Government Wasting Money in Libya Bombing

"A military official said Air Force B-2 stealth bombers flew 25 hours in a round trip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and dropped 45 2,000-pound bombs [... on Libya...]"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya (this link seems to be a moving target; the url is the same but the content changes)

At a cruise speed of 560 mph, that's on the order of 14,000 miles per plane round-trip or about 42,000 miles for the whole mission!!!

"The bomber ... carries 16 x 2,400 lb (1,100 kg). The B-2 is the only aircraft that can carry large weapons in a stealth configuration."  45/16 = 3 bombers

Drop the stealth requirement and a b-52 could have dropped 35 2000 lbs or 105 bombs for 3 planes, or 2.3 times as many bombs as the B-2. Does it matter if Libya can "see" a stealth bomber that flies at 50,000 feet. The airspace would have been cleared by fighter jets before the B-2 could be used, I should hope, so the stealth feature is probably irrelevant.
B-2 Specifications
B-52 Specifications 

At a cruise speed of 560 mph, the trip is on the order of 14,000 miles per plane round-trip or about 42,000 miles for the whole mission!! The range of a B-2 is only 6,000 miles, so they would have had to been refueled 3 times.

I wonder what the cost/lb of explosive was figuring in the fuel cost, operation cost, and maintenance cost? Plus the cost of Ipads for the crew to amuse themselves with during the flight. Guaranteed that either one of the other pilot would be on downtime during the flight.

Why couldn't they ferry the planes to bases in Spain or Germany or England to reduce overall future costs?

I wonder what the cost justification is for using a $1.01 billion stealth bomber to drop 16 bombs? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to fly a $53.4 million b-52 to drop 35 bombs.

Also take into the account the loss of a single airplane. You could lose 18 B-52's for the cost of one B-2. With a B-52, the loss of life would be 2.5 times higher. But what the hey, give them medals and send them home heroes.

How about using the A-10 Thunderbolt II  Warthog? It was very effective in the Iraq invasion against vehicles (and other targets) and could carry the equivalent of 8 2,000 lbs. (6 sorties for 45 bombs instead of 3). If a plane were lost, it would only be $11.8 million vs. $53.4 million vs. $1.01 billion. They might have a small combat radius, but there's already a squadron in Germany and they could be based further south quickly. They work very well in the harsh conditions of the middle eastern deserts.Warthog Specifications

But then, isn't 3 sorties of 14,000 miles using a billion dollar plane more cost effective that using 6 sorties of 1000 miles using a $12 million plane. Well, according to our Defense Department it is.


Maybe they don't use the Warthog because its too ugly and ruins their image!

À tout à l'heure.
“Fall Down Seven Times, Get Up Eight"
(Bright)