Skip to comments.
How Many F-47 Fighters and B-21 Raider Bombers Does the U.S. Need?
National Security Journal ^
| 8/20/2025
| Andrew Latham
Posted on 08/21/2025 5:12:48 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The U.S. risks losing its air superiority by 2030 if it fails to build its next-generation aircraft in sufficient numbers.For a “strategic restraint” approach, where the new F-47 fighter and B-21 bomber are not for global policing but for credibly deterring great-power war in the Atlantic and Pacific. To achieve this, the U.S. needs a minimum of 200-300 F-47s and at least 145 B-21s. These numbers are essential to absorb combat losses, reassure allies, and deter adversaries like China and Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: b21; china; f47; usairforce; whyiloveblogpimps111
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
To: whyilovetexas111
We need a minimum of 2000 of each...
41
posted on
08/21/2025 10:30:06 AM PDT
by
SuperLuminal
(Where is rabble-rising Sam Adams now that we need him? Is his name Trump, now?)
To: DIRTYSECRET
42
posted on
08/21/2025 12:08:37 PM PDT
by
Rappini
("In hoc Signo Vinces" In this sign, you shall conquer.)
To: delta7
China is not Russia, they are the manufacturing king on the planet.
Unfortunately, we have no military advantage against an allied Russia and China.
China is the cheap crap manufacturing king, but that's about it. And huge chunks of SE Asia are muscling in on that action. China has the advantage of already being set up, but other countries are taking the cheapest labor positions.
We have plenty of military advantage, even if they actually fought together. Russia can barely get 100 miles out of her borders, against a country with no navy and a tiny, obsolete air force. And they're still taking heavier losses. Russia would be fighting a 100% defensive war against these US.
China's not much better off. We'll ignore India getting fiesty while China fights these US, but they'll be almost entirely defensive as well. At best they'll have saboteurs and a couple sneaky connex strikes, but that's it. They may have more floating carriers than Russia, but no bluewater, nighttime, or combat tempo operations experience. Two of them are ski-jumpers (Soviet and Soviet-copy ships), and the third is at least catapult, but still non-nuclear. Still in sea trials. None of them are much of any threat to us.
Neither country has any logistical capability to support offshore operations, much less in contested waters, much less 1000s of miles across the Pacific. Russia has minimal submarine threat, and that's it. But every CPT Ivan knows the second he floods his tubes, he's as good as sunk. China is questionable on successfully taking Taiwan, much less Guam, much less Midway, HI, CA...
How is us fighting far away a fool's errand? We haven't militarily lost a war - our only defeats have been political/popular losses, not military. Vietnam, Afghanistan, we just left. And it's much better to fight in the other guy's yard, not yours! Defensive fights are not how you win wars nor destroy the enemy's desire to end the fight.
To: Scrambler Bob
Wasn’t it Stalin that said, “Quantity has a quality all its own”?
It sure does, but it's not the be-all end-all factor.
Look up Rorke's Drift or Agincourt or 73 Easting..
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson