2 ms·

> and no one to use them against Oh, you can use them just as they were used - to do the things B-52, or hell, even B-29 could do. /snark > being hunted by a

> and no one to use them against Oh, you can use them just as they were used - to do the things B-52, or hell, even B-29 could do. /snark > being hunted by a bunch of nearly undetectable aircraft which can be anywhere at anytime and can each carry more than a dozen large anti-ship missiles Now this is a question. My memory was rusty so I consulted Wikipedia and looks like there is not that many options. SM6 is too weak and doesn't yet have AS capability, LRASM exists with a proper qualities (speed and payload) but is quite big even for B-1. And Tomahawk with no AS cap. and ... not fast. So there is a question about "a dozen large anti-ship missiles" though it can be mitigated with a sheer numbers, which is probably the way it is designed. > I wouldn't be surprised to see significantly more than 100 get built. Depends on what would happen in tjhe world the next 10 years.

thunderbird120 4y ago
The near term anti-ship armament would be LRASMs, which are not actually very large. A B-1 can carry 24 of them internally at one time and the B-2 can carry 16. The B-21 is smaller but still large enough for a good load. 12 or more would not be surprising. No one is air-launching tomahawks or SM-6s (probably). The future is OASuW Increment II (HALO) which is a hypersonic anti-ship missile. The LRASM is basically a stop-gap until that happens. That missile will likely be a similar size to the LRASM given the size limitations of the platforms the navy wants to launch it from. The security situation in the Pacific is also very unlikely to improve over the next 10 years.