Bombers changed FOREVER (and you didn't even notice)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 387

  • @EricinSoKo
    @EricinSoKo 24 дні тому +634

    We went from how many bombers to hit the target to how many targets can the bomber hit.

    • @ChrisMcChesney-p1d
      @ChrisMcChesney-p1d 24 дні тому +56

      This is is the most succinct and accurate description of the change, and you beat me to it.

    • @BLD426
      @BLD426 24 дні тому +4

      Bingo.

    • @bryanst.martin7134
      @bryanst.martin7134 24 дні тому +7

      I think that is the definition of Quantum leap.

    • @FELiPES101
      @FELiPES101 24 дні тому +16

      there is also the whole thing about fighters and now cargo aircraft being able to do the job of bombers if needed

    • @GeoRedtick
      @GeoRedtick 24 дні тому +5

      @@FELiPES101that is what I was thinking. Do we need heavy bombers if they can hit the target with a single bomb?

  • @jasonwooden
    @jasonwooden 24 дні тому +219

    Fun fact: The first laser-guided bombs weren't used in the Gulf War. They were first used in Vietnam to destroy the stubborn Dragon's Jaw Bridge.

    • @grayman556
      @grayman556 24 дні тому +14

      Fun fact: A Marine created Taco Bell

    • @EmsThaBreaks441
      @EmsThaBreaks441 24 дні тому +22

      Yes but the accuracy of laser guidance increased, from 20% in Vietnam to 80% in Desert Storm, to even higher figures now and lower CEPs amongst the Western Nations.
      With no change in International Humanitarian Law in the period, it is no wonder why actors like Hamas need to embed with the civilian populace to keep civilian casualty rates somewhat high.
      Bear this in mind with Amnesty's report today and the criticism of the supply of JDAM kits.

    • @hussar843
      @hussar843 24 дні тому +2

      BOLT-117🤪

    • @rtyrsson
      @rtyrsson 22 дні тому

      @@EmsThaBreaks441 'International Humanitarian Law" is an absolute myth. The sooner we realize that then the sooner we can bring an end to a particular campaign.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 20 днів тому

      @@hussar843 GBU-1B? The Armour company next to my Infantry regiment were named "The Hussars".

  • @AdamosDad
    @AdamosDad 24 дні тому +256

    I did notice, as a 76-year-old man that heard the stories from my family about WW2, and serving in Vietnam myself, the changes were like night and day, but like a wise young man once said, "Just because technology is improving doesn't mean our humanity is." ~John Lovell (Warrior poet)

    • @TheBigSki
      @TheBigSki 22 дні тому +3

      That quote is absolutely true but darker than most will realize

    • @AdamosDad
      @AdamosDad 22 дні тому +1

      @@TheBigSki Amen!

    • @corycrowe9816
      @corycrowe9816 11 днів тому +1

      🫡
      Thank you sir. Genuinely.

  • @toastnjam7384
    @toastnjam7384 24 дні тому +164

    I served on a carrier during the Vietnam war in the early 70's. On my second deployment in 1972 I saw a new type of bomb being loaded on a F-4 that I never seen before and someone told me it was a new type of bomb that was laser guided. I later heard about a bridge in N. Vietnam that was repeatedly bomb unsuccessfully, but the first attempt with the laser guided destroyed it.

    • @AndrewJeffersonCotter
      @AndrewJeffersonCotter 24 дні тому +16

      When I learn about the tech the US gov had during Vietnam, it makes me wonder what they have now. The satellite tech was amazing back then

    • @hifinsword
      @hifinsword 23 дні тому +11

      You're referring to the Dragon's Jaw Bridge in N Vietnam.

    • @adammetzger4182
      @adammetzger4182 23 дні тому +5

      That must have seemed like something out of science fiction at the time.

    • @garyleibitzke4166
      @garyleibitzke4166 23 дні тому +3

      @@adammetzger4182 Actually the laser guidance units were fairly simple then, they used the control unit from a Shrike missile which was pretty simple. A laser seeker head was attached to the front of it.

    • @wingsclippedwolf
      @wingsclippedwolf 22 дні тому

      @@AndrewJeffersonCotter In the back of an old arms room, I found the original Vietnam-era manual for the TVS-5 night vision scope for a crew served weapon, still classified as SECRET.

  • @verdebusterAP
    @verdebusterAP 24 дні тому +93

    Its pretty simple to understand. One F-15E can carry up 16 GBU-38s while a B-2 can carry to 80
    Effectively 5 F-15Es or 1 B-2
    More the point, bombers can mix and match their payloads.
    The B-1B for example can carry a mix of GBU-31s/39 plus AGM-154 and AGM-158s
    But most important is that bombers combat radius is far greater than strike fighters
    They can fly thousands of miles or orbit for hours without the need to hit the tanker
    F-15E, F-16s and F-18 have to top off hourly
    Adding conventional strike capabilities to their bombers was the smartest thing the USAF ever did

    • @oskar6661
      @oskar6661 24 дні тому +9

      A B2 can also fly from the US...to almost any place on the planet...and back in a single sortie.

    • @verdebusterAP
      @verdebusterAP 24 дні тому +7

      @@oskar6661
      Not only fly but fly lundetected and only needs jamming support once its crossed into enemy airspace

    • @BreandanAnraoi
      @BreandanAnraoi 24 дні тому +4

      And in the modern world of BVR air-to-air, loading up a B-2 with AIM-120s would probably give you the most effective air superiority platform in the world

    • @dallasyap3064
      @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому +1

      @@BreandanAnraoi Just a few F-15EX can carry that same amount of AIM-120s, with stealth and detecting, tracking and targeting support from F-35.

    • @BreandanAnraoi
      @BreandanAnraoi 23 дні тому

      @@dallasyap3064 sure but "one" is better than "a few", and with much longer range too. B-21 even better with integration etc

  • @icollectstories5702
    @icollectstories5702 24 дні тому +124

    The JDAM conversion kit is an amazing idea, adding smarts to dumb bombs that would otherwise be discarded. I find its accuracy amazing!
    Of course, other countries have adopted this idea, but the goal of reducing damage to non-military areas remains aspirational.

    • @fred.flintstone4099
      @fred.flintstone4099 24 дні тому

      Aspirational for the U.S, not for Russia. Russia deliberately targets hospitals, children's hospitals, schools, playgrounds and residential areas.

    • @MandalorV7
      @MandalorV7 24 дні тому +14

      It’s both ethical and logistically sound.

    • @kinfongyeung5400
      @kinfongyeung5400 24 дні тому +2

      brought to you by the one and only, Boeing Company

    • @xyz-hj6ul
      @xyz-hj6ul 24 дні тому +6

      CEP Miss Distance in OAF was actually about 2.65m.
      With a 2,000lb/5,000lb munition, that's pretty good.
      Also, the original IAMs were not JDAMs but GAMs. Or GPS Aided Munitions. GBU-36/37. Dropped from a custom GATS or GPS Aided Targeting System that took specific advantage of the B-2's internal nav accuracy (APQ-181, dual RLG INS) and covert star tracker/GPS fused offboard system to drop custom bombs.
      Actual JDAMs came later, in the sandbox.

    • @mpeugeot
      @mpeugeot 24 дні тому

      That seems oddly specific.

  • @vintagethrifter2114
    @vintagethrifter2114 23 дні тому +32

    There used to be a say, "when the last B-2 is delivered to Davis Monthan, its crew will be picked up by a B-52."
    The B-1 and B-2 will be retired within 10 years. When the last B-21 is delivered to Davis Monthan, its crew will be picked up by a B-52J.

    • @Easy-Eight
      @Easy-Eight 23 дні тому +6

      I don't know if the B-1 or B-2 will be retired because air combat is evolving. Airframes are expensive. Upgrades are cheap. Think of this in modern terms. In 1990 a Chevy pick-up could be purchased for less than $10K. In 2024 the high end pick-ups are going for over $110K. It's just cheaper to swap out engines and have USAF airmen do maintenance. Also, there is one HUGE torpedo in the water that may kill any more upgrades or aircraft purchases. The aggregate Federal Debt is *$36 Trillion* dollars. The US Voters made some terrible mistakes in voting for spend thrift politicians. In 2025 the bill comes due.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому +1

      B-1B is being readied out to 2040. Current fleet is at about 12,000 hours Testing the fuselage and wings out to 27,000 and 28,000 hours and are developing fixes for the fleet. They just cut down to 45 in the fleet after retiring birds that required $10- 30 million just to remain flightworthy. .The assembly line at Tinker get 2 birds every month. Each bird gets about 5500 hours of work. These will be around to see B-21 reach FOC. They can carry too many JASSM/LRASM (24) to retire that capability.

    • @MistaOppritunity
      @MistaOppritunity 14 днів тому +1

      @@Easy-Eight That doesn't work for the B-2. Modularity was not a concern when the aircraft was designed, and the entire air frame needs to be disassembled to maintain stealth capabilities just when certain parts are swapped out. Making upgrades to the airframe are therefore, significantly more expensive than you would expect. So a massive part of the push for the next gen bomber is to actually be CHEAPER in the long run than the B-2 spirit is. Comparing the cutting edge in stealth aeronautical technology to a pick up truck is ludicrous.

    • @Easy-Eight
      @Easy-Eight 14 днів тому

      @@MistaOppritunity *Comparing the cutting edge in stealth aeronautical technology to a pick up truck is ludicrous.* Let me give you a dose of reality: by the time Trump takes over by 20 January 2025 the aggregate Federal debt will be *$37 Trillion* . The USA is on it's way to having insolvent currency. I'm saying the USA better figure out a way to rebuild its existing fleet because if China dumps its T-bills at a discount then you get to see currency collapse. Then again you may never heard of Weimar Germany. The USAF d*mn well does not need the B-21.

  • @Poo_Brain_Horse
    @Poo_Brain_Horse 23 дні тому +3

    I love how short your videos are. You say what you need to say, and nothing more. You don't grind every video to 30+ minutes like a lot of guys do. I really appreciate this.

    • @Achill101
      @Achill101 2 дні тому

      I concur.
      I generally avoid videos over 10-12min as too unfocused and talkative.

  • @LordRambo
    @LordRambo 24 дні тому +98

    Thats all 90s tech, everybody is aware of all that by now. The real evolution is the maturity of glide bombs, air-launched cruise missiles, and sensor fusion technology. When paired with a stealth fighter or other such platform as a spotter, bombers can now deliver presision payloads en masse against targets from hundreds of miles away.

    • @jcolinmizia9161
      @jcolinmizia9161 5 днів тому +1

      Yep. The new mantra is “can we deliver a bomb without a bomber and still hit a target with the same accuracy?”

  • @jim.franklin
    @jim.franklin 23 дні тому +18

    The media often talk about the cost of precision weapons, but they fail to account for the cost of the other option, area bombing with multiple aircraft, that increases the weapons cost, fuel costs, lives lost and the risk to your aircrew, the more aircraft in the sky, the better target they become, and even if in a massed raid your loss rate was only 2%, that is still 2% of your fleet and 2% of your precious human resource. It costs about $35,000 (average across the range) for a JDAM kit, and a Mk 84 900kg (2000Ib) "dumb" bomb comes in at around the same price - so a Mk 84 2000Ib (900kg) JDAM costs around $70,000. If you hit your target with a single bomb, that is significantly cheaper than 20 aircraft dropping 320 (20 x 16 bombs each - ~$11.2Million), plus the costs of the bombers - $2 Billion each - so 20 of them is a cost risk of $40 billion plus they have 2 crew each - so 40 aircrew lives at risk. Assuming that only 1 is shot down - your cost has rocketed from risking 1 aircraft and 2 crew, plus fuel and weapon, to an actual real cost of $2 billion, plus ordnance, plus fuel plus 2 crew - Intelligent systems not only save on overall strategic and tactical costs, but they also reduce strategic and tactical risks.

    • @AtleyCarman-xe7rs
      @AtleyCarman-xe7rs 15 днів тому +2

      Plus they have a higher success rate and lower collateral damage

  • @maddogintheair
    @maddogintheair 24 дні тому +10

    You could add further that bombers evolved into air support for ground operations. The B-1 was used as a “bomb truck” over Afghanistan, hours on station with an airborne arsenal.

  • @VarroTigurius-u1f
    @VarroTigurius-u1f 24 дні тому +40

    I've been at Barksdale AFB, home of half the B-52 fleet, and now home to Air Force Global Strike Command for close to 18 of the last 24 years. Believe me I've noticed and been part of some of these changes! I can actually hear one of the Buffs taking off now while I sit here typing this!

    • @Ryan_Christopher
      @Ryan_Christopher 23 дні тому +3

      I left Barksdale 19 years ago. The ACMs were still in service when I was there.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

      @@Ryan_Christopher Wow, that's pretty cool. Did they load up the same as the ALCM? 12 under wings and 8 on the rotary?

  • @napster7825
    @napster7825 24 дні тому +19

    What's not to like? Greater accuracy + fewer bombs required + more complete distruction of targets + fewer airplanes needed per target + fewer air crews put in harms way + less collateral damage and deaths = lower cost to us. That last part seems cold to say, but it is important.

    • @MandalorV7
      @MandalorV7 24 дні тому +5

      Yes, advanced technology can minimize damage to unwanted targets but can’t 100% avoid it.
      Weapons can miss, bad intelligence on a target, or debris from a shot down target landing in a civilian zone are all still things that happen.
      Just because technology can improve to fight a cleaner war doesn’t escape the reality that war of any kind is hell.

    • @napster7825
      @napster7825 24 дні тому +2

      Very true words.

  • @Reepicheep-1
    @Reepicheep-1 23 дні тому +12

    I noticed immediately. Gulf War 1 was the first conflict I saw ('78 baby). When we went from 'planes per target' to 'targets per plane,' it was a gamechanger. Add stealth for true 'glad it's on our side' terror.
    And modern people can't comprehend older military tactics, so they see carpet bombing as deliberate civilian massacres in all situations. (Firebombing Tokyo, etc. is why I mentioned "in all situations". Those WERE terror attacks.) They don't accept we couldn't have done precision strategic bombing before the late Vietnam war, and therefore limited casualties.

    • @ARGONUAT
      @ARGONUAT 23 дні тому +3

      As an old SAC weather officer, dropping dumb bombs into jetstreams is just nuts. But that is why BUFFs could haul 51 or even 108 general purpose aerial bombs back then.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому +3

      @@ARGONUAT Big Belly mods on the BUF? Did you do any work with Nuclear Effects such as fallout related to wind. Just curious if that was part of your SAC training purview.

    • @ARGONUAT
      @ARGONUAT 22 дні тому +3

      @@hoghogwild Yup and yup. All theoretical forecasting as the truth was, we would all be obliterated by then.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 20 днів тому +2

      @@ARGONUAT Thank you for the response. That sounds very interesting.

    • @ARGONUAT
      @ARGONUAT 20 днів тому +3

      @@hoghogwild As a 23-year old brand new 2LT right out of college, it was somewhat of a mind blowing experience. The older sergeants and officers kind of looked at us with bemused experience as we wrangled, trying to figure the data out for this type of forecasting. The vets knew we would never find out if war went hot because the Russian nuclear weapons worked back then and we would have been obliterated within 15 minutes of first launch.

  • @grayman556
    @grayman556 24 дні тому +10

    I was staying in a building Northeast of Barksdale on a post Tornado outbreak recovery mission. Buff has a Defiant sound that will wake you up. Thank you for your service.

  • @BigBadLoneWolf
    @BigBadLoneWolf 24 дні тому +6

    Yes we noticed. we noticed during the first gulf war over 30 years ago, that instead of hitting anywhere within 5 miles of the target, with 1 bomb you can hit within 5 meters of the target

    • @m2hmghb
      @m2hmghb 23 дні тому

      I remember seeing on CNN when I was 7 or so the footage of a bomb going into a window.

  • @NASA-Shill
    @NASA-Shill 24 дні тому +9

    I was born in 1981 and have seen all of this bomber tech transform. The apex was being at my big sister’s Air Force Academy graduation in 1997, the Air Force doing a fly-by, and watching as a B-2 Bomber flies over me at age 16. It was magnificant!

  • @richardgoebel226
    @richardgoebel226 24 дні тому +8

    During Linebacker 2 the B-52s did drop a LOT of dumb bombs. But over in Thailand the F-4 Phantoms were equipped with camera guided 2000 pound bombs. When it was fun powering up all the avionics including the cameras just so I could visually track a security policeman walking in front of the revetment where the aircraft was parked. 19 years old wearing 2 stripes.

  • @WasabiSniffer
    @WasabiSniffer 23 дні тому +7

    It’s crazy to think of the changes from payload, accuracy and blast radius from WW2 to today. What a single B2 or B52 can do compared to B17s.

  • @miguelmorales9667
    @miguelmorales9667 24 дні тому +3

    Back in the day, I worked on building parts for the electronics in some of those systems, and I'm proud to have done so.

  • @Woodys_Coin_Corner
    @Woodys_Coin_Corner 24 дні тому +19

    just got home from work, got my dinner ready, sat down and boom sandbox posted a minute ago
    keep up the good work

  • @JETTISON47
    @JETTISON47 23 дні тому +4

    5:15 me in the toilet

  • @carrdoug99
    @carrdoug99 24 дні тому +10

    And the bomber is almost certainly evolving again. Bombers flying over the Pacific with dozens of drone wingmen as a payload. Once released, those drones being controlled by members of the Bomber crew.

