Why havn't Russia and the U.S. along with other countries in the World with medium and long-range bombers convert some of them to instead of bombing targets with several weapons carry tons of AAM missiles instead
(like 50-75 AAMs instead of 12-24 ASMs) and literally destroys flights of aircraft at a time. Bombers have room for the necessary computing power and AAMs to implement it by using CPUs and converting rotary launchers to carry AAM's. It is perfectly feasible, the question is why don't they?

Its a very good idea, kinda like an airborne defence platform.

I was wondering the same thing! But also add an extremly powerfull radar.

[Edited on 7/21/2003 by necro99]

i think it is a good idea but it would be so expensive just to have them make a significant change in the battlefield

This seems like a good idea, but I have a few worries. It seems like a jet that size may be an easy target to shoot down. A target as valuable as a jet like that would be a magnet for fighters and ground to air missles.

[Edited on 21-7-2003 by jetsetter]

That's the worst idea about military aircraft I have heard in a while.
Military long-medium range bombers are generally slow and huge.
If it wants to take out enemy fighter jets it must fly low, which makes it VERY vounerable to AAA fire.
Also, when an enemy fighter gets closer to the huge bomber it's incredibly easy to shoot it out of the air, it can't out-run it and it can't manouver as a small fighter.

And most of the time it isn't really necessary to shoot down huge ammounts of enemy fighters.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
That's the worst idea about military aircraft I have heard in a while.
Military long-medium range bombers are generally slow and huge.
If it wants to take out enemy fighter jets it must fly low, which makes it VERY vounerable to AAA fire.
Also, when an enemy fighter gets closer to the huge bomber it's incredibly easy to shoot it out of the air, it can't out-run it and it can't manouver as a small fighter.

And most of the time it isn't really necessary to shoot down huge ammounts of enemy fighters.

That is a very reasonable assumption isn't it? It isn't really often that it is necessary to shoot down huge amounts of fighters. Except that I seem to remember the last few "Wars" used massive numbers of aircraft....
Somewhere in the ranges of several hundred aircraft..
I believe that it was said that almost 900 aircraft were used in this last war with Iraq wasn't it?

As a defensive platform over its own territory seems like a good idea to me...
Where AAA fire couldn't reach it...
and i am sure with the current technologies these countries that posess these bombers can come up with the jamming equipment that would stop enemy transmissions to missiles targeting it...
and are you telling me that those countries with these bombers haven't thought of dealing with fighters and SAMs???

the entire idea behind this was to find the enemy first, then nuetralize them whether alone using a very powerful radar or with the help of an AWACS type aircraft, protecting its countries borders from an arial invasion.

I venture a guess that; 1. The platform would be to expensive. Remember the B1 is over a Billion dollars a copy. 2. Can you imagine the fuel cost? 3. If your going to talk defense take those same amount of missiles and fire them from the ground where its cheaper (ala:SAM or AMRAAM, HUMRAAM etc.) 4. We are already in development of a platform with laser capability. I think thats the way to go.

I'd have to agree, this is a truly silly idea. Despite bombers being big, slow, and unmaneuverable, there is the additional problem of where to launch and land them. When fighters approach a carrier group, we scramble your bombers from Missouri??? Instead of launching some f-14's that can engage them almost immediatelly? It really makes no sense.

Hmm, it wouldn't be that bad

Gut a B52, stick a massive radar in it and fill it with about 20 Pheonix Missles.

Just have it circle around the coast of the warzone, (North Korea for example if there is another war) picking off targets of opportunity?

I'm probably majorly wrong, but i don't claim to know too much about techie stuff

Originally posted by MACROSVIII

I believe that it was said that almost 900 aircraft were used in this last war with Iraq wasn't it?
...
and i am sure with the current technologies these countries that posess these bombers can come up with the jamming equipment that would stop enemy transmissions to missiles targeting it...

Sure they used a lot of aircraft, but those were on the allied side. Last 4 decades all wars were fought with countries that hardly had an airforce. A platform that would carry 50 missiles is absolutely useless. Remember that fighter aircraft were origionally designed to protect long-medium range bombers. Not to "go out and shoot as many planes out of the sky as possible". They did that in WWII of course, but in the end a small plane is much more effective than a huge bomber.

I'm not so sure 'they' have come up with equipment like that. If so, the B-2 wouldn't have been a $2 billion dollar airframe.

Like Freddie said, it really makes no sense.

Any other idea's?

i change my mind...theres no point in having a billion dollar airplane that is loaded with missiles but cant maneuver well and prob wouldnt expend 3/4 of its missiles in combat

Here's an idea to throw around - A stealth strike a/c that can takeoff from a submarine underwater, bomb it's target, submerse again and dock with it's sub. Cruise missiles, which are basically suicide UAV's, can be launched underwater which solves half the puzzle. I like this idea for two main reasons, 1)give a plane w/a small carrier sub to a Navy Seal team for covert missions and 2) replace the current carriers w/submersible ones which be much tougher targets for a terrorist attack.

I don't think even the US can afford the obscene price of a submersible nuclear Aircraft Carrier.

Originally posted by abeyer
Here's an idea to throw around - A stealth strike a/c that can takeoff from a submarine underwater, bomb it's target, submerse again and dock with it's sub. Cruise missiles, which are basically suicide UAV's, can be launched underwater which solves half the puzzle. I like this idea for two main reasons, 1)give a plane w/a small carrier sub to a Navy Seal team for covert missions and 2) replace the current carriers w/submersible ones which be much tougher targets for a terrorist attack.

I hate to be the guy who keeps telling people their ideas are rediculous, but this one is worse than the initial idea. For starters, try creating a plane with jet propulsion and with engines to power the screws to get back to the sub. To boot how do you launch it? It would have to be rocket assisted. Way too complicated, way too expensive. Plus, just how big do you think the largest subs are? Would these things be strapped onto. Oh, nevermind.

It would be neat, though.

Originally posted by abeyer
Here's an idea to throw around - A stealth strike a/c that can takeoff from a submarine underwater, bomb it's target, submerse again and dock with it's sub. Cruise missiles, which are basically suicide UAV's, can be launched underwater which solves half the puzzle. I like this idea for two main reasons, 1)give a plane w/a small carrier sub to a Navy Seal team for covert missions and 2) replace the current carriers w/submersible ones which be much tougher targets for a terrorist attack.

I know it it not the same thing, but in WW2 many Japanese submarines carried the seaplane variant of the Zero on a container on top. They could surface and launch the seaplane and surface again to pick it up when it was done scouting or bombing.

I just thought it would be an idea to throw out there. I agree that this kind of plane probably coundn't be built, but that it could be a more modern varient of what Japan did in WW2.

yes groingrinder, during WWII they did have a sub that could lauch a plane.
But today, with cruise missiles it's a bit useless.
Also, today's fighterbombers have a much greater combat range.