From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:35 GMT


From dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil

In article <C0woE6.C8q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
> 
> In <C0utIH.JDH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> David writes:
> 
>> 
>> From David Beard <beard@cs.unc.edu>
>> 
>> I have heard it suggested that 15 or 20 B2s, based in the United States,
>> and setup to carry conventional precision guided bombs, could replace
>> a number of our carrier task forces. Obviously a carrier task force has
>> other tasks than placing bombs on targets (e.g., anti-submarine work,
>> CAP, show of force). I am interested in tons of ordinance precisely hitting
>> a heavily defended target during a 24 hour period vs cost for both
>> weapons systems. The raid on Libya in the mid 1980s seems a good
>> case in point.  (Note: my knowledge on these matters is quite limited, 
>> so I would appreciate if you would bear with any mistakes I may make in
>> technical detail or questions.)
> 
>   The problem I see immediately is one of fighter escort.  Obviously, the 
> Stealth is intended to avoid detection, but all you need is for the bad guys 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to get lucky *once*, and your deterrent is toast.  In general, this can't
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> happen to a carrier (possible exception: subs).
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>   This is an intriguing idea, however.  There may be a way to work it right,
> so as to provide an excellent *supplement* to the carrier TF.
> 

  Do you honestly think a B-2 wouldn't fair very well against a carrier task 
force.  Have you ever heard of the stealth sram (short range attack missile)?
Let me play the scenario of a B-2 against a battle group.  Your battle group
is steaming along and the B2 flys within 100 mile undetected and launchs 
several srams at the largest signal returned in the group.  Namely the 
carrier.  Can the battle group defend against something it can't see till it 
is within 10 miles of it and then it may only have seconds to put up a 
response.  I figure the battle group is going to have some damage.
  The carrier task force cannot be replaced by a squadron of B-2's and I don't 
propose that it should.  I also don't propose that the task force can take on 
the responsibilities that the B-2 was designed for.  Both have their place in 
the integrated plan of defense.  So many people take pot shots at the new 
weapon systems without really knowing anything about them.  All weapon systems
take time to mature and iron out bugs.  I just wish the media wasn't so quick 
to react without knowing all the facts which leads to questions about the
usefullness of some systems.
  The B-2 is very good at what it is designed to do.  How many people still
have doubts about the effectivness of the F-117?  It did it's job quite well
in the midst of combat.  Give a weapon system a chance before we rule it out 
as a high priced money pit.  Just my opinion.  David-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder                     Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557                        Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military