Are bombers obsolete?

[adam_grif]

It's come up a few times in discussions I've had with people that the use of bombers has been rendered obsolete. This is particularly relating to nuclear war. The people I'm talking to are basically saying that there's no way nuclear bombers can get to deliver their payloads, because they will get steamrolled by fighters and air defenses. I shoot back "that's why the US operates fighters too, along with dedicated SEAD platforms". But they're not having any of it.

So, I come to you all, and would appreciate having some knowledge dropped on me regarding this sort of thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuclear bombers have a way easier time at life then conventional bombers really. The nuclear bomber can launch a wave of nuclear cruise missiles from far outside the defensive envelope of an air defense system. Those missiles fly out and blow gaping 200kt sized holes in the SAM batteries, the bomber then flies in and does its job with shorter range missiles and gravity bombs. It’s quite feasible to use a short range nuclear missile like the SRAM or even a dropped gravity bomb to ward off fighter attacks too. You don't need guidance, the bombers electronic countermeasures warn it of the attack and it just sends a nuke in that general direction. Conventional weapons are not nearly so effective at suppressing, let alone the widespread destruction of air defenses possible with nukes. The defense has to win every single time, the bomber just needs a good portion of its own weapons to work.

The problem with fighters is they lack range, so they can’t avoid defense concentrations and cross oceans like a bomber can. That also means it can’t hunt mobile targets for any length of time, an increasingly great concern as more people acquire ballistic and cruise missiles. A fighter also lacks a really major weapons payload, so even with nuclear weapons the aircraft unlikely to have more then one nuke, maybe two to four of its an F-15E or similar large dedicated fighter bomber design (kind of cheating already). That means the fighter can only strike one or two targets on a mission, and it has no real margin for nuclear weapons to suppress defenses or even to make up for a nuke that doesn’t work. It has to rely on other aircraft for back, or just try to sneak in undetected and hope its nuclear device works while attacking just one or two targets.

With conventional bombs this can mean a single fighter simply cannot destroy a target at all. Plenty of targets are just too big for a few precision guided bombs to be effective. Rail yards, army depots, supply dumps and even plain old trenches demand heavy payloads to knock out. But since the fighter isn't that heavily armed and can't fly that far fighter strike packages quickly balloon into formations with as many as 70 fighters and tankers just to get a dozen strikers into position to actually drop bombs. Those bombs in turn may total no more tonnage then a single heavy bomber could have unleashed, which is why even a very expensive stealth bomber is such an awesome weapon system. It literally could do the work of 70 fighters and tankers with one bomber and two tankers.

But my ramblings aside, if you want to learn more about air power operations and the merits and limitations of different platforms I suggest reading/browing the Gulf War Air Power Survey. While its of course, on the Gulf War nearly 20 years ago now, most of the ideas and lessons are still 100% relevant today and still guide current planning.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Pu ... /gwaps.htm
The first four parts are the main interest, the fifth one is mainly statistical tables.

[Sarevok]

What about recent worldwide military obsession of shooting down arrows with arrows ? A lot of modern SAMs and anti aircraft guns already have limited ability to target PGMs and cruise missiles. They are joined by ever increasing numbers of proposed counter rocket and mortar systems. If everyone starts filling their country with point defense capable systems would not air strikes delivered fighters alone have a hard time ? You may need the heavy firepower of a bomber to overwhelm defenses.

[Marcus Aurelius]

What about recent worldwide military obsession of shooting down arrows with arrows ? A lot of modern SAMs and anti aircraft guns already have limited ability to target PGMs and cruise missiles. They are joined by ever increasing numbers of proposed counter rocket and mortar systems. If everyone starts filling their country with point defense capable systems would not air strikes delivered fighters alone have a hard time ? You may need the heavy firepower of a bomber to overwhelm defenses.

Well, ground based air defenses are not cheap. While they're cheaper than aircraft, modern SAMs and even AAA guns are complex and expensive systems that require a complex and expensive radar network to be truly effective. The defenses need to be multi-layered and mobile to have any staying power against serious SEAD. Very few countries can actually afford to have very good coverage for their air defenses.

So usually fighters are still sufficient, but of course bombers could be very useful. The only reason more countries do not have bombers is that they are silly expensive and unlike most modern fighters they can not be used as a part of the air defense system. That is also why multi-purpose fighters have been slowly but surely supplanting dedicated strike fighters. Modern weapon systems are so expensive that only very few countries can afford single purpose systems.

[Sarevok]

Well I was referring to attacks on high value long range SAM systems themselves. Right now a single aircraft could engage multiple SAMs. Air war is all about number of targets hit per sortie. But if that changed to number of aircraft per target ? If point defense against missiles became widespread SAM sites may require a large number of aircraft or a heavy bomber to destroy.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ahuh. A fighter has shorter range, it can't travel very far, and its bombs are smaller AND shorter ranged as well. A big bomber on the other hand can strike anywhere and can travel very far, and its bombs are way larger and also super-long ranged too. Fighters are great when the country you're curbstomping has a deficient conventional military, with only a low-tier IADS system and anemic air farce, and when you've got a crapload of airfields conveniently located in nearby nations. Yet even in this regard, you still have Stratofortresses and Lancers and Spirits flying sorties to blow the crap out of things in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters still can't do the job completely. If they could, why on Earth is the USAF keeping a bigass bomber that's more than half a century old (B-52) if some spanking new greased lightning RAM-coated supersonic tactical turd can do a bomber's job just as well (it can't)? The Fighter Mafia's getting high on its own supply.

[Iosef Cross]

What about recent worldwide military obsession of shooting down arrows with arrows ? A lot of modern SAMs and anti aircraft guns already have limited ability to target PGMs and cruise missiles. They are joined by ever increasing numbers of proposed counter rocket and mortar systems. If everyone starts filling their country with point defense capable systems would not air strikes delivered fighters alone have a hard time ? You may need the heavy firepower of a bomber to overwhelm defenses.

Well, ground based air defenses are not cheap. While they're cheaper than aircraft, modern SAMs and even AAA guns are complex and expensive systems that require a complex and expensive radar network to be truly effective. The defenses need to be multi-layered and mobile to have any staying power against serious SEAD. Very few countries can actually afford to have very good coverage for their air defenses.

So usually fighters are still sufficient, but of course bombers could be very useful. The only reason more countries do not have bombers is that they are silly expensive and unlike most modern fighters they can not be used as a part of the air defense system. That is also why multi-purpose fighters have been slowly but surely supplanting dedicated strike fighters. Modern weapon systems are so expensive that only very few countries can afford single purpose systems.

1- What are the costs of bombers compared to fighters? I remember that in WW2 bombers cost about 3-6 times the price of fighters.

2- Wasn't the reason that most countries don't have many bombers is that bombers are an offensive weapon while most countries in the world have armed forces pretty much only for defense?

[Vehrec]

The Unit Cost to build a B-2 and an F-22 are only a factor of 4 greater for the bomber. Both are stealthy, late cold war designs, that carry their weapons in internal bays. The B-2 however, has payload for 20 tons of bombs, while the F-22 probably can't carry 5% of that.

Point the second: The best defense is a good offense. Bombers can act in defense of their nation to attack the marshalling enemy forces, interdict transportation, and, of course, perform strategic missions to cripple the enemy nation.

[Broomstick]

The US has bombers based in Missouri that take off, fly a mission to literally the other side of the world, then fly back. Sure, they're hella expensive, but all maintenance can be done in the US, the personnel are all stationed in the US, the base is supplied in the US, and all that saves the cost of trying to set up and defend a base on the other side of the planet.

That doesn't sound obsolete to me....

Granted, not all our bombers are that advanced but my point is that clearly bombers still serve a purpose.

[cosmicalstorm]

I've been reading stuart's posting history on this board recently, he does a great work of promoting bombers and explaining why ICBM's are the ones becoming obsolete.

[Purple]

Now this all is my personal opinion but there is one reason why I don't think ballistic missiles and strike fighters with nuclear capability will newer become obsolete.

You see, while in case of a conventional conflict, where you are fighting with a non nuclear force the bomber is clearly superior that is not true if you are fighting a comparable force or even a lesser force close to your borders and airfields.

As a fact, fighters and missiles can do something bombers can not. They can take off from mobile platforms (aircraft carriers and missile submarines).

While the US has bombers in Missouri that take off, fly a mission to literally the other side of the world, then fly back. In case of a surprise attack via ICBM and sub launched MRBM projectiles (or some other concentrated attack) a lot of these same bombers might get caught on the airfields and neutralized before they can take off and clear the airfields.
A single nuclear bomb or even a conventional attack or terrorist attack can neutralize an airfield full of bombers for only a fraction of the cost.

On the other hand, a aircraft carrier with fighters or a boomer might not have the same delivery capacity they have the advantage of being hard to track and mobile.


