Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Tony1963 said:
I suppose you’d have to define what a proper bomber is.
Big thing with lots of bombs. Not a fighter with little bombs stuck on the outside 
Your criteria means F35 is the RAF's first proper bomber since Buccaneer because it has a weapons bay(with apologies to the Kipper Fleet who probably wouldn't want to be called bombers).
Tony1963 said:
This sort of thing takes me back to my early days at Marham.
Somewhere in an archive hopefully, though I've never seen it, is a photo of me in front of a Victor on a CCF/RAF visit to Marham, c.1977. Plenty of virtual beer to anyone who can track it down. The other thing I remember was the dog handler, a cheerful chap who showed us the Alsatian guard dogs.Scarfie said:
I've found out what it's up to, a few Red Arrow pilots are taking people on joy rides for 2k a pop out of North Weald up and over Manningtree and back. Annoying a friends of mine who complained and got a snotty email back from an MBE
Your friend needs to spend a week or so near Marham. Old mates up there say it’s sometimes relentless, loud and tiresome, as far as Downham Market. Tony1963 said:
Simpo Two said:
Tony1963 said:
The “variable noise, constant speed” insult was also given to the Jaguar. It was also said that Jags only took off because the Earth’s surface curved away underneath them.
I always liked the Jaguar, ever since making an Airfix model of one. They just looked right, compared to the thumping great Tornado 'MRCA' that came after it. When did the RAF last have a proper bomber? Was it the Vulcan?Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
ferret50 said:
Tony1963 said:
Simpo Two said:
Tony1963 said:
The “variable noise, constant speed” insult was also given to the Jaguar. It was also said that Jags only took off because the Earth’s surface curved away underneath them.
I always liked the Jaguar, ever since making an Airfix model of one. They just looked right, compared to the thumping great Tornado 'MRCA' that came after it. When did the RAF last have a proper bomber? Was it the Vulcan?Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
ferret50 said:
Tony1963 said:
Simpo Two said:
Tony1963 said:
The “variable noise, constant speed” insult was also given to the Jaguar. It was also said that Jags only took off because the Earth’s surface curved away underneath them.
I always liked the Jaguar, ever since making an Airfix model of one. They just looked right, compared to the thumping great Tornado 'MRCA' that came after it. When did the RAF last have a proper bomber? Was it the Vulcan?Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
ferret50 said:
Lancaster.
Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
Buccaneer then isn't it? I think the F35 is designed to do other stuff than drop bombs, but that's all a Buccaneer did. Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
Anyway, we had this argument a few years ago and you get bogged down in semantics immediately. IMO anything that drops bombs is a bomber, even if only for the duration of the mission where it's carrying bombs.
Yertis said:
ferret50 said:
Lancaster.
Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
Buccaneer then isn't it? I think the F35 is designed to do other stuff than drop bombs, but that's all a Buccaneer did. Based on the principle of actually dropping loud bangy things from within the aircraft.
But in FAA service they also could perform in a dual role as a tanker using the 'Buddy-Pack' AAR pods, and although the RAF Bucc's could have been operated with the same kit, I'm not sure they ever did.
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 16th April 19:42
Tony1963 said:
The thing is, the aircraft doesn’t give a hoot what it’s called. The people who fly them don’t care. The people who maintain them really don’t care. It only seems to matter to those who tick boxes on lists. Twitchers?
But fighter pilots and bomber pilots require different skills. Or at least they did when you knew which was which and they did different things.We've attempted to define a bomber; perhaps try the opposite - I propose a fighter is something you can dogfight with.
Simpo Two said:
Tony1963 said:
The thing is, the aircraft doesn’t give a hoot what it’s called. The people who fly them don’t care. The people who maintain them really don’t care. It only seems to matter to those who tick boxes on lists. Twitchers?
But fighter pilots and bomber pilots require different skills. Or at least they did when you knew which was which and they did different things.We've attempted to define a bomber; perhaps try the opposite - I propose a fighter is something you can dogfight with.
Tony1963 said:
Simpo Two said:
We've attempted to define a bomber; perhaps try the opposite - I propose a fighter is something you can dogfight with.
How many dogfights have there been in the last 40 years?So, other possible definitions of a fighter - something that shoots down bombers would be a good one. But if there are no bombers to shoot down, what is it? Just a ground attack aircraft?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff