NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

U.S. Warplanes Destroyed By Smart Bombs

October 21, 2008: Because fewer bombers are needed, the U.S. Air Force is sending 323 warplanes (137 F-15s, 177 F-16s and 9 A-10s) into early retirement. Smart bombs have enabled fighters to take out more targets with far fewer bombs. The air force wants to save money so it can buy more of the new F-35s, which are stealthy enough to reach well defended targets without the assistance of electronic warfare aircraft. The early retirements will save $3.4 billion in the next year, and enable the first F-35s to enter service in two years. F-35s will initially be used for the initial strikes against heavy air defenses, to take out radars and missile launchers.

The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan has redefined the use of airpower. Since World War II, the air force increasingly emphasized their ability to hit targets farther in the enemy rear, thus crippling the ability of the enemy ground and air forces to continue fighting. But the recent introduction of better, and cheaper, smart bombs and sensors, has changed the way air power is being used. The ability to drop bombs with greater accuracy, in any weather, has made it safer for both the bomber and friendly troops. The GPS JDAM or, in clear weather, laser guided bombs, keep the bombers out of range of ground fire, and put the bombs down with greater accuracy, more of the time, than ever before. After nearly 70 years of fearing your own bombers, because of the low accuracy pre-GPS bombs hitting the good guys, troops are enthusiastically calling in air power more and more. It's gotten to the point where artillery units are complaining that the air force is putting them out of work. That's exactly what has happened, with many artillery units being converted to infantry. This trend was accelerated by the introduction of GPS guided shells and rockets.

In addition to the large scale return of "close air support," there is also the trend of turning bombers into reconnaissance aircraft. High resolution, all weather, video cameras are not just letting the pilots know what's down there, but giving the ground troops a better idea of what they are dealing with. Now this video can be transmitted to the troops below, and new communications gear makes this easier. The higher resolution vids are so large that the aircraft need broadband (broader bandwidth) to send down the high definition video. But that is being addressed, mainly because the video from the warplanes has proved enormously useful on the ground. While the infantry have their own UAVs, in combat you can never have too much of this new "live video from above". The bombers not only provide an eye in the sky, but bombs on demand and, if need be, a few low passes accompanied by 20mm or 30mm cannon fire. New gun sights have made this kind of fire more effective, and the troops on the ground are glad to have it. The pilots, despite the increased risk to them and their aircraft, like the opportunity to get closer to the action.

The air force, somewhat distracted by the scramble to find enough money to build more of the new F-22 fighters, and looking over their shoulder at the new combat UAV designs (that will put a lot of pilots out of work), are allowing these major changes in air warfare to play out. The pilots aren't complaining, for they are out doing what they have been trained to do; fight. The navy and marine pilots are even more into it, since they always had a greater attachment to getting involved with the ground battle.  But now, technology and circumstances have combined to make warplanes, although far fewer warplanes, part of the battle more than they have been for decades.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: MiG-29s Aging Poorly


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
trenchsol       10/21/2008 6:21:06 AM
I think that I've read an article, back in 2003, about one of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard division being destroyed by carpet bombing from formation of high flying B-52's. It happened during bad weather that raised sandstorm and resulted in low visibility.
 
If it is true, there is still a justification for dumb bombs and massive air campaigns ?
 
DG
 

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       10/21/2008 8:39:42 AM
Never happened....
 
I think you are confusing the B-1 that dropped smart anti-tank munitions during OIF that destroyed an Iraqi column of armored vehicles.
 
While the Buff is well known for its capability to carpet bomb (aka Arc Light) - the B-52 and B-1 were far more useful during OIF and in Afghanistan for loitering with GPS guided munitions that could be delivered upon demand from ground troops.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       10/21/2008 2:58:58 PM

Never happened....

 

I think you are confusing the B-1 that dropped smart anti-tank munitions during OIF that destroyed an Iraqi column of armored vehicles.
 
In fact, I'd like to know what really happened. Is there a description of those events somewhere ?
 
DG

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Textron   10/21/2008 3:37:47 PM

Link

CBU-97 SFW (Sensor Fused Weapon)

Combat proven on April 2, 2003 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, SFW took out multiple Iraqi tanks in a single pass.