Hence, they all form an integral part of the combined system.
It is my belief that neither system can truly be rendered obsolete by the other any more than infantry could be rendered obsolete by tanks or tanks could be rendered obsolete by air power.

[Shroom Man 777]

An aircraft carrier can be killed by anti-ship missiles launched by subs or by, yes, bombers.

A bomber, on the other hand, yes it is vulnerable in an airfield - but so is an ICBM in a silo! And unlike an ICBM in a silo, a bomber can escape by flying off and landing on another airfield! Bombers can even land on highways, get re-armed and refueled on highways, and deploy from highways. Shep has the relevant 1960s graphs for that, courtesy of Curtis LeMay and SAC. Shep? *snaps fingers*

Also, bombers would NOT just sit pretty on their airfields. This is why when SAC was at its prime, you'd have squadrons of bombers flying around, orbiting failsafe points or something. How can your aircraft carriers or SLBMs attack a bomber wing that's high in the sky? They're not in their airfields, they're ALSO mobile, and unlike an aircraft carrier's birds a bomber can have a range of 16,000 kilometers! A bomber can also be armed with long-ranged cruise missiles that are almost as long-reaching as an SLBM, but have the advantage of being non-ballistic and thus effective against ABM systems.

A bomber is not a static target. It is, in fact, MORE mobile and long-reaching than an aircraft carrier. A bomber in America can hit a target in Bakalakadakistan in hours. Can an aircraft carrier reposition itself from one side of the world to another, and launch its planes when that happens? No it can't. Likewise, a submarine can't, although its SLBMs do have long range.

Another thing is dispersion. All the aircraft carrier's birds are stuck on the aircraft carrier - which is one big expensive target. In the middle of submarine-infested waters, with the enemy watching it, how is an aircraft carrier any less vulnerable than a bomber in the air or a bomber in an airfield? On the other hand, a bomber can land on highways, bombers can disperse, bombers can stay in the air and be refueled by tankers. Multiple bombers can land on multiple airfields in multiple locations. When bombers are on the move, they won't be easy targets to hit.

[Omeganian]

In 1920's, they were saying in France that tanks are obsolete - until WW2. Then, the Soviets were calling AA guns obsolete - until Vietnam. We'll see about bombers. Hopefully, not too soon.

[adam_grif]

Another thing is dispersion. All the aircraft carrier's birds are stuck on the aircraft carrier - which is one big expensive target. In the middle of submarine-infested waters, with the enemy watching it, how is an aircraft carrier any less vulnerable than a bomber in the air or a bomber in an airfield? On the other hand, a bomber can land on highways, bombers can disperse, bombers can stay in the air and be refueled by tankers. Multiple bombers can land on multiple airfields in multiple locations. When bombers are on the move, they won't be easy targets to hit.

This vulnerability is well known, and is the reason why carriers don't do solo ops. The Carrier fleet as compensation for this weakness might make it less vulnerable as a whole, albeit far more costly

[Shroom Man 777]

Still, that makes all those big and expensive ships even more delicious to destroy with nuclear weapons. It's an even bigger, more valuable target to spam with nuclear-tipped missiles of all shapes and forms launched from all varieties of air, sea and land platforms.

The same thing can't be said about a shit airfield in the middle of buttfuck USA. Sure, an ICBM will certainly be blowing it straight to hell when the Russkies are hitting SAC targets... but at least attack submarines and maritime bombers won't be reaching it anytime soon. And by the time the nukes do fly, unless Premier Stalin decided to nuke America on a whim with no warning, the bombers will have already been in the air because President Hoover already put the military on DEFCON X!

[phongn]

Shroom has covered several points that I shall not repeat.

Now this all is my personal opinion but there is one reason why I don't think ballistic missiles and strike fighters with nuclear capability will newer become obsolete.

Ballistic missiles are supremely vulnerable to defenses and require tremendously expensive hardening and command-and-control facilities.

You see, while in case of a conventional conflict, where you are fighting with a non nuclear force the bomber is clearly superior that is not true if you are fighting a comparable force or even a lesser force close to your borders and airfields.

Why?

While the US has bombers in Missouri that take off, fly a mission to literally the other side of the world, then fly back. In case of a surprise attack via ICBM and sub launched MRBM projectiles (or some other concentrated attack) a lot of these same bombers might get caught on the airfields and neutralized before they can take off and clear the airfields.

You might note this is equally problematic for fixed ICBM silos and the fixed ELF transmitters for the SSBN force. This is why one's forces should have defenses to preserve them in the face of attack.

