Skip bombing?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,477
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
Is "skip bombing" still a technique used by the USAF, Navy or any other air force? Is it even a viable technique?
 
I would think it is not as effective as the pin point accuracy of GPS or laser guided bombs. Cluster bombs like the MLRS spread over a wide area and detonate on contact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMShVkgvQEs

Just depends on what you are trying to blow up. Skip bombing in WWII was used to try and destroy dams. Very difficult and costly. Today, a bunker buster with GPS guidance would do the trick at a much safer distance for the bomber crew.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I would think it is not as effective as the pin point accuracy of GPS or laser guided bombs. Cluster bombs like the MLRS spread over a wide area and detonate on contact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMShVkgvQEs

Just depends on what you are trying to blow up.
Click to expand...

Presumably it would be used against ships underway rendering GPS guidance tricky at best, plus a handful of nations may just take down the GPS constellation during a conflict. Basically, my assumption is that future enemy states will deploy counter measures.
Iraq literally created thick smog to counteract laser guidance and GPS jammers (effectiveness is questionable). Also lasers or "disco balls" exist to "jam" IR or laser munitions. And obviously everyone has some method to attempt to jam radar.

In my mind, it's plausible that a future conflict may involve everyone's precision targeting abilities being degraded.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Presumably it would be used against ships underway rendering GPS guidance tricky at best, plus a handful of nations may just take down the GPS constellation during a conflict. Basically, my assumption is that future enemy states will deploy counter measures.
Iraq literally created thick smog to counteract laser guidance and GPS jammers (effectiveness is questionable). Also lasers or "disco balls" exist to "jam" IR or laser munitions. And obviously everyone has some method to attempt to jam radar.

In my mind, it's plausible that a future conflict may involve everyone's precision targeting abilities being degraded.
Click to expand...

How did that work out for Iraq? :no:

Degraded, maybe, but never disabled. It would be tough to take out all GPS sats without us noticing it, and nuking the offending nations capital. Each sat is a piece of American soil. Firing on a sat would be frowned upon. ;)
 
Last edited:
Pi1otguy said:
Presumably it would be used against ships underway rendering GPS guidance tricky at best, plus a handful of nations may just take down the GPS constellation during a conflict. Basically, my assumption is that future enemy states will deploy counter measures.
Iraq literally created thick smog to counteract laser guidance and GPS jammers (effectiveness is questionable). Also lasers or "disco balls" exist to "jam" IR or laser munitions. And obviously everyone has some method to attempt to jam radar.

In my mind, it's plausible that a future conflict may involve everyone's precision targeting abilities being degraded.
Click to expand...

The GPS jammers from Russia had no effect. One was actually found in a destroyed building that was hit with a JDAM. Smoke had little effect on laser guided weapons over there. Other measures that Iraq used around its cities to defend against low flying helicopters didn't work either. Take away the GPS system and aircraft will still be able to navigate to the target with INS / Doppler and then bomb visually if necessary. While the ALQ-144 "disco ball" is effective, nothing is 100 %. Basically there are always options.

If you get a chance, watch the movie The Dam Busters. Old movie and the acting isn't the best but it provides a good insight to how they developed the skip bomb.
 
Without getting classified, the ALQ-144 was majorly flawed and has been replaced completely.

For each weapon there exists a countermeasure, and for that countermeasure there is a counter-countermeasure. I'm not sure we would ever have to revert to 'skip bombing'. There are just too many PTWS options available. It would take a very serious situation to allow area bombing.
 
Velocity173 said:
If you get a chance, watch the movie The Dam Busters. Old movie and the acting isn't the best but it provides a good insight to how they developed the skip bomb.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen the movie but saw a few documentaries on the dam busters. Seems like a complicated rig. I'm basically speaking of skipping your standard 500-1000 lb "dumb" bomb like a stone into naval assets.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Haven't seen the movie but saw a few documentaries on the dam busters. Seems like a complicated rig. I'm basically speaking of skipping your standard 500-1000 lb "dumb" bomb like a stone into naval assets.
Click to expand...

