Bombers as Interceptors?

Delta Force

Banned
Until the mid-1930s, bombers were considered to be unstoppable. Not only was radar not developed yet, minimizing warning time (people would have to see/hear them), but the single engine aircraft expected to intercept them lacked speed and heavy armament. Eventually improvements in air defense detection systems and networks and aircraft allowed for a credible defense. However, bombers can still carry larger payloads than interceptors, and due to their size can have greater endurance. How would bombers have served as interceptors, with pre-1950s designs carrying large caliber guns to allow for devastating attacks outside of defensive gun range with cannons capable of destroying aircraft in a single shot, and later designs carrying large radars and massive missiles to shoot down incoming bombers?
 
Until the mid-1930s, bombers were considered to be unstoppable. Not only was radar not developed yet, minimizing warning time (people would have to see/hear them), but the single engine aircraft expected to intercept them lacked speed and heavy armament. Eventually improvements in air defense detection systems and networks and aircraft allowed for a credible defense. However, bombers can still carry larger payloads than interceptors, and due to their size can have greater endurance. How would bombers have served as interceptors, with pre-1950s designs carrying large caliber guns to allow for devastating attacks outside of defensive gun range with cannons capable of destroying aircraft in a single shot, and later designs carrying large radars and massive missiles to shoot down incoming bombers?
Horribly given their slower speed, lower manoeuvrability and the crapiness of bomber armament at actually doing its job without fighter escorts.
 
I would not think a bomber per say would be much pumpkin, but a multi engined interceptor may indeed be a good way to go for awhile. Considering loiter time alone, sans a bombload, they could at least maintain a number of aircraft airborne round the clock.

I would still want them to be smaller and faster than the bombers themselves, mind you, but loiter time seems to big the biggest possible benifit to me.
 
A bomber as an interceptor? The Germans certainly tried with some success using the Junkers Ju 88 bomber with the Ju 88C and later Ju 88G models. Indeed, the Ju 88G became a potent night interceptor against RAF bombers.
 
Have you looked at the "Missileer" concept, or the more recent B-1R concept?

Yeah, that's what I was going to mention. There have been ideas kicked around about turning bombers into flying AAM trucks. Obviously they wouldn't dogfight but they sure could put a lot of missiles in the air.
 
Yeah, that's what I was going to mention. There have been ideas kicked around about turning bombers into flying AAM trucks. Obviously they wouldn't dogfight but they sure could put a lot of missiles in the air.

And isn't their some debate, due to how big it is, about whether the Chinese stealth fighter is a fighter in the sense of the F-22 or the Typhoon, or more of long-ranged interceptor that could also be a stealth, long-legged cruise missile truck? Speed, stealth, legs, and the ability to launch stand-off weapons at either aerial or surface targets?
 
the Mosquito night fighter variant, the A20 Havoc (P71) and Ju88 were all made into interceptors, with varying degrees of success. The Japanese also used a couple of their twin engine attack aircraft as night fighters

the B1 has been proposed as a modern day version, as it can carry a large number of AMRAAMs in place of the normal SRAM load out
 
In the novel The 6th Battle, a Backfire regiment commander was shocked to have F-16 fire-control radar light him up over the Indian Ocean.

A squadron of B1s unloaded 180 AIM120s on the bombers.
 
In the novel The 6th Battle, a Backfire regiment commander was shocked to have F-16 fire-control radar light him up over the Indian Ocean.

A squadron of B1s unloaded 180 AIM120s on the bombers.

And Barrett Tillman took that idea from Dale Brown who first came up with it in Flight of the Old Dog.
 
And isn't their some debate, due to how big it is, about whether the Chinese stealth fighter is a fighter in the sense of the F-22 or the Typhoon, or more of long-ranged interceptor that could also be a stealth, long-legged cruise missile truck? Speed, stealth, legs, and the ability to launch stand-off weapons at either aerial or surface targets?

I think so but I think a lot of that is speculative because I'm not sure if anybody knows the dimensions of the internal weapons bay and that obviously plays a huge role in what the plane can carry.
 
I believe there was a study in the 1960's into adapting the Vulcan to carry modified Sea Dart SAM's to be used against Soviet maritime patrol aircraft and bombers in wartime.
 
That was the 1930's

We are talking about two distinct periods.
First there were the 1930's with the rapid advancements jn aircraft design: Monoplanes, all-metal airplanes, aerodynamic measurement... So there were a lot of new planes being tested, each one faster then the other. So there were actually a number of bomber prototypes that could outfly all of the fighters currently in service. But that was the keyword: Currently in service.
So the Bristol 183 prototype was faster then all of the RAF's biplane fighters of that time, but by the time the 183 was developed into the Bristol Blenheim bombers, the RAF was already flying Hurricanes and Spitfires. No big speed advantage there anymore.

