3 ms·

Simple solution is to store them hangared. Not too expensive for a rich country like US. It will also improve deployment ambiguity and facilitate covert changes

Simple solution is to store them hangared. Not too expensive for a rich country like US. It will also improve deployment ambiguity and facilitate covert changes in readiness levels (it's hard to tell from outside whether a plane in hangar is fuelled and armed or not).

libertine 1y ago
I don't think these types of planes are stored in hangars, these are huge. Geography is kind of a way to protect them. The best way to protect them is maybe not invading and trying to commit genocide on a neighboring country. It's like developing a good relationship with Ukraine wasn't a possibility, it had to be through corruption and now war.
- jerlam 1y ago
  Even if you put all the planes in hangers, there are always other softer targets to attack. Fuel depots, weapons storage, barracks, factories, rail lines, etc. Not to mention the list of non-military targets, if you wanted to go that way.
  - anovikov 1y ago
    Well, all of this needs physical protection. Just walls thick enough, anti-drone nets, and AA guns too. Drone attacks from now on will be a new tax to add to the cost of all infrastructure.
ClumsyPilot 1y ago
They are stored out in the open because of the START treaty between US and Russia, it requires that nuclear strategic bombers should be visible from satellite to monitor compliance with the treaty. This attack, potentially, might spell the end of that treaty.
- greedo 1y ago
  B2 is definitely stored in climate controlled hangers to help protect their stealth coatings. START has long since been a dead treaty, replaced by New START. New START has two verification methods, none of which rely on overflight by satellites; instead, verification is performed by onsite inspections of nuclear facilities.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Russia has also "paused" it's compliance with New Start as of February 2023, which is odd. Though they are unlikely to exceed the treaty warhead numbers, as nukes are expensive. It's too bad really, the START treaties were some of the best "reduce military spending" treaties ever made. Trump called it a bad deal back in 2017 and told Putin that he didn't want to extend it because it was too favorable, which is dumb since it was only ever a boon to both parties. Despite all the bluster and bullshit and "Super duper turbo America killer 9000" weapons like the Satan, Russia does like the START treaties and wanted to keep them going, at least until the war. As of today(!), the US has suspended the VISAs of Russia nuclear weapon inspectors as retaliation.
    - greedo 1y ago
      Agree about the value of the START treaties.
- yubblegum 1y ago
  This line is making the rounds in various forums and it is not factual. START ended.

libertine 1y ago

I don't think these types of planes are stored in hangars, these are huge. Geography is kind of a way to protect them. The best way to protect them is maybe not invading and trying to commit genocide on a neighboring country. It's like developing a good relationship with Ukraine wasn't a possibility, it had to be through corruption and now war.

jerlam 1y ago
Even if you put all the planes in hangers, there are always other softer targets to attack. Fuel depots, weapons storage, barracks, factories, rail lines, etc. Not to mention the list of non-military targets, if you wanted to go that way.
- anovikov 1y ago
  Well, all of this needs physical protection. Just walls thick enough, anti-drone nets, and AA guns too. Drone attacks from now on will be a new tax to add to the cost of all infrastructure.

ClumsyPilot 1y ago

They are stored out in the open because of the START treaty between US and Russia, it requires that nuclear strategic bombers should be visible from satellite to monitor compliance with the treaty. This attack, potentially, might spell the end of that treaty.

greedo 1y ago
B2 is definitely stored in climate controlled hangers to help protect their stealth coatings. START has long since been a dead treaty, replaced by New START. New START has two verification methods, none of which rely on overflight by satellites; instead, verification is performed by onsite inspections of nuclear facilities.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Russia has also "paused" it's compliance with New Start as of February 2023, which is odd. Though they are unlikely to exceed the treaty warhead numbers, as nukes are expensive. It's too bad really, the START treaties were some of the best "reduce military spending" treaties ever made. Trump called it a bad deal back in 2017 and told Putin that he didn't want to extend it because it was too favorable, which is dumb since it was only ever a boon to both parties. Despite all the bluster and bullshit and "Super duper turbo America killer 9000" weapons like the Satan, Russia does like the START treaties and wanted to keep them going, at least until the war. As of today(!), the US has suspended the VISAs of Russia nuclear weapon inspectors as retaliation.
  - greedo 1y ago
    Agree about the value of the START treaties.
yubblegum 1y ago
This line is making the rounds in various forums and it is not factual. START ended.