The Military and Political Potential of Conventionally Armed Heavy Bombers

by Stephen T. Hosmer, Glenn A. Kent

Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1.9 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback51 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

This report explores the major contribution that a conventionally armed heavy bomber force could make to U.S. national security. It examines (1) the potential military and political utility of a bomber force armed with modern conventional weapons and munitions, (2) the approach for obtaining the requisite capabilities for such a force, and (3) the implications of a conventionally armed bomber force for U.S. arms control policy. The authors believe that the U.S. Air Force should dedicate a force of approximately 75 to 100 heavy bombers (B-52s now and advanced technology bombers later) to conventional missions. To provide the standoff required for B-52s to operate in high-threat environments, the Air Force should develop and acquire long-range cruise missiles and equip these missiles on an evolutionary basis with modern sensors, on-board engagement systems, dispensers, and conventional munitions.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.