Reading this makes me wonder about the efficacy of the Large Penetrating Manned Bomber strategy in this day of drones and orbital weaponry.
Provided the normal cost-plus development nonsense is avoided, stealthy drones could easily flood a battlespace, with manned platforms nearby to act as follow-up. Drones, if used in a multi-role capacity as anti-radiation and ground suppression could open up the way for the heavy stuff.
Orbital weapons are hardly discussed. There are a number of kinetic energy weapons which are quite literally unstoppable and extremely effective even against hardened targets. A $55 billion bomber acquisition would be better spent on LEO booster development and kinetic weaponry designed for orbital use, as well as other orbital weaponry.
It’s time to take the high ground.
“Orbital weapons are hardly discussed. There are a number of kinetic energy weapons which are quite literally unstoppable and extremely effective even against hardened targets.”
Great weapons. Here’s the problem: 1) Cost benefit - they are too expensive when compared to the target they are to destroy. And most problematic — go ahead and tell the enemy (or don’t and then see what happens) that the thing coming at them at Mach Umpteen is a kinetic weapon and not a nuclear one. If it is headed to any country which possesses nuclear weapons,you risk their retaliation on the U.S., because they can’t wait to see if it is “kinetic.”