Afghanistan Story of the week

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: freegeeks
I seriously doubt that they have B1's flying close air support for ground troops

that a job for an a-10, F-16 etc...

Where are you from... Belgium? kthxbye

Where are you from....West Lafayette, Indiana? kthxbye

I'm also in the US Army.... pretty sure you aren't. kthxbyekillyourself

so because you are in the US army you are some sort of B-1 expert and somebody who is not can not have an opinion about a sourceless story posted on an internetforum

nice logic, thx for explaining. kthxbyeflagwavingidiot

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: abracadabra1

Originally posted by: Hammer
freegeeks said:
the B1 is a strategic bomber. It doesn't operate from forward air bases. It only operates from US air bases. So you are telling me that they are going to fly a (very expensive) B1 10.000 miles to give close air support to troops while they have different air bases close by with aircraft far more suited for the job. The B1 is a first strike capable bomber and is designed to go in fast and low to crap the hell of heavily defended strategic important targets. IMO they are not going to use it to wander around and if necessary drop a bomb on a Taliban and his mule

Boeing says:
In operation Enduring Freedom, B-1Bs accounted for 5% of the strike sorties into Afghanistan yet dropped 40% of the total weapons. These aircraft dropped more than 70% of the precision-guided JDAM weapons. The combination of the B-1B and JDAM weapons was so reliable that they were called on to perform close air support for troops on the ground.

Conclusion:
You have no idea what you're taking about, and are talking out of your ass.

Simple enough for you?

He is most definitely not talking out of his ass. The B1 is undeniably a strategic bomber it was not designed for close air support. Although operations in Afghanistan allowed us to employ the B1s in that role (because of JDAMS and more importantly because there lacked an enemy source of air power and air defenses) it is not its conventional role. Lately, close air support is provided by manueverable aircraft that can serve in a fighter/strike capacity (f-18 is a perfect example). However, it was not designed for the sole purpose of close air support. On the other hand, the A-10 is an aircraft built specifically for the role of close air support against enemy troops and tanks.

The Boeing statistic isn't all that convincing either. The amount of sorties flown for close air support likely far surpases those flown for strike warfare (strategic bombing). So, it makes sense that the B1 flew less missions yet dropped larger payloads because the mission called for strategic strikes on fixed targets. Although they no doubt loitered and provided an amazing source of firepower for troops on the ground, this is a new role that was specific to Operation Enduring Freedom. I'd be curious to find out if the B1 was used with as much frequency in Iraq.

did you look at the boeing link?

here it is again.

the b1 WAS "a strategic bomber it was not designed for close air support".

As the cold war began to thaw, the B-1B was transitioned out of its nuclear mission. The last B-1B stood its last nuclear alert in 1997. In June 1994 the B-1B began an Operational Readiness assessment that marked the beginning of the Conventional Munitions Upgrade program.

there's more on that boeing page. i suggest you read the whole thing before you reply.

no offense but I think that the nuclear component has little or nothing to do with the B-1 being a strategic bomber or not. it has more to do with the fact that it's capable of intercontinental missions without refueling and the type of missions it was designed for.

is the B1 also not part of SAC (Strategic Air Command)

globalsecurity.org

In every major conflict since WWII US heavy
"strategic" bombers have flown conventional missions.
Ironically, it is the bombers nuclear role most associate
with these aircraft. This association has perpetuated myths
of the missions these bombers can perform. Some of these
myths are: strategic bombers only carry nuclear weapons,
strategic equals nuclear and strategic aircraft cannot
operate in a tactical environment.

Air Force Manual 1-1 defines strategic as,

"encompassing key targets, whether vital industrial complexes,
infrastructure, population centers, or a specific military center of
gravity, which, if effectively destroyed or damaged, directly affects
the enemy's capability or will to resist." (1:152) This definition
matches precisely how heavy bombers are typically employed. Defeating
an enemy's ability to wage war or his will to fight, is the ideal
mission for our heavy bombers. Nowhere in the manuals definition is
there any mention of the word nuclear-nor should there be.







[CONTINUE] you can now continue with the Eurobashing [/CONTINUE]

 

[abracadabra1]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: abracadabra1

Originally posted by: Hammer
freegeeks said:
the B1 is a strategic bomber. It doesn't operate from forward air bases. It only operates from US air bases. So you are telling me that they are going to fly a (very expensive) B1 10.000 miles to give close air support to troops while they have different air bases close by with aircraft far more suited for the job. The B1 is a first strike capable bomber and is designed to go in fast and low to crap the hell of heavily defended strategic important targets. IMO they are not going to use it to wander around and if necessary drop a bomb on a Taliban and his mule

Boeing says:
In operation Enduring Freedom, B-1Bs accounted for 5% of the strike sorties into Afghanistan yet dropped 40% of the total weapons. These aircraft dropped more than 70% of the precision-guided JDAM weapons. The combination of the B-1B and JDAM weapons was so reliable that they were called on to perform close air support for troops on the ground.

Conclusion:
You have no idea what you're taking about, and are talking out of your ass.

Simple enough for you?

He is most definitely not talking out of his ass. The B1 is undeniably a strategic bomber it was not designed for close air support. Although operations in Afghanistan allowed us to employ the B1s in that role (because of JDAMS and more importantly because there lacked an enemy source of air power and air defenses) it is not its conventional role. Lately, close air support is provided by manueverable aircraft that can serve in a fighter/strike capacity (f-18 is a perfect example). However, it was not designed for the sole purpose of close air support. On the other hand, the A-10 is an aircraft built specifically for the role of close air support against enemy troops and tanks.

The Boeing statistic isn't all that convincing either. The amount of sorties flown for close air support likely far surpases those flown for strike warfare (strategic bombing). So, it makes sense that the B1 flew less missions yet dropped larger payloads because the mission called for strategic strikes on fixed targets. Although they no doubt loitered and provided an amazing source of firepower for troops on the ground, this is a new role that was specific to Operation Enduring Freedom. I'd be curious to find out if the B1 was used with as much frequency in Iraq.

did you look at the boeing link?

here it is again.

the b1 WAS "a strategic bomber it was not designed for close air support".

As the cold war began to thaw, the B-1B was transitioned out of its nuclear mission. The last B-1B stood its last nuclear alert in 1997. In June 1994 the B-1B began an Operational Readiness assessment that marked the beginning of the Conventional Munitions Upgrade program.

there's more on that boeing page. i suggest you read the whole thing before you reply.

Hammer

I did indeed read the Boeing link. The B1 remains a strategic bomber. The point is that it was adapted to a new mission during Operation Enduring Freedom: i.e. close air support. Although it transitioned from the nuclear role to a conventional one it still is (you guessed it) a strategic bomber.

 

[DaFinn]

Also as a "been there, done that" kinda person, I can confirm that breaking the sound barrier is nothing compared to (in my case) 2 F-18 flying over you head very low @ subsonic speed. Mucho more manly...