It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The world's bomber aircraft

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Controversial Post coming up.


The B-52 is not, and has not been a frontline strategic bomber. Not by my definition of frontline anyway. Its a bomb truck, nothing more, nothing less. It could never penetrate hostile airspace in the same manner as a B-1B/B-2/B-17/B-29/B-24/B-25/F-117/F-111 etc etc etc.


It is to all intentions and purposes, a large fat slow sitting duck, without fighter cover its has no means of getting to its target without being destroyed.

I believe USAF doctrine planned to use the B-52 in conjunction with massive jamming, but the jammers themselves can be the initial targets, revealing the actual bomb carrying aircraft.


Perhaps, when first flown, and for maybe 10 years it could perhaps have performed its primarly role. After that... not a chance, too slow and vunerable.



Dropping bombs on essentially unguarded [in terms of surface to air ordanence] is not my idea of a 'super-bomber'.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by kilcoo316]




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The B-52 WAS the jammer. They overbuilt EW systems on it.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The B-52 flew in tight formations over Vietnam employing jamming to disrupt SAM systems. But anyway the B-52's flying in Op. Chrome Dome were not intended to fly into Soviet airspace and directly bomb their targets, they would launch nuclear stand off ALCM. So the B-52 should definitely be considered a strategic bomber, no it cannot penetrate a heavily defend airspace by itself but that's not what makes something a strategic bomber. It has the long range and heavy payload capability to be effective at it's role.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Dropping bombs on essentially unguarded [in terms of surface to air ordanence] is not my idea of a 'super-bomber'.


It can drop a lot of things, and no not only on "unguarded" targets. Also considering it "super-bomber" is a matter of opinion and perspective, considering it a strategic bomber it not, the two categories are not the same.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
It could never penetrate hostile airspace in the same manner as a B-1B/B-2/B-17/B-29/B-24/B-25/F-117/F-111 etc etc etc.


Umm... the only ones out of that list that are bombers and that could/can penetrate hostile airspace successfully, meaning with a HIGH survival probability, are the B-2 possibly B-1B and B-29. The F-117 is not a bomber and the rest do not hold up to the standard you are applying to the B-52, few will.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The B-52 flew in tight formations over Vietnam employing jamming to disrupt SAM systems.
It can drop a lot of things, and no not only on "unguarded" targets. Also considering it "super-bomber" is a matter of opinion and perspective, considering it a strategic bomber it not, the two categories are not the same.


Umm... the only ones out of that list that are bombers and that could/can penetrate hostile airspace successfully, meaning with a HIGH survival probability, are the B-2 possibly B-1B and B-29. The F-117 is not a bomber and the rest do not hold up to the standard you are applying to the B-52, few will.


Which wouldn't be of great use against fighter interception in the Soviet Union, see my point?


Are you trying to say the B-17, B-24 and B-25 did not penetrate well guarded airspace successfully? If you are, in my opinion thats a ridiculous statement, I suggest you tell a veteran of the 8th air force they didn't really fly into hostile air and gauge his response!



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The B-52 WAS the jammer. They overbuilt EW systems on it.


Did they not build specific B-52 jamming aircraft?

That was the case as far as I was aware, but I suppose all B-52s would have had smaller onboard jammers as well.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The B-52 WAS the jammer. They overbuilt EW systems on it.



crap - double post

[edit on 18-9-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
They had a few that were going to be jammer specific in the new SOJ program, but the individual aircraft have a surprising amount of jamming power built into their EW systems. A lot more than most aircraft, because they're overpowered electrically. Where most aircraft have four generators, the B-52 has something like 7.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Which wouldn't be of great use against fighter interception in the Soviet Union, see my point?


People tend to forget that the USSR had not only a rather dense air defense network but also hundreds of aircraft assigned to strategic air defense. ALCM's would have been targets themselves and the further out you forced the enemy to launch them the more marginal their number of strategic targets and chance of the missiles reaching their targets due to air defenses. People tend to ignore the fact that cruise missiles are shot down just like planes....


Are you trying to say the B-17, B-24 and B-25 did not penetrate well guarded airspace successfully? If you are, in my opinion thats a ridiculous statement, I suggest you tell a veteran of the 8th air force they didn't really fly into hostile air and gauge his response!


