Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the use of nuclear bombers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is the use of nuclear bombers?

    I don't know anything about this and have always wondered what the purpose of long-range strategic bombers like the B-52 or Tu-95 would be in a modern nuclear war between two advanced adversaries like the U.S. and Russia.

    Wouldn't a big, non-stealthy bomber be easily destroyed by long-range enemy AA systems or intercepting aircraft well before the bombers could reach their targets? What is even the point?

  • #2
    In layman's terms?
    -Grudge F#@k.
    -Revenge.

    YouTube - Dr. Strangelove

    In nuclear strategy terms, research the term "Nuclear Triad."

    Here's a short start from Wiki:


    In nuclear strategy, the nuclear triad refers to the three tiers of a country's nuclear arsenal, traditionally composed of strategic bombers (carrier-based or land-based; armed with bombs or missiles), land-based missiles (MRBMs or ICBMs), and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). To be considered a part of a nuclear triad, weapons must have a first- or second-strike function, lest they be considered a tactical nuclear weapon.

    The possession of a nuclear triad significantly reduces the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a country's nuclear forces in a first strike attack, ensuring a credible threat of a second strike. This increases a nation's nuclear deterrence.

    The triad also gives the commander the possibility to use different types of weapons for the appropriate strike:

    ICBMs allow for a long-range strike launched from a controlled or friendly environment. If launched from a fixed position, such as a missile silo, they are vulnerable to a first strike, though their interception once aloft is substantially difficult.

    SLBMs, launched from submarines, allow for a greater chance of survival from a first strike, giving the commander a second-strike capability. Their limited range, however, means that submarines must often be closer to its target than desirable, allowing for potential detection and tracking by an enemy attack submarine or a SOSUS-like system.

    Strategic bombers have greater flexibility in their deployment and weaponry. They can serve as both a first- and second-strike weapon. A stealth B-2 Spirit bomber armed with stealth AGM-129 ACM missiles, for example, could be classified as a first-strike weapon. A number of conventional bombers kept at fail-safe points would constitute a second-strike weapon.
    Last edited by GAU-8; 08 Sep 08,, 19:07.

    Comment


    • #3
      I understand the logic of using stealth bombers for delivering nukes, but I was originally asking about B-52's and Tu-95's.

      Certainly these can't be first strike weapons since the enemy would see them coming a thousand miles away and would intercept them with SAM's or fighters while still over the ocean.

      Maybe they could be second-strike delivery systems.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Proyas View Post
        Maybe they could be second-strike delivery systems.
        Now you have it.

        Comment


        • #5
          manned bombers with big loads can carry lots of missiles, have long loiter times, can be called back if equipped with freefall bombs, can be converted to carry HE bombs to drop the whoop ass when you need a bog boom, but not nukes etc.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GAU-8 View Post
            Now you have it.
            OK.

            Does U.S. or Russian nuclear doctrine call for the use of non-stealth bombers for nuclear first strikes?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Proyas View Post
              OK.

              Does U.S. or Russian nuclear doctrine call for the use of non-stealth bombers for nuclear first strikes?
              First Strike?! Where are we going with this?

              Against a nuclear armed country with the means to retaliate?
              Refer to M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction.

              Against a non-nuclear armed country?
              Refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

              Comment


              • #8
                Man, I LOVE that movie.

                Colonel Bat Guano (s******)

                Group Captain Mandrake

                BG Jack Ripper

                GEN Buck Turgeson

                Purity of Essence

                Precious Bodily Fluids

                Mine Shaft Gap
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GAU-8 View Post
                  [FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]First Strike?! Where are we going with this?
                  I'm trying to devise a massive attack strategy against Russia, China, India, and Burundi that would totally eliminate their populations and industry without incurring a single friendly casualty.

                  ...

                  No. My last question had no deeper meaning and wasn't going anywhere.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Proyas View Post
                    I'm trying to devise a massive attack strategy against Russia, China, India, and Burundi that would totally eliminate their populations and industry without incurring a single friendly casualty.

                    ...

                    No. My last question had no deeper meaning and wasn't going anywhere.

                    Burundi?

                    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Proyas View Post
                      I understand the logic of using stealth bombers for delivering nukes, but I was originally asking about B-52's and Tu-95's.

                      Certainly these can't be first strike weapons since the enemy would see them coming a thousand miles away and would intercept them with SAM's or fighters while still over the ocean.

                      Maybe they could be second-strike delivery systems.
                      A lot of the SAMs would be degraded or destroyed.

                      Don't forget ALCMs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Proyas View Post
                        I'm trying to devise a massive attack strategy against Russia, China, India, and Burundi that would totally eliminate their populations and industry without incurring a single friendly casualty.
                        Hmmm. Interesting use of your time.

                        How old are you?
                        Do you run a government?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                          Burundi?

                          Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?

                          Agreed....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Proyas View Post
                            I'm trying to devise a massive attack strategy against Russia, China, India, and Burundi that would totally eliminate their populations and industry without incurring a single friendly casualty.

                            ...

                            No. My last question had no deeper meaning and wasn't going anywhere.
                            For what possible reason? Russia's triad is se tup so that you cannot get all of the Russian nukes in a first strike. SSBN and road mobile ICBM's will remain and rain death on the world.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              Burundi?

                              Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
                              I guess he's planning to end the Hutu-Tutsi problem once and for all.
                              Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                              (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X