The greatest bomber on the planet. [Archive]

OBIO

July 4th, 2009, 16:29

Back in the mid to late 80s, I was sitting on a rock, on top of a hill out in the middle of the woods in Southern Ohio. I heard the sound of a jet, very loud and very rumbly. So, I began scanning the sky looking for this jet...nothing. Then I looked up...and there was a B-1 doing a near vertical climb right above me. The plane was pitched up high enough that I could look up into all four engines and see the exhaust/flames swirling inside of each one. Totally amazing!

OBIO

PRB

July 4th, 2009, 16:41

Tako_Kichi

July 4th, 2009, 18:29

I guess it depends on which side of the pond you grew up on. ;)

For me the world's greatest bomber would be the Vulcan or Lancaster or very possibly the Mosquito (which could carry the same bomb load as a B-17, faster, with a crew of 2, use much less precious fuel in the process and to top it all off place said bombs more accurately on the target).

djscoo

July 4th, 2009, 18:44

tigisfat

July 4th, 2009, 23:49

I was on a backpacking trip in Northern New Mexico and as we hiked along a ridge we started to hear some rumbling. We looked up but couldn't see anything so we just stopped for a second. Then almost level with us and quarter mile off over the valley we saw a B1 with it's wings swept back. :icon30:I'm looking at the maps and the mesa we were on was about 10,000 feet and the valley floor was at approx. 7,500 ft. so the thing was relatively low. Maybe they thought they were making a valley run over some deserted woods, but they had just rocketed over the largest and most populous Boy Scout camp in the world.Needless to say that was one of the many highlights of my trip. We weren't the only ones who saw it either, we met a group further down the trail talking about it too. :running:

Northern New Mexico is home to the Pecos MOA and ranges. There are quite a few B-1 low level routes out there. They are planned for obstruction clearance and routed around towns; most if not all low level routes do go screaming by some sort of human activity, mostly in the form of campsites. There are several low level routes where B-1s and other fast jets are allowed to go over the top of major interstates at under 500 feet and .95 mach.

Out of all the things I've seen our jets do, I've never seen one on a low level route. I envy you!!

demorier

July 5th, 2009, 01:04

Hell of a lot of elevator movement on a thing that size....surprised me.

Piglet

July 5th, 2009, 01:19

As far as defences, ECM, chaff, and flares is all it's got. As far as offensive weapons, don't wanna be on the receiving end!:pop4:

tigisfat

July 5th, 2009, 13:47

As far as defences, ECM, chaff, and flares is all it's got. As far as offensive weapons, don't wanna be on the receiving end!:pop4:

Negative, there's a lot more to it than that. B-1s have more tricks up their sleeves than just about any other aircraft, save very few. Also, the term ECM is a pretty broad one. I never thought I'd hear some say "ECM" and "all it's got" in the same sentence.

Piglet

July 5th, 2009, 15:35

Can it carry AAM's, or gunpods? I guess the wake turbulance can be effective weapon....

Brian_Gladden

July 5th, 2009, 17:10

During Red Flag, F-15 and 16's regularly try to get behind the B-1's at low level. They just can't keep up without hitting the ground. The B-1 is capable of over mach-1 at sea level. The terrain following on the B-1 is generations better that the system in the F-111 and fighters had trouble staying on the 'Vark's tail too. The B-1 has two radar units from the F-16. One is dedicated only to terrain following.

Add in the fact that the B-1 is moderately stealthy (looks like a small plane on radar from what I've read) and handling qualities described by one pilot as flying like a slightly heavy F-4 Phantom, Better ECM than a Prowler and the B-1 is a hard airplane to kill.

I'd take one any day.

Brian

tigisfat

July 5th, 2009, 20:29

Can it carry AAM's, or gunpods? I guess the wake turbulance can be effective weapon....

By definition, AAM's and gunpods aren't defensive weapons.
http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/IMG_0563.jpg

Piglet

July 5th, 2009, 20:36

You win.

tigisfat

July 5th, 2009, 20:45

You win.

Yeah, but it was a cheap win. I feel dirty, because I knew what you meant but I couldn't resist.:icon_lol:

A long time ago at a car dealership, while waiting for a friend to buy a car, I was perusing one of those 'vehicle option' books. I noticed that a very ugly shade of school bus yellow was in there. I said, 'what on earth do you guys paint school bus yellow?" This old kentucky fried chicken colonel lookin' jerk responds over the rim of his glasses with: "well, ah-generally speakin', ah-school buses".......I thought I was going to kill him. He knew what I meant.:mad:

For the record: There is a lot more to aircraft defense these days than ECM, chaff and flares. Most technologically advanced large aircraft have a whole bag of tricks at their exposal.

Quixoticish

July 5th, 2009, 23:28

Isn't the long running joke that when the deliver the B-1's to the boneyard they'll be flying back home in B-52's?

tigisfat

July 5th, 2009, 23:41

Isn't the long running joke that when the deliver the B-1's to the boneyard they'll be flying back home in B-52's?

Something like that. There've already been plenty of B-1s and B-52s sent to the boneyard. As of right now, and it has been for a while, There are more B-1s available than B-52s. We'll see in the end.

b52bob

July 6th, 2009, 07:56

B-52's - H models coming up on thier 50th birthday and still going strong.

B-1 - not for long I think

B52Bob -

(where's my FSX B-52?)

Panther_99FS

July 6th, 2009, 08:03

b52bob,
Here ya' go....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3668644900_f13f1bc2c8_b.jpg

Snuffy

July 6th, 2009, 08:04

Actually, I'll stick with my favorite as the greatest bomber ...

Ye Ol B-17.

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 11:00

I'm not talking about likability, I'm talking sheer capability. The B-52 cannot do half the things a B-1 can, and it never will.

Panther_99FS

July 6th, 2009, 11:10

I'm not talking about likability, I'm talking sheer capability. The B-52 cannot do half the things a B-1 can, and it never will.

This could get interesting - especially with the number of prior B-52 aircrew members we have here at SOH...:monkies:

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 11:17

This could get interesting - especially with the number of prior B-52 aircrew members we have here at SOH...:monkies:

Yes, but how many current B-1 and B-52 guys are there? These aircraft are in a continuous state of upgrade, and they are a far different beast than they were 20 years ago. Not only that, but their current value can only be measured by how they're employed currently. I've taken both aircraft overseas.

On a sidenote, I didn't know we had any B-52 aircrew members. Who are we talking about?

Panther_99FS

July 6th, 2009, 11:35

On a sidenote, I didn't know we had any B-52 aircrew members. Who are we talking about?

GZR_Sactargets & GZR_Greebean (Greenbean) to name a couple...

Henry

July 6th, 2009, 12:31

and a few more
H:running:

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 13:40

GZR_Sactargets & GZR_Greebean (Greenbean) to name a couple...

That's pretty cool. I haven't seen them here, I'll assume they were more active a while ago, or don't come around the FSX side of the house much. All the more reason for Captainsim's B-52. I'll bet it's been semi-permanently curbed anyway.

PRB

July 6th, 2009, 14:00

Well, it’s obvious that someone who rides in, or works on, a particular plane will have a non-objective bias towards that plane (i.e., will like it more.) In terms of capability, clearly the B-2 is better than the B-1. Simply no question about it.:d

b52bob

July 6th, 2009, 16:42

I'm not talking about likability, I'm talking sheer capability. The B-52 cannot do half the things a B-1 can, and it never will.

and the B-52 has done more and flew more than the B-1 ever will.
Just to set the record straight though...I love the B-1 and hope it will be around many more years.

Where's my FSX B-52?

Bob

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 17:15

and the B-52 has done more and flew more than the B-1 ever will.The B-1 didn't have the chance to, because B-52s were overproduced just to close the bomber gap in the 50's and sixties. You can't just give up after you've made 900 of the things, yuo gotta stick with them.

When it finally got it's chance, it outdid the B-52 in every aspect. During Operation Anaconda, the B-1's first serious outing, B-1s flew 3% of the total sorties and dropped 46% of all munitions. The media doesn't like the B-1, so noone heard about that. Rest assured that those number swill remain unmatched for a long time, and probably by any bomber. The B-1 brings capabilities to the table no other bomber can.

Where's my FSX B-52?
I know, right? Yago made a great photoreal repaint for the Alpha B-52, and it not only dissapeared, they don't work in FSX.

Panther_99FS

July 6th, 2009, 17:33

The B-1 brings capabilities to the table no other bomber can.

Well...
I knew that sooner or later that this thread would turn into its' very name/subject sake "The Greatest Bomber On The Planet" :mixedsmi:

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 19:17

Well...
I knew that sooner or later that this thread would turn into its' very name/subject sake "The Greatest Bomber On The Planet" :mixedsmi:

eh, it happens. Here's another comparison:

There's a great deal about B-1s that remains classified. B-52s, on the other hand, don't have very many secrets. They have been modified over the years, but there are certain things it's aging platform just can't support.

