by Rick E Davis » Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:33 pm
Guys,
By the time you build the "stand-off" weapons in the quantities NEEDED for your "Stand-off" Flying Bomb Trucks and the additional F-22's needed to protect them ... the cost will still be sky high. A penetrating platform (manned or unmanned) with precision weapons (mostly GPS, etc) and loiter time is more cost-effective, survivable, and you don't have as much worry about trying to recall (or detonating it) that cruise missile that you just sent off at the wrong target 15 minutes ago.
The B-2 was so expensive per aircraft because the very expensive development cost was spread over so few airframes. It didn't help that the contractor was Northrop.
BB-56,
If you think the B-1B is stealthy enough to do the job ... I have a bridge to sell. The fact is the USAF doesn't send either B-1's or B-52's into a high-medium-or-even in most cases a low threat area to drop bombs, precision or otherwise, anymore. The only advantage of the B-1 over the B-52 is speed.
Guys,
By the time you build the "stand-off" weapons in the quantities NEEDED for your "Stand-off" Flying Bomb Trucks and the additional F-22's needed to protect them ... the cost will still be sky high. A penetrating platform (manned or unmanned) with precision weapons (mostly GPS, etc) and loiter time is more cost-effective, survivable, and you don't have as much worry about trying to recall (or detonating it) that cruise missile that you just sent off at the wrong target 15 minutes ago.
The B-2 was so expensive per aircraft because the very expensive development cost was spread over so few airframes. It didn't help that the contractor was Northrop.
BB-56,
If you think the B-1B is stealthy enough to do the job ... I have a bridge to sell. The fact is the USAF doesn't send either B-1's or B-52's into a high-medium-or-even in most cases a low threat area to drop bombs, precision or otherwise, anymore. The only advantage of the B-1 over the B-52 is speed.