PLAAF transport bombers

[desimorty]

They have other better option we use them as we don't have any other option why IAF operate them not sure but probably supplement Mig-21 in ground attack role as latter can't take more load. but now i think your SU-30 can now do the same at a time

Source: PLAAF transport bombers

The BAF got the idea, from the IAF, infact when they were training cadets at IAF bases and say the An-32 being used in such a manner to carpet bomb with dumb munition. It makes sense, because during war, your going to use all your assets, the An-12 was used by the IAF like this against PAK on the Western border with success. It makes sense now in modern combat situations.
to the guy who keeps on talking,
The idea of transports/bombers, isn't an old idea. Its become more usefull and relevent today, since aircraft costs are higher. B2 is a stealth bomber, with out stealth, it wouldn't be very usefull like the b-52, which is why transport aircraft, are being modified to do the same thing thse bombers did. Its about cost.
The bombers/transports have the same operating environment. And precision munition has also changed the tactics making fighters, much better bombers. Bombers, like the Bear, B.52 and H6 were designed for dumb bombs for destroying entire blocks on the ground. You can imagine with the lack of dumb munition and cost of air frames, why transports are becoming dual use.
However, that being said, supersonic/stealth bombers will be around for a while. Subsonic no stealth bombers, are seeing the door.

 

[desimorty]

Also the P-8 is nothing but a commercial jet modified for ASW bomber roles.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Also the P-8 is nothing but a commercial jet modified for ASW bomber roles.

P-3 too. And to answer your previous question about the use of gunships and transport bombers in US wars, every conflict since and including the Vietnam war has seen the use of such systems by the US. The KC-130 Harvesthawk is a new system, but has seen action over Afghanistan.

 

[Nan Yang]

Y-8 airborne Gunship

 

[j20blackdragon]

The P-3 and P-8 aren't going up against SAMs and enemy fighters. Submarines have no air defense so range and endurance is key here for maritime patrol.

There are hundreds of C-5s, C-17s, and C-130s in service with the USAF. How many of them have been converted into a bomber role similar to the B-52? Answer this question first. Next show me pictures of these C-5s, C-17s, and C-130s dropping JDAM, SDB, Paveway, ALCM, JASSM, JSOW. Shouldn't be too hard to produce these pictures if using transports as bombers were such a common occurrence.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

The P-3 and P-8 aren't going up against SAMs and enemy fighters. Submarines have no air defense so range and endurance is key here for maritime patrol.

Submarines have no air defense? German Type 212s have access to the IDAS varient of the IRIS-T for air defense. The Russians have similar capabilities as do the Americans, who don't typically use such systems.

 

[j20blackdragon]

How about you people stop nitpicking bits and pieces of my arguments and just post the pictures. Show me one picture of a C-17 dropping a barrage of JDAMS. I'm waiting.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

How about you people stop nitpicking bits and pieces of my arguments and just post the pictures. Show me one picture of a C-17 dropping a barrage of JDAMS. I'm waiting.

Why all the sudden does the requirement become JDAM. I gave you enough evidence to support the claim that transports can be used to deliver bombs and missiles. But since you want proof of missile drops, I'll do you one better. Here's a pic of a Minuteman being launched from a C-5. And as I've said perviously, transports aren't used to launch cruise missiles when other options are avialable, but that doesn't mean they can't. The C-130 is used to launch cruise missile drones and targets, they could just as easily launch the real thing if needed.

 

[j20blackdragon]

My argument isn't that they can't become bombers. I myself already posted a picture of a Chinese Y-8 transport that has been converted into an ASW aircraft on page 1 of this thread. My argument is that there is no demand in 2014 for a large strategic non-stealth bomber to 'replace' the B-52. The B-52 doesn't need replacing. It needs decommissioning. Using non-stealth aircraft for close air support or maritime patrol is completely different. You already have air superiority in both of these situations. Lastly, I also said the future of bombers are stealth aircraft and UCAVs.

The Russians have the Il-76.

The Europeans have the A400M.

The US has the C-5 and C-17.

Why haven't any of these aircraft been modified into transport bombers if it's such a good idea?

 

[j20blackdragon]

One more thing, I think a lot of you guys are assuming that a giant purpose-built C-17 transport bomber is going to be cheap. I assure you it won't be. If you had money like that, you're better off investing a little more into a real stealth bomber. For example, if the US actually mass produced the B-2, the unit price would go down due to economies of scale.