# Why doesn't Israel/\[insert country\] have jet bombers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131 "2015-09-13T19:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2015, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/101 "2015-09-22T23:58:15Z")
DOTMLPF is quite a mouthful. Do people ever say it out loud without getting laughed at? “Dot-mil-pif?” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/102 "2015-09-23T00:33:40Z")
The pronunciation goes “DOT-em-el-pee-eff.” It’s the shorthand for “in order to accomplish something, what tools do I have at my disposal?” Generally, if you can change the way you do something it is better than trying to build a widget t accomplish the same thing. **Michael** , I actually think your questions are interesting because they make me think about various topics in different ways, so I’m not just being diplomatic. As for why various strike aircraft weren’t built bigger in the first place, there’s numerous reasons. Less maneuverability is certainly one. Cost is another - it’s uncanny how cost of an aircraft scales quite neatly with weight. But a little tidbit I’m sure you’ll be interested in: fighter aircraft reliably gain one pound a day over its lifetime. Building a big aircraft today is a guarantee that it will weigh a ton nore six years after it enters service. Why start big? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/103 "2015-09-23T01:35:59Z")
I assume you mean a pound a day in new equipment and pods and so on, right? Not a pound of dead insects or whatever? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/104 "2015-09-23T02:03:08Z")
Yeah, a pound a day in expensive stuff. Not bugs or ego. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/105 "2015-09-23T02:14:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, a pound a day in expensive stuff. Not bugs or ego. Not even fighter pilot ego? > [@Ravenman](#): > > But a little tidbit I’m sure you’ll be interested in Indeed. > [@Ravenman](#): > > fighter aircraft reliably gain one pound a day over its lifetime. A pound a day keeps the missiles away? I’m now getting the reasons that limit size. Look at my design though, such elegance! [![](https://i.imgur.com/I3EWyrG.jpg) ](https://i.imgur.com/I3EWyrG.jpg) Ok, maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/106 "2015-09-23T11:46:02Z")
A couple thoughts on previous stuff: “Strategic” bombers vs “Maritime” bombers in WWII: I mentioned that several of the 4-engined US bombers were originally marketed as maritime bombers. The Consolidated B-24 Liberator actually saw quite a bit of success in this role with the US Navy (it had a bigger payload and longer range than the more famous Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, but lacked the reputation for durability). Consolidated ended up forking the design to make a dedicated maritime version called the [Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PB4Y-2_Privateer). Just over 700 were built during the war, and had WWII lasted a bit longer, the next version of the Liberator would have incorporated some of the design changes, like the big single tail replacing the distinctive twin tail of the Liberator. You can also see some of the Privateer’s design showing through with the late-war [Consolidated B-32 Dominator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-32_Dominator). Also, regarding loitering time, another reason that this is important for big bombers is nuclear deterrence. Used to be, the US Air Force would have bomber patrols orbiting in remote places outside of Soviet territory, waiting for the balloon to go up, to reduce the risk of the bombers being taken out in a first strike. This is what Slim Pickens and James Earl Jones were up to at the start of Doctor Strangelove. After a few accidents, it was decided that it was safer to rely on ballistic missiles for second-strike capability, since it’s really hard to crash a missile silo into a refueling plane. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/107 "2015-09-23T12:21:56Z")
The last British jet bomber was the AVRO Vulcan-it was a cool looking plane-and it must have been reliable-it was used to bomb the Falkland islands in 1982. Could the plane be put back in service? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/108 "2015-09-23T13:27:57Z")
Not a chance. Except for one that still does airshows\* and one or two on static display, they’ve all been broken up. No point, anyway; the [Tornado](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado) is much more capable of penetrating enemy air defenses and can carry nuclear weapons (though Britain no longer has any air-launched nukes). With drop tanks and in-flight refueling it can fly about as far, too. Technically, the Canberra was the RAF’s last heavy jet bomber; it remained in service from 1951 all the way up to the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, though only for reconnaissance. \*Saw it when I was 10 or 11. At about 1500 feet it was by far the loudest thing I had ever heard (and still is). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/109 "2015-09-23T14:06:36Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > … AVRO Vulcan-it was a cool looking plane… Thunderball? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/110 "2015-09-23T15:37:52Z")
Surely a fighter doesn’t gain a pound a day _literally_. It must come gradually (even transistors add up!), and of course [del]holidays and stressful occasions[/del] war are usually the time when waistline must be adjusted. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/111 "2015-09-23T15:45:13Z")
It’s interesting (to me at least) that I first ever gave any thought to the concept of tactical loitering was in the late '80s, when I was editing a report on the Airborne Laser, Y-whatever, then eked out an X-something. In (typical?) US fashion, the extraordinary technological difficulties were overcome, but then someone realized that parking it within shooting distance for boost-phase intercept wasn’t wise. I had my first and most enlightening interaction with Boeing when even asking if they wanted in on in the peer-review of the report. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/112 "2015-09-24T17:30:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Technically, the Canberra was the RAF’s last heavy jet bomber; it remained in service from 1951 all the way up to the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, though only for reconnaissance. Was the Canberra ever considered a heavy bomber? I understand the USAF considered their variant of it a medium bomber. And it’s still in US service. NASA has three very heavily modified airframes (maximizing their ability to loiter at very high altitudes) that they use for various things, including atmospheric research and high-altitude surveying and mapping (turns out, with the right equipment, you can survey a vast amount of land from 70,000 feet up). They’ve even been sent to Afghanistan a few times to do… something or other. Science probably. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/113 "2015-09-24T19:21:14Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > … They’ve even been sent to Afghanistan a few times to do… something or other. Science probably. [total hijack for different thread I’ll get around to OPing] Following up on your suggestion, I think, of hanky panky in “…something of other, science probably:” I know NASA directs launches of DOD satellites, which I never understood for the same reason I ask this: NASA equipment-and-technical personnel can serve in a war zone? Don’t they have some Congressional warrant limiting them to ostensible civil affairs? [/total hijack…etc.] ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/114 "2015-09-24T19:38:12Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > It’s interesting (to me at least) that I first ever gave any thought to the concept of tactical loitering was in the late '80s, when I was editing a report on the Airborne Laser, Y-whatever, then eked out an X-something. In (typical?) US fashion, the extraordinary technological difficulties were overcome, but then someone realized that parking it within shooting distance for boost-phase intercept wasn’t wise. > > I had my first and most enlightening interaction with Boeing when even asking if they wanted in on in the peer-review of the report. I think you’re talking about the [NC-135 Airborne Laser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_NC-135#Other_versions) and its 2000s successor, the [YAL-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1) experimental airborne laser. The technical difficulty was one of the reasons you cite for the project’s cancellation, though - the inability to build a chemical laser that both fits within the confines of the aircraft and has sufficient range to engage missiles from a relatively safe distance. > [@](#): > > Secretary of Defense Gates said that “I don’t know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire.” > > “So, right now the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to try and use its laser to shoot down that missile in the boost phase. And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there’s nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept.”[19] > In storage with engines removed. Ultimately broken up on 25 September 2014. > > The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz has said that the system “does not reflect something that is operationally viable.”[20][21] In December 2011, it was reported that the project was to be ended after 16 years of development and a cost of over $5 billion.[22] The wikipedia article mentions that the concept might be revived with a higher-altitude (thus less atmosphere to shoot through) unmanned platform armed with an electric laser rather than a chemical one. I’m afraid I don’t understand your comments about ‘ekeing out an X-something’ and ‘when even asking Boeing’ something. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/115 "2015-09-24T20:00:40Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I think you’re talking about the [NC-135 Airborne Laser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_NC-135#Other_versions) and its 2000s successor, the [YAL-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1) experimental airborne laser. > [snip] > I’m afraid I don’t understand your comments about ‘ekeing out an X-something’ and ‘when even asking Boeing’ something. Thanks for the information and correction. The “ekeing out an X” was my (erroneous) belief that the platform/program had advanced through some specified technology goals or future funding commitments which in DOD nomenclature signify passing from a Y designation to an X (most famously in the X-15). I will post an OP on the SD on that nomenclature, because I, for one, am obviously stumbling here. The Boeing comment was a poorly worded addendum to my experience with that report, the most technologically thorough one to appear publicly at the time: Any article in the main body of _IEEE Spectrum_ was (and probably still is) peer-reviewed. The paper trail must be appropriate, and someone from the prime contractor (Boeing), logically enough, would be expected to be on it. Normally quite eager and helpful to see anything with their name on it in print, Boeing gave me the most thorough no-comment/classified I had ever had to deal with, and I had to explain that to my bosses. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/116 "2015-09-25T12:25:19Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > [total hijack for different thread I’ll get around to OPing] > Following up on your suggestion, I think, of hanky panky in “…something of other, science probably:” I know NASA directs launches of DOD satellites, which I never understood for the same reason I ask this: NASA equipment-and-technical personnel can serve in a war zone? Don’t they have some Congressional warrant limiting them to ostensible civil affairs? > [/total hijack…etc.] Not sure. Keep in mind that NASA has had a fairly close relationship with the military for most of its history. Many of the earliest astronauts were decorated military officers, after all. If I had to guess, NASA’s airframes in Afghanistan were probably utilizing their research tools to help the US military and civil mission in Afghanistan, either mapping or atmospheric research, or providing some kind of communications support (70,000ASL is probably a great equalizer when it comes to relaying radio messages across rugged terrain). The cynic in me thinks that, aside from the warm fuzzies that come with multiple government agencies working in concert with each other to further their nation’s goals, NASA probably also earned a mutual backscratch from the DoD leadership in the future. I’ve never hard of NASA having any Civil Air Patrol-esque legal restriction regarding involvement in armed conflict (CAP has been legally banned from partaking in armed conflict since the end of WWII, a war which featured the civilian auxiliary carrying out armed anti-sub patrols in private planes off the US coast). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/117 "2015-09-25T13:08:21Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Was the Canberra ever considered a heavy bomber? I understand the USAF considered their variant of it a medium bomber. “Heavy” in the sense that it was bigger than a fighter, I mean. No, it wasn’t a heavy bomber in the technical sense. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/118 "2015-09-25T13:59:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “Heavy” in the sense that it was bigger than a fighter, I mean. No, it wasn’t a heavy bomber in the technical sense. Well “heavy bomber” in the technical sense meant a bomber with a large bomb load, that in the nuclear age meant little, as a single bomber could carry explosive force of entire armies. Range also matters less, what with inflight refuelling, ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/119 "2015-09-25T14:42:22Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Thunderball? great movie…one question i had-the rogue pilot killed the rest of the crew by putting poison gas into the breathing system. i thought the Vulcan had a fully pressurized cabin? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131/120 "2015-09-25T19:57:14Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > great movie…one question i had-the rogue pilot killed the rest of the crew by putting poison gas into the breathing system. i thought the Vulcan had a fully pressurized cabin? Post WWII military combat aircraft are pressurized. But the crew generally wears oxygen masks as well, at least part of the time. So one could introduce a noxious gas into either the cabin air supply or into the oxygen mask supply. Or both to make sure you got everybody no matter what they were breathing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-israel-insert-country-have-jet-bombers/731131.md?page=7)