People also tend to forget that 160 000 USAAF and RAF ( about 80 k each) airman DIED over Germany losing in the process 22 000 bombers and another 18 000 fighters/fighter bombers/recon aircraft. The air campaign was a success ( could have been massively more so had the target selected been saner) but the cost was HEAVY and it could have gone either way for a LONG time.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
People also tend to forget that 160 000 USAAF and RAF ( about 80 k each) airman DIED over Germany losing in the process 22 000 bombers and another 18 000 fighters/fighter bombers/recon aircraft. The air campaign was a success ( could have been massively more so had the target selected been saner) but the cost was HEAVY and it could have gone either way for a LONG time.


That air campaigh achieved its objectives (eventually).


I'll bet a B-52 raid on Russia post 1970 would not have achieved 25% of its objectives.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
If I recall correctly we had 400+ B-52 in the early 80's. Each could be equipped with at least 12 cruise missiles. If 25% of these bombers got through, that 100 bombers with 1200 cruise missile being launched into the former USSR. That not including the 8 SRAM and 4 gravitiy bombs they carried internally at the time. This was that standard strategic nuclear load they carried at the time. The B-52 pilots knew they were pretty much on a one way mission. But you've forgotten that FB-111's from Pease and Griffis AFB would have preceded the BUFF's to punch holes in the Soviet air defense system to clear lanes for them fly through. Any way you look at it a full out bomber only nuclear attack against the Soviets would have been devastating. Let's not forget that the Navy would have launched the SLBM's first and by the time the BUFF's got there the ICBMs from the USA would have struck many targets. There's hasn't been a bomber raid without fighter escort since WW2. So I still believe that BUFF fleet is probably the most effective bomber in the USAF today.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
According to this article, the B52 is expected to remain in the active inventory until at least the year 2040.


For more than 40 years B-52 Stratofortresses have been the backbone of the manned strategic bomber force for the United States. The B-52 is capable of dropping or launching the widest array of weapons in the U.S. inventory. This includes gravity bombs, cluster bombs, precision guided missiles and joint direct attack munitions. Updated with modern technology the B-52 will be capable of delivering the full complement of joint developed weapons and will continue into the 21st century as an important element of our nation's defenses. Current engineering analyses show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. [emphasis mine]

www.af.mil...


That alone makes the B52 a pretty super bomber.



[edit on 2006/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Are you trying to say the B-17, B-24 and B-25 did not penetrate well guarded airspace successfully? If you are, in my opinion thats a ridiculous statement, I suggest you tell a veteran of the 8th air force they didn't really fly into hostile air and gauge his response!


No at all, however that is a pretty weak argument when you don't consider the context. Ask those veterans of the 8th air force how many men and bombers they lost. Ask them how successful those strategic bombers would have been without fighter escorts.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
That air campaigh achieved its objectives (eventually).

I'll bet a B-52 raid on Russia post 1970 would not have achieved 25% of its objectives.


That's right, the AIR campaign which consisted of a whole lot more than a formation of B-17's flying by themselves to bomb Berlin. Hypothetically speaking, if I had 1,000 B-52's with fighter escorts and support systems fly into Russia and I lost 100 would that be a success? Yes. But is does not change the fact that it still cannot fly into a heavily defended airspace by itself without suffering major casualties. Same goes for all the other planes you listed which is why I pointed out that only the B-2 and possibily a few others qualify under your definition.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
You lot still aren't reading what I'm saying.

The B-17, B-24, B-25 & B-29 all penetrated hostile airspace without fighter escort.


Something the B-52 is totally incapable of doing, and pretty much was always totally incapable of doing, but it seems no-one can admit that. They would be shot down like particularly lame peasants, as they have no defensive measures whatsoever - unlike any of the afore mentioned, which could hand it out as well as take it.




If you think a few FB-111s are gonna clear out big lanes in the Soviet airforce to allow B-52s to trundle through, I'll leave you all to it, your obviously in a fantasy world!

[edit on 19-9-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You lot still aren't reading what I'm saying.

The B-17, B-24, B-25 & B-29 all penetrated hostile airspace without fighter escort.

Something the B-52 is totally incapable of doing, and pretty much was always totally incapable of doing, but it seems no-one can admit that. They would be shot down like particularly lame peasants, as they have no defensive measures whatsoever - unlike any of the afore mentioned, which could hand it out as well as take it.
[edit on 19-9-2006 by kilcoo316]


Two points! First of all, they Did use fighter escorts during World War 2. Fighters such as the P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt routinely flew figher escort mission of the above bombers.

