Yes, the B-2 does already do this. Problem is the B-2s can't stay flying much longer. The B-21 is replacing the B-2, not the B-52. The B-52 will be flying long after the last B-21 is sent to the scrap yard.

Titanium works great until it doesn't!

 

Interesting article...

 

There is a move afoot in this country by certain elements that want the united states to abandon our exceptionalism and that our actions are the "real" evil in this world.

 

 

This is why the DOD budget deserves an axe. Much like the gov't, it's a spending and management problem, not a revenue problem.

 

UAL,

You are completely clueless on the current bomber force. You state that the B-1 carries fewer bombs? Not so, B-1 can carry 24 GBU-31s, those are 2,000 lb JDAMs if you don't know your nomenclature. Or they can carry 24 JASSM cruise missiles making it one hell of a bomb truck.
You then go on to cement your ignorance by stating the B-2 has limited conventional bombs. What a joke. The B-2 has the most diverse and capable conventional load out of any of the bombers. Let me illustrate. A single B-2 can carry and in one pass deliver 80 x GBU-38s (500 lb JDAM's). Or with the rotary launchers installed it can carry sixteen of any combination of the following:
GBU-31 (2000 lb JDAM)
JASSM cruise missile
JSOW
GBU-28 (5,000 lb penetrator)

Furthermore, it can carry two of the 30,000 lb GBU-57 bunker busters.

Your posts are usually well thought out and factual but this one of yours was so misleading and so devoid of facts that it had to be corrected by someone who actually knows a thing or two about the bomber fleet.

 

I'll take the hit, although you could use a little diplomacy to tell me I'm wrong.

True, not a bomber guy, but from what I remembered working with them, and what my bomber friends had told me, I thought I was in the park.

500 pounders are (to my knowledge) still generally preferred for CAS (which is about 99.9% of what we are doing). On a weapons-station count, I thought the BUFF was about 48 internal, and could carry about the same external.

I thought the Bone was about 48.

OK, the B-2 was a surprise....no idea it had that many weapons stations.

Now, on a "cost per bomb per hour" basis, I think my argument still stands.

My criticism of the B-21 is that, with a country and Air Force mired in debt, and Welsh being ripped publicly by McCain this week when Welsh said "I can't replace the A-10's capabilities, and don't need to, because we don't have enough money," then how can they argue for a program even MORE expensive than the F-35?

At some point, someone has to realize you can win the combatant battle, but lose the fiscal war.

 

Thunder1....ouch.....do you kick your dog when you get home? Great information, but your delivery sucks.

 

Reminds me of an old Navy saying, "Fighter pilots make movies, Attack (bomber) pilots make history."

 

UAL and ExAF,

Point taken on my delivery. However, I assumed I was dealing with fellow former or even current AF pilots that after many years of sitting through "gloves off" fighter and bomber sortie debriefs had developed some pretty thick skin when it comes to feedback and criticism.

Either we are all getting old (check that one for me) and getting soft in our old age or the Air Force I grew up in is a much more touchy feely, I need my safe space because you are hurting my feelings Air Force. I hope that is not the case but either way I stick to my original delivery.
Cheers.