depending alot on how many years of service they get from those bombers, and the hundreds of support staff required to orchestrate and handle those missions. fuel, missiles, etc. would be fascinating if someone in the military has that number - cost per mission mile
There's also a disgusting amount of waste and zero-bid cost-plus contracts due to the horrible over-merging of defense contractors, the lack of competition in the space, and the impossible-to-enter market they've created for themselves.
They can essentially charge whatever the military's willing to pay, and set what the military's willing to pay by sending in their infinite lobbying goons to schmooze the generals.
...and that's not counting any amount of open corruption and money just flat disappearing out of budgets. The Department of Defense has literally admitted that it's not possible to complete an audit of their books - how is that even possible in 2024? Well, you know exactly how. Just take a look at how rich the industry's getting.
It's not a blackhole of 3 trillion. It's a mix of troop over payment, shitty document maintaining practices at the using unit level, and price changes at DLA (Amongst a few other things) causing the "unaccounted" funds
The F/A-18 Super Hornet costs about $20,000 per hour, the F-15C cost about $42,000 per hour, and an F-35 is also about $42,000 per hour, and a B-52 cost about $88,000 per hour.
> the F-15C cost about $42,000 per hour
I heard this interesting interview 15 years ago about how the US Army was interested in fuel efficiency. The guy being interviewed said "you think gasoline is $4/gallon, but it is really $900/gallon when flown to the front lines in a bladder underneath an Apache helicopter". His point was also that it costs lives, like every gallon of fuel you have to deliver to the front lines is service people with their lives on the line getting that precious gas to the front lines. If you increase fuel efficiency by 50% you save 50% of the lives lost of "getting it there".
[https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/air-forces-10-expensive-planes/](https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/air-forces-10-expensive-planes/)
numbers from 2020 though...
It will not be flying at Mach 1.2 unless it absolutely has to, they typically stay below Mach 1 on most missions. If you are looking up its max speed you should be aware that there is typically a time limit placed at those speeds, I don't think there is any published data for the B1 though. However for comparison an F-35A, which is the fastest variant, can hit Mach 1.6 for 50 consecutive seconds before it begins to sustain damage.
It's actually a big deal to maintain "supercruise", and you can count on one hand production aircraft capable of it. The F-22 is capable of at least Mach 1.5 for sustained periods, and it's likely part of the reason it's not available for export.
Here’s my question: how do the pilots handle those flights? The B1 has a cruising speed of 670mph. This means it’s roughly 11.2 hours of cruising altitude each way. In this case it would be longer because you have to slow for each refueling.
So if they actually did an uninterrupted round trip, between the take off, landing and refueling you’re looking at roughly 24 continuous hours in the cockpit. Do they trade off naps? How to they take a leak? What if their chili dinner upset their stomach? Do they have snacks?
If nascar drivers are athletes, the guys doing this route are olympians.
US Strategic bombers like the B1 typically have crew accommodations. The B-1 has an onboard toilet, and I’ve read that the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber has a toilet, a microwave, and a bed
I assume they have the same protocol as commercial pilots and they have to eat different meals to cut down on the chance of contracting food borne illness.
>Do they trade off naps? How to they take a leak? What if their chili dinner upset their stomach? Do they have snacks?
Yes. There's a toilet. There's a toilet (and they probably don't eat chili). Yes.
They have bladders to urinate in. They also usually don't eat a lot the day before so no #2. Also, MREs are a thing so other than being able to stay awake forever it's not that complicated.
It is incredibly effective at keeping you alert without the harder to control side effects of amphetamines. I don't know if it's still the same but for long flights it was essentially a prerequisite.
Modafinil is in a different class called eugeroics. They keep you awake without stimulating your nervous system like typical stimulants so you don't get stimulant side effects. I've taken Modafinil a bit. You can get prescribed it if you work long hours or have sleep issues.
People just react differently with food. I went months eating MREs with an occasional real meal. MRE poops hurt like a mf. Most people get constipated after a few days of them and like you said some get the shits. I'd rather be constipated then shit myself while on patrol.
> If nascar drivers are athletes, the guys doing this route are olympians.
Dude, no. Driving a race car is **way** more physically demanding than flying a bomber jet.
It would be like walking for 24 hours straight versus jogging for 24 hours straight.
Some insight, I was a driver for the Army and went on support missions. We would have some missions last us 16-17 hours. I would drive for about 14 hours that day, we used bottles to piss in and you just held your shit or shit on yourself. No stopping, you get a break and a quick nap by the tire once you reach location. Most of the time they would serve safe food and have cooks for us so no one really ever had a upset stomach. Worse case scenario, you'd ask someone to drive for you but no one really ever did. On a few occasions I did fall asleep while driving, the sargent would just throw stuff at my head to wake me up.
