Is strategic bombing still relevant? With more precise ordnance whats the point of saturating an area with bombing...

Is strategic bombing still relevant? With more precise ordnance whats the point of saturating an area with bombing. This seems especially true with modern opinions about civilian casualties.

Attached: B-52D.jpg (706x471, 73K)

sandniggers hiding in the mountains. just carpet bomb the ridgeline and call it a day.

It's still relevant against an enemy that has actual infrastructure to bomb. That explains why we don't use it anymore.

Is anything relevant anymore? The USA is morally defeated. Any large scale war would likely resort in mass desertion due to low morale.

Precision missiles and bombs are expensive. Look at Ukraine, there are shit tons of trench lines on the front, bombing run them would be pretty cheap and effective.

Modern opinions about civie casualties are closely knit to asymmetric warfare.

First: Strategic bombing is just a generic name. It can also include highly accurate bombing with guided munitions.

Second: Area bombing (what OP means) has still its place in an all out war. Since the indiscriminate destruction it delivers has lots of effects on enemy morale - WW2 proves that it can stiffen resistance on a short term. But the long term effects of saturation bombing are totally different.

large scale bombing attacks haven‘t been viable since Vietnam, Modern AA Systems are too effective to fly a bomber fleet over the enemy.

If it was not relevant the USAF would not be testing the B52 replacement.

US military spending isn‘t dictated by what‘s relevant, but by what the MIC can make a lot of money off

Atmospheric Bomb Launcher

Dropping a fuckload of bombs isn't necessary anymore.

Before guided munitions, there was something like 400 bombs dropped per target destroyed or something crazy like that. We simply don't need as much ordinance to accomplish a mission.

>Is strategic bombing still relevant?
Yes, it is. What you refer to as "strategic bombing" is simply executed with different munitions nowadays.

Attached: tu-95ms with kh-101 (2).jpg (1000x667, 166K)

>Strategic bombing = carpet bombing
Imbecile.

Did you miss the 'Shock and Awe' part of the Iraq War in 2003?

Funny way to spell 'blitzkrieg'

>confusing strategic bombing with carpet bombing

Attached: stupid.jpg (687x369, 81K)

>would likely resort in mass desertion
Do you mean like your daddy did when you were born?

The main point of bombers is to scare population into abandoning production centers, break morale and make war unpopular due to personal loss. People are less likely to support a war that makes bombs fall where they live. So yeah, still relevant.

>Strategic bombing = carpet bombing
No, see above

ThisIt's more relevant than ever due to the change in munition and therefore doctrine. Taking out the enemies strategic capabilities like the US did in is one of the absolute corner stones of modern (air)warfare.

Strategic bombing is not carpet bombing. Which one are you actually referring to sunshine? I'm guessing carpet bombing but I suggest you choose the other option for maximum trolling effort.

Look, man. Everybody else was talking about carpet bombing. I know the difference but I was using context.

You jarheads select yourself out of the genepool with every passing conflict.

Don't worry, we make up for it by fucking your girlfriends ;-)

This guy has no clue what he is talking about.

It is but you have to give up the idea of human rights which are by themselves retarded.

Okay OP I'm going to explain a few things.

Modern strategic bombers mostly function as a symbol of nuclear power projection, and this was the role they gradually picked up that overshadowed the whole concept of strategic bombing to begin with during and after the cold war. Now scrambling your B2s during a period of high tension functionally states "hey I can nuke you nigger stop it", plus they act as a second line for nuking shit.

Second, strategic bombing of vital infrastructure of opposing nations is indeed relevant in modern warfare. For example, if China went to war with the US and a wing of B2s casually flew to Shenyang and leveled their capital of aviation industry within a few hours, it would significantly hamper their war effort and make them reconsider if they really want to participate in a war. They're still entirely functional in their traditional carpet bombing roles and the type of damage they can do still does the same job and has the same demoralizing effects.

Third, is that they're capable of functioning like regular fuckhuge tactical bombers which have all but disappeared from modern air forces. Bombs in themselves are extremely cheap to produce and from this giant bomb dropping tube you can absolutely level enemy forces asymmetrical or not. If you want an example, looks at B1s that operated over Syria dropping torrents of bombs that would take all day for F18s to drop. It's an efficient and cheap form of airstrike.

For these three reasons the strategic bomber, or just a fuckhuge bomber in any regard is relevant and sexy.

Attached: see you space cowboy.jpg (1440x810, 104K)

/thread

You've just answered your own question.