"In Iraq, the B-1 Bomber Proves Enduring Value" Topic

"As the air war over northern Iraq expanded earlier this month, Pentagon officials for first time acknowledged that land-based bombers have begun conducting strikes against the Islamic State, or ISIS, as it is formerly known. Though the specific bomber type was not named, B-1B Lancers are widely believed to be the bombers providing much needed air support to Kurdish forces that retook the Mosul Dam. The appearance of the B-1 in Iraq should come as no surprise, as its long-range, all-weather, day or night, and low- or high-altitude capabilities have made it one of the most heavily used strike aircraft in America's air armada.

B-1s of the 7th Bomb Wing from Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, deployed to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar earlier this month. The 350 service members and their B-1s replaced members of the 28th Bomb Wing, which also flies the B-1, as part of a routine six-month rotation, which both units have shared since the opening of the Afghan War in late 2001. With the U.S. still in Afghanistan and now returning to Iraq, the 7th will take on a challenge that only long-range bombers like the B-1 can meet: be on call to support operations in two different theaters while still based in Qatar.

Despite this unique ability, the B-1 has repeatedly been the target of budget hawks. Most recently, it was named as potential collateral damage in the effort to save the A-10 ‘Warthog.' But its current deployment and continued development demonstrate how profound a mistake it would have been to discontinue the B-1…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Lets see. The B-1 is now actually cheaper to fly then the B-52. It carries a lot more smart bombs then an A-10. Its optics and ability to see ground targets is probably better then an A-10 since you have a dedicated weapons officer who doesn't have to worry about flying the plane into the ground. It can stay over your position for hours. Lots of other things it can do that an A-10 cant.

So makes lots of sense to get rid of the US only fairly modern bomber in exchange for a plane that can shoot a handful of HE rounds and small HE rounds at that. As opposed to dropping a much larger HE bomb on them.

As a soldier on the ground, I'd rather see the A-10 hovering over the battlefield waiting to support me than a B-1 that screams over the battlefield at 500+knots dropping a bomb. The A-10 puts steel on target exactly where you need it. The B-1, not so much, unless the target has been painted/lasered. Contrary to popular belief, soldiers don't all carry targeting equipment. Personally, I like both planes. They each have a job to do.

Yep … as a former Grunt and Air Ops Officer[S3 Air] … I like'm both … The most powerful weapon we have is the radio and the ability to call in fire support from many assets … Fast Movers being one of my favorite.

One thing the A10 does that the B1 doesn't is showing the flag. B1s tend to fly at high altitudes, since they have the jammers to screw with high-altitude missiles and it would be highly embarrassing for a B1 to be shot down by guns.

But this high altitude prevents the bomber from making a psychological statement to the bad guys. An A10 flying at 500ft AGL is going to have a much greater psych impact on the bad guys, because they can see the plane, and there's nothing they can do to the plane to make it stop.

The A10 have good points here.

Amicalement
Armand

Given that the B52 BUFFs are getting to be twice as old as their pilots and the B1 is the only thing we have that can carry a similar bomb load, getting rid of them is just not an option. The A10's general success indicates that we need those or an equivalent modern type just as badly.

There are several problems with an A10 or A10 replacement.

First is the fact that the USAF doesn't want to do CAS. They all wanna be the Red Baron, knights of the skies.

The second is a cost function. A dedicated CAS aircraft means dedicated training courses and facilities, in addition to dedicated equipment (the 30mm cannon ammo loader) and spares.

The third problem is the agreement between the USAF and US Army that the USAF would operate all armed fixed-wing aircraft, which forces the USAF to provide CAS to the Army. The Army would much prefer to follow the USMC model here, and have Army pilots driving their CAS. Every time the USAF tries to scrap the A10, the Army says "we will be happy to take the entire program and all the equipment off your hands. Even the pilots, if they would accept a transfer to the US Army at their current ranks."

Building an A10 replacement would result in a lot of development dollars for something that the USAF doesn't want. Though I had a wicked idea for an A10 replacement that the US Army could fly, if the canard-rotor-wing program sorted itself out. After all, it would be a 'rotary-wing' aircraft, just one capable of speeds over 500kph.

"First is the fact that the USAF doesn't want to do CAS. They all wanna be the Red Baron, knights of the skies."

Yes, oft-repeated here, but has NEVER been the point of view of any USAF officer I've had the pleasure to meet – all of whom adore the A10.

You apparently haven't met any officers who would like to get a cushy job with a defense contractor after they retire. Flashy new toys that need huge design budgets to design things beyond logic or reason always trump steady, relatively cheap, already designed older toys. Sadly, I see this slimy sub-group of officers all the time.

from a defense contractor engineer.