This blog is a random collection of information, partly in support of my quotations web site. Other topics include wine, military news, economics, history, libertarianism, and other random things which happen to strike my fancy. Backup site is at http://quotulatiousness.blogspot.com/ (if there are no posts showing, hit the backup blog for explanation). Comments have been turned off, as the spam was getting too much to handle. Comments can be emailed to me for posting.

November 22, 2005

This is an idea that will only work . . .

. . . if you have complete air superiority. In other words, it's something only the USAF can actively consider:

The U.S. Air Force is now thinking about turning its C-17 transport into a bomber. In the last few years, the JDAM (satellite guided smart bomb) has made aerial bombing far more effective. Because of the satellite guidance (GPS), aircraft can drop the bomb from any altitude, and still get the same accuracy. Thus bombers can stay high, out of range of ground fire. That got people, inside and outside the air force, thinking about using transports, like the C-17, as bombers. Transports are equipped to drop heavy equipment, mounted on pallets, by parachute. It would be a simple matter to have smart bombs, on small pallets, shoved out the rear of C-17s (or C-130s, Etc.) This proposal upset the air force generals, most of whom are combat pilots. So the idea never went far, until now.

If you're in the unique position of the USAF, where air superiority is pretty much a default condition, this is a potentially brilliant notion. For less dominant air forces, it's just not remotely feasible to use slow, heavy transport planes for any kind of combat role.

Hat tip to Dennis Huff for posting a summary to the TacOps list.

Posted by Nicholas at November 22, 2005 10:58 AM
Comments
It's the second part of the linked article that I find most interesting:
What has got the generals excited is using C-17s as a flying aircraft carrier. Well, sort of. The C-17s would carry pallets loaded with “Dominator” UAVs. ... The Dominator could cruise around for 12, 24 or more hours. After that, it would self-destruct, or dive into a target. ... The concept, apparently, is that the C-17 would get as close to the combat zone (taking enemy air defenses into account) as possible, and dump the Dominators out the back of the aircraft. Current plans call for a C-17 carrying twenty or more Dominators.
Imagine that -- a single aircraft dropping the entire Canadian Air Force out its back end! Posted by: Jon at November 22, 2005 11:38 AM
Not quite so fast. Anybody with an airforce fighting some 2 bit insurgency/drug cartel/maoist nutbars with no air force/ decent FLAK could do this. Get an old DC-9/MD-80 and heave the bombs down the passenger tail step ramp (suitably modified) or any number of smaller superanuated cargo mod aircraft. Damn few guerrilas have the wherewithall to take out anything outside light machine gun range. Heck, CANADA could load one or two onto a 30-+ year old Twin Otter and go bomb penguins or something. Posted by: Fred at November 22, 2005 12:48 PM
To be honest, I don't know whether this would be as cost-effective as you imply, Fred. The planes are relatively cheap, but the munitions are not something you can cobble together in an autobody shop. It's a trade-off that only works for certain situations . . . you have a large inventory of expensive smart bombs (compared to the cheaper gravity bombs used by less techno-savvy air forces, anyway), _and_ you have sufficient control of the skies that unarmed cargo planes are safe (from both MANPADs and enemy fighters) to operate. Posted by: Nicholas at November 22, 2005 03:24 PM
We've been doing this for quite some time. How do you think they deliver the MOAB? Ditto for the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" bombs, which entered service during the Vietnam War. Posted by: cirby at November 23, 2005 11:32 AM


Visitors since 17 August, 2004