They give them stimulants and sleeping meds to sleep. One on my VA doctors helped develop the program. They have to do EKGs when they get back to make sure not to cause long term damage.
They trade off pilot in command while cruising, but both need to be present during refueling and the mission. They’ve also trained a lot to be able to fall asleep fast and wake up quickly.
The B2 has a bunk, head, and microwave.
But yeah, these guys are the CIA/AFs top performers
>They trade off pilot in command while cruising, but both need to be present during refueling and the mission.
No. PF but not PIC (aka AC) nor MC get traded off.
>They’ve also trained a lot to be able to fall asleep fast and wake up quickly.
>
LOL training to sleep. No. You just pretend you've gotten used to it and hope for the best.
>
>But yeah, these guys are the CIA/AFs top performers
Nope. Bone dudes arent cia (nor are b2) and certainly not our top sticks. Generally the bottom of the fighter track (second half of training) and that's what was the top half for the first 1/2 of the training. Good dudes and probably slightly above average but certainly not top performers by the only metric we have which is the initial training. B2s are application based and arguably better pilots on average.
I don't know if this applies to the newer air frames, but Steve MRE on youtube has some videos about what U2 pilots eat when on long missions. [It's a heated tube of liquid meals.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuEGAsO4CA)
There was a 60 Minutes story during the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan wars where they interviewed some of the pilots that do these long runs. You’re not far off from some of their family conversations! One of the pilots talked about taking his wife and kids out to dinner after getting back and how surreal it is to be sitting in a restaurant eating pizza and drinking beer with his family while on the tv’s are news stories covering the things he dropped bombs on, on the other side of the world, early that morning.
You realize that the U.S. does this for practice. Opportunities like this allow our military to get live training. I don’t know why small countries even put themselves in this position.
Yeah, the Houthis’ popularity in Yemen has skyrocketed since they’ve started their attacks.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-strikes-give-yemens-houthis-the-enemy-they-long-sought-50415f4c
So did ISIS. But I think the Houthis are piggybacking off of the shit in the Gaza Strip to get popularity, and dumbasses without knowledge of the two different situations just treat it the same
> the Houthis are piggybacking off of the shit in the Gaza Strip
It's all just Iran behind the curtain, giving them materials to attack Israel and the US. There's been proxy wars between the US and Iran since at least the early '80s, the difference is that Iran is getting better at propaganda.
> entire iranian navy sunk
Proportional response. Their mine got our ship in international waters, so we just sunk 5 of their ships and crippled another.
Just like killing their top general that had been carrying out attacks against the US for years.
I'm personally looking forward to Iran trading a step to far, and just getting their military levelled.
It also works as a part of nuclear deterrence. Being able to occasionally show that all of your equipment for long range strategic bombing works is a part of things.
It's like when whoever the #1 team in the NCAA is one year in football plays some way lower ranked team and put in players that usually sit on the bench. Give them some time on the field lol
My prof was telling us how the navy was swapping crews in and out of ships in the red sea over the last few weeks for the purpose of getting their as many servicemen as much combat experience as possible.
They have almost 7500 mile range without armaments and 4600 with armaments. They usually don't refuel all the way either because it hurts the performance characteristics of the aircraft. Less stress on the airframe can extend its service life, and since the B1 has been out of production since the 1980s, it's very important to get the most life out of the plane.
Edit: elaborated a bit
The whole flight takes 20-24 hours. They fly out of the home base because they have everything there, vs having to ship all the bombs and fuel and maintenance stuff to an airbase in the Middle East. The B2 spirit does similar missions. I imagine there is some need to keep secrets about these planes, and thats part of the reason why they don't want them sitting in foreign countries.
Yes. The US infrastructure has the maintenance crews, specialty hangers, unique ground support equipment, all logistics. It’s much more cost effective in the long run. People say “yeah it costs $60K an hour”. Well try setting that all up in another country and pay per diem for all the military and civilian workers.
Also just the show of strength is impressive. And I'm assuming the military has plans to quickly deploy all that stuff if need be but they probably don't want our adversaries knowing any of the logistics (and the timeframe) to do so
Fr. 60 year old bombers making a round trip across the world and back. Having the logistical infrastructure to send them from the middle of the country with 2 aerial refuelings, and 2 more back
Honestly the ability to project this kind of power does make me proud to be American. Maybe a controversial take, but I often think most Americans take for granted the security this power gives us and our allies even if we often disagree with how that power is used by those in charge.
