The world's bomber aircraft

Blackjack if not for shear size and beauty then for it's unrefueled range and top speed ( when things go wrong) of very nearly mach 2.

en.wikipedia.org...

Backfire for the fact that it was around when it mattered and could also 'run away' or dash into the Atlantic in large numbers

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't have much to add about the American strategic bombers ( Lancer/Spirit)beside the fact that they were imo hopelessly badly designed to fight the third world war they might have had to take part in.

Stellar

With all due respect the Tu-160 was/is not exactly an untouchable platform itself.

Now with that said I'd have to go with the BUFF, nothing comes close when you need a persistent, long range and heavy conventional smack down. It's not the fastest or stealthiest but it serves it's purpose rather well and will be in service an unprecedented 90 years because of that fact.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

Avro Vulcan. Never mind speed, how about 200ft off the deck straight under the radar

If it looks, right, it is right ...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
With all due respect the Tu-160 was/is not exactly an untouchable platform itself.

You know as well as i do , well i really hope you do, that nothing is 'untouchable' and that is why i never suggested as much.

Now with that said I'd have to go with the BUFF, nothing comes close when you need a persistent, long range and heavy conventional smack down.

If you can afford to wait all day for it. Nothing wrong with the Buff and it's probably the best of the bunch( American strategic) when taking into account what factors we can.

It's not the fastest or stealthiest but it serves it's purpose rather well and will be in service an unprecedented 90 years because of that fact.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

Which mostly points out the big vacuum that is the American military industrial complex. To spend all that time and get stuck with the B-1/B-2.....

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Which mostly points out the big vacuum that is the American military industrial complex. To spend all that time and get stuck with the B-1/B-2.....

What do you mean "stuck" with? The B-1 and B-2 have constituted for more of the bombing in the last two American conflicts than the B-52. Both are very effective in their respective roles and the B-1 will be even better once they get the Sniper XR pod.

Both the B-1 and B-2 were designed for mostly strategic nuclear attack. Even in their conventional roles today both of them are very well suited to the roles the USAF uses them for.

Compared to the Tu-160 neither is as fast, but both the B-1 and B-2 have much smaller RCS signatures. The Tu-160 most likely has the wost mission ready times of any strategic bomber in existence right now just because of the lack of money and spare parts.

Originally posted by StellarX
You know as well as i do , well i really hope you do, that nothing is 'untouchable' and that is why i never suggested as much.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by StellarX
If you can afford to wait all day for it.

True, it does take a while to get them on station especially when flying out the CONUS.

The B-52 gets my vote, if for no other reason than its longevity. When my grandfather was on active duty during the Cuban Missle Crisis, he arranged a private tour of Barksdale Air Force Base for our family, which included standing on the flightline and watching B-52's landing and taking off. It's an image that will always stay with me.

www.fas.org...

It think the low speed, fast attack is moot point now with the new small diameter bombs coming on line. With these bombs, fighters and UCAV's will eat up much of the old guard heavy bombers missions. Of course, the heavies will be able to double their mission assignments with these as well, so the bomber fleet will shrink even further. The USAF is looking for a cheaper-to-maintain manned long range bomber. I believe we'll probably see a super-sized stretch version of the F-22 or perhaps a heavily modified Boeing 757 as a replacement bomber for both the B-52 and B-1B with a few re-engined B-52's around for cruise missile carriers. Designing a new platform to carry both cruise missiles and conventional bombs would hamper design and increase the weight of the aircraft. Boeing has already proposed a bomber version of the 737 as P3 replacement. The B1B's days are numbered due to it's high maintenance costs. Like the B-58, it's proven to be a hangar queen.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for beating the B-2 in reliability, that now has the honor of the only plane in the inventory that has a WORSE mission rating than the B-1. The B-2 is now approaching the 80% range.
[edit on 9/14/2006 by Zaphod58]

True! However, let's remember the B-1 was already flying in 1976 (I know it was an A model, but the engineers were already testing and improving the design back then). The first B-2 flew on July 17, 1989, 13 years later! The Airforce and Rockwell had 13 years to get the bugs out of the B-1 before the B-2 even started being tested!

Thirteen years ago the B-1 mission rating was around 50%! So if consider where each plane is in it's service life and use that as a guide, the B-2 is actually IMPORVING at a faster rate then the B-1 did.

What you all are doing is the same as saying "The F-15 is a much Better fighter tham the F-22, based on a comparison of each aircraft's Combat History!" This would be unfair because the F-15 clearly has a head start, the F-22 hasn't even flowen in combat yet! If you want to compare the B-1 and B-2. choose a COMMON Point in the life cycle, say, were they were two years after achieveing operational certification!

Zaphod58, What you did is take statistics out of context! Without the appropreate context, you're well researched stats are meaningless!

