Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Long Range Bombers Obsolete

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
    I don't think they are obsolete, they can fly up to 3,000 miles anywhere, take a look at this fresh video from today, two russian TU-160 landed in Venezuela after a long trip, non-stop from a base in russia all the way to south america.
    http://youtu.be/1SfUxz7UGdg
    I'm not sure how that proves they're not obsolete. A Tu-114 could also make that trip.

    Leave a comment:


  • AVION1
    replied
    I don't think they are obsolete, they can fly up to 3,000 miles anywhere, take a look at this fresh video from today, two russian TU-160 landed in Venezuela after a long trip, non-stop from a base in russia all the way to south america.
    http://youtu.be/1SfUxz7UGdg

    Leave a comment:


  • Highkeas
    replied
    Boeing and Lockheed team on the new bomber

    From today's AIAA newsletter:

    Boeing, Lockheed Join Forces On New Bomber Project.

    The Wall Street Journal (10/26, Barnes, Cameron, Subscription Publication) reports that Boeing and Lockheed Martin have decided to work together on the new bomber the US Air Force wants. According to the article, this joint bid could be a problem for Northrop Grumman, the last large contractor to build a bomber, as it now has fewer potential partners if it decides to make a bid. The article also notes that this project would be important for Boeing, as it has declining prospects for its military jets because of the growing importance of the Lockheed F-35.
    Reuters (10/26, Shalal-Esa) noted some analysts think Northrop will have a hard time competing against this joint team. However, the article cited others who thought that there is no favored bidder yet.
    According to the Air Force Times (10/26, Mehta), if this team won the project, Boeing and Lockheed would have “dominance” over the major Air Force projects in the coming decades. Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group thinks Northrop still is favored, and Boeing and Lockheed had to team up if they were to have a chance at winning.

    Leave a comment:


  • guamainiac
    replied
    odd timing?

    This post is put up as a few Russian Bears with nuke capability circle Andersen AFB on Guam where there are a squadron of B-52's.

    Comment was that Putin sent them in support of China and their saber rattling over the flack in the contested islands of northern Japan.

    Leave a comment:


  • EconomyClass
    replied
    No one seems to have considered what the nuclear submarine fleet does in this whole question. The argument seems to be "another option". Well, are there ever enough "options"? The Pentagon seems to think there may be one or two many unnecessary "options". Those who disagree are rolling out the "security" bugaboo to cloud the discussion. Henry Kissinger once stated that absolute security for one state means absolute insecurity for all others. And is the reason arms races exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • trooper
    replied
    Not at all....

    Long range aircraft carrying conventional bombs (particularly PGM's) give OPTIONS.

    One will not always want to nuke an opponent!

    Leave a comment:


  • jarod
    replied
    I don't think they are obsolete , at least not yet. They are a useful weapon in case of nuclear confrontation (obviously we hope to never see one!).

    In case one system, for whatever reason is not working, there is another back-up system and long range bomber are an air back-up system.

    Even more B2 are used for different roles, even as tactical and no tactical bomber so the modern bomber are more versatile than old one.

    Main issue is economic. How long could the U.S.A. afford the price of such system ?

    Leave a comment:


  • guamainiac
    replied
    Well not quite with the end of the "nuclear age", did they become obsolete.

    Watching them taking off during Rolling Thunder and Arc Light would chill your bones. The smell of kero and streaks of black smoke as the J-57's thundered out was awesome, truly awesome.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber

    This is the USAF or DoD projecting requirements - not the congressman from Hicksville...

    Leave a comment:


  • EconomyClass
    replied
    Originally posted by B757300 View Post
    The heavy bomber still serves a purpose.

    The B-52 is the perfect platform for carrying a large number of cruise missiles and the CALCM carries a 2,000lb warhead while the Tomahawk only carries 1/2 that. Also, if needed, the B-52 can carry the nuclear armed cruise missiles while the B-1B cannot. It can also perform the conventional role and carry a large amount of either JDAMs or standard dumb bombs. It is also one of the most effective terror weapons in the US arsenal. Even the Taliban knew what a B-52 was and were terrified of it during the US invasion in 2001.

    The B-1B, IIRC, carries even more conventional bombs than the B-52 and can loiter for hours on end over the battlefield, waiting for the call. Fighters cannot do this without inflight refueling and their load out is limited. There are plenty of stories from Iraq and Afghanistan of B-1s and B-52s saving troops by being able to deliver a devastating strike on short notice against large or well entrenched enemies.

    The B-2 of course is the perfect first strike weapon since other than perhaps Russia and maybe China, there are no countries out there which would have a good chance of detecting it. It is also our primary aircraft delivery system for nuclear weapons. A bomber is flexible, an ICBM is not. Once you turn that key, those missiles are flying to their target and there is no recall. A bomber can be recalled.

    We'll never see the heavy bomber used as it was during WWII with a 1,000+ aircraft making bombing runs on an enemy target. That came to an end with the advent of nuclear weapons. While the mission of the bomber has changed, it still has a role to play in both the conventional battlefield and nuclear warfare, although hopefully the latter never happens. The USAF already has two bomber programs in the works. The 2018/NG Bomber would replace much of the B-1 fleet, while the "2037 bomber" would replace the B-52, remaining B-1s and probably the B-2s.
    Some of those missions don't sound unique. Missile submarines can carry big nuclear missile with more range. And, yes, if we start from the premise that no amount of money is too much to spend for global hegemony. But if that is not our strategy, isn't it possible some of these things have outlived their day? Except as pork projects for politicians seeking a secure seat?

    Leave a comment:


  • B757300
    replied
    The heavy bomber still serves a purpose.

    The B-52 is the perfect platform for carrying a large number of cruise missiles and the CALCM carries a 2,000lb warhead while the Tomahawk only carries 1/2 that. Also, if needed, the B-52 can carry the nuclear armed cruise missiles while the B-1B cannot. It can also perform the conventional role and carry a large amount of either JDAMs or standard dumb bombs. It is also one of the most effective terror weapons in the US arsenal. Even the Taliban knew what a B-52 was and were terrified of it during the US invasion in 2001.

    The B-1B, IIRC, carries even more conventional bombs than the B-52 and can loiter for hours on end over the battlefield, waiting for the call. Fighters cannot do this without inflight refueling and their load out is limited. There are plenty of stories from Iraq and Afghanistan of B-1s and B-52s saving troops by being able to deliver a devastating strike on short notice against large or well entrenched enemies.

    The B-2 of course is the perfect first strike weapon since other than perhaps Russia and maybe China, there are no countries out there which would have a good chance of detecting it. It is also our primary aircraft delivery system for nuclear weapons. A bomber is flexible, an ICBM is not. Once you turn that key, those missiles are flying to their target and there is no recall. A bomber can be recalled.

    We'll never see the heavy bomber used as it was during WWII with a 1,000+ aircraft making bombing runs on an enemy target. That came to an end with the advent of nuclear weapons. While the mission of the bomber has changed, it still has a role to play in both the conventional battlefield and nuclear warfare, although hopefully the latter never happens. The USAF already has two bomber programs in the works. The 2018/NG Bomber would replace much of the B-1 fleet, while the "2037 bomber" would replace the B-52, remaining B-1s and probably the B-2s.

    Leave a comment:


  • EconomyClass
    started a topic Are Long Range Bombers Obsolete

    Are Long Range Bombers Obsolete

    I took a crash thread seriously off-topic when a bomber crashed in Montana. I just mentioned I wondered if there's truly a mission for them or if they simply return federal dollars to congressional districts who can override the wishes of the Pentagon. Just looking at the actual military actions of the last 20 years, I'm hard pressed to think of one where other planes couldn't do the job better. In fact, the drones seem to be even cheaper and more amenable to the actual adversaries the US faces.
Working...
X