LINK

Sensor Fuzed Weapon is a smart, air-to-ground, direct attack munition that can detect and defeat a wide variety of combat targets. Combat proven initially on April 2, 2003 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the SFW received world-wide recognition after defeating multiple Iraqi tanks in a single aircraft pass that halted an Iraqi armored column from advancing on U.S. military forces. Subsequent operations confirmed the high military value of this unique weapon.

 

 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon    The Fatal Flaw of USAF   10/21/2008 11:26:45 PM
I'm sorry to have to be the doom and gloomer, but reality is that this mis-conceived and once again mis-calculated DoD/USAF reasoning in downsizing due to up-smarting is and sadly will some day in the near-future be a fatal flaw.
 
The one analysis point left out is that tomorrow's enemy will have a smart fighter themselves and smart SAMs, which will equate to about 3-4x yesterday's counter-balance capability.  So in fact it will be a wash at best, and depending on how many 'they' can deploy, will be to USAF's disadvantage.
 
I highly advise Obama's national security/defense consultants to re-examine the further math and reasoning made by Bush/Gates and team.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       10/22/2008 1:24:51 AM

The one analysis point left out is that tomorrow's enemy will have a smart fighter themselves and smart SAMs, which will equate to about 3-4x yesterday's counter-balance capability.  So in fact it will be a wash at best, and depending on how many 'they' can deploy, will be to USAF's disadvantage.
 

If you think our enemies will have "smart" fighters and "smart" SAMs (whatever that means) that apparently you think will be roughly equal technology as our aircraft... and in equal or apparently even greater numbers than us, you are dreaming.  Our fighter force will gradually transition over the next 20 years from about 100 F-22, 300 F-15C, 200 F-15E, 1300 F-16C, and 300 A-10C today (that's approximately 100 F-22 and 2100 other jets) to about 180 F-22 and 1800 F-35 by 2030.  It's almost a one-for-one swap with a **huge** increase in both air-to-air and air-to-ground capability.  HUGE.
 
No threat nation's air force will even come close... again/still.
 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       10/22/2008 1:54:00 AM

I'm sorry to have to be the doom and gloomer, but reality is that this mis-conceived and once again mis-calculated DoD/USAF reasoning in downsizing due to up-smarting is and sadly will some day in the near-future be a fatal flaw.

 

The one analysis point left out is that tomorrow's enemy will have a smart fighter themselves and smart SAMs, which will equate to about 3-4x yesterday's counter-balance capability.  So in fact it will be a wash at best, and depending on how many 'they' can deploy, will be to USAF's disadvantage.

 

I highly advise Obama's national security/defense consultants to re-examine the further math and reasoning made by Bush/Gates and team.


Pft, he's gonna jump on that math and ravish it till it looks twice as good so he can slaughter your military.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       10/22/2008 1:54:56 AM
Though I'm sure you already know for sure that is what is going to happen and just dreaming out loud in hope.
I still think McCain has a 3.5% chance of winning.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       10/22/2008 1:56:49 AM
But I am saddened by the news that Bush and Gates made such a bad decision. Numbers have a quality of their own... If only Americans believed more in their leadership they'd go for McCain.
 
Oh well, it means you'll have less resources in the Pacific to deal with Russia and my China when we feel like expanding. 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       10/22/2008 2:02:03 AM




The one analysis point left out is that tomorrow's enemy will have a smart fighter themselves and smart SAMs, which will equate to about 3-4x yesterday's counter-balance capability.  So in fact it will be a wash at best, and depending on how many 'they' can deploy, will be to USAF's disadvantage.

 





If you think our enemies will have "smart" fighters and "smart" SAMs (whatever that means) that apparently you think will be roughly equal technology as our aircraft... and in equal or apparently even greater numbers than us, you are dreaming.  Our fighter force will gradually transition over the next 20 years from about 100 F-22, 300 F-15C, 200 F-15E, 1300 F-16C, and 300 A-10C today (that's approximately 100 F-22 and 2100 other jets) to about 180 F-22 and 1800 F-35 by 2030.  It's almost a one-for-one swap with a **huge** increase in both air-to-air and air-to-ground capability.  HUGE.

 

No threat nation's air force will even come close... again/still.

