> It's hard to believe the B-21 would ever be stored at a forward missile base.
Not a "missle base", but: "The B-52...is one of two currently at RAF Fairford in England as part of a routine Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment." [0]
Also, more pertinent to location in scope, US has been increasing forward-based capabilities in south pacific, for example [1].
[0] https://www.twz.com/air/b-52-flies-close-to-border-of-russia...
[1] https://www.twz.com/air/massive-wwii-b-29-bomber-base-fully-...
I should not have said "missile base". I just meant any kind of forward base outside the US.
The B-52, etc.. is just different. It's not as high value of an asset as the B-2 or the B-21 will be and gets treated differently.
The Air Force already periodically deploys B-2's to forward bases within range of Chinese missile strikes.
https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2...
Current plans are to purchase a relatively large number of B-21's. Some losses are expected and accepted.
Believe it. Forward basing would be the only way to generate useful sortie rates in that type of conflict. Transiting even from Hickam just takes too long and requires too much tanker support. We're already short of tankers; they're wearing out and not being replaced quickly enough.
They'd likely take off from the US, fly wherever they need to go for their mission without landing, and then fly all the way back to the US. Same as the B-2.
Similarly it's unlikely a drone strike is an issue due to distance.