Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?  
User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10610 times:

I was just curious and I know in the 80's great britan had long range bombers why them and France have never invested in any heavy bomber fleets. Now granted they dont need anything close to the size of the US and even the Russian fleets. I can understand Germany not having any them being more of a hands off on foriegn policy and not getting as involved as most, but France and Great Britan have alot of interests with may require a long range bombing campaign if none of the neighboring countries let them use their air strips. I doubt the US would have shared the technology on the B-2's but I think they would have probably sold them some B-1's if they were asked. If not I am sure they could have designed their own. Just was woundering why they never persude that option.

[Edited 2007-11-02 19:41:22]

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10584 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
I doubt the US would have shared the technology on the B-2's but I think they would have probably sold them some B-1's if they were asked.

It might have changed, but for a long time the vast majority of supersonic hours had been flown by one aircraft type, Concorde. So with supercruise and a few other things the Anglo French might have just about managed to build a bomber. So it might just be that the reason they did not build on was that they did not see any particular need to go bombing far distant places.  Confused

If they wish to demolish somewhere distant, they would likely not use a bomb (or if Peter Sellars was running the French effort a berm) but send a missile, likely from a sub. An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.  angel 


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10559 times:

The French had a medium range bomber in the Mirage IV. It was far reaching enough to reach Eastern Europe, including Russia, and had the speed and payload needed.

The British flew their V-Bombers until the 90s in one form or another, and those were traditional long ranged bombers.

European planners were readying their nations for a European war, and did not, nor do most now, see a need for long range power projection with bombers.

That said....several European nations have aircraft carriers and can project air power with those carriers (especially France and the UK).



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10549 times:

Was there even the need for a long range bomber in a NATO member other than the US back in the days of the Cold War? I mean, in the case the USSR had attacked, it's still more easily accesible for NATO forces in Europe than it is for the US.

User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10522 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
If not I am sure they could have designed their own. Just was woundering why they never persude that option.

Because the potential front was at our door step. Further more the Tornado used in its original role could hit targets as far away as Kiev. The front at the doorstep was also the reason for a lot of more short-ranged things and strategies we used like the F-4F (less fuel, no BVR weapons in the beginning, originally no AAR planned, additional slats for better maneuverability etc.) and the F-104 (Germany being the largest user.) The entire doctrine was aimed at just holding up the Russian for a couple of days so that the allies could get ready. As bombers were primarily offensive weapons and our doctrine a purely defensive one there was no need for long-range bombers. Despite the Cold War the US, France and Great Britain had partially offensive doctrines.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10513 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
If not I am sure they could have designed their own.

Look at Concorde, Mirage IV, V-bombers etc...they definitely could build them but did not need them for the reasons mentoined above.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10489 times:

During the Cold war the British had the Vulcan did'nt they ? Thats a bomber is'nt it ?

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10478 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6):
During the Cold war the British had the Vulcan did'nt they ? Thats a bomber is'nt it ?

The UK actually had quite a few bombers during the cold war, firstly the 'V-Bombers' as noted above:

Valiant - EIS 1955, Retired 1965
Vulcan - EIS 1956, Retired 1984
Victor - EIS 1957, Retired 1993 (as a tanker)


Also you had:

Blackburn Buccaneer, a subsonic nuclear bomber with the range to hit the USSR - EIS 1962, Retired 1993.

EE Canberra, a light bomber that in some variants could hit the USSR - EIS 1951, Retired 2006.

Quite simply, these pretty much became unnecessary when the UK moved its nuclear deterrent to RN submarines, and that is why heavy bombers fell out of favour with the UK and all of the above aircraft took on different roles until their retirements (apart from the Valiant, which was only ever destined to be a short lived, temporary bridging aircraft).


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3997 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10467 times:

The RAFs last Vulcan (XH558) displaying at Wroughton, UK, 19th Sept.1992.:





Vulcan at Finningley 1992:



User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10463 times:

Moo nailed it, remember that the RAF V force, (conceived just after WW2), was mainly about carrying nuclear weapons to the USSR.
It turned out that this role ended in 1969, with Polaris taking over, so two of them, Vulcan and Victor, became better known as respectively, NATO assigned strike aircraft operating at low level (Vulcan), in the case of Victor, a tanker aircraft.
Both would see combat use, Vulcan with it's amazing long range attacks, just before it's retirement, in the Falklands, heavily supported by Victors, which also served as tankers in the first Gulf War.
(The RAF did maintain one Vulcan for display until 1993, which has recently been made airborne again privately).

France needed a medium ranged bomber as the first element in their planned nuclear deterrent, something bigger and grander than the Mirage IVA was planned, but they needed something quicker into service, so the IVA it was.
Again, it's time as the sole carrier of the French bomb was brief, IRBM's and SSBN's taking over in the early 70's, Mirage IVA did carry on like the Vulcan, in the intermediate strike role, and for longer ranged recce, in the latter role a few served served until 2005.

No other European NATO nations had these requirements, they had large tactical air forces.
So no other bombers, in the larger, more than twin engined form, as understood by Soviet and US designs.


User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 515 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10260 times:

Get the book Vulcan 607, which details the Vulcan bombing raids during the Falklands conflict. Until the B2 sorties from Whiteman to the Middle East, this was the longest bombing run in history.

The Nimrod has a limited dumb bomb capability.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10244 times:

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 10):
The Nimrod has a limited dumb bomb capability.

The current Nimrods also have the ability to drop torpedoes, and the MRA4 will be capable of deploying smart bombs and the Storm Shadow cruise missile.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10244 times:

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 10):
Get the book Vulcan 607, which details the Vulcan bombing raids during the Falklands conflict. Until the B2 sorties from Whiteman to the Middle East, this was the longest bombing run in history.

Wel, not exactly. The RAF Vulcan 1982 missions were the longest bomber missions until the 1991 B-52G missions from BAD during Desert Storm. Then those mission lengths were exceeded in 2001 by the 509th BW B-2A missions against Afghanistan.

The Europeans have had long and medium range bombers during the cold war. The British V Bombers have been talked about, the French flew the Mirage IV, and the Germans had the F-4F. Later many European Nations flew the Tornado Bomber versions. All this changed when the EU came along.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10226 times:

I don't see how the EU had any bearing, also, can we really call a tactical aircraft like the F-4F, a bomber ?
To me, a bomber was an aircraft purpose designed for that role, at least since the 1950's, it's an out of date term now really, save for aircraft subsequently built for SAC and the Soviet AF Long Range Aviation.

Agree on the book Vulcan 607, if you are interested in military aviation, it's a must, bulging with facts yet written like a thriller, each one you buy, some of the proceeds going to the Vulcan XH558 group, now that will help keep it flying.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10115 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.

Hah! You never know who's listening in......  biggrin 

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
If they wish to demolish somewhere distant, they would likely not use a bomb (or if Peter Sellars was running the French effort a berm) but send a missile, likely from a sub

This would appear to me to be the party line at the moment...

Regards


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10123 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.

Hah! You never know who's listening in...

Bloody hell where did that come from? Just shows how stealthy these new nuclear subs are. Not a thing was showing on my passive sonars! Welcome back.  Wow!


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12638 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
All this changed when the EU came along.

You're going to have to explain this one.

The EU currently has no control over the defence policy of member states, so how has the EU changed anything in the defence realm? Yes, there has been some alignment of thinking, but if France decided it needed a fleet of long-range bombers there is nothing the EU could or would do to stop it.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10064 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
All this changed when the EU came along.

how do you mean? The EU has existed in other forms for decades.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10032 times:

My comment on the EU only has to do with the reduction of defense spending (as a percentage of each countries GDP), by the member states, since the formal formation of the EU in 1993.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17):
how do you mean? The EU has existed in other forms for decades.

Well,. yes and no. Prior to about 1990, when the concept of the EU really seemed to get going, there were disputes in Europe about what the EU would look like. IIRC, the concept of the Euro as the standard European currency was a huge issue, and still is to an extent as the UK does not use it, they stayed with the Pound Sterling.

