The Corparation wrote:Got no hits in Realism thread so posting this here:
So I was thinking of doing a write-up for a small bomber I doodled semi-recently. It's a supersonic swing wing medium bomber, similar to an oversized FB-111. Before I started writing anything up I decided to first come up with the rationale for why the bomber had been designed and produced. I came up with a hypothetical doctrine and I wanted to run it by the thread to see how plausible it is and whether or not anything like it was ever proposed. Key word here is plausible. It's not meant to be a good approach, merely a passing fad during the cold war era.
The LAMPS Doctrine, or "Low Altitude Mass Penetration Swarm" was a proposed approach to nuclear warfare that gained popularity in the Air Force during the late 1960s and early 70s. The architects of the LAMPS doctrine hoped to apply swarm tactics to nuclear bombing. Proponents believed that a higher number of small bombers was preferable to smaller numbers of large bombers. The hope was that a higher number of small bombers, combined with with low level penetration tactics and stand off missiles, would allow for a higher percentage of successful attacks in the event of a large scale nuclear exchange. While this theory was initially popular, and led to the creation of new bomber, rising costs made it clear that the aircraft could never be fielded in as large numbers as it was initially hoped. The reduced procurement meant that the idea of an all LAMPS nuclear bomber force was never fully implemented and the plan gradually began to lose support. By 1980 with the introduction and increased development of long ranged air launched cruise missiles, the LAMPS doctrine was completely abandoned and the Air Force renewed it's focus on heavier bombers.
This sounds like a plausible and interesting "doctrine" and gives the bomber character.
. That means, AFAIK, aside from not needing a separate targeting pod there isn't much difference when it comes to self defense for either fighter-bomber.
