2 B-2 bombers kill 80 ISIS militants (talk about overkill)

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1766
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post21 Jan 2017, 15:15

Most of the reporting on defense matters is unreadable...just the absolute worst. Then, I am reminded every day of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect and the collective kool-aid we're all drinking from some (similarly moronic) reporters on some subject, somewhere.

A hundred or so DMPIs, at a remote and essentially inaccessible location, (probably) covered inside a minute or two, with no one or no structure left standing. I'm good with that.
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post21 Jan 2017, 17:05

why is the discussion always cost when the USAF pulls out the high-tech kit to kill militants. First off the high-tech kit gets the job done better and why not use what you paid for.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3951
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Jan 2017, 17:29

les_paul59 wrote:why is the discussion always cost when the USAF pulls out the high-tech kit to kill militants. First off the high-tech kit gets the job done better and why not use what you paid for.



Because most of the media is made up of liberals with an agenda. Do you have any idea how many safe spaces and coloring books could be procured for the cost of that mission?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3011
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Jan 2017, 21:23

popcorn wrote:You called it... :doh:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/colossal- ... 23999.html

The colossal price to fly a pair of B-2 bombers to hit two ISIS camps in Libya


...The price tag of Wednesday's mission was colossal.

The pair of B-2s flew for 34 hours at an operating cost of approximately $130,000 per flight hour. That comes out to roughly $4.4 million a piece or $8.8 million for the duo. Additionally, there were roughly 15 aerial refueling aircraft involved in the mission, not to mention the cost of 100 JDAMs.

So, isn't that "$130,000" just the total cost of ownership divided by number of hours flown in the course of a year?
It's not like the marginal cost of flying an extra hour is $130,000, and, as others have mentioned, training considerations mean that the hours of the mission might not have been "extra".
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 820
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Jan 2017, 01:39

Certain countries (cough Italy cough!) have a history of warning terrorists of impending US strikes once they detect our planes in the air. Even within Libya itself, if there remain any operational radars, some of those could be in the hands of factions which may have warned the terrorists.

But also the US is not beyond using assets which may be over-kill for PR purposes. We did in Afghanistan to get footage for TV broadcasts on a couple of occasions. Kind of pointless when you think about what kind of a f**ked up media we have and how they will turn everything into a negative story anyway.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1520
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Jan 2017, 02:59

ISIS sympathizers are embedded in the media. The gulf countries didn't spend big bucks on media companies for nothing.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4596
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Jan 2017, 16:38

The cost of not killing them is far more expensive. I hate people that treat these costs like it's a scoreboard. That's not the way the game works.

Im reminded of the "cost/casualties" approach to hunting UBL in the 1990s. What did that "economical" method end up costing us?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4596
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Jan 2017, 16:42

sferrin wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:why is the discussion always cost when the USAF pulls out the high-tech kit to kill militants. First off the high-tech kit gets the job done better and why not use what you paid for.



Because most of the media is made up of liberals with an agenda. Do you have any idea how many safe spaces and coloring books could be procured for the cost of that mission?


Now that their guy is out of office they have to really care about the cost of these foreign wars were involved in seemingly out of nowhere
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2523
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Jan 2017, 20:35

XanderCrews wrote:The cost of not killing them is far more expensive. I hate people that treat these costs like it's a scoreboard. That's not the way the game works.

Im reminded of the "cost/casualties" approach to hunting UBL in the 1990s. What did that "economical" method end up costing us?

Waaaay too much.

9/11 which lead to countless other pandora's boxes.

If Clinton would've taken the shot and take out Osama back then, alot of issues wouldn't have happened.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6480
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 Feb 2017, 00:43

Dave Deptula provides more context for the recent B-2 strike comparing it with Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/long ... e-cheaper/

Long-Range Strike: ‘More Potent,’ More Survivable & Cheaper

Comparisons between the two attacks illustrate the value of the unique combination of range, precision, large payload and stealth into one aircraft:

The 1986 raid required 77 aircraft and two aircraft carrier battle groups. The 2017 attack required 17 manned aircraft (2 bombers, 15 tankers) plus a small number of MQ-9 drones. To deliver 108 weapons with fighters today operating from carriers or regional bases would require about two-dozen fighters and about the same number of tankers. This illustrates the value of long range and large payload—massed precision punch from a small number of aircraft.

The B-2 attack only put four people at risk compared to the over five-dozen aircrew that flew in harm’s way in 1986.

In 1986, just 16 percent of the weapons were precision-guided, compared to 100 percent in the 2017 raid. Precision weapons are 15-30 times more effective than unguided weapons. So, while the 1986 attack delivered more weapons, the 108 precision weapons delivered by the B-2 provided greater overall effectiveness.

The 1986 raid had to deal with air defenses — the B-2s in 2017 did not. However, when air defenses were a threat in the attacks against Libya in 2011, stealthy B-2s penetrated without the extensive defense suppression the Air Force and Navy fighters required in 1986. Stealth reduces the need for defense suppression and increases overall aircraft survivability.

The Defense Department has stated that B-2s were selected because no overflight permissions were required (and thus no warning of the attack would leak). In 1986, the US planned to overfly France, Spain, and Italy, but was denied permission. This required the UK-based force to fly a much longer route (and required significantly more tanker support). It also opened up the potential that Libya would be alerted to the raid. The B-2’s combination of range and payload provided significant operational flexibility and allowed for the important component of surprise.

The 2017 raid was far less expensive to accomplish a similar objective. Some analysts use cost per flying hour to calculate costs, but this is a very poor metric. The vast majority of support costs (personnel, spares, etc.) are fixed each year, so the cost per hour will typically decrease as flying hours increase. A better metric is what does it cost to maintain a capability each day? Each B-2 costs $110,000 per day ($FY16) in support costs while tankers cost about $27,000 per day ($FY16). That is roughly $600,000 for operating all the aircraft plus the 108 weapons costing some $2 million. Compare that to the daily cost of the two carrier groups and their aircraft in 1986—$13 million per day in current year dollars—not to mention the daily cost of the F-111s and tankers. In addition, the laser-guided weapons employed by the F-111s were much more expensive than the B-2’s satellite-guided weapons.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests