Talk:2037 bomber controversy

Attempted copy edit

I attempted a copy edit, but left a confusing tag in the "development" section. That section needs to be re-written because someone unfamiliar with the sources would be confused by it. Please leave a message at my talk page if you need me to explain why it is confusing. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 09:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Will there ever be a new supersonic bomber by the 2030s?

There is no reason to believe that a new manned supersonic bomber will ever enter service in the 2030s. It is best to merge this article with New Generation Bomber (unless otherwise noted). 72.194.120.176 (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian

NO. Read up! Here 1, Here 2 The USAF had always wanted a heavy bomber since a decade. Only in recent years the USAF realized it cannot wait any longer and initiated the program for an "interim" bomber. So the Next Generation Bomber became two bombers, the interim is called Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) and the wanted heavy bomber the 2037-bomber. Perhaps cost and versatility of the LRS-B may change plans but that's still a decade+ from now. For the time being this should be kept separated to minimize confusion. As to being supersonic it's likely lowest supersonic possible (Mach 1.2-1.25), and not supercruise (Mach 1.5-1.8). Most modern aircraft airframes could do this if they had the power. It's not impossible just not always practical. Mightyname (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2037 Bomber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140611064716/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34406_20080307.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34406_20080307.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

B-2 replacement

See Talk:Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider#B-2 replacement. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2037 bomber program → 2037 bomber controversy – I wrote much of this travesty of an article. Where does "2037 bomber program" come from? There was never a plan to start developing a bomber (or bomber-like "capability" as the 1999 roadmap author called it) in 1999, much less a funded program of record. The whole point of the 1999 bomber roadmap was that the single author concluded that the Air Force should table development of a new bomber until 2013, at which point it could start defining requirements. This was an asinine idea, and was immediately contradicted in the 2001 QDR and the 2001 revised bomber roadmap. Schierbecker (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing "bomber cap" from See also

The 2037 bomber controversy is a distinctly different issue from the bomber gap; the latter was a perceived bomber shortfall against the Soviet Union, while the former is a controversy over the lack of bomber recapitalization for decades which would have serious implications for the sustainability of the strategic bomber force and the defense industrial base (LGM-35A being so grossly overbudget is a prime example). The only thing they have in common is having bomber aircraft as the topic. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I won't revert. Schierbecker (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)