B2 bomber stunt

[K1052]

What exactly has South Korea done to help us? I'm serious. This, like most of our military "alliances", seems to be nearly entirely one-way.

We sort of assumed responsibility when we dived up the country at Potsdam without asking the Koreans. In a modern context Korea is a significant trade partner and military ally with an crazy neighbor which is at least partially our fault.

 

[Born2bwire]

There could be a legitimate argument that expensive but tailored shows of force are cost effective ways to prevent costly wars.

It's gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century and is a rather succinct way of showing the capabilities of the military. Compared to sending a fleet of battleships into the Sea of Japan or an aircraft carrier, sending a couple of B2 bombers on a flyover is an absolute bargain. North Korea boasts how its missile program could put a nuclear payload into US soil. The claim is laughable but the US can turn around and at the drop of a hat demonstrate to the world that they can live up to such claims. And that's worth far more than the costs in petrol that was spent doing it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I don't think that reminder is particularly necessary. Everyone is well aware of who the alpha is when it comes to military force.

Seems to me this was a very expensive and completely unnecessary way of thumbing our noses at the North Koreans. Not that they don't deserve it, but I'd rather we didn't engage in such obviously wasteful practices.

I suggest you look up operation paul bunyan; Costly - sure. But it made a point: you kill a couple soldiers, we are more than willing to come crashing down on you. I think they need a good reminder in the middle of their own threats. If us showing them we can level most of their cities without them having advanced warnings prevents this from going hot, it's not so wasteful.

 

[Brovane]

No waste, flying from the US to South Korea to drop a couple of bombs, and then fly back?

If you say so.

If the pilots have to get a certain amount of flight hours per month then it isn't a waste. The USAF regularly practices long flights with bombers. Basically the B-2 did a mock long range strike against a target with Air-Air Refueling. Which is a great way to drill and stay sharp and has the duel effect of letting the NK know that we have the capability to hit them. USAF bombers regularly deploy all over the world. We just don't hear about it because it doesn't make the news like this one did.

 

[Brovane]

I don't think that reminder is particularly necessary. Everyone is well aware of who the alpha is when it comes to military force.

Seems to me this was a very expensive and completely unnecessary way of thumbing our noses at the North Koreans. Not that they don't deserve it, but I'd rather we didn't engage in such obviously wasteful practices.

So how expensive was it if you are saying it is very expensive? Do you think the B-2 bombers just sit in hangars in Whiteman until they are called to action? The pilots just sit and fly simulators until called up for a sortie?

 

[chucky2]

I'm really not sure this is worth it, even for the flight hours gained. Why put the hours on the airframe needlessly? It's not like we can realistically fire up the B-2 line when these airframes come up against their service life. Seems like a waste to me...

 

[EagleKeeper]

If it was really done as part of routine training, then fine.

I still want to know who is paying for thousands of our troops to be permanently stationed in Korea, and/or what exactly we get from SK to justify this tremendous expense -- not to mention extreme risk, if hostilities did break out.

The cost of a war is a lot more than the cost of preventive measures and exercise readiness.

If you want to abandon SK; you might as well go back to the isolationist concept of having troops only to protect out borders from invasion/attack.
Pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan; turn over the fate of the world to other countries that want to intervene.


Allow China to control the South China Sea, ignore any conflicts going on in Africa or Asia.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm really not sure this is worth it, even for the flight hours gained. Why put the hours on the airframe needlessly? It's not like we can realistically fire up the B-2 line when these airframes come up against their service life. Seems like a waste to me...

Airframes need to be tested; pilots need the practice hours.

Flying around boring holes over CONUS is not that same as practicing for the real need.

 

[chucky2]

Airframes need to be tested; pilots need the practice hours.

Flying around boring holes over CONUS is not that same as practicing for the real need.

I don't dispute that at all. Just seems a heck of a test that could be done differently to preserve at much airframe life as possible.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I thought there were a few B-2s stationed on Guam. I'm surprised they didnt use those, but maybe they are slated to take off on a moments notice in case of a crisis.

B2 needs to be stored in a climate controlled hanger;
It is susceptible to sand and salt.

B2 were stationed at Anderson but no longer after 2010.
some were deployed in Jan/Feb to Guam as a "message" to China; unsure if they are still there.

It is one thing to deploy another thing to base the aircraft.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't dispute that at all. Just seems a heck of a test that could be done differently to preserve at much airframe life as possible.

If the purpose of the aircraft is to fly 30+ hours to deliver ordnance; what is the difference is boring holes of the US vs running a mission.

The plane still needs to be in the air for the required time to evaluate the airframe and pilots.

