• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Discussions --Lead Up to Talks & US Military Intervention Against Iran Nuclear Facilities Threatened When Talks Fail

Status
Not open for further replies.
Torch said:
It’s just not “Six” ac. You are looking here while the bulk of the forces, by far, are *here*.
The Bones (a mnemonic B One) are supersonic and don’t need to be forward deployed.
Click to expand...
What does being subsonic have to do with the need to be forward deployed? The difference in top airspeed between the B-1 and the B-2 is not that great, and in any case the B-1 - despite its somewhat greater range - cannot make it from mainland US all the way to Iran and back without midair refueling (but then again, the B-2 is also capable of midair refueling).

Thinking logically, the B-2 seems to be the worst candidate for forward deployment, given the amount of maintenance it requires. And yet here we are.
 
Loadstain said:

B-2 Spirits Amassed On Diego Garcia Underscore Hardened Aircraft Shelter Debate​

The remoteness of key forward operating locations no longer offers the level of protection, even against Iranian capabilities, it once did.

www.twz.com

B-2 Spirits Amassed On Diego Garcia Underscore Hardened Aircraft Shelter Debate

The remoteness of key forward operating locations no longer offers the level of protection, even against Iranian capabilities, it once did.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a good idea to put them all in one place. They should be dispersed. IMO
 
william said:
I don't think it's a good idea to put them all in one place. They should be dispersed. IMO
Click to expand...
Dispersed to where? Like the US has a choice of airbases capable of hosting strategic bombers and located conveniently close to Iran, but outside of Iranian IRBM range, on the territory of a country that can be talked into going along with this war plan... :rolleyes:

See, this is where this whole thing called "having allies" comes in handy. Someone tell Trump.
 
Last edited:
Socom7 said:
CNN notes the six B-2s currently at DG probably represent the entirety of the deployable fleet of the aircraft.

"I assume there are one or two at home for training and another few standing nuclear alert. Rest in maintenance." - Peter Layton, former RAAF pilot and now visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

Only 21 B-2 airframes have ever been built.

Source
Click to expand...
Why only 21? Curious as to thoughts on this.
 
william said:
Why only 21? Curious as to thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
The original plan envisioned something like ~130 of those aircraft, but then the Cold War wound down and there wasn't much demand for a strategic bomber capable of launching strikes against Russia. The whole project was quite controversial even during the Cold War because of its exorbitant cost.

Btw., of those 21 airframes only 19 remain operational - one was destroyed in a crash in 2008, and another one damaged beyond repair in 2022.
 
Socom7 said:
What does being subsonic have to do with the need to be forward deployed? The difference in top airspeed between the B-1 and the B-2 is not that great, and in any case the B-1 - despite its somewhat greater range - cannot make it from mainland US all the way to Iran and back without midair refueling (but then again, the B-2 is also capable of midair refueling).

Thinking logically, the B-2 seems to be the worst candidate for forward deployment, given the amount of maintenance it requires. And yet here we are.
Click to expand...
Time to target.
Crew fatigue and crew rest.

The difference in speed is profound.

My 2¢ YMMV
 
Torch said:
Time to target.
Crew fatigue and crew rest.

The difference in speed is profound.
Click to expand...
No it's not. The B-1 can fly at Mach 1.25 - which, by the way, severely constraints its range - while the cruising speed for both aircraft is essentially the same, at around Mach 0.9. I personally don't buy the "crew rest" argument; it just doesn't smell right, particularly in the era of push-button warfare - but, as you said, YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torch
Tariffs against China: 34%, will give them the taste to support Iran, don't they say that the economy is the sinews of war!
 
Torch said:
They are on an emergency ward plan which enables them to bypass best practices and safety protocols. Closing taxi ways and moving tactical aircraft to long taxiways due in order to allow for profound short term basing.

One aircraft skidding on a runway and sliding off just a few meters into the grass could costs BILLIONS of dollars in damages. This had to have required a major numbered commander to sign off on this (3 or 4 stars)

It is absolutely and totally unsustainable. Also the aircraft sitting out will require a wash and who knows (and would possibly say here) non specific repairs of various coatings and surfaces to maintain full stealth.

So the biggest ships blocking the most will need to be moved back into the hangers before they fly. The big ships that are in the hangers that are blocked the most need to get to the runways first….. (aside: Sheesh I’m glad that’s not my management plan)
Click to expand...
Diego Garcia only has four hangers capable of handling a B-2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RiffRaff said:
Diego Garcia only has four hangers capable of handling a B-2.
Click to expand...
Yep and there are what appears to be 6 there (I guess they could leave two sitting out and pretend the other hangers are full but it seems like an awfully expensive counter Intel op.

Air Force has to shuffle that base the way the Navy does on a carrier deck.
 
