Are bombers still useful?
>>30403024
Only if you need to drop bombs on something
>>30403024
in low intensity conflicts where there is no serious air defense threat.
they can circle over a country for as long as the crew can tolerate. dropping guided munitions for fire support missions.
marginal as missile trucks in real wars and nuclear conflicts.
>>30403024
B-52's? B-1's?
No.
But don't tell Congress that.
>>30403046
> B1
>King of CAS
>Bad
>>30403046
What about the Spirit?
>>30403024
If you don't get hard over this, you are a faggot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7niLYSVFo
>>30403057
If they put the F22 engines in the B1. Things would improve dramatically.
>>30403084
I don't think you understand the size differences involved.
>>30403057
It's simply not needed once we get the F-35 in numbers.
>>30403127
An F-22's P&W f119 produces as much thrust as a B-1's GE F101 does while in afterburner.
4 F119s would improve B1 range and or speed. Make maintenance easier since fewer moving parts and fewer powerplant types in the fleet.
>>30403157
F-35 can't loiter like a strategic bomber can or carry as much payload.
Bombers now adays look so ugly, all black and irregular.
What happened to the curvy and chrome beauties of before?
>>30403046
Nuclear armed cruise missiles.
>>30403169
We don't have the money to buy more F-119s for the B-1 fleet. It would have to be a part of a larger upgrade program. Also IIRC the F119 would reduce the range of the B-1 by like almost 20 percent.
Not during a war with a modern country china,russia,ect
dropping bombs on third world countries, yes.
>>30403878
>>30403911
I thought that it was standard doctrine for the US military to attempt to dominate the skies such that they could use and do whatever the fuck they wanted?
>>30403878
We can afford paint now.
>>30403169
You'd waste money on things that weren't needed like the thrust vectoring nozzles, although the bleed air that travels through said nozzles would assist in reducing the heat signature.
They're super extensive though. Shit, the FADEC alone costs .5 mil, and there's two per engine.
>>30403024
>Are bombers still useful?
yeah, for bombin' shit.
>>30403921
You're replying to a contrarian
>>30403921
Pretty much is, which is why we still focus on air superiority fighters so much.
>>30403024
as a long-range platform to deliver standoff ordinance, let the Buffalo roam. They are nearly perfect for anti-ship interdiction provided coordinated support.
B-2s are very nearly capital ships that are probably on their last legs as tech catches up.
>>30403981
>as tech catches up
Look, another moron that thinks stealth is on/off
>>30403878
Bombers now adays look so ugly, all curvy and chrome.
What happened to the wooden and stick-like beauties of before?
>>30404167
Taste. Taste happened anon.
>>30404196
Fuck you, pre-1931 bombers are literally god-tier in terms of aesthetics.
Ground based artillery is more relevant than bombers
Non-stealth aircraft are obsolete in general.
>>30403024
Absolutely. No better way to drop a lot of ordinance in a theater.
what's cheaper to operate, a single B2 or a flight of mudhens?
>>30404196
wat
>>30403046
>B-52s
You do know we're using B-52s in bombing runs in Syria, right?
>>30405234
Mono wing good, bi wing bad
>>30405220
B2 costs $170,000 a hour to operate.
F015 costs $40,000 a hour to operate
>>30403070
overpriced and overkill.
we can just send a B52 in and launch a cruise missile from super far away and spend 1/100 the cash.
do you have any idea how hard maintaining those older 80-90s RAM coatings are?
i've delt with them, it's a huge pain in the ass.
>>30403169
all F135 engines are going to F35s fight now.
Pratt isn't even making f119s anymore.
we also don't know if the F135/f119 are more efficient than the GE F101
>>30403046
>B-52's and B-1's not relevant?
I'll bite.
How fucking stupid are you?
Believe it or not the US doesn't like sending its $1 billion dollar bombers when the $150 million one can carry twice the payload faster.
>inb4 B-2 costs $2 billion, only if you count R&D.
>>30405383
I'm guessing it's not as simple as applying another coat of paint huh?
>>30405406
i don't coat them, P&W does.
i've removed/replaced panels for repair though.
my Supervisor said the F117s were even worse
thank God F35s don't need to be repaired every damn flight.