 

[chucky2]

If the purpose of the aircraft is to fly 30+ hours to deliver ordnance; what is the difference is boring holes of the US vs running a mission.

The plane still needs to be in the air for the required time to evaluate the airframe and pilots.

None. And I'd say that other than maintenance, the airframes have all been well past validated. The pilots can use something else to simulate the run. A lear, a B-52, I don't care what. What they shouldn't be doing is needlessly degrading the life of a $2B irreplaceable airframe to prove that the airframe can fly to point B from point A, and that the pilots can sit there and do so within that airframe.

That's one expensive training flight, not just in terms of real cost, but, diminished airframe life cost...

 

[benzylic]

B2 needs to be stored in a climate controlled hanger;
It is susceptible to sand and salt.

B2 were stationed at Anderson but no longer after 2010.
some were deployed in Jan/Feb to Guam as a "message" to China; unsure if they are still there.

It is one thing to deploy another thing to base the aircraft.

Yeah, if I remember correctly a different squadron would rotate through Guam every couple of months, but I'm not sure if they still do that.

As a side note I used to live about 45 minutes from Whiteman AFB and the B2s would flyover two or three times a month, never did get old.

 

[Brovane]

None. And I'd say that other than maintenance, the airframes have all been well past validated. The pilots can use something else to simulate the run. A lear, a B-52, I don't care what. What they shouldn't be doing is needlessly degrading the life of a $2B irreplaceable airframe to prove that the airframe can fly to point B from point A, and that the pilots can sit there and do so within that airframe.

That's one expensive training flight, not just in terms of real cost, but, diminished airframe life cost...

So you want the B-2 bomber to sit in a climate controlled hangar until they are needed for war?

 

[pauldun170]

I don't know that it was a waste of money. Those crews must drill to remain prepared for action. All pilots, even civilian ones, must log a certain amount of airtime to keep their licenses. So, I think it likely that there was no waste.

Fern

If the pilots have to get a certain amount of flight hours per month then it isn't a waste. The USAF regularly practices long flights with bombers. Basically the B-2 did a mock long range strike against a target with Air-Air Refueling. Which is a great way to drill and stay sharp and has the duel effect of letting the NK know that we have the capability to hit them. USAF bombers regularly deploy all over the world. We just don't hear about it because it doesn't make the news like this one did.

Airframes need to be tested; pilots need the practice hours.

Flying around boring holes over CONUS is not that same as practicing for the real need.

All of these.
Doesn't matter if it was a run to SK or a Run to middle of the pacific.
If you want a top notch Air force you need flight time and pilots need to train.

I'm sure the B2 wasn't the only weapon system being tested and NK wasn't focus of the exercise.
We have 3 major allies in the Region, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Not to far away is the joke referred to as North Korea and a country known as a "China"

 

[EagleKeeper]

None. And I'd say that other than maintenance, the airframes have all been well past validated. The pilots can use something else to simulate the run. A lear, a B-52, I don't care what. What they shouldn't be doing is needlessly degrading the life of a $2B irreplaceable airframe to prove that the airframe can fly to point B from point A, and that the pilots can sit there and do so within that airframe.

That's one expensive training flight, not just in terms of real cost, but, diminished airframe life cost...

Simulation is not the same as the real thing.
Pilots trained for a B2 may not be qualified to fly a Lear or a Buf.
Different flight characteristics and instruments.

A simulator is a great training tool but does not suffice for the real thing.
One has to be kept current.

If an airframe is not exercised, problems that might be detected are not until it is to late and detrimental to the mission.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We sort of assumed responsibility when we dived up the country at Potsdam without asking the Koreans. In a modern context Korea is a significant trade partner and military ally with an crazy neighbor which is at least partially our fault.

My reading of history doesn't show the US as being the bad guy in this particular incident. Regardless, it's been, what, over 60 years? How long do we have to keep this up?

Aside from this sort of implied guilt rationale, I haven't seen anyone make any real argument for what we are getting out of this so-called "alliance". If we're going to pimp ourselves out to the world as mercenaries, we should at least be getting paid, and I don't think we are.

chucky2 also brings up a good point.

Finally, I have to wonder how many of the conservatives here who think this was a good idea would have been calling for Obama's head if anything had gone wrong (whether Obama was personally involved in the decision or not).

 

[Brovane]

My reading of history doesn't show the US as being the bad guy in this particular incident. Regardless, it's been, what, over 60 years? How long do we have to keep this up?

Aside from this sort of implied guilt rationale, I haven't seen anyone make any real argument for what we are getting out of this so-called "alliance". If we're going to pimp ourselves out to the world as mercenaries, we should at least be getting paid, and I don't think we are.

chucky2 also brings up a good point.

