Bombers · 3:53am Jan 13th, 2014
We've already explored fighter aircraft. This is the other end of the scale.
B-52: Go big or go home.
Fun fact: the B-52 is the largest airplane to be credited with an air-to-air kill. Over Vietnam, two MiG's were shot down by the plane's quad-.50 machine guns mounted in the tail. Later B-52's had a 20mm minigun. Today, all the tail guns have been removed.
The 2010 New START agreement between the USA and the Russian Federation defined a "heavy bomber" by two characteristics:
Range greater than 8,000 kilometres (5,000 mi)
Equipped to launch long-range nuclear cruise missiles
By this definition, only the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-95 Bear, and the US B-1, B-2, and B-52 qualify. The Chinese H-6 Badger comes close.
The biggest bombers (the planes that start with B-) have always traditionally been for strategic targets. The strategic bomber first came to prominence during World War II. Back then, there was a lot of thought put into strategy. There was the theory that “the bomber will always get through.” This was back before fighters were supersonic and before missiles existed. Most of the bombing runs during that time focused on attacking civilian targets like cities, refineries, powerplants, and other utilities. Not so many bombers would have been needed for attacking isolated military bases.
During the cold war, strategic bombers became nuke-carriers. The cold war conflicts like Korea and Vietnam relied primarily on smaller strikes with smaller planes, like close air support to help ground troops. It's a little difficult to call in a huge bomber to attack the bad guys in the next trench. Having said that, heavy bombers did see some use, mostly for carpet bombing large targets like cities.
The role of the modern heavy bomber has continued to fade, especially with the rise of cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles. We currently have few enemies with strategic targets, and the act of penetrating complex air defense is best left to smaller or stealthier planes. Guided munitions like JDAM have breathed new life into the big planes, however. If you need twenty targets hit, send one bomber rather than a squadron of smaller jets.
B-1: 125,000 pound payload (two semi truck loads)
Despite that, there is more to bombing than huge planes. Attack aircraft are technically light bombers.
“Light” bombers
Even multirole fighters can carry bombs. The line to define true bombers these days is getting more blurred. For example, the old A-6 actually had a larger payload than a B-17.
A-6 at the Oceana Naval Air Station museum. That’s 30 bombs on one carrier-capable plane.
But as weapons accuracy has increased, we need fewer weapons and the need for huge payloads is disappearing. We don’t need to carpet bomb anymore.
Having said that, air power is still capable of incredible feats, even more so than ever before. During Desert Storm, 10,000 flights were flown within the first ten days. The F-15 fighters deployed to fight cleaned up the skies with thirty or so kills, but the A-10’s in theater destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. B-52’s dropped 72,000 weapons and stealth aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 flew to places like the center of Baghdad to hit important targets. In fact, air power was so powerful in Desert Storm, that after softening up the enemy defenses, the tanks and ground troops were able to waltz in and sack the place – the ground war lasted only 100 hours.
The 1995 NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was almost entirely airstrikes instead of ground troops involved in the fighting. In three weeks, 338 targets were hit. The end result stopped fighting and genocide.
Fun fact: Flying with NATO, the German Luftwaffe saw action for the first time since 1945.
Getting all this done requires a logistics chain just like a ground campaign. It is perhaps even more difficult to fight an air battle. A good example is Operation Black Buck in the Falklands war. To get just 2 Vulcan bombers from Ascension Island to bomb Argentina, 11 Victor tankers were needed. They operated in a complicated chain, sometimes refueling planes refueling other refueling planes. Here’s a diagram:
They were able to get bombs where the enemy never expected them. The shock value was worth more than the damage done.
If you’re going to use a bomber to make a statement, the Avro Vulcan is a pretty good one.
The final say in disputes is always who can attack targets on the ground, where people live. In the old days, that meant man-to-man fighting. Today, we can drop ordnance on other men. By no means does air power make the Army obsolete. It just gives us options.
"Attack targets on the ground, where people live." Hmm, it opens up a new field of study on pegasus war theory...
In closing:
Everyone thinks air-to-air combat is cool, but you don’t win wars in one-on-one duels. Fighter planes make movies. Bombers make history.
I'm going to post this here because I think it's badass. This document hangs on the wall of the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. I found it online at the A-4 Skyhawk Association. I don’t know who the original author is.
The Mission – Attack!
The mission of the aircraft carrier is to put ordnance on target. Everything else such as Indian Country, unreps, the grid, SSC, and anything else starting with F- is simply support for the attack mission.
You win the war by killing the enemy by the thousands, not one at a time at twenty thousand feet.
In peacetime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to rejoin off the range.