>>30403046
They're actually getting another lease on life as arsenal planes. Fill them to the brim with AAMs, AGMs, etc. and let the F-35s out in front act as spotters.
I've never really understood bombers
Why not just take cheaper cargo aircraft, fill em with bombs then just drop the bombs out the back?
Only if you want to drop a lot of something from the sky.
>>30405688
There hasn't been a successful bomber based on an airliner or cargo plane ever. They tried up through WWII and they invariably sucked.
>>30405922
What differences are there between a good bomber and a good cargo aircraft?
I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a dick, I have no idea when it comes to aircraft design
>>30405945
weight distribution
>>30406704
and max speed
>>30405404
>>inb4 B-2 costs $2 billion, only if you count R&D.
Since when was R&D not a cost when all of the bombers produced had that R&D cost split between them?
>>30404167
wings: so ugly. Not streamlined like a mighty peni... um, like a mighty thing of smiting.
>>30403084
thats what they want to do with the b-1r
>>30407942
exactly
>>30403042
>Strat Bombers.
>Working well in low intensity conflicts.
Totally, OP, they bomb terrorist headquarters, factories, and infrastructure.
>>30408612
>not wanting to carpet remove the kebab
do your parents know already?
>>30405434
This. The B-52 and B-1B will probably out live us all as arsenal aircraft. I wonder how many LRASMs a bomber could carry?
>>30407942
In reality the onion domes would open on hinges and aa guns would pop out. (if I had my way)
>>30405431
>that Turkroach flag
Why?
>>30409568
>wonder how many LRASMs a bomber could carry?
If you include external hardpoints, dozens.
>>30409623
It's a test plane and Turkroachistan was an F-35 development partner, if only in a small way.
>>30403973
And SEAD. Fucktons on top of metric shittons of SEAD. And standoff munitions. And EW/decoy systems.
No other country in the world has access to the number of systems and numerical stockpile of relevant munitions that the US has for SEAD/DEAD.
>>30405350
One B-2 has a 40,000lbs payload and 3,000mi unrefueled internal fuel combat radius.
Four F-15Es represent 52,000lbs payload with the fuel necessary to loiter half as long as a B-2.
A single B-1 represents 75,000lbs payload plus external pylons (as much as 50,000lbs more depending) with the loiter of a B-2.
So:
B-1:
>$57,807 per flight hour for 75,000-125,000lbs payload and excellent loiter/endurance/range
B-2:
>$169,313 per flight hour for 40,000lbs payload, excellent loiter/range, and (here's why we pay the bills on it) unsurpassed ability to penetrate IADS and deliver the largest munitions in the inventory
B-52:
>$69,708 per flight hour for 70,000lbs payload, massive bomb bay dimensions and excellent loiter/range
4ship of F-15Es:
>$160,000 per flight hour for 52,000lbs payload and very respectable loiter/range plus the ability to split up and address separate targets if necessary.
The answer to OP's question is we need all of it:
>B-2s to clear the way in the early days of the war with F-22s and F-35s clearing away all effective IADS while striking all identified C4SIR nodes. Also other odd jobs like launching flights of AShMs against enemy SAGs, etc.
>F-15Es to provide tac air over the battlefield, perform CAS and precision strikes and reinforce A2A assets aloft
>B-1s and B-52s to efficiently handle CAS, interdiction and strike needs once enemy IADS has been crippled/mopped up.
Everything has a different job. Just looking at performance, endurance and payload specs does not reveal the whole story. Also, just because we've been fighting asymmetrical wars since 2003 does not mean we'll never have to fight a conventional opponent again. There are still large conventional threats out there, and those who surrender the capability to deal with them will see aggression from them.
>>30405945
>>30406704
>>30407471
And structural redundancy/damage robustness. And munitions accuracy. And range/payload efficiency metrics. And systems hardness against things like EMPs. Etc. Once you design all that shit into a civilian airliner plus modify the frame to actually produce a repeatable accuracy, easily loadable and serviceable bomb bay, it's cheaper to just scratch design a purpose built bomber.
whats in the back of the 52s since they dont have tail gunners anymore?
