Bomber Aircraft | Page 2 | World Defense

Bomber Aircraft

Corzhens

MEMBER
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
853
Reactions
111 1 0
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
This reminds me of the stories I've heard during the 2nd world war when the Japanese invaded the Philippines. When the US military were poised to rescue our country, bombings in Manila began. People evacuated to the nearby provinces for the safety of their families. Japanese pilots were so popular with their suicide attacks.

I think bombings executed by planes is an effective method of scaring people to submit to the invaders. So why not try bombing to scare ISIS out of their wits?
 

Susimi

MEMBER
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
246
Reactions
55 0 0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
It's already happening but trying to fight an insurgency is like trying to push down an air pocket. You push it down in one place, and another pops up in another place.

Anyway, the Tu-95 Bear is one of my favourite modern day bombers. It's props spin at supersonic speeds and it's so ugly it's beautiful.
 

ke gordon

MEMBER
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
101
Reactions
12 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
Bomber Aircraft

Advantages of bombing
  • Deadly psychological warfare. Infrequent raids frightened civilians, as they had no idea when the bombers were coming, the damage they would inflict, and who would be killed.
  • Allowed for targets out of the reach of artillery or ground forces to be strafed or destroyed.
  • Huge amounts of damage could be inflicted upon targets.
  • Bombers could be modified to assume a wide variety of roles.
Disadvantages of bombing
  • Frequent bombing sometimes ceased to have a terrifying psychological effect on the victims.
  • Civilian casualties are impossible to avoid.
  • Bombers are vulnerable to attack, and the rise of the interceptor in the 1960's proved that one does not need to see his enemy to engage it.
  • Bombers are extremely expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and very vulnerable to interceptors and missiles.
Bombing is awful as innocent civillans are often "collateral damage" at the same time, it is probably necessary when bombers are trying to reach a target that is otherwise out of reach. Is often one of the things that the military will default too when targeting neighborhoods or areas that might be unsafe for gournd troops. It seems to be something that sends a message however.
 

Susimi

MEMBER
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
246
Reactions
55 0 0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
The mass carpet bombing of civilian areas is nothing more than a psychological attack. Little is gained strategically, only just a blow to the peoples moral. I hope we are long past that stage now though and I hope that lessons have been learned from the attacks during WW2 like the blitz and the fire bombings of Dresden & Tokyo.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,511 1,297 0
5022879%20%281%29.jpg


April 22, 2019
Here's An Idea: The Air Force Builds 200 B-21 Stealth Bombers

Russia or China will hate it.
by Kyle Mizokami

The B-21 has disappeared into the “black” world of military technology, and will only reemerge when the bomber is ready.

On October 27, 2015, nearly thirty-four years to the day after Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract to develop the first stealth bomber, the U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop a contract for a new bomber: the B-21 Raider. While many of the details of the Raider are shrouded in mystery, we do know a few things about it, and can infer others.

The B-21 Raider bomber takes its name from both the twenty-first century and the legendary 1942 raid by Gen. James “Jimmy” Doolittle’s force of B-25 Mitchell bombers against targets in and around Tokyo, Japan. In invoking the Doolittle Raid, the Air Force is drawing attention to attack’s audacious nature, the strategic and tactical surprise, and the epic distances General Doolittle and his “raiders” flew to accomplish their mission.

A tailless, batlike aircraft, the official rendering of the B-21 Raider released by the Air Force bears a superficial resemblance to the B-2 Spirit bomber. There are important distinctions, however. The B-21 moves its engines closer to the wing root, where they occupy the juncture between wing and fuselage, whereas the B-2’s twin pairs of General Electric F118-GE-100 engines are distinctly apart from the fuselage on the wing. The

Raider’s engine air intakes are angled and not serrated like those on the B-2 Spirit. The Raider also has overwing exhausts to mask the infrared signature of the four engines, unlike the B-2. (Interestingly, this is exactly how the B-2’s exhausts were depicted in an April 1988 artist’s conception of that bomber.)

The aircraft appears similar in size to the B-2 Spirit, almost certainly making it a four-engine bomber. The announcement of Pratt and Whitney in 2016 as a B-21 subcontractor narrows down the new bomber’s engines to two designs: the F-100 and the F-135. The mature F-100, which powers the F-15 Eagle series of fighters, seems a sound choice, but the Air Force may want the F-135, which powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for its growth potential and ability to lower engine costs for the F-35 fleet.

Like its predecessor, the B-21 Raider will be a heavy strategic bomber designed to carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. If the B-2 is of similar size, it follows it will carry a similar amount of ordinance. This means two bomb bays. In order to keep costs down, the Air Force may elect to reuse the Advanced Applications Rotary Launcher from the B-2 bomber. The AARL is fitted one per bomb bay, each capable of carrying eight bombs or missiles.

In the nuclear mission, the Air Force will arm the B-21 with the Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile, the next-generation stealthy nuclear cruise missile. It will also carry B-61 free-fall nuclear gravity bombs, particularly the new B61-12 bomb with “dial-a-yield” capability. A combination of these two weapons will allow the B-21 to use its stealthy cruise missiles to clear a path through the enemy air-defense network before dropping B-61 bombs on primary and secondary targets.

For conventional missions, the B-21 will carry the JASSM-ER conventional cruise missile and two-thousand-pound GBU-31 Joint Directed Attack Munition satellite-guided bombs. The B-21 could use these weapons in a similar manner as its nuclear weapons, blasting its way through the enemy’s defenses before dropping JDAMs. Alternately, the B-21 could be used as a missile truck, launching up to sixteen JASSM-ERs at enemy targets from a distance, or penetrating less sophisticated enemy defenses to deliver JDAMs on target. The B-21 will also need to carry the thirty-thousand-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, the largest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal, as the B-2 is currently the only bomber capable of lifting the enormous bomb.

Like many new weapons systems, the Air Force has instructed Northrop Grumman to build the bomber with a so-called “open architecture” hardware and software system. As a result, unlike previous bombers, the B-21 could become much more than just a heavy bomber. The open-architecture specification should ensure that future upgrades will be relatively easy to integrate into the B-21, and for the bomber to adapt to a slew of new, different missions. The bomber’s weapons bay could end up being more of a mission payload bay, with surveillance, communications, drone or electronic warfare packages loaded inside to facilitate a variety of missions, particularly in denied environments. The Raider is on the path to being America’s first multirole bomber.

The B-21 Raider is set to fly in the mid-2020s, and the Air Force plans to buy at least a hundred of the bombers to replace the B-52H Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer bombers. A larger fleet of up to two hundred bombers is possible, but entirely bound to fiscal realities. We don’t know what the Raider in its final form will look like, or when the Air Force will release more information on an aircraft it wants to carefully protect. The B-21 has disappeared into the “black” world of military technology, and will only reemerge when the bomber is ready.

 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,511 1,297 0
Japan P1?? It could be a good choice for PN??
Problem is, it is also sanction prone, and OPEX is pretty high, in comparison to similar a/c's
 

Mastankhan

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
511
Reactions
2,127 71 0
Country
Pakistan
Location
USA
Hi,


Working with the americans for the last 30 plus years---nothing surprises me---.

Do you think that pulling a rabbit out of the hat is magic---imagine delivering bombs thru a Boeing 737---and smart bombs at that---.

Only an american could do something like this revolutionary---.

I am all for respect where respect is due---.

For all the rest of us---the solutions to our problems are right lying in front of us---but it is the americans who have the dare to see them and resolve the issues---.

The 737 aircraft are dime a dozen---you can find one anywhere and everywhere---.

Now let us see what other nation can come up with something like this---.
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,511 1,297 0
The Unusual Carrier Killer Capability Of The Chinese Navy’s Strategic Bomber
H I Sutton
23 Oct 2021

Facing aircraft carriers from the U.S. Navy, Royal Navy, Indian Navy and Japanese, China is looking for a counter. The Chinese Navy (PLAN) has developed a unique 'Carrier Killer' weapon for its H-6 strategic bomber.

1635002760900.png
The H-6 bomber is derived from the Soviet-era Tu-16 Badger bomber. It is a much more modern plane however. Of particular interest is the massive anti-ship ballistic missile, dubbed a 'Carrier Killer'.


China’s recent test of a hypersonic ‘Orbital Bombardment System’ has been characterized as a ‘Sputnik moment’. The world is only just waking up to Chinese advances in strategic weapons technologies. Among a raft of new weapons, which increasingly do not have direct equivalents in the West, are anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). One of these, an air-launched version, appears to include a hypersonic maneuvering missile.

The carrier of this missile is a plane which would have been familiar to those watching the Sputnik-1 satellite launch in 1957. But the modern Chinese Navy (PLAN) iteration, known as H-6, is far from outdated.

The Badger By Any Other Name…

China’s Xian H-6 is a direct evolution of the vintage Tupolev Tu-16 BADGER. In its original Soviet guise, the aircraft was seen as a medium bomber, but with a long range. It was not as large as the Tu-95 BEAR or M-4 BISON bombers, or as fast as the Tu-22M BACKFIRE. And in Russian service it was retired near 30 years ago. But in its Chinese form, it has been transformed into a potent bomber which is still formidable today. The Chinese models are of course much newer, largely dating from the last 20 years, and have much better engines.

The current Chinese Navy version of the Tu-16 Badger has a number of basic upgrades besides avionics and weapons. The crew is reduced to three in a remodeled forward fuselage. And they are provided with ejection seats. The glazed nose is replaced by a large radome and the tail gun by an auxiliary power unit.

Carrier Killer Missile

The most formidable capability seen on the H-6 is believed to be an anti-ship ballistic missile. This massive weapon is the largest air-launched missile in the world. A single round has to be slung underneath the fuselage. And its primary prey is likely to be enemy aircraft carriers. For this reason, it has been widely dubbed a ‘carrier killer’. As far as strategic bombers go this capability is unique.

It consists of a large rocket booster approximately 9 meters (33 feet) long. This is mated to a hypersonic missile which can maneuver to make it harder to counter and adjust for terminal guidance. The exact form of the terminal phase has not been confirmed. But China has shown a hypersonic glide body with its DF-17 land based missile.

The hypersonic payload is likely to include a maneuvering reentry vehicle which allows it to hit a moving target. And it means that it much harder to counter because it’s flight trajectory is unpredictable. Even without an explosive warhead the kinetic energy alone is likely to be enough to destroy a warship.

Anti-ship ballistic missiles are becoming a theme as more countries try to directly counter carrier battle groups and other large and well defended surface combatants. Other countries with them include Iran and Russia, and possibly India.

Other missiles carried include the workhorse KD-63. This is capable of both land attack and anti-ship attacks, but is an older weapon. It is typically carried in conjunction with newer missiles. For the land attack role these are the KD-20 air launched cruise missile. This is broadly equivalent to an air launched Tomahawk. For the anti-ship role it is the YJ-12. This is a large supersonic weapon loosely equivalent to the famous Russian Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn).

The H-6 is a versatile platform and can also carry out reconnaissance missions. The cutting edge of this is as a mothership for the WZ-8 drone. Like the ballistic missile this is likely to be slung under the central fuselage.

Outlook

With its array of advanced missiles, and the ASBM in particular, the H-6 gives the Chinese Navy extended reach. And when combined with the latest warships and submarines, underscores their focus on countering high value surface assets.

This has to be regarded in context of US Navy, and now British or French, carrier battle groups. The ASBM program shows how highly the Chinese Navy regards the threat from aircraft carriers. At the same time, China is busy building up its own aircraft carrier capability.
 

gearpile

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Messages
5
Reactions
0 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
Is it true that trefoil accelerators were installed on all US surface vessels and submarines? I stumbled on this picture in the dark web. The text was mostly redacted except for some reference to fusion, something called an "Anti-Higgs Field", time crystals (?) and the installation events. There were other texts, but they were in German and looked like photographs of texts originally made with a typewriter. I thought better of it and went back to the site to download the texts and whatever else I could find, but the site was gone and all linked sites and their links, etc, all gone. Please advise.
 

gearpile

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Messages
5
Reactions
0 0 0
Country
USA
Location
USA
Is it true that trefoil accelerators were installed on all US surface vessels and submarines? I stumbled on this picture in the dark web. The text was mostly redacted except for some reference to fusion, something called an "Anti-Higgs Field", time crystals (?) and the installation events. There were other texts, but they were in German and looked like photographs of texts originally made with a typewriter. I thought better of it and went back to the site to download the texts and whatever else I could find, but the site was gone and all linked sites and their links, etc, all gone. Please advise.
This is the picture I was referring to.
Trefoil Accelerator.png
 

Khafee

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
12,354
Reactions
24,511 1,297 0
This is the picture I was referring to.View attachment 18637
Is it true that trefoil accelerators were installed on all US surface vessels and submarines? I stumbled on this picture in the dark web. The text was mostly redacted except for some reference to fusion, something called an "Anti-Higgs Field", time crystals (?) and the installation events. There were other texts, but they were in German and looked like photographs of texts originally made with a typewriter. I thought better of it and went back to the site to download the texts and whatever else I could find, but the site was gone and all linked sites and their links, etc, all gone. Please advise.
@GRANNY001 is our resident Submarine Expert.
 
Top