 


First of all you're assuming Obama will stick with those plans.
Secondly, China and Russia's economies and technology aren't going to sit still. China in particular is desperate to catch up as much as possible with America. Of course you'll still be way ahead by 2030, but not by as much. If current trends continue China should catch up with American technology sometime late this century (say 2080-2100). I don't see the problem with numbers, only technology. China should be able to catch up with the US military budget in 30 years, and that's a conservative estimate setting off a lot of money to deal with environmental damage and erosion of civil support.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       10/22/2008 2:07:46 AM
Still, Warpig, your argument remains true so I guess nyetneinnon and me were wrong, at least technically.
You are right, American air force will remain (mostly) unchallenged.
 
I only disagree on American airforce remaining completely unchallenged. With the rising numbers and technology of your competitors a reduced airforce and reduced will to fight (if Democratic administrations take effect in policy) may give you problems handling your enemies, even with vastly superior technology.
 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon       10/22/2008 11:52:40 AM
Warpig,
 
2030 is not so much my focus re: USAF's/DoD flaws and piss poor planning.  Although, regardless of who's president between now and then, the USAF 1750+ F-35 force size is unfortunately a wet pipe dream.  I'm sure many will rush to blame Obama and you can actually hear such claims already (before the election).  But the overwhelming probability is there will not be 1,750+ USAF F-35.. for many reasons political, military and of course economical.  It (the revised plans to come) will simply be by default due to above reasons, and not by a discriminating future White house admin.
 
But the fatal planning flaw spoken of is more directed at the near/mid-term between today and say 2018, with the forcing of an accelerated deterrence gap and potential gutting in other capability, readiness, etc, as we're now apparently locked into depending on F-35 at almost any expense - and those critical costs to service (and national security) will only increase to pay this piper!
 
Perhaps one possible 'hedge' to consider, could be looking at developing and procuring an FB-22 variant light bomber (with perhaps 2x the range and internal payload as F-35) as an alternative to the proposed 2018 'stop-gap' sub-sonic medium bomber.  Perhaps twice as many such super-cruising light LO bombers could be procured for less cost and even more flexible basing/logistics.  If even more hypothetical FB-22 variants were selected to replace some future block 6/7 F-35A buys, the USAF could possibly offset higher unit costs with cuts to overall Air Tanker purchases - the case being more tanker-independent deterrence capability.
 
But the mis-directed plans and decisions evolved and made since JSF's inception has positioned USAF's posture in this clear and imminent state of weakness uncertainty.
 
Quote    Reply

OkinawaGuy    It's not manned fighters...   10/22/2008 12:46:41 PM
While the immediate future is the F-22 and F-35, the not-so-distant future of USAF is drone aircraft, both strike and air superiority.  There will still be manned aircraft, obviously, perhaps some even in a "mothership" control mode, but the risk-averse US public combined with expanding technology and the limits of human physiology will dictate removal of the pilot for high risk missions when faced with advanced SAMs.  The benefits are obvious -- no political ramifications from ACLOSS, reduced size/weight with requisite increases in performance/range and reductions in signatures, increased capability for G forces, no worries about CSAR.  The institutional bias within USAF is eroding by necessity, particularly under the weight of the Predator's (and Reaper and Shadow and Hunter, etc.) success in OIF/OEF.  I really don't believe the Air Force has any choice in the matter -- if they don't embrace UAVs, the service will lose its relevance for offensive operations.  The Army already prefers to rely on its own UAV assets and really likes to use GMLRS and Excalibur shells for precision attacks because USAF is notoriously difficult in its scheduling (ATOs on a 24 hour schedule??  Give me a break already).  Anyway, enough ranting.  -Former active duty USAF officer (comments are mine alone)
 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       10/22/2008 5:03:09 PM
All I can do is piggyback of Okinawaguy's points. The current "vision" doesn't appear to include a path towards a major UCAV capability, and there is unquestionably a perceived reticence on the part of the USAF to aggressively field next-generation UCAVs. The stereotypical strike and CAS missions are practically custom-made for these machines. While I certainly feel there will be a long-term need for manned air superiority airframes- driven at least in part by the unavoidable ROE restrictions which will probably require eyes-on identification of targets in air war scenarios- the future for a large portion of the attack fleet is unmanned. It's frustrating to see the Air Force being left behind in this arena.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       10/22/2008 5:28:42 PM

 It's frustrating to see the Air Force being left behind in this arena.



Puh-leeze.  USAF leads the world in UCAV development (e.g., MQ-9 Reaper, which is providing CAS today), and it's USAF that got Army in the last several years to realize the benefits of UASs for ISR and CAS.
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy