Well yeah (tip to Instapundit):
It was in this spirit of disruptive thinking that, at a CNAS-hosted panel discussion titled “A New American Way of War,” former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work casually offered up a fascinating bit of heresy:
“If the Air Force is getting rid of the B-1 bomber, I’d say ‘You are out of maritime strike.’ We’re going to give the B-1 to the Navy, we’re going to load up with 3,000 LRASMs, and we’re going to base them in Guam and all over the place, and in the first 72 hours [of a conflict] they are going to go out and hunt down and kill every ship in sight.”
Amateurs gush disruptive ideas all the time, but when an industry heavyweight like Robert Work speaks out, it’s prudent to explore his opinions. Work’s conjecture was nested in a broader discussion, beginning around the 53-minute mark, lamenting the self-imposed limitations of “jointness” in driving procurement decisions. Rather than treating land-based strike as a proprietary mission of the Air Force, Work suggests that the Navy revive its concept of the Patrol Bombing (VPB) Squadron, which employed land-based aircraft to sink enemy ships in WWII. A force of LRASM-equipped naval patrol bombers, Work contends, could destroy an adversary’s fleet from the air without tangling with its anti-ship missile systems.
I've frequently raised the idea of B-1 bombers armed with anti-ship missiles to help sink ships. B-52s could do this, too, of course.
Indeed, I've mentioned the idea of using B-1 bombers as missile trucks with anti-aircraft missiles to help defeat China's land-based fighter aircraft in the western Pacific.
Further, I'm puzzled that the Navy doesn't consider putting carrier air wings on land bases to fight ships.
Land-based planes can fire long-range anti-ship missiles, long-range guided bombs, and drop naval mines. There is no reason China should get a monopoly on land-based ship-killing weapons.