  • @willj487
    @willj487 24 дні тому +1

    It is great to see a video to put all this perspective. We focus on the minutia and critique them. The big picture taken as a whole, what we have acompished is amazing

  • @MegaLokopo
    @MegaLokopo День тому +1

    This video was out of date 20 years ago. Bombs will now only be used while being attached to drones, these drones are going to use navigation based on the location of the stars so they will work when gps is jammed, and they will find their target without a human pilot. They may also use the earth's magnetic field or any other useful technology to determine their location without relying on out dated systems like gps or lasers.

  • @JosephEskins-jj8xs
    @JosephEskins-jj8xs 24 дні тому +1

    Another informative and great show. Keep up the good work brother. Looking forward to more great shows in the future!

  • @romincurrier4328
    @romincurrier4328 24 дні тому +2

    I enjoy all of your videos. I still strongly encourage a series on what each phase of modern warfare could look like today. Each step has advanced so much that there's enough material to do a lengthy series, starting with the first acts, which would likely be eliminating the SAM threats, then targeting communications, then command and control, electronic warefare and how awacs and growlers work, etc. It could be amazing, comparing WWII strategies and methods, to desert storm to what war with China would likely look like.

  • @SoloRenegade
    @SoloRenegade 24 дні тому +11

    and due to higher accuracy, we don't need as much explosive, and thus we get teh Small Diameter Bomb. And most bombing missions are now flown by Fighters rather than dedicated bombers.

    • @Elthenar
      @Elthenar 24 дні тому +3

      And those guided tiny bombs are excellent for close air support. In Afghanistan, the B1 bomber was doing killer work at close air support using smaller JDAM's. Arguably better than the A-10. The SDB's will allow our massive fleet of strike fighters to do the same, even relatively close to friendly troops. The sensors and electronics on an F-35 would let it drop an SDB extremely close to friendlies relatively safely.

    • @recoil53
      @recoil53 24 дні тому +1

      That might be a problem when bombing factories, since a lot of the equipment is fairly heavily built. A big explosion can warp the stuff it doesn't outright destroy. A small explosion might only destroy the one machine and maybe stuff near it.
      This would be an issue, if - for example - you want to destroy some chip factories in Taiwan

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade 23 дні тому +3

      @@recoil53 not at all. most things like chip factories, have highly delicate machinery, and when teh roof and such collapses and fires break out, they are damaged even further.
      Even small bombs with high explosives do a lot of damage and throw a lot of shrapnel.
      Also, there are numerous other ways to stop a factory, even without striking the factory directly. can't make anything if the machines and resources never make it to the factory. And look at Russia, with their lack of circuits and chips, makes it difficult to finish aircraft and weapons. They import that stuff, and so with sanctions they can build the mechanical hulks, but less the critical electronics, making them useless.
      But the US has never had trouble taking out an enemy military in modern times. and we've rarely even gone after factories at all in modern conflicts. Modern weapons are too complex to build quickly, and so by the time the US lightning war is over in the first few weeks, there is so much destruction and chaos, that new production is the last thing on the enemy's mind. When we can destroy in 2weeks what it takes them 6-12months to produce, they'll never keep up.
      Precision strikes, with minimally sized weapons gives best results. A fully loaded F-15E could theoretically carry something like 50-60 Small Diameter Bombs! That's a LOT of targets for one fighter bomber. And if that F-15E orbits at 40k ft while striking, the bombs can glide something like 50miles to reach their targets. Being able to send One fighter to strike 50+ individual targets in a single sortie from 0-50miles away is CRAZY! And such a strike would be minimal in cost compared to sending 10x F-15Es with 4x 2000lb bombs each, and actually be more effective (40 targets while risking 10 aircraft at 0-2miles from target vs 50+ targets while risking 1 aircraft at 0-50miles from target).
      And by the way, I've received CAS from A-10, B-1, F-15E, and more in actual combat. Just so that you know where some of my opinions and understanding are coming from.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade 23 дні тому

      @@Elthenar I personally received Danger Close air support from a B-1 in Afghanistan. 38x 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yds of our position one night. I'll never forget that.
      I also received CAS from the A-10s of the 23rd Flying Tigers. Close up gun attacks. Nothing like seeing an A-10 attack, and it truly does put the enemy on notice. The enemy never sees the B-1 coming, but they see the A-10,a nd that is more effective than people realize at pushing back enemy attacks. Some times a show of force is required.
      "The sensors and electronics on an F-35 would let it drop an SDB extremely close to friendlies relatively safely."
      same for the F-15E and F-15EX, which can theoretically carry up to 50-60 SDBs at once. and SDBs have a potential glide range after drop of up to 50miles to target, allowing significant standoff from the targets.
      The F-15E would orbit overhead in Afghanistan and just wait for calls for air support. You could spot them if you looked hard enough, just flying circles overhead, waiting.
      In Iraq my unit got CAS mostly from AV-8B, F-18, AH-1, UH-1, AH-64....(with the Marines)
      In Afghanistan my unit got it mostly from Kiowa, AH-64, A-10, B-1, and F-15E... (with the Navy Seabees)

    • @dallasyap3064
      @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому

      SDB gives more flexibility and options to the fighter community to strike enemy targets.

  • @Easy-Eight
    @Easy-Eight 23 дні тому

    I'm a former USAF weapon's tech who went over to US Army field artillery. JDAMS was the game changer but there had been LGBs, infrared, and TV optics for munitions That's not even counting the old US Army Pershing II that had ungodly accuracy (not quite necessary for a nuke). The trouble was expense. Also, the carrying aircraft had to be extensively modified with old analog technology. The aircraft that changed the game was the old A-7D which introduced iron bombs to precision accuracy. The F-16 and F-18 were the next level. In the Field Artillery they taught us that few targets can survive an absolute direct hit. Even an M-1 tank will be knocked out of action by the correct application of a mere 25 pound bomb on the engine deck. The USAF SDB guided bomb makes any good fighter into a "strategic" bomber.

  • @m2hmghb
    @m2hmghb 23 дні тому

    Linebacker 2. That's the op my dad was on. Worked as a crew chief and flew on planes after they were fixed - pilots wouldn't fly the planes after repairs unless the crew chief was willing to fly on it. I asked him one time "Dad what does FLAK look like?" His answer was "I don't remember, I was too busy watching for SAM launches". He suffers from health issues as a result of agent orange exposure - they sprayed the perimeter of his base. He and his crew had to make an emergency run to one of the airports in south vietnam after a B52 made an emergency landing. The bomber had had it's fuel tanks shredded by AAA. So he and his crew had to fit a fuel bladder and hook it up to bypass the damage and repair other damage to get it flying again - while under mortar fire.

  • @michaelvaughn1496
    @michaelvaughn1496 24 дні тому +1

    You're simply the best. Better than all the rest!

  • @sgt.grinch3299
    @sgt.grinch3299 24 дні тому +3

    Grandpa Buff is the Man!

  • @Istandby666
    @Istandby666 24 дні тому +4

    The only reason I noticed is because I grew up with these Air Force programs.
    I was at Edwards Air Force Base for the B-1A, the B-1B, the B-2, and a top secret electronic warfare B-52, nicknamed Ghost Buster with a pink pac-man ghost on the pilot side.
    The F-117 was the reason that we went to the Mojave Desert.

    • @MrBen527
      @MrBen527 24 дні тому +2

      I was stationed at Edwards. 98-02

    • @mpeugeot
      @mpeugeot 24 дні тому +1

      Edwards AFB from 89-98. I wouldn't wish that long of a stay on anyone.

    • @MrBen527
      @MrBen527 24 дні тому +1

      @mpeugeot Hell naw? I, and most everyone in my flight, loved it.

    • @mpeugeot
      @mpeugeot 23 дні тому +1

      Don't get me wrong, I managed to have a blast at Edwards, but if you want to stick me somewhere remote for 9 years I would take Okinawa or Guam first! I spent a total of 5 years between those two.

  • @kathrynck
    @kathrynck 24 дні тому +3

    Well, the "laying waste to a whole area" thing never completely went away. Although there are not many tools left in inventory to do that.
    Once in a while, that's exactly the goal. Once in a while, you don't really know 'exactly' where a target is, and you gotta flatten a square mile.
    Or, less savory or PC... it could be done to "make a point".
    Also, I think everybody noticed ;)

  • @andiepants1840
    @andiepants1840 24 дні тому +3

    I remember the first day of that operation. Young Airman me showed up to base for the day and there were tons of news trucks and reporters outside the front gate. Most of the B2s were in the air doing patterns. I remember thinking "WTF, did one of them crash or something?" Only after I got into my shop were we briefed on what was going on.

  • @gregHames-u6n
    @gregHames-u6n 24 дні тому +5

    I think the B-1B is perfect for being a middle truck. The F-35 picking targets and data link the info back to the B-1B to launch and F-22 protecting the B-1B. It's got the legs and ability to do the mission.

    • @jwm6314
      @jwm6314 24 дні тому +2

      B2. B1 needs to be retired before the B52 does. Cost per sortie/target is way too high.

  • @MegaLokopo
    @MegaLokopo День тому +1

    We have several stealth bombers larger than the one you mentioned.

  • @garyleibitzke4166
    @garyleibitzke4166 23 дні тому

    I was in the Navy from 1971 - 1981. My first WestPac cruise was 1972 - 1973 while Vietnam was still a hot war. We had laser bomb guidance units at that time. I know this for a fact because it was part of my job to test them before they were attached to the bombs.

  • @Miamcoline
    @Miamcoline 3 дні тому

    Very very well said!

  • @sgsheff
    @sgsheff 24 дні тому +9

    I often think that a replacement for the B-1B needs to happen in some form in order to support troops on the ground in situations far away when something needs to get there fast and you can't just send a new hypersonic missile. Maybe future fighters or supersonic drones will fill that role but I question if they'll have the range for every mission like some in Afghanistan that saved American lives. I'm curious what the solution will be.

    • @Matt.Willoughby
      @Matt.Willoughby 24 дні тому +1

      The B21 raider 🤔

    • @ItsEricAZ
      @ItsEricAZ 24 дні тому +3

      The B-21 will be able to do that mission while loitering overhead for 10+ hours and provide ISR info to. Acting as a comm relay is another feature that is possible for it and other airframes.

    • @CptJistuce
      @CptJistuce 24 дні тому +1

      ​@@Matt.Willoughby Aside from a much smaller payload limiting the kind and amount of munitions it can deliver, the B-21 is also (probably) subsonic-only. It will not "get there fast".

    • @Matt.Willoughby
      @Matt.Willoughby 24 дні тому

      @CptJistuce get there fast enough will have to be fast enough.
      I like to believe that the USA has secret procurement and has plenty of F22, B1, F117 and so on stashed away somewhere. The black holes in military budgets and dark money, trillions of dollars a year must go somewhere useful. I hope Trump doesn't mess America up too much 😔

    • @brianv1988
      @brianv1988 24 дні тому +3

      I would like to see a modernized variant of a B1 Lancer built from scratch with same characteristics but able to fly faster an carry a little bit more payload we definitely need a aircraft that can be used if ever needed for unconventional warfare and targets that we wouldn't need to pull out a stealth bomber for. similar to what the B1 is able to do now but built with modern materials and Technology and have low running cost and easier to maintain

  • @ARGONUAT
    @ARGONUAT 23 дні тому +1

    I truly wonder what the Bomber Mafia of the 1930s would think of today’s heavies. Even Curtis LeMay I think would be astounded by what even his old B-52Hs can do today!

  • @pastorrich7436
    @pastorrich7436 24 дні тому +4

    As any reader of Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog" can tell you..."I told you so." I still think that the Raider should be designated as F/B-21 not just B-21. Semper Fi!

    • @dallasyap3064
      @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому

      Why the need to designate it FB-21 when there are other stealth fighters available

    • @pastorrich7436
      @pastorrich7436 23 дні тому

      @@dallasyap3064...but what other platform offers the flexibility and utility that the Raider will at this level of tech? None. It is the tip of the spear.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

      @@pastorrich7436 It's a bomber. They are fighters, they can maneuver.

    • @Citizen-pg8eu
      @Citizen-pg8eu 5 днів тому

      What a great series, my brother and I enjoyed them all. He worked in the post office, I was A BUFF pilot, Ds and Hs.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 4 дні тому

      @@pastorrich7436 It is a heavy bomber, it will deliver bombs and missiles like any other bomber.

  • @BP26P
    @BP26P 24 дні тому +6

    Can’t wait for the KC/RQ/E/F/A/B-21

    • @crypto091
      @crypto091 24 дні тому +1

      😂

    • @tklube308
      @tklube308 24 дні тому +1

      That almost sounds like some new woke freak😂😂😂

    • @CRAFT7445
      @CRAFT7445 24 дні тому +1

      HEY!!! That's my password!
      Guess I'll have to change it again.

    • @Appletank8
      @Appletank8 24 дні тому +1

      That's ... Cargo, Recon, EW, Fighter, Attack, Bomber?

    • @BP26P
      @BP26P 24 дні тому +1

      @@Appletank8 The "Homer" of military aviation

  • @googacct
    @googacct 24 дні тому +15

    You left out the use of laser guided bombs in the Vietnam War to take out the Thanh Hoa bridge, which had resisted numerous attacks prior to that.

    • @SandboxxApp
      @SandboxxApp  24 дні тому +22

      I actually have that in my longer draft when this was going to be a full episode of AirPower! Valid inclusion, for sure.

    • @MandalorV7
      @MandalorV7 24 дні тому +5

      @@SandboxxAppI wouldn’t mind the longer version.

  • @rogerthat4545
    @rogerthat4545 24 дні тому +5

    My father was part of linebacker 2. He claims the B 52 shot down three migs and an F4 with the tail gun.
    But I have read otherwise. I wonder what the real story is.

    • @alvyca
      @alvyca 24 дні тому +1

      The real story is a 1 verified mig shot down with the quad 50 cal tail guns. Could it have been more? Possibly. Considering only the US flew F4 in Vietnam that part of the story is most likely false.

    • @rogerthat4545
      @rogerthat4545 24 дні тому +1

      @alvyca the official story may not always be the real story
      Shouldn't be that hard to find someone else who was actually there

    • @dallasyap3064
      @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому

      According to Air Force documents (as well as the crew who flew it) yes 2 B-52s shot down about 3 MIGs during 72. One of these incidents was witnessed by crew of another US aircraft (I'm not sure was it another separate B-52 or some other fighter plane).

    • @rogerthat4545
      @rogerthat4545 23 дні тому

      @dallasyap3064 pops gave the impression the F4 that was shot down was swept under the rug.
      Apparently the radar controlled tail guns didn't discriminate

  • @williampierce2034
    @williampierce2034 24 дні тому +1

    I completely agree!

  • @ericwolf5874
    @ericwolf5874 23 дні тому

    As an old crew chief, I had to come here and say the pictures of the JADAM are upside-down. 😂😂😂
    Your hooks are on the bottom.
    Still love your videos. Keep it up.

  • @AaronCMounts
    @AaronCMounts 23 дні тому +1

    The use of GPS is just the latest addition in the spectrum of precision guidance tech to enter into widespread use. The ability to precision-strike targets has been sought by air powers across the globe, since at least the 1930's, when the first dive-bombers entered service in different countries' air forces.

  • @richardhall1667
    @richardhall1667 24 дні тому +1

    Loving the new upload schedule 😉

  • @nigelbagguley7606
    @nigelbagguley7606 24 дні тому +2

    "Didn't want to lay waste to great swathes of a nation" You have heard of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, haven't you?

  • @spidennis
    @spidennis 23 дні тому

    And an idea starts with a single person with a thought.

  • @jimsvideos7201
    @jimsvideos7201 22 дні тому

    USAF did a test where one aircraft dropped a whole bunch of 500 pound JDAMs and hit point targets representing the various items on an airfield target complex.

  • @RobertoAtkinson-q3x
    @RobertoAtkinson-q3x 23 дні тому +1

    The change started during the Vietnam war.

  • @Uhtred-the-bold
    @Uhtred-the-bold 24 дні тому +3

    There was a value in laying waste to huge portions of enemy cities. It’s awful, but it’s hard to conduct an insurgency when you have no food, water or fuel

  • @mjk9388
    @mjk9388 22 дні тому

    @Sandboxx - Another game-changing development for bombers is their ability to fire air-to-air missiles and cruise missiles with ranges of 600 to 2,000 miles. Theoretically, a B-2 Spirit could deploy 300-400 Hero-120 loitering munitions (effective against armor, infantry groups, or logistics), each with a range of 40-60 miles, assuming sufficient AI or communications capacity to control them. Additionally, a B-2 could potentially launch around 1,000 small FPV quadcopters, each carrying a grenade-level explosive payload, or even 50,000-100,000 tiny Black Hornet drones equipped with 3g of explosives for anti-personnel use. These possible examples show the versatility of today's modern bombers. And that's just the bombers...A C5 Galaxy could potentially carry and launch 950K Black Hornet Drones at once...just in case you needed to be able to clear some trenches of personnel - across an entire country. Hmmm...We probably need to start building more production capacity to make more and less expensive drones.

  • @kevinbryer2425
    @kevinbryer2425 24 дні тому +1

    Furthermore, the bombing mission is splitting into stand-off/loiter attack roles, and the contested airspace penetration missions. The former can be accomplished with cargo planes, while only the latter requires a dedicated bomber aircraft. And dedicated bomber aircraft are branching out into the long range intercept and air to air arsenal ship mission. The B-21 will serve as a penetration bomber for itches that even standoff ordinance can't scratch. In the short term, C-130s and C-17s will fulfill the stand-off/loiter role, overwhelming targets within contested airspace with swarms of cruise missiles, or orbiting a low intensity battlefield, providing close air support with hundreds of small, precision guided bombs. Eventually, they, and the venerable BUFF, will be replaced with a larger blended wing aircraft that quadruples as a bomber, strategic airlifter, tanker, and airborne surveillance craft in that mission.

  • @kirkwilson5905
    @kirkwilson5905 23 дні тому

    Yet ANOTHER excellent video. I can't help but realize though... Civilian vs military target defining is a grey area when the civilian population is supporting the military war effort.

  • @jonniez62
    @jonniez62 24 дні тому +17

    Excuse me. Precision munitions started at the end of Vietnam.

    • @MrGriff305-d3u
      @MrGriff305-d3u 24 дні тому +6

      guided by Bubba

    • @jwm6314
      @jwm6314 24 дні тому +2

      We have different definitions of precision, apparently. Completely different class now.

    • @Crom85
      @Crom85 24 дні тому

      Technically the Germans in ww2 had precision guided weapons….the Fritz I believe

    • @ButtThuck
      @ButtThuck 24 дні тому +6

      If you wanna get technical, kamikazes were the first precision munition

    • @georgedavey1339
      @georgedavey1339 24 дні тому

      @@ButtThuckI like this comment. + username 😂

  • @Thetequilashooter1
    @Thetequilashooter1 24 дні тому +4

    I think the more notable change for me is when I saw smart bombs going through windows in the Gulf War. It blew me away.

    • @darksu6947
      @darksu6947 24 дні тому +3

      It blew the bad guys away too 😂

  • @georgeofhamilton
    @georgeofhamilton 14 днів тому

    Seeing those bombers fly above a stadium is kinda scary.

  • @dirtyp.132
    @dirtyp.132 24 дні тому

    Loving the absence of a long ass ad read

  • @paulblase3955
    @paulblase3955 24 дні тому +1

    “Which window would you like that bomb to go through?”

  • @billstream1974
    @billstream1974 24 дні тому

    Nice presentation.

  • @marrqi7wini54
    @marrqi7wini54 24 дні тому +2

    Man 2 vids in a week and it isn't even Friday yet.

  • @dallasyap3064
    @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому

    Laser-guided bombs were actually first employed in the Vietnam War, though to a far lesser extent; only in the Gulf War was it used more widely and actively. Bomb technology has indeed advanced a lot. Now the US has the Rapid Dragon system that basically turns C-130s and C-17s into airborne missile launchers (firing AGM-158 cruise missiles).

  • @navypowertv
    @navypowertv 23 дні тому

    Absolutely mind-blowing how precision technology transformed bombers from “shotguns” to “sniper rifles”! It’s incredible to see the impact on reducing civilian casualties. What do you all think the next big innovation in military aviation will be?

  • @icare7151
    @icare7151 23 дні тому

    Well stated

  • @RV-jq5pb
    @RV-jq5pb 24 дні тому

    Wow. Thanks, guns!

  • @vaughnbay
    @vaughnbay 24 дні тому +3

    2:41 "....then in 1991 ...things began to shift..." Correct me if I am wrong but the F111s that went into Lybia in 1986 used self designating LGBs. And in 1972 the last F4E's in SEA were capable of shooting TISEO guided fire and forget Maverick ground attack missiles. It started much before 1991.

    • @dallasyap3064
      @dallasyap3064 23 дні тому

      You're right. But Desert Storm is the war where LGBs was first widely and actively employed. Just like how helicopters were first used in combat in 1944 during ww2, but it wasn't exactly revolutionized or widely used until US involvement in Vietnam.

    • @vaughnbay
      @vaughnbay 23 дні тому

      @@dallasyap3064 Like I said. "It started much before 1991."

  • @tomdarco2223
    @tomdarco2223 24 дні тому

    Right On

  • @erikcourtney1834
    @erikcourtney1834 24 дні тому +1

    I still like the B-one…. B-two just isn’t have the same meaning😂😂

  • @joevaccaro6655
    @joevaccaro6655 24 дні тому

    And during the Korean War is another time when the Navy rose to the occasion. The USAF B29s dropped many bombs on the Yalu river bridges and not one hit. So, the task was given to the Navy A1 Skyraiders that successfully hit and interdicted the communist supply chain. The Skyraider group were protected from airborne threats by F9F Panther pilots and protected from AAA from F4U Corsair pilots like Lt. Tom Hudner and Ens. Jesse Brown. (They completed the task they were given, what’s depicted in the movie Devotion is made up. The book 📖 is worth a read.)
    The A7 Corsair II is worth a mention on this topic of Operation Linebacker because A7 pilots of VA 82 were the first ones to take out the important choke point of the Thanh Hoa bridge deploying the walleye television guided bomb. During the Vietnam War the A7 has the distinction of unprecedented air to ground munition accuracy.
    Thanks again for another video 💯 🇺🇸

  • @hoghogwild
    @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

    Targeting pods revolutionized bombing and gave the F-14 Tomcat a new lease on life.

  • @darthvirgin7157
    @darthvirgin7157 24 дні тому +1

    i was still working for NGC in te early 90’s when the JDAMs were being tested by the B-2’s.
    the company was just glad that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the B-2 still had a use in conventional (not nuclear) war.
    it was also at this point when early design concepts of the B-2’s replacement (B-21) started cropping up among our design teams.
    fun times.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

      B-2 entered service in 1997.

    • @darthvirgin7157
      @darthvirgin7157 23 дні тому

      @@hoghogwild
      so you’re implying there were no working B-2’s flying before they entered service?
      do you know how the defense industry works, boy?

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

      @@darthvirgin7157 I find it interesting how you contend that there were B-21 designs flying across your desk before the Spirit entered service. Boy? And yes. Please, get over yourself.

    • @darthvirgin7157
      @darthvirgin7157 23 дні тому

      SERIOUSLY….do you know how the defense industry works, BOY?
      i’m just astonished that an ignoramus willing to argue with someone who’s worked more than a DECADE in said industry.

