Have Bombers become obsolete in Modern warfare?

[A chauhan]

Well ! for mere bombing purpose i won't fly over enemy territory rather i would choose a missile that can hit the target from a long distance, this is age of Multirole Aircrafts which possesses A2A as well as A2G capabilities...why to send specific bombers... why not to send some multirole aircraft with missiles having ability to blast the desired enemy area with desired calculated effects...

 

[AJSINGH]

Well ! for mere bombing purpose i won't fly over enemy territory rather i would choose a missile that can hit the target from a long distance, this is age of Multirole Aircrafts which possesses A2A as well as A2G capabilities...why to send specific bombers... why not to send some multirole aircraft with missiles having ability to blast the desired enemy area with desired calculated effects...

true , dedicated bombers are only used when enemy air defense is destroyed completely unless the bomber happens to be B-2

 

[rohanamz]

i think it depends on the nature of military. India needs only fighter bombers like mirage 2000. it fulfills the requirements of indian military.

 

[sandeepdg]

What you folks are completely forgetting is a thing called "Stand-off Cruise missile launch platform" ! In this case you don't venture into enemy territory at all, you also don't need fighter support always, you just take off from a far off base (that's where the range of LR bombers come to use) from the theater of operation, pack a load ALCMs which can be armed with both conventional and nuclear payloads, go near to max. range of your ALCMs and launch them at your targets and return back to your home base. Boom ! and your target is history ..... you don't need a billion dollar stealth bomber to do that since you are far off from enemy territory and their interceptor aircrafts.

 

[Yusuf]

Slams are limited by its range. If the US had to bomb baghdad, it had to fly over iraqi airspace and not from somewhere in the persian gulf.

If the use of missiles itself was the case, then longer range cruise missiles launched from subs or surface ships have been in existance for a long time. Still that didnt stop the US from deploying the B2s or the 52s in iraq and astan.

 

[BunBunCake]

Bombers are not obsolete.
A fighter or multi-role aircraft cannot drop nearly as many bombs as a dedicated bomber can.

If you want to win a war with your air force, you need a bomber. No multi-role aircraft is sufficient to achieve this mission.

Of course, you'd need to escort the bombers with your best fighter jets though.

 

[Rebelkid]

JSF is basically bomber...its made to hit ground targets and not for AIr to AIr ocmbat..... though it can defend itself if attacked

 

[BunBunCake]

JSF is basically bomber...its made to hit ground targets and not for AIr to AIr ocmbat..... though it can defend itself if attacked

It's multi role.... yes, it can attack and also strike ground targets.
You cannot call it a bomber man.

It cannot drop many bombs you know. Take that in comparison to a B-52. Now that's a real bomber.

 

[Rebelkid]

It's multi role.... yes, it can attack and also strike ground targets.
You cannot call it a bomber man.

It cannot drop many bombs you know. Take that in comparison to a B-52. Now that's a real bomber.

ITs basically for Bomber role...Its no where nearly in comparison to a fighter in terms of speed and agility. Its designed to be a stealth bomber...JSF can drop precision guided and many other bombs.

(B-52 is a strategic bomber while JSF is like a tactical bomber)

 

[BunBunCake]

ITs basically for Bomber role...Its no where nearly in comparison to a fighter in terms of speed and agility. Its designed to be a stealth bomber...JSF can drop precision guided and many other bombs.

(B-52 is a strategic bomber while JSF is like a tactical bomber)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-capabilities.html

The F-35 is designed for extraordinary air-to-air combat performance, using advanced stealth to avoid detection while employing a massively powerful sensor package to locate, target and destroy multiple adversary fighter aircraft. Those threats are eliminated before the F-35's presence is even known.

First look, first shot, first kill. With supersonic speed, the most powerful engine ever flown in a fighter, the ability to carry weapons internally and avoid the aerodynamic drag of external stores, and turning agility of up to 9 g's, the F-35 will provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor, and superior to all other fighters.

The F-35 will be the most formidable strike fighter ever fielded. In stealth mode, the F-35 can carry an internal weapons load that includes two 2,000-pound joint direct attack munitions (jdams) (1,000-pound jdams on the F-35B variant) and two advanced, medium-range, air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM).

Yes, JSF is a tactical bomber indeed. But that's not what we think of when someone mentions 'bomber'.

 

[Rebelkid]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-capabilities.html


Yes, JSF is a tactical bomber indeed. But that's not what we think of when someone mentions 'bomber'.

JSF,s basic role is for bombing missions..the Air superiority role goes to the F-22's ..

Watch the program future dogfights..its uploaded in youtube(though there is lotta BS in that documentry over hyping US weapons)

though if its an air supiriority fighter..why does US have to invest on both F-22's and F-35's if just one of it can get the job done ?

 

[BunBunCake]

JSF,s basic role is for bombing missions..the Air superiority role goes to the F-22's ..

