B1, B2, B21 - What's the difference? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thorlifter

Thorlifter

Captain
7,979
431
Jun 10, 2004
Knoxville, TN
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!!!!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I think the B-21 will mainly replace the B-2, and some B-1s B-52s may go away as well.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Talk - haven't heard of seen anything formal.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Just curious, but how would the B-52's airframe handle the additional thrust factor?
 
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!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
What's an HC-144?
Replies
3
Views
326
Wurger
Wurger
buffnut453
The Mighty Canberra - Still Going Strong
Replies
4
Views
445
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
R2D2 Has My Six: The X-62
Replies
0
Views
62
MIflyer
M
davparlr
What's going to happen to the T-38?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
M
The OV-10 Fought ISIS
Replies
0
Views
365
MIflyer
M
Back