Exactly. For any given level of technology range scales disproportionately with size. Payload almost comes along for free once you have the size to make your range goal.
Said another way, a small long-range aircraft is semi-oxymoronic. And a small long-range heavy-payload aircraft even more so.
And in warfare asymmetric capabilities are especially valuable. So the side w longer range bombers can attack from un-counterattackable sanctuaries.
Which is why many countries skip the bombers entirely and go straight to long-ranged ballistic missiles (like Germany ended up doing in WWII).
Yes and no. It was an issue in WWII initially IIRC that the bomber squadrons would exceed the range of fighter escorts (at least, at first), leaving them sitting ducks for what fighters the Germans had left. This was compensated for by launching a thousand bombers at a time so some got through regardless, and having a limitless supply of replacement bombers. IIRC the life expectancy of a bomber crew was pretty short.
Since Israel has to contend with short range operations*, is there such a thing as short range heavy-payload system?
The considerable advantages of being large have been well explained. Yet we do not see great increases in size which makes me wonder: What are the advantages of being small or the disadvantages of being big in naval or air warfare? Aside from fuel cost which has to be a tertiary consideration in these types of designs.
*With notable exceptions which for some reason were both in the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg Operation Opera - Wikipedia
No point. The only thing you need a big bomber for is range. So if you only need short range strike capability, you just send more small attack/multirole aircraft to hit larger targets. In modern warfare, nobody drops anything like a Grand Slam - except for nuclear weapons, which are now relatively light and can be carried by 20,000-pound (F-111 sized) strike aircraft.
I agree.
I agree.
Bolded ellipsis mine.
I disagree for the following reasons:
Taking the option of sending more aircraft is a quite expensive proposition, especially if you want them to have advanced EW capabilities.
In the early phases of a war, air assets tend to be overstretched. More payload per weapon system means assets are less stretched and it’s easier to overwhelm the enemy.
More payload per aircraft means your payload delivery capability has more resilience to losses.
It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than developing, basing and maintaining a bunch of large aircraft that are only good for one thing.
I’m not quite following the question. An F-15E can carry about twice the ordnance of a B-17, and roughly about 20% more than an F-4, for example, so the capability of aircraft to carry greater amounts tends to increase over time.
But I’m not clear what your question is. Is it, why aren’t there aircraft that are bigger than F-15Es but smaller than B-52s?
A system that had short range and heavy-payload capability would have to be so optimized as to only be good for that? I do not know enough about aeronautics and related fields to determine whether that follows or not. Could you take me through the chain of inferences that go from “short range heavy-payload system” to “only good for one thing”?
I realize that tone can be difficult to ascertain in a forum and that a lot of people would ask this in a snarky way. I am not. If you can prove me wrong and show me that a short range heavy-payload system would have to be a one trick pony, I would be glad.
We should make comparisons only within broadly equivalent technology levels.
The advantages of greater size have been explained. I am wondering what the advantages of smaller size are, if any. There are likely some, otherwise size would keep going up drastically. There must be factors that tend to limit size increases.
It has been explained that in the 2 X 2 matrix of low range/high range, low payload/high payload, bombers like the B-52 fit in the high range/high payload quadrant while fighters fit in the low range/low payload quadrant. It has further been explained that high range/low payload quadrant isn’t worth it because if you want high range, you’ll need a big plane and that “Payload almost comes along for free once you have the size to make your range goal.”
I am wondering about the last quadrant of that matrix.
There are high range low payload aircraft – U-2 and Predators, for example. But of course, they aren’t intended for combat.
But if you’re looking at an aircraft that has gobs of cargo, it needs gobs of lift. If you’ve got gobs of lift, you’re getting range for free for airplanes. If you want lots of lift and little range, you’re probably looking at either: (a) a heavy lift helicopter, which can carry a lot compared to the size of the vehicle, or (b) just not putting as much fuel in an airplane. I can’t even conceive of an airplane that is designed to have short legs but can carry huge amounts of cargo.
I didn’t take any of your posts as snarky. I think Ravenman’s explanation pretty much covers it: if you have a high payload, the aircraft will be able to fly a long way whether you need it to or not.
Now, you could give it huge amounts of thrust so it would be really fast, and so that it would use all of its substantial fuel capacity on short flights. So it would be extremely effective as a short-range heavy bomber, but pretty useless for anything else. Nobody has ever tried to build such an aircraft, as far as I know, but that’s basically because none of the countries that built strategic bombers (UK, US, Soviet Union) had nearby targets.
Let’s back up for a minute. Maybe a short range heavy bomber is useful enough that we can justify building it anyway. After all, if we can send one aircraft to do the work of four that’s a benefit, right? Well, not really.
You can build 10 multirole aircraft or small, short-range strike aircraft for the cost of one heavy bomber (F-15 unit cost: $30 million; B-1 unit cost: $280 million). That’s not necessarily because strategic bombers are expensive to build, but because you don’t build very many. The B-1 is of course a long range aircraft, but you could build something along similar lines that went a lot faster and sacrificed range.
So you can have one B-1 that does one thing, or 10 F-15s that do everything. As a small, budget-constricted airforce, which do you choose?
I thought of one!! I’m very proud of myself to have thought of an aircraft with lots of room for cargo but very, very short legs.
The production version was supposed to have a 3000 mile range.
I’m not even sure how one would build a heavy-lifting short range plane, given that you could use a good part of the lift capacity for more fuel tanks.
Why would you build a short range heavy payload platform? You are sacrificing one of the biggest advantage of using long range systems in short range usage, far increased loiter time.
I see you, and…raise.
(“Raise” being, perhaps, not an accurate descriptor for this particular aircraft, granted.)
It’s the square-cube law. Double the size, 4 times the area (i.e. wing for lift) and 8 times the volume (cargo and fuel). Since engines are a fraction of the craft weight, making the twice or more powerful still leaves plenty of resultant cargo /fuel capacity.
To nitpick your nitpick, dependant on American and British aircraft to stay in the fight is overstating things a bit. Lend-lease provided ~18,000 aircraft while Soviet wartime production amounted to 158,218 aircraft. Most lend-lease aircraft were early war models as well such as the P-39, P-40 and Hurricane; only 195 P-47swere supplied for example. Production of Il-2 Sturmoviks amounted to 36,183, not counting the additional 6,166 Il-10s some of which were built post war. In terms of fighter aircraft Soviet production was divided amongst MiG, Yak, and La/LaGG variants throughout the war, but the Yak-9 had a production run of 16,769 aircraft, 14,579 built during the war.
Didnt B2s leave Missouri, bomb Iraq, and be home for the evening news without landing?
We had Kandahar. Hell, we have bases in Europe if loitering in dangerous areas was a problem. Thing is fast and stealthy.
ETA: “loitering” is when, exactly…? Unless you’re fishing and going after targets of opportunity, you have a destination, unless you’re AWACS, patrol craft, etc.