What's the point of large, heavy bombers anymore?

deterrence

File: 1490223723481.jpg (346KB, 1562x970px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1562x970px

>>33731798
puking out munitions far from home over a large area.
bonus points for instilling the fear of god in uncivilized enemies.

File: tsar.jpg (39KB, 564x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 564x430px

>>33731798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYYEsKvHvk

...hasn't the B1 fleet gotten so much use in the past 4 years that they're all in for airframe inspection?

>>33731798
Cruise Missiles

>>33731798

While multirole fighters get most of the credit for airstrikes nowadays, JDAM actually made heavy bombers relevant for interdiction work. Even in the Gulf War, B-52s accounted for a pretty large chunk of ALL ordnance dropped throughout the campaign, especially on Killbox targets (they carpet bombed static Iraqi defensive positions).

From 2001 onward, they got retrofitted for JDAM capability and became portable bomb trucks. Despite representing a tiny fraction of sorties heavy bombers dropped a disproportionate number of bombs (can't remember the precise numbers off the top of my head but it's something like 10-15% of sorties versus nearly 80% of all bombs). The bombers had loiter time, and could stay aloft in uncontested airspace and just wait for tasking from ground troops to bomb an enemy position. That's sort of the case with the anti-ISIS campaign; B-1s stay on station and wait for drones or SF operators to find something for them to drop a JDAM on, then return to station.

The unstealthed heavy bomber's ability to perform strategic bombing is probably non-existent in the modern era (especially the B-52). Modern air defense systems and aircraft make it difficult to enter contested airspace and 3rd/4th-Gen fighters have demonstrated superior capability at attacking pinpoint targets. The US B-52 fleet took severe losses in North Vietnam over the course of just a few weeks of strategic bombing, and the B-1 program was originally cancelled because it was believed it would ultimately be less survivable than the B-2 (newer Soviet interceptors had look-down/shoot-down radar; Reagan reintroduced the B-1B because B-2's existence was classified and he needed political brownie points to prove he was serious on defense). However, they're still relevant in tactical roles.

File: B-52-Stratofortress2-620x465.jpg (37KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 620x465px

>>33731798
>What's the point of large, heavy bombers anymore?
dropping large heavy bombs

sure you can do it with a C130, but why?

>>33731798
Looking cool and dropping bombs in the sand.

today?

they can carry a lot of ordnance and stay over a combat zone a long time.

so the army can summon explosions out of thin air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYgvnvP6p04

>>33731798
They are cheaper than a several dozen jets or missiles.

>>33731798
Because sometimes you need to deliver a whole lot of Democracy and it needs to get there in not a whole lot of sorties.