# Greatest Modern Bomber



## 102first_hussars (Jan 3, 2006)

It would make more sense for me to say the B2 Stealth or the B-1B Lancer, however I have always had a great appreciation for the B-52 Stratofortress, so whats your opinion?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2006)

Nimrod? I hope, for your sake, you're not refering to the RAF Nimrod? Which was never a bomber, it wasn't even designed off a bomber. It was an AWACS aircraft designed off the De Havilland Comet airliner. 







And while I know the Nimrod fleet is under consideration for conversion to long-range bomber configuration, the drawings haven't even been started. The plane is not even nearly a bomber yet. 

And the B-1B Lancer is the best, in my opinion.


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2006)

The Nimrod is an Anti Sub aircraft with 2 or 3 used as electronic intelligence gathering. The AWAX version was cancelled many years ago.

If I had to choose it would be the Canberra. Probably used by more countries than any other jet bomber and possibly an other bomber period in history. Certainly isn't the biggest or fastest by a long shot but it did its job for many years and did it well.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2006)

I know it was scrapped, my dad had to keep one running at RAF Finningley for a long time to train people on the electronics. I think that was one of the last ones in 'service' (it wasn't certified to fly). The E-3s were/are much better aircraft, plus the British variants are the best. 

Although, the idea of converting them into bombers is interesting. They'd have been better off keeping Vulcans and just improving them. 

And we can't deny the role of the Canberra, no way. Good choice.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2006)

well the nimrod's the closest bloody thing we have to a heavy bomber so don't rule it out, i thought the Tu-160'd be in the list though?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2006)

For me it is either the B-1 or the B-2. I would also give honourable mentions to the Canberra and the B-52 though.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the nimrod's the closest bloody thing we have to a heavy bomber so don't rule it out, i thought the Tu-160'd be in the list though?



That it maybe but it isn't so why is it on the list. So did I.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

B52. Can carry lots and lots of bombs. Its huge airframe makes it adaptable for anything that might want to be added or updated.

Being able to carry a lot of PGM's has given it a new lease on life.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

B-52 all the way!!! Although the B-1 and B-2 have been successfully deployed, they have very big shoes to fill when looking at the longevity, combat record, and bombs dropped by the B-52. Additionally for what the cost of the B-52 was, it has certainly given its money's worth....

Just a side note - B-1 pilots consider the B-2 a "Fag Bomber."


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

Why a "fag" bomber?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Why a "fag" bomber?



Because it flies high and relatively slow - the B-1B drivers are into that fast low level "Shock and awe," more testosterone I guess?!?


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2006)

If I had to pick one from the list it would be the B52. As FJ said m the USA definately got their moneys worth out of that aircraft.

Question for someone who may know the detail.
Recently NASA retired its original B52 that was an A version. I read an interesting article on this machine as NASA kept it as original as possible as a deliberate point of pride. In the example of this they mentioned in the start up sequence they still used the egg timer as per the original planes.
Can anyone tell me why you would want to use an egg timer in the start up process on a B52?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Why a "fag" bomber?
> ...



I wonder what CC's reaction will be regarding a "fag" bomber


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

Glider said:


> If I had to pick one from the list it would be the B52. As FJ said m the USA definately got their moneys worth out of that aircraft.
> 
> Question for someone who may know the detail.
> Recently NASA retired its original B52 that was an A version. I read an interesting article on this machine as NASA kept it as original as possible as a deliberate point of pride. In the example of this they mentioned in the start up sequence they still used the egg timer as per the original planes.
> Can anyone tell me why you would want to use an egg timer in the start up process on a B52?



I'll ask my father in law, he has several thousand hours in B-52s


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what CC's reaction will be regarding a "fag" bomber


A bomber that carries cigarettes? 

Oh, and I like the B-1 best.



Ta.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > syscom3 said:
> ...


I wonder if its called a fag bomber in the same way the A6 Prowler is called the queer because as a A6 Intruder jock told me it was unatural for 4 men to sit so close the B2 guys are pretty close to each other maybe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



Maybe?!? But then again 4 men sit close together in the B-1, the only difference is they're going 800 knots on the deck!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2006)

As much as I love the B-1...has to be be B-52.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> As much as I love the B-1...has to be be B-52.



Agree! When I'm around my father in law, we'll talk a lot about the B-52 and B-1. We don't mention "that other bomber" too much! (Even though I worked on it for 7 months)

By the way my father in law still holds 7 world speed records with the B-1 by himself...
*
CHECK OUT THE PAYLOADS AND SPEEDS!*

Sub-class : C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 10 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h
Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)
Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'N/S 58' 
Database ID 3840

Sub-class : C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 15 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h
Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)
Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'N/S 58' 
Database ID 3841

Sub-class : C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 20 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h
Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)
Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'N/S 58' 
Database ID 3842

Sub-class : C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 25 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h
Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)
Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'N/S 58' 
Database ID 3843

Sub-class : C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 30 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h
Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)
Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'S/N 58' 

Class C (Aeroplanes)
Sub-class C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 1 000 km with 30 000 kg payload : 1 089.36 km/h

Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)

Aircraft: Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'S/N 58' 

Class C (Aeroplanes)
Sub-class C-1q (Landplanes: take off weight 150 000 to 200 000 kg)
Group 3 : turbo-jet
Speed over a closed circuit of 2 000 km with 5 000 kg payload : 1 078.20 km/h

Date of flight: 04/07/1987
Pilot: Robert CHAMBERLAIN (USA)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)

Aircraft: Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F101-GE-102, 14 000 kg each) 
Registered 'N/S 58' 

He is posted on 18 more as "co-pilot."

http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?from=ga&id=2119

http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?from=ga&id=2230

If you go to these sites you could see many of his records that were broken.

I still say if I won the Lotto, I'm taking him to Russia where we'll rent a Blackjack for a week and take back all his old records!


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 5, 2006)

I leave for vacation and find that we are now discussing modern aircraft! The horror, the mayhem, the...the...the...what da 'ell, the Strato Fortress kicks ass. To me its the most adaptable bomber that the USAF has ever had in thier inventory.

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2006)

Very impressive Joe! Good info there 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Very impressive Joe! Good info there 8)



Thanks CC! They did this over 4th of July weekend - He has the certificates hanging in his home office along with awards signed by Ronald Regan. 

I guess originally they set something like 85 world speed and altitude records with the B-1.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

Well even though I think the B-1 is the best bomber out there at the moment and I love the plane I have to go with the good old B-52. Hell Yeah the "BUFF"! I mean come on she could carry a massive amount of payload and she was one of the cold war deterants. She so damn good she is still in use today. Maybe not dropping iron bombs as much anymore like she used to but shes still kicking ass!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

She's like that old truck in the driveway that you just don't want to get rid of. 
Old, but trusty.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> She's like that old truck in the driveway that you just don't want to get rid of.
> Old, but trusty.



Yep!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 5, 2006)

The motto of the Canadian Air Force? 


...That's not really funny.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2006)




----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 8, 2006)

There was a story out of the 1st Gulf War where a pilot flying a BUFF out of Diego Garcia found out it was the same '52 his father had flown in the '70s. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I actually read that in the Stars and Stripes.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 10, 2006)

There is also something symbolic of the BUFF, representing all that there was about the cold war. It was even used satirically in Dr. Strangelove.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

I agree


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 22, 2006)

What about the Vulcan and Victor? Excellent performance and payload in two of the best looking aircraft of the modern era.

The Canberra/B-57 deserves a mention as does its Soviet counterpart, the Il-28.

The Tu-22M, even though its generally thought of as more of a strike aircraft than a bomber, also deserves special mention. In fact, it probably gets my vote as the best bomber, if only because it rivals the Vulcan in the looks department.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

I think the Vulcan and the Victor are good choices to put into a list, but the B-52 has one thing over them that the others do not. Longevitiy. Other than that though the other 2 were great bombers as well as teh Canberra/B-57.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

The B52 has been proven in three wars. Just its performace over Vietnam in the Christmas offensive in 1972 proves it was the best. For adaptability, its big strong airframe gives it a leg up on the Vulcan. There isnt any weapon (except for those big FAE bombs) that the B52 cant carry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2006)

Yep - for what the B-52 accomplished and continues to accomplish, she has got to be the greatest modern day bomber....

I'd throw the Vulcan and Canberra in there too - both served very well...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 22, 2006)

Dont know about the Vulcan. The Canberra deserves recognition though for its capability for its time.


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2006)

If the Vulcan had been updated as the B52 was I think it would have been a contender but at the end of the day it wasn't so it remains a what if. and the B52 has my vote.
It certainly had the performance, handling and payload but was never given a proper update.

I have been in a Vulcan in the UK and was shocked at how old the general instrumentation was and its general layout. I remember telling my wife that it was if someone had taken the cockpit of a Lancaster deleted the excellent visibility and stuck it in a more modern airframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

I agree as I said before the BUFF gets the vote from me.


----------



## koivis (Jan 23, 2006)

Where the hell is Tu-160? It's faster than B-1B, heavier (payload about the same), has more range,...
It has the speed of Tu-22M Backfire and size of Tu-95 Bear, wingspan over 50 meters spread!
Plus, there are about 50 of them made, compared to 21 B-2s or 106 B-1Bs.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 23, 2006)

Ah yes the Blackjack. Its a Ruskie copy of the B-1. Another cold war warrior.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 23, 2006)

Doh! I meant to post a pic. Here it is:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2006)

Well while I think it is a good bomber, it was not capable of doing what the B-52 was and that is flatten a complete country with just conventional weapons. The Blackjack would have to do it with nuclear. The B-52 had such an awesome payload it could destroy just about anything.

Plus its a BUFF!


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 23, 2006)

True. The B-1 and the Blackjack were Nuke bombers, go in low and get out at warp 9. The BUFF is an angel of death. In 'Nam the VC and the NVA hated Arc Light misssions because they flew so high that they never heard the bombers, they only heard the bombs. Also a BUFF is a Boeing product, its hard to kill. In the 1st Gulf War a BUFF got hit several hundred times, lost 3 engines and still flew back all the way to Diego Garcia. By the time it landed the BUFF was on its last legs and on fire. In retrospect (even to the crew now) it was like watching Key Stone cops getting out of thier Dusenberg. Still, according to the book its impossible for a human to go out the cockpit windows and the pilot did it. 

But I digress, the B-1 and especially the Blackjack are not as versitile as the BUFF. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> The BUFF is an angel of death.



That right there about sums it up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2006)

Like building a freeway overpass over your enemy and lobbing big rocks on him!!!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

Big exploding rocks!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2006)

Yep! Here's some B-52 at "Davy Moans"


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

One hell of a good bird. Like us, they have become cold war relics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

I got to climb up into one at Rammstein AFB at an Airshow. Was pretty amazing to me to be standing in one.


----------



## Hellbird (Jan 24, 2006)

B-52 is the best people. don't try to deny that.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 24, 2006)

At the Warner Robbins museum they have a BUFF in thier front lawn. When I walked under it the bomb doors were open and I noticed the flight deck door was off. It was risky considering the bomb bay was full of wasp nests but the temptation was too much and I climbed in. I didn't go into the flight deck it self and could see the door to the lower deck. Two observations: it must be a bitch to taxi one of these birds being a storey up and there is not enough money in the galaxy that would make me eject downward in a BUFF, of course unless the BUFF is on fire.

While this BUFF looked great on the outside it was stripped and all corroded in the inside and the deck was a wasp condo.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2006)

Hellbird said:


> B-52 is the best people. don't try to deny that.



I think that was the general concensus and no body has been.


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 26, 2006)

All I can say is Linebacker1-2 and Rolling Thunder.


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 27, 2006)

To me its Arc Light, silent death. I think I read some where that the NVA and the VC considered this the deadliest tactic the US used. In my opinion Operation COBRA IN WWII was a proto-version of this. While it was not as succesful as Bradley wanted it to be, it still must of freaked the hell out of the Whermacht grunts that were under this rain of bombs.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 24, 2006)

Being currently at a base slap full of B-52s, I can honestly say I wouldn't want to go bomb anyone with the rusty truck in the driveway. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Buff's duty performance history, it's way past it's prime (just ask the guys on the flightline performing absolute miracles just to get one more sortie out of the things) Just like the rusty truck in the driveway, think duct tape in bailing wire...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 25, 2006)

Well the B-2 is my pride and joy. 20 years of my life was spent working on that plane. From proposal to bombs on target. But how can you compete with a plane that has been effective (although missions have gotten less threatening) for half of the time that airplanes have been flying. The B-2 has a long way to go before it could challenge the B-52. A B-52 is available at certain times for going into at March Air Museum in Riverside, Ca.

Still gotta vote for the B-2.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

When I checke dout that B52 at the March AFB museum, I was awe struck on the size of the bomb bay. You could have fit a small truck into it.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> When I checke dout that B52 at the March AFB museum, I was awe struck on the size of the bomb bay. You could have fit a small truck into it.



It's a great dump truck. What does it carry, 70k lbs of ordinance? What, 10 B-17s? When they are overhead, the ground shakes. It is effective. The only problem is calling it modern.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2006)

There's a B-52 mounted "on a pole" at the US Air Force Academy. I'm told its the largest mounted aircraft in the world!


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 26, 2006)

How did they manage to get it to stay on the pole, it would look out of place on a pole in my opinion but still cool.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 26, 2006)

yeah


----------



## davparlr (Apr 26, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> How did they manage to get it to stay on the pole, it would look out of place on a pole in my opinion but still cool.



I guess it takes a big pole!


----------



## Clave (Apr 26, 2006)

Hmm.. 

B1B: 75,000lbs @ 925mph $178m

Tornado: 18,000lbs @ 1,450mph $35m

I think I'd rather take five Tornados for my first attack


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2006)

Theyre two different aircraft performing two different missions.


----------



## Clave (Apr 26, 2006)

Seems the B1B cost was about $383 million, so I'll take _10_ Tornados and stuff the mission - I mean the bad guys only have to be lucky once to shoot down the B1B but it's unlikely they'll get lucky ten times


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

You need ten Tornados to actually hit the target, unless you plan on sending Bucaneers with them to pin-point the target just like the RAF did in the Gulf. At least when buying a B-1, you're 90% sure it's going to come out of the factory working. 

Why buy a Tornado, or ten, when you can buy F-15s for a cheaper price and they're better...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

You also forget the B1B is also a nuke penetrator bomber.

If I was going to attack a heavily defended target, deep in Russian territory in a nuke war, I will take the B1 over the tornado anytime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You also forget the B1B is also a nuke penetrator bomber.
> 
> If I was going to attack a heavily defended target, deep in Russian territory in a nuke war, I will take the B1 over the tornado anytime.


 Agree - it also has double the countermeasures


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You also forget the B1B is also a nuke penetrator bomber.
> 
> If I was going to attack a heavily defended target, deep in Russian territory in a nuke war, I will take the B1 over the tornado anytime.


 Agree - it also has double the countermeasures


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You also forget the B1B is also a nuke penetrator bomber.
> 
> If I was going to attack a heavily defended target, deep in Russian territory in a nuke war, I will take the B1 over the tornado anytime.



Indeed, you certainly would want to use a B-1 in that situation but I do not believe the B-1 has a nuclear mission any more. You really, really would want to take a B-2.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

B2 first, B1 next


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2007)

And the oft quoted $380M price tag, like that quoted for the B-2, includes ground infrastructure, spares, maintenance, etc. It is used as a means of unfairly comparing fly away costs of a single airplane vs that including recurring costs over the lifetime of the airframe. As once said by a famous American writer, "Lies. Damn lies. And statistics."

And while not the "best", certainly one of my all time favorites the B-58 Hustler.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 19, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And while not the "best", certainly one of my all time favorites the B-58 Hustler.



The B-58 certeinly had that "sex appeal" of supersonic aircraft of the late 50's and early 60's.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2007)

I'll say she did. A handful to land, but wow!


----------



## k9kiwi (Mar 20, 2007)

> but I do not believe the B-1 has a nuclear mission any more.



Excuse me while I roll over and die from laughing so bleeding hard.

It is just like sex.

You have to penetrate to dominate.

Thus the mission is still there.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2007)

Or the B-2 a conventional...

You don't see daylight shots of this often.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 22, 2007)

k9kiwi said:


> Excuse me while I roll over and die from laughing so bleeding hard.
> 
> It is just like sex.
> 
> ...


I believe you might find he is correct just to put a little CO2 on your fire


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 24, 2007)

B-52 Stratofortress because when it can operate it can carry enough to do some real damage to an enemy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

When it can operate? When can it not operate? There are no serious problems with the BUFF.


----------



## trackend (Mar 25, 2007)

B52 by a mile look at its longevity of service an amazing design an amazing plane


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2007)

I agree.


----------



## Glider (Mar 25, 2007)

The B52 has to be the run away winner


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

I was meaning that it was a bomber that would have problems operating in somewhere like over the Soviet Union in the Cold War even with all its Electronic Countermeasures. It would need air superiority to really operate, otherwise it could be lost very quickly. It does however, have the advantage that it has enough bombs to do serious damage over a target. I know they reduced the radar signature, but can they reduce it enough to really cope with SAMs designed to shoot down F-22s and F-35s when they come out? That is the really question on the B-52s future...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe you might find he is correct just to put a little CO2 on your fire



You are right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I was meaning that it was a bomber that would have problems operating in somewhere like over the Soviet Union in the Cold War even with all its Electronic Countermeasures.


Do you know that the B-2, B-1 and even the good ole B-52 went through extreme arctic environmental testing before they were fully operationally deployed?

BTW - my father in aw flew B-52s out of Minot North Dakota in the 1980s (good ole cold war years). It wasn't too uncommon to get a scramble in the middle of the night where the outside temp was -40F!!!!


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

I wasn't referring to the weather, I was referring to all those SAMs and fighter aircraft that would intercept the B-52s and destroy them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I wasn't referring to the weather, I was referring to all those SAMs and fighter aircraft that would intercept the B-52s and destroy them.


Where and when? The B-52 (even in the 80s) would hardly be over Soviet territory and when they did strike within the Soviet Union, there would of been much left - cruise missiles! Ever hear of them?


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

Yes, I have heard of cruise missiles. I do assume though that it would require some penetration to get those cruise missiles to a launchable position to do some damage. The Soviets would hardly let the B-52s linger in impunity at the edges of the radar net though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Yes, I have heard of cruise missiles. I do assume though that it would require some penetration to get those cruise missiles to a launchable position to do some damage.


 Nope! It was well known that a B-52 will never survive over Soviet Airspace at altitude and that's why its penetration role eventually changed


HealzDevo said:


> The Soviets would hardly let the B-52s linger in impunity at the edges of the radar net though...


That it could - ECM - ever hear of it? The Soviets would never know it's there....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2007)

Besides the B-52 would not start massive gravity bombing until air superiority was achieved. Remenber the first Gulf War? Once the radar and SAMs were taken out the B-52s conducted high altitude carpet bombing. They also did it again over Serbia in the late 1990s. 

More than likely though they would do just what FBJ said, launch Cruise Missiles and the B-52 could carry 20 of the AGM-86B ACLM cruise missiles which had a range of 1500 miles. The B-52 did not have to get to close to the enemy to cause grave damage.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Mar 28, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And while not the "best", certainly one of my all time favorites the B-58 Hustler.


Matt..
just seen your pic of the B58...one of my fave aircraft
never seen that pic before....still looks awesome
thanx


----------



## F-14 (Feb 3, 2008)

I go with the Greneral opion this time the B-52 though desinged in the Early -50's it has had a very extensive combat record The USAF has had B-52s in active service since 1955 with the Strategic Air Command which was absorbed into the Air Combat Command in 1991. Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite proposals to replace it with the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie, supersonic B-1B Lancer and stealthy B-2 Spirit. In January 2005, the B-52 became the second aircraft, after the English Electric Canberra, to mark 50 years of continuous service with its original primary operator.

with many upgrades that started of November 1959, SAC initiated the Big Four modification program (also known as Modification 1000) for all operational B-52s except early B models. The four modifications were:

Ability to perform all-weather, low-altitude (below 500 feet (150 m)) interdiction as a response to advancements in Soviet Union's missile defenses. The low-altitude flights were estimated to accelerate structural fatigue by at least a factor of eight, requiring costly repairs to extend service life. 
Ability to launch AGM-28 Hound Dog standoff nuclear missiles 
Ability to launch ADM-20 Quail decoys 
An advanced electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite 
The program was completed by 1963 at a cost of US$265 million.[53]

The ability to carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles was added to G and H models starting in 1971 a cost of US$400 million.[54] Fuel leaks due to deteriorating Marman clamps continued to plague all variants of the B-52. To this end, the aircraft were subjected to Blue Band (1957), Hard Shell (1958), and finally QuickClip (1958) programs. The latter fitted safety straps which prevented catastrophic loss of fuel in case of clamp failure.[55]

Ongoing problems with advanced avionics were addressed in the Jolly Well program, completed in 1964, which improved components of the AN/ASQ-38 bombing navigational computer and the terrain computer. The MADREC (Malfunction Detection and Recording) upgrade fitted to most aircraft by 1965 could detect failures in avionics and weapons computer systems, and was essential in monitoring the Hound Dog missiles. The electronic countermeasures capability of the B-52 was expanded with Rivet Rambler (1971) and Rivet Ace (1973).[56]

Structural fatigue, exacerbated by the change to low-altitude missions, was first dealt with in the early 1960s by the three-phase High Stress program which enrolled aircraft at 2,000 flying hours.[57] This was followed by a 2,000-hour service life extension to select airframes in 1966-1968, and the extensive Pacer Plank reskinning completed in 1977.[3] The wet wing introduced on G and H models was even more susceptible to fatigue due to experiencing 60% more stress during flight than the old wing. The wings were modified by 1964 under ECP 1050 at a cost of US$219 million.[58] This was followed by a US$50 million fuselage skin and longeron replacement (ECP 1185) in 1966, and the US$69 million B-52 Stability Augmentation and Flight Control program (ECP 1195) in 1967.[58]

In 2007 the LITENING targeting pod was fitted and commissioned increasing the combat effectiveness of the aircraft during day, night and under-the-weather conditions in the attack of ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons under the guidance of LASERs and the help of high resolution forward-looking infrared sensor (FLIR) for visual display in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and charged coupled device (CCD-TV) camera used to obtain target imagery in the visible portion, this technology could also be used in real-time transmission to ground communications networks and government agencies to gather battlefield intelligence, assess battlefield damage, assess terrorist activities and counter drug activity, further advancing the B-52H's capabilities and uses.

The Air Force intends to keep the B-52 in service until at least 2040, an unprecedented length of service for a military aircraft.[4][61] B-52s are periodically refurbished at the USAF maintenance depots such as Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

Boeing suggested re-engining the B-52H fleet with the Rolls-Royce RB211 534E-4. This would involve replacing the eight Pratt Whitney TF33s (total thrust 8 × 17,000lb) with four RB211s (total thrust 4 × 37,400lb). The RR engines will increase the range and payload of the fleet and reduce fuel consumption. However, the cost of the project would be significant. Procurement would cost approximately US$2.56 billion (US$36 million × 71 aircraft). A General Accounting Office study of the proposal concluded that Boeing's estimated savings of US$4.7 billion would not be realized. They found that it would cost the Air Force US$1.3 billion over keeping the existing engines.[62] This was subsequently disputed in a Defense Sciences Board report in 2003 and revised in 2004 that identified numerous errors in the prior evaluation of the Boeing proposal, and urged the Air Force to re-engine the aircraft without delay. Further, the DSB report stated the program would save substantial funds, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase aircraft range and endurance, duplicating the results of a Congressionally funded US$3M program office study conducted in 2003.[63]

The USAF continues to rely on the B-52 because it remains an effective economical heavy bomber, particularly in the type of missions that have been conducted since the end of the Cold War, mainly against nations that have limited air defense capabilities. The B-52's capacity to "loiter" for extended periods over (or even well outside) the battlefield, while delivering precision standoff and direct fire munitions, has been a valuable asset in conflicts such as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

The speed and stealth of the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit have only been useful until enemy air defenses were destroyed, a task that has been swiftly achieved in recent conflicts. The B-52 boasts the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF. Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2008)

F-14 said:


> Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%



Ready Rate??? No Such thing!!!! - aircraft are either "MC" - "Mission Capable" or "FMC" - "Fully Mission Capable." I don't believe you could go lower than 75% on any combat aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 3, 2008)

The B-52 is to bombers what the C-47 is to transports. If for no other reason, an aircraft in service for over 50 years gets my vote.

TO


----------



## F-14 (Feb 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ready Rate??? No Such thing!!!! - aircraft are either "MC" - "Mission Capable" or "FMC" - "Fully Mission Capable." I don't believe you could go lower than 75% on any combat aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from...



sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2008)

102first_hussars said:


> It would make more sense for me to say the B2 Stealth or the B-1B Lancer, however I have always had a great appreciation for the B-52 Stratofortress, so whats your opinion?



For me it is an easy question. If the US had one and one only bomber ( I mean quantity of ONE) which would constitute the gravest threat to a potential adversary?

I won't say, other than it should be obvious on that selection criteria...

If you factor cost, dash speed, load capability as the key criteria you might have a different answer... but current 'unstoppable' capability, extreme range, mix of many JDAM or Special's, would normally lead to this choice?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2008)

102first_hussars said:


> It would make more sense for me to say the B2 Stealth or the B-1B Lancer, however I have always had a great appreciation for the B-52 Stratofortress, so whats your opinion?



If the question is 'What is the greatest bomber of all time" my answer is B-52 hands down - but not the 'Greatest Modern Bomber' as that question should relate to lethality and ability to carry the mission to the highest threat environment anywhere - and neither the B52 or B-1 could lay claim to that although B-1 closer to description.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2008)

F-14 said:


> sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake


So those number (where ever you got them from) were probably FMC rates - which are harder to make. Something as simple as a domelight could make an aircraft go from FMC to MC.

MC and FMC rates are also dependant on the amount of aircraft deployed. I actually work on a program where we have 3 aircraft. We have no FMC requirements but must maintain a 66% MC rate. There are certain things that preclude us from taking a "hit" from the AF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2008)

F-14 said:


> sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake



As for Mission Readiness. We called it OR Rate and we kept our aircraft at 90% or higher. I really doubt the USAF keeps its squadrons at such a low level as 53% or 26%.

Wherever you got that info is wrong.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 5, 2008)

Well, since a couple of people didn't vote for a bomber that was on the list, so will I . . . . I vote for the XB-70A. True, it was never operational, but it was potentially the greatest modern bomber. I don't think we'll ever see it's like again . . . .


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Well, since a couple of people didn't vote for a bomber that was on the list, so will I . . . . I vote for the XB-70A. True, it was never operational, but it was potentially the greatest modern bomber. I don't think we'll ever see it's like again . . . .
> 
> *Magnificent ship. Like the YF-12/SR-71 it represented a peak of pure airframe design around the global strategic mission...*



Then one day in the Rose Graden, JFK took LeMay for a 'walk n' talk' and it was dead.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 6, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I vote for the XB-70A.



I'd vote for it as well, Stitch. 

However, I have read that it was a handful to fly (especially for a crew of two). One of the test pilots, Col Joe Cotton likened it to "driving a greyhound bus 200 mph around the track of Indianapolis".


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

Graeme said:


> I'd vote for it as well, Stitch.
> 
> However, I have read that it was a handful to fly (especially for a crew of two). One of the test pilots, Col Joe Cotton likened it to "driving a greyhound bus 200 mph around the track of Indianapolis".


 
Al White also remarked that it had a distinct but controllable 'dutch roll' in transonic cruise. Al just passed away about a year+ ago. Still working as consultant to FAA on crash investigations right up through his passing.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> If the question is 'What is the greatest bomber of all time" my answer is B-52 hands down - but not the 'Greatest Modern Bomber' as that question should relate to lethality and ability to carry the mission to the highest threat environment anywhere - and neither the B52 or B-1 could lay claim to that although B-1 closer to description.



I agree with this. There is only one bomber you would want to take into the most heavily defended area. It is also the most feared bomber in the world. The B-52 takes the cake for greatest bomber of all time.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 16, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> And while not the "best", certainly one of my all time favorites the B-58 Hustler.



Certainly one of my favorite bombers just because it look so great!

I had a friend who flew the B-58. The early planes had an interesting problem in that, if an outboard engine flamed out at Mach 2, the plane would disintegrate. They fixed that problem by putting a flame-out detector on engines and when one outboard failed, the opposite outboard engine would automatically shut down.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 16, 2008)

B-52..........been in service for very long doesn't look to be retired anytime soon


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 15, 2008)

Other - ICBM, for obvious reasons. Or, if it must be conventional - Storm Shadow, Taurus, Kh-55. Sorry, but airplane bombers are kinda obsolete.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2008)

Really. Zarathos, where do you formulate this stuff. You named 3 out of 4 weapons that can only be delivered by airplanes! So I'm assuming you mean that "long range strike" platforms are obsolete? You only need a 1500km platform?

Explain yourself. You have made quite a few posts in various threads claiming absolutes with exactly NOTHING to back them up.


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 16, 2008)

Bombers are good for one thing - level the enemy. Problem with them, in my eyes, is, that todays conflicts (and all conflicts in forseeable future) are asymetric ones. NATO armies vs partisans (or 3rd world armies with obsolete weapons and small numbers). And while you can use bombers for asymetric conflicts, that is like using cannon to kill a fly. 

Today bombers are simply not needed. All you can do with bomber you can do with missiles. Short, medium or long range. Their deterrence factor is not exisistant, because of ICBM's. So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete. You can deliver missiles with heavy fighters (like various versions of Su-27). And if you need them delivered on the other side of the world - there are air tankers. Or ships. 



