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.
Ah! A voice of reason!
You are correct, considering that the B-21 is meant to replace the B-1, B-2 and possibly the B-52.
Thank you.
I get sick of all these posters who are spring loaded to criticize any new weaponry yet have never been in a bomber or fighter or were trained in modern war fighting.
Unless you are in a position where your butt is on the line just keep quiet.