Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums

Greatest Modern Bomber

Modern Discuss Greatest Modern Bomber in the Other Eras forums; I go with the Greneral opion this time the B-52 though desinged in the Early -50's it has ...


Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > Other Eras > Modern

View Poll Results: The Greatest Modern Bomber
B1 Lancer 12 13.95%
B-2 Stealth Bomber 23 26.74%
B-52 Stratofortress 41 47.67%
Tu-95 Bear 0 0%
Nimrod 1 1.16%
F-111 3 3.49%
ACC-Triad 0 0%
Other 6 6.98%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-03-2008, 12:02 AM   #91
Member
 
F-14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UAE Rolla
Posts: 39
Country:
I go with the Greneral opion this time the B-52 though desinged in the Early -50's it has had a very extensive combat record The USAF has had B-52s in active service since 1955 with the Strategic Air Command which was absorbed into the Air Combat Command in 1991. Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service despite proposals to replace it with the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie, supersonic B-1B Lancer and stealthy B-2 Spirit. In January 2005, the B-52 became the second aircraft, after the English Electric Canberra, to mark 50 years of continuous service with its original primary operator.

with many upgrades that started of November 1959, SAC initiated the Big Four modification program (also known as Modification 1000) for all operational B-52s except early B models. The four modifications were:

Ability to perform all-weather, low-altitude (below 500 feet (150 m)) interdiction as a response to advancements in Soviet Union's missile defenses. The low-altitude flights were estimated to accelerate structural fatigue by at least a factor of eight, requiring costly repairs to extend service life.
Ability to launch AGM-28 Hound Dog standoff nuclear missiles
Ability to launch ADM-20 Quail decoys
An advanced electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite
The program was completed by 1963 at a cost of US$265 million.[53]

The ability to carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles was added to G and H models starting in 1971 a cost of US$400 million.[54] Fuel leaks due to deteriorating Marman clamps continued to plague all variants of the B-52. To this end, the aircraft were subjected to Blue Band (1957), Hard Shell (195, and finally QuickClip (195 programs. The latter fitted safety straps which prevented catastrophic loss of fuel in case of clamp failure.[55]

Ongoing problems with advanced avionics were addressed in the Jolly Well program, completed in 1964, which improved components of the AN/ASQ-38 bombing navigational computer and the terrain computer. The MADREC (Malfunction Detection and Recording) upgrade fitted to most aircraft by 1965 could detect failures in avionics and weapons computer systems, and was essential in monitoring the Hound Dog missiles. The electronic countermeasures capability of the B-52 was expanded with Rivet Rambler (1971) and Rivet Ace (1973).[56]

Structural fatigue, exacerbated by the change to low-altitude missions, was first dealt with in the early 1960s by the three-phase High Stress program which enrolled aircraft at 2,000 flying hours.[57] This was followed by a 2,000-hour service life extension to select airframes in 1966-1968, and the extensive Pacer Plank reskinning completed in 1977.[3] The wet wing introduced on G and H models was even more susceptible to fatigue due to experiencing 60% more stress during flight than the old wing. The wings were modified by 1964 under ECP 1050 at a cost of US$219 million.[58] This was followed by a US$50 million fuselage skin and longeron replacement (ECP 1185) in 1966, and the US$69 million B-52 Stability Augmentation and Flight Control program (ECP 1195) in 1967.[58]

In 2007 the LITENING targeting pod was fitted and commissioned increasing the combat effectiveness of the aircraft during day, night and under-the-weather conditions in the attack of ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons under the guidance of LASERs and the help of high resolution forward-looking infrared sensor (FLIR) for visual display in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and charged coupled device (CCD-TV) camera used to obtain target imagery in the visible portion, this technology could also be used in real-time transmission to ground communications networks and government agencies to gather battlefield intelligence, assess battlefield damage, assess terrorist activities and counter drug activity, further advancing the B-52H's capabilities and uses.

The Air Force intends to keep the B-52 in service until at least 2040, an unprecedented length of service for a military aircraft.[4][61] B-52s are periodically refurbished at the USAF maintenance depots such as Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

Boeing suggested re-engining the B-52H fleet with the Rolls-Royce RB211 534E-4. This would involve replacing the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33s (total thrust 8 × 17,000lb) with four RB211s (total thrust 4 × 37,400lb). The RR engines will increase the range and payload of the fleet and reduce fuel consumption. However, the cost of the project would be significant. Procurement would cost approximately US$2.56 billion (US$36 million × 71 aircraft). A General Accounting Office study of the proposal concluded that Boeing's estimated savings of US$4.7 billion would not be realized. They found that it would cost the Air Force US$1.3 billion over keeping the existing engines.[62] This was subsequently disputed in a Defense Sciences Board report in 2003 and revised in 2004 that identified numerous errors in the prior evaluation of the Boeing proposal, and urged the Air Force to re-engine the aircraft without delay. Further, the DSB report stated the program would save substantial funds, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase aircraft range and endurance, duplicating the results of a Congressionally funded US$3M program office study conducted in 2003.[63]

