When we already don't use stealth bombers for anything, and don't need to due to other parts of the nuclear triad being more capable of taking down enemy threats, why are we building yet another new, admittedly smaller, strategic bomber? What the fuck are we going to use it on?
>>30229125
>why are we building yet another new, admittedly smaller, strategic bomber?
Because the B-2's are going on 30 years old.
>>30229125
>When we already don't use stealth bombers for anything
Kill yourself.
Not only were they integral to past wars, you dont try to achieve parity with your foes.
>>30229147
We also don't use bombers for anything anymore.
>>30229154
Yes, when we used F117s to shit on the Taliban back in 2004 sure, but today we don't actually use our bombers for anything. This isn't desert storm anymore, we have far more applicable missiles that will do the job better.
>>30229125
B-2s are expensive as fuck and SOMETHING will need to survive an IADS at some point to deliver thousands upon thousands of pounds of BOOM
>>30229218
B-21s aren't just going to be bombers, they're also intended to be multi-mission platforms. It's also preferable to have a strategic bomber on hand than being caught without one.
>>30229218
>We also don't use bombers for anything anymore.
Oh right, I forgot. We've already fought all the wars we'll ever fight.
Why did you even make this thread, OP? What were you hoping to accomplish here?
Stealth bombers have been used in every war since they were created you fucktard
>>30229218
>I DON'T KNOW SHIT: AN OP STORY
>>30229218
We're using strategic bombers right now you fucking clown
>>30229268
I'm trying to ask why we're building strategic bombers when we already admit that other methods of bombardment are more effective and safer.
Did you real the OP?
>>30229269
Until desert storm, in which case afterwards we use them few and far between.
>>30229276
>I can't refute what I claim to be a poor argument: a newfag story
>>30229286
Give me one example. Just one.
>>30229334
Your argument is we create a force for current conflicts and tactics.
Literally WWI level of thinking.
Unfuck yourself.
>>30229334
Because ICBMs and SLBMs are basically all or nothing assets. Their only value is in nuclear strike and deterrence.
Meanwhile, strategic bombers can be used for a variety of missions. Standard bombing, nuclear deterrence patrols, surface attack, arsenal plane, electronic support and attack, ISR, and more. The B-21 is expected to do all of these roles.
>>30229334
>Until desert storm
The B-2 didn't enter service until 1997, m8.
>>30229334
>Give me one example. Just one.
B-52 at Al Udeid to take part in strikes against ISIS, April 2016, you ignorant fucking prat.
>>30229376
We have other missiles besides ballistic missiles as well, to fill non-nuclear bombardment rolls.
>>30229378
>and we haven't used it since
m8
>>30229385
Also we've been constantly been using B-1s in anti-ISIS ops up until we shipped them back for upgrades.
>>30229334
>Give me one example. Just one.
And here are B-1's over Iraq.
So now that your "they aren't used at all" argument is in tatters, what now I wonder.
>>30229312
>more effective and safer
How?
>>30229385
>The B-52 is now a stealth bomber
wew lad
>>30229391
Yes, and most if these missiles are carried by... wait for it... STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
>>30229398
>B-1
>Stealth
wew lad.
>>30229391
>and we haven't used it since
Seriously nigger?
>destroyed 30% of targets in Kosovo in 1999
>flew longest bombing mission in history over Afghanistan
>dropped 1.5 million lb of bombs in the invasion of Iraq
>first US aircraft to participate in Libyan no fly zone
>>30229420
>>30229402
>>30229218
>We also don't use bombers for anything anymore.
Point out the word "stealth" here for me please.
>>30229398
Probably move to the 'but why don't we just use turboprops, all we'll ever do is bomb sandniggers!' line of argument.
>>30229125
>wanting to fight the last war instead of preparing for the next
>why don't we ever use it?
Maybe it's because you need to ask that question, if you catch my drift.
>>30229420
>>30229402
The statement was:>>30229286
>We're using strategic bombers right now you fucking clown
And the question was: >>30229334
>Give me one example. Just one.
And those examples were provided to you.
>>30229429
Oh right, sorry, 17 years ago we used it, that's right.
So, now that we're 17 years more advanced, even Obama said we have shit like drones and missiles to replace the need for fucking strategic bombers and a fuckhuge navy (which I like having anyway).
>>30229420
>>30229402
>We also don't use bombers for anything anymore.
>We're using strategic bombers right now you fucking clown
>Give me one example. Just one.
