Best Bomber? - Page 2

Shamus · 10-19-2007, 13:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Time for a few laps around the park, a few less takeaways, and a few less units, per week eh?

(No, I can't lecture anyone. I am a student in a British university after all.)

Sure you can David,at least for a few more years anyway

.

smilingassassin · 10-19-2007, 13:13 PM

Has to be the B-52, sheer size and payload is a bombers real tools of the trade.

B.Smitty · 10-19-2007, 16:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Has to be the B-52, sheer size and payload is a bombers real tools of the trade.

The B-1B has the largest payload.

The B-52 has the greatest range and loiter time.

The B-2 has the greatest survivability over the battlefield.

You can manage payload deficiencies with PGMs and sorties.

You can manage range and loiter deficiencies with tanking.

The only way to manage survivability deficiencies is with standoff weapons or massive SEAD/DEAD. The first eats in to your payload and costs a lot more. The second exposes a lot more aircraft to fires, takes a lot longer, and is more dependent on the guile of your opponent.

gunnut · 10-19-2007, 16:54 PM

B-52

After the last B-2 retires, the air crew will trasition to fly the B-52.

Feanor · 10-19-2007, 22:04 PM

When are the B-2 scheduled to retire?

gunnut · 10-20-2007, 03:56 AM

I think the air force has them in the book until 2030s.

Some have the B-52s into the 2040s.

Firral · 10-20-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

I'm using the IISS definition of "bomber", which means a weapon load over 10,000 kg (22,000 lb). That excludes the Tu-16 "Badger".

For sheer range and bombing power, nothing beats the B-52.

You define particularly under what characteristics we compare bombers. The class a bomber includes planes with different purpose: rocket carriers, strategic bombers, tactical bombers, front bombers, etc. Example B-1B and Ту-160 - externally similar planes, but have absolutely different tasks.

PS: And why you have recollected about old Ту-16? It already practically does not serve. Its replacement Ту-22М3.
PPS: B-52 was issued with 1954 for 1962.

Why then your politicians name Ту-95МС naphthalenic plane? Its years of release 1978-1992?

Characteristics Ту-95МС
Weight of loading normal - 9 tons, the maximal 20 tons
Speed - 710 km/h (cruiser), 830 km/h (maximal)
Practical range - 10500 km
Fighting range - 6500 km
Practical ceiling - 12000 m
Arms (now according to the Russian-American arrangement) - 6 subsonic cruise missiles Х-55 (range of 2500 km) or free-falling and tele-operated bombs.

Feanor · 10-20-2007, 07:29 AM

They're concerned with strategic bombers.

Firral · 10-20-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

They're concerned with strategic bombers.

Strategic bombers too are various. I gave an example Ту-160 and В-1В.
Ту-160 - a strategic rocket carrier. Its mode of fight - long flight at height, supersonic jerk in a place of start of its rockets, jerk for leaving from fighters, returning home.
B-1B - a strategic bomber of break of air defence. Its mode of fight - long jerk at the ground, break of air defence, start of rockets (bombs), returning back.
Naturally as modes under which were created these planes different, at them absolutely different characteristics.
How we wish them to compare?

glyn · 10-20-2007, 08:18 AM

[quote=Firral;418180]
[i]Characteristics Ту-95МС
Weight of loading normal - 9 tons, the maximal 20 tons
Speed - 710 km/h (cruiser), 830 km/h (maximal)

As a matter of interest, do you know what its typical landing speed would be at low weight?

Ophir · 10-20-2007, 09:38 AM

[quote=glyn;418193]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

[i]Characteristics Ту-95МС
Weight of loading normal - 9 tons, the maximal 20 tons
Speed - 710 km/h (cruiser), 830 km/h (maximal)

As a matter of interest, do you know what its typical landing speed would be at low weight?

Circa 270 km/h, I gather.

Silent Hunter · 10-20-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

PS: And why you have recollected about old Ту-16? It already practically does not serve.

It does in China under the name Xian H-6 (being a license-built copy).

glyn · 10-20-2007, 11:37 AM

[quote=Ophir;418212]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Circa 270 km/h, I gather.

Thank you

. I make that a little over 160mph - which is on the brisk side! If true that gives the Bear a rather narrow speed operating band. It will also need long runways.

Firral · 10-20-2007, 15:37 PM

[quote=glyn;418232]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophir

Thank you

. I make that a little over 160mph - which is on the brisk side! If true that gives the Bear a rather narrow speed operating band. It will also need long runways.

I know 3000 meter air station where they are based. I think it more than their length of a landing (rise), probably it simply standard.

tankie · 10-21-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

IMO,
There were alot of good bombers during the war years. And given the powers that were during those days I am under the belief that we would have to seperate them into the powers. The best bomber in WWII IMO was the one that hit the target and brought its crew home to safety.

KEEEEEEEEERECT

10-19-2007, 13:13 PM	#17 (permalink)
smilingassassin *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-12-03 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 2,719 Country:	Has to be the B-52, sheer size and payload is a bombers real tools of the trade. __________________ Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman. -- Larry Elder

10-19-2007, 16:54 PM	#19 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,361 Country:	B-52 After the last B-2 retires, the air crew will trasition to fly the B-52. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

10-20-2007, 08:18 AM	#25 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,525	[quote=Firral;418180] [i]Characteristics Ту-95МС Weight of loading normal - 9 tons, the maximal 20 tons Speed - 710 km/h (cruiser), 830 km/h (maximal) As a matter of interest, do you know what its typical landing speed would be at low weight? __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Suicide Bomber Kills 42 Pakistani Soldiers	troung	Political Discussions	24	11-13-2006 16:11 PM
The B-70 and the fight btw Kennedy/Vinson	Anon	Military Aviation	4	11-06-2006 10:11 AM
New Long Range Bomber	PubFather	Military Aviation	41	10-27-2006 15:53 PM
One of the very best articles I've ever read. EVER.	Bluesman	Warfare in the Modern Age	14	02-06-2006 10:49 AM
Bomber strikes Israeli coast town	ZFBoxcar	Current Affairs	1	07-12-2005 23:20 PM

10-19-2007, 22:04 PM	#20 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	When are the B-2 scheduled to retire?

10-20-2007, 03:56 AM	#21 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,361 Country:	I think the air force has them in the book until 2030s. Some have the B-52s into the 2040s.

10-20-2007, 07:29 AM	#23 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	They're concerned with strategic bombers.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)