On the other hand, a aircraft carrier with fighters or a boomer might not have the same delivery capacity they have the advantage of being hard to track and mobile.

Carrier aircraft lack the range to penetrate. SLBMs are limited in accuracy and payload.

[Sea Skimmer]

This vulnerability is well known, and is the reason why carriers don't do solo ops. The Carrier fleet as compensation for this weakness might make it less vulnerable as a whole, albeit far more costly

A big issue is a carrier is by nature going to have numerous tactical roles to fullfill, more then we can ever have enough carriers to meet. Its not realistic to retain it only for strategic missions, it just wont happen, so you can't RELY on the carrier as a nuclear deterrent. If the carrier takes on a primary nuclear role, that means it has to preserve itself and its aircraft for that mission meaning no flying for the tactical role. Also one carrier cannot sustain 24/7 air operations, which is an annoying limitation to maintaining high alert levels for nuking people. Though it would be easier if you flew no tactical missions at all and just kept everything fueled and nuclear armed on deck ready to launch.

The US did assign its carriers a strategic nuclear role throughout the cold war, but we are talking about launching just a few of many aircraft to do so. SKywarriors or A-6s. They'd nuke some commie naval bases, which is more tactical then strategic anyway, and that's it. The presence of these carriers would not be be vital to executing the SOIP the way a wing of ICBMs or a wing of manned bombers or a SSBN on patrol was.

[Shroom Man 777]

A carrier's birds are predominantly tactical craft. If the target's deep inland, those birds might not even reach the target unless there's extensive airborne refueling - whereas this isn't an issue with a true strategic bomber. Even if the bomber itself can't reach the target, a bomber - by virtue of its size - can carry HUEG missiles that can do the job. And it doesn't need a seagoing nuclear-powered airstrip to go into enemy waters and get itself sicked on by every maritime bomber, submarine and anything with an AShm in the area.

(Of course, a bomber would have to deal with enemy air defenses - but so do carrier birds!)

[Stuart]

The real question here is what do the various weapons systems bring to the table.

Positives for Missiles are that they are fast, they arrive at their targets within a few minutes. They give the enemy a low response time. They have a relatively low unit cost.

Negatives for Missiles is that they are completely inflexible. They cannot be retargeted in flight. They cannot be aborted once fired. They travel on fixed trajectories making them very vulnerable to defenses. They cannot defend themselves. They cannot shoot back when brought under attack. They are very expensive when considered on a system basis. They are unscaleable (adding another missile to the force means digging another silo, wiring it up etc). They reach their targets so fast that there is no time to reconsider or back off. Missiles are extremely vulnerable in their bases because they can't be fired until its certain an attack is under way That means they have to ride out an enemy first strike.

Positives for bombers are that they are recallable. They are extremely flexible and can be retargeted at will. They can travel alomg erratic and essentially unpredictable courses. The have a wide range of wapons delivery modes. They have an awesome array of defensive technologies at their call. They can shoot back when attacked. They are very hard to shoot down (the highest casualty rate ever inflicted on a bomber formation by an air defense system was under 20 percent). They have low system costs. They are easily scaleable (adding an extra bomber to the fleet means simply that; just adding one more bomber to a squadron somewhere). They allow plenty of time for the combatants to reconsider the situation and/or back down. If an agreement is reached while the bombers are in flight, they turn around and come home. Bombers are less vulnerable on their bases because they can be launched at the first sign of trouble and recalled if the problem turns out to be an error or gets resolved

Negatives for bombers are that they take a long time to reach their target and they have high unit values.

So, that's the basics. Where would you like to go from here? (sorry if this sounds like a lecture but its what I do for a living).

[Purple]

So, that's the basics. Where would you like to go from here? (sorry if this sounds like a lecture but its what I do for a living).

For one thing, could you give us a source for the 20% statistic?
Also, how would you factor submarine launched missiles?

Another thing to consider is that while yes, you could hypothetical constantly keep your bombers in the air but maintenance and fuel costs are going to make that unlikely. And that means that in case of a surprise attack your bombers will pretty much be on the ground for certain.
They lack the advantage of underground silos thou and airfields can be seen on satellite images. That and you don't even need a nuke to take them out. A conventional terrorist attack on the eave of war will do. Keep in mind that it will take some time to get the aircraft and crews ready for operation and even 5 minutes is enough for a nuclear or even conventional terrorist to do a lot of damage to an airfield.

