Jeez. Here I am arguing about airplanes with you again. Well, just the finer points this time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
We need the B-2. No way around it. We won't have a first strike bomber capability in the future if we got rid of B-2.
|
See below. Bunker buster is what makes it worth keeping for a conventional war, IMO.
Quote:
|
No way, not even a B-1R, could penetrate the air defenses of a country with a few bucks in it pockets come even tomorrow.
|
F-22 can and will be used for this in the future. And won't cost over a billion bucks if it gets popped. Though I'm not sure if you're talking nuclear strike or not...
Quote:
|
The B-2 is the only bomber that can go in with the first wave. So if you have some major Command and Control to knock out in the opening moments of an engagement, B-2 is the only answer for the job.
|
Which seems to be its only worth in a conventional war, IMO. It can carry EGBU-28 while maintaining full VLO, nothing else can.
Quote:
|
The B-1 is only good after the C3 and air defenses has been neutralized. Hence why B-1 was on the chopping block in 2001.
|
Which will be within the first hour of any conflict. Unless it's that only "near peer" that justifies all those platforms we're buying that are Cold War spec'd.
Using B-2 to drop a command bunker in the near future may not be so viable. Because while invisible to radar, it will be optical and sound sensors that are cueing the next generation autonomously hunting SAMs. But again, only IMO. I hope I'm wrong.
PD