PDA

View Full Version : Why Israel doesnt have bombers?



alvarito
08-24-2006, 09:37 PM
does anybody knows why israel doesnt have any strategic bomber?

LRPV
08-24-2006, 09:43 PM
Why does Israel need them? The potential threats are so close as to not require strategic bombers. Unless of course Iceland p!sses off the Israelis at the U.N.:)

PaulClift
08-24-2006, 09:46 PM
If any country that isnt immediatly in its vincinty attacks it then I'm pretty sure it has other intercontinental things to send its way :D

And Israel isnt really into projecting its power around the world like some of the other western nations, it has far to much to deal with in its own back yard.

Moledet
08-24-2006, 09:46 PM
The IAF doesn't buy any jets that have just a single role.

chuckster
08-24-2006, 09:52 PM
Doesn't the IAF have some F-15E's in its arsenal? With mid-air refueling aren't these aircraft capable of hitting Iran?

One more thing, Isreal did a pretty good job on Lebanon with just its regular fighter-bombers.

Moledet
08-24-2006, 10:06 PM
Doesn't the IAF have some F-15E's in its arsenal? With mid-air refueling aren't these aircraft capable of hitting Iran?

One more thing, Isreal did a pretty good job on Lebanon with just its regular fighter-bombers.

F15Is and F16Is can strike Iran with no need to refuel.

SOG
08-24-2006, 10:31 PM
F15Is and F16Is can strike Iran with no need to refuel.

and they can easily attach extra fuel tanks for way more range. however i think the poster is asking about 100% bombers perhaps? like b52, b2, b1 etc.

im guessing because israel has weapons to deal with ground assets and really doesnt need to carpet bomb the **** out anyone yet. maybe if a massive jihad from 3+ countries attacked them it may be usefull but again specialized munitions can take care of large groups. i think the only reason we use b52's is because they fullfill specialized US missions like long range heavy power projection as someone else said instead of surgical striking of small targets.

LRPV
08-24-2006, 10:37 PM
I like the surgical strike bit. If Israel ever has to launch nukes from its Dolphin class subs I wouldn't want to be in the target area.:)

Ezekiel25:17
08-24-2006, 10:38 PM
I like the surgical strike bit. If Israel ever has to launch nukes from its Dolphin class subs I wouldn't want to be in the target area.:)

Nukes aren't surgical weapons they are strategic weapons.

LRPV
08-24-2006, 10:41 PM
Nukes aren't surgical weapons they are strategic weapons.

Well done, it was posted tongue-in-cheek, not to be taken for analysis:cantbeli:

Ghostryder
08-24-2006, 10:42 PM
Strategic bombers are not useful in modern combat.

Ezekiel25:17
08-24-2006, 10:43 PM
Well done, it was posted tongue-in-cheek, not to be taken for analysis:cantbeli:

Sure it was. you didn't realise what you said until you reread it. Hey, tongue-in-cheek? I play along. hahahhaha rofl <---playing along.

TheArmenian
08-24-2006, 10:45 PM
Only the USA and Russia have strategic bombers.

Even France, England and China don't have any.

Ukraine and Kazakhistan inherited a few fom the USSR, but they were either scrapped or returned to Russia.

saigonsmuggler
08-24-2006, 10:47 PM
Strategic bombers are not useful in modern combat.
darn it, i always knew those B2s were a complete waste..:roll:

and those B-52s... why do we keep them? they never ran any mission

Ghostryder
08-24-2006, 10:50 PM
darn it, i always knew those B2s were a complete waste..:roll:

you're right, they are..:roll:

Ballistic
08-24-2006, 10:55 PM
Strategic bombers are not useful in modern combat.

Says who, and what do you base this assumption on ?

mi35d
08-24-2006, 11:03 PM
Actually, nukes can be tactical as well as stategic. As for surgical, a nuclear demolition mine can take out a bridge and not have too much effect on the surrounding area.