[Kuroji]

Are you kidding? For many years the American strategic air command kept a flight of bombers in the air constantly. The interstate highway system is designed so that one mile out of every five is completely straight and sufficient to serve as an emergency landing strip for any aircraft such as bombers in the event of a national emergency, so while it wouldn't have the infrastructure that an airport had, they could still get vehicles out there, refuel and provide emergency service for aircraft and then get back back up in the air, so airfields are not necessarily a requirement to their continued operation.

I don't see a coordinated attack taking place across a country by clandestine operatives (terrorists) just to take out airfields, and if you're going to compromise it, you need to put holes in the runway, your bombers are likely only going to be able to make a red smear across the pavement. There is a great deal of security in place on military installations at all times, and you're not going to get very much success if you just have terrorists trying to attack the runway because it's a pretty simple guess as to who has the superior firepower.

[Shroom Man 777]

So, that's the basics. Where would you like to go from here? (sorry if this sounds like a lecture but its what I do for a living).

For one thing, could you give us a source for the 20% statistic?
Also, how would you factor submarine launched missiles?

Another thing to consider is that while yes, you could hypothetical constantly keep your bombers in the air but maintenance and fuel costs are going to make that unlikely. And that means that in case of a surprise attack your bombers will pretty much be on the ground for certain.

The USAF's Strategic Air Command kept bombers up and ready and patrolling for decades. Also, how surprise can a surprise attack be? Can an enemy truly launch an attack without warning? Won't he have to ready his own bombers, won't he have to move his own submarines and ships, won't he have to ready his armies and militaries for complete global thermonuclear war? If you want to launch a nuclear war, it's not a spur of the moment decision and you kinda might want some prep time. (which will inevitably be picked up by recon sats, spies, communications intercepts, etc.)

If the Soviets can turn invisible, or if America loses its eyesight, then maybe there can truly be a surprise attack. But, yeah.

They lack the advantage of underground silos thou and airfields can be seen on satellite images. That and you don't even need a nuke to take them out. A conventional terrorist attack on the eave of war will do. Keep in mind that it will take some time to get the aircraft and crews ready for operation and even 5 minutes is enough for a nuclear or even conventional terrorist to do a lot of damage to an airfield.

You don't think satellites can see people digging giant anuses in the ground, hardening them up, and filling them with giant dick-shaped nuclear missiles?

Airfields have... guards? MPs? And are located in secure bases in the middle of nowhere in America? To attack such a big facility such as an airfield, your terrorists would either have to come in large numbers and be heavily armed, or they'd have to drive a big bomb through the gates and fences, and down the wide expanse of a large airfield, and blow it up right in a hangar or in a bomber's face. They'd have to do this WITHOUT being killed by the armed guards, and they'll have to orchestrate this attack without being uncovered by the FBI/CIA/NSA/NBA/NFL. Oh, and also, to make this attack effective these terrists have to attack more than just a single bomber base too - even assuming that they'll have 100% success rates.

In actual-factual wartorn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the USAF's airfields have been pretty secure. Yet, somehow, bomber bases in the middle of the heartland/motherland will be so vulnerable?

More vulnerable than a submarine that's swimming in an ocean filled with other submarines on patrol, with ships and maritime recon birds and sonars and so on and so forth?

[K. A. Pital]

Can an enemy truly launch an attack without warning?

Only with missiles. A missile-only attack can be truly a surprise one with very low response time (hence the obsession with huge phased-array radars which would allow detection of missile warheads from 3000-6000 km away). Anything else will blow your cover.

The USSR even had a special military term - 'raketnoye napadenie', missile attack. It was a special type of attack, the Soviet command speculated that it could be a missile-only decapitating strike.

[Shroom Man 777]

The missile attack would have to be an obscenely large one, with a shitload of delivery vehicles involved, to work as a truly effective first-strike weapon. Not only will it have to hit all the command centers, it'd have to hit all the bomber bases and everything. Because if that doesn't work, the bombers can just as easily fuck the offender up.

[K. A. Pital]

The missile attack would have to be an obscenely large one, with a shitload of delivery vehicles involved, to work as a truly effective first-strike weapon. Not only will it have to hit all the command centers, it'd have to hit all the bomber bases and everything. Because if that doesn't work, the bombers can just as easily fuck the offender up.

Yes, yes, quite so. But a true surprise-strike would indeed catch bombers off-guard, taking them all out would not constitute a problem unless some are on patrol duty/dispersal fields every day (they are not, to my knowledge).