Second, World War 2 was a very Different era. Radar was brand new and not as widly used as it is today. The defense the bombers flew against were nothing compare to what today's pilots see. Back then, if you flew without the EW they had back then, you could still make it if you were good. Today, unless your in a stealth aircraft, flying without EW protection into enemy airspace is suacidal. The second you get within about 10 to15 miles of a SAM site, your a$$ would be dead. Modern air escorts are mainly EW aircraft, such as EA-6 Jamming aircraft and Wild Weasels with HARM missiles(although there are still fighters).

The escorts aren't new, we been doing that since WW2. How we do it has changed!

Tim



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
My facts are spot on.

- The bombers were unescorted over Germany until the arrival of the P-51. The P-47 and Spitfires didn't have the range. The P-38 may have had, but its Allison engines didn't work well in europe, besides, it wasn't a great escort fighter, but a better hit and run stalker.

- The Germans had a full radar network enabling vectoring of fighters onto bombers in a similar fashion to any modern GCI or AWACs. The only thing they have missing from a modern defense network is SAMs [and they only missed that by a few months I believe too!].



So what your saying is the B-52 needs its hand held all the way through the mission... some super bomber that



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Considering the difference in weapons, tactics, and what they were flying against, and what they knew at the time the BUFF WAS a good bomber. But of course, that's the pilots speaking and we know you're opinion on that.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Considering the difference in weapons, tactics, and what they were flying against, and what they knew at the time the BUFF WAS a good bomber. But of course, that's the pilots speaking and we know you're opinion on that.


I did say the BUFF was a good bomber... for about the first 10 years of its service life. After that, its nothing short of a suicidal mission.


www.faqs.org...


The BUFF was virtually a sitting duck to the rudimentary airdefences of the North Vietnamese. I wonder how it would have faired in Soviet Russia...



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
My facts are spot on.

- The bombers were unescorted over Germany until the arrival of the P-51. The P-47 and Spitfires didn't have the range. The P-38 may have had, but its Allison engines didn't work well in europe, besides, it wasn't a great escort fighter, but a better hit and run stalker.

So what your saying is the B-52 needs its hand held all the way through the mission... some super bomber that


kilcoo316,

As you pointed out, they did NOT have a fighter that could do the Job. As soon as one became avalible, they used it! That's an unfair point of argument. To claim something is unneeded just because it Not avalible, is a flaw of logic.

They rushed the P-51 into Europe to protect the bombers precisely because they WERE Needed. What you are doing is the same as claiming the F-4's missiles were so good in Vietnam that they didn't need a cannon. History shows the opposite to be true. They added the cannon once they realized how important it was, but until it became avalible, the pilots had to make do with what they HAD!

Your Supporting facts might be spot on, but your CONCLUSIONS are Nowhere near the target! Nothing personal, but you really need to check your logic!

Tim

[edit on 19-9-2006 by ghost]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

I did say the BUFF was a good bomber... for about the first 10 years of its service life. After that, its nothing short of a suicidal mission.


www.faqs.org...


The BUFF was virtually a sitting duck to the rudimentary airdefences of the North Vietnamese. I wonder how it would have faired in Soviet Russia...



They, there's a great comparison. Let's compare how they did, sent in piecemiel, on predictable paths, at predictable times every night and see how they do.
Yeah yeah I know, if they couldn't defend themselves then then how could they against the Soviets. Been there, heard the arguement. The ONLY way that the NV forces could have beaten the BUFFs so badly was if they were committed exactly how they were. In a WWII style bombing campaign, sent in at the same time, night after night.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
kilcoo316,

As you pointed out, they did NOT have a fighter that could do the Job. As soon as one became avalible, they used it! That's an unfair point of argument. To claim something is unneeded just because it Not avalible, is a flaw of logic.

They rushed the P-51 into Europe to protect the bombers precisely because they WERE Needed. What you are doing is the same as claiming the F-4's missiles were so good in Vietnam that they didn't need a cannon. History shows the opposite to be true. They added the cannon once they realized how important it was, but until it became avalible, the pilots had to make do with what they HAD!

Your Supporting facts might be spot on, but your CONCLUSIONS are Nowhere near the target! Nothing personal, but you really need to check your logic!

Tim

[edit on 19-9-2006 by ghost]


No my friend, your still not seeing what I'm saying. The B-17, B-24, B-25 etc did penetrate the airspace of a then modern defense network... alone, achieved their objectives and returned with acceptable losses.

Could the B-52s do the same in their era? Nope is the definite answer, they just about got away with it in vietnam against what must be said, was a resourceful, but limited foe. Therefore they cannot be considered in the same league as those I mentioned earlier (the above plus the B-1B, B-2 & F-117 [if you want to term it a medium bomber like the Mosquito]).







 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join