Undismayed by the multi-billion dollar price tag for each of its new B-2 bombers, the U.S. Air Force is studying what kind of B-2 replacement it will need in the next decade or so. But in the meantime, it seems just about every warplane has become some kind of bomber.

There are no more pure fighters. Most warplanes can now carry bombs. And more and more of the bombs are of the "smart" (GPS or laser guided) genre, meaning that not much special training or equipment is needed for an aircraft to be a "bomber."

Since this trend began in the 1970s (laser guided bombs) and 1980s (ALCMs, Air Launched Cruise Missiles), it has often been suggested that cheaper civilian aircraft (like the freighter version of the Boeing 747) be used to carry these more intelligent weapons. There is precedent for this, as air transports have been used as bombers in the past. For example, during the Vietnam War, C-130s often were used to drop some types of bombs - like Fuel Air Explosives. A specially equipped B-747 would be cheap; you could buy ten or more for the cost of a B-2. And the B-747 would carry more bombs just as far as the B-2.

The B-747 would not be stealthy, but neither is the AWACS air control aircraft that flies a hundred miles or so from enemy territory to direct the air battle. If you want to send bombers right into the teeth of the enemy defenses, use smaller warplanes you already have. For heavy lifting, you could use the B-747s. But this sort of solution is not popular in the Air Force.

It's not that the Air Force is not interested in getting the most bang for its buck. Pilots who have all personally experienced the dangers of flying high performance aircraft into harm's way run the Air Force. That kind of experience tends to make quite an impression on people and they are reluctant to give it up to a bunch of flying trucks carrying robot bombs.

Nevertheless, one of the possible designs for the new bomber is itself a pilotless robotic aircraft. This bomber, for the most part, would be controlled remotely by someone on the ground or in a distant control aircraft like the AWACs. As computers become more powerful, the Air Force is acknowledging that it is possible to have a pilotless aircraft that can think for itself under certain circumstances, as when enemy jamming or equipment break the link to the human controller.

The USAF also has changed its doctrine and is no longer willing to go in low after ground targets. In the Kosovo campaign, most of the bombing was done from three miles up. You can only use smart bombs and missiles at this altitude. Bombing from that far up only protects you from anti-aircraft artillery, not missiles. ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) and agile flying are required to defeat SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles). A 747 cannot outmaneuver a SAM like an F-15 can. But we already have the equivalent of 747s doing a lot of the bombing from a safe distance, the 1950s era B-52s.

Yet there is another problem beyond delivering the bombs and missiles, and that is finding the target in the first place. Buildings and structures (bridges, airfields, etc.) are easy to find, and many of these were hit by cruise missiles fired hundreds of miles away. But mobile targets (troops, tanks, headquarters) require that someone spot them and hit them immediately before they move.

This can best be done with fighter-bombers like the F-15, F-16, F-18 and the like. But even then, as was discovered in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf, the lads on the ground are prone to use a lot of deception. Ultimately you have to get in low, preferably with helicopter gunships. Jet warplanes, with the exception of the A-10, are really too fast for this sort of thing. Moreover, since this was vividly pointed out during the Vietnam War, the U.S. Air Force has been gradually changing its doctrine to avoid this kind of work. There is no replacement for the A-10 in the works, and before these low-level attack aircraft proved their worth in the Persian Gulf, the Air Force was trying to get the Army to take them. The Air Force prefers to bomb from a safe distance.

Smart bombs and missiles are more expensive than plain old bombs. What makes a smart bomb smart is an add-on kit that provides the guidance, and sometimes a small rocket to give it a little more range. These kits cost anywhere from $10,000 to over $100,000. Missiles cost from about $50,000 to $1 million or so each. A bomb, all by itself, costs about a dollar a pound. But the original idea behind smart bombs was to save planes and pilots from ground fire by requiring fewer bombs to be sent toward a target in order to destroy it. Over the last few decades this was accomplished, with the Air Force realistically seeking the formerly unattainable goal of "one target, one bomb."

But no one told the aircraft designers, and the cost of warplanes and their elaborate fire control systems have skyrocketed. Indeed, combat aircraft are now so expensive that you cannot afford to build too many of them. And as a result, if you lose a small number of them, you are in trouble.

So why not accept the trend and replace the next bomber with a large flying truck like a 747?

"Dirty Little Secrets" is syndicated by: