Why do we need the B2 Spirit?

They cost nearly $1 billion tax dollars per aircraft, why do we even need these - for that matter why do we even need manned bombers at all anymore. What with modern day cruise missiles, or unmanned drones, I'm thinking that conventional manned bombers would be becoming obsolete - I'm leaning toward thinking the entire B2 project should be cut.

 

They cost that much because unlike every other US combat aircraft the US didn't built 1000 of them. They only have what, a couple of dozen of them?

Would you be as upset if the US had 500 of them and they only cost $100m each?

 

There were only 20 B-2's built. The production line has already been dismantled years ago.

But cheer up, the new B-3 is already in the pipeline.

As for UAV's (layman term for drones) like the Predator and Reaper, they are only good for taking out one small target using a Hellfire missile that has a 20 lb explosive warhead where we control the air space and there's no enemy air defense to deal with. It would take 960 UAV's (drones) to be able to deliver the same tonnage of explosives on an area target as one B-2 bomber.

 

They are not produced any longer. So not so much to worry about now. Besides, they are pretty useless in their modern condition. 2 billion $ aircraft capable of using only dumb bombs.

 

The B-2 is an essential part of the nuclear deterrence triad, which includes ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear capable heavy bombers with associated aerial refuelers.

The Ohio class submarines which are capable of launching ICBMs, are slated to operate through the 2020s, the B-52 through 2040 and the B-2 through 2050.

The United States needs to retain a credible nuclear deterrent and the B-2 is a vital component of this strategic plan.

 

I don't think people realize what a billion dollars can actually buy :/

 

I believe Lloyd Benson put it this way during Senate hearings on the B-2.
For the cost of one airplane, we could build the University of Texas, would the nation be better off 20 years from now with a couple of dozen of these aircraft, or with a couple of dozen more Universities the size of the University of Texas........

As far as pure waste goes, the B-1 tops nearly every other project.
Eisenhower killed the B-1(it was the B-70 back then), so did Kennedy, and Johnson, Nixon brought it back(North American Rockwell was a reliable source of GOP funding, hence the Space Shuttle), Ford killed it, Carter killed it for good (with stealth technology already demonstrated the B-1 design was completely obsolete), and Reagan built it (got to get those bucks to North American)

 

You could also give individuals back their stolen property - billions of dollars worth, and significantly reduce the tax burden.

 

Well, you can't give it back, but you can avoid doing it again in the future.

 

Absolutely. If the state that rules over my area didn't steal 24 billion dollars per year of our property, sending 40 Australians to their deaths, so that the United States and its allies could have more strategic influence in the Middle East, every single person in Australia would be $1000 better off each year.

I'd imagine the number would be even higher in your country

 

All Power to the People, is the theory, but in practice we have government by beauty pageant. Our country is run by the winners of 536 pageants, all of which are staged by sponsors whose primary goal is to sell their product. But it works, not perfectly, but better than nothing.

 

The revelation for me came when I asked if that's the point. My position is not based on what I think the best set of circumstances would be, it's based on who should get to make that call.

I use the same argument for ending military spending as I do for ending entitlement spending, as I do for ending marijuana prohibition, as I do for eliminating taxation, as I do for eliminating the state altogether.

 

The fact is you live your life within a system, and you have very little say about that system.
I'm thankful there is some collective influence here, it keeps things bearable.
But we have to deal with moneyed interests skewing the system, and there are a lot of people who can be easily swayed to vote for whoever the money puts up to run.
So it's an imperfect system at best.

 

They cost $1 Billion to buy, but now that we've spent that money and bought them, why would we get rid of them?

 

That's false. They can carry cruise missiles, smart bombs, and unguided bombs. It's also one of the few planes in the US arsenal that can carry the Massive Ordinance Penetrator.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally, I think we'd be safe and have plenty of credible nuclear deterrent if we went with the 300 warhead plan.

 

Hm, yes, that was a false claim. It seems they have made quite an improvement since 2010. But still 2 bn$ per plane is a waste.

 

Having a stealth bomber that even our best radars can't track is not a waste.

 

That only makes your best radars look poor.
But I doubt they really can't track it. Looks more like typical "invisible and invincible" advertisment.
There are many way to track stealth aircraft. Starting with infra-red tracking systems and ending with long waves and passive detection systems.

 

The B2 has technology that significantly reduces its infrared emissions. During combat missions it limits all contact to reduce its vulnerability to passive sensors.

 

So? "Reduced emissions" are far from "no emissions". And long-wave BVR radars are still out there. Can we avoid judjing hardware with arguments based on advertising leaflets?

 

It is true that is probably isn't impossible to track the B-2. Still, it is surprisingly difficult. The IR emissions are too weak for a heat-seeking missile to track. A radar-guided missile would be unable to track it because of the reduced radar signature. So now you have a vehicle that the most sophisticated systems may be able to track, but that none of the current systems are able to actually shoot down or keep from operating. Great. So what?

 

It is a fact actually. It is not impossible to track. Tho, some countries might lack means to do it.

And the proof is....Northrop's advertising leaflet?
Cuzz here we have an IR vid from farnbourough 2012 with another stealth plane - F-22.
[video=youtube;58N6Plr17GU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU[/video]
Heat-seeking missiles are soooo useless. Won't be able to lock on, sure.

So it is useless waste of money, that is what. If you have 2bn$ aircraft capable of bombing only rogue nations it means you were owned by your military-indusrtial complex.
And if you going to use it as cruise missiles platform 70 y.o. B-52 would do the job just fine.

You can buy an aircraft carrier for the cost of 2 of them.

 

[/QUOTE]

Although the F-22 does include some stealth technology, its radar signature and heat signature are much larger than that of the B-2 - even though the B-2 is physically several times larger. The stealth tech in the F-22 is focused on radar signature and electronic emanations. They chose not to bother to reduce its heat signature. It is impossible to reduce the heat signature of any aircraft with exposed engine outlets, afterburners or any aircraft designed to fly supersonic. All three of these are things that produce heat that is impossible to adequately reduce.

Showing an IR picture of an F-22 and claiming that means the same technology can track a B-2 is like showing someone a picture of a tree and claiming that is proof you've seen Bigfoot. Show me an IR picture of a B-2 and you may have a point. B-2s fly over airshows more than F-22s. It should be easier to find than the video you just posted.

 

Excuse me, but I just have to ask for proof this time.
I mean F-22 developers are so much about how great and invisible their creature is and here we have an actual IR vid. It is purely visible in IR at the given distance.
So what makes you think, that B-2 is somehow better than f-22? It came into service 7 years before F-22, it is physically far bigger, than F-22. I am not buying, that it is less visible.
I am not buying, that they didn't bother with IR reduction either. Flat nozzles proves they were.

I can't give you an IR picture of B-2 because there are none. Can you give me Tu-160 in IR picture? There are none also....does it mean it is an invisible aircraft?

 

The F-22 picture was taken at an airshow. I have a couple dozen pictures that I took of B-2s from several different airshows that I went to. If it was something that could reasonably be viewed in infrared, there would be an amateur video of it - especially since breaking its stealth capabilities would be such a big deal for whoever was able to do so.