B-1s for the Navy?

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

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 22:34

The Navy’s shortfall in long range strike aircraft is not going to be addressed anytime soon. Carriers are already short on strike fighter capacity. The Navy has had difficulty just filling their decks. Air wings lack the payload density, range, and sortie generation rate to fight a nation like China from 1,000 nm. While I think using bombers to fill this gap has merit, using an older and increasingly expensive bomber to operate like the B-1 would be nothing more than a short term solution. It would add to its stand off missile capacity (added to the Tomahawk), but would not be able to penetrate a near peer airspace until air defenses have been attrited.

A more cost effective solution would be to use economies of scale to produce more B-21s and have the AF play more of a role in sea control and long range, penetrating, strike. Maybe a few squadrons could specialize in this role with a joint AF/Navy crew like the expeditionary Growlers. It would erode the utility of the carrier. But the threat is already doing that. Your options are to either try and reallocate resources to develop that capability (son of A-12) or find a more a more cost effective solution.

https://othjournal.com/2019/04/15/a-bom ... -the-navy/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 03:04

Honestly, don't see it as a viable option. As the B-1B's are expensive to operate and maintain. While, the Navy Budget is already pushed to the limit. Plus, don't see the USAF going along with the Navy operating Bombers? As that is Air Force "territory".


Far better solution is to just buy more B-21's. Which, could be operated by the USAF in the attended role.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3363
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 13:46

While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1085
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 13:56

Hawks; => as in Tomahawks on boats, ships, subs.

If a target is so small that you can not justify a Tomahawk for it? You certainly can not justify a B1 for a couple of them.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 08:28

mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


If it gets them more B-21s they will surely do it. This Mitchell Institute report clearly indicates the the AF wouldn't be greatly opposed to the mission, especially since they trained for it in the past.

With a squadron of B-21s carrying LRASMs and a low observable ISR asset you can say bye bye to the Chinese Navy.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 08:47

blain wrote:
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


If it gets them more B-21s they will surely do it. This Mitchell Institute report clearly indicates the the AF wouldn't be greatly opposed to the mission, especially since they trained for it in the past.

With a squadron of B-21s carrying LRASMs and a low observable ISR asset you can say bye bye to the Chinese Navy.



Exactly, far better solution.... :twisted:
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 790
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Apr 2019, 14:51

Nonsense.

It would be lot more logical to finish UCLASS as it was planned then to navy get bombers.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 19:53

milosh wrote:Nonsense.

It would be lot more logical to finish UCLASS as it was planned then to navy get bombers.


I just don't think the AI for UCAVs is mature enough. The alternative is that you need secure comms/datalink, which you cannot count on if you are fighting a near peer adversary.

An unmanned, long range, penetrator will need to be more effective - both in terms of cost and capability - than the Block IV Tomahawk. I just don't think we are there yet.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 21:17

mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


I don't think the USAF is spending the time and money for LRASM and Quickstrike-ER acquisition and integration
for fun.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3363
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 13:34

marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


I don't think the USAF is spending the time and money for LRASM and Quickstrike-ER acquisition and integration
for fun.


I assume you mean to support the Navy?

If this is true, why doesn't the Navy step up instead of relying on a rapidly shrinking bomber fleet,that already has its hands full with everything from nuclear strike on Russia/China to close air support in places like Iraq and Afghanistan??

People wonder why we've flown the wings off of B-1's and B-52's.Well, this is one reason why...

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 20 guests