In wartime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to turn and shoot some asshole in the face who's trying to stop the attack pilot before he destroys his high value target.There is no such thing as defensive DCM. I become offended when someone jumps me enroute to my target, and much offense is intended when I have to take the time to blow his ass off.
Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor winners in southeast Asia, the score tells it all: Attack = 5, Fighter = 0.
In wartime, our POW's were not released because the enemy sent representatives to sit smugly at peace talks. They were not released because domestic antiwar groups unwittingly played into the hands of the enemy, and tied the hands of their countrymen at arms. They were not released because the enemy lost five aircraft to a select few called aces. They were released because brave men took their bombers downtown and spoke personally to their captors in the only language the enemy understands:
Iron bombs raining down on their heads!These lessons have been forged in blood and steel by all those attack pilots and bombadiers who have gone before you; back when happiness was flying Spads; back when jets were hard-lighting and mean, and only quiche-eatin' airline pukes flew fans; back when Spads roamed valleys and spit death to those who would try to stop them; in an earlier time when the biggest cadillac in town was called "BUFF" and when men took pride in decorating their leather flight jackets with; "I've Been There" patches, and the enemy hid every 1 + 45 because he knew the next cycle of the attack carrier was headed his way. Times change, technology changes, but the men in the cockpit must be the same brave warriors every age has counted upon in time of peril.
Finally, and this is the bottom line! Real men fly attack because they understand the most fundamental law of wartime negotiations; you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.
You're welcome, V-pony
bombs :3
Air cadet... youd think id know this...
And yet despite the lessening need to carpet bomb we still fly the B-52, nothing else can do what it does. We have flown them for over 50 years, and by all account we will fly them for 50 more.
Ah... the The Buffalo... or BUFF (Big, Ugly Fat Fuck)
Meh. I still like the B-17.
plz dont hate me
1713587 I prefer A-10
Actually, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is rapidly becoming obsolete.
The 30mm GAU-8 Avenger is terrifying when you're on the ground, but it's not that effective for the tank-killing role. The rounds can penetrate ~38mm of RHA at 1000 meters, 69mm at 500, which most modern MBTs and many IFVs surpass. Basically, it wouldn't do much even up close.
The gun's accuracy is a 6.1 meter radius at 1,800 meters. Assuming the pilot is dead-on, they could still miss the target completely. Out of all the A-10's kills in the Gulf War, only around 10% were with the gun.
Most A-10 pilots use a little picture that shows the areas on older tanks (mostly T-64s and T-72s) where the 30mm gun could (barely) penetrate, and the area is pretty small. They're better off using their AGM-65s and other missiles than going in close for a low-and-slow strafing run where they're more vulnerable to AA.
When we're talking about a gun that makes up 12% of the plane's weight, I'd rather that be devoted to more AGMs and GBUs.
Hell, in the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s, they used F-16s and F-15Es because the A-10 was too vulnerable to enemy counterattack, despite the heavy armor.
There was a common morbid joke among A-10 pilots in Germany in the 80s that they were a speedbump against a Soviet invasion.
Of course, in vidya gaems, Ace Combat games especially, it's even more deadly than it's IRL reputation claims.
1713634
see
1713707
Someone set up us the bomber.
Goddamn that makes for a great quote.
The B-17 has always been one of my favourite aircraft (the other being the P-51, with special style points given to the P-38), but holy crap modern warplanes make those things all look like paper planes! It makes you wonder what future vehicles will make our B-52s look like toys, eh?
Maybe you can clear this up for me. What is a "fighter-bomber," and is a P-38 classified as one.
1713587 Great game, I'm looking for both versions. I really want the manual for the second version. Over 100 pages about fine-tuning the engines? YES, PLEASE!
1713760 A fighter-bomber is exactly what it sounds like. They are generally heavier than fighters and primarily drop bombs. The best modern example is probably the F-111.
However, most fighter aircraft can drop bombs. Most modern jet fighters have payloads comparable to a B-17.
The P-38 is mentioned on Wikipedia's fighter-bomber page, for what that's worth.
1713783 Ugly Americans: always relevant
Well, we may have planes the carry payloads comparable to a B-17... but that's just bombs. The B-17 wasn't called the "Flying Fortress" by Boeing because it threw flowers at people... the thing was bristling with .50cal MG's, making it not even require a bomber escort, because it just shot down anything that was ballsy enough to come after it. Sure it's obsolete now, but back in the day it was the most advanced thing in the sky... to sum up a B-17: 'MERICA! F*CK YEAH!
