B-17G Cutaway (2 Viewers)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

or if you could take off the tail.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

True, but that works against just about any plane.

 

[plan_D]

Directly under would have been safer. Lightning, it would have been very hard for the crews to hit the 262s. One B-29 got 5 Mig-15s, five isn't many.

 

[Lightning Guy]

For a bomber five is a lot. Especially considering that the numbers of aircraft involved in Korea (and every action since) are considerably lower than they were during WWII.

Underneath would have been the better option, I agree. The only possible problem I see with that is that even if the 262 can hide beneath one B-36 to avoid its guns, the flanking B-36s will still have a shot against it.

 

[plan_D]

The B-52A and B actually had 4*12.7mm in the tail, they must have realised the deficiant in the 20s on the B-36.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The B-52A and B actually had 4*12.7mm in the tail

that aint gonna save you from a missile................

 

[plan_D]

The B-52 was designed in 1947. And the B-52G and H actually had air to air missiles.

 

[Lightning Guy]

You also have to realize that by the time the B-52 was in service the USAF had realized that a bomber's primary defense was electronic rather than guns.

 

[plan_D]

The original design of the B-52 only ever had those guns in the tail. The late G and H B-52s have become amazing at electronic defence. The B-52s that carry cruise, and stand off missiles actually have decoys in their bomb bay. These decoys have the exact same RADAR signature as the B-52 itself.

The B-1 has a quarter the RADAR signature than the B-52.

 

[Lightning Guy]

It's smaller than that. Try 1/100th the signature of a B-52, with the B-2 RCS being even smaller than that! On radar, a B-1B has a smaller return than even a F-16.

 

[plan_D]

The B-1 actually has 1/20th the signature of the B-52.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I have seen figure's as small as 1/100th so that's what I was citing.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

even if the ECMs on the B-52 do save you from a missile, the fighter pilot can still come in at short range where ECMs aren't that effective or use his cannon.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

But he's got to be able to close to that range. The ECM on the B-52 can make it difficult for a fighter pilot to even hold a track with his radar.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

how can a B-52 be stealthy?..........

 

[Lightning Guy]

Not stealthy. But ECM jams more that just missles. If the fighter's radar is being jammed it will have a lot of difficulty homing in on the B-52.

 

[plan_D]

Propaganda figures of 1/100th. It's 1/20th. Anyway, the ECM on the B-52 isn't that good. The main defence of the B-52 is its decoys which will make out that there is more than one B-52 confusing RADAR guided missiles, and the enemy planes RADAR.
If the enemy plane decided to come to take it down with cannon the B-52G and H both are equipped with 20 SRAM air to air missiles.

 

[Lightning Guy]

SRAM: Short-Range Attack Missile. It was a short ranged tactical nuclear missile. I don't see how that will be useful against a fighter.

 

[plan_D]

My bad, it can carry 20 Boeing AGM-69A SRAM (Yes, air to surface thermonuclear) but in air to air defence it can carry 12 air to air missiles on under-wing pylons, I imagine they will be ASRAAM or AIM-9 missiles, but I don't actually know.
The T-171 20-mm gun in the rear was going to be removed but was kept, even in the H series B-52.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The USAF dropped out of the ASRAAM program so it's not those (they are going with a suped-up AIM-9, the AIM-9X). I still have never seen anything about the B-52 carrying air-to-air missiles. I imagine targeting them would cause some trouble.