An expeditionary squadron of B-1B bombers, including a contingency of 400 airmen, recently finished a 6 month deployment in Afghanistan Over the course of the 6-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day. They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target. Basically a bomber was airborne and able to provide support to ground troops, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...for 6 months. Amazing feat, however at a cost of $35,000 / hour; there are cheaper means in which to provide round the clock close air support to our boys (and girls) on the ground. Countering this, the B-1B can carry a large array of ordnance compared to unmanned aerial platforms. So I suppose it balances out on the cost effectiveness side, at least in part. Anyway, job well done by these airmen.
Indeed- i would never have guessed that a B1 would be used for close support. Any more information on what type of support they were providing? This is a roll I would have expected to be more for the F16. Was is the extended dwell time and range that made them useful in this roll?
I would agree, except I do not place a dollar value on the lives of our servicemembers. And if they manage to save just 2 lives a day, it was a cost well worth it (compare the $840k per day cost, to the insurance of $1 million for every 2 soldiers killed in the line of duty). Sure they can be used in that manner, as long as there is no significant air threat in their area of operations. However, if the enemy in the area has anti-aircraft weapons more advanced then an M-2, I doube we would be seeing them used in this manner. And their dwell time is probably the biggest reason why. 24 hour missions are not a big deal for bomber crews, they have trained for such for decades.
I'm waiting for Herk to clarify on that comment. I'm not sure if he thinks the LGPOS or Mudhen are cheaper, or if he means RPAs. The Mudhen is not any cheaper per hour in flight. I don't know enough about the Bone to say it is more expensive in the hangar. Except the part about having to smell your own waste in a can/bag for 24-hours, but bomber pilots might like the smell of their own (*)(*)(*)(*).
Well, as a former grunt, I would have to say that is not a big deal at all. You should smell a Battalion of Mariens who are comming out of the field after 2 summer weeks with no shower (other then being rained on). Back in the early 1980's, there was a series of books of "Sea Stories" written by 2 (then 1) retired Marine officers that was sold at Marine posts. I had the complete series (Green Side Out, Brown Side Out, Run In Circles, and Scream and Shout). Long out of print, they were just collections of stories that they had experienced or heard of during their careers. And every time I think about the poor guys and gals who live their lives way over my head, I remember one of them. Basically, this poor Jarhead pilot was on a ferry flight if I remember right, and part way through he realized that his in-flight urination system was not working (I seem to remember it froze up). So being the type of Marine that can improvise, he used a nearby plastic bag. Then once he got to his destination, some pompus customs type asked him if he had anything to declare. He did not, just a ditty bag with a change of uniform and his flight gear. The customs guy was sure there was something to declare, and kept hounding him. Eventually the Marine got tired of the badgering and said "Yea, I got something to declare, a 50,000 foot headcall", and dumped the contents of the bag on the desk.
Well, I just learned apparently that they are back in print after all. I will have to order these again, since I only have one of them now, the rest having been lost over the years. These were just coming out when I was finishing boot camp, and was one of the first things I bought at the PX. And for a while these were regularly excerpted from in Leatherneck Magazine. http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/07...books-by-gene-duncan-are-back-in-circulation/
The Bone is being used as a bomb truck in this air support situation. All the fancy ECM gadgets turned off, not unlike the Buff. My point was, since it's being used as a bomb truck, I thought there might be cheaper ways to provide the mission support other than the Bone....for example the Buff or Reaper/Predator. Like you, I don't know much about the Bone other than it's design had the Cold War in mind, the super-sonic low level delivery of nuclear ordnance. I wasn't sure if this bomber wing wanted to prove the B-1's worth beyond what it was designed for to save it from the scrap heap at Monthan-Davis. I think it's a good aircraft, a few reliability issues, but it can carry a lot of ordnance...somethiing like 40% of the bombs dropped during shock & awe (OIF) were from B-1Bs, I hope they modernize it, and it stays in our inventory. We've got Buff airframes going back to before I was born...it's another aircraft that has proved it's worth many times in Afghanistan. Regarding "toilet" etiquette on long missions...I do know the airlift community is far more hygenic in this regard...we don't use piddle packs.
Bones are worth their weight, and I'll go so far as to say they serve more a purpose now than the Buff. Take the source (me) into consideration though. The Buff would likely have a higher operational cost, but I'll check on that. Yeah, you just (*)(*)(*)(*)/(*)(*)(*)(*) in front of everyone or into an empty MRE packet.
For every hour of flight in a B-1B requires 47.8 hours of maintenance in the hangar. The cheapest and most inexpensive bomber to maintain in the active USAF inventory is the B-52. The START treaty prohibits B-1s from carrying nuclear ordnance, so it's basically a supersonic smart bomb truck. It can carry a wide array of ordnance and has long loiter times on station...but in terms of cost effectiveness, the B-52 is cheaper to cycle in and out of sustained close air support as strictly a platform for dropping smart bombs. Retiring all of the B-1Bs has already been discussed, whether it happens I don't know. It was designed to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union...flying very low and very fast by evading detection with ECM and flying below the radar. It has shown adaptability and versatility in both OIF and OEF, and I agree I think retiring it completely like the F-117 would be a mistake.
Aside from operational costs, another factor to consider is endurance (loiter time) over a designated battlespace area. The time the aircraft is able to remain on station and available. We can use the Breguet formula to determine which aircraft, B-1B or B-52, has the greater endurance in the loiter phase of flight. Cruising for a certain amount of time over a small region. A typical scenario for ground-attack aircraft, or in this case... smart bomb trucks (aircraft) on station, waiting to deliver ordnance per JTAC instructions. If I remember it correctly... E = 1/C L/D ln (Wi/Wf) wherein: E is the endurance as measured in time C is the fuel consumption (1/time) L is the lift force on the aircraft D is the total drag force on the aircraft Wi is the weight of the aircraft at start of the loiter phase Wf is the weight of the aircraft at the end of the loiter phase I'll need to plug n' play with the figures and get back to you... some of this may be classified in terms of locating specific information pertaining to the formula...so no guarantees. I can say this, B-1B is a 216 ton aircraft that can carry 34 tons of bombs, while the B-52 has a MTOW of 240-250 tons...which include 150 tons of fuel with 12 - 20 tons of bombs. The endurance might not be all that dissimilar factoring in fuel consumption rates. Anyway...carry on.
Exactly why this conversation should be extremely vague. Good info on the Buff, never really saw that aircraft in that way. Let's just keep specifics out of it though.