Tim

[edit on 16-9-2006 by ghost]

And did I SAY that there wasn't a good reason for it having such a low mission rating? No, did I bad mouth it? No, and anyone with a brain is going to KNOW that there's a reason for it, and that it's a young bomber and it's going to take time to bring it up. yes it IS improving faster than the B-1 and if they can get the bugs out of it then it's going to be a good system, but sorry for "attacking" your precious airplane and stating the FACT that it has a low mission rating right now.

Now what do I think is the Best bomber! Well, it hard to say, because I believe in comparing things in the correct context and giving credit where it is dew!

Judging strictly by combat records, I'd say the B-52 Stratfortress deserves the title of Super Bomber! No other bomber I know of is still a feared frontline warplane over 50 years after its first flight. How many military combat aircraft last 50 years in service?

Tim

Originally posted by JFrazier
What do you mean "stuck" with? The B-1 and B-2 have constituted for more of the bombing in the last two American conflicts than the B-52. Both are very effective in their respective roles and the B-1 will be even better once they get the Sniper XR pod.

Effective at blowing up very badly trained third world armies. Can not even beat decently trained Eastern Europeans with outdated air defenses.

Both the B-1 and B-2 were designed for mostly strategic nuclear attack. Even in their conventional roles today both of them are very well suited to the roles the USAF uses them for.

Everything is just fine and they were not completely ineffective against the Serb army....

Compared to the Tu-160 neither is as fast, but both the B-1 and B-2 have much smaller RCS signatures.

Stealth aircraft are only stealthy in the sense that it sounds cool but when fighting people with brains and some semi modern equipment it's almost completely useless.

The Tu-160 most likely has the wost mission ready times of any strategic bomber in existence right now just because of the lack of money and spare parts.

Even the mighty USAF can not keep the B-2/B-1 flying while spending 400 odd billion in defense one really has to wonder how the blackjacks fly at all. Stealth has since day one been a waste of time and even the incompetent Iraqi's managed to put some holes in one of them with the Serbs later proving not it to be all that hard.

Stellar


[edit on 16-9-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Stealth has since day one been a waste of time and even the incompetent Iraqi's managed to put some holes in one of them with the Serbs later proving not to be all that hard.

Stellar

They did? Odd, I don't remember hearing about ANY F-117s or B-2s damaged over Iraq. They were EXPECTING some, but I don't remember hearing anything about it actually happening.

Originally posted by Zaphod58


They did? Odd, I don't remember hearing about ANY F-117s or B-2s damaged over Iraq. They were EXPECTING some, but I don't remember hearing anything about it actually happening.

That makes two of us.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They did? Odd, I don't remember hearing about ANY F-117s or B-2s damaged over Iraq. They were EXPECTING some, but I don't remember hearing anything about it actually happening.

I just tried to find my link but since i came up with nothing at all ( and plenty to suggest otherwise) i am writing this one up against a over active imagination and a misplaced memory. Hope non of you lost any sleep over it.....

Stellar

Originally posted by crgintx

If we're talking fighter bombers, the F-111 finally developed into the "F" model and was the fastest strike aircraft ever in the USAF inventor. In one exercise that I know of it walked away from the mighty F-15A after delivering its payload. The F-15 never even got close enough to fire its missiles.

Ahhhh, the Aardvark. It may not send the enemy scurrying for the bomb shelters like the Buff, but it's got its charm. The B-1B was a sexy plane, no doubt, but I think it was just not quite right for what it was needed for. That, and the second stealth became big the Lancer just wasn't wanted. The Aardvark is a small thing, and can deliver payload in good time. That, and the range is awesome. That's why the Australians are still using their FB-111s.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Ahhhh, the Aardvark. It may not send the enemy scurrying for the bomb shelters like the Buff, but it's got its charm. The B-1B was a sexy plane, no doubt, but I think it was just not quite right for what it was needed for. That, and the second stealth became big the Lancer just wasn't wanted. The Aardvark is a small thing, and can deliver payload in good time. That, and the range is awesome. That's why the Australians are still using their FB-111s.

I agree fully, the F-111 is one of the best bombers flying! I always though it was stupid of the US to retire their Aardvarks. In Desert Storm (the 1991 Gulf War) the Aardvark delivered most of the PGM's that were dropped. It was also the 1st plane to deliver the 5'000 Lb. Bunker Buster, then called the GBU-28 BLU-113(at the time it used a Paveway III laser guidance system.)

One small correction: The Australians use the F-111C and F-111G models of the Aardvark, NOT the FB-111 model. The G model differs from the FB-111 in having slightly different avionics and being geared for tactical strike, where the FB-111 is a Version that was unique to SAC.

Tim

[edit on 17-9-2006 by ghost]

Reagan used 111's to strike Khadaffi. Apparently, it was a very effective strike.

Why keep an old airframe like the Aardvark flying for missions that can be accomplished by the Strike Eagle?

The Vark was a great platform. WHEN IT FLEW. It got the name Pig for a reason. They were rather maintenance intesnsive, and as late at 1980 had control issues. We lost 4 in three years when my father was at Pease, between Plattsburgh and Pease, because of uncommanded rolls.