Most of the argument for B-52s is: B-52s are awesome because they're awesome and they've been around forever!! Everyone likes a cherry old corvette, but it's no match for the latest Formula 1 cars.

b52bob

July 6th, 2009, 19:42

Alright, the B-1 has more capabilities now, but what about what's went before. seven days on the alert pad every other week, chrome dome missions for 24 hours straight, a BIG part in bringing Viet Nam to a close, the deterent during all those years of the cold war. Our opponents in various wars saying that the B-52 was the most feared weapon in war. The thousands of crew members that spent many hours with them and almost always brought them home. The first low level bombing sorties....etc.

Not to mention some great movies like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove riding that nuke down!

Bob

Panther_99FS

July 6th, 2009, 20:01

Might as well give it up b52bob, have a cold one, and relax (like me) :guinness::icon29:

redriver6

July 6th, 2009, 20:42

this bomber was built when i was 3 years old....and i'm 51 so do the math:icon_lol:

http://www.boomspeed.com/redriver6/b52.jpg

the longevity, combat record and cold war record qualifies the Buff as greatest bomber on the planet.

period.

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 22:36

Alright, the B-1 has more capabilities now, but what about what's went before. The B-1 was designed in the B-52's heyday with most of the capabilities it has now. Now we carry more advanced weapons and have better targeting and self-ident capabilities, but the B-1 was literally designed by B-52 people to carry the same weapons, perform the same missions and do it better.

seven days on the alert pad every other week, chrome dome missions for 24 hours straightThe B-1's done it too.

a BIG part in bringing Viet Nam to a close, the deterent during all those years of the cold war.I can't argue with that!!

The thousands of crew members that spent many hours with them and almost always brought them home.The B-52 does sport an accident/incident rate worse than that of the B-1.

The first low level bombing sorties....etc.Ah, an art pioneered by B-52s for strategic strikes, but perfected by B-1s. It'll probably die with B-1s too.

tigisfat

July 6th, 2009, 22:48

......On this or any other planet....
(please excuse my paraphrasing):bump:

My imagination is running wild right now with images of smoky old clunking B-52s screaming along low level (nose down, tail high of course) while alien spaceships look for it in a purple sky with three moons. :icon_lol:

I gotta say, B-52 guys like B-52s..........because they like B-52s. The BUFF is a great aircraft, but like I said, you can't tell a classic Corvette owner that they would get beat at the track by a new Formula 1 car.

The BUFF guys are out in full force!! I noticed the recent Avatar changes, nice.:guinness: I might have to conjure something up myself to compete. As well, it will have to show something a BUFF can't do....

OH YEAH!!! I passed 1,000 posts in this thread!!

Panther_99FS

July 7th, 2009, 03:54

b52bob,
I've never worked directly with B-52's, - but I also won't try to take away your pride in such an aircraft that already has & will continue to leave its mark in history.

You BUFF guys did a helluva a lot that my generation hasn't - and you did it in worse conditions with less pay. :medals:

I can only hope that my generation can live up to some of the standards that you folks have set for us!

If you're in Louisiana & I'm still at Barksdale, I'd be honored if you looked me up....:icon29:

Z-PurpleBubble

July 7th, 2009, 04:28

IMHO the biggest merrit of the BUFF is that it is the best investment the USAF has ever made.

I can't see the B-1 of B-2 living up to that!

wombat666

July 7th, 2009, 04:48

(please excuse my paraphrasing) OH YEAH!!! I passed 1,000 posts in this thread!!

And most of us have passed several kidney stones laughing at the 'rationale' behind this thread!
:173go1:

redriver6

July 7th, 2009, 05:36

imagination is running wild right now with images of smoky old clunking B-52s screaming along low level (nose down, tail high of course) while alien spaceships look for it in a purple sky with three moons. :icon_lol:

:icon_lol::icon_lol:

Brian Bigler

July 7th, 2009, 09:34

I work with some retired and active duty (guard) B-52 and B-1 flight crews. The B-52 guys seem proud of their plane. The one B-1 guy has very little good things to say about the B-1, which surprised me. He's an EW guy and most of his contempt is reserved for those systems, which he has very little “faith” in. I like the B-1. Awesome looking ship. But, the “greatest”? B-52! The loudest? B-1, no question! :d

I guess the B-2 doesn't frequent your neck of the woods........... It doesn't seem to stealthy on take off. You can hear the thunder way before you see the bomber! Where I live if you don't see or hear at least one B-2 daily, they are grounded for some reason.

tigisfat

July 7th, 2009, 14:49

And most of us have passed several kidney stones laughing at the 'rationale' behind this thread!
:173go1:

Well then, if it's laughable to praise the B-1 (the purpose of this thread), then please tell me what's wrong with it? :kilroy: Are you a BUFF guy too?

They're everywhere!! There's no escaping B-52 people!!:icon_lol:

Wing_Z

July 7th, 2009, 19:27

During Red Flag, F-15 and 16's regularly try to get behind the B-1's at low level. They just can't keep up without hitting the ground. The B-1 is capable of over mach-1 at sea level. ...
That may be, but it is rated M=0.92 at sea level.
If you go faster (and it can), you need to rebuild the engine intakes and much of the aft structure after the flight.

Knowledgeable observers of the time stated "The B-1 is a formidable weapon, but not terribly useful. For the price of one bomber, you can have 200 cruise missiles."
The B-1B only came about because President Reagan didn't trust his predecessor's judgement in signing off on the B-2, and wanted some additional insurance.
Yes the B-2 was Jimmy Carter's baby...

wombat666

July 7th, 2009, 22:07

Well then, if it's laughable to praise the B-1 (the purpose of this thread), then please tell me what's wrong with it? :kilroy: Are you a BUFF guy too?

The reason that we have a forum headed "Newshawks" is for the posting of "Newsworthy" information, not for a "Mine's bigger/better/faster than Yours" rubbish.
And no, I'm not a B-52 type, 'my' wars have all been fought in the up close and personal mode.
:kilroy:

tigisfat

July 8th, 2009, 03:52

That may be, but it is rated M=0.92 at sea level.
If you go faster (and it can), you need to rebuild the engine intakes and much of the aft structure after the flight.Good lord, that's not true. Who told you that?

Knowledgeable observers of the time stated "The B-1 is a formidable weapon, but not terribly useful. For the price of one bomber, you can have 200 cruise missiles."That could be said about a lot of aircraft, and it's an odd thing to say. One thing about cruise missiles is they need a delivery system. The B-1B was designed from the get go as a cruise missile delivery system.

Wing_Z

July 8th, 2009, 12:47

Good lord, that's not true. Who told you that?
What, that it's a subsonic aircraft, developed from a Mach 2 concept B-1A?
Let me Google that for you...
(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rockwell+B1-B+Bomber)

tigisfat

July 8th, 2009, 15:05

What, that it's a subsonic aircraft, developed from a Mach 2 concept B-1A?
Let me Google that for you...
(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rockwell+B1-B+Bomber)

Thanks!! here's a copy from the first response:

The B-1 Lancer is a strategic bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bomber) used by the United States Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force). First envisioned in the 1960s as a supersonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic) bomber with sufficient range and payload to replace the B-52 Stratofortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress), it developed primarily into a low-level penetrator with long-range and capable of supersonic speed. Its development was stopped and restarted multiple times over its history, as the theory of strategic balance changed from flexible response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_response) to mutually assured destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction) and back again. It eventually entered service more than 20 years after first being studied.
The B-1B production version has been in service with the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1986. The Lancer serves as the supersonic component of the USAF's long-range bomber force, along with the subsonic B-52 and B-2 Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit). The bomber is commonly called the "Bone" (originally from "B-One"). With the retirement of the EF-111 Raven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111_Raven) in 1998 and the F-14 Tomcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat) in 2006, the B-1B is the U.S. military's only variable-sweep wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-sweep_wing) aircraft.

here's more from the second response:

In March 2008, the B-1B became the first aircraft to fly at supersonic speed using synthetic fuel.

BTW, that google function you used is really cool. I've never seen that before. For those who haven't either, click on his link.

Wing_Z

July 8th, 2009, 15:13

Right.
Now read a little further, and you will find that the B1-B

is rated M=0.92 at sea level.
If you go faster (and it can), you need to rebuild the engine intakes and much of the aft structure after the flight.
It is however cleared for supersonic speed at altitude.

tigisfat

July 8th, 2009, 15:25

Its maximum speed at altitude is Mach 1.25 (about 950 mph or 1,530 km/h),<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Jenkins_p60_23-0>[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#cite_note-Jenkins_p60-23)</SUP> but its low-level speed increased to Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-BNA_B-1B_specs_24-0>[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#cite_note-BNA_B-1B_specs-24)</SUP> Technically, the current version of the aircraft can exceed its speed restriction, but not without risking potential damage to its structure and air intakes.
You know, Wikipedia is one of the greatest resources on the planet, but it can be occasionally wrong. I still don't see anything about having to rebuild the aforementioned items. Can you link to what you're quoting?

Here's the facts, dude. Low altitude training flights are flown every single day throughout the B-1B fleet at .95 mach down at 500AGL and 1,000AGLl; and that's non-classified. There are provisions and data for flights at 200AGL and speeds WAY beyond that, but crews are no longer required to maintain that proficiency. It's primarily reserved for instructor pilots and WSOs, and aircrews that develop tactics such as weapons school instructors and operational test.
have a cold one on me::icon29: