Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by Will939, Mar 12, 2008.
yea i read the B1 wiki article too
I am pretty sure the B1 has a higher payload than the B52.
There is not really a need for a supersonic bomber unless you could sustain that supersonic speed for a very long range. Since the next gen bomber is going to be a pretty fast development program, I would not expect any real propulsion leaps needed for it.
He is right though.
yea, but he didnt say anything contrary to my post, he just sort of went off on a tangent. i think it was in response to me saying that there is a need for bombers that can go supersonic, and the development of the B1 is evidence of that. if there were no need, they would have been decommissioned a long time ago seeing as it provides little to no benefit over the b52 otherwise
such a gorgeous looking plane. Always one of my favs.
The question is if they use them because they have them, or do they use them because they need them? It's not like they are going to scrap these 250 million dollar airplanes and then buy new B-2 and B-52 bombers to replace them, especially since a lot of time and money have been spent on converting them for conventional warfare. They have also replaced older B-52, so unless USAF plans to dowsize their fleet they will probably stay around. But is there a need to develope a new heavy bomber with supersonic capabilites, no, I don't think so.
with the way warfare is these days, mostly large military operations against small groups of insurgents, i would definitely agree with you that there is little need for a HEAVY supersonic bomber. but then again, there really is little need for heavy bombers in general since we dont really do any carpet bombing anymore and smaller tactical strike bombs are far more effective.
but if we're ever again in a situation of all out war with another country, maybe iran, maybe north korea, or who knows what, where we need to bomb a large amount of targets in a single pass, under sophisticated anti air fire, then who knows... i wont say that it is an absolute necessity, what with modern fighters and small smart bombs, but i would think there is enough need for them to develop one.
What's hard to understand is why the US military is so dead-set on retiring the A-10 when it seems to be the perfect plane for today's warfare (long loiter, massive payload, can fire anything including cheapo dumb bombs and gun rounds, imperious to small-arms fire, can operate out of anywhere, etc, etc...)
The Air Force in particular is more interested in cool new toys than operational effectiveness.
Perhaps it's because in 2028 when they're retired they'll be fifty one years old?
Yeah I think Russian, Iran, NK, and China still plays a roll in this.
Yeah... right now the US is primary using attack/fighter planes in CAS missions. The A-10 still has a lot of years of service left.
yea, so does the B52
Our big bombers played a major role in Iraq and Afghanistan. A singe B-1 , B-2, or B-52 can do the work of multiple fighter planes in terms of bomb load. Furthermore, they have a much longer range. Special Forces for example would patrol in the mountains of Afghanistan and when they stumbled upon Taliban they would designate them and the bomber loitering nearby would come in and rain hell. Furthermore, their carpet-bombing ability came in great handy when we needed to blast through Taliban lines in Afghanistan. B-2s ran nearly round the clock flying from Whitman AFB in Missouri to Iraq during the invasion carrying over 50,000 lbs of bombs apiece. Lastly, the planes' ability to launch long-range heavy cruise missiles from the air gives them an additional strike advantage over fighters and provides us with another strategic nuclear strike option.
Lastly, there are fewer things more intimidating to the enemy than a massive black jet loaded with many tons of explosives.
They probably shat even bigger bricks when they figured out that a paper written by a Soviet scientist was the theoretical basis for the whole thing.
so? The B52 is going on 60 plus years since original design
Retired for the time being but America is shifting towards the development of UAV's instead. They can do the same job with only 1/10th of the operational cost of a F-117.
Tactical and strategic missions are very different, though.
perhaps, then again the same thing was said in the 50s about missles.
true. interesting point. then again, depends on what mission type you're talking about.
Air superiority...I'd agree that there are much newer technologies that should be brought forward, but what about anti-armor? A-10 is still highly effective...
It's so angular because at the time it was designed, there wasn't enough computational power to properly analyze smooth shapes for their stealth characteristics, so to prevent the need to build thousands upon thousands of models and test them each individually, they went with an easier to compute bunch of flat panels. When the B2 was designed, computers were significantly more powerful, allowing curved designs to be assessed computationally.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a ground-strike F22 on the table a while back that would have performed a role similar to that of the Nighthawk.
There are ways to reduce, and cloak the IR signature. It's not easy, but there are ways.
things REALLY got unfair when the US got these babies... blew up a lotta shit.