# B1, B2, B21 - What's the difference?



## Thorlifter (Sep 20, 2016)

I know next to nothing about these bombers. I think the B-1 is the fastest, but is it stealth? I don't think it is.

Which has the biggest payload and range? 

I guess we don't know much about the B-21 yet since it isn't built. Is the B-21 replacing the B-1 or B-2 or just adding to the arsenal? Just wondering as neither are very old.

On wiki it looks like the unit cost between the B-2 and B-21 show the B-21 to be about $200 million cheaper EACH!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2016)

The B-1B is is not a stealth aircraft but does has some external components to reduce RCS. I think, depending the way you load it, the B-1B can carry the biggest bomb load of all US bombers.

I think the B-21 will mainly replace the B-2, and some B-1s B-52s may go away as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 20, 2016)

The one advantage of the B-1B, is it's "SLAB" (Subsonic Low Altitude Bomber) abilities. This means that the B-1, much like the F-111, can maintain speeds close to Mach (approximately 0.90+) on the deck, getting under enemy search systems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 21, 2016)

With the number of B-1 and B-2 we have, and soon to add the B-21's, why keep the B-52's any longer. I know one of the reasons for getting rid of the F-14's was operational costs. Compared with the two current modern bombers, is the B-52 cheaper to maintain?


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 21, 2016)

Found this in regards to operational cost......

Despite upgrades, the B-1 has repair and cost issues; every flight hour needs 48.4 hours of repair. The fuel, repairs and other needs for a 12-hour mission costs $720,000 as of 2010. The $63,000 cost per flight hour is, however, less than the $72,000 for the B-52 and the $135,000 of the B-2.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 21, 2016)

Yeah, I don't know about this, unless people are padding costs to make extra cash, which wouldn't surprise me.

So that means a 12 hour flight would require 580 hours of repairs!!!!! REALLY??? That seems excessive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> Yeah, I don't know about this, unless people are padding costs to make extra cash, which wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> So that means a 12 hour flight would require 580 hours of repairs!!!!! REALLY??? That seems excessive.


Not necessarily repairs. Scheduled maintenance, servicing, inspections, modifications. This is a continual process.

And those hours are "man hours." One guy = 580 hours or 58 guys = 10 hours.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 22, 2016)

Thanks Joe. This certainly shows my lack of understanding and knowledge in the areas of maintenance and upkeep. Glad you guys are around to educate me!


----------



## Token (Sep 24, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the B-21 will mainly replace the B-2, and some B-1s B-52s may go away as well.



My understanding is that the B-21 will take over all B-1 tasking when the Bone phases out. The B-52 will continue as the heavy lifter at that point for some time. The B-2 will continue in use until the B-21 comes fully online, and then the B-2 will be phased out.

The B-21 will be less finicky, sensitive, with regards to the skin of the aircraft than the B-2, much like the F-35 has a more robust surface than the previous LO platforms. Just looking at trends in general the B-21 will also probably have a lower Fc than the B-2 and certainly the B-1.

I could see happening some time in the future that the only big bombers in the USAF would be the (then) 80+ year old B-52 and the relatively new B-21, with something else picking up the low altitude, high speed, work.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2016)

Token said:


> My understanding is that the B-21 will take over all B-1 tasking when the Bone phases out. The B-52 will continue as the heavy lifter at that point for some time.


We'll see where the chips will eventually fall. I work with some folks out of Tinker, thats where they do the PDMs on both the B-1 and the B-52. The current camp thinks the B-52 will go away first as the B-1 is cheaper to operate, but that's always subject to change.


----------



## Token (Sep 24, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We'll see where the chips will eventually fall. I work with some folks out of Tinker, thats where they do the PDMs on both the B-1 and the B-52. The current camp thinks the B-52 will go away first as the B-1 is cheaper to operate, but that's always subject to change.



Yeah, reading the tea leaves can be tough. The current published plans call for the B-1 to go away first, but funding will probably end up driving it all. I have heard it both ways, the B-1 is cheaper to operate, but the B-52 has more currently funded upgrade efforts in place, possibly indicating the want to get more usable life out of the B-52 than the Bone.

T!


----------



## Builder 2010 (Sep 26, 2016)

Are they still talking about re-engineing the B-52? Part of its cost is running those old TF33's. There was talk about using four engines from the 757 (the F117). They have more than twice the thrust of those old engines, are used in the C-17 and would be much more efficient (and quieter). If we keep wanting to fly 50 year old aircraft, at least they could have more modern (not most modern mind you) digitally controlled two-spool turbo-fans.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2016)

Builder 2010 said:


> Are they still talking about re-engineing the B-52? Part of its cost is running those old TF33's. There was talk about using four engines from the 757 (the F117). They have more than twice the thrust of those old engines, are used in the C-17 and would be much more efficient (and quieter). If we keep wanting to fly 50 year old aircraft, at least they could have more modern (not most modern mind you) digitally controlled two-spool turbo-fans.


Talk - haven't heard of seen anything formal.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2016)

Builder 2010 said:


> Are they still talking about re-engineing the B-52? Part of its cost is running those old TF33's. There was talk about using four engines from the 757 (the F117). They have more than twice the thrust of those old engines, are used in the C-17 and would be much more efficient (and quieter). If we keep wanting to fly 50 year old aircraft, at least they could have more modern (not most modern mind you) digitally controlled two-spool turbo-fans.


Just curious, but how would the B-52's airframe handle the additional thrust factor?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2016)

Good question. That would be a major mod program and the way DoD dollars are today someone really has to justify the engineering study, let alone the actual mod.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Just curious, but how would the B-52's airframe handle the additional thrust factor?


I'd think they'd de-rate the engines to similar thrust as existing engines.


----------



## stan reid (Sep 26, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> I'd think they'd de-rate the engines to similar thrust as existing engines.


 
See below:


----------



## stan reid (Sep 26, 2016)

Yes, I'd heard they were going to replace the 8 turbos on the B-52 with 4 fans. Hopefully they'll keep the B-1 since it's our only supersonic heavy bomber and the B-2 is still an asset so throw in the B-21 as a compliment. Hey, you can never have too many (4) thermonuclear bombers!


----------



## stan reid (Sep 26, 2016)

Clip:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y_


----------



## T Bolt (Sep 27, 2016)

They were talking about the B-52 going away when I started collage (1981) and its still here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2016)

B-52 info

Pentagon


----------



## Token (Oct 3, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> B-52 info
> 
> Pentagon




This "missile truck" concept keeps coming back. 12 or 14 years ago I worked on proposals for parts of an early stage version that would be based on the B-1. In our case it never got past the early paper stage, just some concepts, costs, and projected capabilities.

T!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 7, 2016)

I might sound pompous but I think the carier of the B52 should be put to and end, that bomber could not be in service forever no matter how good the basic design was.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 7, 2016)

That might be, but I think it is pretty cool to have a bomber designed in the'50ies still doing service in the year 2016. And it does it very good as well. I would vote for the B52 as best bomber of all time as it is. Would love to see one flying. Unfortunately there are none here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2016)

There was a reserve B-52 visiting a few airshows in Europe this last summer, Marcel.

It is a B-52H of the 307 Bomb Wing and I believe the most recent airshow visit was in Slovakia.

And did you know that it's original design actually reaches back to early 1946 and it was originally intended to have turboprops?


----------



## Eeon Masters (Jun 20, 2017)

being an ex b-52 maintainer. you have to understand the four parts of strategic bombing.

1) first or one time only strike with an active enemy air defense,
2) first or one time only strike with air superiority,
3) continuos strike within an active enemy air defense 
4)) continous strike with air superiority

to wit.

b-1 while lacking stealth has the ability to fly at high mach speeds below enemy radars ( useful in scenarios 1 and 2 above) but a bit too costly to run continuosly if you have air superiority.. smaller payloads.

b-2 stealth bomber. ( useful in scenarios 1 and 2 ) but has a flaw no stealth when the bomb doors open. but again too costly to run continuosly. ...heavy payloads.

b-21 stealth bomber (replacement for b-2 ) ( useful in scenarios 1 and 2 ) while this is nearly the same as b-2 , 2 real things have changed. stealth while opening bomb doors has been achieved. but the payload size and aircraft size has been reduced. making it cheaper to maintain and repair than b-2 but still more costly than b-52

b-52 all models. commonly reffered to as a conventional heavy bomber. and not easily replaced in that role.while the b-52 can work in all 4 scenarios a high tech enemy can prevent its operation in scenarios 1 and 3. but once we have obtained the air superiority this is the most cost effectove bomber to cotinually use as a heavy bomber. 

notes.
all four bombers are nuclear capable.
b-2, b-52 are the heavy bombers. meaning that they can be used to bomb a varity of different targets in one flight or be tasked in carpet bombing. but have very little use a tacticle bomber.

b-1 , b-21 can with thier light payloads and stealth approachs are best suited for tacticle bombing (single target single bomb) in heavily defended airspaces

but note tactical bombing in areas where we have air superiority can be done by most fighter aircraft these days.

so in the end, in a long war with air superiority the b-52 will be the bomber of choice. and until such day as our goverment gets off thier horse and asks aircraft developers to build a cost effectove and cheap to run heavy bomber the b-52 will remian.

PS. every time congress asks for a replacement to the b-52 they end up with a report tnat says a modification to the current model will be cheaper. hence the b52 letters like G then H, still pleanty of letters left in the alphabet. each modification to the b-52 has indeed reduced its operating and maintenance costs. as well as fuel consumption and a few technology upgrades that reduce repair costs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jun 22, 2017)

^^^ Not entirely correct on all points.

Rockwell B-1 Lancer - Wikipedia

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia

B-1's can carry a significantly higher payload than a B-52. 125,000 lbs vs 70,000 lbs. Of course, ordinance mixtures and loading profiles notwithstanding.

I was on the flightline working with B-2's, B-1's and B-52's (I was flightline Pro-Super for KC-10's) during the early months of Operation Enduring Freedom. B-1's delivered significantly more tonnage in ordinance over Afghanistan than the Buff's did. Buff's ran more sorties while delivering that ordinance. But there were a lot more Buffs than Bones on that flightline as well. In a way that contradicts your statements, it was the B-1 that did more of the "heavy lifting" over Afghanistan while the B-52 got the glory.

That's not to minimize the impact of the -52's in any way. I simply have to object to the statement that B-1's loads are "light" or they cannot sustain continuous operations. That's just flat wrong and we need to keep it factual.

I will say this... Both airframes (B-1, B-52) had rather low MC rates and required a lot of maintenance. Especially hydraulics on the B-1. That hydro mule was overworked for sure!

As far as the statements about "tactical" bombing, all of those bombers are capable and the 3 (B-1, B-52, B-2) were used as such over Afghanistan and Iraq (I was there too). With the use of JDAMS, every "bomb" is precision guided and all three of those airframes would loiter over the battlefield and were used for CAS for the ground troops. As a FAC would call in a coordinate, the bombers would close, drop one or two of the JDAMS and move to the next target. That went for both the B-1 and B-52. The B-2's cost of operation meant they spent little time there and were withdrawn after about 6 weeks IIRC. With only two of them anyway, they really weren't needed.

One last unrelated comment. At the time I left the theater, KC-10's had performed over 5,000 straight on time take-offs. No delays, no cancellations, every sortie completed. That was launching one plane every other hour (12 sorties per day) around the clock for months on end. I don't know how many was achieved total, but I also am unaware of any other airframe to make that claim!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

