Bombers

File: gogowen.jpg (89KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 894x894px

>>33089713
Also, how the heck were we planning on using bombers during the Cold War to deliver nukes with all the problems I just mentioned?

>>33089713
>They're overkill for 3rd world nations
They're more cost effective than using things like A-10s

>it's nearly impossible for a bomber to actually make it to the target for its bombing run
The B-2 doesn't and B-21 won't have much of a problem with this

>>33089839
>how the heck were we planning on using bombers during the Cold War to deliver nukes with all the problems I just mentioned
Because SAMs are overhyped and the US wasn't afraid to lose a few bombers. Also they were primarily relying on ICBMs and SLBMs.

File: fortunate.jpg (91KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x576px

>>33090069
>The B-2 doesn't and B-21 won't have much of a problem with this
The B-2 costs almost 750 million dollars a piece and we only have 21 of them, is it really a practical plane for such a role?

Also, I haven't heard of the B-21 until just now, how is it going to improve upon the B-2?

>>33090083
True about the B-2 being expensive and limited, but they are designed very specifically to hit key strategic targets deep in enemy territory.

>Also, I haven't heard of the B-21 until just now, how is it going to improve upon the B-2?
The biggest thing it's going to improve on is cost - it's planned to cost roughly $550m per bomber, including R&D, while it'll also use newer stealth coatings as like on the F-35, significantly reducing the jet's operating cost.

So overall, it'll be a bit smaller than the B-2, but be much cheaper in the short and long run, it'll be stealthier and use more modern avionics.

They're also pretty vehement on producing at least 100 B-21s; the USAF wants ~200.

File: wallpaper.jpg (269KB, 1743x1089px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1743x1089px

>>33090132
Ah, thank you senpai. Do you think against a 1st world power the main targets they would be hitting are still industrial facilities, or would they be focused more on other stuff like radar facilities and military bases?

Good to hear we'll be getting a lot of them too. Stealth planes escorting stealth bombers, let's hope radar stealth detection doesn't improve too much, eh?

File: Doolittle_LtCol_g41191.jpg (143KB, 740x583px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 740x583px

>>33089713
>Is there a place for bombers in modern warfare?
Yes. Iron bombs are cheap as hell to drop and, regardless of its unpopularity, terror bombing works.

>but enemy fighters and surface to air missiles!
There's a reason why the Serbians shooting down the F-117 was such a big deal.

>Also, I haven't heard of the B-21 until just now
Are you kidding me? They've even been publicizing it on television.

>>33090168
They'll hit radar stations / air defences, airbases, depots, ports, power plants, comms facilities, etc first. A non-MAD WW3, if one ever happens, is unlikely to last long before there's a clear, if not complete victor. Factories will be considered targets, but they might be pretty low priorities if it's unlikely that they're going to be able to produce much before the war is over.

File: Ayesha.jpg (311KB, 700x909px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 700x909px

>>33090194
Thank you once again.

Also, completely unrelated but how good are our anti-ballistic missile defenses, and are we making progress in that area, and if that technology advanced enough could it lead to large scale conventional warfare again?

>>33089713
why strategic bombers are scarry as shit?

>>33089713
Never forget son

Fighter pukes make movies
Bomber pilots make history

File: ORD_Phalanx_CIWS_Firing_lg.jpg (105KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x570px

>>33089713
>it's not like the escorts can stop the missiles.
What if you take a big bomber and put this one it?

>>33089713
Strategic bombers like the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are standoff missile carriers, yes they have a role in modern warfare.

>>33090244
It's only a matter of time before it does happen. When lasers become a reality, we'll see them put on huge planes like the B-2 and they'll essentially be turned into flying fortresses that are impossible to shoot down with missiles. Big planes will basically be the tanks to jet fighter "infantry".

File: comanche.jpg (51KB, 960x239px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x239px

>>33090304
And then when they get smaller and can be put on fighters, we'll see a return to mass dogfights and gun usage. This is truly the best timeline.

Also, why was the Comanche cancelled? It seemed like it had so much potential, especially in our "everything must be stealth" future.

