B1, B2, B21 - What's the difference?
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Token
Senior Airman
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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?
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
Recruit
- 1
- 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.
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.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
^^^ 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!
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!
Last edited:
