Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...

Post by Ramius »

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 :o

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 :shock: 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.

:think: 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 :think:
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

I don´t agree with that. B-1 is far more advanced than B-52, even in its low cost version. I believe B-52 has no low level capability.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

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.
Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Post by Ramius »

:negative: 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 :lol:
Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Post by Ramius »

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 :negative:
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...

Post by lwd »

Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...
Why would anyone measure range in knots?
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

You also might want to normalize the cost. A B-52 would cost a lot more to make today. At the very least you have to consider inflation to make any sort of reasonbable comparison.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Post by Dave Saxton »

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.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Post by Dave Saxton »

Speaking of Stealth, here's an interesting web page writing about some early research:

http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us:80/Gema.htm
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...

Post by Dave Saxton »

lwd wrote:
Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...
Why would anyone measure range in knots?
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
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Interesting Bomber Data Outcome...

Post by lwd »

Dave Saxton wrote:
lwd wrote:
Ramius wrote:....
Range (Combat Radius) in miles (not knots):
4480, 3445, 3200
...
Why would anyone measure range in knots?
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.
Perhaps but irrelevant. "Knots" is an abreviation of nautical miles per hour a measure of speed or velocity and not range or distance.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

To tell the truth, UCAVs are probably the best aircraft for today's low intensity conflict.
Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Post by Ramius »

:oops: My bad, im back now, been in Florida. I did not mean knots, I meant nautical miles. I read my source wrong :oops:
Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Post by Ramius »

:think: Out of curiosity, what are some of the world's other modern heavy bombers that are currently active :think:
Post Reply