Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do Long Range Heavy Bombers Have An Fighter Excort  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

I was woundering do long range heavy bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2 have an F-15' F-16 or F-22a excort to protect them. Even though the B-1 and B-2 can truns well they still are heavy and meant to release there bombs and fly out of the area, but they are not dog fighter. I just thought the USAF have a long range heavy bomber strike group like air carrier does due to there limited air to air combat ability.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Even though the B-1 and B-2 can truns well they still are heavy and meant to release there bombs and fly out of the area, but they are not dog fighter.

In the last decade, the AAA threat has been minimal. There hasn't been much need for an escort and these bombers are usually high enough not to warrant one. You will more than likely have fighters in the air in the surrounding areas, but not usually in an escort.

Now, there has been significant SAM threats in both Gulf Wars where fighters and stealths would go in beforehand to take out the enemy radar sites. Outside of this, the bombers today have enough countermeasures on them to protect themselves from any threat.

The days of the escorted carpet-bombers have been over for quite some time.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

I don't think the threat is from AAA as much as it would be from enemy fighters.

Im sure on missions into territory with a viable enemy airforce they'd have escorts....



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 2):
I don't think the threat is from AAA as much as it would be from enemy fighters.

Think about what you wrote real hard............

(hint: AAA includes enemy fighters, unless they're locking on from the ground)



Crye me a river
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 1):
In the last decade, the AAA threat has been minimal.

Don't tell that to the F-117 guy who hit that Serb flak trap....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineVANGUARD737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3358 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 3):
Think about what you wrote real hard............

(hint: AAA includes enemy fighters, unless they're locking on from the ground)

No, it does not. AAA is an acronym for Anti-Aircraft Artillery. Last time I checked, a fighter jet does not count as artillery.



320 717 722 732 733 735 737 738 744 752 753 763 772 DC9 DC10 MD80 B1900 S340 E120 ERJ CRJ CR7
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Not any longer.

In general, NATO/US controls the skies by the time big boys are sent in, and if they dont, then B-2 is likely to go in... Can't shoot what you can't see.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3291 times:

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 2):
Im sure on missions into territory with a viable enemy airforce they'd have escorts....

That was never the intent.
The bombers were designed to fly into Soviet airspace, arguably the best defended since Vietnam, without fighter escort, and they'd just hope enough would get through to do their thing.
For that they were equipped with SRAM to take out SAM sites and airfields, hopefully before those airfields could scramble fighters to intercept the bombers.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
Don't tell that to the F-117 guy who hit that Serb flak trap....

Right.....which is why I said it has been minimal, not non-existent. Still, the Serbs put up far less rounds in the skies than any other conflict. After the first Gulf war, the air threat has been significantly reduced.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineSkySurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3012 times:

Has everyone forgotten that the B-1B likes to get low and quick? Anyone remember the B1A 'lawndarts' slamming into the ground because the fuel transfer was manual? The B1B definately shouldn't need an escort due to it's speed, semi - stealth and its ability to get down on the deck and stay there. If anything, all it MIGHT need is fighter support 'up top' to identify any missile sites or any portable 'radars' that go active.

Cheers



In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

The McDonnell F-88, and Lockheed F-90 of the early 1950's were designed as penetration fighters. They could penetrate enemy airspace with the bombers. Both were cancelled as it was determine that bomber fighter escorts were not required. Also cancelled about the same time were the parasite fighters. Modified Republic F-84's and the McDonnell F-85, that would provide fighter protection after being launched (and retrieved) from specially modified B-36's.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

THe short of it is that unless we have airbases for fighters close enough to send them on escort duty our bombers will go in unescorted.

Now, the real question is where would we send bombers where they could actually need escorts?

Off the top of my head a list of potential targets for strategic bombers that have capable fighter defenses include North Korea, Iran, PRC, and perhaps Syria. In all of these cases we could send fighters from close in bases to escort the bombers coming from farther afield.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Do Long Range Heavy Bombers Have An Fighter Excort
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Long Would The US Have Been Giving Away F4U's posted Sun Oct 8 2006 08:47:57 by L-188
New Long Range Bomber Announced posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:32:53 by AislepathLight
Why Ultra-long Range Bomber Flights? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 19:33:40 by Mozart
Awacs With Long-range AAMs posted Thu Sep 2 2004 16:14:28 by N328KF
Did The YF-17 Have An IFR Receptacle? posted Mon Sep 22 2003 14:13:26 by Da man
So Does AF1 Have An Escape Pod Or Not? posted Thu Apr 3 2003 15:09:03 by Cedarjet
Fighter Planes Intercept Russian Bombers posted Sun Oct 1 2006 00:16:08 by Clickhappy
Do E-6 Mercury Have Trust Reverser? posted Fri May 26 2006 20:50:47 by 747400sp
Fighter For USN Bombers For Usaf posted Tue May 16 2006 23:57:59 by 747400sp
Will Fighter Replace Bombers Down The Line? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:55:31 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format