I'd vote for it as well, Stitch.
However, I have read that it was a handful to fly (especially for a crew of two). One of the test pilots, Col Joe Cotton likened it to "driving a greyhound bus 200 mph around the track of Indianapolis".
Greatest Modern Bomber
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
I'd vote for it as well, Stitch.
However, I have read that it was a handful to fly (especially for a crew of two). One of the test pilots, Col Joe Cotton likened it to "driving a greyhound bus 200 mph around the track of Indianapolis".
drgondog
Major
Al White also remarked that it had a distinct but controllable 'dutch roll' in transonic cruise. Al just passed away about a year+ ago. Still working as consultant to FAA on crash investigations right up through his passing.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I agree with this. There is only one bomber you would want to take into the most heavily defended area. It is also the most feared bomber in the world. The B-52 takes the cake for greatest bomber of all time.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Certainly one of my favorite bombers just because it look so great!
I had a friend who flew the B-58. The early planes had an interesting problem in that, if an outboard engine flamed out at Mach 2, the plane would disintegrate. They fixed that problem by putting a flame-out detector on engines and when one outboard failed, the opposite outboard engine would automatically shut down.
B-17engineer
Colonel
B-52..........been in service for very long doesn't look to be retired anytime soon
Zarathos
Airman
Other - ICBM, for obvious reasons. Or, if it must be conventional - Storm Shadow, Taurus, Kh-55. Sorry, but airplane bombers are kinda obsolete.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Really. Zarathos, where do you formulate this stuff. You named 3 out of 4 weapons that can only be delivered by airplanes! So I'm assuming you mean that "long range strike" platforms are obsolete? You only need a 1500km platform?
Explain yourself. You have made quite a few posts in various threads claiming absolutes with exactly NOTHING to back them up.
Explain yourself. You have made quite a few posts in various threads claiming absolutes with exactly NOTHING to back them up.
Zarathos
Airman
Bombers are good for one thing - level the enemy. Problem with them, in my eyes, is, that todays conflicts (and all conflicts in forseeable future) are asymetric ones. NATO armies vs partisans (or 3rd world armies with obsolete weapons and small numbers). And while you can use bombers for asymetric conflicts, that is like using cannon to kill a fly.
Today bombers are simply not needed. All you can do with bomber you can do with missiles. Short, medium or long range. Their deterrence factor is not exisistant, because of ICBM's. So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete. You can deliver missiles with heavy fighters (like various versions of Su-27). And if you need them delivered on the other side of the world - there are air tankers. Or ships.
Today bombers are simply not needed. All you can do with bomber you can do with missiles. Short, medium or long range. Their deterrence factor is not exisistant, because of ICBM's. So, for me (sure, I can be wrong), bombers are obsolete. You can deliver missiles with heavy fighters (like various versions of Su-27). And if you need them delivered on the other side of the world - there are air tankers. Or ships.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Heavy fighters can deliver a small payload on a tactical strike area. That's fine, unless you want to area bomb for flushing out and/or destroying the enemy completely. Heavy fighters carrying small bomb loads are no replacement for a B-52 or a B-2. If todays heavy bombers were "not needed", then why are there so many still in service? They are still useful and needed, asymmetrical warfare or not.
If you had a large concentration of troops and equipment, you want as much firepower leveled at them as possible. A B-52 will clear the way for you and leave little left to provide any further resistance. You will not be able to do that with a couple of heavy fighters.
Missiles are not cheap, and there is no reason to lob a million plus dollar missile on a target that an iron bomb will eliminate.
If you had a large concentration of troops and equipment, you want as much firepower leveled at them as possible. A B-52 will clear the way for you and leave little left to provide any further resistance. You will not be able to do that with a couple of heavy fighters.
Missiles are not cheap, and there is no reason to lob a million plus dollar missile on a target that an iron bomb will eliminate.
Yes but you failed to realize one thing:
This thread is not about a) Best missile, b) Best ICBM. It is about Bombers.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Like Adler, I'm still not understanding Zarathos' point. Evan captured it perfectly... millions of coin for a missile strike, or perhaps a bomber dumptruck that can loiter for hours dropping inexpensive dingleberries to make the enemy mental.
Let me know Zarathos if you need a translation...
Let me know Zarathos if you need a translation...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Far from it - remember, you could recall a bomber if a change of mission comes about - once fired I see little that could done with an ICBM except waiting for it to hit its target.
If you look at the B-2, although its strategic mission is just about obsolete, it has been used to carry tactical weapons over a vast distance. Everyone forgets the range this aircraft has making it extremely cost effective to operate.
I gotta go with the Buff. A 50yr old design still doing its job on the front-line...In fact, I think it has a respectable claim to the title of "Best Combat Aircraft of All Time".
The Bone had such a problem-plagued career that it doesn't even come close, and the B-2 is not only obscenely expensive, but is also so dependent on stealth for survival, that when proper counter-measures are developed (and they almost certainly will be, albeit not by the nations the US expects to fight in the near-future) it will join the battleship as the ultimate in white elephants.
Here's my favorite Buff anecdote (This is from memory, so don't get on my back about errors in ATC terminology)
F-16 : Tower, this is Viper 6. I've got an engine glitch and request immediate landing priority.
Tower: Negative, Viper. We've got a B-52 coming in with an engine out.
F-16 : Oh, right...The dreaded seven-engine approach...
JL
The Bone had such a problem-plagued career that it doesn't even come close, and the B-2 is not only obscenely expensive, but is also so dependent on stealth for survival, that when proper counter-measures are developed (and they almost certainly will be, albeit not by the nations the US expects to fight in the near-future) it will join the battleship as the ultimate in white elephants.
Here's my favorite Buff anecdote (This is from memory, so don't get on my back about errors in ATC terminology)
F-16 : Tower, this is Viper 6. I've got an engine glitch and request immediate landing priority.
Tower: Negative, Viper. We've got a B-52 coming in with an engine out.
F-16 : Oh, right...The dreaded seven-engine approach...
JL
parsifal
Colonel
I even questioon that strategic bombing is obsolete. ICBMs are basically a political taboo, except in casews of absolute national emergency. Tomahawks are very useful, but are expensive, and dont level places in the same manner as a bomber can. In both Iraq wars, it was bombers that did the majority of the damage. Against the Serbgs, once again it was bombers.
Bombers aree a relatively inexpensive platform, delivering relatively inexpensive ordinance, and able to deliver such hevay tonnages of bombs as to generat6e a lot of fear in their enemies.
I would rate bombers as about the same as armour in terms of obsolesence. perhaps they are, but for now, there is nothing to replace them.
I voted for the aardvark. So versatile, and still the coolest looking in my opinion
Bombers aree a relatively inexpensive platform, delivering relatively inexpensive ordinance, and able to deliver such hevay tonnages of bombs as to generat6e a lot of fear in their enemies.
I would rate bombers as about the same as armour in terms of obsolesence. perhaps they are, but for now, there is nothing to replace them.
I voted for the aardvark. So versatile, and still the coolest looking in my opinion
What never is the newest?
Huh what?
Hello D.A.I.G.
Or you should keep the size of your signature picture (looks good) but you would have to extend your posting space to add in all of fly boy's smashing comments.
No offence meant fly boy, actually I love to read (trying to interpret) those posts of yours
Regards
Kruska
