could heavy bombers make a come back?

[C130]

now I'm not taking about the B-52 or Tu-95 or the supersonic bombers and the stealth one, but the type used in WW2

my thinking on this has to do with Syria,Libya, and what's going on Iraq/Afghanistan. these terrorists have no air force and limited anti air weapons. so wouldn't a cheap bomber do the trick??

now I know there is attack jets and strike jets like the Su-24 and Mig-23, but gotta think it would a lot easier to build a heavy bomber, cost to fly it and maintain it would be cheaper, and be more effective at bombing targets with it's slower speed.


take for instance the Avro Lancaster

Avro Lancaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


can carry 14,000 pounds worth of bombs

while Assad is using Mi-8/17s to drop a couple of barrels bombs. that's not as effective as a dedicated bomber

 

[Gufi]

take for instance the Avro Lancaster

Many commercial planes could be converted to bombers of this sort, think on the lines of better speed, longer flying capability, as well as higher altititude. An A 380 would hold a huge payload if it could be altered. But the new cannon on the C 130 should replace bombers in many areas

 

[VCheng]

Many commercial planes could be converted to bombers of this sort, think on the lines of better speed, longer flying capability, as well as higher altititude. An A 380 would hold a huge payload if it could be altered. But the new cannon on the C 130 should replace bombers in many areas

There is much more to a heavy bomber than just payload. Converting an aircraft designed as a passenger jet into a heavy bomber is not cost effective. There are several choices up to 100,000 lbs of bombs already. How much more capacity is needed?

 

[Kompromat]

Lancaster Bomber pictures, taken by me.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You are essentially fielding a costlier and more vulnerable aircraft against small, isolated pockets of enemies who don't possess high-value assets. Doesn't seem to make much sense, especially in light of COIN and drone development.

 

[Gufi]

There is much more to a heavy bomber than just payload. Converting an aircraft designed as a passenger jet into a heavy bomber is not cost effective. There are several choices up to 100,000 lbs of bombs already. How much more capacity is needed?

True, but bombs now are laser guided, percision weapons and most nations do not even have dedicated bombers of the olden times.
Fighter jets have expensive ordinance which is not feasible for small attacks as they can not destroy different targets and continue on bombing missions with sustained ordinance.
There are two options like I said, one is the cannon being introduced into the C 130 which is precisely for the trucks and pick ups which are not worth spending a 100000 missile on.
The second is taking a civilian air plane and modifying it. It is not nearly as expensive as you think. There is a flying plane with an ability to lift tremendous amount of weight. The modifications will need to make a bomb hatch and secure the bombs safely, things that are already very easily doable with the present technology. So R and D is kept to a minimum, there is no research on plane engines, etc, and there can be multiple targets bombed by the plane itself using small or large bombs as needed for the target. With the billions spent on expensive guided weapons, not to mention the operational costs of flying fighter jets this is a feasible option where countries with minimal air defence can be targeted for hours on end because of the tremendous capacity to fly long distance or in this case, for extended periods of time. Just to give you an example the 747s which are in storage can be bought at cheaper rates, their civilian components sold to cover some cost, and then modified to be bombers.
5 to 6 flying over a country like Yemen would save Saudi air force a lot of money and give a much stronger deterrent then jets which come, bomb and fly away.

Lancaster Bomber pictures, taken by me.

A true classic plane, the work horse of the British air force in the war.

Ps @C130 ur views on what I have written

 

[VCheng]

Just to give you an example the 747s which are in storage can be bought at cheaper rates, their civilian components sold to cover some cost, and then modified to be bombers.
5 to 6 flying over a country like Yemen would save Saudi air force a lot of money and give a much stronger deterrent then jets which come, bomb and fly away.

RSAF needs to consider saving money? Who else would consider such a conversion?

 

[Gufi]

RSAF needs to consider saving money? Who else would consider such a conversion?

The wars of tomorrow are shaping up to be more against militias and guerillas rather then armies with fixed air forces. Any country would prefer cheaper options as well as an option of sustained bombing. Imagine a sustained battle in the outskirts of a city where you see ISIS reinforcements coming in batches.
Here planes with larger bombing loads, not quick bombing and refuelling back at a distant carrier, would be more to the advantage of the air force. This is a real world situation and you can come up with others.
.

 

[VCheng]

The wars of tomorrow are shaping up to be more against militias and guerillas rather then armies with fixed air forces. Any country would prefer cheaper options as well as an option of sustained bombing. Imagine a sustained battle in the outskirts of a city where you see ISIS reinforcements coming in batches.
Here planes with larger bombing loads, not quick bombing and refuelling back at a distant carrier, would be more to the advantage of the air force. This is a real world situation and you can come up with others.
.

The future lies in small armed drones, deployed one by one all the way up to hugely scaleable swarms, with precision weapons. (This future is already here but not yet deployed fully.)

 

[Penguin]

take for instance the Avro Lancaster

Avro Lancaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


can carry 14,000 pounds worth of bombs

F-15E: 2 wing pylons, fuselage pylons, bomb racks on CFTs with a capacity of 23,000 lb (10,400 kg) of external fuel and ordnance

F/A-18E: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance

Rafale: 14 hardpoint for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M), with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance

and so on.

 

[Audio]

Bomber will make a comeback when it will be escorted by it's own array of protection drones and fielding directed energy weapons for selfdefense, much like WWII bombers had cannon and machine gun turrets.

 

[SQ8]

Bombers may not be making a comeback but dedicated bomb trucks may be(versus the multirole trend that took over in the later part of the 20th century).

Air combat is becoming less and less survivable and what is needed are bomb trucks that cost less and haul a lot more to the target. When I say lot more I mean a lot more target-able ordnance. Smaller bombs but lots of them to kill many.
Carpet bombing does nothing to shake a population up for the long run and only creates further instabilities in the world of today.

 

[C130]

F-15E: 2 wing pylons, fuselage pylons, bomb racks on CFTs with a capacity of 23,000 lb (10,400 kg) of external fuel and ordnance

F/A-18E: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance

Rafale: 14 hardpoint for Air Force versions (Rafale B/C), 13 for Navy version (Rafale M), with a capacity of 9,500 kg (20,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance

and so on.

and these fighters cost what $60 to $100 million to buy?? cost tens of thousands per hour to operate.


i'm talking low tech 1940's era bombers that would cost at most $10 million to build in this era.

 

[Natan]

UAVs with long endurance and much more hardpoints can do the job with precision-guided munitions.

 

[Penguin]

and these fighters cost what $60 to $100 million to buy?? cost tens of thousands per hour to operate.


i'm talking low tech 1940's era bombers that would cost at most $10 million to build in this era.

You would think putting a bombbay into a commercial jet and perhaps adding some wing stations might give a quick and cheap solution. Untill you look at civilian airliner costs.

Boeing
Unit cost

• 737-100: US$32 million
• 737-600: US$59.4 million
• 737-700: US$78.3 million
• 737-800: US$93.3 million
• 737-900ER: US$99.0 million
• 757-200: US$65 million (2002)
• 757-300: US$80 million (2002)
• 767-300ER: US$185.8 million (2013)
• 767-300F: US$188.0 million (2013)
• 777-200ER: US$261.5 million
• 777-200LR: US$296.0 million
• 777-300ER: US$320.2 million
• 777F: US$300.5 million

Airbus
Unit cost
2015 prices:

• A318: US$74.3 (€70.5) million
• A319: US$88.6 (€84.0) million
• A320: US$97.0 (€92.0) million
• A321: US$113.7 (€107.8) million
• A330-200: US$229.0 million, €208.8 million (2015)
• A330-300: US$253.7M, €231.3M (2015)
• A330-200F: US$232.2M, €211.7M (2015)
• A340-200: US$87 million (about DEM 163.6 million or £53 million) (1989)
• A340-300: US$238.0 million (£145.4 million or €164.1 million) (2011)
• A340-500: US$261.8 million (£160 million or €180.6 million) (2011)
• A340-600: US$275.4 million (£168.25 million or €190 million) (2011)

Even regional airliners like ATR-72 set you back more than $10 million, e.g.

Unit cost
Atr 72–600: US$24.7 million; US$74M / 3 aircraft = US$24.7M per aircraft (2014)

What Planes Cost -- And Why $550 Million Is Cheap For A New Bomber - Forbes

UK Armed Forces Commentary: Buy a plane, get an air force