My next question then is: if the effect is what is required and the launch platform is immaterial what is wrong with using good, solid ground as a launch platform?
Aircraft deliver effects over very long distances. That is their competitive advantage over artillery. They are faster than the Navy and they can approach the target more closely.
However they are very expensive and hard to maintain. They are better off operated from bases distant to the enemy otherwise they are put at risk, require a lot of resources dedicated to defence and don't get the best of maintenance. If they are operated from distant bases then they waste mechanical hours, crew hours and fuel getting to and from the job-site. As well there is a time delay in getting from the base to the target - an unacceptable delay to engaged troops on the ground. To keep the reaction time down the aircraft needs to loiter in the area - burning more gas, crew-hours, airframe and engine time. All too often to zero effect. How many sorties are returning with full or partial bomb loads? Patrick Stewart on CBC last night was talking about how this past year there had been 2000 air sorties this year against those poor, defenceless Taliban and they had dropped the shocking total of 1000 missiles and bombs.
It seems to me that aircraft are a great means to surge "effects" forward over long distances and in early entry scenarios but once you get to the stage where you are doing more flying than delivering then there needs to be another look given to the use of aircraft as bomb-trucks. This is different to arming reconnaissance aircraft (similar to arming LAVs doing reconnaissance to take advantage of fleeting targets).
I think that once a secure land base has been established in an area of operations, it has been determined that there is more time spent waiting for fire-missions than actually conducting fire missions and that the missions generally are not calling for massive expenditures of ammunition, then ground based artillery makes more sense than air-delivered artillery.
It used to be that the difference between artillery and air support was that artillery delivered support in small packages over extended periods, while the air force delivered support in large packages, over a short period of time. In addition the artillery was more timely in delivering support but its range was more limited.
Now it appears that the weapons of choice for the Air Force are Hellfires (fired from Predators, Apaches and Harriers) with 20lb warheads, as well as 250lb Small Diameter Bombs and 500lb JDAMs. Their precision means that they can land within 1-3 meters of the aim point. This is possible because of electronics. The electronics, which are fragile, are possible because the aircraft, built to carry pilots gently, treated the electronics equally gently. The guns of the artillery and electronics, until very recently, were not as compatible. Excalibur still demonstrates the difficulty.
If the requirement is for the delivery of 2 or 3 20lb warheads and a couple of SDBs on a daily basis, likely even less frequently than that, with the occasional need for a timely 500 lb load then there are other ways of doing that.
The NETFires PAM, launched from a vertical silo or 15 missiles, carries much the same warhead as a Hellfire. With its 40 km range and a speed similar to TOW then it would be on target in about 2.5 mins of the fire call. And there would be 14 more immediately ready to launch or available to salvo.
The GMRLS fired either from the MRLS or HIMARs, or conceivably a permanent ground mount, is roughly equivalent in effect to the 250 lb SDB and as accurate. It is fired from a silo/cell of 6 missiles and can reach any target within 70 km of its launch point.
The Big Brother of the GMRLS is the ATACMS-QRU - equivalent to the 500 lb JDAM. It has a range of 270 km.
Because of their relatively soft launch then the electronics compatible with air delivered bombs are compatible with these missiles. That results in the same accuracy. The fact that they lack pilots means that they can accelerate more quickly and cover ground faster than an aircraft. They aren't bothered by weather at the launch site. They don't burn gas, crew and parts while they are waiting to be launched. They can be housed within the defensive perimeters of existing bases.
This article presents a good summary of these arguments.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5606016_ITM
The point I am making is the one G2G alluded to. It seems to me that launch platform has got very little to do with support. It has got everything to do with what you want the delivered package to accomplish and how quickly you can get the package to its destination.
PS Dale Brown's B52 generally seemed be travelling long distances to strike a particular target with massive precision fire power and then rapidly retire. I don't recall them stooging around the skies for an indeterminate period of time.