First thing, the F-117 has been retired for quite a while so please drop it from your inventory..
JDAM is a fine precision weapon, as is the SDB I and soon-to-be SDB-II.
Both allow the precision to engage accurately and not blow up all sorts of dirt just because we can. They are not dropped without precise coordinated loaded. Not a carpet-bombing weapon.
Operationally, what is tactical versus strategic, that is a subject where the grey intrudes. Is the meeting of senior leaders affecting the strategic direction of the effort? Are they generals plotting their next “campaign?” If so, the target is strategic, not tactical. The B-2 was used because it could carry a lot of JDAM at one time.
That is a good thing, as the B-2 filled a void, a void that proved it is more than a single mission aircraft.
It can be used conventionally as well as strategically in whatever mission presents itself. It can use nukes or JDAM, and it can be used to effect entry into denied airspace or effect entry into open airspace. That is its strength. It is more than a simple dump-truck. It is a multi-role aircraft able to span the conflict spectrum.
Complex aircraft take decades to design and then even begin LRIP. Then it takes years after to fully produce and go IOC. This means we are looking at, easily, 30-yrs before any new platform will be available for the mission at hand.
In 30-yrs, I think the threat picture will be much different than today and we must be as good as we can be, not as good as the adversary we face today. Sadly, many short-sighted people in congress think we will only the fight the war we have and not engage in anything different. That type of thinking places great risk on this great nation.
The scenarios you list are very good, as they support my case. Thank you.
The scenarios demonstrate wonderfully how vastly different the environment we may find ourselves operating in. Deserts to jungle, to hills with trees to flat-lands of open plains. We have to be ready, and one thing is for sure, owning the skies is critical.
To do that we need jets like the F-22 (and its follow on) to the B-2 and its follow on. These jets can give us the edge we need to fight an enemy we may not even recognize today (or exisits today), as well as give us the ability to deliver the effects we need to deliver, nuclear to conventional, in contested airspace or not.
And the threat nations we know of today are still building, doing R&D, and moreover, selling that kit to the highest bidder. So, we may find ourselves engaged with a bad-guy we had not anticipated and he might be shooting back with kit that is better than we have-—simply because we want to build dump-trucks and had the arrogance than no one will ever be as good as we are.
That would be a severe miscalculation.
Appropriate technolgy... Not just technology for whiz bangs.
The wheels still around because it does the job. No one’s using a hovertank yet. The Air Force needs to be realistic. How many cancelled development programs can the taxpayers afford, because some one says “if only it would do this too”, and mission creep means it’s never fielded. Someone was farsighted enough to redesign the 1946 design into the B-52 which has been useful for way too many years. As you say the F117 has now been retired after less than 30 yrs. How long before the B-2 at a billion dollars a plane is retired ? If each B-2 drops less than 2000 bombs in it’s service life, it would have been cheaper to use Tomahawks.
So no retread tech, give me a unique design that will hold up for 50 yrs and not cost more that simply firing missiles and not putting American pilots, refueling planes, ground support personnel, rescue teams ect... at risk