an appreciation of the bomber

What is a bomber?

Many things to many men. To some, a ‘bomber’ conjures up an image of a huge aircraft raining down sticks of bombs, be it a B-52 over Vietnam or a Lancaster over Berlin, or even on this 25th Anniversary, a Vulcan over Port Stanley.

However that is not really what it means. The aircraft I have just mentioned are really ‘strategic’ or ‘heavy’ bombers. The distinction is important. Just as in an earlier thread I discussed how a fighter is any aeroplane tasked with shooting down other aeroplanes (the most basic definition possible) and how the terms ‘air superiority’ and ‘interceptor’ are just fluff. This time I want to cover how a bomber is simply an aeroplane charged with carrying out a bombardment of a ground target. That is even where the term bomber originates from.

The bomber was the 2nd form of military aeroplane to go into use, after the recce plane , first seeing combat over the Balkans in 1911. In the first bombers the pilots simply hurled small projectiles out of the cockpit, a method the UK might soon re-adopt if we don’t keep an eye on our defence budget cuts.

In World War One there were only two types of bomber, these were called simply ‘bomber’ and ‘bloody paralyser’, the second term being coined by the founder of the RAF Lord Trenchard when he requested Britain’s first really big long range bombardment aeroplane in 1916. This emerged as the Handley Page O/100 and because of this aeroplane, and the O/400 and V/1500 that followed it, the term ‘Handley Page’ actually appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary with the definition ‘a very large aeroplane.’ But I digress.

By World War Two the type had evolved into three distinct classes. The ‘Light’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Heavy’ bomber. These classifications proved very fluid however as bomber development progressed. The light bombers of 1939, such as the Fairey Battle, were, apart from being bloody useless, broadly the equivalent of todays tactical or attack bombers, the medium bombers of the day (ie Blenheim) were roughly equal to the F-15E/Tornado class, while the ‘heavies’ were the A W Whitley and Vickers Wellingon (the only really good bomber in the entire RAF). By the end of the war the upcoming Wellington sized bombers were classed as ‘light’, an example being the USAF’s B-45 Tornado.

The USA also confused the hell out of British industry when, after developing the Canberra medium bomber and the ‘heavy’ V force, we saw the B-52 and had to put them into service as ‘Light’ and ‘medium’ bombers instead. The RAF later backtracked on this and revealed that the V-bombers were classed as medium because they were medium range, not medium size. OK, if you say so Mr Air Vice Marshall.

Things also became confused with the developments of types such as the Stuka and Mosquito which didn’t readily fit into any of the agreed, if fluid, categories.

The upshot of this ramble is that when you are talking about a bomber, you really should use an appropriate prefix such as ‘strategic’ or ‘tactical’ or even ‘light attack’ amongst many others as the term ‘bomber’ can mean a multitude of aircraft classes. Unless you live in a country that can’t afford really big ones, then the choice is somewhat more limited. So while a B-52 is undoubtedly a bomber, so is the X-47, at least in concept. Even the very small A-4 Skyhawk was christened ‘the Bantam Bomber’ in its heyday.

haha waynos my good sir you will steal all the points for replies from me for this thread. I make a small little jab in one thread and you run off and do it. I'm joking ofcourse and don't even care about the points but enough of this and to the point eh.

I'm in completely the same boat in some points and in other wish to expand a bit in much the same way we did in the fighter thread. The point of how the fighter term and the corisponding title of interceptor being fluff is an interesting way to put it. I do think that there is the pure sence is its main role to shoot down other planes or drop bombs can classify the plan but the way that the plane goes about doing that can very much like the terms strategic or tactical as much as I dislike them espesially when they are applied to things like airlift etc. The added titles I think do serve a purpose in allowing people to better understand how the plane is equiped to fight with either bombs missiles or guns.

Your assesment of WWI and just before WW2 is really clear and I dont have any problems with but I think you start to see in the discriptions just how much WWII muddy the water. Suddenly there are more types of planes then you can shake a stick at and they actually have a fair bit of difference between them unlike WWI were tech was limiting etc. This muddying continued into the cold war and still exist hence why we are having the little talk. Heck while we are sorting all this out what about the Attack aircraft like the A-10 or the A-1 skyraider or the also how the WWII typhoon filled that role and the P-47 thunderbolt or P-38 even at times. Again as I said WWII wreaks "havoc" (aviation buffs) on my brain.

In the end a bombers main role is that it drops bombs hence the term as waynos explained the problem lies in do the prefixes strategic and tactical properally describe the types of roles is my question.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
In the end a bombers main role is that it drops bombs hence the term as waynos explained the problem lies in do the prefixes strategic and tactical properally describe the types of roles is my question.

Canada_EH,

The terms Strategic and Tactical are fairly stable in their use, although there are exceptions. These terms refer to the type of mission that aircraft flies as a Primary role. Of course, they have occasionly srossed even these lines.

Strategic Bombers are those bombers tasked with hitting targets whos value is not tied to the immeadieat battle, but the enemy's ability to wage war overall. These are targets like Air Defense, Command and Control, Indusrty and production of war supplies.

Tactical Bombers or Strike planes(US) on the other hand support troops in the feild, by bombing supply lines, staging areas, and dug in feild postions.

The main problem is that the US often uses the designation incorrectly. Despite it's misleading name, the F-117A Nighthawk is actually a light Tactical bomber that was meant to support Special Forces. It would up being used in the Strategic role in the 1991 Gulf War.

Tim

Your wish is my command Canada EH You see everyone? Its canada's fault, he set me off

Interesting question about the difference between the Skyraider and the Typhoon, classification wise. I would say that the difference is a matter of intent. The Skyraider was designed as a 'bomber' of sorts from the beginning, while the Typhoon was designed to be a fighter that turned out to be not very good and its excellence as a ground attack aircraft was quite accidental. Thuis the Typhoon becomes a fighter bomber (much as the Hurricane did) while the Skyraider is a 'ground attack aircraft' which is of course a more modern name for a light bomber.

Regarding the Typhoon comment, it is interestingh to note that todays Typhoon is its direct equivalent, but this time we meant it to do both jobs from the start, even further muddying the fighter/bomber waters.

Cant we call anything that drops a bomb, a bomber ? Like even if it were a Blimp which drops bombs on places, ala Kirov ? You could even shorten the whole ramble into; A person/object/device that is capable of delivering an explosive device ( aka BOMB ) is called a bomber.

Hmmm with the advent of guided munitions, the line between strategic and tactical is now pretty blurred IMHO.

The B-2 which was envisoned as a strategic bomber can and has performed tactical missions as has the B-52 and the B-1B. Its all down to target and weapons load. Esp. when the SDB comes full online.

Good post BTW

Originally posted by FredT
The B-2 which was envisoned as a strategic bomber can and has performed tactical missions . . .

Fred,

When did the B-2 fly a Tactical Mission? I was under the impression that the B-2 has only been used strategically so far.

B.T.W. Don't confuse the trageting of caves in Afganistan with Tactical missions. They were after the learship of Al Qaeda, which is technically a strategic mission.

Tim

I will try to come up with a few instances, but

Historically the Air Force has treated tactical and strategic aircraft as

distinct entities, with relatively fixed roles. Although strategic bombers

have been used in tactical roles in certain situations in the past, today the

distinctions between tactical and strategic aircraft and missions have

blurred dramatically. In our recent conflict with Iraq the Air Force used the

B-52, a long-range strategic bomber, to strike the Iraqi Republican Guards,

arguably a "tactical" target. Conversely, the U.S. used the F-117 stealth

fighter, a so-called tactical aircraft, for precision strikes against targets

deep inside Iraq, Such targets generally would be considered "strategic"

targets. The next aircraft in the evolution of the bomber must encompass

features of both of these types of aircraft, and must be capable of striking

strategic as well as tactical targets.
The United States Needs The B-2 Bomber

The B-2 carries the JSOW which is a tactical weapon which I beleive it has dropped in Iraq. Also while its not talked about much in mainstream literature it will eventually carry the SDB which is NOT a strategic weapon.

The tactical delivery details of the B-2 are further outlined here:

Tactical delivery tactics use patterns and techniques that minimize final flight path predictability, yet allows sufficient time for accurate weapons delivery. For conventional munitions. Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA) weapons delivery accuracies depend on delivery altitude. For a weapons pass made at 5,000 ft above ground level [AGL] or below, the hit criteria is less than or equal to 300 feet.
www.fas.org...

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by FredT
The B-2 which was envisoned as a strategic bomber can and has performed tactical missions . . .

Fred,

When did the B-2 fly a Tactical Mission? I was under the impression that the B-2 has only been used strategically so far.

B.T.W. Don't confuse the trageting of caves in Afganistan with Tactical missions. They were after the learship of Al Qaeda, which is technically a strategic mission.

Tim

Right there is where i think the terms blur Tim. The B-2 can or has tested guiding all of its ordance to single targets on a fairly large range too. The video has been posted numoures times of this test.

The point that as the ordance gets "smarter" (there still are too many mistake I think) the terms will get more and more muddy. I remeber reading a book the title evades me about the gulf war and the commander that was in charge of the airforces mission and his take on the terms and his dislike for them.

Greetings, for everyone here.

When we talk about appreciation of aircrafts, I think we define them in terms of what's the purpose they were designed for rather than how they were used for.

No matter which aircraft is, the function can be changed, always, and the role of those aircraft also can be moved. For the fuction changed we can see from F-15 that initially was desgined as pure air domination jetfighter was chnaged to F-15E, which we called a bomber would be accurate rather than a jetfighter. For the role moving, AC-130 can be found really is an attacker, a heavy attacker rather than a cargo we said, but C-130 factually IS a cargo no doubt.

People may say, what? what's you said is unidirectional, but I can make some examples are bi-directional. De Harvilland Mosquito for instance, shoud be classified as a bomber no matter how light it is, but some of them was equiped as a fighter indeed. Another one is Vautour, although Israel use it to be fighter, we still make it into bomber incontestablly, why? which jetfighter would be sot down by Vautour, if the pilot are not so fool?

