We can’t afford them. Those Pentagon people that push them are future MIC board members. IF China doesn’t kick our ass first.
They’ll get 20 or so and be happy with it. And the contractors will be soaking in money and looking for the next windfall of endless development and pre-production funding for the next pointless boondoggle.
Part of me thinks that we wouldn’t even retaliate if another country nuked a city like New York. We would just sit tight — because we wouldn’t want to make the other country mad.
We have advanced weapons, but I’m not sure we plan to use them. We just talk like we would.
The number made might be dependent on where they are made, who are the Members of Congress and Senators where they will manufactured and how powerful they are and the number made could be far more than anyone realizes
“How Many B-21 Raider Bombers Does The Air Force Need?”
I would say 700, minimum, providing that we want to continue igniting wars with global superpowers*.
If we’d rather live in peace, then maybe 132 of them.
*if that is now our long-term policy, I’d like to have a military capable of winning those wars
As many as China will need from us, once they take over the USA
The IRS is going to need all of the B-21s it can get.
With all the drones and stuff we have now not to mention missiles why would we even need this?
With all the advancements in air defense systems, mainly in Russia and China, these bombers and aircraft carriers will be obsolete before too long. Hope we don’t have to learn that the hard way.
Don’t forget, 20% for Abdulla in Afghanistan
We have allowed our phantom peace dividend to gut our military to the point where 70 year old bombers are still considered as part of our defense systems to compete against 21st century technology.
We will need enough to pose a credible deterrent threat to any country that wishes us harm. We need enough to be able to conduct operations against two separate enemies simultaneously, and have a reserve for any contingency.
That was the argument LeMay posed for making SAC a viable command. Transposed into todays world, we are facing those same threats again, Russia, China and any third world dictator that wants to confront the evil satan.
A deep penetrating bomber fleet will have to pose enough of a survivable force as to neutralize any threat to our country, either by fear or force.
Numbers like 20 or 30 are just ludicrously small to do that job in our current environment. A fleet of 100 is a bare minimum, considering that all aircraft are not on alert all the time. Of that 100, about 70 will be combat effective at any given time, the others down for maintenance, or dedicated to training. Numbers like 200 approach a more realistic count to completely replace and modernize the only element of our nuclear TRIAD that still is flexible enough to be recalled or strike if need be.
Rest assured that opponents to this or any military program as "boondoggles" or overkill are more that willing to give $700 Billion to imaginary programs to "reduce inflation" or $200 billion to deadbeat college students, while not spending a red cent on defense of our country or assuring the men an women who fly into war have a decent chance of success or survival.
They’ll need as many B-21 Raider Bombers as it takes, to ensure that the politicians on both sides of the aisle, and their biggest donors will earn big bucks from their investments.
To pay for them we just need to
We could build 1000 bombers and also be able to drastically cut income taxes with the multi-trillions saved...
None, if they are waging a social justice war instead of protecting the US.
The only people qualified to answer the question are those familiar with our “black” inventory. If current black tech is deployed which obsoletes the function of these bombers, the right answer might be “build just enough to keep up appearances”.
Like twenty or so. Like the B2.
None, because we won’t stop the invasion currently underway.
As many as Joe can give Ukraine.
I’m just glad that they didn’t name it the “Obomber.”