Now I've seen backpedalling but this is one of the most desperate examples.
>>30229420
>>30229402
>My defense for my shitty argument is that I can't read
>An OP original story
>>30229437
>>30229449
Correct, but the OP question of "Why do we need a new stealth bomber" has yet to be answered. Looks like we do fine with B52s and B1s now, which are decades old.
>>30229450
B-2s were last used in actual combat during the Iraq 2 and Afghanistan campaigns, in 2011.
Also there are still many potential adversaries out there with IADS, and B-2s are also a great intimidation tool.
>On 28 March 2013, two B-2s flew a round trip of 13,000 miles (21,000 km) from Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri to South Korea, dropping dummy ordnance on the Jik Do target range. The mission, part of the annual South Korean–United States military exercises, was the first time that B-2s overflew the Korean peninsula. Tensions between North and South Korea were high during and after the exercise, North Korea protested against the participation of the B-2s and made threats of retaliatory nuclear strikes against South Korea and the United States.
>>30229456
>>30229467
>Ineffectively refute OP's argument
I'm not the one backpedaling.
>>30229476
>"Why do we need a new stealth bomber" has yet to be answered.
To counter emergent threats of export AA systems.
>>30229476
>Why do we need a new stealth bomber
Because if the day ever comes where you need to deliver weapons into defended airspace, you will be glad that you had them.
The current bomber force is aging and the time to find a replacement is now while they still have some tread on the tires.
>>30229476
>Develop costly new plane
>Decide not to include a vital feature like stealth because it's gonna cost more and you already have another stealth one
>Need a third plane to plane A's capability with plane B's stealth
>>30229476
The B-21 is being made to eventually replace the B-52. There's no place for on the modern battlefield anymore and we never really improved on it due to post-Cold War cuts.
>>30229494
You said bombers aren't used.
Just because you can't speak coherently doesn't mean you didn't get proven wrong. Prick.
>>30229493
>Retaliatory nuclear strikes
God i wish north korea would.
>>30229517
>we never really improved on it due to post-Cold War cuts.
What is the B-52H
>>30229517
I wish they'd re-imagine the B-52 with 4 GE-90s. Can you just think of the payload that monster could support?
Aren't/weren't BUFFS and Bones packed with JDAMs used for CAS all over iraq, afghanistan and presumably syria?
What do you think is cheaper, firing a tomahawk at every toyota in a country, or having a strategic bomber sat up high and simply dropping a JDAM on them?
>>30229542
Yes, we've continually updated it to be compatible with newer weapon systems, but at the end of the day it's still a big, slow, and unstealthy bomb truck. Bombing insurgents is pretty much the only thing it can do now these days.
>>30229542
The H first flew in the '60s. There haven't been any new variants since then.
>>30229574
They still have a roll deploying standoff munitions, like the JASSM-ER, and soon the LRASM.
>>30229596
They have underwent CEM improvements, which might as well be a new variant.
>>30229617
All weapons the B-2 and eventually the B-21 will be deploying. The only reason we've still got the B-52 is because we don't have anything better as an alternative.
>>30229154
There is wisdom in this post
>>30229574
What is the B-1B
>>30229638
and the B-1.
The reason we use the B-52 is because we built over 700 of the damn things and we might as well use them.
>>30229659
>>30229660
The B-1 has its place as a high speed, low altitude penetration bomber, which the B-2, B-52, and B-21 can't perform. IIRC it's not going to be directly replaced by the B-21.
The B-52, however, is largely redundant when compared to what the B-21 is supposed to be capable of.
>>30229691
>high speed, low altitude penetration bomber
That's an obsolete class of plane. The days when SAM's had trouble locking onto stuff at low-altitude are long gone.
>>30229691
>IIRC it's not going to be directly replaced by the B-21.
No bomber is getting replaced by the B-21.
>The B-52, however, is largely redundant when compared to what the B-21 is supposed to be capable of.
Except in pure numbers of airframes available. The B-21 is going to stick around until the 2021 bomber rolls around.
Which is why they will be relegated to standoff strike missions agaisnt and A2/AD foe.
Get about 5 of them, Fly to theater, launch about 100 total JASSM-ER between the 5 of them, and fly home. Rinse and repeat with the gorllion B-52's the US has.
This alone will hatefuck an A2/AD network, even if they shoot down every single one.
>>30229691
>The B-1 has its place as a high speed, low altitude penetration bomber, which the B-2, B-52, and B-21 can't perform.