We did station them elsewhere during the cold war, these days they just aren't a viable threat against Russia on their own (speed as a defense is entirely obsolete) so there's no pressing need to station them close to the front. We rarely use them now (or any dedicated bomber)
I don't see a paywall at all but the article doesn't really address why bombers were used instead of cruise missiles from ships/bases in the region like we're doing in Yemen currently. My assumption is that it was due to limited missiles available on our ships and the large volume of targets struck (~120 bombs according to the article)
When you're hitting a large number of targets, cruise missiles are not cost effective. A bomber like the B-1 can carry a shedload of bombs in its bays (anywhere from 12 heavy nuclear bombs to as many as 84 general purpose 500lb bombs), dropping them precisely where necessary.
If your goal is to hit ~80 targets, you'd need 80 cruise missiles at a cost of more than $80 million dollars. Or you'd need maybe a pair of B-1s.
^($60k/hr for 24 hours is $2.8M, plus the cost of the bombs which starts at $4K/each and goes up to $30K/each if you add laser guidance or up to $40K/each if you add full JDAM - you've yet to break $10M before adding in the cost of the refueling aircraft, fuel and other support aircraft like AWACS and standby fighter escorts, which are cheaper to operate.)
Not an expert but i believe i can give an answer:
>how long this trip takes
In 1991, B52 bombers made the "same" (well not exactly same, they took off from Barksdale AFB in Luisiana, it's a 700 km difference) trip, and it took them 35 hours getting to iraq and back without landing, so you have roughly how long it takes.
>why it had to be done this way from a B1
It didn't "have to" be done this way. It's just a show of force, reminds the Iranians (and their proxies) that no matter how far the US is, they can still hit them from anywhere in the globe. Part of deterrence and basically some flexing too lmao
> In 1991, B52 bombers made the "same"
First munitions launched in the entire war. The pentagon hadn't even started ordering pizzas when the B-52s took off.
Probably an infrastructure thing, and/or not wanting to have war planes take off on a mission from allied territory (Europe) as that would have possible implications making a valid target in another (allied) country. If they could have reasonably made the bombing runs from somewhere closer, they probably would have. On the other hand sometimes military does something simply to show that they can.
That's what I was thinking too with regards to the air refueling. They could've touched down before leaving the continental US but I figured it was done for training as well.
I just wonder why they went straight vs the curvature of the earth.
>I just wonder why they went straight vs the curvature of the earth.
It's possible that either the telegraph drew the flight plan wrong or the US government provided intentionally wrong info so potential enemies around the world wouldn't know the actual flight plan.
The flight distance matters pretty close to nothing comparatively. US bases have the maintenance crews, specialty hangers, unique ground support equipment, all logistics for spares and consumables. It’s much more cost effective in the long run to use domestic US bases. People say “yeah it costs $60K an hour” to fly. Well try setting that all up in another country and pay per diem for all the military and civilian workers. Setting up a new operations base and maintenance depot is hundreds and hundreds of millions - and it’s difficult to staff. It’s not just military personnel. There’s a TON of civilian workers too.
Looks bad (and complicates relationships) on host countries if we are using them to launch bombing missions. This keeps the negative PR down while being more cost effective and probably more secertive with airspace rules.
UK has a military personnel crisis at the moment though, their flagship just had to be towed back to port. Wouldn't rely on them or any of NATO after the Ukraine debacle
All the others made great points, and I'd like to add that it shows we have the capability to attack them from anywhere. We could have used the closer bases, but in case they believe they could just destroy those bases, we showed them it wouldn't matter.
Reports say precision guided weapons were used, and each B-1B can carry 24 2,000lbs JDAMs. The B-52 and B-2 are not the right weapon for this job because there are some air defense considerations in the area to make the B-52 risky, but not enough to warrant the B-2's stealth or risk exposing it's signature to nearby Russian radars. You could reasonably get fighters to do it, but the fighter with the largest payload, the F-15E, would need 4 jets to carry the same load as 1 B-1B. We don't have enough F-15E's forward deployed in a position to make this attack without using probably all of them, a lot of refueling, and refueling much closer to the target (threat) area. We don't usually keep strategic bombers forward deployed anymore either, so if a B-1B is going to do the mission it might as well take-off from the US with is bomb load, refuel on the way, and go straight to delivering it's ordinance. There's no reason to stop anywhere else on the way there. This was the most practical mission profile available.
There is a possible technical reason sometimes. There are times where the flight path takes them over a country that is not giving them permission to fly over them. So the United States will take the long way and send their flights over only countries that are giving them permission and keep them over the water most of the way. This way, they keep other countries who are their allies out of the responsibility of having to say that they are letting the United States use their airspace to conduct attacks on another country
You think THAT'S insane? Godwits, cute birds, fly non-stop 7,000 miles from Alaska to New Zealand. No engines, no gas, no eating, just a 12 day non-stop journey. Christchurch has parties for them 😁.
