Talk:Strategic bomber

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Germany Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Future Chinese heavy bomber[edit]

Is China currently developing a heavy bomber with 6 engines and a 300-ft wingspan?

Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000N and 2000D[edit]

The article for the Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000N and 2000D states that "The Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000N is a variant of the Mirage 2000 designed for nuclear strike. It forms the core of the French land-based tactical nuclear deterrent. The Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000D is its conventional attack counterpart."

This is not a strategic bomber, no? 70.106.36.134 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, NO!--169.232.119.120 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy bomber[edit]

is there any difference between a strategic and heavy bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.217.119 (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some aircraft have been designed as heavy strategic bombers, but used in the close support tactical role, such as the Lancaster and B-52. Likewise some fighter bombers designed for the tactical battlefield support role, like the F-4, have been used as strategic bombers. A heavy bomber is not necessarily a strategic bomber and a strategic bomber is not necessarily a heavy bomber. Hamptons were used to bomb Germany and they were not "heavies".- Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo at top: B-52 or B-1?[edit]

I put the B-52 photo back up top and moved the new B-1 photo down into the article where a paragraph mentions it. I think the B-52 is far and away more recognizable than the B-1. It's iconic. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mythical Indian Strategic Bomber[edit]

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Lincoln[edit]

Added the Avro Lincoln to cold war bombers.--217.34.70.121 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 Stratofortress (70,000 lb)[edit]

B-52 Stratofortress (70,000 lb) is mentioned twice in a list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.135.40 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red China? Shouldn't it be just China?[edit]

Just noticed something minor. It says "Red China produced an unlicensed version of the Tupolev blahblahblah..." in the Cold War section. I recommend changing it to simply China, as we don't say Blue America, or yellow Britain, or pink Australia. It's like the whole Communist China thing. Why say Communist China? We might as well say Democratic America, Monarchic Britain, Federal Australia and Republic Germany. And you all know how silly that sounds. The truth is, "Red" China belongs to the Cold War era where mistrust of Communists was the norm, but thats not the case in today's mordern society. This is 2011, not the Cold War. 203.213.43.182 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, changed it to "People's Republic of China". More people would understand mainland China or continental China, but PRC is correct and official. 08:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs)