Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you can deliver twice the payload for a very small fraction of the price.
Don't forget the price to build the warships to linger within firing range, the increase in warships needed to store the increase of tomahawks needed in a region, etc.
Like I said, a large capacity bomber that is relatively low cost to other air planes is needed to replace the 60 year old fleet of b52's
"The B-52 fought its first war, under the code name of "Arc Light" in Vietnam from 1965 through 1973"
from your source.
They might have entered service before the end of Korea, but they first saw action in Vietnam.
Why do we need to deliver twice the payload of a Tomahawk? We don't need strategic bombers right now; their primary role is carpet-bombing, and we likely will not be doing much of that for a while. And even if we were planning on a WW3, the B-52 still works. It would still be successful in carpet bombing cities, if they have F-22 and F-35 escorts.
"The B-52 fought its first war, under the code name of "Arc Light" in Vietnam from 1965 through 1973"
from your source.
They might have entered service before the end of Korea, but they first saw action in Vietnam.
Why do we need to deliver twice the payload of a Tomahawk? We don't need strategic bombers right now; their primary role is carpet-bombing, and we likely will not be doing much of that for a while. And even if we were planning on a WW3, the B-52 still works. It would still be successful in carpet bombing cities, if they have F-22 and F-35 escorts.
They don't carpet bomb very often, they deploy gps and laser guided munitions, have infinite range and can linger at 50k feet and provide air support to the troops on the ground.
A strategic bomber is a very important tool to the military. This is self evident when looking at the current use of our 60 year old b52
The B1 is not stealth, this new plane will be stealthier than the B2. You don't just go buy them. A very large part of the cost for making these planes is tooling up a line to do it. Assuming the one off tools are still around it's still going to be expensive.
They don't carpet bomb very often, they deploy gps and laser guided munitions, have infinite range and can linger at 50k feet and provide air support to the troops on the ground.
A strategic bomber is a very important tool to the military. This is self evident when looking at the current use of our 60 year old b52
The F-35 (which also happens to be a money pit) can fill the CAS and tactical bombing roles. I don't see why we need to build an entirely new bomber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
The B1 is not stealth, this new plane will be stealthier than the B2. You don't just go buy them. A very large part of the cost for making these planes is tooling up a line to do it. Assuming the one off tools are still around it's still going to be expensive.
It'll be much cheaper than building a new bomber from scratch.
I suggest we give up on WAR for a while. while all our competitors are reaping the benefits of a relatively peaceful existence by building extensive civil works and modern factories we are spending out treasure on protecting them from each other. In short we are getting robbed by our so called friends. In my world people that hurt you are NOT friends.
Thus I think we should stop being the World Police and let the rest figure out how to get along, protect themselves from each other or waste themselves in war. If they wind up doing the latter we can have most of the world to ourselves after the fire sale.
Liberals could care less about the ***known*** $750 million per year in food stamp fraud, but get their panties in a bunch over an aircraft that can/will be used to protect them against foreign threats?
Over a decade of food stamp fraud, we could purchase 13 of these new bombers.
Yes, liberals are idiots and liberalism is the scourge of this nation.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Liberals could care less about the ***known*** $750 million per year in food stamp fraud, but get their panties in a bunch over an aircraft that can/will be used to protect them against foreign threats?
Over a decade of food stamp fraud, we could purchase 13 of these new bombers.
Yes, liberals are idiots and liberalism is the scourge of this nation.
Of course the self-Righteous who whine about things like food stamp fraud (which absolutely needs to be corrected) have NO problem conveniently ignoring things like $163 BILLION in cost overruns in the F-35 program and huge overruns on the Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier currently under construction. Gotta keep the ol' MIC humming along, the people be damned, eh?
Yes, conservatives are idiots and conservatism is the scourge of this nation.
Of course the self-Righteous who whine about things like food stamp fraud (which absolutely needs to be corrected) have NO problem conveniently ignoring things like $163 BILLION in cost overruns in the F-35 program and huge overruns on the Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier currently under construction. Gotta keep the ol' MIC humming along, the people be damned, eh?
Yes, conservatives are idiots and conservatism is the scourge of this nation.
Are you suggesting that cost overruns are a reason to no longer develop defense capability?
I'm a taxpayer....of course I care about cost overrun. I care a great deal! But I'm not calling for the US defense capability to be scrapped because of it!
That's the difference between me and you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.