全部
← Back to Squawk list
U.S. B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers from Whiteman AFB conduct precision airstrike in Libya
A pair of U.S. Air Force B-2s leveled two ISIS training camps in Libya on Jan. 18. The mission marked the first time the “stealth bombers” had been used in combat since the opening of the Libyan air campaign in March 2011, raising questions about why the costly, low-observable aircraft were employed for targets lacking sophisticated air defenses. (theaviationist.com) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
http://aviationweek.com/defense/why-did-pentagon-use-b-2-against-terrorists#comments
Interesting comment from the article in case one missed it from a user withany AT sympatico.ca
"
Maybe some of the readers missed the critical factor: payload. You can argue whether or not GBU-38's were needed, but assuming they were, a B-2 can haul and deliver 80 of them. A B-52? It can deliver 12 of them. A B-1? 15 of them. The USAF levelled the camp with 108 GBU-38's in their back pockets just in case, you know.
So do the math. Instead of Z2 B-2's, it would have meant 10 B-52s or 7 B-1's (OK, I skimped and only had the B-1's hypothetically launch 105 GBU-38's) to deliver the same ordinance. So we have 2 B-2's costing $257,610 per combined flight hour versus $670,050 for 10 B-52s's per combined flight hour and $409,416 per combined flight hour for the B-1's. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that they all trundle along at the same pace. We haven't counted in (I think) the need/cost for in-air refuelling, so the wear and tear on the KC-135's (or whatever they used) isn't factored in. As to the cost of launching an armada of carrier-based craft, it clearly wasn't the delivery choice for who knows how many reasons. Simply put, this was a cost-effective, if costly, decision. Encouraging to know that the USAF is. Ring cost-effective.
"
"
Maybe some of the readers missed the critical factor: payload. You can argue whether or not GBU-38's were needed, but assuming they were, a B-2 can haul and deliver 80 of them. A B-52? It can deliver 12 of them. A B-1? 15 of them. The USAF levelled the camp with 108 GBU-38's in their back pockets just in case, you know.
So do the math. Instead of Z2 B-2's, it would have meant 10 B-52s or 7 B-1's (OK, I skimped and only had the B-1's hypothetically launch 105 GBU-38's) to deliver the same ordinance. So we have 2 B-2's costing $257,610 per combined flight hour versus $670,050 for 10 B-52s's per combined flight hour and $409,416 per combined flight hour for the B-1's. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that they all trundle along at the same pace. We haven't counted in (I think) the need/cost for in-air refuelling, so the wear and tear on the KC-135's (or whatever they used) isn't factored in. As to the cost of launching an armada of carrier-based craft, it clearly wasn't the delivery choice for who knows how many reasons. Simply put, this was a cost-effective, if costly, decision. Encouraging to know that the USAF is. Ring cost-effective.
"
Speaking from the viewpoint of a former crewdog, that's a long time to have you butt in a seat.
WHY? Because we can!
15 tankers.....Not exactly fuel savers !...Little less than 1000 miles per refuel?
Did MSM really need to id which base they were from?
