They should just re-engine the Buff and call it good. Either that or just use cruise missiles. What am I missing (excluding the jackhole Pentagon lifers who never spent a day on the line in the air/on land/at sea)?

 

Stratofort Knox.

Midas.

Sisyphus.

BlackHole.

Moneypit.

 

B-2 is getting old, and we only have 20 of the things and other than maybe a special niche mission or two it's reserved almost exclusively as one of the USAF's two legs of the nuclear triad (the idea that our strategic nuclear capability is "stool-like" and needs three legs to be stable at all is one of the great marketing triumphs of the legendary old-school air-power advocates )

The exact requirements for this capability have been debated for years, running the gamut from supersonic, manned, unmanned, optionally manned, conventional to nuclear, stealth to not. Guess they settled on something similar to the B-2. Could be useful as conventional deep-striker if you own enough of them to actually risk losing one in combat.

Worth noting that the flying wing format has better inherent stealth characteristics than the stealth fighters, which need control structures sticking out. A smooth flying wing should be immune to the VHF radar (the latest anti-stealth bogey-man).

 

Bomb trucks like the BUFF are IMO the optimal solution once you have air superiority. Still need a few door kickers though.

Do we need nuclear bombers? Probably not at the cost. Submarines are probably the most expensive deterrent capability, but obviously the most survivable and hence the best deterrent.

Worth the cost? I don't know, assuming standard AF gross mismanagement and too-big-to-fail over-runs maybe not. But the bomber pork infrastructure needs a future, or else a lot of constituents will be unhappy...

 

Even if they hang new engines on the B-52's and upgrade the cockpits to new, the BUFFs today are nearly 60 years old. Will we really want to build our future national defense on 70+ year old airframes?

8

 

BUFF - Big Ugly Fat F'r. Whatever. I never thought the 52 was ugly and, ever since I got to crawl all over and inside one as a kid, I've always loved it. The "B" should stand for "Badass".

Also, obligatory commentary by Gen. Buck Turgidson...

 

Winner!

 

Supposedly the cost for this B-21 is half a billion per copy, but I remember back in the 90s that was the cost for a B-2. That figure seems like a pie-in-the-sky idea, with the real cost most likely being a billion per copy or more...

 

Despite my gripping about USAF procurement excesses, I think they understand that on this one they will need to come in pretty close to budget. The F-35 was too big to fail, critical capability eggs all in one basket, multi-service, multi-national...and multi-congressional district.

The big-picture requirement for the new bomber is a bit vague and quite hard to defend at all costs...especially once you get over the religion-like justification of the nuclear "triad". The USAF will stand at very real risk of cancellation if they get up to their old acquisition tricks on this one, and I'm pretty sure they know it.

 

....at $500 million a copy (or more) vs. swarms of much cheaper drones and cruise missiles...that's very true.