3 ms·

If you RTFA, you'll see that it is broken. This article is silly. The replacement of the B-52 isn't a better bomber, it's a different tech; ICBMs, drones, etc.

If you RTFA, you'll see that it is broken. This article is silly. The replacement of the B-52 isn't a better bomber, it's a different tech; ICBMs, drones, etc. - which the article doesn't even mention. The article also mentions the amount of B 52s there are, and were. Today's fleet could be described as, "small" in comparison.

chrisseaton 11y ago
I think the US considered using ICBMs to deliver conventional strikes (and in fact they didn't even contain a warhead - just the kinetic energy of the missile was enough), but decided against it as they couldn't be differentiated from a nuclear strike by early warning systems. As for drones - the B-52s are very long range aren't they? As in they take off from the US to strike in the middle east or anywhere else? Can any drone do that? So if you don't have a drone in theatre, it can't replace what the B-52 does.
- snerbles 11y ago
  Conventional ICBMs are being considered under the Prompt Global Strike project [1]. From the summary: > Conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapons would allow the United States to strike targets anywhere on Earth in as little as an hour. This capability may bolster U.S. efforts to deter and defeat adversaries by allowing the United States to attack high-value targets or “fleeting targets” at the start of or during a conflict. > Some analysts, however, have raised concerns about the possibility that U.S. adversaries might misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons. [1] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > As for drones - the B-52s are very long range aren't they? Wikipedia says the B-52 has a 8,764 nmi range. The RQ-4 Global Hawk has a range of 12,299 nmi. The X47-B recently demonstrated mid-air refueling (which B-52s need to go from the US to the ME and back), too.
- toyg 11y ago
  Is this the first time in history where an army wants to make crystal clear that the weapons it is using are not as powerful as they could be? From a historical perspective, it sounds bizarre: "you want to kill us and we want to kill you, but not so much that you might decide to bring the world to an end".
Sanddancer 11y ago
You're neglecting the psychological aspect of the B-52. That antiquated technology means that you have a loud, lumbering plane flying overhead that you damn well know is full of angry death. ICBMs, Drones, etc designed for stealth, while advantageous in other aspects, really can't deliver that payload.
- blackguardx 11y ago
  B-52s can fly high enough that they can't be heard or seen with the unaided eye.

chrisseaton 11y ago

I think the US considered using ICBMs to deliver conventional strikes (and in fact they didn't even contain a warhead - just the kinetic energy of the missile was enough), but decided against it as they couldn't be differentiated from a nuclear strike by early warning systems. As for drones - the B-52s are very long range aren't they? As in they take off from the US to strike in the middle east or anywhere else? Can any drone do that? So if you don't have a drone in theatre, it can't replace what the B-52 does.

snerbles 11y ago
Conventional ICBMs are being considered under the Prompt Global Strike project [1]. From the summary: > Conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapons would allow the United States to strike targets anywhere on Earth in as little as an hour. This capability may bolster U.S. efforts to deter and defeat adversaries by allowing the United States to attack high-value targets or “fleeting targets” at the start of or during a conflict. > Some analysts, however, have raised concerns about the possibility that U.S. adversaries might misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons. [1] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf
ceejayoz 11y ago
> As for drones - the B-52s are very long range aren't they? Wikipedia says the B-52 has a 8,764 nmi range. The RQ-4 Global Hawk has a range of 12,299 nmi. The X47-B recently demonstrated mid-air refueling (which B-52s need to go from the US to the ME and back), too.
toyg 11y ago
Is this the first time in history where an army wants to make crystal clear that the weapons it is using are not as powerful as they could be? From a historical perspective, it sounds bizarre: "you want to kill us and we want to kill you, but not so much that you might decide to bring the world to an end".

Sanddancer 11y ago

You're neglecting the psychological aspect of the B-52. That antiquated technology means that you have a loud, lumbering plane flying overhead that you damn well know is full of angry death. ICBMs, Drones, etc designed for stealth, while advantageous in other aspects, really can't deliver that payload.

blackguardx 11y ago
B-52s can fly high enough that they can't be heard or seen with the unaided eye.