B-21 to replace B-52
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
B-21 to replace B-52
From a cost standpoint, I don't get this. Doesn't the B-2 already do this?
Air Force unveils first image of B-21 long-range bomber - Washington Times
Air Force unveils first image of B-21 long-range bomber - Washington Times
#2
From a cost standpoint, I don't get this. Doesn't the B-2 already do this?
Air Force unveils first image of B-21 long-range bomber - Washington Times
Air Force unveils first image of B-21 long-range bomber - Washington Times
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Position: Babysitter
Posts: 975
#8
Not satisfied that the F-35 will bankrupt the US and military, the Air Force ups the ante with a program projected to cost $60 Billion.
Wait for it; next will be the selection of the T-50 to replace the T-38 instead of a cheaper and more practical airplane for UPT (like the L-159).
B-52: bomb-truck; lots of bombs and loiter.
B-1: conventional-only; not a bad bomb-truck, but fewer bombs, less loiter, more expense.
B-2: in theory both conv and nuke. Limited conventional bombs; rumored to cost more than $100,000 an hour.
Yup....B-21 makes perfect sense....
Wait for it; next will be the selection of the T-50 to replace the T-38 instead of a cheaper and more practical airplane for UPT (like the L-159).
B-52: bomb-truck; lots of bombs and loiter.
B-1: conventional-only; not a bad bomb-truck, but fewer bombs, less loiter, more expense.
B-2: in theory both conv and nuke. Limited conventional bombs; rumored to cost more than $100,000 an hour.
Yup....B-21 makes perfect sense....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post