It was also the first bomber to employ the top-secret hush-hush targeting system developed by the military, making it far more accurate with those 16, 500 pound bombs it was packing in the belly than any other aircraft during the war. The radius was something like 500m at 6000m up. Plus, that sucker carried Japan's best friends over the pacific. Their names were 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy', or 'The A-bomb Twins'.
I'm sorry... was calling them 'Japan's best friends' inappropriate? If so, sorry... I'm just really into WW2 planes. My great-grandfather was actually a tail-gunner for a B-25J Mitchell.
1713862 The atom bombs were dropped by B-29's
1713862 So he was Tail End Charlie, eh? Also, have you heard of a B-17 by the name of "Old 666"?
1713866 Were they? Dang... oh well, still awesome planes.
1713872 Can't say that I have...why do you ask?
It didn't take me more than a second to recognize the A10 Thunderbolt/Warthog on the picture for light bombers. Too bad the thing is getting kind of old.
1713707
That is not the most impressive accuracy stats I've ever seen.
The sound of death:
[youtube=MLNyQSg5NAc]
Those Brits be comin' for you.
1713537 Thankee kindly
...perhaps you should do a blog on dedicated multi-role military jets...
*cough*-Hornet-*cough*
Volare:
This guy is incorrigible, I swear...
1714431
Naw man, F-15E Strike Eagle all the way.
1713862 The theory that the B-17 didn't need fighter escort was proven false. After 2 really bad bombing missions the Eighth Air Force halted operations over Germany until a long-range fighter could be found.
1713707 I thought that the A-10 was designed to put enough rounds into the target that the odds were in favor of getting a penetration. And that is why it has such a high rate of fire.
1714605 But it ain't carrier-capable
1714671
True, but the Strike Eagle is a badass offshoot of a badass fighter.
1714684
I never said it wasn't awesome, in fact I think it is awesome.
1714628
Well, the accuracy even at the relatively close range of at 1,800m didn't help. The bullets could fly 6.1 meters from the target at that range.
1713862
1) The B-17 did end up needing a fighter escort, because the bomber-only missions had absurdly high casualty rates.
2) It wasn't B-17s that carried the atom bombs. The B-29s did. The Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, and the Boxcar dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki.
1714803 Take that accuracy and compare it to the size of what you are shooting at. The hull length of an M1 Abrams is just under 8 meters. Compared to the 6.1m radius (12.2m diameter) accuracy of the A-10s gun, that seems accurate enough for bullet swarm tactics to be effective.
Also, when you list the accuracy, is that an even distribution across the entire area; or is it more of a bell curve, with more shots landing near the center than at the edges?
1714959
I think it's even distribution. But still, most of those shots wouldn't hit, and those that did most likely wouldn't penetrate.
1713862
The A-10 has a payload 1,600 LBS short of that of the B-17, and the A-10 is more than capable of defending itself, thank you very much.
1715947 But of course the A-10 is... but it doesn't have 8 other guys shooting a total of 13 .50's at stuff all around the plane. ;D
Without the guys in Air Defense Command, all those planes are just wandering around looking for something to either wander into range or hoping that they are heading in the right direction!
1716374 actually, if I may intercede, the Little Boy and Fat Man atomic bombs were not dropped by any B-17 bombers, but were instead dropped by two separate Silverlight B-29 Superfortresses, by the names of the Enola Gay for Hiroshima and Bockscar for Nagasaki.....
1808819 I realize this now... you're like, the seventh person to tell me.
(like the avatar btw)
1809244 Oh, sorry, I just kinda express-railed the comment...... I didn't take the time to read every single comment in this thread.... -.- sorry...
And thanks for the comment on the Avatar....
During the Fawklands War, no bombs were dropped on Argentina. The bombers were only used to take out the airport at the Fawklands so Argentinian fighters could not take off or land. The british goverment also made a point that no attack would be made on Argentina and british forces will only be attempting to take back the islands.
1714744
Yeah, it makes me sad that that old airframe has the Air Force trying to send it to the boneyard so they could have more F-35s.
And honestly, that move is kinda stupid. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a cheap, reliable attack jet that does its job well, and will fly home without half a wing. The F-35 is supposed to do everything, and therefore cannot do anything well. It's overpriced, has numerous issues that are going to be very expensive to fix. It also is too slow for air superiority, too fast for filling the role of an attack jet, nor does it have the payload.
Fixing up the F-22 would be cheaper, and at least it can do its job, even if it's neck and neck with cheaper fighters once they get close.
People have claimed that while the F-35 wouldn't ever match up to the Warthog in Close Air Support, the A-10 wouldn't dogfight as well either.
The problem with that is that close air support is more important than air to air combat ever will. This blog post said that well enough.