Thunder
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,432
- Reaction score
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bombers will not be obsolete even in the future!Agreed with you sir, but like they say, don't put you egss in one basket. Bombers are infact becoming obselate, but not fast enough. Maybe 6th gen fighters will actully be fighters and leaving the bombing to the missiles or something they probabley invanted by then
Bombers will not be obsolete even in the future!
Bombers have some advantages that other aircraft can't give and these are:
- Massive Payload Capacity
Yes, but a number of smaller swing-role aircraft can match the total payload.
- Can carry all kinds of ammunition (ranging from small to big)
Only the very heaviest bombs cannot be carried by modern multi-role aircraft, but how often are these very heavy bombs used? If we are talking about the 'daisycutter' the C-130 can drop that when required.
- Carpet Bombing Capability
A very old concept of extremely limited use in todays Air Forces.
- Long Range
This is not the sole perogative of the bomber as virtually every fighter and attack plane regularly indulge in air-to-air refuelling.
Point is that new bombers will emerge in future that will be supersonic in nature perhaps just like you mentioned.
I disagree. What advantage is there in having supersonic capabilty?
USAF is now operating the new fleet of B-2 Spirit Bomber, which is a stealthy bomber. They invested billions of dollars in this project for a reason so Bombers are not going anywhere.
The B-2 Spirit is firmly subsonic. It may well prove to be the last manned bomber of the western powers. It only has a crew of two people. I suggest that when the time comes to replace it in service it will be by an unmanned machine.
Russians have also developed new bombers and they have now defined expanded roles of there updated bomber fleet in case of future conflicts.
Once again!The Russians are going off the idea of bombers as well, and haven't made any new developments in that field since the fall of communism. The bomber is going the way of the Dinosaur. It is not alone. I expect tanks to go the same way.
glyn said:Only the very heaviest bombs cannot be carried by modern multi-role aircraft, but how often are these very heavy bombs used? If we are talking about the 'daisycutter' the C-130 can drop that when required.
The military transformation of the 21st century made these bombers obsolete in their original form, but when transforming to "net centric" assets, they become an instrumental element of Battlefield Air Operations, with unmatched weapons carrying capacity, mission endurance, global reach and rapid response capabilities.
1. During British Army trials the conclusion was that tanks would lose 33 times out of 34 when pitted against air attack from a combination of anti-tank helicopters and minimal numbers of fixed wing attack aircraft.
2. Yes, the B-52s carpet bombed in Afghanistan and impressive it undoubtably looked on TV but how effective was it really?
1. How is it possible to get a battle tank to shoot down F-16's and helicopters would be very difficult. This is a totally unfair comparision whereby the one's setting up the scenario have biased it so that the air can not fail to win.
It was a study that had to be tested in the field on large scale exercises. Obviously assumptions had to be made - one of which was that the RAF would keep most enemy strike aircraft away from the battlefield area, but allowances were made for the odd one getting through. The helicopter was very effective due to operating at virtually ground level just behind the Forward Line of Own Troops, just popping up to acquire a target and then sink back behind cover. The helicopters never exposed themselves for more than a few seconds at a time and would not pop up in the same place more than once. The area was crawling with umpires and due regard was paid to AAA and SAM defences.
A more fair comparision would be that the "tank" force get to spend the dollar value of airassets any way they wish for their ground force against ONLY an air threat. In such a case the entire ground force would be comprised of airdefence units and the air force would face far higher casuaualtiies.
I see what you are aiming at, but the results of the trials (which went on for months) were emphatically in favour of the helicopter. In those days helicopters were not very good in night conditions and virtually all engagements were in daytime. Nowadays the helicopter can fly and fight by night as well as by day. In fact the balance tilts even more in favour of the helicopter in night operations.
2. Effectivness is not only in what is done (that is how many taliban were killed in bombing) but also in what it prevetns the opponent in doing. The B-52's forced the taliban to disperse (and thus making them easier to pick off in ground engagements). Without such air assets, Western ground forces would have faced opponents numbering hundreds in individual engagments instead of the dozens which is the norm now.