5 ms·

As I've heard from professionals, Kyiv will not stand more than three days against Russia in a full scale military conflict. Strategic bombers make little sens

As I've heard from professionals, Kyiv will not stand more than three days against Russia in a full scale military conflict. Strategic bombers make little sense, that's why everyone (even russians) are pushing for ballistic missiles instead. Strategic bombers used by Russia manly for terror with stockpile of soviet missiles.

nradov 1y ago
Strategic bombers still make a lot of sense if you need to, let's say, hold Iranian nuclear facilities at risk with large conventional bunker buster bombs. This is the primary mission that B-2 squadrons train for, and just the existence of that capability provides a lot of negotiating leverage. Of course it's also enormously expensive.
- roncesvalles 1y ago
  Bombers don't make sense because they are big, lumbering targets for SAM systems. The B-2 is an exception because it is stealth and flies very high.
  - slt2021 1y ago
    B-2 is not stealth, its just low visibility in radio to the ground based radars. It is very visible from the top, esp to aerial recon that use other signals in addition to radar signature
    - mmooss 1y ago
      It is in fact stealth. Look up any information on it and it will tell you, it's a stealth bomber. Its primary capability is defeating enemy air defenses and holding their most valuable assets at risk.
- ponector 1y ago
  B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. But for such bombing you don't need a strategic bomber, even frontline bomber could be enough.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. Where do people get these things? The B2 is awful for bombing low-tech insurgent forces - far too expensive to operate. Its whole purpose is defeating SAMs in particular and the best defenses in the world.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      And the Pentagon likes the B-2 so much that they've developed a successor, the B-21: "By September 2024, three test aircraft were in service: one performing one or two flight tests per week, and the others involved in ground tests." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#Flight_and_testing:~:text=By%20September%202024%2C%20three%20test%20aircraft%20were%20in%20service%3A%20one%20performing%20one%20or%20two%20flight%20tests%20per%20week%2C%20and%20the%20others%20involved%20in%20ground%20tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#F....
      - mmooss 1y ago
        Eventually you need new a new plane; that doesn't mean the old one is a failure. The US has only ~20 B-2s, to go with ~60 B-52s (originally built in the 1950s), and ~40 B-1Bs (~1980s tech). Only the B-2 could survive war with a peer, afaik; that was fine after the Cold War when there was no peer threat but now that China is a near-peer threat, the US needs many more bombers capable in a peer conflict and the B-2 production line was shut down decades ago (production was discontinued when the Cold War ended). They plan to build the B-21 in much larger numbers. Also, the B-21 was built for conflict with China, where distances are much greater than in Europe.
mmooss 1y ago
So where do you get information? From people who are always right? Where are they? Are you one of them - if not, why should I listen to you?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Or to you...
  - mmooss 1y ago
    Right. I'm repeating what actual experts say - including settled, consensus conclusions from decades of expertise. I'm not doing personal hot takes and if I did, they should be ignored. I'm not even posting expert hot takes, which also aren't so valuable (but much more valuable than my own). I responded to this comment: "Destroying their entire strategic aviation forces would not meaningfully impact MAD."

nradov 1y ago

Strategic bombers still make a lot of sense if you need to, let's say, hold Iranian nuclear facilities at risk with large conventional bunker buster bombs. This is the primary mission that B-2 squadrons train for, and just the existence of that capability provides a lot of negotiating leverage. Of course it's also enormously expensive.

roncesvalles 1y ago
Bombers don't make sense because they are big, lumbering targets for SAM systems. The B-2 is an exception because it is stealth and flies very high.
- slt2021 1y ago
  B-2 is not stealth, its just low visibility in radio to the ground based radars. It is very visible from the top, esp to aerial recon that use other signals in addition to radar signature
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It is in fact stealth. Look up any information on it and it will tell you, it's a stealth bomber. Its primary capability is defeating enemy air defenses and holding their most valuable assets at risk.
ponector 1y ago
B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. But for such bombing you don't need a strategic bomber, even frontline bomber could be enough.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > B2 is much easier to intercept than ballistic missile. Also B2 has order of magnitude higher sticker price than ballistic missile. Good for bombing mujahedeen in the mountains and bad against someone with SAM. Where do people get these things? The B2 is awful for bombing low-tech insurgent forces - far too expensive to operate. Its whole purpose is defeating SAMs in particular and the best defenses in the world.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    And the Pentagon likes the B-2 so much that they've developed a successor, the B-21: "By September 2024, three test aircraft were in service: one performing one or two flight tests per week, and the others involved in ground tests." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#Flight_and_testing:~:text=By%20September%202024%2C%20three%20test%20aircraft%20were%20in%20service%3A%20one%20performing%20one%20or%20two%20flight%20tests%20per%20week%2C%20and%20the%20others%20involved%20in%20ground%20tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider#F....
    - mmooss 1y ago
      Eventually you need new a new plane; that doesn't mean the old one is a failure. The US has only ~20 B-2s, to go with ~60 B-52s (originally built in the 1950s), and ~40 B-1Bs (~1980s tech). Only the B-2 could survive war with a peer, afaik; that was fine after the Cold War when there was no peer threat but now that China is a near-peer threat, the US needs many more bombers capable in a peer conflict and the B-2 production line was shut down decades ago (production was discontinued when the Cold War ended). They plan to build the B-21 in much larger numbers. Also, the B-21 was built for conflict with China, where distances are much greater than in Europe.

mmooss 1y ago

So where do you get information? From people who are always right? Where are they? Are you one of them - if not, why should I listen to you?

jacquesm 1y ago
Or to you...
- mmooss 1y ago
  Right. I'm repeating what actual experts say - including settled, consensus conclusions from decades of expertise. I'm not doing personal hot takes and if I did, they should be ignored. I'm not even posting expert hot takes, which also aren't so valuable (but much more valuable than my own). I responded to this comment: "Destroying their entire strategic aviation forces would not meaningfully impact MAD."