03/07/2003 Entry: "Where are the bombers?"
Posted by Maynard @ 11:22 AM MST

Where are the bombers?

Ah ah - I know what you're thinking. Did GWB deploy 6 bomber squadrons or only 5? Well, seeing how we're talking about B-52s, the most powerful bombers in the world, and would blow your bunker clean off the face of the Earth, you got to be askin' yourself just one question: Do I feel lucky?

Well do ya, punk?

B-1B
Inventory: Active force, 72; ANG, 18; Reserve, 0 (Source: B-1B fact sheet)
It is not clear if the number on the fact sheet reflects bomber retirements to the AMARC center at Davis-Monthan AFB.
According to: this article and also this one, both from 07 March 2003, there are 12 on Guam (from the 7th Air Expeditionary Wing)

B-2
Inventory: Active force: 21; ANG: 0; Reserve: 0 (Source: B-2 fact sheet)
The Kansas City Channelsaid that "U.S. officials would not disclose the location of the deployment or when the planes would leave their home base". That must keep Hussein and Kim Jong-Il up late at night.

B-52
Inventory: Active force, 85; Reserve, 9 (Source: B-52 fact sheet)
According to: Global Security, from 06 March 2003, there are:
14 at RAF Fairford (all from 23rd BS, Minot AFB)
2 somewhere else (2nd BW, Barksdale AFB)
The same links for the B-1B deployments (above) place 12 B-52s on Guam (7th Air Expeditionary Wing).

• Barksdale AFB - home of the 2nd Bomb Wing


• Minot AFB - home of the 23rd Bomb Squadron


• Whiteman AFB - home of the B-2's only operational wing, the 509th Bomb Wing


• Carlosian Carrier Deployment - March 5, 2003

Replies: (7)

Something just occured to me:

This triumverate of Bombers could be called, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Now, if you know what I'm thinking, and I think you do, which one is which?

*raised eyebrow*

Posted by Jeremy @ 03/07/2003 11:26 AM MST

B-2: Good
B-52: Ugly (sad but true)

...

Posted by Maynard @ 03/07/2003 11:36 AM MST

I agree with the Ugly assessment. (but that's not to say its impotent.)

However, I would put the B-2 as "Bad".

(I don't know enough about the B-1B)

But the B-2, that's one sneaky bastard!

PS, I like the Global Security link. Lots of good info there. Now I can update the Carlosian Carrier Deployment pages a little more accurately.

Posted by Jeremy @ 03/07/2003 12:07 PM MST

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

Posted by Maynard @ 03/07/2003 12:20 PM MST

I just remembered the six nicknames for those 3 planes.

B-1B: Official: Lancer Unofficial: Bone (from B-One)
B-2: Official: Spirit Unofficial: Boomerang (from its silhouette)
B-52: Official: Stratofortress Unofficial: BUFF (Big Ugly Fat ... Fellow)

Posted by Maynard @ 03/10/2003 02:48 PM MST

Question: These are the Heavy Bombers, but what about the little guys?

I know the F-111 is pretty much retired, are there others?

Posted by Jeremy @ 03/10/2003 04:19 PM MST

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.

Although any US fighter plane could be used to carry a B61 or B83 nuclear gravity bomb (they use, as I understand, a standard attachment mechanism), the pilots are not trained for nuclear delivery. Also, the planes are not built, surviveability wise, to deliver weapons in a nuclear environment. The big aluminum overcasts are built to carry them long distances and survive through target approach, weapons delivery, and the -run-like-hell-or-we-die phases of the mission.

Interestingly, the F-111 was originally designed as a multi-service fighter. It got too heavy for the Navy to use, so the USAF ended up with a fighter/attack version (with legs enough to get to Canada), an electronic version (to jam the Canadian TV stations) and a FB-111 version, modified to carry short range attack missiles. We based them in England in the 70s and 80s.

I think they should have stayed in the US. You gotta watch those Canadians.

Posted by Maynard @ 03/10/2003 10:46 PM MST

Add A New Comment

Name

E-Mail (optional)

Homepage (optional)

Comments