Air Force set to unveil newest stealth bomber aircraft, the B21

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,396
383
126
", the cost of each aircraft, including training materials, support equipment and other components of the bomber, is $692 million. "

For that price you could have 6,920 powerful drones. Who would win in a war, a nation with a handful of great bombers or thousands upon thousands of drones?
Odds are the US has both, but in previous wars, the winner was the one who could manufacture the most craft, not the best. See Tiger Tank vs Sherman tank, Messerschmitt vs P51
 

deadlyapp

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2004
6,587
702
126
", the cost of each aircraft, including training materials, support equipment and other components of the bomber, is $692 million. "

For that price you could have 6,920 powerful drones. Who would win in a war, a nation with a handful of great bombers or thousands upon thousands of drones?
Odds are the US has both, but in previous wars, the winner was the one who could manufacture the most craft, not the best. See Tiger Tank vs Sherman tank, Messerschmitt vs P51
Bombers like this one are designed for a very specific task - in this case, nuclear deterrence or bunker buster type bombs. You're not going to build a low cost heavy payload drone with stealth capabilities for $100k. With your logic, you could replace all bombers with long range cruise missiles.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,396
383
126
Bombers like this one are designed for a very specific task - in this case, nuclear deterrence or bunker buster type bombs. You're not going to build a low cost heavy payload drone with stealth capabilities for $100k. With your logic, you could replace all bombers with long range cruise missiles.

Nuclear deterrence is one thing, as nuclear weapons are a true force, but if given the choice between hitting a country with 6200 cruise missiles or 4 high-precisions bombs, I am going to hit them with the higher number.
 

deadlyapp

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2004
6,587
702
126
Nuclear deterrence is one thing, as nuclear weapons are a true force, but if given the choice between hitting a country with 6200 cruise missiles or 4 high-precisions bombs, I am going to hit them with the higher number.
Oh absolutely, but even hypersonic you only have about 1000-2000mi range with a cruise missile. So you're talking about an ICBM at that point, which can be fairly easily intercepted these days.

So unless you park a shite ton of missile subs on the border, you're still going to need some air support for deep in bombing.

Now the real question is if there's really any need these days for such armament. Certainly don't need a stealth bomber for most of the wars we've been in the last 40 years.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,666
993
136
Oh absolutely, but even hypersonic you only have about 1000-2000mi range with a cruise missile. So you're talking about an ICBM at that point, which can be fairly easily intercepted these days.

So unless you park a shite ton of missile subs on the border, you're still going to need some air support for deep in bombing.

Now the real question is if there's really any need these days for such armament. Certainly don't need a stealth bomber for most of the wars we've been in the last 40 years.
the us and its pacific allies will absolutely need a stealth bomber if china decides to get aggressive.

china spent a bunch of money on their air force and navy starting in the 2000's if not earlier depending on how you count. they took the soviet route of answering us/nato air superiority with sams and iads. in the 2000's china started dev on long range Anti Ship Missiles which would be deployed on their pseudo stealth planes/fighters that are only low observable from the front. those planes were single purpose: get fast, rush inside the air intercept range using ruduced radar cross-section and offload their ASM, turn around, land, rearm, and repeat. the whole point being they can force us carrier groups further away from the mainland/Taiwan in a conflict. increasing the range US planes and cruise missiles would have to operate at against ASM puts a strain on fuel logistics and operational tempo. having a bomber that can base at Guam, Philippines, Okinawa, or any other friendly nation and reach the south china seas is imperative.

a squadron of b21 with a belly full of small diameter bombs could wipe out any invading force landing on the coast of Taiwan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadlyapp