Big bombers.

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

The B-52G was the last to have a Gatling gun in the tail, the H has air to air missiles. The Rockwell B-1B can carry twice as much as the B-52 over the same distance, and was superior to the B-52 in everyway.
It was cancelled, and priority was given to cruise missile research (The B-1 was designed in 1976). Rockwell kept it open, and the B-1 is always there but officially has been cancelled.

The B-70 was also set to replace the B-52, that failed also. It doesn't look that the B-52 will be replaced soon. It can still form the third side of the 'triad' defence, if a new threat arises.
 
thanks for the corection on the tail guns. I think that the B-52 will be around for a while or well until the USAF dose pull it out. The Airforce says it is good for another 15 years or so. maybe the B-3 will finally do it in.
 
I don't see that coming, I think if the US government pulls its finger out it'll have the B-1 in service.
 
The B-1B is in service. THe B-70 was cancelled because it was designed to be a high speed, high altitude bomber. The shoot down of Francis Power's U-2 convinced the US that flying higher and faster was no longer safe. That's why the B-70 was cancelled.
 
The B-1 was designed as a super-sonic bomber at altitude, and sub-sonic bomber at tree top heights. The B-1B is not in full service, I've already said, it was designed to replace the B-52, which it has not.
The B-70 was also cancelled, which has left the B-52 as the workhorse, and in fact the only bomber in proper service. The B-1 does no see action, it has only had a FEW combat tests in the first Gulf, and maybe in Kosovo although I haven't heard reports.

Your government won't get its finger out, if it does the B-1 will probably be put into service, until then there's nothing on the horizon to replace the B-52.
 
Well the B-1 was actually revived by Reagen, but no it wasn't produced in the numbers it should have been (but what is these days). The basic thing is that the B-52 is still doing the job and as long as it is doing its job congress is unlikely to authorize funding for a proper replacement.
 
It will be. We no longer want to drop nukes on people, for a first strike and that means redesigning things. I saw a very strange sight a B-2 carpetbombing in Iraq I think? But both it and the B-1 need to be tweeked for conventional payload. The B-52 already is! But why do we still need these expensive near stelth aircraft? Who are we fighting that it warrents that type of mission?
 
North Korea, don't make me laugh. The American government makes out that they are a threat, when in reality they are just running up a Nuclear power, and most likely weapon programme. Something all of the Western World has had for decades.

The B-52 will still be in service for a while, its already there so there's no need for spending money on new aircraft, or that's the American Governments mentality. Not realising the HUGE matinence costs on these old aircraft.
The B-52 does not only carry conventional 'carpet bombing' loads, it can carry cruise missiles, and stand-off missiles. The fact that it can carry cruise missiles has kept as one of the fronts of any offensive campaign.

The B-1 and B-2 can both carry conventional loads but it would be a waste of money having these aircraft just for that job. I posted a picture somewhere on here of a B-2 dropping conventional 'iron' bombs.
The B-52 needs no replacement, but the most likely will be the B-2 as it has the capabilities, and larger survivability than the B-52. These craft at the moment are deterrants for anyone, even if they are not a 'threat' now, they can be.
 
I'm not sure if you have looked lately but North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world. And, technically, American (and Britain) are still at war with them . . .
 
I don't know if you've looked lately but Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world, in the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf and this Iraq war. And would you have considered them a threat?

Lancaster, the joint effort between America and Britain in Korea was because their strengthened friendship, and combined assault on Communism.
These days I fail to see why Britain helps them so much, militarily Britain isn't really needed, although it's always a lot, lot easier for America when Britain are there. Especially in the Middle East since the Arabs have at least some respect for the British. And Britain doesn't NEED America in the way the government believes, it just finds it a cheaper option to have Americas forces as the brute force. Although, I seem to realise they rely too strongly on America, especially after Falklands.

You'll probably find also that America is first in politically but Britain is first militarily. The SAS and SBS are normally first there, followed by Delta Force admittedly a lot of time they work in conjunction (never together).
 
Because the special forces of out two countries cross-train so much that they might as well be the same unit. Now I will agree that, when it comes to special forces, the SAS are the big boys on the block (although the Israeli's might be able to challenge them).
 
Interesting thought that the B-52 is still tha deterrant, when it's radar Cross Section is huge and it needs near clear skies to fly in now. That said the B-2 will not be in the big production numbers that in would have to to fully replace the B-52.

As for the Maintance they are always being updated and fitted with new systems. Maybe the Air Force should do the same thing with the B-52 as they did with the F/A-18, and make a new airfram around the old one. The Supper Hornet is not a bad plane.
 
The B-52 can fly in almost any weather, and with it carrying Nuclear weapons it can serve as a very effective deterrant. It can also be used as a low level bomber, hard to believe with its size. You'll always find it on the front line, firing cruises and flattening areas. It's the work horse, and it will be for years to come.
I was talking of Matinence of the air frame because of fatigue and cracking, when that happens it cost a lot to replace. And it happens more on older planes. They will also be doing full matinence checks more often on the older aircraft, taking the engines out, checking the air frame...checking everything basically.

The SAS can work with other British trained forces, like in Sierra Leone they worked effectively with the Paras, but rarely they work with others. British special forces working with American is a big no-no, they are so different it would be dangerous to mix them. An example, the Navy Seals when under heavy fire are trained to shoot and retreat, the SAS are trained to shoot and move forward.
The SAS are the superior force in the world, no one can match them. They have experience in every type of combat, and all of their operations show their effectiveness.
 
The B-2s will never he able to replace the B-52, not one-for-one anyway. Initially it was planned to buy 100 B-2s. That's been cut to 21.
 
So the B-52 stays flying until they fall out of the sky and have no more fliable airframes? The B-2 is just too expensive and do we need 100 of them anywho? If you all beleave in the B-52 and stratigic bombing. As for low leavel. They did a little in Iraq but try that where there are lots of fighters or well set SAM sirs and see what hapens.

As for the SAS and US Special ops there is a compotion help each year to see who come out on top. Looking at that I see US Rangers have won more. but that is not a real indepth look at the compotion.
 
Lightning Guy said:
(although the Israeli's might be able to challenge them).
Click to expand...
Gotta love how crazy the Jews/Israelis have become thanks to the U.S.
They are to the extent of my knowledge, the only allied nation that carries out political assassinations - and, they do it with Helo's!
They have one of the best armies and air forces in the world, like I said, mostly thanks to the U.S. through being provided with M4's and M16's and other planes like Phantoms, F16's and that new plane they have that is like a Delta F-16 with candards.
 
As for the SAS and US Special ops there is a compotion help each year to see who come out on top. Looking at that I see US Rangers have won more. but that is not a real indepth look at the compotion.
Click to expand...

there are no special forces that can match the SAS, the SAS is the unit on which all other specialist units are based..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Belated BIG BIG Anniversary Wishes
Replies
17
Views
4K
diddyriddick
D
Favorite Bombers
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
17K
MP-Willow
M
G
Don’t miss the largest gathering of heavy WWII bombers.
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
9K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Finnish bombers
Replies
10
Views
5K
the lancaster kicks ass
Menu
Log in
Register