Only China, USA and Russia have strategic bombers anymore. Every other country no longer has them. Does this show how only these 3 countries are superpowers anymore and how far Europe has fallen off since they don't have them anymore.
>>65023368No
>>65023368They don't have a role anymore. They haven't for decades.
>>65023368They are hideously expensive to develop and aren’t all that useful for most countries. Notably, all in service strategic bomber airframes are the result of Cold War development, with the B-21 being the only strategic bomber program since that has been seen to have developed anything. China and Russia both claim to have programs in progress with H-20 and PAK DA, but the former has been just around the corner for the better part of a decade now while I’m not sure the Russians even bother to pretend the latter will ever amount to anything.
Glorified cargo planes in the 21st century
>>65023368This is basicaly archaeotech from 40k but irl
>>65023368>>65023388wasn't one of the big salt or start talks to limit the number of them in the first place?
>>65023439How in the hell did countries lose the ability to make strategic bombers when they were able to make them by the thousands in the 50s-70s?
>>65023450lose the ability isn't the as losing the motivation to
>>65023455Kekaro>>65023450There are certain advantages to doing things by hand over trusting automation.
The real answer is that fighters had grown enough to meet ALMOST all air to ground purposesThe unassuming F-16 carries an almost identical payload size as a B-17 Flying Fortress; i.e. 4,000 pounds for a typical mission and 17,000 pounds if you stuff it until it can barely take off. Except it's much MORE effective because you now have precision guided munitions.Abandoning strategic bombers was perfectly rational for any wealthy medium sized nation that's not dreaming of global hegemony. Fighters can do it all now in a way that Sabres and Spitfires surely couldn't.
>>65023450Airplanes are much more capable today. Unless you need to drop bombs day after day after day after day, accepting that only basic guidance at best will be directing those bombs, then you don't need a heavy bomber.You can probably give a special exception for stealth heavy bombers like the B-2, since what those really do is carry missiles close to target without much risking the bomber. But that's even more expensive, and most countries would rather just build additional cruise missiles and accept that some of those missiles will be intercepted.
>>65023388B-52s are good at lobbing standoff munitions which is enough to justify keeping them around
>>65023533F-16 bros keep winning
>>65023368The US has stealth nuclear cruise missiles and keeps the B-52 around to shoot them because of political boomerism about muh nuclear triad.China and Russia have strategic bombers because a substantial portion of their nuclear arsenal is dumb bombs and they can't afford to build enough ICBMs for all of those warheads. It's purely to keep up a scary number because none of those warheads will ever reach a country worth nuking since they haven't invented stealth yet.
>>65023551While it is worth keeping them around, it wouldn't be worth developing and building an entire platform around the thing for the US if the B-52 wasn't already available. Also, the US is uniquely suited to still making relevant use of the plane, being as the US can establish air superiority in most of the world so the B-52 can operate.
>>65023551>>65023558The B-52 is such an ancient piece of shit that it's actually more expensive to operate than the B-2. They keep it around because it can carry a 50% heavier payload and go 50% longer between refuelings.
>>65023533wow, this aircraft in 2026 carries as much as a bomber from about a century ago
>>65023573>The B-52 is such an ancient piece of shit that it's actually more expensive to operate than the B-2.I have no idea where you got this statistic, but the B-2 is absolutely more expensive to operate, probably 2-3x so
>>65023598You would think, but new wings and engines are incredibly expensive even when amortized over thousands of flight hours. Of course, the B-2 is also on its way towards being an ancient piece of shit that needs new wings and engines, at which point the Air Force is planning to just throw them in the trash.
>>65023606The B-2 is a complex, small-batch, stealth-maintenance, hangar queen. Is there a single source to back up this claim about B-52 flight hour expenses?
>>65023615He's basically adding up program cost and dividing it by marginal flight hour which is a pretty retarded way of thinking about it. But in the end he has a point. Keeping shit that was built during the Kennedy Administration in the air is hideously expensive.
>>65023662Deep overhauls and modernizations are a cost of ownership just like repairs and basic maintenance. Why would you not count them?
>>65023677My point is you're comparing a one time capital expenditure to marginal maintenence costs. Since the assets have different ages, it's not an apples to apples comparison.
>>65023368Europe already controlled the entire world once and they decided it was too much work. Strategic bombers exist to roll thunder on cities and massed armies, but the days of 10 million man armies in Europe are over. Euros have come to a pretty solid agreement to work together rather than tear themselves apart internally with war. Their only real threat is Russia who has enough air defenses to make strategic bombers a waste of resources. Russia and the US have strategic bombers because we're both imperialist. The H-6 is a joke and doesn't really count for anything, though the Chinese are developing an actual strategic bomber because they want to gain some ability to influence world affairs.
>>65023533now look up the range
The question has already been answered but I'm now wondering if we'll ever see a return of the strategic bomber as a viable aircraft in our new post-modern nightmare world? Maybe as an arsenal plane or something providing additional C&C from near-space altitudes.>>65023450Well for the TU-95 the problem is that it's Russia.And for the B-52 the US Government would probably fuck it up like it fucked up going back to the Moon.>>65023730The H-6K is necessary because China doesn't have anything that covers the niche for a long-range standoff missile platform. It's quite different to the other two comparable aircraft thanks to the pylons and focus on lobbing v.v large missiles at distance with the potential for a zerg-rush to make it work.
