Big bombers. (1 Viewer)

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

can anyone tell me what the first two planes are please?
 

Attachments

  • bombers_to_scale.jpg
    bombers_to_scale.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 103
The basic weight of a B-52H model was about 180,000 lbs with 220,000 lbs of fuel and their alert load was 502,000 lbs. that leaves 102,000 lbs for bombs. But the B-52H cofigured for an alert carried 2 Hound dog missles on pylons. Without these missles installed I wonder if they could carry 102,000 lbs of iron bombs. The earlier model B-52's had lower powered jet engines (J-57's) with water injection for takeoff. The B-52H model had the TF-33 P-3 jet engines with a lot more thrust without water injection.
 
No there aren't any more heavy bombers Lanc, but the B-52 has been set to be retired for decades. In USAAF standards it is a classic aircraft now, it should be in museums.
 
But as a stand-off cruise missile platform there is nothing to replace it. And I believe it is still the only platform in the USAF capable of using the AGM-142 Have Nap missle. There was a design study done a couple decades ago about using a modified 747 to launch something like 70 cruise missiles but nothing ever came of it.
 
b1_bomber.jpg


gs17b.jpg


b1.jpg



The B-1...this was set to replace the B-52 but American funding, or more like lack of, disallowed it.
 
They are amazing pics. The American government was stupid to abandon such a great plane.
 
The B-1 hasn't been abandoned. It just wasn't bought in the numbers originally planned. But what is these days.
 
It has basically been abandoned compared to what should have been ordered. It was an amazing plane, and by the time it (if it does) get into service it will be out classed.
 
B-1s have been in service for a while now. They have been used over Afganhistan and Iraq. I agree more of them should have been bought, but congress should also have authorized the purchase of more B-2s and F-22s.
 
I don't. The B-1 is hardly used, it shouldn't even be classed as in operational service. The F-22 will have more orders, anyway, America has plenty of fighters.

The B-1 was supposed to replace the B-52, it has not, therefore it has been all but abandoned. Plus, I've never heard or seen reports of them in action over Iraq.
 
With good reason. As far as I know, it hasn't been used in "Operation Iraqi Freedom", but it was used in the Gulf War as well as in Kosovo.
But yes, it should be used more. I especially love that water skimming pic!
 
I heard a few reports of action in the Gulf but only a few. I can't recall any in Kosovo. Yes, it is a good photo. It is a very good looking aircraft.
 
True, the B-1B is awesome. However, I prefer the B-1A (prototype that went faster and was all white) myself. Although it carried a smaller load, it looked better, flew, higher, and went faster.
 
Now that I did not know. Any particular reason for it becoming what it did? Maybe the B-1A didn't have the capability to carry certain stand-off missiles.
 
The B-1A was cancelled by the Carter administration (yay Carter - gag!). Anyway, the B-1A was faster but wasn't designed for the low-altitude flights preferred now. The B-1B is a little slower at altitude but faster on the deck (something like Mach 1.1 at sea level). To the best of my knowledge, the B-1B was not used during the Gulf War and has seens some use since then. Part of the reason is that the B-1B was later in receiving its upgrades to use PGMs. No one cares about accuracy when your dropping thermo-nuclear bombs.
 
I did hear of reports of some form of B-1 operating in the Persian Gulf, but I have not heard reports of it from Kosovo and 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
What a poor operation name, they just don't try anymore.
 
No they don't. Codenames have become a P.R. function, like everything else today.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back