But you are correct, the basic concept of the EU had been talked about since at least the 1960s. Much like the concept of a North American Union is now talked about (informally) between Canada, Mexico, and the US is today. Most Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans seem to be against it right now.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4021 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10010 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
My comment on the EU only has to do with the reduction of defense spending (as a percentage of each countries GDP), by the member states, since the formal formation of the EU in 1993.

It still doesn't make sense, as the RAF had retired its independent bomber force well before 1993, with the Buccaneer the last to go in 1993. The French retired the Mirage IV in 1996, with its role being replaced by the Mirage 2000D and 2000N, which are both still in service.

The real reason that there are no dedicated bomber fleets left in the EU is that they cost too much to maintain - you can develop, maintain and operate dual role or swing role aircraft for the same money, and have the added benefit of those aircrafts other roles which means a smaller, leaner and more versatile air force.

For smaller countries, the benefits of not maintaining a bomber force outweigh the negatives of not maintaining a bomber force.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10005 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
and the Germans had the F-4F. Later many European Nations flew the Tornado Bomber versions. All this changed when the EU came along.

Ehmm our F-4F are/were primarily used as fighters and for CAS. Tornadoes were used for Interdiction during the cold war and now more in the broader strike role. We never flew anything that could be categorized as a real bomber. Also the importance that the Vulcan or Mirage IV had to the British or French military strategy was never as dominant as the B-52, B-2, B1- etc was significant to the US doctrine. It was always more about having this last-chance nuclear deep-strike weapon ... they originate from times where the UK and France did not have ICBMs.

And now what has the EU to do with that?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 16):
The EU currently has no control over the defence policy of member states,

It does have, but with a lower importance to mutual defense as compared to NATO. The EU has taken the lead from NATO over the operations ins Bosnia. The Congo mission last year was also an EU mission. There are also EU-battlegroups formed by neighboring countries, primarily for joint missions outside Europe. There was a lot of political pressure on the EU, because NATO feared that its importance could be compromised when the EU sets up military formation with a clearly defensive mission. That is why they have been called BATTLE-groups, otherwise the use of such offensive designations is unusual in EU-related wording.

On the very long run I believe (and hope) that the EU will become the primary sponsor of mutual security on (at least) continental Europe. There is a lot of lobbying taking place at the moment from the French side towards the German side to set up the nucleus of what could later be a joint EU military. I am a bit skeptic about such a proceeding because a lot of smaller EU countries could feel disturbed, alienated or even threatened by such a "nucleus", which in turn would be counterproductive. So we need something more comprehensive and scalable, I guess.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9969 times:

I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.
For most NATO European nations, defending against the USSR/Warsaw Pact was their sole mission for decades.

Even ones with extra NATO commitments, had only token forces for this, in the UK's case much reduced since the mid 1960's as the political/economic reality dawned and to try and implement the then new 'Flexible Response' doctrine.
(In 1964, the UK had more servicemen based East Of Suez than in Germany, within 7 years that has totally changed).

So even the UK, by the mid 1970's, had armed forces almost totally dedicated to NATO in Europe.
The ending of that threat was always going to have profound effects on defence spending.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9957 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.
For most NATO European nations, defending against the USSR/Warsaw Pact was their sole mission for decades.

 checkmark 

This is indeed the reason. The Transformation of the EEG to EU is a different topic, somehow related to the collaps of the Soviet Union perhaps, but no way directly connected to shrinking Europe's defence forces.


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9859 times:

As has been said earlier, most if not all European militaries were geared towards fighting WW3 in Germany.

I would argue that the only two European nations with significant overseas interests and a desire to project power over long distances were/are the UK and France. At the height of the Cold War the UK operated the V-Bombers and France had the Mirage IVA which formed integral parts of their strategic deterrants. As has been said already, these aircraft have been superceded by submarines...

...and given the political and economic realities in both these countries developing and maintaining a fleet of ballistic missile submarines AND a fleet of strategic bombers is out of the question. It's incredibly expensive, so much so that only two countries were ever able to do this, and since the end of the Cold War NOBODY has developed a new class of ballistic missile submarine or strategic bomber.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9794 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
Agree on the book Vulcan 607, if you are interested in military aviation, it's a must, bulging with facts yet written like a thriller, each one you buy, some of the proceeds going to the Vulcan XH558 group, now that will help keep it flying.

Just read it - absolutely gripping. I had no idea just how badly fate conspired against them on that first run and how much of a knife-edge they were on for most of the time.

You'll be pleased to know I bought it when doing the tour of Concorde at East Fortune.  Smile

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But you are correct, the basic concept of the EU had been talked about since at least the 1960s. Much like the concept of a North American Union is now talked about (informally) between Canada, Mexico, and the US is today.

As mentioned above, the EU didn't appear out of nowhere. It was an evolution of something that had existed for decades.

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.

 checkmark 


25 Post contains links BladeLWS : Not so fast... The Russians started building the Borei class in 1996, was launched this year and expected in service next years... http://en.wikipedi
26 Post contains images BilgeRat : I stand corrected
27 Baroque : Is this the cue for me to make my usual contrib, "hooray for Coal and Steel"? And the US really can claim some sort of parenthood for that organizati
28 Post contains images David L : Um... I don't know. I was thinking of the EEC and the EC.
29 Post contains links OlegShv : Well, I wouldn't be so optimistic about Ohio being quiter. Ohio boats were deployed in the 1980s, this one is a decade younger. Read what defense ana
30 Pelican : Indeed and don't forget to mention the ill fated EDC. pelican
31 Post contains links and images Baroque : Arguably they are all the offspring of the Coal and Steel Community, which interestingly did not include the UK - say no more, nudge nudge! So when a
32 Post contains images Astuteman : Also, as far as I understand, the UK government has committed to a UK Trident Replacement, somewhat controversially (as it always is...) "Told" being
33 Baroque : I suppose that your post is the answer you cannot give to the question I should not ask!!
34 Post contains links F27Friendship : not so fast. The first step towards European integration was made by the smaller countries! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux
35 GDB : Glad you enjoyed the book David, as well as G-BOAA (I'll have to get up there, what with it's interior being the 1993-2001 fit, the best we ever had a
36 Post contains images David L : Ah, I did not know that. Before my time... just. Perfect for me as I flew in it in 1999. Give me a shout if you do and time permits.
37 Post contains images Astuteman : You can think that if you want - I couldn't possibly comment.. Regards
38 Post contains images Baroque : All origins are complex, and Benelux goes back a long way, but your op cit has the following line" "Its [Benelux] founding contributed to the foundin
39 Post contains images F27Friendship : well, the larger countries obviously tend to think it was their idea
40 Wvsuperhornet : good answers well other than I dont know how we got on the subject of submarines..lol but I understand how things tend to get off topic sometimes. Any
41 Wvsuperhornet : Probably the quietest Nuclear Sub but I think the Germans have a Desiel sub that is probably quieter but not nearly as large and doesnt need to be. A
42 F27Friendship : I would like to refer to Article 5 of the NATO treaty which is why also European based AWACS with European crews flew over the US after 9-11
43 PADSpot : I The U212A class is that silent not because of the diesel, but because it has a hydrogen fuel cell as its main source of energy. The diesel just act
44 Post contains links Baroque : That is how the submarines crept stealthily into the thread, so you answered your own question Wvsuperhornet. And your username reminds me have you h
45 Wvsuperhornet : Yeah I saw it on our military channel and it was pretty impressive a cudo's goes out to who even designed it. everyone is entitled to their opinion o
46 StealthZ : Very true, but I think the whole episode was a rant session by the F-111 Mafia and did not offer any real alternatives to the F-18F or F-35 apart fro
47 Wvsuperhornet : To be honest whne the aircraft first came out I didnt care for it too much also but the aircraft did prove its self in combat and has been a very sta
48 Post contains images Baroque : FWIW the suggestions were the pig would be faster, lower, higher bomb load and with its range would expose the refuelling planes less to those nasty
49 Wvsuperhornet : Yea I can see that but to my knowledge the Tankers very rarely fly in combat without an armed escort those flankers would probably get a superise if
50 Post contains images Baroque : Ah now there is a problem that is difficult to solve - foolishness!! And it is not a trait that we have been entirely free from either. That is one o
51 Mandala499 : Baroque, Bomb Jakarta? LOL... I hope not! If our countries ever get into war with each other, it's an easy matter militarily, but a sociopolitical nig
52 Post contains images Baroque : Indeed, let us keep laughing although at times it has to be through the clenched teeth caused by the foolishness of some of our own compatriots. Hist
53 Wvsuperhornet : Malaysia has some and I am not indicating any of the countries will ever be at war it just a hypothetical thing hence the discussion board ,yes the F
54 Mandala499 : wvsuperhornet, No worries, I understood that. Was just explaining the strategies and scenarios that are now in place on the sides that I know place th
55 Post contains images Baroque : Don't tell me that there is going to be a law that has to be followed? If so, what next?
56 Wvsuperhornet : I would think the F-18 E/F would be able to project power the thing carries as many weapons as the Flankers. I know alot of people dont take the airc
57 Mandala499 : It's not about size, it's about the role it is procured for! In terms of ground strikes, the projection capability of the F18 vs the F111 is limited i
58 Post contains images Baroque : No we do not! Signed A N Aus Taxpayer Good point. Well so far, Bali has proved the more dangerous, so that seems an OK outcome. We could manage a str
59 Mandala499 : Yes you do! Signed, Sir I. Don Payaustax, OBE *LOL* I'm sure RAAF can custom build a lightweight coffin with the abovementioned persons shoved in the
60 Baroque : Dear Don (OBE) Not good enough, with either the current or projected F18s they would have to drop in for a drink, or three! So overflight would not w
61 Bongodog1964 : IMO because the RAF in the 1970's no longer saw the need for them. The official view was that the Tornado was able to provde all the strike power requ
62 Baroque : What engines would you have used? Why were Conways never tried or were they "worse" than the later marks of Olympus in spite of being bypass engines?
63 Bongodog1964 : Ah thats a big question to ask an armchair "expert" IMO the modern choice would be something on the lines of the BR710 being fitted to the Nimrod MRA
64 EBJ1248650 : You hit the nail squarely on the head. While the V-bombers (Valiant, Victor and Vulcan) were nuclear capable and represented the RAF's version of SAC
65 GDB : Another way of looking at it is this, the deployment of Ground Launched Cruise Missiles in Europe from 1983, took away the main part of the Vulcan's N
66 Moo : The Tornado had only just started delivery to the RAF by the time of the Falklands war, and as such there was no unit at operational readiness to car
67 GDB : I don't think so Moo, for a start many more Victor refuellings would have been needed, more than rescorces allowed, they were stretched to the limit d
68 Moo : I did an indepth analysis on this for a discussion a few years ago - the numbers showed that they could put 5 Tornado's over Stanley with the same nu
69 GDB : Of course, but I would not like to have been the crews stuck in those small cockpits for such a long period, as you say, in theory, given what a stret
70 Iwok : I think its mostly because their "enemy" was close by, and also I think European countries don't want to have another WWII on their watch, and so mos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?
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...
Do Long Range Heavy Bombers Have An Fighter Excort posted Tue Dec 20 2005 18:23:02 by 747400sp
Why Ultra-long Range Bomber Flights? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 19:33:40 by Mozart
Are There Any OV1 Mohawks In Service Anywhere? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:05:08 by Bisbee
New Long Range Bomber Announced posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:32:53 by AislepathLight
Awacs With Long-range AAMs posted Thu Sep 2 2004 16:14:28 by N328KF
Why Are Swing Wings Out? posted Mon Sep 23 2002 17:29:39 by Zionstrat
How Many Styles Of Fighter Pilot Helmets Are There posted Wed Jul 24 2002 04:39:56 by CX747
Are There Any B-36's Still Flying? posted Wed Apr 10 2002 07:15:52 by Shaun3000
Why Are Modern Stealth Designs W/o Canards posted Tue Apr 2 2002 03:16:01 by Lehpron
How Many _C-130's Are There posted Wed Oct 17 2001 00:40:14 by Lubcha132

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format