Search Results
7/13/2025, 9:35:21 PM
>>63976740
>>63977782
>>63977767
USS Wolverine here, my sidewheels have entered orbit. Macon and Akron would be tapping in but they used up all their helium mocking it the fourth time it caught fire.
>>63977782
>>63977767
USS Wolverine here, my sidewheels have entered orbit. Macon and Akron would be tapping in but they used up all their helium mocking it the fourth time it caught fire.
6/10/2025, 1:49:15 AM
>>63805835
>Do bombers even make sense in today's world? Fighter-Bombers firing long range cruise missiles seems to make more sense.
Yes, bombers still have a role.
>fighter-bomber wing takes off
>gotta be close to frontlines or refuel on the way, no drop tanks for you on this trip
>launch 1-2 missiles per plane, can't carry the heaviest stuff without overstressing the airframe
>goes home
>refuel and do turnaround maintenance
>1-2 of the birds in the wing go down
>Time for another mission, the pilots have only been in the air for several hours, it'll totally be fine
>mmmm, cockpit meth, maybe even time to shit while you're at base
Versus
>Bomber take off from other side of country
>carry whatever the fuck you want
>loiter on station for an hour, IDGAF
>launch a dozen missiles from 500 miles out
>Fuck off back home, still have a quarter tank of gas when you land
>Need another fire mission? Cool. The second bomber in the wing took off a couple hours ago, they can deal with it
>grab a sammitch, naptime
Also a wing of bombers that really needs to get extrovert can deliver those missiles *vastly* more cheaply, and the attack will be much easier to organize than trying to coordinate anywhere NEAR their throw weight in multirole aircraft strike packages. Launching/stacking up multiple squadrons for each strike package is a huge pain in the cock, they place a much heavier load on AWACS, and it's not like using the fighters will save any money or effort on SEAD either.
>Do bombers even make sense in today's world? Fighter-Bombers firing long range cruise missiles seems to make more sense.
Yes, bombers still have a role.
>fighter-bomber wing takes off
>gotta be close to frontlines or refuel on the way, no drop tanks for you on this trip
>launch 1-2 missiles per plane, can't carry the heaviest stuff without overstressing the airframe
>goes home
>refuel and do turnaround maintenance
>1-2 of the birds in the wing go down
>Time for another mission, the pilots have only been in the air for several hours, it'll totally be fine
>mmmm, cockpit meth, maybe even time to shit while you're at base
Versus
>Bomber take off from other side of country
>carry whatever the fuck you want
>loiter on station for an hour, IDGAF
>launch a dozen missiles from 500 miles out
>Fuck off back home, still have a quarter tank of gas when you land
>Need another fire mission? Cool. The second bomber in the wing took off a couple hours ago, they can deal with it
>grab a sammitch, naptime
Also a wing of bombers that really needs to get extrovert can deliver those missiles *vastly* more cheaply, and the attack will be much easier to organize than trying to coordinate anywhere NEAR their throw weight in multirole aircraft strike packages. Launching/stacking up multiple squadrons for each strike package is a huge pain in the cock, they place a much heavier load on AWACS, and it's not like using the fighters will save any money or effort on SEAD either.
Page 1