could heavy bombers make a come back?

[C130]

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

commercial jets

i'm talking low aeronautical tech from 1930s 1940s 1950s
for a low intensity conflict where the enemy has none to limited AA capability
t
his is for regimes like Syria and even Africa that rely on helicopters and a limited supply of fighter bombers.

not a stealth bomber.


hell you could make a cheap bomber out of wood/plywood
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you wouldn't need expensive grade plane aluminum or expensive jet engines.

the blue prints are out there. this isn't rocket science

 

[VCheng]

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.

I think the idea would work better on all the older jets currently mothballed. Their prices are much more reasonable by comparison.

 

[maxpayne]

commercial jets

i'm talking low aeronautical tech from 1930s 1940s 1950s
for a low intensity conflict where the enemy has none to limited AA capability
t
his is for regimes like Syria and even Africa that rely on helicopters and a limited supply of fighter bombers.

not a stealth bomber.


hell you could make a cheap bomber out of wood/plywood
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you wouldn't need expensive grade plane aluminum or expensive jet engines.

the blue prints are out there. this isn't rocket science

Bro today's world is now of precision. Drones are better alternatives than bombers. If u talk abt old bombers, making them now would be useless bcz of low accuracy and number of hits per target value. OTOH, these drones can be better utilized during war with other country as well.

 

[Penguin]

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

I think the idea would work better on all the older jets currently mothballed. Their prices are much more reasonable by comparison.

There are a couple hundred c130s at amarc ...
Orions, Vikings

And then there's commercial boneyards
Commercial aviation airliner boneyards & storage facilities in the United States, locations, access, maps

But even used airliners may not be cheap.e.g. $39,500,000 for a used 737
BOEING 737 - BOEING 737 for sale at Globalair.com

 

[VCheng]

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

There are a couple hundred c130s at amarc ...
Orions, Vikings

And then there's commercial boneyards
Commercial aviation airliner boneyards & storage facilities in the United States, locations, access, maps

But even used airliners may not be cheap.e.g. $39,500,000 for a used 737
BOEING 737 - BOEING 737 for sale at Globalair.com

As I said above, the future lies in scaleable swarms of low cost drones with precision weapons. Big bombers will soon go the way of massive battleships.

 

[Gufi]

But even used airliners may not be cheap.e.g. $39,500,000 for a used 737

Sir, the issue you need to address is the cost of a fighter like the F 15, the number of bombs it can carry versus just the weight that can be carried, and the number of hours the plane can stay air borne. The other option is the new C130 with its cannon which will take care of multiple small targets at the fraction f the cost and stay airborne for extended periods of time.

 

[jhungary]

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

First of all, it's Legacy Bomber, not heavies. Heavies usually mean B-52H

Second of all, NO, It won't make a comeback, for 1 very good reason. Crew Size.

If you are going to make a B-17 or B-24 in 1940 standard, then yes, you can churn them out quite cheap, but you need to realise for each B-17 there are 10 crew, and 12 for each B-24, the mobilisation cost will seriously out weight the production cost, I mean , how much you have to spend to train just 10 crew for ONE Bomber?

Consider this, a B-52 have 4 crew, B-1 have 4 crew and a B-2 have a crew of 2. For each B-17 crew you can train 2.5 B-52 and B-1 Crew and 5 B-2 crew. That maths just did not add up

 

[Penguin]

As I said above, the future lies in scaleable swarms of low cost drones with precision weapons. Big bombers will soon go the way of massive battleships.

I agree

Sir, the issue you need to address is the cost of a fighter like the F 15, the number of bombs it can carry versus just the weight that can be carried, and the number of hours the plane can stay air borne. The other option is the new C130 with its cannon which will take care of multiple small targets at the fraction f the cost and stay airborne for extended periods of time.

F-15C: 4 Sparrow AAM and 20 500lbs bombs

That's about 20 cluster bombs.. in addition to 4 Sidewinder aams.

That's about 20 small diameter bombs , with room for more.

And I did mention 200 C-130s sitting at AMARC and did reference this here article on the Herc based gunships UK Armed Forces Commentary: Buy a plane, get an air force

 

[C130]

I agree

F-15C: 4 Sparrow AAM and 20 500lbs bombs

That's about 20 cluster bombs.. in addition to 4 Sidewinder aams.

That's about 20 small diameter bombs , with room for more.

And I did mention 200 C-130s sitting at AMARC and did reference this here article on the Herc based gunships UK Armed Forces Commentary: Buy a plane, get an air force

again this is for poor countries who can't afford modern jets.

F-15 is a beast for the U.S,Israel,Saudi Arabia etc.......

but for Syria and other countries who have to fight civil wars and terrorists they have limited options.

 

[Moon]

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.

I don't know about heavies but what about tactical bombing?.
I remember in a documentary that USA had a small jet bomber which was modified to allow fitting of an F-4 engine for tests, instead of heavy bombers these tactical bombers can be used, easy to make, easy to maintain. Or bring out a squadron of MiG-15s which were very cheap and easy to maintain?.

 

[gambit]

I don't know about heavies but what about tactical bombing?.
I remember in a documentary that USA had a small jet bomber which was modified to allow fitting of an F-4 engine for tests, instead of heavy bombers these tactical bombers can be used, easy to make, easy to maintain. Or bring out a squadron of MiG-15s which were very cheap and easy to maintain?.

Aircrafts like the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are considered 'strategic' bombers. Put aside the nuclear option for these jets for now.

Strategic bombing requires unique platform s as the targets are national assets, such as factories that are used, directly or indirectly, for the war effort. Vital sea access points such as ports or bays are also national assets. These targets will be heavily defended, of course. Wide area bombing of these targets increases the odds of them being removed from contributing to the war effort, hence, the need for large carriers of munitions.

Tactical bombing is 'interdiction' bombing, meaning the targets are of the more immediate threat. These targets are troop formation on the move, or ships traveling in sea lanes, or supply trains. The attacking platforms should be able to quickly respond to possible and probably changing targeting criteria, after all, troops and ships do move. Small fighter-bombers types are ideal for this, but since the attackers are of the smaller platforms, the issue is not so much about destroying the targets but disrupting their movements to the front. If there is a one day delay of enemy troops to the front, or a few less tanks, maybe that one day or few tanks would be enough to turn the war in one's favor.

NEVER eliminate any platforms/methods of attack. Threat capabilities may change but if they change one way to reduce the need for a heavy bomber, that does not mean they may not change the other way to require the need for the heavy bomber again. That means do not dismiss the utility of the battleship. The battleship of today may not be the same design and armaments of WW II era, but there will be a need by the navy to be able to deliver arbitrary amount of bombardment to coastal targets on demand. The air force may not make it in time, but the battleship, or an 'arsenal' ship, just might be the solution.

Arsenal ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ayesha.a]

Aircrafts like the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are considered 'strategic' bombers. Put aside the nuclear option for these jets for now.

Strategic bombing requires unique platform s as the targets are national assets, such as factories that are used, directly or indirectly, for the war effort. Vital sea access points such as ports or bays are also national assets. These targets will be heavily defended, of course. Wide area bombing of these targets increases the odds of them being removed from contributing to the war effort, hence, the need for large carriers of munitions.

Right, so wouldn't small, nimble strike-fighter jets have a better chance of surviving? Wouldn't a few F-35/22s or even F-teens loaded with PGMs, LGBs, AGMs etc be a much better choice than a B-52? Especially if the target is defended by SAMs and fighters?

 

[Moon]

Aircrafts like the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are considered 'strategic' bombers. Put aside the nuclear option for these jets for now.

Strategic bombing requires unique platform s as the targets are national assets, such as factories that are used, directly or indirectly, for the war effort. Vital sea access points such as ports or bays are also national assets. These targets will be heavily defended, of course. Wide area bombing of these targets increases the odds of them being removed from contributing to the war effort, hence, the need for large carriers of munitions.

Tactical bombing is 'interdiction' bombing, meaning the targets are of the more immediate threat. These targets are troop formation on the move, or ships traveling in sea lanes, or supply trains. The attacking platforms should be able to quickly respond to possible and probably changing targeting criteria, after all, troops and ships do move. Small fighter-bombers types are ideal for this, but since the attackers are of the smaller platforms, the issue is not so much about destroying the targets but disrupting their movements to the front. If there is a one day delay of enemy troops to the front, or a few less tanks, maybe that one day or few tanks would be enough to turn the war in one's favor.

NEVER eliminate any platforms/methods of attack. Threat capabilities may change but if they change one way to reduce the need for a heavy bomber, that does not mean they may not change the other way to require the need for the heavy bomber again. That means do not dismiss the utility of the battleship. The battleship of today may not be the same design and armaments of WW II era, but there will be a need by the navy to be able to deliver arbitrary amount of bombardment to coastal targets on demand. The air force may not make it in time, but the battleship, or an 'arsenal' ship, just might be the solution.

Arsenal ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True,
But aren't heavies expensive to maintain and keep a crew for?, the plane I had in mind was the B-45.
It can carry 22,000lbs of armament (according to wiki) and cost 1 million dollars at the time now it will be even more cheap, a poor country can buy ten or twenty of these, these bird are smaller and easier to maintain and unlike a bomber if one or two are lost, it won't damage your operational capabilities "that" much.

 

[Moon]

Right, so wouldn't small, nimble strike-fighter jets have a better chance of surviving? Wouldn't a few F-35/22s or even F-teens loaded with PGMs, LGBs, AGMs etc be a much better choice than a B-52? Especially if the target is defended by SAMs and fighters?

For poor countries?......

 

[gambit]

Right, so wouldn't small, nimble strike-fighter jets have a better chance of surviving? Wouldn't a few F-35/22s or even F-teens loaded with PGMs, LGBs, AGMs etc be a much better choice than a B-52? Especially if the target is defended by SAMs and fighters?

There are layers of war waging capabilities. Recall the steel ballbearing factories of WW II...

Second Raid on Schweinfurt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The aim of the American-led mission was a strategic bombing raid on ball bearing factories in order to reduce production of these vital parts for all manner of war machines.

The ballbearing factories were strategic targets as the components -- ballbearings -- have direct effects on the war waging capabilities of the Nazis war machines. These targets are considered 'deep targets' that requires specialized platforms to attack and (hopefully) destroy.

War making is not the same as war waging.

Tactical targets are beneficiaries of strategic targets, meaning tanks, ships, and aircrafts came from ballbearing factories, steel refineries, electronics plants, and so on. Tactical targets delays/retards the enemy's war waging capabilities, but not much affecting its war making capabilities.

Destroy the rifle is not the same as destroying the steel refinery that provides steel for the rifle maker.

Tactical bombing destroys rifles, tanks, and ships. Strategic bombing destroys the steel refineries.