America Must Get Serious About The Need For Hundreds Of More Bombers, And Budget For Them!

[rangerrebew]

America Must Get Serious About The Need For Hundreds Of More Bombers, And Budget For Them!
By Norman Haller
July 30, 2025
 
Public Domain
As demonstrated recently, the United States must maintain a strong global-strike capability. Can a future force of~200 bombers handle that? Experts say NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, but budgets, not strategy, are driving the issue!

Current Air Force budget-driven plans are to retire B-1s and B-2s (the only bomber that can carry the massive bombs [MOPs] dropped on Iran) as B-21s are produced, produce 100 new B-21s – which may increase to 145 – and keep dozens of ancient (but upgraded) B-52s. The result would be an inventory approximating 200 bombers. Of those, readiness rates would mean perhaps 150 or so available quickly to handle future long-distance missions, which the Air Force's many more fighter aircraft cannot perform.

WHY MORE BOMBERS? Long-legged bombers are vital for fights in vast areas of the Pacific, across Europe and the Mideast, and anywhere else in the world. Being one leg of our nuclear Triad, bombers are also needed continually at home for nuclear deterrence. The Mitchell Institute [Ref 1] shows a future bomber shortfall of ~200 bombers when America is challenged with two simultaneous war-fronts plus continued nuclear deterrence. Advocacy for more bombers includes increasing the B-21 build and nearly 400 total bombers [Ref 2]. Even more bombers (e.g., 500 total) could very well be needed in possible future multi-front strategic conflicts, primarily for both conventional and nuclear deterrence! Rationale for this force and its composition is described in the paragraph below.

https://armedforces.press/america-must-get-serious-about-the-need-for-hundreds-of-more-bombers-and-budget-for-them/

[rangerrebew]

How much more money would the military have if the government didn't have to deal with the costs of illegal immigration from democrat open borders?  Housing (gas, water, electric), feeding, medical care, education, transportation costs, phone service, internet, unnecessary crime, finding them, taking them to court to remove them, cost of removal, etc., etc.

[rustynail]

'Hundreds Of More Bombers'?,  Billions of Drones would be better.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

'Hundreds Of More Bombers'?,  Billions of Drones would be better.

or balloons with a compliant offending country.

[Smokin Joe]

'Hundreds Of More Bombers'?,  Billions of Drones would be better.

Yep. But I can see bombers as drone motherships, transport, launch, command and control...

Imagine 40,000 lbs of attack drones delivered by a stealth platform, scattering to wreak havoc on an enemy, with one or two acting as control nodes.

[The_Reader_David]

The argument for comparable strike capacity is reasonably compelling, but in the era of drones and hypersonic missiles, the notion that it must be attained by building lots of manned bombers sounds like one cooked up by incumbents in the defense industry who have production lines for bombers already set up and are trying to preempt competition from new companies offering drones and hypersonic missiles.

[Smokin Joe]

The argument for comparable strike capacity is reasonably compelling, but in the era of drones and hypersonic missiles, the notion that it must be attained by building lots of manned bombers sounds like one cooked up by incumbents in the defense industry who have production lines for bombers already set up and are trying to preempt competition from new companies offering drones and hypersonic missiles.

It does, but it makes sense to use those stealth platforms to deliver swarms of drones or hypersonic missiles which would not be so stealthy (and extend the range thereof). It would also pay to have fast stealth platforms because that delivery would give a known position of the platform, and being able to vacate the launch area quickly (and unpredictably) would extend the service life of the platform.