Does the RAF have bomber planes?

Question

Kind of a modern equivalent of the WW2 Lancaster or US B52? Do we still have large-payload bomber planes or has this role been completely taken over by fighter jets? Thanks!

Answer 1

No large bombers now, only the Tornado. And we have not got many of those. We have a Micky Mouse air force.
As an ex soldier,it grieves me to say that, but even France and Israel have larger forces than us.I was born in 1938. I served 22 years in 22, and I would really like to tell those rubbishing me, that I have seen the way the forces have been cut. This country was not founded in 1997 you know. The more thumbs down , the more the ignorance.

Answer 2

Hi yes the UK does have bombers, the Tornado,it is also a multi roll fighter although as an air superiority fighter it lacks a great deal,like the phantom in the past great power to weight ratio but its like turning a truck..As a package its good at its job..On the other hand the new Euro fighter is a different story although not fully operational at the moment this is the plane to have..different versions will allow some models to act as bombers and others as proper air superiority fighters probably only second to the F22 Raptor (USAF) and more than an equal to the SAAB Grippen (Sweden) or the Mirage jet (France)..The Torado can use standard drop bombs or laser guided bombs or missiles...World war 2 was the time when the UK had true bombers with the exception of the Vulcan in cold war times..Hope this Helps Regards Steve

Answer 3

The Canberra was a first-generation jet bomber manufactured in large numbers through the 1950s. The type remained in service with the Royal Air Force until 23 June 2006, 57 years after its first flight. The Avro Vulcan was a British delta wing subsonic bomber, operated by the Royal Air Force from 1953 until 1984. The Vulcan was part of the RAF's V bomber force, which fulfilled the role of nuclear deterrence against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was used in the conventional bombing role during the Falklands conflict with Argentina. Currently there are no bomber aircraft in service

"Avro Lancaster - max payload 22,000 lbs
B52 - max payload 60,000 lbs
Tornado - max payload 19,800 lbs"

Well considering the roll s of Bombers have also changed its no longer carpet bombing of a whole city to knock out one factory, nowadays one bomb from one tornado would do the job that a whole squadron of Lancasters would do so not sure what the point of the abover poster is.

Answer 4

Good question because the last bomber I know of which the RAF had was the Vulcan, originally built back in the 1950s but still flying until only a few years ago. There's only one left now but sadly it will not be making the fly past for the 25th anniversary of the Falkland's war. Pity.

Sorry, cannot really help on RAF Bombers. You could try the MoD website and click through to Royal Air Force.

In my opinion, which is entirely biased because I was born in 1941; the only really good aeroplane the RAF ever had was the Spitfire - that the Rolls Royce Supermarine Spitfire. I found a website where you can hear the engine. I have it switched on for hours sometimes - brilliant.

Answer 5

The RAF still has a force of Tornado jets for precision bombing missions, but the large scale delivery of explosives is usually done with unmanned cruise missiles, often launched by submarines. It costs a lot to train a pilot, so these delivery vehicles that don't require a pilot are cheaper to operate. The last UK large-scale manned bombers were the Vulcan bombers used in the Falklands. The Vulcan was only able to reach the Falkland islands by the complicated and risky use of mid-air refueling, a problem not shared by the modern submarine-launched missiles, which can be deployed anywhere in the world in a matter of hours.

Answer 6

We don't have "big bombers" as such, the Tornado GR has taken that role. Then, there's the cruise missile too. With the the accuracy of modem armaments, it's no longer necessary to dispatch hundred of bombers on raids.

As far as I know, the last time the RAF used a multi-crew "bomber" was when a Vulcan hit Port Stanley airport during the Falklands campaign, 25 years ago.

Answer 7

Clive H, you're wrong: the Hurricane was a better bomber destroyer than the Spit, and equally good against the 109 in dogfights, though the Spit's extra speed ment it was a better chaser for the 109.
In '41, the Typhoon was much much more effective against the FW190 than the Mk V Spitfire, being both faster and more manoeuvrable at low level than either the 190 or the Mk V. the Mk IX Spit was needed to match the 190, and by that time, the Typhoon's true forte as a ground attack plane par excellence made that the scourge of the Wehrmacht, and was the main destroyer of their tanks, transports etc in the Fallaise Gap. Indeed, so loathed by the Germans was the Typhoon, due to its effectiveness, that if they captured a Typhoon pilot they tended to kill him.

The Tempest V was the fastest Allied fighter below 20,000 feet, and was the perect fighter for taking out V-1 flying bombs, destroying far more than any other aircraft type, and was the most successful Allied fighter against the Me 262 jet fighter. It proved its worth as a high-altitude interceptor, tangling with the best the Germans could throw at it.

At sea, the Sea Fury proved to be far superior to the Seafire, and was regarded by those who flew it as the best piston-engined fighter of all time. It was replaced by the Seahawk jet fighter, which although not as good as MiGs of the day, was nevertheless the first jet suited to sea missions.

The RAF then had the Hunter, regarded by many as the best jet fighter of the '50's, and the most beautiful jet fighter ever.
After this, the Harrier proved to be suited to what the RN needed, following yet more Labour cuts to the Fleet, and the allowance only of 'Through-deck Cruisers' innstead of true Carriers. Without the Harrier, the Falklands would have been irrecoverable: with it, we triumphed.

All these aircraft came from Hawker, or Hawker-Siddeley; more to the point, they were the brainchildren of one designer in particular: Sir Sydney Camm, regarded by the US's Smithsonian Institution as the most important military aircraft designer up to the present. Yet we Brits are woefully ignorant of his saving of Britain in 1940, the destruction of Rommell's Panzers in Africa, the defeat of the flying bomb menace and the destruction of German panzers following Normandy, & his telling the Admiralty what they needed when Labour cancelled the old Ark Royal's replacements.

There were also the de Havilland Mosquito, the Bristol Beaufighter night interceptor, the AVRO Lancaster and the Handley-Page Halifax, all of which contributed mightily to the Allied victory in WWII (NB: none of these were designed by Sir Sydney Camm). So the Spitfire, while a superb interceptor and a fair ground attack aircraft, was only a small part of the greater picture, and was outclassed by the Tempest in everything but speed above 20,000 ft.

Sorry to hi-jack the Q, but I feel Sir Sydney Camm deserves much more recognition than he gets, & to my mind HE is the Greatest Briton of the 20th Century, for without his foresight the RAF would have fought the Battle of Britain with vast numbers of biplanes too slow to catch the German bombers, and only 19 squadrons of Spits, which would have been too low a number to make a real dent in the German aerial Armada. In short, we would have lost.

Answer 8

In Sydney you can benefit from the natural beauty. From unspoilt beaches to public gardens and, needless to say, the shining harbour, Sydney is really a city worth visited and with hotelbye you will have the chance to do that. The Sydney Harbour Bridge or "Coathanger," since the natives call it's one of the areas you should not miss in your journey here. This place was the city's best-known landmark prior to structure of the Opera House. Reinforced by significant double piers at each conclusion, it had been integrated 1932 and remains the world's biggest steel arch bridge, linking the harbour's north and south shores in one bend rising 134 metros over the water. Along their length work two railway lines and eight shelves for road traffic, the way of which is often varied according to traffic flow. Also, to master in regards to the interesting record of the bridge's structure you can visit the memorial in the south-eastern pier.

Answer 9

No need for the large birds any longer. The USA by treaty stands by if that role needs to be filled. Consider the Tornado can lift and deliver more payload than any WW II bomber, and the advent of highly accurate missiles is a matter of fact, why would the Brits spend the huge sums on craft and crew?

The role has been take over, by fighter/bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, stand by allied weapons systems, and probably other things no one is gonna talk about!! :)

Answer 10

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awS1Z

The development of the bomber between the combatants is starkly different from the development of the fighter during the Second World War. Essentially driven by evolution in that each development is a reaction to an enemy's development of a faster-flying, or more maneuverable, or more heavily armed warplane, the fighter was constantly upgraded to meet the enemy on better-than-equal terms. In contrast, the bomber as envisioned by the British and the Americans was designed simply to carry a heavier payload higher and further. Thus, improved designs were capable of flying further with heavier bombloads. The German bomber was designed to support the army, and thus was of more tactical rather than strategic in nature. Additionally, Herman Goering went to great lengths to curtail the development of four-engined bombers that the British and Americans used to devastating effect on the Reich. As for the doctrinal reasons for the development of the bomber, one must look at the different combatants as they had different reasons for developing their planes. As I stated, the Luftwaffe's primary goal was to support the army, despite any boast Goering may have made that the Luftwaffe "can win on its own". One need only to look at their designs - two engined craft with relatively short range, capable of launching from minimal facilities - to cooberate this. The British and the Americans thought that fleets of bombers could smash through any defense using machine guns to defend themselves and end the war on the first day by smashing enemy factories using pinpoint bombing (war experience proved that they could not do so without crippling losses, and that accuracy was dismal at best). Again, range and bombload, and by extension engine power, were thus the driving forces. Soviet Air Forces, I believe, were also designed in principle to support the army. Thus, long ranged strategic bombers were neglected in favor of those to support ground operations. Where? All over the US for American-build planes. I know off the top of my head that Topeka, KS, was the prime manufacturing site for the B-29. Various companies built their planes at various sites, and as demand increased, companies often liscenced their planes to others. The Wildcat and Avenger, for example, were manufactured first by Grumman and then by General Motors. German manufacturing sites were primarily located in Ruhr and were then scattered as those factories became targets for Allied bomber formations. Most Soviet construction was moved to the Ural mountains, out of range of the German bombers.