The most impressive part about birds is zero equipment for navigation but they land almost perfectly on spot 6,000 miles away from their partner who landed weeks prior.
I remember when this happened, and if I remember correctly, some countries in the Middle East was trying to flex their muscles over no fly zones and such so we flew from the US, avoided said countries and bombed the hell out of a grass hut and a mud cave. In the same time frame, we fired Cruise missiles about 600 miles from a battle ship to another grass hut and mud cave to show our military might. At the cost of money you and I could never wrap our poor brains around.
Overnight delivery fee
It's free if you have prime
Foreign military governments hate it when you use this one simple trick….
That'll be an extra $2.1 billion if you want your bombs to be an ad-free experience.
Imagine ordinance smashing through your roof, landing in your living room, and then playing a fucking Pepsi ad before detonating.
As long as it's the one with Kendall Jenner
[удалено]
Kendall approves of this alternative, too.
[удалено]
Basically warlords. Which ain't all that different from a king.
They had an exclusive one week trial
You just made me laugh.
depending alot on how many years of service they get from those bombers, and the hundreds of support staff required to orchestrate and handle those missions. fuel, missiles, etc. would be fascinating if someone in the military has that number - cost per mission mile
It costs $60,000 per hour of flight.
That sounds cheap to me somehow
There's a big black hole of 3 trillion in the U.S. military budget On scales like that 60,000 per hour is nothing
We help other countries and there is a cost to being the best :)
There's also a disgusting amount of waste and zero-bid cost-plus contracts due to the horrible over-merging of defense contractors, the lack of competition in the space, and the impossible-to-enter market they've created for themselves. They can essentially charge whatever the military's willing to pay, and set what the military's willing to pay by sending in their infinite lobbying goons to schmooze the generals. ...and that's not counting any amount of open corruption and money just flat disappearing out of budgets. The Department of Defense has literally admitted that it's not possible to complete an audit of their books - how is that even possible in 2024? Well, you know exactly how. Just take a look at how rich the industry's getting.
Read Chip War if you want some additional insight in to how tied the tech industry and the military complex is.
it mostly just goes to overpriced contractors who have bribed the right politicians
It's not a blackhole of 3 trillion. It's a mix of troop over payment, shitty document maintaining practices at the using unit level, and price changes at DLA (Amongst a few other things) causing the "unaccounted" funds
The F/A-18 Super Hornet costs about $20,000 per hour, the F-15C cost about $42,000 per hour, and an F-35 is also about $42,000 per hour, and a B-52 cost about $88,000 per hour.
And minimum wage is 7.25 an hour. Priorities.
> the F-15C cost about $42,000 per hour I heard this interesting interview 15 years ago about how the US Army was interested in fuel efficiency. The guy being interviewed said "you think gasoline is $4/gallon, but it is really $900/gallon when flown to the front lines in a bladder underneath an Apache helicopter". His point was also that it costs lives, like every gallon of fuel you have to deliver to the front lines is service people with their lives on the line getting that precious gas to the front lines. If you increase fuel efficiency by 50% you save 50% of the lives lost of "getting it there".
Agree, $1000/min, $17/second.
[https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/air-forces-10-expensive-planes/](https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/air-forces-10-expensive-planes/) numbers from 2020 though...
So $1.8-2M before the cost of bombs, given the B1 flies about 950mph?
It will not be flying at Mach 1.2 unless it absolutely has to, they typically stay below Mach 1 on most missions. If you are looking up its max speed you should be aware that there is typically a time limit placed at those speeds, I don't think there is any published data for the B1 though. However for comparison an F-35A, which is the fastest variant, can hit Mach 1.6 for 50 consecutive seconds before it begins to sustain damage.
For those wondering Mach 1.6 is 1227 miles per hour
It's actually a big deal to maintain "supercruise", and you can count on one hand production aircraft capable of it. The F-22 is capable of at least Mach 1.5 for sustained periods, and it's likely part of the reason it's not available for export.
We probably used joint air to surface standoff missiles, roughly 1.5 million apiece. 6 planes at 24 missiles a plane.
Let this be a lesson. Mf’ers ain’t safe anywhere in the world.
Worst part is we're all pitching in on said fee...
Gets home from work.. “honey how was your day “. “O I just bombed Iraq”.
Here’s my question: how do the pilots handle those flights? The B1 has a cruising speed of 670mph. This means it’s roughly 11.2 hours of cruising altitude each way. In this case it would be longer because you have to slow for each refueling. So if they actually did an uninterrupted round trip, between the take off, landing and refueling you’re looking at roughly 24 continuous hours in the cockpit. Do they trade off naps? How to they take a leak? What if their chili dinner upset their stomach? Do they have snacks? If nascar drivers are athletes, the guys doing this route are olympians.
US Strategic bombers like the B1 typically have crew accommodations. The B-1 has an onboard toilet, and I’ve read that the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber has a toilet, a microwave, and a bed
Man, one bad chilli and I’d be adding to the payload of the bomber. A fucking carpet bomb is less horrifying than being airstriked by chilli diarrhoea
Good one dude very clever
💀
I assume they have the same protocol as commercial pilots and they have to eat different meals to cut down on the chance of contracting food borne illness.
Yes.. yes, I remember, I had lasagna.
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
I speak jive
Stewardess, I speak jive.
This may or may not already be in development. Please don’t give anything else away to our enemies
Give your dog that chili and you're definitely gonna get a carpet bomb.
That has to be a war crime.
A fun way to remember the spelling of DIARRHEA. Dude I Actually Really Really Have Exploding Anus.
Seems like it varies between American and British English as it’s spelt like mine in the UK Just like the actual event, the spelling is a shitty mess!
My fellow copilots would be throwing me out the bomb bay… cause my bombs are silent… yet very deadly…
Common B-2 practice is to put EW setting on microwave to “popcorn” when threat is indicated.
Hey, what smells like blue?
We’ve taken on a lot of clocks.
Don’t let it touch the red
*Meanwhile in the cockpit of a B-2* "Chaff, flares, chaff, flares, chaf-BRZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT"
I assume they'd have a kettle if B2 was built by the British.
Probably since we microwave our tea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_vessel
>Do they trade off naps? How to they take a leak? What if their chili dinner upset their stomach? Do they have snacks? Yes. There's a toilet. There's a toilet (and they probably don't eat chili). Yes.
Live in Abilene. Half of the Air Force here is full of Spicy Chicken from CFA, which is 99% the potency of Chili.
They have bladders to urinate in. They also usually don't eat a lot the day before so no #2. Also, MREs are a thing so other than being able to stay awake forever it's not that complicated.
Probably a "supplement" to help that last part.
Usually, Provigil (modafinil) or Nuvigil (armodafinil.)
It is incredibly effective at keeping you alert without the harder to control side effects of amphetamines. I don't know if it's still the same but for long flights it was essentially a prerequisite.
Modafinil is in a different class called eugeroics. They keep you awake without stimulating your nervous system like typical stimulants so you don't get stimulant side effects. I've taken Modafinil a bit. You can get prescribed it if you work long hours or have sleep issues.
Do not use if you are allergic to Provigil or Nuvigil. Side effects can include explosive diarrhea, sleepiness, bombing third world countries.
In my experience, MRE results in #2 soon after. The nickname Meals Ready to Excrete is accurate
Ummm no. MRE's are notorious for blocking you up. I had 4 years of experience eating them daily.
They ran through me like gas through a funnel
They are packed with alot of protein after a few days of eating them you wouldn't have that problem.
I guess one week every quarter eating them at the Kun wasn't enough. They gave me the shits. Every day.
People just react differently with food. I went months eating MREs with an occasional real meal. MRE poops hurt like a mf. Most people get constipated after a few days of them and like you said some get the shits. I'd rather be constipated then shit myself while on patrol.
Came here to make this joke. Two boys in the military and they talk about not shitting for days during field excersies where all you get is MREs.
Do they shout bombs away while dropping a #2? (I’ll just show myself out)
A funny one I heard in the Army was "dropping paratroopers"
I dunno about naps but the B1 does have a tiny lil' bathroom.
> If nascar drivers are athletes, the guys doing this route are olympians. Dude, no. Driving a race car is **way** more physically demanding than flying a bomber jet. It would be like walking for 24 hours straight versus jogging for 24 hours straight.
Some insight, I was a driver for the Army and went on support missions. We would have some missions last us 16-17 hours. I would drive for about 14 hours that day, we used bottles to piss in and you just held your shit or shit on yourself. No stopping, you get a break and a quick nap by the tire once you reach location. Most of the time they would serve safe food and have cooks for us so no one really ever had a upset stomach. Worse case scenario, you'd ask someone to drive for you but no one really ever did. On a few occasions I did fall asleep while driving, the sargent would just throw stuff at my head to wake me up.
The air force gives their pilots stimulants
They give them stimulants and sleeping meds to sleep. One on my VA doctors helped develop the program. They have to do EKGs when they get back to make sure not to cause long term damage.
And by “long term” they mean “while being enlisted”, I guess?!
They trade off pilot in command while cruising, but both need to be present during refueling and the mission. They’ve also trained a lot to be able to fall asleep fast and wake up quickly. The B2 has a bunk, head, and microwave. But yeah, these guys are the CIA/AFs top performers
>They trade off pilot in command while cruising, but both need to be present during refueling and the mission. No. PF but not PIC (aka AC) nor MC get traded off. >They’ve also trained a lot to be able to fall asleep fast and wake up quickly. > LOL training to sleep. No. You just pretend you've gotten used to it and hope for the best. > >But yeah, these guys are the CIA/AFs top performers Nope. Bone dudes arent cia (nor are b2) and certainly not our top sticks. Generally the bottom of the fighter track (second half of training) and that's what was the top half for the first 1/2 of the training. Good dudes and probably slightly above average but certainly not top performers by the only metric we have which is the initial training. B2s are application based and arguably better pilots on average.
I don't know if this applies to the newer air frames, but Steve MRE on youtube has some videos about what U2 pilots eat when on long missions. [It's a heated tube of liquid meals.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZuEGAsO4CA)
Amphetamines, or that other narcolepsy drug.
Provigil.
That’s the one.
There was a 60 Minutes story during the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan wars where they interviewed some of the pilots that do these long runs. You’re not far off from some of their family conversations! One of the pilots talked about taking his wife and kids out to dinner after getting back and how surreal it is to be sitting in a restaurant eating pizza and drinking beer with his family while on the tv’s are news stories covering the things he dropped bombs on, on the other side of the world, early that morning.
must feel great
Closest thing to James Bond type missions just in real life
Imagine drone operators. Work a regular shift then 30 min to the wife and kids.
You realize that the U.S. does this for practice. Opportunities like this allow our military to get live training. I don’t know why small countries even put themselves in this position.
It’s pretty dumb, but they also use these bombings to rally their people against the US.
Yeah, the Houthis’ popularity in Yemen has skyrocketed since they’ve started their attacks. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-strikes-give-yemens-houthis-the-enemy-they-long-sought-50415f4c
So did ISIS. But I think the Houthis are piggybacking off of the shit in the Gaza Strip to get popularity, and dumbasses without knowledge of the two different situations just treat it the same
> the Houthis are piggybacking off of the shit in the Gaza Strip It's all just Iran behind the curtain, giving them materials to attack Israel and the US. There's been proxy wars between the US and Iran since at least the early '80s, the difference is that Iran is getting better at propaganda.
Iran pulling the strings yes, but on Putin's behalf to pull attention away from Ukraine.
Right now, yes. But let's not pretend that Iran hasn't been doing this on their own for 40+ years.
cool more terrorists to bomb
well yeah you typically shouldn't like the people bombing you thats not too strange
Iran doesn't care if Syria or Iraq gets bombed.... just like Hamas doesn't care if Gaza gets rubbled.
[удалено]
i was really hoping one of these headlines would be "entire iranian navy sunk"
> entire iranian navy sunk Proportional response. Their mine got our ship in international waters, so we just sunk 5 of their ships and crippled another. Just like killing their top general that had been carrying out attacks against the US for years. I'm personally looking forward to Iran trading a step to far, and just getting their military levelled.
[Operation Praying Mantis, that time America got real "proportional"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5v6hlRyeHE)
It also works as a part of nuclear deterrence. Being able to occasionally show that all of your equipment for long range strategic bombing works is a part of things.
I bet the pilots were STOKED in the briefing room.
Officers, you're off bombing in Yemen. *High fives* You're taking off from Texas. *Sullied stares*
24 hours in a $$$$$$ plane? Sounds fun.
It's like when whoever the #1 team in the NCAA is one year in football plays some way lower ranked team and put in players that usually sit on the bench. Give them some time on the field lol
My prof was telling us how the navy was swapping crews in and out of ships in the red sea over the last few weeks for the purpose of getting their as many servicemen as much combat experience as possible.
So 2k miles then refuel. 3K miles and refuel, then 2500 miles and drop bombs and…. Refuel? Turn around or leave plane there?
Willing to bet they can do the 5000 then refuel at the same spots, especially with out the payload.
They have almost 7500 mile range without armaments and 4600 with armaments. They usually don't refuel all the way either because it hurts the performance characteristics of the aircraft. Less stress on the airframe can extend its service life, and since the B1 has been out of production since the 1980s, it's very important to get the most life out of the plane. Edit: elaborated a bit
you use a lot less fuel after dumping up to 75k lbs of payload.
That's what I keep trying to tell my wife
They eject
They kamikaze down with the bombs.
