Modern Heavy Bomber News, Pictures Thread (Non-Chinese)

[Black Shark]

I do really like the british design especially the Victor, looks really nice.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Anything to be added? This kind of sums it up I think. Great answer! Thanks Black Shark

Bernard, both you and I KNOW, there is nothing Totalitarian about our need for heavy bombers, heavy bombers are a moderating solution, in fact many of our heavy nuke birds have been cut up, in response to strategic arms negotiations, a very ignorant move in some sense??? and our ICBMs have been cut back to a bare minimum in order to meet our potential adversaries???
As recent events have shown, any time the US displays weakness or unwillingness to step into the gap, there are totalitarian regimes who are all to willing to fill that gap???? Islamo-Facism as an example, and our heavy bombers have been more often tasked with being just that "heavy conventional bombers" against opposing forces, why is that hard to understand??

as your post alluded, and as Jeff clarified, our allies have choosen to cut heavy bombers out of their budget due to aging and the financial inability or lack of desire to build/maintain them. We on the other hand believe that a credible bomber force will help to obtain/maintain the peace, that as Ronald Reagan illucidated so clearly, only comes through "strength"

While that no doubt sounds trite to the "padwans", those of us old heads have seen the result of "pacificism", and its not pretty, and it is NOT peace, just the opposite.

 

[Jeff Head]

Black Shark, SD is not a place for political or ideological digs or discussion.

Leave that part out.

Please Read our rules of Behavior.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.

 

[FORBIN]

So the only three countries that have dedicated heavy bombers are USA, Russia, and China?
Why is this? Why did the UK get rid of or cease developing heavy bombers? Why don't other countries do this? India? France?

Main point a heavy bomber is very expensive then very few countries can get it and in fact only US and Tu-22M/160 for her load are in this category 20 t + ordnance, others Tu-95, H-6 carry about 10 t as a F-15E, but Tu-22M is not a strategic bomber for range ofc.

 

[FORBIN]

USAF bombers organisation :

AIR COMBAT COMMAND/ 12th AF in october rattached to AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE COMMAND for nuclear deterence again.

Dyess :
7th Bomb Wing :
9 BS : 15 B-1B
28 BS OCU : 18 B-1B

Ellsworth :
28th Bomb Wing :
34 BS : 15 B-1B
37 BS : 15 B-1B

AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE COMMAND
8th AIR FORCE

Barksdale
2nd Bomb Wing :
11,20 ( OCU ) and 96 BS : 30 B-52H
307 th Bomb Wing depends AF RESERVE :
93, 343 BS each 9 B-52H

Minot :
5th Bomb Wing :
23, 69 BS : 27 B-52H

Whiteman :
509th Bomb Wing
325, 393 BS : 19 B-2A
353 Cbt Tr Squ 16 T-38

In more

AIR FORCE MATERIAL COMMAND
Edwards
419th Flight test sqn, OEU : 1 B-2A, 1 B-52H no B-1B

AIR COMBAT COMMAND/Air Warfare Center
For combat test mainly TESqn use lent bombers which does not belong to them

 

[Miragedriver]

Not the beautiful outside, but the inside of a Tu-95MS

Back to bottling my Grenache

 

[FORBIN]

B-1B

 

[janjak desalin]

don't forget that the french had a quasi-strategic bomber: the mirage IV.

 

[Jeff Head]

don't forget that the french had a quasi-strategic bomber: the mirage IV.View attachment 13396

The Mirage IV is not a heavy Bomber like what we are discussing on this thread. .

It is an attack aircraft that could carry nuclear weapons.

The US and others had/have numerous smaller aircraft for this too...but which would also not be considered heavy bombers. That's the role this thread is geared at.

In World War II we would have been saying B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc. Here, it is definitely planes like the B1-B, TU-160, B2s, the older British planes mentioned, etc.

 

[janjak desalin]

TU-22M3/M3M Backfire 70 in service

that's my favorite pic of the tu-22m3; it's impossible to find one with it carrying a payload of 3 kh-22.