As surgical as say, a Barrett .50cal? No. But certainly better than a 1,000 plane WW2 air raid.

LRPV
08-24-2006, 11:13 PM
Sure it was. you didn't realise what you said until you reread it. Hey, tongue-in-cheek? I play along. hahahhaha rofl <---playing along.

What can I say? Next time I'll type more slowly just for you...:)

Ghostryder
08-24-2006, 11:41 PM
Says who, and what do you base this assumption on ?

It's an Opinion not an Assumption, and you're more than welcome to have one too.

Long Range Strategic Bombers serve two purposes: To flatten industrial and residential areas, and serve as a nuclear deterrent.

Since it is no longer effective to strategecly bomb civilian populations, the strategic bomber does not have a role in modern warfare.

Ddavid
08-24-2006, 11:47 PM
$$

Strategic bombers are ultra expensive and only usefull in a very long, total war.
Very few countries can afford bleeding each other for months, while there are cheaper ICBM.

Most little to medium size countries would rather invest in nuclear deterence.

But bombers may still be usefull against ships.

chuckster
08-25-2006, 12:00 AM
Strategic bombers are not useful in modern combat.

I think I would say they are not AS useful as they once were, but still have uses.

Remember the 2003 Afghanistan war. B2s took off from bases in Missouri, flew half way around the World to Afghanistan, bombed the Taliban, landed in Diego Garcia to change crews, and then returned to Missouri for rearming.

Also in the same war, B-52s were used in good old-fasioned carpet bombing of Taliban forces. Nothing can beat a formation of heavy bombers for shock effect.

Ddavid
08-25-2006, 12:24 AM
I think I would say they are not AS useful as they once were, but still have uses.

Remember the 2003 Afghanistan war. B2s took off from bases in Missouri, flew half way around the World to Afghanistan, bombed the Taliban, landed in Diego Garcia to change crews, and then returned to Missouri for rearming.

Also in the same war, B-52s were used in good old-fasioned carpet bombing of Taliban forces. Nothing can beat a formation of heavy bombers for shock effect.

Taliban had no SAM. Hence a fleet of F-18 operating from Indian Ocean outperfom B2s based in Missouri anytime.

Admit it, it was just for the show.

AmericanImperialist
08-25-2006, 12:33 AM
Strategic bombers can carry large amounts of ordnance and have long loiter times over the target area. B-52s and B-1s have been very useful in Afghanistan and Iraq. B-52s were also used to a great extent and a great effect during Desert Storm and OIF. To say they are useless in modern combat is absolutely ignorant.

MaydayJohnson
08-25-2006, 01:19 AM
Wouldnt have that if we didnt need it would we? We do, so shut ur trap and go read a book.

kakitsubata
08-25-2006, 01:26 AM
With JDAM and near real-time target rely system the USAF has got going, strategic bombers are changing from their traditional role to more readily available hunting assets. Their biggest advantge over tactical fighters is that they can loiter over a target with massive amounts of ordinance and strike multiple targets on a single sortie.

olowy
08-25-2006, 04:29 AM
does anybody knows why israel doesnt have any strategic bomber?

Makes a nice big, expensive target for a plane that would take a very short trip, except if it went to Iraq or Iran but I doubt the Israelis would want to spend all that money on a plane with very limited use in their situation.

TR1
08-25-2006, 04:33 AM
Only the USA and Russia have strategic bombers.

Even France, England and China don't have any.

Ukraine and Kazakhistan inherited a few fom the USSR, but they were either scrapped or returned to Russia.

well, China has a number of Tu-16 "copies", and although they are hardly impressive compared to say a Tu-160 or B-1, they can be considered strategic. also india operates the Tu-142 for maritime patrol...but it is a modification of a strategic bomber.

klaten
08-25-2006, 05:04 AM
Could the economy of Israil really support Strategic bombers?
This is the easiest way to define if it was possible. Only two countries really posses an honest to god strategic strike capability 24/7 which is the United States and on a much more limited scale Russia.

Would the UN security council really allow for Israil to posses bombers capable of striking targets 2000nm away?

Most of the world is concerened about keeping this middle east problem in the middile east! Giving the political backing of supplying STRATEGIC bombers to Israil would rapidly escalate tensions with many nations states, not only in israils immediate vicinity but large sections of Europe, Asia and Africa would be within striking distance (if not all ready).

It would be interesting to see how Pakistan and India would percieve this threat!

GiladS
08-25-2006, 05:09 AM
does anybody knows why israel doesnt have any strategic bomber?


For the same reason we don't have aircraft carriers.

It demands a lot of resources to hold on to such an asset and all the threats to Israel's security are within the Middle East region.

perdurabo
08-25-2006, 06:19 AM
does anybody knows why israel doesnt have any strategic bomber?
only very few countries have clasical bombers, USA, Russia, China, even powers like UK dosen't have bombers so why small israel would need them?

DaGreatRV
08-25-2006, 07:47 AM
Could the economy of Israil really support Strategic bombers?
This is the easiest way to define if it was possible. Only two countries really posses an honest to god strategic strike capability 24/7 which is the United States and on a much more limited scale Russia.

Would the UN security council really allow for Israil to posses bombers capable of striking targets 2000nm away?

Most of the world is concerened about keeping this middle east problem in the middile east! Giving the political backing of supplying STRATEGIC bombers to Israil would rapidly escalate tensions with many nations states, not only in israils immediate vicinity but large sections of Europe, Asia and Africa would be within striking distance (if not all ready).

It would be interesting to see how Pakistan and India would percieve this threat!

I think Israel has no need for such a bomber, their conflicts are way closer to home.
The US for instance has to look for war a few thousand kilometers further from home. They have two options, use a long range bomber (B-2,B-1b, B-52). Or they move their airbase closer to the enemy (carrier).

A B-2 is handy for taking out vital air defences and options to retaliate.
I once heard you can take out 80 targets with a B-2. That is ideal for first strike(start of war) purposes.


Concidering the cost of maintaining/building/designing a large strategic bomber, nobody will make or buy one again.


crazy fact: A B-2 is worth TWICE it's weight in GOLD! :cantbeli:

zam4ever
08-25-2006, 08:40 AM
Only the USA and Russia have strategic bombers.

What is the meaning of "strategic" bombers?

cheers

Ea$y-8
08-25-2006, 08:44 AM
Why does Israel need them? The potential threats are so close as to not require strategic bombers. Unless of course Iceland p!sses off the Israelis at the U.N.:)

Iceland doesn't even have a military (and I am not joking).

Israel doesn't have bombers because it doesn't need them due to the fact that most of its enemies live right next door.

Ddavid
08-25-2006, 10:03 AM
Strategic bombers can carry large amounts of ordnance and have long loiter times over the target area. B-52s and B-1s have been very useful in Afghanistan and Iraq. B-52s were also used to a great extent and a great effect during Desert Storm and OIF. To say they are useless in modern combat is absolutely ignorant.

I don't say for B1 with their huge payload and speed, neither for B-52 who can stay closer to targets.

But B-2s against Taliban were a total overkill. You use them against developped countries C&C center, like radars in Vladivostok. Otherwise, it doesn't worth it, especially with their lower payload



Concidering the cost of maintaining/building/designing a large strategic bomber, nobody will make or buy one again.


crazy fact: A B-2 is worth TWICE it's weight in GOLD ! :cantbeli:

F-22 as well ;)
I once dreamed of a A-330 bomber with RBS or Scalp. Or better, a Tu-22M with european made electronics.

B25Hmitchell
08-25-2006, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE=chuckster;1876158]Doesn't the IAF have some F-15E's in its arsenal? With mid-air refueling aren't these aircraft capable of hitting Iran?

QUOTE]

Or they can land in Iraq and refuel.