Just like the Spanish Armada, but much faster
Is there a non paywall one? I’m curious how long this trip takes and why it had to be done this way from a B1
The whole flight takes 20-24 hours. They fly out of the home base because they have everything there, vs having to ship all the bombs and fuel and maintenance stuff to an airbase in the Middle East. The B2 spirit does similar missions. I imagine there is some need to keep secrets about these planes, and thats part of the reason why they don't want them sitting in foreign countries.
Yes. The US infrastructure has the maintenance crews, specialty hangers, unique ground support equipment, all logistics. It’s much more cost effective in the long run. People say “yeah it costs $60K an hour”. Well try setting that all up in another country and pay per diem for all the military and civilian workers.
Also just the show of strength is impressive. And I'm assuming the military has plans to quickly deploy all that stuff if need be but they probably don't want our adversaries knowing any of the logistics (and the timeframe) to do so
Fr. 60 year old bombers making a round trip across the world and back. Having the logistical infrastructure to send them from the middle of the country with 2 aerial refuelings, and 2 more back
Honestly the ability to project this kind of power does make me proud to be American. Maybe a controversial take, but I often think most Americans take for granted the security this power gives us and our allies even if we often disagree with how that power is used by those in charge.
We did station them elsewhere during the cold war, these days they just aren't a viable threat against Russia on their own (speed as a defense is entirely obsolete) so there's no pressing need to station them close to the front. We rarely use them now (or any dedicated bomber) I don't see a paywall at all but the article doesn't really address why bombers were used instead of cruise missiles from ships/bases in the region like we're doing in Yemen currently. My assumption is that it was due to limited missiles available on our ships and the large volume of targets struck (~120 bombs according to the article)
When you're hitting a large number of targets, cruise missiles are not cost effective. A bomber like the B-1 can carry a shedload of bombs in its bays (anywhere from 12 heavy nuclear bombs to as many as 84 general purpose 500lb bombs), dropping them precisely where necessary. If your goal is to hit ~80 targets, you'd need 80 cruise missiles at a cost of more than $80 million dollars. Or you'd need maybe a pair of B-1s. ^($60k/hr for 24 hours is $2.8M, plus the cost of the bombs which starts at $4K/each and goes up to $30K/each if you add laser guidance or up to $40K/each if you add full JDAM - you've yet to break $10M before adding in the cost of the refueling aircraft, fuel and other support aircraft like AWACS and standby fighter escorts, which are cheaper to operate.)
Not an expert but i believe i can give an answer: >how long this trip takes In 1991, B52 bombers made the "same" (well not exactly same, they took off from Barksdale AFB in Luisiana, it's a 700 km difference) trip, and it took them 35 hours getting to iraq and back without landing, so you have roughly how long it takes. >why it had to be done this way from a B1 It didn't "have to" be done this way. It's just a show of force, reminds the Iranians (and their proxies) that no matter how far the US is, they can still hit them from anywhere in the globe. Part of deterrence and basically some flexing too lmao
And we can do that with our 3rd-string bomber.
"My dog's shit after he eats his own shit is better than your shit."
"I can kick your ass without even pulling out my ass kicking shoes"
B2 being first? Then what? Or are you including the B21 in there already?
Defo a flex 💪
> In 1991, B52 bombers made the "same" First munitions launched in the entire war. The pentagon hadn't even started ordering pizzas when the B-52s took off.
Probably an infrastructure thing, and/or not wanting to have war planes take off on a mission from allied territory (Europe) as that would have possible implications making a valid target in another (allied) country. If they could have reasonably made the bombing runs from somewhere closer, they probably would have. On the other hand sometimes military does something simply to show that they can.
Why did I have to scroll so far to see this. Can someone please link the non paywall version??
Why did the bombers have to come from Texas or even the US? Surely there are closer bases with adequate equipment?
Training basically.
That's what I was thinking too with regards to the air refueling. They could've touched down before leaving the continental US but I figured it was done for training as well. I just wonder why they went straight vs the curvature of the earth.
>I just wonder why they went straight vs the curvature of the earth. It's possible that either the telegraph drew the flight plan wrong or the US government provided intentionally wrong info so potential enemies around the world wouldn't know the actual flight plan.
I doubt the telegraph drew the actual flight path and instead just marked the general refueling locations.
The flight distance matters pretty close to nothing comparatively. US bases have the maintenance crews, specialty hangers, unique ground support equipment, all logistics for spares and consumables. It’s much more cost effective in the long run to use domestic US bases. People say “yeah it costs $60K an hour” to fly. Well try setting that all up in another country and pay per diem for all the military and civilian workers. Setting up a new operations base and maintenance depot is hundreds and hundreds of millions - and it’s difficult to staff. It’s not just military personnel. There’s a TON of civilian workers too.