That's the B-1A, modern Bones are subsonic and have stealth characteristics.
>>30229770
Well all bones have stealth characteristics.
>>30229770
It's still extremely fast for a bomber, as it can push Mach 0.92 at low altitude.
>>30229154
/thread
>>30229770
>modern Bones are subsonic
Nope. They can go supersonic, just not as fast as the B-1A because they got rid of the variable-geometry inlets.
>>30229532
>BREAKING NEWS: the Soon-to-beFormer Nation of North Korea attempted to launch a nuclear strike towards South Korea
>In unrelated news, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and veterans have been admitted to the hospital complaining of massive erections. One Marine commented "I have no idea what happened. I woke up with a throbbing need to fuck something small and yellow"." Doctors are baffled.
>>30230211
>>30229892
Imagine a B-1 with 4 of the raptors' engines and stealthy variable geometry intakes.
>>30230285
Boeing pls go nobody wants your BOneR
>>30229218
>We also don't use bombers for anything anymore.
B-1B's have flown a lot of sorties in Afghanistan. Those can loiter over operations area for a long time and can carry lots of different munitions. Whatever mission comes up B-1B probably has something suitable in weapons bay.
>>30229574
It also is an extremely viable cruise missile platform.
>>30229334
B-2s were used during the opening night of strikes against ISIS. Against Libya. Shock and awe against Iraq. Opening strikes against the Taliban. F-117s were used in the balkan wars (one was shot down). F-117s used in the gulf war. F-117 was first used to bomb airfields during the invasion of Panama.
>>30229721
This isn't jihad or russia, we don't just sacrifice pilots.
>>30230817
>those donuts
I think it should actually be the other way around.
>>30230233
My war boner wet dream:US Coalition and the Chinese spitroast hate fuck the Norks and high five while Russia watches and jerks it.
>>30230467
I want Boeing's BoneR
>>30229218
B-2 bombers were used in 2011 to destroy Libya / Gaddafi's airbases and fighters before their air defences were destroyed (which would have given them time to otherwise escape).
The real question is why don't we have stealth transport planes and stealth gliders for true air mobile capability against a peer
The new bombers are being built because the S-300 and S-400 missile systems are incredibly deadly.
OP, the word for you is "ignorant." Not "un-informed," you are enthisiastically ignoring information that is easy to find.
You are cordially invited to EABOD.
>>30229125
because having the ability to drop a nuke on any point in the world in any given time is pretty useful
learn 2 geopolitics. it's not about what you do, but what you CAN do
>>30233136
The point of stealth planes is to destroy AA defenses and achieve total air superiority before you send in transports. Transports can then be designed for maximum payload because they show up with 0 opposition.
>>30229125
Do you not fully understand the concept of deterrence? Having the ability to put a nuke anywhere in the world, at a moment's notice, without the notice of a missile launch, and with incredibly difficult to detect aircraft means that countries like Russia and China will continue to be submissive to the US.
Mutually Assured Destruction did not end the Cold War, it just prevented it from going hot. The Cold War was ended because the US outspent the Russians, surpassed them technologically 10x over, and negated their nuclear threat.
Hell, even without nukes, the ability to drop a conventional bomb in your country at a moment's notice is a FANTASTIC negotiating tool.
>>30234434
The point of stealth planes is that non-stealth cannot operate over hostile territory
Planes cannot find ANYTHING camoflaged on the ground
If the radar's/SAM's/AAA are not active, then they won't be found.
>>30234709
Maybe last generation, but that's not how it works anymore. Modern IR and RF sensors can classify recognized signatures long before Mk1 eyeball could ever even detect, let alone ID, a target on the ground.
Not only can planes see ground targets, they can track you from your last shot all the way to your new firing position, so that something very stealthy and packed with SDBs can supercruise to meet up with you while you're still unpacking.
>>30234762
This. I couldn't have put it better. Stealth is used for strategic bombing and strikes so the heavy shit can move in unopposed.
Designing a 'stealth transport' is idiotic, it'll have shitty cargo capacity because of the airframe being designed for stealth over lift.
>>30229125
Because we're still using fucking B-52s. Mainly as >>30234506
but not just for nukes, and not only in those instances.
Considering developments in territorial disputes and the posturing taking place, it's pretty obvious where not being caught with your pants down would be advisable.
>>30229420
Tbf to the B-1 it does have rudimentary radar ablative design elements, rather like the SR-71.
