The Case for a New 21st Century Bomber

[Mumbles]

Interesting read....

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...e_for_Long-/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-.pdf

 

[tdimarco]

It's hard to imagine a bomber persisting in airspace defended by advanced Russian SAM batteries (with 250 mile range and the ability to detect the B-2) and defending itself against Su-37's.

And why is "the ability to provide all-weather, round-the-clock/day-in-day-out indirect fire support to ground forces," a secondary consideration?

 

[nittany03]

It's hard to imagine a bomber persisting in airspace defended by advanced Russian SAM batteries (with 250 mile range and the ability to detect the B-2) and defending itself against Su-37's.

First, SAM ranges are a much more complicated animal than a number you read about in Jane's. That's all I'll say here.

Second, this isn't a video game. You don't go in alone and unafraid and blow up anyone who gets in your way. Military aviation is a team sport, and there will be help for any HVAA aircraft when it comes to dealing with SU- or MiG-whatevers.

 

[tdimarco]

The text makes it sound like this aircraft is expected to do just that. On page six (page 18 of the PDF), it mentions supersonic dash and air-to-air missiles. The document also mentions carrying out attacks deep in defended airspace and conceivably beyond the range of fighters.

 

[bert]

From the document:

CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by
foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government​

contracts.

If I were in tdimarco's shoes then I would try to learn about Barry Watts, Dr Krepinevich and his foundation before I attempted to learn anything from a document they produced. Nothing against CSBA - I don't know enough about their work to have an opinion. But tons of these documents (and I literally mean many thousands of pounds of dead trees...) are produced by these types of organizations every year in an attempt to sway decision makers. Without a good understanding of the viewpoint of the writers (and the people who paid them to write), it would be easy to lose touch with the big picture.

 

[FlyinSpy]

If I were in tdimarco's shoes then I would try to learn about Barry Watts, Dr Krepinevich and his foundation before I attempted to learn anything from a document they produced. Nothing against CSBA - I don't know enough about their work to have an opinion. But tons of these documents (and I literally mean many thousands of pounds of dead trees...) are produced by these types of organizations every year in an attempt to sway decision makers. Without a good understanding of the viewpoint of the writers (and the people who paid them to write), it would be easy to lose touch with the big picture.

You're absolutely right about figuring out who the author is, and where they are coming from. Reports like this can be a dime a dozen. The good news here is that Barry Watts is an extremely sharp cookie, and someone who's opinion is worth paying attention to. He's got good bona fides with respect to air operations (below is the announcement from when he joined CSBA in 2002):

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is pleased to announce the addition of Barry Watts as a Senior Fellow to its team of top researchers and analysts.

Most recently, Watts headed the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation at the Department of Defense, a position he held for 13 months. Prior to that time, Watts directed the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center, where he had served since his retirement from the Air Force in 1986.

During his Air Force career, Mr. Watts served as a combat pilot in Southeast Asia, flying 158 combat missions, 100 over North Vietnam. His service also included teaching philosophy and mathematical logic at the Air Force Academy; working in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment writing Korean and NATO-Warsaw Pact assessments; and working for the Air Staff’s Project Checkmate as a Soviet threat specialist.

Mr. Watts holds a BS in mathematics from the U.S. Air Force Academy and an MA in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh. He has written on a wide variety of military topics. Some of his published works include: “Fire, Movement and Tactics,” on air-to-air combat tactics in Top Gun Journal; “Military Innovation in Peacetime,” a chapter analyzing military innovations from 1918 to 1939 in Military Innovation during the Interwar Years; “Choosing Analytic Measures,” with current Secretary of the Air Force James Roche published in Journal of Strategic Studies; and Clausewitzian Friction and Future War a book on Clausewitzian friction and nonlinearity. In February 2001, CSBA published his work The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment.

“Barry brings an exceptional background of military and public service as well as corporate management and strong academic research to the CSBA staff,” said Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of CSBA. “His talent and experience are a welcome addition to CSBA.”

Andy Krepinevich is another good guy. http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/5.AboutUs/Staff_Directory.dir/Krepinevich,_Andrew.php