Bomber thread

Why do Russians have the most aesthetic aircraft?

File: tu-16 (1).jpg (2MB, 2840x1880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2840x1880px

>>33149652
"Ugly planes don't fly"
Andrei Tupolev

File: IŁ-102_NTW_3_95_1.jpg (372KB, 1500x919px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1500x919px

>>33149737
"If it’s ugly, it’s British. If it’s weird, It’s French. If it’s ugly and weird, it’s Russian."

File: 1625782-usaf_f_117_nighthawk_formation__1_.jpg (1MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2100x1500px

Step aside, best bomber coming through.

File: E75C5DDE-7BE3-4D66-8BFA-BE40923C60B2-9382-00000B04CCEC7700_tmp.jpg (28KB, 486x321px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 486x321px

>>33149824

File: il-102.jpg (104KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 900x900px

>>33149813
>Il-102
>Ugly
Take it back!

>>33149741
Did that one bomb sympathetically detonate from the ones going off below it?

File: il-28 (6).jpg (74KB, 786x579px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 786x579px

>>33149879

File: B-57 Canberra.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>33149959

File: 9YekYrX.png (55KB, 850x1905px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 850x1905px

>>33148021
#1 Bomber coming through

File: Shackleton +1.jpg (38KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 700x500px

>>33149813

File: when you see your girl naked on the bed waiting for you.png (497KB, 681x456px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 681x456px

>>33150090

>>33150136
haha cheers anon hadnt seen that

>>33150090
>Rusty Shackleton

File: IMG_0820.jpg (36KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 660x371px

Any Avro love?

>>33150136
Kek

File: su-24m2 (2).jpg (200KB, 1200x828px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x828px

>>33150034
Unguided rockets?

>>33150136
>when the EAS comes on and it says LA will be nuked

File: Ilyushin-IL-40-3.jpg (40KB, 742x273px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 742x273px

>>33149912
I refuse to, it looks like a Soviet tractor factory tried to make a ground attack variant of a combine harvester.

At least it isn't as bad as the IL-40 it was derived from.

>>33149751

That shit still amazes me to this day.

File: tu-160 front.jpg (491KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1920x1080px

Badass.

File: Il-6 torpedo bomber.jpg (87KB, 800x273px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x273px

only experimental, one was built.

File: Me163 and b17.jpg (13KB, 332x161px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 332x161px

>>33151313

File: S79-URSS.jpg (37KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x354px

>>33151323

File: ColorYB-40.jpg (24KB, 779x445px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 779x445px

>>33151334

File: XM17.jpg (239KB, 1562x707px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1562x707px

Hello friends

>>33149652
>An ounce of style is worth a pound of performance

File: pe-2.jpg (259KB, 1600x1080px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1600x1080px

>>33151405
Aesthetic.

>>33151405
sosex

File: ant-26.jpg (529KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1024x683px

>Wingspan: 95 m (311 ft 8 in)
>Wing area: 800 m2 (8,600 sq ft)
>Max takeoff weight: 76,000 kg (167,551 lb)
>Powerplant: 12 × Mikulin AM-34FRN V-12 liquid-cooled piston engines (10x tractor, 2x pusher), 890 kW (1,200 hp) each
>1 x 37-millimeter (1.457 in) cannon
>4 x 20-millimeter (0.787 in) ShVAK cannon
>1 x 7.62-millimeter (0.300 in) DA machine gun
>4 x 2 7.62-millimeter (0.300 in) ShKAS machine guns
>Bombs: 15,000 kg (33,000 lb) normal load, 24,600 kg (54,200 lb) max
What could have been.

>>33151647
those wing spars must have been massive

File: 1458753448773.gif (2MB, 200x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x180px

>>33151405

File: Lockheed_CL101_1.jpg (58KB, 743x347px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 743x347px

>>33151647
Lockheed had it better

File: mwprq3d.jpg (50KB, 378x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 378x500px

>>33151647
>>33151666
>>33151684
>2 million lb payload
Imagine strapping some 50 inch guns to the bottom of it

File: beriev be-2500.jpg (371KB, 2126x1492px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 2126x1492px

>>33151684
Are you even trying?

File: CIA for you.png (760KB, 1280x715px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 1280x715px

>>33151666
for you

File: tu-244.jpg (81KB, 650x387px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 650x387px

>>33151694
>2 million lb payload
What the actual fuck.

File: qkk3BZ3.png (53KB, 900x487px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 900x487px

>>33151701
I don't see undermounted F-104 starfighters.

>>33151728
>12 million lbs gross weight
>500 man crew
>can have 24 undermounted F-104 starfighters as parasite aircraft
>powered by 4 nuclear powered ram jets

File: peacekeeping operation.jpg (118KB, 960x648px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x648px

>>33151745
>>33151760
From which decade is this monstrosity?

File: 1483796482814.webm (544KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 480x360px

Panavia Tornado, always related

>>33151694
50 inch anon? , the biggest so far has only been 31.5 inch

>>33151802
Same decade as project Pluto.
1950s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201
>>33151810
I want 50 inch canons.
there is never enough dakka.

>>33151694
>>33151810
Even the Schwerer Gustav at 31.5 inch is 400k over the load much less a 50 inch

>>33151802

There can be only one decade.

The 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1201

>>33151889
fuck.
Well maybe modern materials will make it lighter, and it's excluding all the railway shit.

File: 157c98e7e275.jpg (108KB, 986x768px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 986x768px

>>33151684
>>33151694

You could carry 38 Tsar Bomba's (RDS-220) from that behemoth!

File: casa_b.jpg (481KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1024x702px

>It ended up bombing

>>33151807
what the fuck is that thing shooting

anti airfield bomblets/mines.

>>33152051
Looks like it could be a fuck load of chaff to drop before all its mates come in for a bombing run

>>33152051
MW-1 munition dispenser for dropping anti-infantry/armor/runway bomblets.

File: 1459573822081.jpg (204KB, 1575x1047px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1575x1047px

>>33149902

>>33152018
German bombers are so sexy, I want more color photos

>>33149824
>F-117
>F
>bomber

>>33151647
The maintenance. THE MAINTENANCE.

>>33149737
>>33149652
Wasn't there a Soviet plane that was cancelled because it was too ugly?

File: 379847.jpg (558KB, 3000x1459px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 3000x1459px

>>33152797
Why yes, yes it is indeed a bomber.

File: Tu-22M.jpg (332KB, 1280x865px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1280x865px

can someone tell me how effective and if they still use the rear gun on these planes?

>>33152797
80's air force counter-intelligence pls go

File: BrsVVhYIcAA6XnB.jpg (27KB, 599x402px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 599x402px

>>33153894
please, i'd like to know moreeee

>>33153894
The last time a tailgun on a bomber shot anything down was in Vietnam - B-52s downed MiG-21s on two occasions during Linebacker II.

On the B-52 (before the guns were removed at the end of the Gulf War) and on the Backfire shown in your picture, the guns are radar guided. They're more accurate and likely have a longer effective range than manually aimed guns. However, they'd be next to useless in a modern environment, and arguably even a liability. Modern engagement ranges mean that a fighter will never have to get close enough to be in the range of the tailgun, as even the shortest-ranged missiles in service far outstrip the range of the tailguns.

Even more alarmingly, those radars can be a liability at times. The reason the USAF removed the guns on the B-52s was because a HARM locked onto the tailgun radar of one in the Gulf War. Sure, you could lessen the danger through various different practices like LPI radars, but it's still an unnecessary electronic emission that people can target.

File: IL-40.jpg (52KB, 450x233px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 450x233px

>>33150496

The original IL-40 looked decent, it's just that Sergey Ilyushin decided to solve the problem of the turbines sucking up spent shell casings and powder by turning it into the aeronautic version of Charlie Sheen

File: 02.jpg (65KB, 650x531px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x531px

>>33154324
thanks for the answer mate!

Is there any posibility of the gun on that russian plane to hit a incomming missile?

File: tu-22m3 ass.jpg (63KB, 728x1024px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 728x1024px

>>33153894
It was used in Afghanistan. As Backfires were finishing with their sorties near paki border the closing aircraft were releasing flares as well as shooting their autocannons with special IRCM rounds in case paki fighters get silly. They abandoned this practice rather fast as it was pain in the ass to load the guns, while paki fighters wouldn't have been able to catch up afterburning Backfires anyway and flares were a sufficient enough countermeasure if they were to try.

File: tu-22m2 ass.jpg (57KB, 950x1024px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 950x1024px

>>33154324
There was an instance in Afghan when an assburger Backfire autocannon operator who was regarded as "romantic and poet" in his regiment took Soviet fighters for enemy aircraft and didn't hesitate to fire at them. Fortunately he sucked at shooting, so the two escorts just shied away and he only damaged the gun by shooting the entire ammunition load of 1000 rounds in half a minute.