Finally, I have to wonder how many of the conservatives here who think this was a good idea would have been calling for Obama's head if anything had gone wrong (whether Obama was personally involved in the decision or not).

South Korea is a major trading partner and is free democratic nation and is a key partner of the US in Asia. Realistically over the years the amount of US forces has drawn down and South Korea assumes a major responsibility for it's defense. It does spend a significant part of it's overall budget on Defense. Do we have to get "paid" financially to be allied with someone? Also if South Korea was attacked we would be drawn into the battle anyway. Would we want China assuming responsibility for keeping the North Korean's within their borders?

 

[chucky2]

So you want the B-2 bomber to sit in a climate controlled hangar until they are needed for war?

Short answer: Ideally, yes.

Realistically: I realize they need to fly, and the pilots need to practice. I just hope this wasn't a 'lets do it because we can' stunt and this was actually needed, rather than buying a relatively cheap Lear or whatever to simulate a B-2 and not using up the life of our irreplaceable B-2 fleet.

I'd say I trust the experts, but, the experts both want to play with their toys and also are at the disposable of their political masters. Neither of those things has a strong fiscally positive history.

Chuck

 

[Charles Kozierok]

South Korea is a major trading partner and is free democratic nation and is a key partner of the US in Asia.

And?

How is this a reason for us to put thousands of US troops in harm's way and also spend likely billions of dollars?

Realistically over the years the amount of US forces has drawn down and South Korea assumes a major responsibility for it's defense.

There were 28,500 US troops stationed in Korea as of 2008. If that's "drawn down", the old number was even more outrageous.

Do we have to get "paid" financially to be allied with someone?

Sorry to be blunt, but yeah, we do. Either money or some other mutual benefit. Otherwise, it's not an alliance -- it's American taxdollars and American kids being used to defend a foreign country.

Now my understanding is that South Korea does pay the US some amount of money each year. But it doesn't even appear to be enough to cover the salaries of the US military personnel, much less everything else.

Also if South Korea was attacked we would be drawn into the battle anyway.

And having several thousand troops wiped out at the start of such a battle would be better, how exactly?

 

[Agent11]

Short answer: Ideally, yes.

Realistically: I realize they need to fly, and the pilots need to practice. I just hope this wasn't a 'lets do it because we can' stunt and this was actually needed, rather than buying a relatively cheap Lear or whatever to simulate a B-2 and not using up the life of our irreplaceable B-2 fleet.

I'd say I trust the experts, but, the experts both want to play with their toys and also are at the disposable of their political masters. Neither of those things has a strong fiscally positive history.

Chuck

Well technically we are at war with North Korea.

 

[fskimospy]

My reading of history doesn't show the US as being the bad guy in this particular incident. Regardless, it's been, what, over 60 years? How long do we have to keep this up?

Aside from this sort of implied guilt rationale, I haven't seen anyone make any real argument for what we are getting out of this so-called "alliance". If we're going to pimp ourselves out to the world as mercenaries, we should at least be getting paid, and I don't think we are.

chucky2 also brings up a good point.

Finally, I have to wonder how many of the conservatives here who think this was a good idea would have been calling for Obama's head if anything had gone wrong (whether Obama was personally involved in the decision or not).

We gain a great deal from these alliances as they give us the ability to effectively project power from well established locations thousands of miles away from the US. Our bases in Japan, Bahrain, etc have proved invaluable as staging areas for military action. You didn't really think we were 'protecting' these countries out of the goodness of our hearts, did you? Lots of them don't even want us there.

Secondly, South Korea pays the US close to $1 billion a year for the troops stationed there. While that certainly doesn't cover all of our expenses, many of those expenses are fixed ones we would have anyway. So not only do we have an insanely valuable base, the ability to influence an economically vital area of the world and act as a stabilizer, but we do in fact get paid a not insignificant sum for being there.

 

[fskimospy]

And having several thousand troops wiped out at the start of such a battle would be better, how exactly?

Why would our several thousand troops be wiped out? Certainly you can see the value of having an already established supply, command, control, and defensive system set up before the start of hostilities instead of having to make it on the fly.

Having those troops already there would make things much, much, much better in a conflict with North Korea.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Certainly you can see the value of having an already established supply, command, control, and defensive system set up before the start of hostilities instead of having to make it on the fly.

Yes, I can.

Let the South Koreans establish them.

It's time to pull in the reins on the American empire.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I can.

Let the South Koreans establish them.

It's time to pull in the reins on the American empire.

If it is, South Korea is about the last place I would start. It is an economically vital region far from our borders that has good infrastructure, a friendly government, and they pick up some of the tab. (although I agree not enough)