When was the last time a fighter shot down a bomber?

[MK1 GIT]

As per the title really. When was the last time a dedicated bomber, I’m thinking B52’s etc... as opposed to the ‘fighter bombers’ we have now, was shot down by a fighter jet?

[Tango13]

I'm pretty certain all the B-52 losses in Vietnam were due to SAM missile hits. Not sure if any B-57s were shot down by fighers though.

A Sea Harrier shot down a Pucara during the Falklands conflict but the Pucara is a ground attack aircraft if you want to be really pedantic

So I'd say the last true fighter vs bomber shoot down would've been during the Korean war Mig vs B-29

There were also losses of various US bombers on secret squirrel missions near/over Russian airspace during the cold war but details are very few and far between

Edited by Tango13 on Monday 4th May 07:47

[Dr Jekyll]

There was an RAF Lincoln shot down by MIGs over East Germany in 1953. The Korean war still had a few weeks to go so it's possible some B29s were shot down afterwards.

Edited to add. I think at least one Canberra was shot down by a Harrier during the Falklands war.

[Riley Blue]

March 12th 1953 a Mig 15 shot down a RAF Lincoln:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1...

ETA: I shouldn't have read the link before posting...

Edited by Riley Blue on Monday 4th May 09:56

[Eric Mc]

After the Korean War, the shooting down of "bomber aircraft" by fighters kind of disappeared as the nature of air warfare changed. Most air forces these days operate multi-role aircraft which can serve as both fighters or bombers, so the pure bomber is a rather rare type of aeroplane. Even the US Air Force only operates a small number of pure bombers these days. For instance, in 1965 the USAF had 800 B-52s. Today it has less than 80.

As has been said, a number of "bomber type" aircraft have been shot down during the Cold War or in the many limited conflicts that have occurred since 1953. In those cases, the aircraft shot down were rarely on bombing missions but more likely to have been on a reconnaissance mission. B-29s, B-50s, Ilyushin Il-18, Tupolev Tu-16s etc were all used on surveillance missions in that period.

Since the beginning of the 1960s, I would suggest that if any proper bombers have been shot down by fighters these incidents would most likely have happened in the various African wars or the Arab-Israeli/Middle Eastern conflicts.

[dr_gn]

An Argentine Canberra bomber was shot down by a Sea Harrier in the Falklands war, May 1st 1982. Pilot was Lt. Alan Curtiss.

There is an account of the engagement in Sharkey Ward's book.

[Jimbo.]

Does an Su-24 count? The Russian answer to the F-111 so, it seems, more “bomber” than “fighter”. One was downed by a Turkish F-16 in 2014.

[tangerine_sedge]

Working on the principle of pure bomber and pure fighter, I'd nominate an Egyptian il-28 shot down by an Israeli Mirage III in 1970.

Url to list of Israeli kills below :
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/IAFtotal.html

[Eric Mc]

tangerine_sedge said:

Working on the principle of pure bomber and pure fighter, I'd nominate an Egyptian il-28 shot down by an Israeli Mirage III in 1970.

Url to list of Israeli kills below :
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/IAFtotal.html

That's what I was thinking (I meant Il-28 in my previous post).

[Pothole]

Jimbo. said:

Does an Su-24 count? The Russian answer to the F-111 so, it seems, more “bomber” than “fighter”. One was downed by a Turkish F-16 in 2014.

2015 according to Wikipedia

[dr_gn]

tangerine_sedge said:

Working on the principle of pure bomber and pure fighter, I'd nominate an Egyptian il-28 shot down by an Israeli Mirage III in 1970.

Url to list of Israeli kills below :
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/IAFtotal.html

The Canberra was in a formation of them configured as a bombers, en-route to attack the British fleet. The Sea Harrier was configured as a fighter. That was 1982.

[tangerine_sedge]

dr_gn said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Working on the principle of pure bomber and pure fighter, I'd nominate an Egyptian il-28 shot down by an Israeli Mirage III in 1970.

Url to list of Israeli kills below :
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/IAFtotal.html

The Canberra was in a formation of them configured as a bombers, en-route to attack the British fleet. The Sea Harrier was configured as a fighter. That was 1982.

I assumed (ass-u-me) that the Canberra would have been PR spec. I didn't realise the Argies used them as bombers...

[dr_gn]

tangerine_sedge said:

dr_gn said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Working on the principle of pure bomber and pure fighter, I'd nominate an Egyptian il-28 shot down by an Israeli Mirage III in 1970.

Url to list of Israeli kills below :
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/IAFtotal.html

The Canberra was in a formation of them configured as a bombers, en-route to attack the British fleet. The Sea Harrier was configured as a fighter. That was 1982.

I assumed (ass-u-me) that the Canberra would have been PR spec. I didn't realise the Argies used them as bombers...

Not according to Ward’s book.

[ecsrobin]

tangerine_sedge said:

I assumed (ass-u-me) that the Canberra would have been PR spec. I didn't realise the Argies used them as bombers...

Argentine airforce operated 8 Canberra B (Bomber) mk62’s as part of the 2nd air brigade.

B-110 was shot down by Harrier. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/144152

Edited by ecsrobin on Monday 4th May 13:06

[JerseyS2000]

nice question OP - now how about the other way around? B52 downing MiGs over Hanoi?

[Krikkit]

Pothole said:

Jimbo. said:

Does an Su-24 count? The Russian answer to the F-111 so, it seems, more “bomber” than “fighter”. One was downed by a Turkish F-16 in 2014.

2015 according to Wikipedia

I think this really, the Su-24 was in a ground attack configuration, and it's definitely no fighter.

[andy97]

If we are stretching the definition of bomber somewhat to “ground attack aircraft”, there’s the infamous incident of an RAF Phantom shooting down an RAF Jaguar GR1 over Germany in the 1990s

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-raf-jaguar-...

[Eric Mc]

There are very few pure traditional bombers in service these days. They have been in decline since the 1960s as smaller dedicated ground attack aircraft have taken over the role.

One of the reasons why bombers had to be of a certain size was so that they could have big enough fuel tanks to give them the range they needed for their missions. The advent of in-flight refueling has rendered that less of an issue so smaller aircraft can undertake longer missions than their internal fuel volume would give without refueling.

[dr_gn]

andy97 said:

If we are stretching the definition of bomber somewhat to “ground attack aircraft”, there’s the infamous incident of an RAF Phantom shooting down an RAF Jaguar GR1 over Germany in the 1990s

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-raf-jaguar-...

The "G" in the "GR" prefix means Ground Attack. For a bomber, the suffix would be "B".

[andy97]

dr_gn said:

andy97 said:

If we are stretching the definition of bomber somewhat to “ground attack aircraft”, there’s the infamous incident of an RAF Phantom shooting down an RAF Jaguar GR1 over Germany in the 1990s

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-raf-jaguar-...

The "G" in the "GR" prefix means Ground Attack. For a bomber, the suffix would be "B".

Thanks for stating the obvious - hence why I made the comment about “stretching the definition. It wasn’t a serious suggestion that the Jaguar was a bomber.