>>33149824
stop
nobody needs a stealth plane to be square anymore

>>33154487
Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. You'd need an automated FCS that just wasn't realistically possible for the Russians to develop at the time. The concept - effectively a CWIS on a plane - isn't impossible, but it's arguably not worth the effort.

File: tu-22m3 99 fab-250m54.jpg (111KB, 1024x675px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x675px

>>33154487
Of course there is a possibility and the gun has a pretty insane rate of fire, but the targetting would be an issue and with effective firing range of about 2 km it will only have 1.5 to 2.5 seconds depending on the range the travelled by a missile to shoot down something like AIM-120. It can happen, but it is highly unlikely and the gun wasn't meant to do this anyway.

>>33154929
It has automatic TV+radar FCS with 4 km range (likely for a 4 gen fighter RCS) tracking and IFF system though.

>>33149955
Not likely. More likely a prox fuse.

>>33154324
>>33154558
>>33154820
>>33154929
>>33154980
>>33155041
thank you so much for the information, it's quite a rare site, and i'd love to know if it would be possible to be used as a CWIS like >33154929 said

thank you again for answering.

File: tu-22m3 (17).jpg (226KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1500x1013px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWR-i-UGXow

File: b58.jpg (139KB, 780x587px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 780x587px

Super Sonic Master Race Coming Through.

File: d098caa0c25e67f034f005e67b86379d.jpg (164KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1152x864px

Why does nobody ever love the A-26? its just so aesthetic.

>>33153040
>posts aardvark

File: thumb-1920-211917.jpg (364KB, 1920x1045px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1920x1045px

>>33156941
Because it would make me have to choose between the A-26 and the B-25

File: handyhandly.jpg (81KB, 640x439px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x439px

>>33156322
shiny aluminum sex

but god help me, I love me this big fat bastard Victor

File: 1484863769326.jpg (60KB, 407x467px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 407x467px

>>33151405
I wanna fuck that airplane.

>>33149824
Sorry, we thought they were invisible

>>33154324
>the guns are radar guided
They should upgrade them to act as ciws and shot down missiles.

File: tu-95 tail line.jpg (150KB, 1100x763px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1100x763px

>>33158300
Well, theoretically speaking something like GSh-6-23 or even GSh-6-30 with proximity fuse rounds and a FCS (probably integrated with MAWS) sufficient to detect an incoming missile fired at the rear hemisphere from at least 4 km could be good enough to shoot it down, especially if the bomber is afterburning at Mach 1.7 and the missile has already lost some energy and speed on the way. Approach velocity can then be as low as Mach 2.3, all the way down to Mach 1, meaning that the CIWS will have 5 to 12 seconds to react, which is considerable time, especially with this in mind
>The weapons also dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center, including the aircraft firing.
But even at Mach 3 approach velocity it is still 4 seconds, which given an effective FCS could be enough to successfully hit the missile.

File: IMG_0321.jpg (61KB, 657x337px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 657x337px

This is alway the answer to op's question.

Pic very related.

File: 1473688114556.png (9KB, 684x597px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 684x597px

>>33150280
Howl for me baby!

>>33149751
We spent billions for this bitch to drop iron bombs? What the fuck Air Force?

>>33149902
How much money did the Serbs get for selling piece of that F117 to Russia, China, and everyone else not muslim?

File: b-52 (4).jpg (4MB, 6000x2100px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6000x2100px

>>33158518
>Implying there was anything worth buying about a shitty late 70s light low performance attack aircraft

File: B-1 burners.jpg (206KB, 950x634px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 950x634px

>>33158579

>>33152051
The MW-1 "Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck every other person in your 10'000 strong soviet armoured division" bomb

File: Aircraft - Vulcan2.jpg (229KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1920x1200px

>>33150280
Always

>>33151701
>Sergei, we don't have enough thrust for our jet!
>Don't worry Ivan; Jet Canards

File: tu-22m3 dropping fab-3000.jpg (60KB, 1000x689px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1000x689px

Liberation soon, mujahideen.
Orly? When?
Now.

File: buccaneer.jpg (200KB, 958x606px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 958x606px

>>33158839
I got so see XH-558 once, videos do not do justice to how loud and eerie the intake howl is.

File: Panavia Tornado run.gif (1MB, 302x165px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 302x165px

>>33151807
>>33152051
Tornado always has the coolest munitions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGKPMmdGDk

>>33149751
this is my favorite plane
shame on turbine technology though, it doesn't fit the plane