As demonstrated recently, the United States must maintain a strong global-strike capability. Can a future force of~200 bombers handle that? Experts say NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, but budgets, not strategy, are driving the issue!
Current Air Force budget-driven plans are to retire B-1s and B-2s (the only bomber that can carry the massive bombs [MOPs] dropped on Iran) as B-21s are produced, produce 100 new B-21s – which may increase to 145 – and keep dozens of ancient (but upgraded) B-52s. The result would be an inventory approximating 200 bombers. Of those, readiness rates would mean perhaps 150 or so available quickly to handle future long-distance missions, which the Air Force's many more fighter aircraft cannot perform.
WHY MORE BOMBERS? Long-legged bombers are vital for fights in vast areas of the Pacific, across Europe and the Mideast, and anywhere else in the world. Being one leg of our nuclear Triad, bombers are also needed continually at home for nuclear deterrence. The Mitchell Institute [Ref 1] shows a future bomber shortfall of ~200 bombers when America is challenged with two simultaneous war-fronts plus continued nuclear deterrence. Advocacy for more bombers includes increasing the B-21 build and nearly 400 total bombers [Ref 2]. Even more bombers (e.g., 500 total) could very well be needed in possible future multi-front strategic conflicts, primarily for both conventional and nuclear deterrence! Rationale for this force and its composition is described in the paragraph below.
Emphasizing that bombers are fundamental in quantity for deterrence, General Mike Loh, former commander of the Air Force Air Combat Command, believes the Air Force needs a paradigm shift, from operational and acquisition priority on fighters to priority on bombers. Bombers are weapon systems of priority for any Pacific war, equal priority for Europe and Mideast wars. It is irrational for many valid reasons to retire any B-2s, B-1s, or B-52s. America must retain the capability to carry and launch two MOPs; only B-2s can do this. It appears the B-21 bomb bay has been sized without consideration of MOP; therefore, we must develop NGP (Next Generation Penetrator) to fit one in a smaller B-21 bomb bay. In sum, we need about 500 bombers – 360 B-21s, 19 B-2s, 76 B-52s, and 45 B-1s – to cover
both nuclear and conventional scenarios, and enforce both nuclear and conventional deterrence. [Ref 3]
WHY NOT MANY MORE BOMBERS? The demand is there, so the simple answer is budget! [“who would not want more long-range strike platforms? … it really gets down to the fundamentals of the budget. It’s a service budget issue, it’s a department budget issue. It’s a national budget issue." [Ref 4.] If the Air Force could spend all the money in its DoD budget, ~$45 - $50 billion per year, that would go a long way toward more bombers! [Ref 5] PRESIDENT TRUMP, CONGRESS, DOD, AND AIR FORCE -- BUDGET FOR HUNDREDS MORE BOMBERS!
References
- Building-a-Force-that-Wins-FINAL.pdf, page 25.
- Why the U.S. Needs 200 B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers, Not 100 | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
- Input from General Mike Loh for this article.
- Bomber fleet size target 'probably' needs to be reassessed: Air Force Global Strike chief - Breaking Defense
- DOD, STOP THE GIMMICK; LET AIR FORCE MODERNIZE BY SPENDING ALL OF ITS BUDGET! - Armed
Forces Press
That’s total BS sorry but the drones are extremely effective to wipe out the entire squad in a bombers when the enemy knows where they are, and they’re left outside or even in shelter. Drone swarms prove you can wipe them out quickly so why would we go trillions more in debt because the military industrial complex wants us to
No more weapons of war.