>>30410207
The remains of a HARM missile in at least one of them.
http://bentcorner.com/in-harms-way/
>>30403026
Underrated
>>30403082
the not so fun part
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECGKCD-pqiM
>>30403024
Yes.. Carpet bombing is very effective. The cost to put that amount of scattered tonnage in a location via rockets would be astronomical
>>30411066
Paying for war is the only reason they keep civilians around.
>>30411066
When was the last time we carpet bombed anything?
>>30413032
Afghanistan
>>30403082
This is what the beginning of the middle act of The End Of The World looks like
>>30410758
It took waaay to long for us to figure out weaseling.
Was going to make my own thread, but this seems like an okay place to ask:
Which had the better bombers in WWII, Britain or America? I don't mean which had the overall best, but which had better designs throughout the war?
>>30414494
US.
>B-17
>B-24
>B-29
Those three were head and shoulders above their contemporaries, especially the 29.
>>30414539
While an argument can be made for the Lancaster, I have to agree. Especially considering there were three excellent four engine bombers for the US. No one else in WWII did strategic air power like the US, either in designs or numbers.
>>30414539
>B17
>Good
Pick one
>>30414539
>Those three were head and shoulders above their contemporaries, especially the 29.
'murrica!!!!
Both B-24 and B-17 inferior to Lancaster. Both were that badly suited for mission those were designed to do that RAF'em as maritime patrol aircraft or in case of B-24 as fucking transport aircraft.
>>30417911
assign the Lancaster or Halifax to daybombings and I severely doubt they'd do better than the US contemporaries did.
>>30417917
Considering the RAF's few daytime bombing missions were extremely more successful than the American's, I'd say you have argument.
>>30418794
Boy, fuck your bitch ass Lancaster. with your bullshit 30 cal tailguns.
>>30403024
Implying what? We dont need to drop bombs anymore? Lol.
>>30419208
No, simply that it might be better to just use Strike Fighters rather than literal airbuses
>>30419272
Something stupid like 60% of all CAS munitions dropped in Afghanistan is by B1-Bs.
It's way, way cheaper to have a bomb truck a mile in the air able to deliver massive amounts of precise, deadly munitions 24/7 than it is to have dozens of strike fighters fill the same role.
Every plane has a use in modern conflict. Saying shit like "retire all B1-Bs and build more F-35's/F-15Es/A-10s/etc.!" Is stupid as fuck.
Bad guys need killing RIGHT NOW HOLY SHIT FUCK! WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?!?!?!? Send up an F-15E or 4 and kill the baddies.
Area of lots of baddies, regularly, or engaging in a planned offensive? 2 B1-Bs on station can drop bombs on baddies all day long.
>>30403024
i like. That b 52
>>30404167
Looks like something out of Porco Rosso
>>30419481
Yeah, she's a beaut
>>30416340
I'll pick good, which is what the B-17 is
yeah bombers are still good for carpet bombing and cas if you want millimeter precision you will go for either a fighter with smart bombs or a warthog for a lower price of $17,716 compared to $22,514 for the fighter f-16 fighting falcon (per hour of operation)
>>30419200
found the warthunder player
>>30405383
Which version do you work on? Ever seen the VTOL ones?
Considering they awarded NG with the "B-3" contract not that long ago, I assume they're still useful.
>>30414539
They were good, but were too damn expensive, it would have been more cost effective to just make Lancasters instead.
>>30418794
/k/? Really? Just going to let this one slide by without comment/mocking? Ok.
>>30422440
It's the B-21, you mouthbreathing retard.
>>30419272
see >>30410112
It's more expensive and less efficient to use a 4ship of F-15Es for CAS or several different strikes than a single B-1. You use the F-15Es when you need them to split up and cover different things or when there's a possible A2A threat, little/no air superiority cover and the strike aircraft may need to defend itself.
>>30422037
>yeah bombers are still good for carpet bombing and cas if you want millimeter precision you will go for either a fighter with smart bombs or a warthog for a lower price of $17,716 compared to $22,514 for the fighter f-16 fighting falcon (per hour of operation)
You are now aware that B-52s, B-1s and B-2s can and very regularly do deploy PGMs with the same exact CEP as strike fighters.
>>30410207
The bodies of crewmen who ask dumb questions
>>30410112
The thing bombers are better than fighters for CAS in COIN operations is payload flexibility. A bomber can carry lot of different munitions for different kinds of target on same sortie and carry everything not used back to base in almost always, that isn't something that can be taken as granted with fighters.
Hornets operating from carriers had to ditch a lot bombs, including precision guided ones into sea to make back to the deck in early parts of Afghanistan war.
>>30403026
>>30423132
>The thing bombers are better than fighters for CAS in COIN operations is payload flexibility. A bomber can carry lot of different munitions for different kinds of target on same sortie and carry everything not used back to base in almost always, that isn't something that can be taken as granted with fighters.
The biggest thing is loiter time. It's rare that you see a B-1 with a fully mixed load of munitions. Usually, it's loaded up mostly with whatever's best for the mission (JDAMs, etc) with maybe a couple other munitions for possible targets of opportunity. The massive on station time and the payload to almost always get through an entire fuel load without going winchester means availability for things like CAS on a level fighters can only dream of.
"These bombs are so accurate theyre guaranteed to hit the ground"
>>30405383
Sexy as hell though
>>30405434
the arsenal plane is a shitty concept.
>>30423132
the F-15E is actually more flexible in terms of air to ground munitions than any other air force jet.
>>30413032
B-1s in Allied Force
>>30424201
Unsourced: The Opinion Movie
>>30425508
it can carry JDAMs, Laser JDAMs, Paveway II, Paveway III, SDBs, JASSMs, JSOWs, cluster weapons, etc. there are even a few weapons only it can carry - nobody else carries SDBs or the GBU-28 or its derivatives.
Paveway IIIs are a pain to mission plan, by the way.
>>30425621
>nobody else carries SDBs
Aside from the Tornado, Gripen and AC-130W, with integration on the F-16, F-22, F-35, A-10, B-1, B-2 and B-52 within the next 18 or so months.
>>30425621
>>30426294
Also, the GBU-28 is B-2 integrated, and was F-111 integrated before they were retired.
The F-15E is an excellent fighter/bomber, and absolutely necessary. But you won't drive that point home with a munitions compatibility argument.
>>30426294
>>30426336
>Tornado and Gripen
because the US flies those, right? the F-15E has been dropping SDBs since they came out, and integration onto other platforms is always just around the corner. they've been talking about putting them on the F-22 since the late 90's. and i'm not seeing anything from a credible source saying the AC-130W can currently carry it. Janes mentioned last September that they're working on integration of the SDB I/II, but Foxtrot Alpha is shit and Tyler Rogway is a hack (Gawker standard).
nobody flies the F-111 anymore. the GBU-28 is simply too long for most bomb bays, and too heavy for most other fighters.
point is, there are very few air to ground weapons the F-15E doesn't carry, and a few that only it does carry (and if we're going historic, the GBU-15/AGM-130 was a F-15E exclusive). rocket pods and the HARM are about it for the "F-15E doesn't carry them" pile.
>>30426537
>and i'm not seeing anything from a credible source saying the AC-130W can currently carry it.
http://www.janes.com/article/54947/usaf-to-integrate-sdb-i-and-laser-sdb-onto-ac-130w-j-gunships
This is the Jane's article you were looking for.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/afsoc-ac-130-gunships/2/
Here's one from June 2015 specifically mentioning upcoming SDB integration.
Other sources citing integration as complete:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mc-130w.htm
http://defense-update.com/products/m/mc130w_combat_spear_31122010.html
http://www.americanspecialops.com/usaf-special-operations/aircraft/mc-130w-dragon-spear/
Either way, if it doesn't have it already, it will very, very soon. Also, since the SDB is a centerpiece munition for both the F-22 and F-35 going forward, it's pretty disingenuous to pretend as if the F-15E is the only thing around that will ever sling it.
>nobody flies the F-111 anymore. the GBU-28 is simply too long for most bomb bays, and too heavy for most other fighters.