Watch the program future dogfights..its uploaded in youtube(though there is lotta BS in that documentry over hyping US weapons)

though if its an air supiriority fighter..why does US have to invest on both F-22's and F-35's if just one of it can get the job done ?

US isn't investing in F-35 after this development. Read the article (on IDF). US is now upgrading it's F-15's to SE standards so that it doesn't have to buy more F-35's.
The JSF is mainly for foreign countries (allies of US).

Either way, I doubt JSF is intended purely for a bombing role

 

[Rebelkid]

US isn't investing in F-35 after this development. Read the article (on IDF). US is now upgrading it's F-15's to SE standards so that it doesn't have to buy more F-35's.
The JSF is mainly for foreign countries (allies of US).

Either way, I doubt JSF is intended purely for a bombing role

yea...their F-15's will be getting AESA radars i think

and about JSF

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5572016/obama-breaks-a-promise-to-britain.thtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AO01F20091125?sp=true

old news/..but...US acting like their usuall self here

 

[notinlove]

US isn't investing in F-35 after this development. Read the article (on IDF). US is now upgrading it's F-15's to SE standards so that it doesn't have to buy more F-35's.
The JSF is mainly for foreign countries (allies of US).

Either way, I doubt JSF is intended purely for a bombing role

what do you mean by SE ?

if its strike eagle then that's gonna be obsolete soon.

if you mean Silent Eagle , then that's just boeing's wet dream nothin more

 

[Rage]

what do you mean by SE ?

if its strike eagle then that's gonna be obsolete soon.

if you mean Silent Eagle , then that's just boeing's wet dream nothin more

Why wet dream?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/boeing-unveils-the-stealthy-f-.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ine=Boeing Looks To First Silent Eagle Flight

 

[notinlove]

Why wet dream?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/boeing-unveils-the-stealthy-f-.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ine=Boeing Looks To First Silent Eagle Flight

because nobody is buying it ..and nobody is going to in the forseeable future. and more over i'll be damned if it is anywhere as stealthy as even the jsf

 

[Rage]

because nobody is buying it ..and nobody is going to in the forseeable future. and more over i'll be damned if it is anywhere as stealthy as even the jsf

Yeh I know, the price makes no sense to me too.

But, in light of the serious problems and delays the JSF has been facing, I 'll take this, from the Jan 15. issue of Aviationweek:

With radar-cross-section (RCS) trials for Boeing's Silent Eagle semi-stealthy F-15 prototype complete, company officials are now focusing on South Korea as a possible first customer.

The company is eyeing South Korea's forthcoming F-X3 competition for 60 fighters as the first sales opportunity for the Silent Eagle. South Korea is expected to issue a request for proposals by early 2011 for new fighters. At a later date, Saudi Arabia may accept solicitations to replace up to 80 early model F-15s, says Bass. Singapore is also a possible customer

And this from Sept. 2009:

U.S., Saudis Deal For Additional Eagles

Washington and Riyadh are close to setting the framework that could ease the way for the Royal Saudi Air Force to buy an additional 72 Boeing F-15 Strike Eagles.

Saudi Arabia has been looking at how to replace its F-15C/Ds for some time, with one area of sensitivity believed to be what standard of Strike Eagle would be made available.

There are indications that progress is being made on resolving this. It remains to be determined whether Saudi Arabia would commit to a single purchase or acquire the replacement aircraft in batches.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...is Deal For Additional Eagles&channel=defense

at face value, for now.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

JP if you don't have air dominance then how can you go ahead with bombing? Don't you think a bomber will be a sitting duck in a hostile air space?

Firstly i would conclude that will you launch a bramhos or prithvi when you have to clear an average enemy camps or an unstable hidden target. You can consider the Veitnam`s case only where the US used there bombers on an extensively large scale not because they didnt had enough missiles but it was not possible to carry hundreds of missiles and there launchers and silos or whatever.
Sencondly,as far as the safety of a bomber is concerned then if you study the history of bombers then you will came to know that bombers are made strike deep into the enemy`s territory in which thousands(and i mean thousands) of bombers were distroyed but its not necessary that bombers are always a weak factor in the air force.If used with a perfect strategy then they can return safely accomplishing there mission without a single damage. Bombers were,are and will always be the most essential part of a strike by making a cheap and effective attack.

 

[AJSINGH]

Bomber from what understand are B-1 B-2, Tu160 and larger bombers are very much required ,however their use would only come after air dominance or with fighter escort , strategic bombers are different than fighter jets which can be adopted to bombing mission

 

[lodaxstax]

I think with todays longer range and precision strike weapons like cruise missiles and LGBs, bombers again come into equation.

Imagine if India fields a big bomber loaded with Brahmos/Nirbhay precision cruise missiles. It can wreck havoc in enemy domain with flurry of deep precision strikes being well within Indian territory hence no risk of SAMs.

I believe it would be a safe, cheaper yet very effective way of neutralising enemy defences and sensitive installations with no requirement of fancy and expensive stealth features. If we can develop a squadron of such bombers, it will cause a serious re calculation in enemy camp