Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...
Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...
I was just looking at USAF's active bombers and I was astonished to find when I looked at the data, Big Fat and Ugly came out on top despite being the oldest by far than the other two. The contenders were the B-1 Lancer or "Bone", the B-2 Spirit, and the B-52 Stratofortress. The data is as follows:
B-52, B-1, B-2
Aircraft cost:
54 million, 283 million, 2.2 billion
Mach:
0.85, 1.25, 0.62
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
Payload in lbs:
60000, 75000, 50000
Stealth:
No, Yes, Yes
I made the final comparison by making all these come to a 1 to 10 scale.
(# of aircraft per billion dollars, speed of sound multiplied by ten, range divided by 500, payload divided by 1,000, and stealth depended (B-2 has 10, B-1 has 8, and B-52 has 5) )
The final comparison left the old B-52 Stratofortress with a 9.5, the B-1 Bone with a 7.5, and the B-2 Spirit with a 5.5
I might have given the B-52 a little too much on stealth, but it has great countermeasures. All of the prices were in 1998 dollars FYI. I think for the price, the B-2 is not worth keeping or buying more of since it takes $2,000,000,000 to produce one The B-1 is a good plane, it has the highest payload and speed, it also has great stealth measures, but it is a little pricey at $283,000,000. The old "Big Fat and Ugly" B-52 is by far the cheapest, has the greatest range, and has a good payload.
These results surprised me since I would expect more from a 2 Billion dollar plane, although the Bone is not a bad plane for the price because of its speed and stealth. the B-52 is by far the better plane, although it is not stealthy
B-52, B-1, B-2
Aircraft cost:
54 million, 283 million, 2.2 billion
Mach:
0.85, 1.25, 0.62
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
Payload in lbs:
60000, 75000, 50000
Stealth:
No, Yes, Yes
I made the final comparison by making all these come to a 1 to 10 scale.
(# of aircraft per billion dollars, speed of sound multiplied by ten, range divided by 500, payload divided by 1,000, and stealth depended (B-2 has 10, B-1 has 8, and B-52 has 5) )
The final comparison left the old B-52 Stratofortress with a 9.5, the B-1 Bone with a 7.5, and the B-2 Spirit with a 5.5
I might have given the B-52 a little too much on stealth, but it has great countermeasures. All of the prices were in 1998 dollars FYI. I think for the price, the B-2 is not worth keeping or buying more of since it takes $2,000,000,000 to produce one The B-1 is a good plane, it has the highest payload and speed, it also has great stealth measures, but it is a little pricey at $283,000,000. The old "Big Fat and Ugly" B-52 is by far the cheapest, has the greatest range, and has a good payload.
These results surprised me since I would expect more from a 2 Billion dollar plane, although the Bone is not a bad plane for the price because of its speed and stealth. the B-52 is by far the better plane, although it is not stealthy
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
I think the B-1 is about 1000 times less detectable than the B-52, and the B-2 is about 100 times less detectable than the B-1.
If you need stealth, it's priceless. If you don't, it's worthless. I definitely couldn't argue with saying the B-52 gets a huge bang for the buck - an outstanding airplane. They are all probably much older than their pilots.
If you need stealth, it's priceless. If you don't, it's worthless. I definitely couldn't argue with saying the B-52 gets a huge bang for the buck - an outstanding airplane. They are all probably much older than their pilots.
The B-52 has enormous low level capabilities! Do any of you guys get the "Smithsonian: Air and Space" magazine? There was one article in a issue maybe a year ago that described the B-52's countermeasures and how they are used. There was a description of the Air Force doing a training mission where our F-15s and F-16s were supposed to shoot down our non low-level B-52's. The B-52's hit the deck at full throttle and the fighters didn't get a single hit on the Big Fat and Uglies. The B-52's scrambling countermeasures caused the fighter's radios to malfunction, so the control towers that were guiding them could not tell the fighters where the wanabe commies bombers were
Bgile, I value your opinion, and I agree the B-52 is out of date and has no stealth at all, hardly. I do think the B-1 is the best overall bomber of the fleet though. It is stealthy, fast, and it carries the heaviest payload of the fleet. The B-2 is not worth it for the greenback it costs to build alone, it is slower than the other two, holds less, and has the lowest combat radius
Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...
Why would anyone measure range in knots?Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
For some interesting background history on the B-1 and what a huge waste of tax payer's money it is, I would suggest reading one my favorite books:
"Boyd;The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War" by Robert Corum.
This excellant book also gives some insight into how dysfunctional and delusional a military bureaucracy can be at times.
"Boyd;The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War" by Robert Corum.
This excellant book also gives some insight into how dysfunctional and delusional a military bureaucracy can be at times.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Speaking of Stealth, here's an interesting web page writing about some early research:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us:80/Gema.htm
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us:80/Gema.htm
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...
Nautical miles are more commonlly used than either stat miles or kilometers in navigation and especially aviation, because it's based on the longitude and latitude segmention of earth mapping by degrees.lwd wrote:Why would anyone measure range in knots?Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...
Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...
Perhaps but irrelevant. "Knots" is an abreviation of nautical miles per hour a measure of speed or velocity and not range or distance.Dave Saxton wrote:Nautical miles are more commonlly used than either stat miles or kilometers in navigation and especially aviation, because it's based on the longitude and latitude segmention of earth mapping by degrees.lwd wrote:Why would anyone measure range in knots?Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...