Except the B-2. Which slings it. As a deep strike/interdiction VLO platform.
You claimed the F-15E carried shit that nothing else did, as if that were the entire reason for keeping the jet around. It's a bad argument in a good cause. Think a little bit more next time. It isn't even in the top 5 reasons why the F-15E is essential.
>>30426948
i'm not claiming that. i'm saying: >>30424201
>the F-15E is actually more flexible in terms of air to ground munitions than any other air force jet.
because, y'know... it is.
>>30426948
also any source that calls the aircraft the MC-130W is stupid. the aircraft hasn't been called that since 2010-ish.
>>30426972
>any other air force jet
Except the B-2. Or the B-1.
>>30427018
except it's not.
B-1s don't carry -28s or B-61s, and neither carry SDBs, GBU-10/12s, or GBU-24s.
>>30427148
Good. Now list all the munitions that both carry which the F-15E does not. Try for a little intellectual honesty.
>>30427182
a few ALCMs other than the JASSM (and if the powered JSOW ever gets made) and that one bunker buster that the B-2 has.
>>30427203
>>30427182
oh i forgot one or two more air-ground munitions that the F-15E carries that the B-1 and B-2 don't:
PGU-28 and M-56 (though nobody really uses M-56 anymore)
>>30427265
>PGU-28
Really? The gun? Starting to smell like desperation in here.
Why are you even still trying to argue this? What is it you're trying to achieve?
>>30427328
it's the lowest CDE and RED weapon out there. the assertion in >>30423132 that bombers carry a lot more types of weapons is just flat out wrong. you get one type per bay.
let's talk about this realistically. a F-15E downrange will have 2-4 GBU-12s, 3 GBU-38/54s, and a GBU-31 or a rack of SDBs. a B-1 has three bays with a rotary launcher in each. so it's going to be GBU-38s and -31s because nobody's crazy enough to do CAS with a Mk 84 slick and they just don't drop LGBs. the F-15E is more flexible in terms of types of munitions. where it's lacking is in amount of weapons and time on station before having to bingo out and refuel.
>>30427445
>and they just don't drop LGBs
They just got the provisions to do just that, and from what I've heard have been using them fairly successfully.
>>30427756
the -54 still needs a coordinate transfer before it works, while you can drop a -12 ballistically off of a designation/index point.
>>30427778
Does this invalidate what I said, or are you grasping at straws?
>>30423221
>The biggest thing is loiter time.
I have to admit that was kinda too obvious part for me.
>>30424201
>the F-15E is actually more flexible in terms of air to ground munitions than any other air force jet.
Unlike F-15E, B-1B or B-52 can carry good selection of 'em on same sortie.
Bunch of 250lb bombs, bunch of 500lb bombs, bunch of 1000lb bombs, bunch cluster bombs and so on. Something for most missions it can called upon while loitering over area.
>>30427853
it's easier/faster/less parameter dependent to drop a GBU-12 vs a GBU-54 (since you seem to know so much, explain to me what inertial Mach is), and you don't have to tape your fuzes and coords as a CYA measure. having the ability to set delays is nice though.
the F-15E is a more flexible weaponeering platform than a bomber. there are simply more weapon options available to it. where a bomber is superior is in terms of amount of weapons and time on station.
>>30427956
the only real 250 lb bombs we have are the SDBs (which are a Strike Eagle exclusive for now), nobody carries cluster munitions, and 1000 lb bombs are for the Navy.
>>30427971
You just completely dodged the point. Good going.
>>30403026
/thread
>>30403026
Bombers are still used but most are only attacker throwing guided missiles on target, only Russia use bomber in purpose to throw bombs on target like in Syria
Why are big bombs gone? They aren't more expensive than missiles
>inb4 muh civilian
What's your favorite bomber, /k/?
>>30429686
6 turning' 4 burnin'
>>30403169
>Make maintenance easier since fewer moving parts and fewer powerplant types in the fleet.
you've never worked on anything made by pratt , have you...
ge > rr > p&w
>>30429713
RR > P&W > GE
3 spool master race
>>30429686
36 with the jets looks like such a fucking mess. Better looking when it was pure props
