Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2014, 01:49 PM
 
Location: New York City
792 posts, read 635,202 times
Reputation: 348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
They flew in Korea
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cost:
Tomahawk cruise missle, 1.4 million dollars each, payload 1k pounds
GPS guided jdam. 25k each, payload 2,000 pounds.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:03 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,827,388 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan View Post
"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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:08 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,074,696 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan View Post
....and buy some more B-1s and B-2s.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: New York City
792 posts, read 635,202 times
Reputation: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,368,672 times
Reputation: 2922
So far what we hear is because Israel needs them, let them buy them or build their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,827,388 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan View Post
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.


It'll be much cheaper than building a new bomber from scratch.
Lack of payload, reduced loiter time, costs even more to operate, three good reasons not to use f-35
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,805,597 times
Reputation: 24863
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 06:59 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,134,648 times
Reputation: 9409
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 07:41 AM
 
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 07:57 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,134,648 times
Reputation: 9409
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top