Torch said:
Yep and there are what appears to be 6 there (I guess they could leave two sitting out and pretend the other hangers are full but it seems like an awfully expensive counter Intel op.

Air Force has to shuffle that base the way the Navy does on a carrier deck.
Click to expand...
Yup. My guess is they're rotating the planes in and out of the hangars.
 
RiffRaff said:
Yup. My guess is they're rotating the planes in and out of the hangars.
Click to expand...
The B-2 bomber can carry two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), which are 30,000 pound bunker busting bombs designed to destroy heavily fortified underground facilities.

Given that limitation, deploying six B-2 bombers would allow for the delivery of 12 such bombs in a single strike, which makes sense if the goal is a swift and decisive attack on Iran’s nuclear bunkers.

Deploying six B-2s makes sense if the goal is a quick and decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear bunkers two bombers alone wouldn’t be sufficient.

I’m sure Iran has more than four major underground nuclear targets, so the key targets we aim to strike likely exceed that number. So minimum 12 Iranian facilities will be hit in opening moves given 6 bombers with a payload of 2 each.
 
Socom7 said:
Dispersed to where? Like the US has a choice of airbases capable of hosting strategic bombers and located conveniently close to Iran, but outside of Iranian IRBM range, on the territory of a country that can be talked into going along with this war plan... :rolleyes:

See, this is where this whole thing called "having allies" comes in handy. Someone tell Trump.
Click to expand...
By the looks of the satellite images, it doesn't look like Diago is very well suited to host B2s. I don't think it's a good idea to have them sitting out on the tarmac like that. Everything I've read about them says they need specialized hangers to maintain them and there are only 4 there.

I don't think a platform like the B2 should be forward deployed when they are perfectly able to conduct strike missions from the US proper. At least until Iran's missile strike capability is degraded enough to allow it.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/09/10/dont-over-concentrate-us-forces-in-the-middle-east/
 
william said:
By the looks of the satellite images, it doesn't look like Diago is very well suited to host B2s. I don't think it's a good idea to have them sitting out on the tarmac like that. Everything I've read about them says they need specialized hangers to maintain them and there are only 4 there.

I don't think a platform like the B2 should be forward deployed when they are perfectly able to conduct strike missions from the US proper. At least until Iran's missile strike capability is degraded enough to allow it.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/09/10/dont-over-concentrate-us-forces-in-the-middle-east/
Click to expand...
Pilot fatigue is the issue apparently. Don’t disagree with you.
 
william said:
By the looks of the satellite images, it doesn't look like Diago is very well suited to host B2s. I don't think it's a good idea to have them sitting out on the tarmac like that. Everything I've read about them says they need specialized hangers to maintain them and there are only 4 there.

I don't think a platform like the B2 should be forward deployed when they are perfectly able to conduct strike missions from the US proper. At least until Iran's missile strike capability is degraded enough to allow it.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/09/10/dont-over-concentrate-us-forces-in-the-middle-east/
Click to expand...
I’m sure they’re aware of the limitations. Which also points to a limit to how short of fuse there is on this.
 
william said:
By the looks of the satellite images, it doesn't look like Diago is very well suited to host B2s. I don't think it's a good idea to have them sitting out on the tarmac like that. Everything I've read about them says they need specialized hangers to maintain them and there are only 4 there.

I don't think a platform like the B2 should be forward deployed when they are perfectly able to conduct strike missions from the US proper. At least until Iran's missile strike capability is degraded enough to allow it.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/09/10/dont-over-concentrate-us-forces-in-the-middle-east/
Click to expand...
By the time Iran knows what's coming its to late. By the time Iran responds with missiles it will be to late. The B2s will be long gone from the island in the air by the time Iran can muster any response or knows whats up.

Only a preemptive strike would Iran's only chance to attack the B2s. But doubt they could hit it. Over 2,000 miles away, could barely hit any targets in Israel. Not much precision in their missiles and the inaccuracy only grows with distance. I feel our B2s are just fine there. So long as they don't return after hitting Iran obviously.
 
DarkNoon said:
By the time Iran knows what's coming its to late. By the time Iran responds with missiles it will be to late. The B2s will be long gone from the island in the air by the time Iran can muster any response or knows whats up.

Only a preemptive strike would Iran's only chance to attack the B2s. But doubt they could hit it. Over 2,000 miles away, could barely hit any targets in Israel. Not much precision in their missiles and the inaccuracy only grows with distance. I feel our B2s are just fine there. So long as they don't return after hitting Iran obviously.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're probably right. Those bombers are probably on a very short alert status which is another indication of something immanent happening.
I still think the initial heavy bomber strikes should be from the States though. Maybe they will be. We'll see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom