America Needs 200 B-21 Raider Stealth Bombers (Or More)

National Security Journal ^ | 8/27/2025 | Harry Kazianis

[whyilovetexas111]

The current U.S. bomber force is a “hollowed-out sword,” dangerously antiquated and too small for modern great-power competition. With only 19 stealthy B-2s capable of penetrating advanced defenses, the fleet is ill-equipped for a potential conflict with China. The new B-21 Raider is the solution, but the planned fleet of 100 is a “dangerously inadequate half-measure.” To credibly deter and, if necessary, win a two-front war against both China and Russia, the United States must procure a fleet of at least 200 B-21s.

---

TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: b21; blogpimp; bombers; ccp; china; dronefodder; harrykajones; harrykazianis; nationalsecurityblog; putinthewarpig; russia; russiankeywordtroll; russiansuicide; spam; usairforce; vladtheimploder; warpimp; wecaintaffordit; wecantaffordit; whyiloveblogpimps111; whyilovedick

[whyilovetexas111]

But, again, can we afford it? Maybe hit China with more tariffs?

[Sirius Lee]

Maybe our 600,000 new chicom engineering students can help build them!

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Don't know if you read your threads, but....

$ 37,284,510,479,122 and still rising rapidly

[whyilovetexas111]

The money is scary, I agree. I guess we can just borrow forever?

[desertsolitaire]

We still have some B1-B Lancers if that helps at all still today? Plus the B-52 fleet.

[philman_36]

...a two-front war against both China and Russia...

Is this writer that stupid? A war with one is a war on both as they're, by any objective measure, allies.

[pierrem15]

At some point we started approaching war as a matter of knightly combat with a very expensive but well-equipped knight going after motley peasants.

We forgot that quantity has its own quality.

Look at the Sherman in WWII. Fast and reliable but under-gunned and under-armored vs. the German competition. But we produced tens of thousands of them. I think one crew in Normandy had 3 tanks shot out from under them in one day, went back, and got another.

In this case, we have hundreds of 747s and other airliners sitting in boneyards that could be converted into un-manned missile carriers. But we won't consider that. Sometimes "pushing the envelope" isn't super-duper high tech but looking around and seizing the obvious.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "The money is scary, I agree. I guess we can just borrow forever?"

Previously you'd asked: "...can we afford it?"

My answer: no. Your answer is another question: "I guess we can just borrow forever?"

[pierrem15]

Everyone else is doing the same thing, so the comparative value of the dollar isn't falling as much as you would think it would.

It's a curious phenomenon when governments all over the world issue fiat currencies but coordinate monetary policy so people have no other choice but to continue using it because switching to anything else is virtually impossible.

[Vermont Lt]

America Bad!
America Bad!
Russia Better!
China Best!

That is the basic story of every single article you post.

It’s amazing you write more of this tripe every day.

[Theophilus]

Just had a perfect Starship launch last night. Stealth bombers are buggy whips.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "Everyone else is doing the same thing...."

Heard that argument in high school.

--- "...because switching to anything else is virtually impossible."

And in a nutshell you've outlined the "global" -- your word -- coordination.

A long history of money and monetary policy shows that profligacy brings collapse over time. So, "everyone else is doing the same thing" merely puts us all in line to experience what the Valois kings or the Weimar Republik or Zimbabwe came through so well.

[Bayard]

Starship is not a warship. Space is not militerized and wont be mission effective for a long time.

There simply isn’t the function space infrastructure there.

[Captain Walker]

But we produced tens of thousands of them. I think one crew in Normandy had 3 tanks shot out from under them in one day, went back, and got another.

The late David Hackworth described a conversation he had with a German company commander held POW after WWII; Hackworth was an enlisted man at the time, and was curious about how the man had been captured.

As the German put it, "We literally ran out of ammunition before you guys ran out of tanks."

[larrytown]

The “National Security Journal” and others of that ilk must be recognized as quintessentially ANTI-American in nature.

This sort of preparation for immediate and dominating military victory over any OR ALL TOGETHER perceived opposition is not the historical vision of this nation. It is quite the opposite.

If we continue down this path, we will no longer be able to even tenuously claim to be a representative Republic, shining as an example to oppressed nations.

To narrowly focus on the “proclaimed need to protect our interests” as justification for absolute military power - we only strengthen what we’ve slowly turned into, an EMPIRE.

This mindset (and the MIC corruption that power it) has to be rejected, or we’re no better than the empires of the past, and will come to no better end.

[exPBRrat]

Let’s not forget about a capable drone force and anti-drone technology.

[pierrem15]

Not really. We will experience some inflation like what we are now experiencing as the debt is monetized, but since everyone else is experiencing the same, there's no incentive to suddenly ditch the dollar for the Euro or Yuan. And even if there were, there aren't enough of other currencies in reserve to replace the dollar: those currencies would skyrocket in value cutting off exports, like what's happened to the Swiss franc.

Zimbabwe and Weimar had hyperinflation precisely because locals could swap out the local currency for gold or foreign currencies or in Weimar's case, had to transfer all their gold to pay reparations.

What I think will happen is that the debt will be monetized slowly, the US economy will grow more quickly due to deregulation and protection, tariffs will bring additional revenue and we'll muddle through, which is the historical US pattern.

I would prefer a return to the Bretton Woods gold exchange mechanism and a revaluation of the dollar because that would be far more stable and Congress - not the un-elected Fed - would control the value of the currency by setting the exchange rate.

[Gen.Blather]

“We still have some B1-B Lancers if that helps at all still today?”

The cost of maintaining a particular aircraft type means you have to make some hard choices. If you have limited money, do you want some new, better and more survivable stuff? Or do you want to maintain a fleet of proven old stuff? The Airforce has tried on several occasions to get rid of the A-10, F-16 and B1 and probably a few more. Their argument is they need to invest in new technology. But the same people who want to keep battleships in the inventory won’t let them do it. Because, hey, those platforms are awesome. Well, yes. They were. They may still be. But nobody wants to fly the equivalent of a barn into a high threat zone.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- "What I think will happen is that the debt will be monetized slowly, the US economy will grow more quickly due to deregulation and protection, tariffs will bring additional revenue and we'll muddle through, which is the historical US pattern."

[pierrem15]

I would add that Germans usually lost more armor in every battle to mechanical breakdown than enemy action, and poor engineering made it very difficult to repair: German industry simply lacked the experience in producing reliable, mass produced vehicles the US had.