- Feb 16, 2009
With the advent of multiple role fighter aircrafts and advanced missile system has the fighter-bombers become unnecessary in present day warfare?
JP it all comes down to the cost, you can use a multi role fighter both for obtaining air dominance and then one it is achieved to bomb the $hit out of enemy. Take an example of our MKI. What would you prefer for IAF 2 more squadron of MKI or 7-8 dedicated bombers? Hope this clarifies.Nitesh, i didn't mean it that way. What I meant is AFTER one gets complete air-dominance, which I think is the priority of every armed forces in a war, the bombers could play the vital role of smashing enemy ground troops.
Missiles of today are way ahead missiles of 50 years back now they are smarter and assisted by GPS so they can hit accurately moreover they can be made in numbers and no human life is invovled. The mass up of bombers was precisely due to inaccuracy of missiles. Any competent air force which can put planes in air will be able to shoot down the bomber agreed they are stealth but it is not impossible to detect them. Once detected it is game over.Why would you be bothered about SAMS when you are not going to be picked up on RADAR? Yes one F-117 was shot down, but give me an instance of the B-2 being shot down.
Bombers have their own place. Missiles were around 50 years back as well, but still that did not prevent the US and the USSR from coming up with bombers. Why would the US spend $2billion each on something that it does not find useful?
2000 lb internal storage + 5000lb external storage (Total of 7000 lbs) per F-22. 7000 X 6 =42,000 lbs.Well analysed, mostly agree. But how on earth did you arrive at the figure of 42,000 lbs of ordnance for six F-22's?
A future stealth bomber is not in the charts right now. Most nations today are trying to build stealthy 5th gen fighters and stealth UCAVs. Even supersonic stealth bombers are still not capable of multirole, and thats their biggest weakness. They have low sortie rates and are plagued by the same weaknesses of most bombers, the inability to clear the skies of enemy aircraft.Also, the B-2 is a first-generation stealth bomber, and since then there have been significant improvements in stealth technology: for instance on the F-22 which is capable of supersonic speeds without afterburning (removed on first-generation bombers to minimize infra-red detection). And it is not inconceivable that these will be applied to bombers in future as well. Infact, there is already evidence of synthetic fuel blends and petroleum gases being used to power bombers like the B1b Lancer to supersonic speeds. See for instance: Synthetic Fuel Powers USAF B1b to Supersonic Speed
Intercontinental strikes are losing their importance with the advent of ballistic missiles, and more importantly, long-range cruise missiles. An Ohio-class SSBN armed with Tomohawk missiles can deliver precision strikes with much less risk and higher chance of success.The 50,000 lbs of ordnance on the B-2 is also concomitant of internal ordnance and fuselage, and the single most important advantage of the B-2 over the F-22 remains range, as your own analysis would suggest. (Besides, a B-2 is also capable of aerial refueling to enable intercontinental sorties).