3 ms·
> Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. [cita
by metaphor 10y ago
> Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S.
[citation needed]
- slapshot 10y agoHere's a B-2 that bombed Libya on a round-trip from Missouri. [1] Of course, doing it this way requires airborne refueling. Lots of airborne refueling. And if you thought the military paid a lot for jet fuel on the ground, wait until you see the markup for providing it in the air. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis...
- burfog 10y agoThe B-2 bomber flew from Missouri, bombed the targets, landed on a British island in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) to swap out pilots with the engines still running, then flew home. I'm sure it did aerial refueling along the way too. Basically, the only limit is sleepy pilots with sore butts. At least one of the times, it visted an airshow along the way WHILE LOADED WITH BOMBS. This was the Air and Sea show, viewed from the beach in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I was there. For such a huge plane, it really is stunningly quiet. Most spectators didn't even notice until the plane was almost in front of the beach.
- creshal 10y agoAnd many more B-1B, B-52, and various strike fighters dropped bomb loads far exceeding those of the pitifully tiny B-2 force.
- metaphor 10y ago> [citation needed] http://usoonpatrol.org/archives/2014/11/13/b-2-pilot-flew-longest-combat http://usoonpatrol.org/archives/2014/11/13/b-2-pilot-flew-lo...