Best Bomber? - Page 3

Maggot · 10-21-2007, 17:20 PM

The biggest problem of comparing bombers is that their success almost always depends on something else assuring air superiority over their target. Different bombers have different strengths, depending on how much air superiority they enjoy. Comparing bombers is a lot like comparing boxers by how they hit a punching bag.

Maxor · 10-21-2007, 23:28 PM

I think the peacemaker is probably the best bomber..... It actually made peace. The thing also holds the record for most engines on any mass produced plane.

Ok now non sarcastic for pure breadth of capaibility I have to go with the Lance nothing else can really do everything that it can. and It is in truth a stealthy plane so the B-2 lovers who feel that stealth makes a plane automatically better can forget about that point. It can also carry air launched cruise missles which make getting in close enough to need full stealth fairly pointless.

gunnut · 10-22-2007, 00:42 AM

Mosquito

Absolutely the most beautiful bomber of all time. It didn't perform that bad either.

Silent Hunter · 10-22-2007, 05:48 AM

I'll let you have older things that were called bombers, BTW, but for modern stuff, I'll stick to the IISS definition.

VarSity · 10-22-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Mosquito

Absolutely the most beautiful bomber of all time. It didn't perform that bad either.

Indeed! I love that thing, wonderful aircraft.

glyn · 10-22-2007, 09:06 AM

[quote=Maxor;418690]I think the peacemaker is probably the best bomber..... It actually made peace. The thing also holds the record for most engines on any mass produced plane.

The B-36 started life as a six engined bomber with the range to bomb targets in Europe should England have fallen. Of course that never happened but the old girl was overweight and rather underpowered so they added 4 jet engines. In fact the piston engines were troublesome in the pusher role and engine failures were not uncommon. When equipped with the 10 engines and providing 6 were turning and 4 were burning it became a viable strategic bomber. It was probably the best defended bomber of all time.

Maxor · 10-23-2007, 00:04 AM

Glyn I was being more than a little sarcastic. Its an interesting plane but I'm not sure if it was really practicle. That said The airframe appears to have had alot going for it and was let down by its rather unusual powerplant situation. I'd honestly like to see what something modern built along the lines of a 52 or 36 would turn out like as a strategic bomber. I think with todays turbofans you could have a hugepayload carrier that is just subsonic with long range and inflight refueling with an amazing ceiling very inexpesnively..... Sure a bomb truck like taht would need air superiority but isn't that what a raptor is supposed to grant anyways?

tu160mblackjack · 10-24-2007, 22:59 PM

Need I say anything? :p

urmomma158 · 10-25-2007, 15:07 PM

you we're going to say TU 160 right?

Silent Hunter · 10-25-2007, 17:02 PM

I'd have to disagree about the Tu-160 "Blackjack". It's certainly a good aircraft, but it's outclassed in everything but speed by the B-1B.

10-21-2007, 17:20 PM	#31 (permalink)
Maggot Regular Join Date: 10-20-07 Location: British Columbia Posts: 109 Country:	The biggest problem of comparing bombers is that their success almost always depends on something else assuring air superiority over their target. Different bombers have different strengths, depending on how much air superiority they enjoy. Comparing bombers is a lot like comparing boxers by how they hit a punching bag. __________________ Work is the curse of the drinking class.

10-22-2007, 00:42 AM	#33 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,089 Country:	Mosquito Absolutely the most beautiful bomber of all time. It didn't perform that bad either. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

10-22-2007, 09:06 AM	#36 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,368	[quote=Maxor;418690]I think the peacemaker is probably the best bomber..... It actually made peace. The thing also holds the record for most engines on any mass produced plane. The B-36 started life as a six engined bomber with the range to bomb targets in Europe should England have fallen. Of course that never happened but the old girl was overweight and rather underpowered so they added 4 jet engines. In fact the piston engines were troublesome in the pusher role and engine failures were not uncommon. When equipped with the 10 engines and providing 6 were turning and 4 were burning it became a viable strategic bomber. It was probably the best defended bomber of all time. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

10-25-2007, 15:07 PM	#39 (permalink)
urmomma158 the real plastic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-05-06 Location: NJ Turnpike Posts: 936 Country:	you we're going to say TU 160 right? __________________

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

10-21-2007, 23:28 PM	#32 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Posts: 301	I think the peacemaker is probably the best bomber..... It actually made peace. The thing also holds the record for most engines on any mass produced plane. Ok now non sarcastic for pure breadth of capaibility I have to go with the Lance nothing else can really do everything that it can. and It is in truth a stealthy plane so the B-2 lovers who feel that stealth makes a plane automatically better can forget about that point. It can also carry air launched cruise missles which make getting in close enough to need full stealth fairly pointless.

10-22-2007, 05:48 AM	#34 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 500 Country:	I'll let you have older things that were called bombers, BTW, but for modern stuff, I'll stick to the IISS definition.

10-23-2007, 00:04 AM	#37 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Posts: 301	Glyn I was being more than a little sarcastic. Its an interesting plane but I'm not sure if it was really practicle. That said The airframe appears to have had alot going for it and was let down by its rather unusual powerplant situation. I'd honestly like to see what something modern built along the lines of a 52 or 36 would turn out like as a strategic bomber. I think with todays turbofans you could have a hugepayload carrier that is just subsonic with long range and inflight refueling with an amazing ceiling very inexpesnively..... Sure a bomb truck like taht would need air superiority but isn't that what a raptor is supposed to grant anyways?

10-24-2007, 22:59 PM	#38 (permalink)
tu160mblackjack Regular Join Date: 01-15-05 Posts: 54	Need I say anything? :p

10-25-2007, 17:02 PM	#40 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 500 Country:	I'd have to disagree about the Tu-160 "Blackjack". It's certainly a good aircraft, but it's outclassed in everything but speed by the B-1B.

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

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