"A Range-Balanced Air Force" - alternative bomber-centric Air Force structure

[GeorgeA]

A paper from Air and Space Power Journal arguing for a heavily bomber-centric Air Force. Includes both LRS-B and a modular system based on the BWB.


http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/May-Jun-2013/F-garretson.pdf

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

This little bit at the end:

Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government.
This article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the Air and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line.
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil


...tells the story. It's a pile of garbage.

 

[lantinian]

Interesting analysis by a young USAF officer.

It includes many controversial proposals like:
Restarting the F-22 line, cutting to F-35A buy to 330

He basically proposes for the USAF structure in 2035 to be capped at 2000 aircraft and look like this...

 

[GeorgeA]

That's a normal disclaimer. It appears in a lot of US military research journals. The DoD has a lot of other official and unofficial channels to float policy ideas.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Im talking about the usual suspects promotion of this article for the usual obvious APA reasons.

This point of view, that UCAVS and heavy bombers account for the bulk of the USAF inventory, I assure you is not anything close to an official viewpoint. Its fantasy. They can float the idea all they want, but it's not happening. Restarting the F22 and the overstatement of the ballistic missile threat is a pretty solid indicator of just how unofficial this viewpoint is!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Im talking about the usual suspects promotion of this article for the usual obvious APA reasons.

This point of view, that UCAVS and heavy bombers account for the bulk of the USAF inventory, I assure you is not anything close to an official viewpoint. Its fantasy. They can float the idea all they want, but it's not happening. Restarting the F22 and the overstatement of the ballistic missile threat is a pretty solid indicator of just how unofficial this viewpoint is!

agreed!

I think its an unofficial rule that suggestions must propose reopening F-22 production, or they can't be considered good fanfic.

 

[bobbymike]

Interesting analysis by a young USAF officer.

It includes many controversial proposals like:
Restarting the F-22 line, cutting to F-35A buy to 330

He basically proposes for the USAF structure in 2035 to be capped at 2000 aircraft and look like this...

I like the BWB idea carrying hundreds of strike missiles ;D

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^Gotta stuff somethin' in 'em ;D

 

[jsport]

UCAV's are increasingly "uncheap" and the SEAD mission is gettin worse so a UCAV's gonna need there own UCAV..

..all for restarting F-22.

 

[sferrin]

I would love it if we restarted the F-22 line and told Japan and SK that we would sell them some but not Australia. Just to see CK's head explode. ;D

 

[GTX]

I would love it if we restarted the F-22 line and told Japan and SK that we would sell them some but not Australia. Just to see CK's head explode. ;D

It would be even funnier if that happened and then Japan etc said "No, sorry not interested anymore", just to shut up some people.

 

[BDF]

I like the BWB idea carrying hundreds of strike missiles ;D

Me too! Can you imagine a bomber carrying 4 CSRLs? Once the defenses have been beaten down you could really carry a lot of direct attack ordinance too. I dont think that we'd be able to afford a another large program in the mid to long term with all the other platforms that need replacing. I do think this paper has some merit even if I don't agree with all of his recommendations.


I think his primary point, that the projected USAF combat force structure, is too fighter centric is essentialy correct; this argument has been made in other think-tank studies as well. I think his approach is too arbitrary and I think a differing balance would make more sense. I don't agree with restarting the Raptor line and I don't like the idea of dropping F-35 numbers that low either but I do like the idea of a X-47B class platform that is carriers comparable.


My idea of a 2035 force structure would be:*


15 Wings of LRS-B for a total of 300 airframes
4 Wings of B-52s for a total of 76 airframes


9 Wings of F-35s for a total of 1028 airframes
4 Wings of F-Xs for a total of 457 airframes**


5-6 Wings of a X-47B class UAS for 600-700 airframes.


* I'm listing wing or wing equivalent numbers here and those represent PAA while the total inventory accounts for PAA plus back up and attrition, testing and jets in depot MX.


** I'm aware that its highly unlikely we'll see much more than a handful of F-Xs in service by this time so in this case this is just the number I think we should aim for.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think his primary point, that the projected USAF combat force structure, is too fighter centric is essentialy correct; this argument has been made in other think-tank studies as well.

Its not for lack of effort. Its not like the USAF was avoinding buying B-1s and B-2s. They have what they have, and B-1s that were so out of spares they actually had to ask for a smaller force to ease logistics and drive down costs. Bomber procurement has been absolutely horrible.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Lt Col Peter Garretson is a transformational strategist at Headquarters US Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, DC. He serves as the division chief, Irregular Warfare Strategy, Plans, and Policy. During his last assignment, he served as an airpower strategist on the Air Force chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group. Earlier, he was the first US Air Force Fellow at the Indian Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis in New Delhi, where he examined Indo-US long-term space collaboration, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Lieutenant Colonel Garretson also served as the chief of Future Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters US Air Force’s Directorate of Strategic Planning

I am disappointed by the response to this article. The author's credentials are listed above. He has the right to express his opinions in an article, and his opinions carry weight appropriate to his role. Maybe BioluminescentLamprey would care to explain in what capacity he knows far more about Air Force strategy than an Air Force strategist and where the author's analysis is flawed. Or alternatively, just say its garbage.

Yep, instead of meaningful discussion and thoughtful analysis we have Chico, Harpo and Groucho arriving to rubbish the writer, the article and everything else, raising strawman arguments and obfuscating everything.

We get it. You believe F-35 is the second coming of Jesus, cures cancer and brings about World Peace, and buying anything less than 3000 will trigger the Apocalypse. However, like any form of mystical belief, we can't criticise or examine this belief without you wanting to smite the unbelievers with great vengeance. Anyone suggesting a rational argument for F-35 procurement to be cut is clearly either 1) insane or 2) bribed by Eurocanard manufacturers.

Lets agree to respect your belief in the "holy writ" of JSF, put that belief in a nice wooden box, close the lid on that box, and then stop hijacking every friggin' topic on this forum.

 

[bobbymike]

I very much enjoy articles that have different points of view on weapon procurement options when they are also tied to strategic considerations. The problem the US faces is that as a global actor it faces a large portion of the world where its expensive hyper technology assets are just plain overkill. Yet those same assets are needed to deter possible large state actors like China and Russia or the growing anti-access countries like N Korea or Iran.

I am not smart enough to determine a force structure under these conditions, although the wisdom of more NGBs and long range prompt global strike options seems obvious, that's why I advocate spending $1 Trillion on defense and just buy everything

 

[2IDSGT]

I am disappointed by the response to this article.

It's not the members' fault it the piece is easily punctured. Bombers are still crushingly expensive, UCAVs aren't shaping up to be all that cheap or adaptable to a high-threat environment, and BWB remains a high-risk venture for full-scale development. Lastly, any proposals that involve restarting F-22 production are far-fetched, a sure way to raise red flags for any defense-policy wonk.

No, the F-35 can't cure cancer, but it can cure obsolescence; and that's all that really matters for now. *Transformation* will have to wait for another time.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

We get it. You believe F-35 is the second coming of Jesus, cures cancer and brings about World Peace, and buying anything less than 3000 will trigger the Apocalypse. However, like any form of mystical belief, we can't criticise or examine this belief without you wanting to smite the unbelievers with great vengeance. Anyone suggesting a rational argument for F-35 procurement to be cut is clearly either 1) insane or 2) bribed by Eurocanard manufacturers.

I must have missed that posting. ???

The F-22 is done, the plant is boxed up and stored, the aircraft is hellaciously expensive to operate. Every time one of them crashes (twice so far) we get articles about how a "600 million dollar fighter" crashed. Pilots have been refusing to fly it, Pilots have publicly refused to fly it and have filed for protection under whistle blower laws. It causes lung problems that lead to coughing fits, a USAF wife blames this cough and other f-22 induced problems that lead to his suicide. They have been grounded for months at a time. It has become a physically and politically toxic aircraft. Not to mention, and here is the kicker --- The USAF retired sections of B-52s in order to afford more F-22s.