So, we can see, what's purpose that desginor foucs on, what's kind of aircraft it will be. A fighter can be a bomber or attacker, a bomber can be a fighter, whereas air superiority of an attacker or a bomber which was refitted or developed from a fighter would be much stronger than a fighter which original designed as a bomber. these was said of us are general not completely absolute.

So some categories as follow may be reasonable:
fighter: F-14 Tomcat, Supermarine Spitfire, etc.....
bomber: B-2 Spirite, B-1 Lancer
fighter/bomber: F-111 Aardvark, Su-24 Fencer
multi-role fighter: F-15E Striker Eagle
multi-role bomber: S.O. 4050 Vautour .....
attacker: A-10 ThunderboltII, Il-102 etc.....
multi-role combat aircraft: Panavia Tornado, Mirage F.1, SEPECAT Jaguar, etc.

Yes, something called Fighter/bomber will cause new arguement. Why we have to extra add a sort strange as fighter/bomber. Don't worry, only once in history I am sure. Those aircraft will never occur in future again, because those are bomber exactly but orignal desgined for air fight and bombing ground to both, but got failure on air fighting mission.

In foreseeable future, only two or three sort will remain. multi-role fighter and bomber, because now a fighter can do every thing except intercontinental bomb, whereas a bomber is so powerful but, only lose air-dominating capability.

to be waiting for your opinion.


[edit on 5-5-2007 by emile]

I am here to appreciate a true bomber, tactical or stratigic I'll leave that for you guys to chat about. This is for the (possibly the first) modified bomber. Modified for a specific purpose.

The Lancaster Bombers of 617sq that departed from RAF Scampton in May 1943 had been modified to take out the dams of Germany.

They have been imortalised with the movie and loads of books devoted to them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, show your appreciation for...

THE DAMBUSTERS

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Right there is where i think the terms blur Tim. The B-2 can or has tested guiding all of its ordance to single targets on a fairly large range too. The video has been posted numoures times of this test.

I've seen several videos like that on the internet. There is one with an ordance test where the plane looks like it's carpet bombing, but all the bombs are guided.

I remeber reading a book the title evades me about the gulf war and the commander that was in charge of the airforces mission and his take on the terms and his dislike for them.

Sound like Every Man A Tiger By Tom Clancy. The book incudes sections by General Chuck Horner, who commanded air operation in Desert Storm. I have the book and an in the middle of reading it.

Tim

Bombers have been doing tactical missions for a while now, starting in GW1 when B-52Gs were sent after troop concentrations while F-16s were sent en masse after some strategic targets. Part of the reason McPeak decided to get rid of TAC and SAC.

Actually I would say B-52s were also doing tactical support missions in Vietnam too.



[edit on 6-5-2007 by firepilot]

Originally posted by firepilot
Part of the reason McPeak decided to get rid of TAC and SAC.

firepilot,

McPeak isn't the one who got rid of TAC and SAC. McPeak is Air Force. Bush 1 through then SECDEF Cheny, created US Strategic Command as a unified command that was not tied to any given service to take over the strategic mission. SAC was stood down on the same day STRATCOM was activated. The Strategic mission is still very much around.

Tim

There is no more Tactical air command or Strategic air command, that was my point, I never said that the strategic mission was not around, just that SAC and TAC do not exist anymore.

The bomber assets did not go to Stratcom, they are in Air combat command

Originally posted by firepilot
The bomber assets did not go to Stratcom, they are in Air combat command

Right! I never said STRATCOM got them. In fact, Strategic Command doesn't own any of it's weapons. The Bombers are in Air Combat Command. The missiles are in Air Force Space Command and the Subs are under the US Navy's Pacific and Atlantic fleets.

The trick is under wartime conditions, the Joint Chiefs can CHOP assets to STRATCOM, which will then provide the tasking and targets.

My point was only that the mission of Strategic deturrence is carried out under the direction of US Strategic Command! I'm not saying they own the bombers (They do NOT!).

Second, I was pointing out the decidion to disband SAC and TAC were NOT made by McPeak as you asserted, but by President Bush 1, and Dack Cheny, who was Defense Secratery at that time.

Tim

So Waynos if the lines are blurred on what is considered a bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, is this the thread where you will finally let me nominate the "F"-111 as a great "bomber"?

LEE.

Absolutely! Go for it my friend.
Reading this thread I noticed a similarity between teh Hawker Typhoon and the F-111 that I never made the connection with before. Both were designed to be fighters, failed, and then excelled in their new2 A2G role.

Originally posted by thebozeian
. . .is this the thread where you will finally let me nominate the "F"-111 as a great "bomber"?

LEE.

Lee,

I've always though of the F-111 Aardvark as a bomber. The Air Force concieved the plane to be a tactical bomber. The only reason it really got the "F" designation is because at one point there were plans for a Navy version that would have been a Fleet Defense Fighter.

The mission of the Aardvark is to deliver bombs and other ordinance against ground targets. That makes it a bomber by definition.

I guess it is officially the F-111 Aardvark Bomber!

Tim

The designation F-111 is actually a USAF one, following on from the F-110, the USAF designatio9n for the F-4 Phantom before 1962.

The F-111 would have recieved that designation even without the USN, see also the F-105, also a bomber.