in a quick 2 cents on the F-35. To say it's a failure or should be cancelled is an entirely separate argument, but I do believe that Lockheed and our leadership failed the original JSF mission: To solve the problem of fewer fighters, fewer training hours, and rising costs by making an affordable and efficient aircraft that is made more cost effective through parts commonality and mass production. As we know it now, the F-35 will be more expensive, consist of fewer aircraft, and fewer training hours due to it's higher operating costs, significant parts differences, and lower production rates (~3000 compared to the F-16s ~4500+). We need to get our $*** together.

Agree with your assessment of the JSF program... I'd just be cautious waiting for the "Fighter Mafia" to save us all from this disaster. The entrenched and dogmatic vestiges of the Fighter Mafia club and its legacy are what have led us to this point. The club let in people who couldn't see the bigger picture, became obsessed with the preeminence of tactical fighters versus any other form of airpower, and shackled the AF to prohibitively expensive programs that now have little in common with the archetype upon which they were based (F-15/F-16). The same points were true of the "Bomber Barons" who ran the AF prior to and during Vietnam. Their tried and true model failed as well... the difference is that Vietnam was a more compelling catalyst for reanalysis of the AF and it's platform/capabilities composition than OIF or OEF has been or ever will be. It's going to be hard for out-of-the-container thinkers like a Boyd to find any friends in high places to support their experiments since nothing has forced a changeover in leadership.

I think that the AF's answer to the strategic problems at hand will, unfortunately, continue to remain a tactical solution. The fight over getting rid of the A-10 is just that - a discussion of tactical relevance versus the one we should be having about strategic necessity. The sad part is, selling the A-10 down the river to pay for the F-35 is the manifestation of trying to solve the strategic problems at hand with the same old solution. In the end, it is just substitution of one tactic for another (and I might add, one of questionable credibility).

[BB Stacker]

(and by that Congress has to get its big fat snout out of the process)

Good luck with that.

They control the purse strings, they have all the power. Fortunately, the current leadership team seems to realize that a lot better than the previous one did and at least is trying to communicate with them, as opposed to the idiocy we witnessed under Skeletor v2.0 with the end around Eielson "draw-down" that was a BRAC in all but name that they didn't bother to talk to anyone in Congress about before trying to execute. But you aren't getting anything done without working with, not against, Congress.

Exhibit A for this: if you are talking seriously about a BRAC as being an option for cost savings anytime in the next decade, you don't have a clue. Congress will not be authorizing another BRAC anytime soon.

Pierre Spreys rise out of the mess to try to save it.

If Pierre Sprey was running things we would have a fleet of nothing but daytime only no radar fighters armed with nothing but two Sidewinders and a Vulcan.

He had some good ideas, but like most zealots, he took them way, way too far.

[Clark Griswold]

Good luck with that.

They control the purse strings, they have all the power. Fortunately, the current leadership team seems to realize that a lot better than the previous one did and at least is trying to communicate with them, as opposed to the idiocy we witnessed under Skeletor v2.0 with the end around Eielson "draw-down" that was a BRAC in all but name that they didn't bother to talk to anyone in Congress about before trying to execute. But you aren't getting anything done without working with, not against, Congress.

Exhibit A for this: if you are talking seriously about a BRAC as being an option for cost savings anytime in the next decade, you don't have a clue. Congress will not be authorizing another BRAC anytime soon.

If Pierre Sprey was running things we would have a fleet of nothing but daytime only no radar fighters armed with nothing but two Sidewinders and a Vulcan.

He had some good ideas, but like most zealots, he took them way, way too far.

True but light a candle or curse the darkness, keep trying to get thru their thick skulls and get the freedom to reform the military. Most of them beleive the military's primary function is to be a jobs program rather than an actual military.

On Sprey, I agree as he is brilliant but just a bit opinionated and not open to the idea that any fighter technology past 1970 actually works...

[xcraftllc]

If Pierre Sprey was running things we would have a fleet of nothing but daytime only no radar fighters armed with nothing but two Sidewinders and a Vulcan.

He had some good ideas, but like most zealots, he took them way, way too far.

I know man, I was just throwing out names I heard from stories about the Fighter Mafia, I'm not saying anyone alone has the right ideas to solve everything. At the same time, a camel is a horse drawn by committee, and when you have as many hands on the drawing board as we do for the F-35, many of them politicians and each with their own objectives in mind, you are almost destined for failure.

I guess the 10, 15, 16, and 18 turned out so well that one can't help but wonder what the hell happened to the R&D process. I mean hell even on the Army side, most of our workhorses were designed around the same time.

[SuperWSO]

Because the JASSM doesnt have a nuclear warhead.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

And we are all aware how much the current administration and AF leadership loves nukes. All aware of the huge potential target set for nuclear cruise missiles. The numerous historical uses of nuclear cruise missiles.

I'll take JASSM capability over ALCM.

[SurelySerious]

I'll take JASSM capability over ALCM.

The better strategic position might be opting for the capability of carrying both.

[Dupe]

The Sandy conversation is the elephant in the room: I don't see how a CSAR package is survivable in a modern threat environment. CSAR-X will never happen, and I see nonconventional assisted recovery becoming the primary means of personnel recovery in a high-threat environment. What good is your RESCORT if the Jolly can't make it?

On the other side, low intensity CAS is becoming a crowded market. These days, if it flies, it can probably have a multi-mode munition attached to it or built in to it. Most of these options are cheaper and can be employed faster than getting Hawg Flight on scene.

This is the A-10's problem: it's increasingly unsurvivable on the high end of the air combat spectrum and there are a plethora of options at the low end. The Hawg is getting niche.

[stract]

I would pay to see some B-1s try to daisy chain us to and from the objective.

[NEflyer]

While I enjoy these debates purely as an intellectual exercise, when witnessing them, I can't help but think the other side has won. Instead of the public being made aware of the progressive gutting/wearing out of our armed forces that's been taking place since the early nineties, all they witness is a pissing contest about exactly what sort of outdated and hollow force we'll have left (or they'll have left in their district).

I know any of us would gladly take extraordinary risks and be willing to sacrifice our own safety without hesitation, it's what I signed up for anyway. That being said... I find it tremendously offensive when my life is unnecessarily put at greater risk due to inadequate resources like worn-out/outdated/inferior aircraft, all while much of the population is living large off entitlements and our defense spending rapidly races to below 3% of GDP. Soldiers in larger past conflicts, while often asked to do unbelievable things with completely inadequate resources we could hardly comprehend, at least knew the general public was sacrificing to support them as much as they possibly could. I need to start telling people, if you really want to "thank me" for my service, call your Rep/Senator and get us the resources we need to protect this country and your family against all eventualities.

[Spoo]

Multi-role my ass. Fuck the A-10, fuck the B-1.

[Ram]

Sometimes we ask Bone to match sparkle just for a good laugh.

Can we get that terminology changed in 3-1GP? "Match sparkle" seems like it was thrown-in from the back row by the Eagle drivers in the room.

[di1630]

This is the A-10's problem: it's increasingly unsurvivable on the high end of the air combat spectrum and there are a plethora of options at the low end. The Hawg is getting niche.

I still want to hear about the rest (most) of the war when stealth has done its job, most IADs are down and troops need CAS, who will operate in that niche where AAA/MP are the threat? Tell me the aircraft designed to operate in a high AAA/MP threat environment. I wonder how the F-35 does against barrage fire?