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.
Because dropping GPS guided bombs is much much cheaper than firing missiles.
If we're using our strategic bomber fleet to bomb the **** out of people, we won't care about the cost.
But anyways, missiles are much more efficient than bombs. You need a big, lumbering aircraft to drop the bombs, depending on the mission you might need escort fighters, you need to factor in fuel for the return journey, and you need pilots. Things that add to the cost of using bombers.
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 thecoalman
I don't care if it's Switzerland that is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. As more nations obtain them we are that much closer to a nuclear armed conflict. NK and Iran are of particular concern for two different reasons. The top leadership in NK is simply insane and the leadership in Iran has religious reasons.
I think you have to ask yourself how much confidence you would put in a Christian Fundamentalist being in charge of nuclear weapons here in the US. I know that wouldn't make me feel safe.
I think we've caused ourselves far more problems making lame attempts to reshape the world to our liking than have been caused by what other countries are doing. Attacking others because they might someday do something to us is just an extension of that ill-conceived policy.
Because dropping GPS guided bombs is much much cheaper than firing missiles, plus the sheer quantity of munitions that can be carried and deployed over a long period of time is unmatched.
Plus you cannot look at just the cost of building the new bomber, you have to look at the costs compared to maintain the current fleet. The older the design the more maintenance needed per hour of flight time. If too much maintenance is required then you have to either reduce flights or increase units to keep the same capabilities.
In the grand scheme of military contracts, replacing an air craft that served during the Korean War is probably a good place to spend the money.
100 bombers at 550 million dollars is insane when this country already has complete air supremacy. It can't be justified.
Not to mention that the 550 is horribly underestimated.
In the grand scheme of military contracts, replacing an air craft that served during the Korean War is probably a good place to spend the money.
B-52s didn't serve in Korea. Their first conflict was Vietnam, in the massive bombing campaigns like Rolling Thunder. When Korea was happening we were still using propeller-powered Superfortresses.
Instead of developing a new strategic bomber from scratch, we should just invest more into cruise missile tech and buy some more B-1s and B-2s.
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 NYRhockeyfan
If we're using our strategic bomber fleet to bomb the **** out of people, we won't care about the cost.
But anyways, missiles are much more efficient than bombs. You need a big, lumbering aircraft to drop the bombs, depending on the mission you might need escort fighters, you need to factor in fuel for the return journey, and you need pilots. Things that add to the cost of using bombers.
But big, lumbering aircraft are reusable, missiles not so much.
But big, lumbering aircraft are reusable, missiles not so much.
Missiles are a lot harder to shoot down. Missiles can be launched from an aircraft, from a ship, from a truck, from pretty much anywhere. B-52s and aircraft like it, require massive airstrips and need a huge amount of logistic support. Missiles put less of our pilots in danger. Missiles are more precise than carpet-bombing, even if the carpet-bombing is done with guided bombs. Missiles don't need escort fighters. Missiles don't need to worry about refueling over the Atlantic before reaching their target.
B-52s didn't serve in Korea. Their first conflict was Vietnam, in the massive bombing campaigns like Rolling Thunder. When Korea was happening we were still using propeller-powered Superfortresses.
Instead of developing a new strategic bomber from scratch, we should just invest more into cruise missile tech and buy some more B-1s and B-2s.
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
An aegis class destroyer can carry 56 tomahawk cruise missiles, delivery 56k pounds of ordinance at the cost of 78 million dollars. A B52 can carry 70,000 pounds of guided ordinance at the cost of less than 1 million dollars.
Last edited by shooting4life; 07-28-2014 at 01:55 PM..
$100,000 might be a good price for a modern Porsche too, that doesn't mean the government needs to buy them. Why do we need more bombers? Are we going to start carpet bombing someone again?
Missiles are a lot harder to shoot down. Missiles can be launched from an aircraft, from a ship, from a truck, from pretty much anywhere. B-52s and aircraft like it, require massive airstrips and need a huge amount of logistic support. Missiles put less of our pilots in danger. Missiles are more precise than carpet-bombing, even if the carpet-bombing is done with guided bombs. Missiles don't need escort fighters. Missiles don't need to worry about refueling over the Atlantic before reaching their target.
I could write a book about what you don't know about this subject.
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.
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.