    • @hoghogwild
      @hoghogwild 23 дні тому

      @@darthvirgin7157 It shows just how influential the Northrop designs were on aerospace professionals. You were seeing these effects from your design teams as they were seeing new designs for the replacements for a weapons system before said system went to work for those paying for it. I can die a happy man in the knowledge that Mr Jack Northrup was shown a model of the ATB prior to his death. Great work by all those involved, it's an amazing accomplishment.

  • @fialee8ca132
    @fialee8ca132 24 дні тому

    Interesting historical view. One could also consider that mass casualties have brought the early end of major conflicts. If the Allies did not use atomic bombs, Japan would not have surrendered so quickly.

  • @papparocket
    @papparocket 24 дні тому

    With the ability of drones to use a laser range finder to determine the exactly GPS coordinates and then illuminate the target with a laser designator. So hopefully JDAMs are or will hopefully carry both GPS and SAL. If visibility is too limited for the JDAM to see the laser dot, then the round hits the GPS coordinates it was given with a CEP ~5m. But if it is not and the drone is able to put a laser on the target, even if the target is moving, the JDAM can shift its trajectory as soon as it picks up the laser and hit with a CEP of only a meter if the spot illuminated by the laser from the drone (basically the drone operator picks which side of the tank to hit or which window of the house being used as an enemy C&C to go through).

  • @arbelico2
    @arbelico2 23 дні тому

    When they put SM-6 missiles on the B-21s it will be an impressive weapon.

  • @jeffreywoodhead2682
    @jeffreywoodhead2682 23 дні тому

    And now with GPS being jammed and spoofed we're getting back to square one..

  • @DeaconBlu
    @DeaconBlu 24 дні тому

    Hell yes!
    😎👍

  • @My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am
    @My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am 22 дні тому

    Of course I didn't notice. They're stealth!
    (normal stealth in the case of the B-2 and B-21, and the "no one that has noticed me is left" kind of stealth for the B-52)

  • @stanhry
    @stanhry 24 дні тому

    If you want to launch a huge drone swarm , heavy bombers can carry a lot. Then there is also cruise missiles, glide bombs , and soon hypersonic munitions. Bombers not just planes they are platforms.

  • @answer102
    @answer102 24 дні тому

    Fighters make noise, bombers make policy

  • @annehersey9895
    @annehersey9895 24 дні тому +1

    Actually Alex, you are WRONG. Arthur ‘ Bomber’ Harris, head of RAF Bomber Command very much DID want to lay waste to every single building in Germany because he thought that would get them to surrender even though the Blitz didn’t make the Brits want to surrender.

  • @R.J._Lewis
    @R.J._Lewis 24 дні тому

    I noticed!
    (I worked for the Air Force in the munitions career field)

  • @GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket
    @GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket 24 дні тому +1

    This is what separates civilized folk from frosty orcs. Choosing to develop a more precise weapon so you can hit the target and not everything around it.

  • @richardknapp570
    @richardknapp570 22 дні тому

    Love the increased accuracy of bombers and how they can be so much more effective (sortie and $-wise) to achieve a goal. Would wide scale bombing still be used in certain circumstances (slowing advancing ground troops, destroying military factories, etc) or will things only stay at the precision level?

  • @joesomerville6377
    @joesomerville6377 24 дні тому

    I noticed. Hell, I was there.

  • @treyaldridge1757
    @treyaldridge1757 17 днів тому

    2:50 If the basis is laser guided bombs then things didnt change in Desert Storm. While the proliferation of smart weapons certainly came about during Desert Storm, the first operational uses of laser guided bombs was in Vietnam with the BOLT-117 and original Paveway bomb. Tens of thousands of them were dropped prior to even Linebacker II

  • @devchannel5359
    @devchannel5359 23 дні тому

    Hi Alex, I was wondering if you were considering doing a video on the rafale. It’s selling well recently and as an interesting new standard (F5) coming up with interesting features planned (drone management, new radar …)

  • @bryanst.martin7134
    @bryanst.martin7134 24 дні тому +1

    Yeah, it is, was impressive. GPS jamming is easy. It needs a formidable inertial system to finalize terminal point without GPS, or with GPS spoofing. I like the system, don't get me wrong, but the tech is getting long in the tooth and potentially vulnerable. Thanks for the post, Monsieur.

  • @Elthenar
    @Elthenar 24 дні тому

    That opening flyby went right over my house. When I saw that on the Super Bowl, I ran outside and just manage to see them go overhead. It was just incredible to see. B2's look downright fake

  • @VintageWanderer
    @VintageWanderer 23 дні тому

    I’m glad someone else noticed than me ! Lol

  • @PasleyAviationPhotography
    @PasleyAviationPhotography 24 дні тому

    Its always been the goal to limit collateral damage, so to anyone who's even minutely interested in aviation has already figured this out.

  • @meanman6992
    @meanman6992 23 дні тому

    As a former field artillery veteran, I feel like aircraft get and got more credit than they have been due historically, due to their flash and awe…. FA has been accurately laying waste to targets for quite some time…. Before smart munitions.

  • @leovolont
    @leovolont 24 дні тому

    thumbs up! Great Script. Educational. News Worthy. short and sweet. OH.... I guess that means I should SUBSCRIBE.;

  • @raygunreagan2274
    @raygunreagan2274 24 дні тому

    Laser guided bombs were first used in Vietnam

  • @PvtPartzz
    @PvtPartzz 22 дні тому

    Narrator: They had in fact, noticed.

  • @ronammologist16
    @ronammologist16 24 дні тому

    My my how the times have changed...

  • @rice0009
    @rice0009 24 дні тому

    And now with the advent of Quantum Positioning systems, the targeting systems can't be jammed or spoofed.

  • @stevenjohnson891
    @stevenjohnson891 10 днів тому

    JDAM on battlefield 2042 is pretty fulfilling to use. But not nearlt enough damage