>>33090311
Helicopters are used mostly in safe airspace, where the main threat is close range AA, like IR camera equipped MANPADS that are brought out by infantry who detect the chopper with their eyes and ears. Stealth on an attack chopper is just a waste of money. Anything that requires stealth would be better carried out by a stealth bomber, like the f-35.

File: 75105 B-52H 61-0036 left rear M61 Vulcan.jpg (61KB, 756x504px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 756x504px

>>33090244
They did on the B-52H.

>>33090311
Because Donald Rumsfeld (and his fellow neoconservatives) believed that warfare between major powers was obsolete and the US should switch to a light force capable of invading and occupying banana republics.

A lot of weapon systems and programs were scrapped so they could divert funding to this objective, which became a necessity after Iraq.

>>33089713

Old style bombers like the B-52 are now equipped with long range air launched cruise missiles (ALCM) for use against an enemy with long range SAMs. With ranges potentially well in excess of 1000 km, they out-range any SAM system, and a single strategic bomber can carry many.

Actual penetration of enemy airspace by bombers used to be envisaged as by speed and then by evading radar and interceptors by low altitude flight using ground clutter to obscure your approach (eg the B-1B). With advances in both ground and air based radar this approach has fallen out of favour, and so thinking is now on penetration by stealth aircraft (B-2 and future B-21) potentially supported by an anti-interceptor platform, penetrating counter-air (PCA). Strategic bombing is still an area of active development.

>>33089713
>Is there a place for bombers in modern warfare?

Yeah, it's called delivering extremely huge quantities of very large weapons.

>at that point why not just build more multiroles

Because they can't carry the quantity and size of weapons that a bomber can.

>To even use them you'd have to secure the airspace with air superiority and SEAD

SAM's and enemy fighters are something that every single aircraft in the sky has to contend with. It isn't just bombers. If the enemy can shoot down your bombers they can shoot down everything else.

> how the heck were we planning on using bombers during the Cold War

By flying them towards the enemy in massive numbers and dropping huge quantities of very large weapons.

Bomber crews weren't expected to survive, but it didn't really matter since what they were doing was dropping thousands of nuclear weapons on a country that would be firing thousands back.

You seem to believe that if you can't execute an air mission with absolute perfection and no losses whatsoever, it isn't worth doing at all. You will always have losses in war. The only thing that matters is whether those losses are made up for by your gains. Expending a thousand bombers and a several thousand crew is peanuts compared to dropping a nuke on every single target in the soviet union that can host a plane or a missile.

If your whole plan is to sit at home and twiddle your thumbs unless you can conduct an air campaign with 0 problems, you're not going to win that war.

>>33089713
The only thing that decides the outcome of war is bombing from bomber planes or money.
The day when money is out of the question, then the bombers will be the only thing deciding the outcome of war.
After that, who knows, it will be the year over 9000 of our Lord and someone will have Tesla coils to kill anything that flies at any moment. They will call it Bird flue.

File: 1478489705885.jpg (24KB, 527x323px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 527x323px

>>33090396

File: C280hbDWIAESWOI[1].jpg (74KB, 1200x654px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1200x654px

>>33089713
https://twitter.com/bjoernstritzel/status/823935037817188357

In one of the Mosul battle videos from ISIS you can see a B-52 strike. Not useless imo.

>>33090304
>>33090311
You guys are being dumb. If laser weaponry became real, anything flying high would die because instantaneous LOS weaponry would murder it from the ground.

The various drawbacks of lasers mean it won't be developed in such a way probably but c'mon, think about what you're saying.

>>33089713
>Is there a place for bombers in modern warfare?
Nigga u gay?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWR-i-UGXow

>>33090396
What caliber does it shoot?

File: 1471064682335.webm (895KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 854x480px

>>33090212

Because they can carry a lot of bombs and cruise missiles and on top of that, those very same cruise missiles and bombs can contain nuclear warheads.

>>33089713
What do you think drones are and do?

File: B-2.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>33094904

20mm.

File: 1487698013635.jpg (15KB, 400x344px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x344px

>>33094977

File: B-2-1.webm (1020KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 1280x720px

>>33095087

Have some more.

>>33094953
>No sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoefOvPRCzg

>>33089713
Yes, keeping dozens of JDAMs in the air is hella useful.