History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:44 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
gtg947h wrote:
To expand on my earlier quote now that I have a real keyboard to type on... and Stuart please correct me if I'm wrong... but I don't really know if the scores for light bombers and medium/heavy bombers are compatible. My guess is they probably rate different things. Otherwise you have the AV-8A outscoring the A-7E, which is pretty preposterous.

They're calculated the same way but they represent different priorities in design which is why I put them in separate sections. What bumps the AV-8 family up is that they are very agile and have a lot of engine power. The A-7 is comparison is a great load-lifter but its sluggish and unwieldy. Now, as a light bomber, the agile/maneuverable side of the AV-8A is most important while in its environment the A-7s load-lifting category is most important. So, its important to keep comparisons within category. This is why I made a distinction between dive and torpedo bombers on carriers.

An even more interesting cross-category is comparing a light bomber with a strategic bomber. By today they come out pretty equal (rated as a bomber, the F-35A is eye-watering) but they have different virtues. The light is the close support tool, the strategic removes whole grid squares. Neither can do the other's job.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
ByronC wrote:
Timbo W wrote:
Interesting on the Harriers as bombers, they also perform as well as or better than the Victor and Vulcan!

Well, that's an entirely new perspective on Black Buck.


Also one that was made by the Andrew at the time, they offered to do the job with a pair of SHars and 6 x 1000lbers, but we’re shouted down by the RAF.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Craiglxviii wrote:
Also one that was made by the Andrew at the time, they offered to do the job with a pair of SHars and 6 x 1000lbers, but we’re shouted down by the RAF.


The SHars would have done a better job as well. That whole Black Buck raid was a triumph of RAF politicking over common sense.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
Also one that was made by the Andrew at the time, they offered to do the job with a pair of SHars and 6 x 1000lbers, but we’re shouted down by the RAF.


The SHars would have done a better job as well. That whole Black Buck raid was a triumph of RAF politicking over common sense.


Also a point made by the Andrew, about 5 minutes after the time.

Black Buck 1- as the Arrsepedia entry puts it, making one fast jet runway into two C-130 runways.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:07 pm
Posts: 311
Ah OK, so it seems to me that the bomber rating system is more focused on performance as an aircraft with bomb load getting a lower weighting than one might imagine. Stu, do you consider the types and accuracy of ordnance dropped? Eg dumb bombs v smart bombs, analagous to the air to air missile influence on the fighter rankings?

For bombers I guess there are 3 main areas of importance, how far it goes, how likely it is to get there and how much damage it will do if it does.

Range should be easiest.

Survivability eg speed, ECM, operating height, defensive weapons, manoeuvrability etc

Damage determined by bomb load certainly but also by accuracy, which is quite dreadful for much of the bombers' history and presumably tricky data to come by!

Sortie rate too maybe?

So bombers needed per target could be the outcome but I have no idea if enough data is available.

So it seems so far the bomb load factor is maybe too low?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group