Elemental666
08-25-2006, 10:18 AM
We are too hardcore to have bombers.Period. p-)

But seriusly,we don't need them.F15i will do their job if needed.

atudai
08-25-2006, 10:19 AM
Lets say that Israel would want to buy some bombers.Then, who is going to supply them? USA? If until recently U.S coudn't afford itself exporting the F-22 to Israel(and to any other country)-then how could they even think about selling those killing machines?

Ddavid
08-25-2006, 10:37 AM
More seriously, a treaty between the United State and Russia limit sales of strategic weapons to third countries, including long range bombers, nuclear submarines (all kind), ICBM (obvioulsy) and missiles over 1000km range etc.

LEGEND
08-25-2006, 10:48 AM
Would be neat to see a Tu-160 in Israeli markings with israeli avionics:)

http://us.airliners.net/photos/middle/5/1/3/0908315.jpg

Angelino
08-25-2006, 11:30 AM
only very few countries have clasical bombers, USA, Russia, China, even powers like UK dosen't have bombers so why small israel would need them?
The UK did operate strategic bombers for a while. The RAF operated the Handley Page Victor and the Avro Vulcan. In fact, the Avro Vulcan used to hold the record for longest bombing flight -- one flew out of the UK and delivered its bombs in the Falklands islands.

Happy
08-25-2006, 12:16 PM
darn it, i always knew those B2s were a complete waste..:roll:

and those B-52s... why do we keep them? they never ran any mission

It sure makes planning a mission against the axis of evil a lot more fun using squadrons of B-52s and B2s. Or, just think how usefull they might be if the US has to stop Iran's nuclear buildup?

TR1
08-25-2006, 02:53 PM
Would be neat to see a Tu-160 in Israeli markings with israeli avionics:)

http://us.airliners.net/photos/middle/5/1/3/0908315.jpg

certainly not going to hapen, but would be pretty awesome. a deadly precision cruise missle ability.

Hollis
08-25-2006, 03:21 PM
I think what some are missing Israel has a smaller population than a number of California's Cities... About 7 million people. That would be like Oregon and Washington (State) combined.

Iran has nearly 68 Million people, than add the population of the other countries hostile to Israel. Maybe a sling shot is the best David is going to do.

Laworkerbee
08-25-2006, 05:04 PM
Strategic bombers are not useful in modern combat.

Tell that to thousands of Iraqi consripts who were on the reciving end of 5-52 payloads in Desert Storm, shattered and demoralized.

Lt-Col A. Tack
08-25-2006, 05:11 PM
Tell that to thousands of Iraqi consripts who were on the reciving end of 5-52 payloads in Desert Storm, shattered and demoralized.

Or the Taliban during Enduring Freedom. Some of the B-52 and B-1 missions sounded more like close air support. With JDAM, SDB, JASSM or MOAB, you have a lot of flexibility.

My bad, MOAB isn't delivered via a strategic bomber, IIRC, it's delivered from an airlifter.

ckabusk
08-25-2006, 06:34 PM
Well, modern warfare has changed, bombers are no needed, the nuke could answer the questions very soon.

Laworkerbee
08-25-2006, 06:39 PM
Well, modern warfare has changed, bombers are no needed, the nuke could answer the questions very soon.

once again you might want to state a reason for saying so, I for one think Harpoon and Tomahawk carrying B-52's and B-1's would put a chill into an enemy fleet, and thats just one small example.

Lt-Col A. Tack
08-25-2006, 06:51 PM
Well, modern warfare has changed, bombers are no needed, the nuke could answer the questions very soon.

Strategic bombers have incredible range and can deliver trememdous amount of ordnance. That's still useful in this day and age. It seems like most fighters anymore have some air-to-surface capability, but it requires more missions to do accomplish the same objective.

klaten
08-26-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by ckabusk
Well, modern warfare has changed, bombers are no needed, the nuke could answer the questions very soon.

LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL BABY! I LOOK FORWARD TO GLOWING GREEN SOON! Fallout is GREAT! PLAYED THE GAME?