Folly at best. If they can shoot down incoming missiles, a plane dropping a skipping bomb would be a joke. It might actually work because the crew would be laughing so hard. :no:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq_9FH__3dg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdp9llrBLnA
 
Last edited:
Pi1otguy said:
Haven't seen the movie but saw a few documentaries on the dam busters. Seems like a complicated rig. I'm basically speaking of skipping your standard 500-1000 lb "dumb" bomb like a stone into naval assets.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to skip a barrel across a lake toward a large immobile concrete dam (which was by no means guaranteed success) and skipping a bomb on the open ocean toward a much smaller warship.....while that warship shoots at you.

Torpedoes are a much easier method of eliminating ships.
 
Not to mention the increased risk involved with a pilot flying on the deck in smalls arms range when the same result could possibly be obtained from a release several thousand feet up.

Plus the skipping bombs with the Lancasters happened before WWII when attacking civilian targets was allowed. Destroying a dam and flooding a civilian population might be "frowned upon" these days. :(

EDIT: What Fearless said. Plus I think the Exocet might work???
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
It's one thing to skip a barrel across a lake toward a large immobile concrete dam (which was by no means guaranteed success) and skipping a bomb on the open ocean toward a much smaller warship.....while that warship shoots at you.

Torpedoes are a much easier method of eliminating ships.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's been a few year (decades) since I was privy to the MK48 torpedoes. Not sure what they are using now, I no longer get memos. :rolleyes:;)

The missile launched torpedoes (ASROCK System) were the bad ass conventional and nuke tipped variety we carried. Nukes would disable anything within a VERY large radius. Great for sub killing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRqjTKzS1JU


Conventional warhead on a torpedo blowing up a target ship. There is a reason destroyers are called "tin cans". Notice how the torpedo actually goes through the ship then explodes in the second video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDsKa0iHabY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8XYZoR9ABE
 
Last edited:
Direct C51 said:
Without getting classified, the ALQ-144 was majorly flawed and has been replaced completely.

For each weapon there exists a countermeasure, and for that countermeasure there is a counter-countermeasure. I'm not sure we would ever have to revert to 'skip bombing'. There are just too many PTWS options available. It would take a very serious situation to allow area bombing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, glad when ALQs went away. Had one overheat and blow up during flight once. Half the mirrors went gone when we landed! :(
 
Skip Bombing? It wasn't just for them damn dams!

In the 1942-1943 Pacific two squadrons the 3rd Bombardment Group equipped with B-25's and A-20 Havocs used skip bombing quite effectivly aginst Japanese ships. The 63rd squadron of the 43rd Bombardment Group did the same thing with B-17's...
In order for it to work varying numbers of .50 cal. guns were put in the nose of all three types of aircraft (some of you might have heard of Maj. Paul "Pappy" Gunn).
Between Gunn and Major William Benn's efforts not only was skip bombing on the open ocean used successfully but so were the first "parafrag" parachute bombs and 100 pound bombs filled with white phosphorus (named the "Kenney Cocktail" for their boss General George Kenney) that threw burning streamers out 150 feet in all directions when it exploded.

I suppose torpedos would have worked if the Air Corps had something to carry it...

Chris
 
I worked on a live bombing range for a year, and nobody delibertly skip bombed.

However, every now and then a 500 pound bomb would 'broach', which meant it entered the dirt and then popped back up in the air and flew along for a while until it hit something.

It's a real attention getter when that happens.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Torpedoes are a much easier method of eliminating ships.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the big "heavyweight" torpedoes which are effective against major combatant ships (like the MK48) are a bit too long for aircraft carriage and have significant water entry speed limits. We actually looked at carrying those things on an A-6 for anti-ship ops back in the 1970's, but we had two major problems. First, the suspension hooks on our pylons were too close together to provide the necessary structural support -- the thing would have broken in half under its own weight Second, we'd have needed to slow to like 160 knots or less at like 100 feet or less for their water entry limits, and launch from uncomfortably close to those Soviet battle cruisers heavily armed with AAA and SAM's. That idea didn't go very far -- think TORPRON EIGHT at the Battle of Midway and the squadron's sole survivor, ENS George Gay.

ASW torps like the MK46 (or whatever has succeeded it) can be air-launched from airplanes (the S-3 and P-3 carried them, and I assume the Navy's new maritime patrol aircraft the P-8 Poseidon does, too). However, their warheads aren't big enough to be effective single-shot killers of major surface combatant ships.

So, while it may be true that the best weapon for killing ships is a torpedo, the only really effective platform from which to launch them is a submarine. For air-launched weapons, you're a lot better off with a standoff missile with some sort of active guidance system like TV (GPS can get you in the area, but it doesn't help with terminal guidance because ships are moving targets).
 
Last edited:
We followed the... "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit" approach.
One B61 will solve most of your problems.
 
Ron Levy said:
ASW torps like the MK46 (or whatever has succeeded it) can be air-launched from airplanes (the S-3 and P-3 carried them, and I assume the Navy's new maritime patrol aircraft the P-8 Poseidon does, too). However, their warheads aren't big enough to be effective single-shot killers of major surface combatant ships.

So, while it may be true that the best weapon for killing ships is a torpedo, the only really effective platform from which to launch them is a submarine. For air-launched weapons, you're a lot better off with a standoff missile with some sort of active guidance system like TV (GPS can get you in the area, but it doesn't help with terminal guidance because ships are moving targets).
Click to expand...

Not any more, the P-8 MMA has air to surface missiles capable of taking the Lincoln out with one shot from 50 miles out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDDYRG-mREo

They took the wraps off this, so you can bet they have some thing better. the guys at the club won't talk about their weapons system. ( as they shouldn't)
 
Last edited:
Why is it we never hear of drone subs? Seems the perfect vehicle to get the meatbags out of.
 
Ron Levy said:
Underwater R/C has too many problems we can't yet solve.
Click to expand...
Sound propagation through water was one of those subjects that I decided early in my Navy life to just push the 'I believe' button and let those smarter than myself figure it out.

In reality, even the USW experts have a track record on par with the average weather forecaster.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unfortunately, the big "heavyweight" torpedoes which are effective against major combatant ships (like the MK48) are a bit too long for aircraft carriage and have significant water entry speed limits. We actually looked at carrying those things on an A-6 for anti-ship ops back in the 1970's, but we had two major problems. First, the suspension hooks on our pylons were too close together to provide the necessary structural support -- the thing would have broken in half under its own weight Second, we'd have needed to slow to like 160 knots or less at like 100 feet or less for their water entry limits, and launch from uncomfortably close to those Soviet battle cruisers heavily armed with AAA and SAM's. That idea didn't go very far -- think TORPRON EIGHT at the Battle of Midway and the squadron's sole survivor, ENS George Gay.

ASW torps like the MK46 (or whatever has succeeded it) can be air-launched from airplanes (the S-3 and P-3 carried them, and I assume the Navy's new maritime patrol aircraft the P-8 Poseidon does, too). However, their warheads aren't big enough to be effective single-shot killers of major surface combatant ships.

So, while it may be true that the best weapon for killing ships is a torpedo, the only really effective platform from which to launch them is a submarine. For air-launched weapons, you're a lot better off with a standoff missile with some sort of active guidance system like TV (GPS can get you in the area, but it doesn't help with terminal guidance because ships are moving targets).
Click to expand...
Yes, I was referring to sub-launched torps. For some of the reasons you mentioned, we no longer use air launched torps for anti-surface ops. Mk 46 is great for ASW, but the range limits would make a helo (or P-3C) an easier target than a TBD.
 
Hiperbiper said:
Skip Bombing? It wasn't just for them damn dams!

In the 1942-1943 Pacific two squadrons the 3rd Bombardment Group equipped with B-25's and A-20 Havocs used skip bombing quite effectivly aginst Japanese ships. The 63rd squadron of the 43rd Bombardment Group did the same thing with B-17's...
In order for it to work varying numbers of .50 cal. guns were put in the nose of all three types of aircraft (some of you might have heard of Maj. Paul "Pappy" Gunn).
Between Gunn and Major William Benn's efforts not only was skip bombing on the open ocean used successfully but so were the first "parafrag" parachute bombs and 100 pound bombs filled with white phosphorus (named the "Kenney Cocktail" for their boss General George Kenney) that threw burning streamers out 150 feet in all directions when it exploded.

I suppose torpedos would have worked if the Air Corps had something to carry it...

Chris
Click to expand...

One version of the B-25 they used had 8 .50s in a solid nose and 4 more mounted in packs on the sides of the fuselage. Add 2 more in the upper turret and they could put a lot of hurt on the target before releasing the bomb to skip into the side of the ship. Wrong people to have mad at you.

Now, with today's AA systems I wouldn't bet so heavily on the aircraft. There's a reason submarine sailors say, "There are two types of ships in the world. Submarines and targets!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top