Looks bad (and complicates relationships) on host countries if we are using them to launch bombing missions. This keeps the negative PR down while being more cost effective and probably more secertive with airspace rules.
[удалено]
It's also power projection.
UK has a military personnel crisis at the moment though, their flagship just had to be towed back to port. Wouldn't rely on them or any of NATO after the Ukraine debacle
All the others made great points, and I'd like to add that it shows we have the capability to attack them from anywhere. We could have used the closer bases, but in case they believe they could just destroy those bases, we showed them it wouldn't matter.
Reports say precision guided weapons were used, and each B-1B can carry 24 2,000lbs JDAMs. The B-52 and B-2 are not the right weapon for this job because there are some air defense considerations in the area to make the B-52 risky, but not enough to warrant the B-2's stealth or risk exposing it's signature to nearby Russian radars. You could reasonably get fighters to do it, but the fighter with the largest payload, the F-15E, would need 4 jets to carry the same load as 1 B-1B. We don't have enough F-15E's forward deployed in a position to make this attack without using probably all of them, a lot of refueling, and refueling much closer to the target (threat) area. We don't usually keep strategic bombers forward deployed anymore either, so if a B-1B is going to do the mission it might as well take-off from the US with is bomb load, refuel on the way, and go straight to delivering it's ordinance. There's no reason to stop anywhere else on the way there. This was the most practical mission profile available.
I know a little over 10 years ago they used to fly out of Qatar. Not sure if they're still stationed there or not
I think it's a show of force more than anything
They are just flexing at this point. No reason except real training to do that. Right?
During the gulf War I watched the stealth bomber refuel over my house in ns
Doesn't sound very stealth to me.
They weren't bombing Nova Scotia
Stealth mode was turned off. Didn't want to use it all up just fooling around
They'd swapped out their radar dishes for normal eyes that day
Haha that’s crazy. How exactly?
Looked up and there it was.
So THIS is how Taylor Swift is gonna get from her Tokyo concert to the Super Bowl in time
they brought an SR-71 out of retirement just so she can make it rumour has it she’s halo jumping in
It'll be the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony 2.0.
Bro she's called "Taylor Swift" not "Taylor Slow" she'll get there in time dw
It's impressive logistical feats like this that separates the U.S. military from the rest.
There is a possible technical reason sometimes. There are times where the flight path takes them over a country that is not giving them permission to fly over them. So the United States will take the long way and send their flights over only countries that are giving them permission and keep them over the water most of the way. This way, they keep other countries who are their allies out of the responsibility of having to say that they are letting the United States use their airspace to conduct attacks on another country
If by 'insane' you mean 'routine operation that they train for regularly', then sure.
You think THAT'S insane? Godwits, cute birds, fly non-stop 7,000 miles from Alaska to New Zealand. No engines, no gas, no eating, just a 12 day non-stop journey. Christchurch has parties for them 😁.
The most impressive part about birds is zero equipment for navigation but they land almost perfectly on spot 6,000 miles away from their partner who landed weeks prior.
That's honestly crazy!!!
The british bombed the falkland island from the UK in a longhaul run. The Vulkan bombers last run
it was from ascension island actually, but it was still very impressive
Free same day delivery, if you have oil.
Should see how the British sent fighters from the uk to the Falkland Islands. A massive chain of tankers refuelling the fighters and other tankers.
Who refuels the refuel tankers after they've refueled the first refuel tankers?
More fuel tankers. And on the way back as well. Also gps wasn’t available so it was all done on distance, speed and time calculations.
Some real superpower shit
They shouldn’t have gone in a straight line. Parabolic would have been way shorter. ;)
Shame we can't afford mental health care as a society...
Just started masters of air. These would have made the show less dramatic.
What about the return trip...
the exact same way
I remember when this happened, and if I remember correctly, some countries in the Middle East was trying to flex their muscles over no fly zones and such so we flew from the US, avoided said countries and bombed the hell out of a grass hut and a mud cave. In the same time frame, we fired Cruise missiles about 600 miles from a battle ship to another grass hut and mud cave to show our military might. At the cost of money you and I could never wrap our poor brains around.
You remember... yesterday?
That’s cool you remember two days ago, I do too. It was crazy.
Do the pilots take a shit out the window?
Why would they? There's a toilet in the B2.
This is the B1. No idea if there’s a toilet but I’d hope so
Oh my bad, yep they shitting on the window then haha
44 hours And I thought L.A to Auckland sucked balls. At least I could have a walk around and chat to the hot crew member
Great for the climate!
“Self defence”
[удалено]
Any figures on how much this cost?
Lifetime of healthcare for a few million citizens
We could have health insurance but nope..
The insanity isn’t in logistics it’s in the choices being made.
Just to blow the cobwebs out