> You named 3 out of 4 weapons that can only be delivered by airplanes![/quoe]
> 
> There are works on naval version of Storm Shadow. There is naval version of Kh-55 (3-K10 or SS-N-21 if you wish). Even Taurus, according to the EADS website, is adaptable for ground or naval lauchners.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2008)

Heavy fighters can deliver a small payload on a tactical strike area. That's fine, unless you want to area bomb for flushing out and/or destroying the enemy completely. Heavy fighters carrying small bomb loads are no replacement for a B-52 or a B-2. If todays heavy bombers were "not needed", then why are there so many still in service? They are still useful and needed, asymmetrical warfare or not. 

If you had a large concentration of troops and equipment, you want as much firepower leveled at them as possible. A B-52 will clear the way for you and leave little left to provide any further resistance. You will not be able to do that with a couple of heavy fighters. 

Missiles are not cheap, and there is no reason to lob a million plus dollar missile on a target that an iron bomb will eliminate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> Other - ICBM, for obvious reasons. Or, if it must be conventional - Storm Shadow, Taurus, Kh-55. Sorry, but airplane bombers are kinda obsolete.



Yes but you failed to realize one thing:

This thread is not about a) Best missile, b) Best ICBM. It is about *Bombers*.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2008)

Like Adler, I'm still not understanding Zarathos' point. Evan captured it perfectly... millions of coin for a missile strike, or perhaps a bomber dumptruck that can loiter for hours dropping inexpensive dingleberries to make the enemy mental. 

Let me know Zarathos if you need a translation...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete.


Far from it - remember, you could recall a bomber if a change of mission comes about - once fired I see little that could done with an ICBM except waiting for it to hit its target.

If you look at the B-2, although its strategic mission is just about obsolete, it has been used to carry tactical weapons over a vast distance. Everyone forgets the range this aircraft has making it extremely cost effective to operate.


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2008)

I gotta go with the Buff. A 50yr old design still doing its job on the front-line...In fact, I think it has a respectable claim to the title of "Best Combat Aircraft of All Time".

The Bone had such a problem-plagued career that it doesn't even come close, and the B-2 is not only obscenely expensive, but is also so dependent on stealth for survival, that when proper counter-measures are developed (and they almost certainly will be, albeit not by the nations the US expects to fight in the near-future) it will join the battleship as the ultimate in white elephants.

Here's my favorite Buff anecdote (This is from memory, so don't get on my back about errors in ATC terminology)

F-16 : Tower, this is Viper 6. I've got an engine glitch and request immediate landing priority.
Tower: Negative, Viper. We've got a B-52 coming in with an engine out.
F-16 : Oh, right...The dreaded seven-engine approach...

JL


----------



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

I even questioon that strategic bombing is obsolete. ICBMs are basically a political taboo, except in casews of absolute national emergency. Tomahawks are very useful, but are expensive, and dont level places in the same manner as a bomber can. In both Iraq wars, it was bombers that did the majority of the damage. Against the Serbgs, once again it was bombers. 

Bombers aree a relatively inexpensive platform, delivering relatively inexpensive ordinance, and able to deliver such hevay tonnages of bombs as to generat6e a lot of fear in their enemies. 

I would rate bombers as about the same as armour in terms of obsolesence. perhaps they are, but for now, there is nothing to replace them.

I voted for the aardvark. So versatile, and still the coolest looking in my opinion


----------



## Kruska (May 12, 2008)

Yes, I know it is the B-52, but I just had to vote for the F-111, always liked this aircraft. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## fly boy (May 12, 2008)

b-52h or g what never is the newest one


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2008)

What never is the newest?


----------



## Kruska (May 17, 2008)

Hello D.A.I.G.,

Maybe you have to down size your signature if you want to display further “novel art” by flyboy. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2008)

Huh what?


----------



## Kruska (May 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Huh what?



Hello D.A.I.G.

Or you should keep the size of your signature picture (looks good) but you would have to extend your posting space to add in all of fly boy’s smashing comments. 

No offence meant fly boy, actually I love to read (trying to interpret) those posts of yours  


Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2008)

You are probably right Kruska!


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

Nimord isn't exactly a bomber, Vulcan would have been a better choice


----------



## JugBR (Aug 21, 2008)

thats easy. the best bomber is the one that you cant see, in radar.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 22, 2008)

...like the Brazilian strategic bomber.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Ahhh....no contest. The ole fifty two....grampa plane STILL going strong! The Lancaster of the jet age!


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2008)

I had to vote B52. Has any other plane had such a long life on the front lines? And no evideance of it being retired anytime soon.


----------

