B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2019, 22:34
by blain
The Navy’s shortfall in long range strike aircraft is not going to be addressed anytime soon. Carriers are already short on strike fighter capacity. The Navy has had difficulty just filling their decks. Air wings lack the payload density, range, and sortie generation rate to fight a nation like China from 1,000 nm. While I think using bombers to fill this gap has merit, using an older and increasingly expensive bomber to operate like the B-1 would be nothing more than a short term solution. It would add to its stand off missile capacity (added to the Tomahawk), but would not be able to penetrate a near peer airspace until air defenses have been attrited.

A more cost effective solution would be to use economies of scale to produce more B-21s and have the AF play more of a role in sea control and long range, penetrating, strike. Maybe a few squadrons could specialize in this role with a joint AF/Navy crew like the expeditionary Growlers. It would erode the utility of the carrier. But the threat is already doing that. Your options are to either try and reallocate resources to develop that capability (son of A-12) or find a more a more cost effective solution.

https://othjournal.com/2019/04/15/a-bom ... -the-navy/

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 03:04
by Corsair1963
Honestly, don't see it as a viable option. As the B-1B's are expensive to operate and maintain. While, the Navy Budget is already pushed to the limit. Plus, don't see the USAF going along with the Navy operating Bombers? As that is Air Force "territory".


Far better solution is to just buy more B-21's. Which, could be operated by the USAF in the attended role.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 13:46
by mixelflick
While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2019, 13:56
by vilters
Hawks; => as in Tomahawks on boats, ships, subs.

If a target is so small that you can not justify a Tomahawk for it? You certainly can not justify a B1 for a couple of them.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 08:28
by blain
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


If it gets them more B-21s they will surely do it. This Mitchell Institute report clearly indicates the the AF wouldn't be greatly opposed to the mission, especially since they trained for it in the past.

With a squadron of B-21s carrying LRASMs and a low observable ISR asset you can say bye bye to the Chinese Navy.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 08:47
by Corsair1963
blain wrote:
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


If it gets them more B-21s they will surely do it. This Mitchell Institute report clearly indicates the the AF wouldn't be greatly opposed to the mission, especially since they trained for it in the past.

With a squadron of B-21s carrying LRASMs and a low observable ISR asset you can say bye bye to the Chinese Navy.



Exactly, far better solution.... :twisted:

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2019, 14:51
by milosh
Nonsense.

It would be lot more logical to finish UCLASS as it was planned then to navy get bombers.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 19:53
by blain
milosh wrote:Nonsense.

It would be lot more logical to finish UCLASS as it was planned then to navy get bombers.


I just don't think the AI for UCAVs is mature enough. The alternative is that you need secure comms/datalink, which you cannot count on if you are fighting a near peer adversary.

An unmanned, long range, penetrator will need to be more effective - both in terms of cost and capability - than the Block IV Tomahawk. I just don't think we are there yet.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 21:17
by marauder2048
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


I don't think the USAF is spending the time and money for LRASM and Quickstrike-ER acquisition and integration
for fun.

Re: B-1s for the Navy?

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 13:34
by mixelflick
marauder2048 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:While there's some logic in this plan, it'll never happen. As stated prior, the USAF isn't interested in performing a naval mission, as they have enough responsibilities as it is.

The Navy decided long ago it was going to compromise with the F-18/SH etc.. They've made their bed, now they're going to sleep in it..


I don't think the USAF is spending the time and money for LRASM and Quickstrike-ER acquisition and integration
for fun.


I assume you mean to support the Navy?

If this is true, why doesn't the Navy step up instead of relying on a rapidly shrinking bomber fleet,that already has its hands full with everything from nuclear strike on Russia/China to close air support in places like Iraq and Afghanistan??

People wonder why we've flown the wings off of B-1's and B-52's.Well, this is one reason why...