Dal 'Daily Report' dell'
AFA .....
..... alcuni punti di vista sull'argomento '
LRSB' espressi da partecipanti all' '
Air Warfare Symposium' che si sta tenendo in in questi giorni a Orlando, Florida .....
Not Just the Air Force .....
Michael C. Sirak (2/13/2015)
The debate about the future Long-Range Strike Bomber should not rest solely on “how the Air Force is going to pay for the bomber,” said retired Col. Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C.
Instead, the issue should be how the Defense Department is going to pay for it, he said during the long-range-strike panel on Thursday at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando.
While the Defense Department boasts that it is a truly joint enterprise, that jointness has not made its way into budget progamming, he said.
Revisionist states are seeking to change regional balances of power by developing anti-access, area-denial capabilities and improving weapons systems that allow them to project power at greater ranges.
This places a premium on US weapon systems that can operate in contested environments at greater ranges, he said.
Yet, US military finds itself in the position that its force mix is out of balance with the emerging threat, such as the case of tactical fighters versus long-range bombers, said Gunzinger.
Today’s fighter-to-bomber ratio is 12:1; during the Cold War, that relationship was 5-6:1, he said.
That makes LRS-B so important, he said.
“We need to be able to tell this story to our senior policymakers … so we can build the force structure that we need in the future,” he said.
Manned, Unmanned on the Merits .....
Michael C. Sirak (2/13/2015)
Trying to avoid risk to aircrews is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for removing pilots from the cockpit of the future Long-Range Strike Bomber, said retired Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.
Indeed, pilots have always been asked to go into harm’s way and they have done so, he told attendees of AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla., on Thursday.
What would make a compelling case for removing the pilots is if LRS-B would be able to accomplish something that it could not otherwise do with humans onboard, he said during the symposium’s panel discussing long-range strike in a contested environment.
An example of this would be the bomber providing close air support for an extended period of hours beyond the endurance of an aircrew, he said.
More Than Ready .....
Michael C. Sirak (2/13/2015)
The aerospace defense industry is “more than ready” to develop the Long-Range Strike Bomber and it’s “time to move forward,” said Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, on Thursday at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando.
The Obama Administration has given a clear demand signal for the next-generation bomber, and the current bomber force, including the 20 B-2 penetrating, stealth platforms in the inventory, is not sufficient to meet the future threat landscape of more robust air defenses and much larger target sets, she said during the symposium’s panel discussion on long-range strike in a contested environment.
Swift program execution of LRS-B is essential to the US defense strategy, said Grant.
The new bomber will be critical to the United States maintaining a technological edge over potential adversaries, she said, noting that LRS-B will be the first new US bomber in 34 years.
Don’t Forget the Maritime Role .....
Michael C. Sirak (2/13/2015)
Among the attributes of the Air Force’s future Long-Range Strike Bomber will be its ability to reach out and operate in contested maritime environments, retired Lt. Gen. Bob Elder, former 8th Air Force commander, told AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando on Thursday.
That capability will, in turn, support homeland defense, he said during the panel discussion on LRS in contested environments.
In broader terms, LRS-B will provide the nation with “a truly global-shaping, influence, and operational-effects capability that is unmatched by anything else,” said Elder.
It will give the President a tool of military and diplomatic power, encourage adversary restraint, and enable other air platforms and the entire joint force to be more effective, he said.
For those thinking that stealth technology has been overtaken by potential adversaries’ advances, Elder said “not all stealth is equal.”
He added, “all-aspect stealth makes a big difference.”
.