The next period were the last two years of WWII. Night bombing was becoming comonplace and therefore there was a need for a dedicated radar-carrying night fighter. Due to the size of the early radars and the need for a dedicated radar operator. So airframes had to be huge, even at the cost of speed and maneuverability. Therefore the first solution was to take an existing light bomber or heavy fighter and equip it with radar and heavy forward firing guns. Examples were the Messerschmitt BF110 and Junkers Ju88 in Germany and the Douglas Havoc/P.60 in UK/US service. Compare that to the Nortrop P.61 Black Widow that was designed from the onset on as a radar night fighter and ended up a 3-person monstrosity barely smaller then the bomber-conversions it was designed to replace.

By the end of the war however, radar had become considerably smaller, small enough to be fitted in a heavy fighter. So we had the Heinkel He219 in Germany, the Twin Mustang in the US and the De Havilland Hornet in the UK.


From there on things started to go the other way round: As atomic weapons grew smaller the planes carrying them could get smaller just as well and so we see a shift to heavy fighters and fighter-bombers now becoming bona-fide bombers. Example of that are the F4 Phantom and the Blackburn Buccaneer. But that's another story.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Horribly given their slower speed, lower manoeuvrability and the crapiness of bomber armament at actually doing its job without fighter escorts.

Multi-engine, two man heavy fighters were a terrific weapon in the absence of single engine fighters. The Me-110 was an excellent night fighter, as was, and this is sort of close to the OP's question, the Ju-88 and to a lesser degree the Do-17. The Luftwaffe had considerable success using all three aircraft against the Combined Bomber Offensive, with the additional payload provided often being used to carry rockets for use against daylight bomber boxes.

The Japanese also adapted the Ki-67 heavy bomber into a night fighter/heavy day fighter variant under the identifier Ki-109. They also tried out the P1Y as a nightfighter, as the P1Y1-S, but with much less success.

The Allies, of course, used the Mosquito as a heavy fighter in addition to its many other roles. The Bristol Beaufort was also the basis for the later Beaufighter heavy fighter, the Beaufighter was a tremendous aircraft, not just in the heavy fighter role, but as a ground attack platform and even as a torpedo bomber. The U.S., thanks to geography, was never forced to consider general use of bomber interceptors, although the A-20, B-25H, and B-26 could have been utilized in the same sort of role as the other aircraft mentioned.

Bottom line is that heavy fighters are terrific, right until some clown shows up in a real fighter and proceeds to feast on the heavies.
 

Driftless

Donor
Even the late 1930's designed Martin Maryland filled the role in the hands of an exceptional pilot - Adrian Wharburton

.....the famous ace Adrian Warburton, who scored his five confirmed kills with the Maryland's forward-firing guns - the only person ever to achieve ace status in a bomber type.

The Maryland was fairly quick and maneuverable for the era. More fire power would have helped...
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
Behold, the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda

Bell-YFM-1-Airacuda-piloted-on-runway.jpg


Turbocharged Allisons with 37mm, .30 and .50 cal machineguns, plus tiny bombbays in each wing with 600 pounds of bombs
 
Behold, the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda

Bell-YFM-1-Airacuda-piloted-on-runway.jpg


Turbocharged Allisons with 37mm, .30 and .50 cal machineguns, plus tiny bombbays in each wing with 600 pounds of bombs

Oh lord, the Airacuda. Slower than the bombers they were supposed to catch, and you did not want to be one of those two wing gunners if something went wrong. Also, it had an electrical system that ran solely on a generator, not the ship's engines. Which meant if it failed, that monster had to glide.

On other hand, it did carry north of a hundred rounds per gun for the 37mms.
 
And Barrett Tillman took that idea from Dale Brown who first came up with it in Flight of the Old Dog.

I think you'll find something similar in the novel The Third World War; August 1985 by Sir J. Hackett. Only it was Soviet Backfires armed with long ranged A2A missiles loose in the Reforger transport plane flights.

So I guess that means Dale Brown didn't come up with it first after all.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
Also, it had an electrical system that ran solely on a generator, not the ship's engines. Which meant if it failed, that monster had to glide.
P-38 had the same problem.
Lose the left engine, and you lost electrical for the whole thing.

Wasn't fixed til late production J models where both nacelles got batteries and a generator
 
Top