|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated C-class)|
Surely if you could call the Lancer a heavy bomber, the B-2 should be in the same class. Doesn't it have a heavier bomb-load?
Spirit of the cruise missiles
Merger suggestion of "strategic bomber" and "heavy bomber"
Both articles suffer from circular references:
- "strategic bomber: A strategic bomber is a heavy bomber..."
- "Heavy bomber: A heavy bomber is a strategic bomber..."
Since each article is expanded and in context are nearly the same, I agree that both articicles shold be merged; their separate definitions are pointless and suffer from circular references. Flurry (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Should we nod in the direction of Square-cube law? An aircraft with a large load can trade off bombs for fuel and larger aircraft have less surface area to drag per unit of mass so naturally have greater range. Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Heavy bomber is primarily a historical term. If you merge it, soon somebody will "fix" the reference "Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI was a [[heavy bomber]]" into "Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI was a [[strategic bomber]]", because it seems there are lots and lots of people who don't understand redirects, and why they should leave them in peace. The problem is that Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI was NOT a strategic bomber, it was not designed to have a strategic impact, that is, it was not designed to attempt to win the war on its own. So this merge would likely cause misunderstanding and possibly introduce false information to Wikipedia. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- If anything I'd say that "strategic bomber" is a historical term rather than "heavy bomber". The last time that heavy bombers were used to attack industrial targets was back in WWII. Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, there's simply no point to hauling a load of conventional bombs into enemy territory with large vulnerable aircraft. With the development of SAMs and jet interceptors in the Cold War, the number of bombers that could survive to reach their targets is quite low, thereby necessitating a nuclear payload. In modern times, nuclear weapons are essentially irrelevant...if you wanted to hit a strategic target deep in enemy territory like a command center, munitions depot, or some other infrastructure, you could send anything from fighter-bombers to cruise missiles to a B-2 stealth bomber. When so many platforms can fulfill the strategic mission, I'd say the "strategic bomber" concept is obsolete, whereas "heavy bomber" is still a good description of the B-52, B-1, Tu-160, etc. —Masterblooregard (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- More accurately, the concept of a "bomber" will be obsolete; the burgeoning trend of "stealth warplanes" designed for "strategic" rather then "tactical" roles may persist. The Volume 190, No.5 issue of Popular Mechanics discusses the next generation of the USAF B-2's as "an evolution of the long-range strategic strike aircraft." To quote: "Bombers wont jut carry bombs. The next bomber will accommodate exotic weaponry, such as directed energy beams, advanced decoys, and computer viruses. A platform with terrific penetrating capability and wonderful avionics, from a cyberwarfare standpoint, is fantastic asset," says aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The irony is that, since the above was written. the Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI's has indeed been updated to describe it as a strategic bomber. The Gotha G.V, on the other hand, is a heavy bomber. Five pounds to the first person who can differentiate their intended missions. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)