>>65023368>Why do only 3 countries have strategic bombers anymore?cutting out the middle man is the new cool thing
>>65023551At least for Britain it was because submarines can do the same penetration job but better. Admittedly it comes at the cost of signalling because you can't sabre rattle with a doom-submarine.>>65023801Range become irrelevant when you have aerial refuelling.
>>65023368They are for long range force projection and an optional leg of the nuclear triad with the highest chance of intercept.If you aren't planning to fight countries on the other side of the world you don't need them.
>>65023455Once motivation goes, ability quickly follows. Europe will probably never have another strategic bomber, even if an acute need arose, it would take decades and tens billions of dollars to build up the Eurobomber program.
>>65023828>Once motivation goes, ability quickly followsDepends on what you keep building, you can stop building hatchback cars but if you are still making sedans you never lose the capability.If you are making airliners you can make a bomber.
>>65023814hmmm... what if we just used part of the aerial tanker to carry bombs instead of dragging a fighter along? we could call it a "bomber plane"
>>65023804The H-6 is a workhorse for China but that really just shows it's a tactical bomber, not a strategic one. You could load a nuke into a P-3 or P-8 and that doesn't make them strategic bombers.
>>65023368>ukraine proved russia is a gay overblown threat>usa is proving themselves to be near third world tier with iranWhen will china show how incompetent and globally overestimated they are? The pooper powers have been looking pathetic lately
>>65023686>one timeThis is not even the first time the B-52 fleet has received new engines. It's silly to claim that replacing a part that lasts 100 hours is maintenance but replacing a part that lasts 10,000 hours is a non-recurring cost on an aircraft with an indefinite service life. They need new engines to keep flying, and eventually these new engines will be worn out as well and they'll need new new engines to keep flying.
>>65023828Put bomb racks in a 777 and cut a bay door and you instantly have the most capable heavy bomber on the planet.
>>65023833Lead times for off the shelf airlines are measured in years as it is, to say nothing of how long the inevitable design changes would take. And that's just to get you having a working plane. Now the military also needs all the facilities and people to maintain, store, and use these things.
>>65023867China is ideologically non-interventionist.
>>65023883Major projects have long lead times, that's just reality and applies to everything. The best you can do is coordinate so when the flying prototype is approved for serial production you start building hangers, training ground crews on mockups and building the production line at the same time.
>>65023875But thats how everyone who deals with these problems conceptualize the issue. Capex and opex are two separate things and it's sloppy accounting to compare them directly.
>>65023450We still make cargo planes. Just the demand for not very precisely delivery of truckloads of bombs isn't as high as it used to. And when needed we much rather use a plane that is not a surface to air missile magnet. They are too easy targets for SAMs.So the B2 was made. But it isn't a converted cargo plane so it costs a ton of money.
>>65023898Tell Vietnam that.
>>65023368You need massive logistics networks to make them operational. Great fighter/anti-missile system development to make them effective. And strategic far reaching geographic goals to make them necessary. Guess which counties have all 3?
>>65023388they were created to deliver nukesthis is their mission since day on now just because they modified them to carry cruise missiles and shit doesnt mean that they dont have a role..
>>65024852Their role is obsolete. Big b2/21 fan but at the end of the day their role in dropping dumb bomb nukes in enemy airspace is completely retarded and has been since the 50s.
>>65024859well gravity nuclear bombs is something that only usa haswhich i believe they are using f16s and f35s now so their bombers are just carrying nuclear capable cruise missiles
>>65023594The F-16 is from the 1970s retard
>>65023450Electronics and automation
>>65023898Tell that to Tibet and Taiwan
>>65023368No my wumao friend China has a light bomber not a heavy/strategic bomber.
>>65023573Cope harder, the B52 will be conducting arc light missions on Titan in 2231
>>65023877this would work if you are desperate for a bomber, but the plane you end up with will be inefficient in a lot of ways (e.g. more drag due to unnecessarily wide body)
>>65023368Big countries need big planes.
>>65023573Maintenance on 8 fucking engines will do that.A lot of non-avionics components on those old buffs are basically bespoke/custom fitted to each airframe, which means that damage to a panel or whatever means you’re basically fabbing up a proto part to fix it. Heard an anecdote from one pilot that their squadron mate’s wso accidentally popped the overhead panel for ejection soon after taking off on a training mission, and they ended up sending a couple of trucks out to find the thing cause it would be a too much of a pain to make a replacement
>>65023368You need air superiority to use them, and only those 3 countries can achieve that (or at least think they can achieve it in Russia’s case).
because only war mongering countries love to bomb other countries more effectively >Hint the 3 biggest nigger country thumper
>>65029262Warhammer 40K could add TU-95 and B52 models (or slightly modified version). Because those will probably be used in the year 40k still.
>>65023898They intervene plenty in Burma
