Because I frequently look up military aircraft a lot on Wikipedia, and time and time again, I keep hearing how bombers are slower and less maneuverable than either fighters, attackers, or multirole aircraft. So does that mean that bombers are more heavily armored than the other three types of military aircraft? If not, and armor just weighs down *any* plane, why are bombers the largest, slowest, and leave maneuverable of the military aircraft, anyway?
In: 258
The answer to that question will heavily depend on the era (and by proxy the doctrine) the aircraft were designed in (or under).
If you look back to WW2, you’ll see massive formations of aircraft composed of bombers and their fighter escorts, being met head-on by interceptor aircraft. Combat took place at short range, bombers were slow, and sometimes weren’t even escorted by fighters at all (oftentimes the escort didn’t have the range to cover the full distance). Naturally, big plane is also less nimble than small plane.
So you respond to that by armoring your aircraft, and by adding gun turrets to them. They’re heavier by default and can carry more fuel, so it’s actually less difficult to do compared to a small aircraft, relatively speaking.
This is fine if you’re operating under the assumption that you’ll meet enemy aircraft head-on, and that they’ll try to fight you up close. That’s not true today.
A modern fighter or SAM site can fire a missile over the horizon, lock onto you and destroy you before you even figure out you’re even under attack. They will destroy you outright and will always outmaneuver you. Which is why the name of the game is instead to try and avoid detection altogether through stealth (a la F35 or B2), with less stealthy aircraft only being brought out en masse when air superiority is assured. Speed and maneuverability are almost non-factors here past a certain point.
Latest Answers