Military Review

Crews of heavy bombers having fun shooting ships 

29



B-52 has recently become the second American heavy bomber on which to install suspended streamlined target designation containers Sniper ATP. Five years ago, the B-1B bomber received Sniper outboard containers and soon used them for the first time in combat. These containers allow the crew to observe what is happening on the ground in great detail, even when the plane itself flies at an altitude of 6.8 km. For example, containers allow you to distinguish whether people on earth are dressed in men's or women's clothing, and whether they are armed. Heavy bombers can also use these targeting containers when attacking ships at sea.



Two years ago, the B-1B bomber successfully used JDAM laser-guided bombs on mobile naval targets. These B-1B tests included the use of Sniper suspension targeting containers to illuminate targets with a laser beam. JDAM was guided by a laser beam reflected from moving target ships. The B-1V was thus the last of many Air Force heavy bombers converted as naval patrol aircraft. Even during World War II, thousands of B-17 and B-24 bombers (as well as many twin-engine bombers) were used to patrol and control vast areas of the world's oceans. At the end of the Cold War, the B-52 bomber was actively used in this area, but this ended in the 1990-s. However, in the last decade, this marine activity has been resumed. For example, the US Department of National Security (DHS) used B-52 to check suspicious merchant ships approaching the coast of North America, often when these ships were still 2000 kilometers from the coast. B-52 photographed vessels and transferred the image to the Department of Homeland Security. B-52 could do this by taking part in exercises. In general, for B-52 there is a lot of work on the oceans.



The new practical value of heavy bomber at sea is largely the result of technological changes in the field of maritime intelligence. This includes such things as the introduction and integration of light search radars and targeting containers. Using the outboard containers, the aircraft can remain high and far (at a distance of more than twenty kilometers), while being able to observe in detail the events below. Thus, the B-52 bomber, equipped with a target designation container, is an excellent naval reconnaissance aircraft, as is the latest B-1B. Suspended streamlined targeting containers Sniper ATP is also used on F-15, F-16, F-18 and A-10 aircraft.



B-52 and B-1B are also capable of laying sea mines, in which they are still practiced. This has been a great success for the air force since the Second World War. A modern naval air force mine is the Mk62 "Quickstrike" mine. It is a 227-kg bomb with a set of sensors installed in its tail section. There are three different sets of sensors, each of which includes its own set of sensors that actuate a mine. The Mk62 is a “bottom mine” discharged into shallow water. It detects a ship passing over it in three ways: pressure change (ship to water), magnetometry (metal in the ship's hull) or vibration. Sensors are connected to a computer in order that the mine could follow certain algorithms (for example, detonate exclusively under ships whose physical and acoustic fields are “written” into the computer’s memory).

Crews of heavy bombers having fun shooting ships


B-52 and B-1B bombers drop mines from a height of about 300 meters at a speed of 500-600 kilometers per hour. Mines are usually installed on well-known sea lanes, especially leading to large ports. During World War II, mines dropped from the air practically paralyzed Japanese shipping. They had the same effect on North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

For the first time, B-52s were equipped with anti-ship missiles (for use in combat) in the 1970s and were armed with Harpoon missiles as standard equipment in the 1980s. However, smart bombs turned out to be almost as effective as Spear, but much cheaper. Until recently, the B-52 was the cheapest heavy bomber in operation and preferred for maritime patrols. However, B-52s are becoming older and more expensive to maintain. So now the B-1B is the cheapest main choice of the air force in controlling the sea.
Originator:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20130817.aspx
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 21 August 2013 07: 18 New
    +9
    "In general, there is a lot of work for the B-52 over the oceans .... the plane can stay high and far away (more than twenty kilometers) while having the opportunity to observe in detail what is happening below. "

    Already twenty (!) Kilometers wassat ANY radar will detect such a "worker" MUCH further. It turned out to be another club for beating babies.
    1. Professor
      21 August 2013 11: 19 New
      +9
      Quote: abyrvalg
      As much as twenty (!) Kilometers ANY radar will detect such a "worker" MUCH further. It turned out to be another club for beating babies.

      They are not going to attack the aircraft carrier, but to ensure the safety of navigation and to mine all kinds of "necessary" places.
  2. Su-9
    Su-9 21 August 2013 08: 33 New
    +7
    Regarding: "Until recently, the B-52 was the cheapest heavy bomber in operation and preferred for naval patrols," I did not understand. And what is the state / NATO heavy bomber now that is cheaper to operate? B-1 is more expensive.
    Maybe Nimrod suddenly fell in price in operation? Or did they burn Poseidon into bombers? Although of course he is also with missiles, and you can probably hang mines.
    In general, there are some strange articles on this article - at the level of the Young Technician magazine. But also of course better than nothing.
  3. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 21 August 2013 08: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: abyrvalg
    "In general, there is a lot of work for the B-52 over the oceans .... the plane can stay high and far away (more than twenty kilometers) while having the opportunity to observe in detail what is happening below. "

    Already twenty (!) Kilometers wassat ANY radar will detect such a "worker" MUCH further. It turned out to be another club for beating babies.


    Such "comrades" in the visibility zone of an adequate radar station will never appear unaccompanied or without the elimination of enemy detection equipment.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 21 August 2013 14: 55 New
      -1
      Yeah, do not appear. But why are they needed, if all the means of destruction were destroyed BEFORE they appear?
      We are talking about a marine theater of war, almost every ship has its own air defense, the destruction of which is possible only with the destruction of the ship. Illogical, don’t you?

      In general, it seems that a little more and the amers from the B-52 will begin to rive Ganships and expose this as a great achievement.
  4. papik09
    papik09 21 August 2013 08: 41 New
    -3
    Well, I think Russia has something similar. In an extreme case, I really hope so. As for the B-52 with such containers, then, if there were no amers rednecks, they would use it for peaceful purposes. Well, for example, to ensure safe navigation in areas with pirates. You can come up with something else.
    1. Max otto
      Max otto 21 August 2013 09: 51 New
      -2
      And I recently read somewhere about the same thing in Russia, though on the Su-27 or 35, I don’t remember exactly, but on the fighter for sure. There is no time to search.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 21 August 2013 13: 59 New
        -1
        The Russian Air Force has nothing similar even close to the ancient LANTIRN, not to mention the Sniper XR ...
        Quote: Max Otto
        There is no time to search.

        And do not, because you will not find ...
        1. Professor
          21 August 2013 14: 24 New
          +7
          Quote: Nayhas
          And do not, because you will not find ...

          There is something similar, although not at such a level:


          This is how Elop is visible from 92 km, 24000 feet, 466 knots.



          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 21 August 2013 16: 48 New
            +3
            Professor, the article was about a hanging container that can be used on a number of aircraft from B-52 to A-10. The fact that Su-34 has an OLS and AFAR is not related to the topic of hanging containers ...
            1. Professor
              22 August 2013 16: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              Professor, the article was about a hanging container that can be used on a number of aircraft from B-52 to A-10. The fact that Su-34 has an OLS and AFAR is not related to the topic of hanging containers ...

              Yes, you are right, there is no such universal container.
        2. PLO
          PLO 21 August 2013 15: 02 New
          0
          And do not, because you will not find ...

          and again you froze stupidity, but you don’t get used to it lol
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 21 August 2013 16: 51 New
            0
            Quote: olp
            and again you froze stupidity, but you don’t get used to it

            Well Duc, of course, provided that you continue:
            "and again you blamed stupidity, however, you are no stranger, because there is a hanging container X, as well as Y, well, there is no need to talk about Y, everyone knows about it ..."
            I switch to standby mode, 1,2,3 .....
            1. PLO
              PLO 21 August 2013 17: 54 New
              +3
              is it necessary? you still say that they have a "small" container, and they still flatten it with a sledgehammer so that it is not crooked)

              Well, however, so be it
              1) for Mig-29/35



              2) for Su-30SM

              and this is not litening)

              Well, for the Su-34
              so that you don’t talk about suspended / embedded systems, but their purpose is the same and the technologies are used the same
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 21 August 2013 19: 28 New
                0
                I repeat. The article is about a container sighting system that can be installed on a number of aircraft increasing their ability to detect ground targets. The Russian Air Force does not have such a container.
                PS: I'm still waiting for data on the domestic counterpart.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 21 August 2013 19: 48 New
                  +1
                  PS: I'm still waiting for data on the domestic counterpart.

                  wait for
                  your children's excuses from this will not become less stupid
                  at least I have already given you "something like that"
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 21 August 2013 20: 01 New
                    0
                    Quote: olp
                    at least I have already given you "something like that"

                    do not lie, from all of the above (photo 2) another hand-made article by UOMZ which they undertook to pass for testing by the end of the year, but knowing about the fate of "Sapsan-E" it is hard to believe in it, while it is only a model at the exhibition. You have not shown any analogues to the Sniper container sighting system, but you do not have enough courage to admit that your rash sarcasm is not enough.
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 21 August 2013 20: 20 New
                      +2
                      Do not lie, absolutely everything that I brought can be counted for something like that. the fact that you hardly believe nobody cares. I have plenty of examples of your faith.
                      to admit that you froze stupidity again and you will not have enough decency as usual

                      ps Well, at least they were not referred to the small size of the containers)
            2. Max otto
              Max otto 21 August 2013 17: 56 New
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              The Russian Air Force has nothing similar even close to the ancient LANTIRN, not to mention the Sniper XR ...
              And do not, because you will not find ...

              I do not like lawyers, because they are attached not only to words, but also to the order of words in a sentence, just an image or an expressed thought does not interest them, which is what actually differs from normal people. I am scribbling, I meant that this system, specifically it, does not represent something impossible, specifically this system, or a system similar in characteristics, does not exist in Russian aviation. But systems based on this principle of use (i.e. in overhead containers) have been used in any aviation (including Soviet) almost since the end of the 70s of the last century. Even on the Su-25 there was a certain system "Mercury" in a suspended container for night "hunting" and operated in the optical and infrared ranges, although the range was about 10 km. Those. if the need arises, then such a container in the Russian Air Force will be drawn in 2 years.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 21 August 2013 19: 55 New
                0
                Quote: Max Otto
                I am abusing, I meant that this system, specifically it, does not represent anything impossible

                Let's start with the fact that the Russian Air Force really needs it. If there is a domestic analogue, then at low cost the capabilities of the Su-25, Su-24, Tu-22M3, Tu-160 will radically improve. Starting from the safety of flights at night and in bad weather conditions, ending with navigation and the use of weapons outside the squares. I think it's not a secret for many that our strike aircraft (except for the Su-34, I hope) does not work in poor visibility conditions, search activities from the air stop with the onset of darkness. I'm just sure that the military has really wanted this for a very long time. UOMZ at one time announced a suspended container "Sapsan", even tried to sell it abroad, but a scandal broke out, it turned out that it was a dummy, that UOMZ had nothing besides the name and layout. Now UOMZ has again stated that, by order of the Ministry of Defense, it has made a suspended sighting container and is conducting its tests, promised to transfer it to the GSE by the end of the year, but there are doubts ...
                1. Max otto
                  Max otto 21 August 2013 21: 28 New
                  +1
                  I am not particularly on the topic of aviation and their weapons, but I know that American bombers cannot carry missiles with nuclear weapons, and Tu-160 and Tu-95 can, and the range of missiles in my opinion is 8-9 times longer than this stray. In the meantime, the carriers themselves for such an Air Force container are much more needed, and by the time they are enough, Russia will do the same if necessary, but will not do it, this one will lock and repeat, I see no obstacles. laughing
                  1. Windbreak
                    Windbreak 22 August 2013 11: 57 New
                    +1
                    American B-52s carry AGM-86B missiles with nuclear weapons and they have a range of 2400 km
  5. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 21 August 2013 08: 51 New
    0
    radar one, sighting container is slightly different.
    from 20 km he can visually inspect the target.

