Can China build figthers with this level of precision?
>>64277370thats a bomber and icbms are about 40x cheaper, not counting the lifetime costs
>>64277370This feels like a false flag post considering we already have a week old Raider thread in the catalog
It is a cute plane desu.
>>64277375>thats a bomber and icbms are about 40x cheaperyou're a retard. bombers and ICBMs have utterly different roles
>>64277385no, they both blow things up, the difference is the that the icbm is cheaper, simpler, faster, requires less training and is better in every way
if a stealth plane is subsonic what is stopping an optically guided missile going mach 3.5 from tracking it?
>>64277460>t. retardAn Impala and a Peterbilt can take something across the country, same thing right?
>>64277469if the goal is the take something across the country then yes
>>64277475oh, you're just being stupid on purpose. very funny.
>>64277466At the range that EO can track a plane you're reaching the burn through range of stealth anyway
>>64277478no, youre just upset you lost. The usa is wasting so much money on obsolete equipment that impresses no one. The usa is one of the least dependant countries in the world on foreign trade, the main exports being oil and weapons. What weapons are other countries buying? Missiles and its not even close, its over 60% of exports. Why? becasue missiles are the future. Shooting down your enemy's advanced manned vechicles that cost hundreds of millions if not billions with a missile that cost less than a hundred thousand to just a few million means the math will never work to ever build anything but missiles again
>>64277491Did you blow in from stupid town? Your entire argument falls apart when I can point out that the US is the only country to have stealth cruise missiles.
>>64277489interesting thanks
>>64277491>the chigger is afraid
>>64277491>we don't actually NEED stealth bombersChinks are already at this stage of coping?
>>64277506the us military budget can shrink by $500b and not lose any effectiveness by removing all obsolete system which are already worthless in anything but fighting dudes in flip flops>>64277511is china in the room with us now? im obviously american retard, even the marine corps as understood this a decade ago and began to shift to exactly what i am saying in their force design 2030 plan >>64277517chinks? we only sell taiwan missiles now because we are forcing them to adopt the porcupine strategy. The exact thing i am arguing for to defeat china, who is also wasting their money on obsolete systems
>>64277521Oh, he blew in after getting btfoed in another thread.>>64275605>>64275661>>64275730>>64275864
>>64277541i wont that argue too and then left the thread. This isnt up for debate
>>64277548please leave this thread too
Since this is a false flag thread from everyone's favorite hapa spammer, I'm just going to take the opportunity to say that I like the F-111.
>>64277579the raven is also very cool
>>64277521Please enlighten us as to that they should actually be spending money on
>>64277670>javelins>hellfires>barracudas >tomahawks>harpoons>atacms>dark eagles>tridents iis>minutemans>roadrunner>sea sparrows>nasams>sm3s>patriots>thaads>leonidas>thor
>>64277723So you mean shit that has been used for decades now? I don't understand your point
>>64277466If a stealth aircraft was within reliable optical tracking range then that means it's long been within radar range, so there's no real point using that over existing types of air defense systems. Also, it's not like the B-21 doesn't have the same type of countermeasures as conventional aircraft so it's not totally defenseless. >>64277460Bombers can do a lot more than dropping nukes dipshit. Also, even in the nuclear delivery role, ground-based ICBMs are 10-20x more expensive than LO cruise missiles and are far easier to detect and intercept. >>64277491The H-20 and chinkshit 6th gen demos must not be going very well I guess.
>>64277811my point is that all you need to do is intelligence gathering to find out how many tanks, planes, ships, etc your potential enemy has, do research and development to find out how many of what type of missile is needed to destroy it with 99% certainty (for example a thaad missle has a 52% chance of intercepting an icbm but that raises to 97% when you fire 4 at it) and then you just build enough of them and send them to bases in the rings we spent the last century building around our enemies. Now all of their shit is worthless. You then protect these missiles with the various systems developed to intercept threats, using intelligence gathering again to find out how many missiles they have, etc. And then you keep your own retaliation/first strike cruise missiles aimed at the military, industrial, economic and infrastructure targets which cause maximum damage to your enemies ability to make war and also a nuclear deterrent. Taking this route is orders of magnitude cheaper than building obsolete manned systems, the training, maintenance, etc. Pretty much everyone has already figured this out, which is why the b21 is intimidating to no one
>>64277886>Bombers can do a lot more than dropping nukes dipshit.not cheaper or more effectively than other missiles. Its a vaniety project and nothing more, which is why there were supposed to be over 100 b2s but they stopped at 20, they are simply a waste of money
I'm more concerned about our ability to afford to go to War than our capability
>>64277887How are you going to collect that intelligence?How are you going to react to shifting conditions on the battlefield?How are you going to deliver those missiles to those targets?A cruise missile can take out one target only once, a bomber can take out multiple targets each run and then do it over and over again, they can be recalled or retasked.what if an enemy deploys jamming or battlefield obfuscation? What if they don't stand still like retards and actually move?
>>64277895They stopped because the cold war was over and shit was expensive, they are making 100 b-21s.Are you going to use ICBMs to do SEAD/DEAD?
>>64277922>How are you going to collect that intelligence?cia, nsa, etc>How are you going to react to shifting conditions on the battlefield?intelligence gathering>How are you going to deliver those missiles to those targets?c5/c17> a bomber can take out multiple targets each run and then do it over and over againa missiles is a tiny fraction of the initial cost and orders of magnitude less than the lifetime cost>what if an enemy deploys jamming or battlefield obfuscation? you destroy the jamming>What if they don't stand still like retards and actually move?missiles move, even javelins are fire and forget >>64277928>Are you going to use ICBMs to do SEAD/DEAD?no, you would use cruise missiles pre deployed at the bases we spent the last century building rings around our enemies
>>64277949this nigga doesn't understand shit
>>64277982not an argument
>>64277460No, bombers allow you to have preventative, and recallable deployments. ICBMs are used for the actual attacks, but bombers are useful both in attacks and diplomacy.
>>64277370Asian tummy
>>64277553HIS SCENARIO STANDS.
