Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Also, the last US models to carry guns was the B-52G/H. They were removed at the same time (mid 90's). Russian bombers still have manned gun positions.

F-16.net Sponsor

Only the Bear continues to have a manned position. The Backfire has an unmanned turret, operated by the DSO.

The H model BUFFs, like the final conifguration of the G models, also had an unmanned tail turret. The Gunner (the only Enlisted Aircrew Member on board) sat in the cockpit, in a rear-facing, upward-firing seat.

Quote:

drag

I forgot nearly everything that my physical science teacher taught me that didn't have anything to do with nuke-u-lar weppins since that was the only thing I found interesting. I mixed myself up when I was looking up tail guns, not defensive armaments, else I probably would have mentioned drag.

You could--in a way--delineate between bomber design generations--unlike fighters, these don't necessarily build on the previous generation's advancement. I'm probably going to get this little list picked apart within two hours, but oh, well, I tried.
1st Gen Bombers: Multi-engine Biplanes: Vickers Vimy
2nd Gen Bombers: Multi-engine monoplanes: B-17
3rd Gen Bombers: Multi-jet monoplanes: B-47, B-52, Avro Vulcan
3.5 Gen Bombers: Supersonic jets: Tu-22M, Tu-160, B-1
4th Gen Bombers: Low Observable jets: B-2

Can't forget the B-58 Hustler and its Vulcan tail stinger. Crazy Pilot

Now THERE was a Nuclear bomber! Cool

Yeah, the Hustler would be a 3.5 Gen under my scheme. I didn't add it to the list because of its short service life.

TC wrote:

Not quite PT.

The BONE and the Blackjack don't carry turrets for several reasons. They're both supersonic. Turrets create drag, and yes, added the added weight as PT stated.

Today, we do a lot of initial strikes with cruise missiles, and L-O strike aircraft. Many times one bomb or cruise missile is all that is needed, so bombers don't fly in the huge formations that they did in WWII. They go in when and where there is a low, or non-existant fighter threat. There's no longer a need for them to have a self-defense capability, because really, the enemy isn't going to see that bomber coming.

It's a much different war these days...

You mean when the enemy fighter is sufficiently suppressed, the jet bombers can safely operate?

No wonder you need one or two bombers to destroy a target that dozens of WWII bombers could do in one sweep.

Quote:

You mean when the enemy fighter is sufficiently suppressed, the jet bombers can safely operate?

Yep, the US doesn't usually let bomb trucks into a war zone when the nogoodniks still have an air force (or in the case of North Korea, that would be Air Farce)

Quote:

No wonder you need one or two bombers to destroy a target that dozens of WWII bombers could do in one sweep.

On top of that, PGMs and CCIP have reduced the need for fleets of bombers to go over a city in wartime. When the USAF wants to hit a factory, there's no more of the WWII era sending the 8th AF over the target. One F-22 with one or two JDAMs will do the job just fine, thank you very much.

The B-17 could carry only around 8,000lbs of bombs on short missions, this was reduced to 4,500lbs for longer range missions, on the other hand the B-29 could carry 10 tons of bombs (still Enola Gay and Bockscar had to be modified for their role in history, they were a special mod called SILVERPLATE), the B-2 can carry 20 tons, the BONE, 21 tons, and the BUFF, 35 tons (140x500lb bombs=BAD DAY)

the Thud could carry 7 tons, and the SLAT can carry 8 tons of ordinance.

Note--I must've been a second behind TC's answer, I got the notification of his post right after hitting "submit"

skyhigh wrote:

You mean when the enemy fighter is sufficiently suppressed, the jet bombers can safely operate?

That's about the size of it, without discussing tactics.

ptplauthor wrote:

One F-22 with one or two JDAMs will do the job just fine, thank you very much.

Perhaps you mean one BONE with a JDAM or two? You don't see too many Raptors downrange...at least not yet anyway.

...and PT. Dude! "Bomber generations", and such crapola is simply the talk of Nonners.

It means little to nothing in the practical sense, especially when you have a pre-Vietnam bomber that is still operational, along with its "replacement", and the aircraft that was supposed to be the "replacement of the replacement".

All 3 will likely still be operational long after TC has hung up his saddle and spurs for the final time.

Quote:

two hours

It took four for those keeping track.

I'm not advocating that bombers should be classified along generational lines, just demonstrating that it could be done.

The three bombers the US have their reasons for keeping their place in the inventory. I wouldn't be surprised if all three are still flying in operational squadrons after my 60th birthday.

I'm sure we've all seen the Future Dogfight bit on the History Channel. So, would it really be worth it to make the B-1, or the Next Gen bomber AIM-120/JDRADM compatible to indeed act as a force multiplier int he air? Throwing a wrench into RANDs speculative 'Future of Air Combat' bit!

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

In my opinion that show was about as accurate as their "UFO Hunters" tripe.

They aren't going to put AA missiles on the BONE. Reference above as to why bombers no longer require self defense capability. That's about it in a nutshell, without discussing tactics.

PhillyGuy wrote:

I'm sure we've all seen the Future Dogfight bit on the History Channel. So, would it really be worth it to make the B-1, or the Next Gen bomber AIM-120/JDRADM compatible to indeed act as a force multiplier int he air? Throwing a wrench into RANDs speculative 'Future of Air Combat' bit!

Wow! A pair of Slammer-armed B-1Rs can wipe out a large lot of a massed enemy formation like clay pigeons.

Let's return to rearming bombers for self-defense, right?

Quote:

Wow! A pair of Slammer-armed B-1Rs can wipe out a large lot of a massed enemy formation like clay pigeons.

Let's return to rearming bombers for self-defense, right?

If you saw that episode, they were saying that F-22s would light up the targets for the B-1Rs to fire missiles at--they wouldn't be used in a bomber role in that way--therefore it wouldn't be self defense.

it's a novel idea, but like so many other projects it'll die in subcommittee.

Did you even read TC's post, by chance? (He knows what he's talking about, hint hint)

If you noticed, the last two bombers fielded by the United States Air Force do not have a defensive armament. The days of just sending a bomber over the enemy at higher altitudes where it can be detected are long gone.

BONEs were designed to get below and stay below radar coverage to do their runs, B-2s don't need to do that because they're stealth.

Ever wonder why stealth jets attack at night? It's because the only way to see one for darn sure is with the Mark 1 eyeball.

Next Question:
Has anyone ever rolled a B-1 (or even better, a BUFF) like Tex Johnston did with the Dash 80?

78\/
307

[quote="skyhigh"]

PhillyGuy wrote:

Let's return to rearming bombers for self-defense, right?

It's not for self defense, simply to act as a force multiplayer for when Raptors run out of missies but the enemy has not run out of aircraft.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Bomber Questions