So in my defense, it sticks out like a neon sign when someone starts calling for more F-22s especially in a piece advocating more strategic bombers.

No, the F-35 can't cure cancer, but it can cure obsolescence; and that's all that really matters for now. *Transformation* will have to wait for another time.

If I'm advocating bombers that is what I am calling for, get your cheaper fighters/lesser fighters and leave money for my bombers, bonus if that fighter develops stuff I can use too. The F-22 doesn't need to suck any more support from bombers than it already has

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

I just think that the article is flawed and I doubt we'd even have read it if APA hadn't put it out there. I certainly don't think the F35 is flawless. The problems with it's development will likely only be compounded if we make radical decisions, such as canceling the biggest fighter program in the world, restarting the F22 for a mere 100 extra airframes..etc.

The only point I really can agree with the author on is that range is important. That doesn't mean we can't get our fighters to the frontlines. Definitely, acquiring LRS-B and the UCLASS will be priorities, but the cut to F35 numbers is a radical suggestion....and it's not going to happen. The authors plan leaves the Marines with a much more expensive B, the Navy would surely drop out at that point, we would lose all of the strategic and economic benefits of operating a worldwide common fleet.

There is also the likelihood that the F35 program flaws will reappear in the acquisition of this huge number of sophisticated bombers and drones.

Everyone seems to want what they don't have or can't get. As for my qualifications, I don't think it's really necessary to have any to come to my conclusions, but I've served my country and I pay my taxes.

Thank you PaulMM for letting us sound off and for providing this gem of a website.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

I would love it if we restarted the F-22 line and told Japan and SK that we would sell them some but not Australia. Just to see CK's head explode. ;D

And Australia acquired the J-20 instead...

 

[sferrin]

I would love it if we restarted the F-22 line and told Japan and SK that we would sell them some but not Australia. Just to see CK's head explode. ;D

And Australia acquired the J-20 instead...

They'd have a better chance of replacing them with the starship Enterprise.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I would love it if we restarted the F-22 line and told Japan and SK that we would sell them some but not Australia. Just to see CK's head explode. ;D

And Australia acquired the J-20 instead...

Not so fast SKL, much like teenage boys the only reason APA talks up the J-20 is to make the US so jealous we sell them the F-22 instead of the F-35. They would never actually like getting the J-20 and of course there is the small fact that the Australian government (those are the "little people" that control the money and the military) never officially pushed for the F-22 in the first place. The US could offer it on a silver platter and I don't think the Government would change its mind. Besides the F-22 wasn't as good at strike which is why the Kopp/Goon Super/ultra F-111 was an essential part of the plan.

Goon and Kopp need to be reminded that they have zero official power and zero influence no matter how many pretty power points they put together and youtube video analysis they do. They seems to think that wooing a large amount of internet dwellers somehow makes the Australian military respect them. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The people in the know still know despite what the public thinks
Thinking that throwing new advanced engines into a decades old aircraft is as easy as switching Lego pieces does not mean its true in reality, no matter how many amateur internet generals you convince otherwise. They actually seem to think this puts pressure on those that know their jobs which is pretty comical and tends to lead to the people with knowledge shaking their heads and openly laughing at the ignorance. (yes there are people in the military that read APA aloud to get laughs-- I know because I have done so)

 

[Arjen]

For some reason the original link to Garretson's piece throws an invalid URL error. This one did work for me: http://www.au.af.mil/au/cadre/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/May-Jun-2013/F-garretson.pdf

Document attached.
<edit>... original link is working again ??? </edit>

 

[BDF]

Its not for lack of effort. Its not like the USAF was avoinding buying B-1s and B-2s. They have what they have, and B-1s that were so out of spares they actually had to ask for a smaller force to ease logistics and drive down costs. Bomber procurement has been absolutely horrible.

