To: TimF who wrote (21325 ) 10/18/2013 8:33:29 PM From: TimF Respond to of 23908 Of course at some point the B-52 will be retired. The B1s and B2s should outlast it but probably won't last as long. I could see an issue with a serious lack of heavy bombers in the future. For those who wonder if that would be all that bad of deal, this comment spells it out nicely ---------------- Blacktail 10/14/2013 3:21:37 AM So, with a rapidly-shrinking Air Force with ever-fewer fighters that have ever-smaller ranges, payloads, and endurance, we need to be rid of Bombers, because; - B-52s dropped 29% of all air-served ordnance and 38% of all USAF ordnance in Operation Desert Storm, which totaled 40% of all Coalition air-served ordnance. - There were 44600 M117 740lb bombs left in the US inventory just before Desert Storm, and the only aircraft still equipped to carry them was the B-52; after Desert Storm, all of these bombs had been expended. - Only 6 B-1B Lancers delivered 20% of all ordnance in Operation Desert Fox, despite flying only 2% of all sorties. - Just 8 B-1B Lancers delivered 40% of all ISAF air-served ordnance in the 2001-2002 Invasion of Afghanistan, including 67% of all JDAM guided bombs. - The B-1B Lancers participating in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq delivered 43% of all air-served ordnance, despite flying less than 1% of all sorties. - On March 21st 2003, a handful of B-52s launched over 100 cruise missiles into Iraq. - B-1B Lancers flew 25% of all sorties over Afghanistan during late 2012, delivering air support 2-3 times a day on average. What happened to this trend all of a sudden?;strategypage.com And in case anyone thinks I just pulled those figures out of a hat... dyess.af.mil en.wikipedia.org pbs.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org af.mil comment to strategypage.com ----- and in addition to bomb load you have a lot better range and potential time on station than with fighter bombers.