    = ^ _ ^ =
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 21 August 2013 09: 30 New
    -1
    Read or watch a video about American news, everything is super accurate, super reliable. Only now the news channels regularly give out that the Americans bombed the wrong ones, or even by mistake of their own. So it turns out that they have one thing for advertising, but for war everything is cheaper.
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 21 August 2013 10: 10 New
      0
      Well, maybe their technique is accurate. But this does not mean that the operators also aim well))) Joke
    2. Professor
      21 August 2013 11: 23 New
      11
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Only now the news channels regularly give out that the Americans bombed the wrong ones, or in general by mistake. So it turns out that they have one thing for advertising, but for war everything is cheaper.

      The news reports do not include cases when the equipment and its operators worked normally, and such cases are the majority. Regarding "the wrong ones were bombed", bearded guys with bruises on their right shoulder after death always become "civilians" and the international amnesty "dances" on their corpses.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 21 August 2013 12: 07 New
        -2
        Well, yes, and yours also turn out to be disguised bearded men, how many blows did your Iraqi company have?
        1. Professor
          21 August 2013 13: 50 New
          +6
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Well, yes, and yours also turn out to be disguised bearded men, how many blows did your Iraqi company have?

          As far as I remember in the 1973 year a quarter !!! Israeli casualties accounted for the so-called friendly fire. These are not unavoidable losses in any army and in the Russian one either.
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 21 August 2013 18: 04 New
            +1
            So no one claims that there are no such losses, the question is in advertising over precision weapons. Although my personal conviction is that a good command should not have such strikes, so everything depends on professionalism. But the fact that the most modern weapons are often cherished due to its frantic high cost is also no secret.
      2. The Indian Joe
        The Indian Joe 21 August 2013 22: 38 New
        -3
        Regarding "the wrong ones were bombed", bearded guys with bruises on their right shoulder after death always become "civilians" and the international amnesty "dances" on their corpses.
        - yeah, for example

        NATO aircraft bombed a cortege of Afghan wedding cars in Nangarhar province, Afghan TV Tolo reported on Sunday, citing eyewitness accounts.

        Jan 14 2013 - NATO aviation bombed a mosque on Sunday morning in which peaceful Afghans performed prayers, 15 people were killed, and dozens were injured.

        Sep 16 2012 - As a result of the bombing of NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, eight women were killed and as many were injured.
        - Bearded guys with bruises on his right shoulder, you say? Oh well...
  8. Tuzik
    Tuzik 21 August 2013 09: 31 New
    +2
    Oh, a good little thing Sniper ATP, universal.
  9. bif
    bif 21 August 2013 11: 25 New
    +2
    "Until recently, the B-52 was the cheapest heavy bomber in operation .." no wonder, because all maintenance is a sequential analysis of dozens of aircraft for parts to maintain the remains of life in those still flying units.
    1. Evrepid
      Evrepid 24 September 2013 16: 13 New
      0
      Well, in principle, it’s right to remove working parts from machines that are already written off.
      What is wrong with such an act?
      The people saved money and resources.
      We can think of not removing or reinstalling spare parts.
  10. lazy
    lazy 21 August 2013 12: 51 New
    0
    b-52, it seems cheaper than v-1b, besides b-1 are going to write off earlier than v-52
  11. USNik
    USNik 21 August 2013 14: 12 New
    +2
    The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used the B-52 to search for suspicious merchant ships approaching the coast of North America

    Cheap, yes. Chasing a strategist to check the dishes is cool. So I imagine the Tu-95 pursuing a Japanese seiner ... And so the B-52 is an excellent aircraft, the amers seem to plan to operate it right up to 2040.
  12. Denis
    Denis 21 August 2013 16: 30 New
    0
    according to three parameters: pressure change (ship to water), magnetometry (metal in the ship’s hull) or vibration
    everything would be clear, but with that, how?
    pressure change (ship to water)
    Is there something new in physics?
    The Nobel Prize Committee is clearly sleeping
  13. kelevra
    kelevra 18 December 2013 19: 40 New
    0
    They also found me something to surprise!