Favorite modern strategic bomber

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by ANP, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. What's your favorite modern bomber?

    For me it's Russia's supersonic Tu-160
     
  2. B-52. I mean it may be in service in 2050.
     
  3. Ok, what are the choices?? B52(maybe), B1b, B2, Tu160, and....

    Limited choices, but I'd have to say B1b
     
  4. I think all strategic bombers are pretty bad-ass in their own ways, but the B-52 definetly takes the cake for me. Something that tends to ruin the morale of everyone on it's recieving end (NVA, Iraq, Taliban) is good by me.
     
  5. Choices:

    USA
    Boeing B-52H Stratofortress
    Rockwell B-1B Lancer
    Northrop Grumman B-2A Spirit

    Russia
    Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear"
    Tupolev Tu-22M "Backfire"
    Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack"
     
  6. I don't know if a 1940/50's design counts as modern (Tu95 and B52), but the Buff is still in service so I'll let you have that one <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> As for the Bear, it's not used as a bomber any more, hasn't been for decades. It's new role is maritime surveilance, guiding in the Backfires and any Blackjacks they still have flying. But you probably already know that.
     
  7. From what I've read, there are still a good number of Bears in service as pure bombers, like the B-52.

    In any case, the maritime patrol version is the Tu-142.

    EDIT: According to Aeronautics.ru, Russia currently has in service 68 Tu-95s, 158 Tu-22Ms (92 in storage), and 15 Tu-160s.
     
  8. #8 daisho13, Apr 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    maybe, see:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/av-naval-equip.htm

    if you trust them that is. Some of info is out of date, but most of their TOE and organisational charts are up to date.

    see also:
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
    for general Bear model info, and deployments
     
  9. #9 ChevyRocks, Apr 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    That one lists the Russian naval aircraft, and that they had 10 Tu-142s in service as of last year. Which makes sense, since they did sell quite a few to India.

    Though oddly enough, on the same site regarding the Russian land-based airforces, they don't list any bombers at all, and there certainly are quite a few still in service.
     
  10. Most of the strategic bomber have histoically been with the Naval Aviation forces, while the tactical strikers such as the SU24 have been with Frontal Aviation. Don't know why, just a historical quirk, but it may due to the fact that the only strategic targets the USSR worried about were the carriers, everything else was targted by ballistic/cruise missiles or interdiction aircraft.

    Also, the Tu142 is the ASW version, not a general maritime strike version.

    EDIT: Of course, current Russian inventories I have found on the web all manage to disagree with each other. Not to mention the funding cuts which can mean a disparity between inventory items and operational items. I think we may just need to call it a grey area. And the B52 abd B1 kick arse <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  11. Odd, from my readings the VVS still had quite a bit of bombers for actual strategic use. Whereas the Naval forces had sub-versions of those planes, made to carry huge anti-ship missiles, and intended for attacking USN carrier battle groups.

    And I've seen quite a few pictures, listed as having been taken last year, showing a good number of active bombers in the VVS.

    Anyways, even if numbers or pictures don't agree, I'd imagine Russia would only phase out their Bears about the time we phase out our Stratoforts.
     
  12. Alright, we agree to disagree, except for what we agree on
     
  13. B2, then B-52, then B-1B.
     
  14. B1B and Tu-160 are fricking awesome; however, if I had to bomb someone I'd do it in a B2. You can't stop it if you can't see it<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>.
     
  15. B-2 and the Blackjack.
     
  16. It never went into service, so it might not count, but the XB-70 Valkyrie.
     
  17. B52H,B1B and B2
     
  18. That's what I would've said as well, probably the best plane that was never built (in production, at least).
     
  19. B-58 should also be mentioned

    I also read up on the Tu-160. It’s the largest, fastest bomber in the world and carries the heaviest load of ordnance<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  20. 1. The B-58 is pretty bad ass, but it's not a modern bomber (ended service in 1970), and it's not big enough to be a strategic bomber.

    2. The Tu-160 is the largest bomber in terms of gross weight. In terms of physical size, the USAF's current B-52 and the old B-36 are bigger.

    3. In terms of ordnance load, the Tu-160 is technically the winner. However the B-1B could carry a higher amount by using its external hardpoints, but that use is currently outlawed by the START I treaty.
     
  21. If I'm not mistaking the Tu-160 also has the range advantage over most other bombers
     
  22. Not by a whole lot. It's about on par with the B-52, around 7,000-8,000 miles unrefueled.

    The one that really has the advantage in range is the Tu-95; about 9,400 miles unrefueled, thanks to its very powerful turboprops with contra-rotating propellers (which I believe is quite an amazing engineering feat).
     
  23. Def the B2 for me.
     

Share This Page