| ▲ | giantg2 11 hours ago |
| Cost-effective might not be the best description. If the B2 is able to target SAMs with very low losses, then it could still be cost-effective compared to significant losses of other airframes and crews. |
|
| ▲ | runjake 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Cost-effective is the best description. It doesn't have to be a totality. For total operation costs (training/missions/acquisition/maintenance/capabilites), the B-52 is cheaper by orders of magnitude. The B-2 does have its place and is better suited for certain jobs, albeit at too high a cost. The B-21 is purported to lower that. We'll see. Edit: Looks like current B-2 operational/maintenance costs are now down to only about 2x that of the B-52, which is an impressive reduction (no sarcasm). |
| |
| ▲ | markdown 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why not just start making new B-52's again? | | |
| ▲ | jmalicki 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a shortage of B-52 airframes? They get upgraded regularly, the only reason to make more bombers is to try something different. | |
| ▲ | rawgabbit 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | With eight engines mounted on external nacelles, it is the complete opposite of stealth. You need complete air superiority to use it without fear of being shot down. | | |
| ▲ | somat 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The eight engines is a side effect of of how large the aircraft is vs how big the engines of the day were. they are basically business jet engines by modern standards. During the recent engine replacement project using one full sized engine per boom instead of the twin small engine nacelle was seriously considered. So 4 engines instead of 8. I suspect the reason the twin nacelle was kept was that going to 4 engines required more engineering rework than they were happy with. It certainly would have improved the b-52's range and fuel efficiency. Either way probably a net zero on the stealth consideration. Fun fact: with the re-engine project the b-52 now has the same engines as the A-10. |
| |
| ▲ | 486sx33 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | giantg2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're still only talking about the cost side. You're not talking about the effect side. So they're 2x the cost, but how much did they save in reduced casualties? |
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway85825 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you have updated satellite imagery and can hit the SAM with a cruise missile you don't need the B2. |
| |
| ▲ | somat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The b-52's role on the modern battlefield is basically a cruise missile truck. It lets you launch a bunch of cruise missiles(cough, I mean kamikazi drones, gotta use the modern lingo) from random locations. | |
| ▲ | jonnybgood 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One does not simply take out a SAM system with a cruise missile, especially when that SAM system can also target the cruise missile. So how do you get a cruise missile to launch from the right spot where the SAM system radar can’t see it coming? | | |
| ▲ | runjake 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | By using low-observable ("stealth") cruise missiles that fly at extremely low altitudes using terrain avoidance radar. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > using low-observable ("stealth") cruise missiles that fly at extremely low altitudes using terrain avoidance radar Do we have this class of anti-radiation weapon? | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm pretty sure we have this class of cruise missile. It can be used as an anti-radiation weapon if you point it at a location that has a radar on it. If the radar is mobile, that means that you need a true anti-radiation missile, but SAM radars aren't mobile, are they? | | |
| ▲ | m4rtink 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure they are - the s300 system for example can be redployed quite rapidly & some like Buk have the radar even integrated with the launcher. Also only the radar really transmits, so even if you hit it the, separate launchers might still be intact & guided by another radar if you don't destroy them. This is why modern remotely guided middle strike drones are so dangerous for SAMs - they can basically search an area for all the SAM system components and destroy them all or most of them. Potentially much more effective than a homing missile hitting just the radar at maximum. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | m4rtink 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Middle strike drone swarm is more likely in 2026 & as a bonus you can post the footage from it as a music video. | |
| ▲ | runjake 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Plot twist: some of the best precision cruise missiles are air-launched. | | |
|
