USAF now considering C/B-17

[Firefly]

@Eagle

[quote=Man of Stoat][quote=SS Tiger]SAMs are taken out by F-117s and other light bombers I belive, also commando units may take care of some.

Yes. All mobile SAM sites will be taken out, including every little bloke with a Stinger missile. Guaranteed. 100%. Or your money back. :roll:[/quote]

If I would being posting yesterdey, I would posted exactly tha same as you, Stoat… The SEAD maneuver, with F-15, F-16, F-18, F-117, B-1, B-2 and B-52, is only effective agaisnt the main batteries of SAMs, but the light portable missiles as the SA-7 Strela, the Blowpipe and other kinds of similar missiles is practically imposible to destroy with a SEAD.[/quote]

Can you please explain what SEAD means to you Eagle?

[pdf27]

@Firefly

This is something I feel I can comment on.

In the current threat environment, i.e. the Gulf region, there is no medium to high level threat to speak of. So anything you can hang a JDAM off is fairly safe from harm. As far as I’m aware no aircraft has been lost at these higher altitudes to enemy fire. This would give a long loiter time with a higher payload than Fighters currently are able to carry.

Point I was trying to make is that once you actually face any kind of defence system you´re screwed. The only advantage of the C-17 is that it is currently in production and can lift a lot. It is chronically vulnerable to defences (far more so than even ancient bombers like the B-52). That means the C-17 bomber would be very much a one-trick pony - useful only for dropping large tonnages of stand-off precision weapons against undefended targets. For a seriously expensive aircraft (IIRC the C-17s are over $100M each) how many do you think you could afford, and how much could you do with that fleet size? For that kind of cash, you could afford to get something much better - most likely increasing the number of B-1s in service (IIRC quite a few are in storage) and the general maintenence and mechanical health status of the fleet.

[Firefly]

I know what you meand PDF, but the concept is not to face a defence system, rather to degrade a defence system with these, essentially amrt cruise missile-armed UAV’s.

You are right that they wouldnt be any more or less effective than a B-52 if they actually overflew territory. But outside the envelope, they could drop a fair number of these things that would then fly into the envelope.

I would imagine they would be launched maybe 1-2 hundred miles away, if they do have a 24 hour life this would be reasonable I think and a C-17 could carry far more than a B-52 etc.

Its a fair concept, I’m just not sure when it may become a reality. Also, the C-17 wont really have to be modified if they are just shoving them out the back.

[festamus]

I think cost of ownership and operation would be a factor here. The B-52 airframes aren’t getting any younger, and could probably do with some high bypass turbofans (they seem to talk about getting four on there frequently).

I guess by using a C-17, you get a modern aircraft with modern cost of ownership, using fuel at a far more reasonable rate. And for the times when you aren’t dropping loitering munitions out the back, you have a valuable airlift asset that you’ll utilise a hell of a lot more than a B-52.

Yes, the performance is less, but more than adequate to fly over MANPADS type threats. And for the more hardcore air defences, well, are you really expecting to fly a B-52 over those any more successfully? Somehow I think neither will be flying overhead until the SEAD types have done their bit.

The B-52 is nice for putting massive tonnage of bombs onto target, but this isn’t a trick needed. All you need is a carrier to haul these things out there, and hey presto you have a whole DAY’S worth of precision bombardment.

Same applies for using a B-1: Why do you need a swing-wing afterburning heavy bomber to drop these things? The C-17 might not be cheap to buy, but operating is a huge portion of the life-cycle cost of any platform, and the C-17 can see a lot more return on the initial investment (e.g. performing the air-lift mission even in peacetime), for lower per-hour cost. Oh, and using C-17 as the platform to carry these loitering munitions is probably preferable as a means of support for keeping open the C-17 line.