Quite frankly, DoD's platform procurement has been horrible period. The USAF’s bomber efforts have been anemic at best, especially compared to their efforts to recapitalize the fighter fleet. The lack of spares is a symptom of this problem. To be fair the last 20 years have been difficult for procurement and there has been institutional problems with the USAF but that doesn’t change the fact that the current force structure is too fighter centric.

 

[BDF]

It's not the members' fault it the piece is easily punctured. Bombers are still crushingly expensive, UCAVs aren't shaping up to be all that cheap or adaptable to a high-threat environment, and BWB remains a high-risk venture for full-scale development. Lastly, any proposals that involve restarting F-22 production are far-fetched, a sure way to raise red flags for any defense-policy wonk.

No, the F-35 can't cure cancer, but it can cure obsolescence; and that's all that really matters for now. *Transformation* will have to wait for another time.

Bombers have always been expensive to operate yet in the past we didn’t have problems buying and operating them. The problem is that they provide key capabilities that will be critical in future operations as range and persistence are key to hunting down strategic and mobile targets. That’s not something that a fighter centric force can do right now, even with the F-35. What relevance would a fighter force be to the operation if they can’t generate sorties because we’re forced to operate from long range and/or our airfields are suppressed? I don’t agree with all of his suggestions but at least he is willing to address some of our current short comings moving forward with our re-posturing to the Pacific.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Quite frankly, DoD's platform procurement has been horrible period.

Agreed

The USAF’s bomber efforts have been anemic at best, especially compared to their efforts to recapitalize the fighter fleet.

The bombers spigot was turned off after the cold war. No buck, no buck rogers. I don't blame the air force for that. They had to choose programs and the fighters were seen as more critical, that and there was no B-3/LSRB on the horizon, the B-2 was their plane and it just didn't work out after spending some serious political capitol. Along with SAC going away, they basically had to decide if what they had was enough for the time being and with no USSR to attack (the prime mission of heavy bombers since the 1950's) it just wasn't going to happen. The USAF gambled that what they had would be enough and so far they have been correct.

To be fair the last 20 years have been difficult for procurement and there has been institutional problems with the USAF

I agree with the first part, maybe not the second part unless we are talking about Moseley. That guy did a number on bombers, they did a number on him right back though (inadvertently)

but that doesn’t change the fact that the current force structure is too fighter centric.

I could go other way on that, in some cases its true, in other not so much. at the time, 1992 big nuke carrying strategic bomber and SAC were associated with grim times, people were ready to see them go. I don't agree with it, but hindsight is nice like that. people were ready to be not just done with the cold war but all war, and big bombers were just a tough sell to the public, especially the most expensive B-2. That thing had bad luck twice over-- end of the cold war and a heavy price tag.

 

[2IDSGT]

It's not the members' fault it the piece is easily punctured. Bombers are still crushingly expensive, UCAVs aren't shaping up to be all that cheap or adaptable to a high-threat environment, and BWB remains a high-risk venture for full-scale development. Lastly, any proposals that involve restarting F-22 production are far-fetched, a sure way to raise red flags for any defense-policy wonk.

No, the F-35 can't cure cancer, but it can cure obsolescence; and that's all that really matters for now. *Transformation* will have to wait for another time.

Bombers have always been expensive to operate yet in the past we didn't have problems buying and operating them.

The key phrase being "in the past." This isn't the 1950s; stuff costs more now and our strategic deterrent (for a vastly reduced threat) now rests in ballistic missiles. Bombers are necessary, but every one purchased over the limited number expected subtracts an unreasonable amount from tactical airpower, which is needed with far more frequency; that's why the modern air force is "fighter-centric."

Let's assume that everything goes perfectly for LRS-B and that LM never gets the F-35's price below $100m. Those extra 200 bombers will still cost the USAF at least 1000 F-35s... fighters that are far more versatile and can be deployed all over the world as a tangible symbol of American strength that doesn't have to be held in reserve on CONUS airbases until direst need.

Try not to get fixated on range as the article's author has. Real World is a lot more complicated that Computer Model World.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The good old days

 

[jsport]

The good old days

when the US had an advancing manufacturing economy w/ all its benefits..