Greatest Modern Bomber

[Zarathos]

Other - ICBM, for obvious reasons. Or, if it must be conventional - Storm Shadow, Taurus, Kh-55. Sorry, but airplane bombers are kinda obsolete.

[Matt308]

Really. Zarathos, where do you formulate this stuff. You named 3 out of 4 weapons that can only be delivered by airplanes! So I'm assuming you mean that "long range strike" platforms are obsolete? You only need a 1500km platform?

Explain yourself. You have made quite a few posts in various threads claiming absolutes with exactly NOTHING to back them up.

[Zarathos]

Bombers are good for one thing - level the enemy. Problem with them, in my eyes, is, that todays conflicts (and all conflicts in forseeable future) are asymetric ones. NATO armies vs partisans (or 3rd world armies with obsolete weapons and small numbers). And while you can use bombers for asymetric conflicts, that is like using cannon to kill a fly.

Today bombers are simply not needed. All you can do with bomber you can do with missiles. Short, medium or long range. Their deterrence factor is not exisistant, because of ICBM's. So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete. You can deliver missiles with heavy fighters (like various versions of Su-27). And if you need them delivered on the other side of the world - there are air tankers. Or ships.

[quote] You named 3 out of 4 weapons that can only be delivered by airplanes![/quoe]

There are works on naval version of Storm Shadow. There is naval version of Kh-55 (3-K10 or SS-N-21 if you wish). Even Taurus, according to the EADS website, is adaptable for ground or naval lauchners.

[evangilder]

Heavy fighters can deliver a small payload on a tactical strike area. That's fine, unless you want to area bomb for flushing out and/or destroying the enemy completely. Heavy fighters carrying small bomb loads are no replacement for a B-52 or a B-2. If todays heavy bombers were "not needed", then why are there so many still in service? They are still useful and needed, asymmetrical warfare or not.

If you had a large concentration of troops and equipment, you want as much firepower leveled at them as possible. A B-52 will clear the way for you and leave little left to provide any further resistance. You will not be able to do that with a couple of heavy fighters.

Missiles are not cheap, and there is no reason to lob a million plus dollar missile on a target that an iron bomb will eliminate.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Zarathos

Other - ICBM, for obvious reasons. Or, if it must be conventional - Storm Shadow, Taurus, Kh-55. Sorry, but airplane bombers are kinda obsolete.

Yes but you failed to realize one thing:

This thread is not about a) Best missile, b) Best ICBM. It is about Bombers.

[Matt308]

Like Adler, I'm still not understanding Zarathos' point. Evan captured it perfectly... millions of coin for a missile strike, or perhaps a bomber dumptruck that can loiter for hours dropping inexpensive dingleberries to make the enemy mental.

Let me know Zarathos if you need a translation...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Zarathos

So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete.

Far from it - remember, you could recall a bomber if a change of mission comes about - once fired I see little that could done with an ICBM except waiting for it to hit its target.

If you look at the B-2, although its strategic mission is just about obsolete, it has been used to carry tactical weapons over a vast distance. Everyone forgets the range this aircraft has making it extremely cost effective to operate.

[buzzard]

I gotta go with the Buff. A 50yr old design still doing its job on the front-line...In fact, I think it has a respectable claim to the title of "Best Combat Aircraft of All Time".

The Bone had such a problem-plagued career that it doesn't even come close, and the B-2 is not only obscenely expensive, but is also so dependent on stealth for survival, that when proper counter-measures are developed (and they almost certainly will be, albeit not by the nations the US expects to fight in the near-future) it will join the battleship as the ultimate in white elephants.

Here's my favorite Buff anecdote (This is from memory, so don't get on my back about errors in ATC terminology)

F-16 : Tower, this is Viper 6. I've got an engine glitch and request immediate landing priority.
Tower: Negative, Viper. We've got a B-52 coming in with an engine out.
F-16 : Oh, right...The dreaded seven-engine approach...

JL

[parsifal]

I even questioon that strategic bombing is obsolete. ICBMs are basically a political taboo, except in casews of absolute national emergency. Tomahawks are very useful, but are expensive, and dont level places in the same manner as a bomber can. In both Iraq wars, it was bombers that did the majority of the damage. Against the Serbgs, once again it was bombers.

Bombers aree a relatively inexpensive platform, delivering relatively inexpensive ordinance, and able to deliver such hevay tonnages of bombs as to generat6e a lot of fear in their enemies.

I would rate bombers as about the same as armour in terms of obsolesence. perhaps they are, but for now, there is nothing to replace them.

I voted for the aardvark. So versatile, and still the coolest looking in my opinion

[Kruska]

Yes, I know it is the B-52, but I just had to vote for the F-111, always liked this aircraft.

Regards
Kruska

[fly boy]

b-52h or g what never is the newest one

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What never is the newest?

[Kruska]

Hello D.A.I.G.,

Maybe you have to down size your signature if you want to display further “novel art” by flyboy.

Regards
Kruska

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Huh what?

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Huh what?

Hello D.A.I.G.

Or you should keep the size of your signature picture (looks good) but you would have to extend your posting space to add in all of fly boy’s smashing comments.

No offence meant fly boy, actually I love to read (trying to interpret) those posts of yours


Regards
Kruska