>>63805835
>Do bombers even make sense in today's world? Fighter-Bombers firing long range cruise missiles seems to make more sense.
Yes, bombers still have a role.
>fighter-bomber wing takes off
>gotta be close to frontlines or refuel on the way, no drop tanks for you on this trip
>launch 1-2 missiles per plane, can't carry the heaviest stuff without overstressing the airframe
>goes home
>refuel and do turnaround maintenance
>1-2 of the birds in the wing go down
>Time for another mission, the pilots have only been in the air for several hours, it'll totally be fine
>mmmm, cockpit meth, maybe even time to shit while you're at base
Versus
>Bomber take off from other side of country
>carry whatever the fuck you want
>loiter on station for an hour, IDGAF
>launch a dozen missiles from 500 miles out
>Fuck off back home, still have a quarter tank of gas when you land
>Need another fire mission? Cool. The second bomber in the wing took off a couple hours ago, they can deal with it
>grab a sammitch, naptime
Also a wing of bombers that really needs to get extrovert can deliver those missiles *vastly* more cheaply, and the attack will be much easier to organize than trying to coordinate anywhere NEAR their throw weight in multirole aircraft strike packages. Launching/stacking up multiple squadrons for each strike package is a huge pain in the cock, they place a much heavier load on AWACS, and it's not like using the fighters will save any money or effort on SEAD either.