The USAF continues to rely on the B-52 because it remains an effective economical heavy bomber, particularly in the type of missions that have been conducted since the end of the Cold War, mainly against nations that have limited air defense capabilities. The B-52's capacity to "loiter" for extended periods over (or even well outside) the battlefield, while delivering precision standoff and direct fire munitions, has been a valuable asset in conflicts such as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

The speed and stealth of the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit have only been useful until enemy air defenses were destroyed, a task that has been swiftly achieved in recent conflicts. The B-52 boasts the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF. Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%
F-14 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 08:49 AM   #92
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,600
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-14 View Post
Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%
Ready Rate??? No Such thing!!!! - aircraft are either "MC" - "Mission Capable" or "FMC" - "Fully Mission Capable." I don't believe you could go lower than 75% on any combat aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from...
__________________
"IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:02 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
ToughOmbre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,725
Country:
The B-52 is to bombers what the C-47 is to transports. If for no other reason, an aircraft in service for over 50 years gets my vote.

TO
__________________


“Let's get Enterprise and Hornet turned into the wind."
ToughOmbre is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 09:32 AM   #94
Member
 
F-14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UAE Rolla
Posts: 39
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
Ready Rate??? No Such thing!!!! - aircraft are either "MC" - "Mission Capable" or "FMC" - "Fully Mission Capable." I don't believe you could go lower than 75% on any combat aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from...
sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake
F-14 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 10:37 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 1,972
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 102first_hussars View Post
It would make more sense for me to say the B2 Stealth or the B-1B Lancer, however I have always had a great appreciation for the B-52 Stratofortress, so whats your opinion?
For me it is an easy question. If the US had one and one only bomber ( I mean quantity of ONE) which would constitute the gravest threat to a potential adversary?

I won't say, other than it should be obvious on that selection criteria...

If you factor cost, dash speed, load capability as the key criteria you might have a different answer... but current 'unstoppable' capability, extreme range, mix of many JDAM or Special's, would normally lead to this choice?
drgondog is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 10:43 AM   #96
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 1,972
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 102first_hussars View Post
It would make more sense for me to say the B2 Stealth or the B-1B Lancer, however I have always had a great appreciation for the B-52 Stratofortress, so whats your opinion?
If the question is 'What is the greatest bomber of all time" my answer is B-52 hands down - but not the 'Greatest Modern Bomber' as that question should relate to lethality and ability to carry the mission to the highest threat environment anywhere - and neither the B52 or B-1 could lay claim to that although B-1 closer to description.
drgondog is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 10:53 AM   #97
IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
 
FLYBOYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,600
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-14 View Post
sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake
So those number (where ever you got them from) were probably FMC rates - which are harder to make. Something as simple as a domelight could make an aircraft go from FMC to MC.

MC and FMC rates are also dependant on the amount of aircraft deployed. I actually work on a program where we have 3 aircraft. We have no FMC requirements but must maintain a 66% MC rate. There are certain things that preclude us from taking a "hit" from the AF.
__________________
"IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
FLYBOYJ is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 08:40 AM   #98
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,744
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-14 View Post
sorry sir a bit of a typo mistake
As for Mission Readiness. We called it OR Rate and we kept our aircraft at 90% or higher. I really doubt the USAF keeps its squadrons at such a low level as 53% or 26%.

Wherever you got that info is wrong.
__________________

US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006

Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes:

fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

"wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2"

"ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 01:25 PM   #99
Senior Member
 
SoD Stitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 618
Country:
Well, since a couple of people didn't vote for a bomber that was on the list, so will I . . . . I vote for the XB-70A. True, it was never operational, but it was potentially the greatest modern bomber. I don't think we'll ever see it's like again . . . .

__________________
SoD Stitch is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 05:35 PM   #100
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 1,972
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoD Stitch View Post
Well, since a couple of people didn't vote for a bomber that was on the list, so will I . . . . I vote for the XB-70A. True, it was never operational, but it was potentially the greatest modern bomber. I don't think we'll ever see it's like again . . . .

Magnificent ship. Like the YF-12/SR-71 it represented a peak of pure airframe design around the global strategic mission...
Then one day in the Rose Graden, JFK took LeMay for a 'walk n' talk' and it was dead.
drgondog is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2008, 05:01 AM   #101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,318
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoD Stitch View Post
I vote for the XB-70A.
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".
Graeme is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2008, 01:13 PM   #102
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 1,972
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme View Post
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".
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.
drgondog is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2008, 10:12 AM   #103
Senior Member
 
davparlr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,109
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog View Post
If the question is 'What is the greatest bomber of all time" my answer is B-52 hands down - but not the 'Greatest Modern Bomber' as that question should relate to lethality and ability to carry the mission to the highest threat environment anywhere - and neither the B52 or B-1 could lay claim to that although B-1 closer to description.
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 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2008, 10:27 AM   #104
Senior Member
 
davparlr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,109
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt308 View Post

And while not the "best", certainly one of my all time favorites the B-58 Hustler.
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.
davparlr is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2008, 12:24 PM   #105
Senior Member
 
B-17engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 370
Country:
B-52..........been in service for very long doesn't look to be retired anytime soon
B-17engineer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
   

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26