It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The world's bomber aircraft

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
pls.....add your post here.......for super bomber ..........

from my side .......

1.B-2(spirit)/T-60S/B-3?
2.B-1(lancer)/Tu-160(black jack)
3.B-52(Stratofortress)/Tu-22m(backfire)
4.S-37 (Berkut) /Su-37also as fighter
5.F-18e(hornet)/F-15(super eagle)/Mirage-2000n

[edit on 14-9-2006 by bhargav]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Admin edit - These "best aircraft" or "plane vs plane" threads are discouraged on ATS and are typically closed when spotted. However, since this topic has become quite popular and engaging I will let it stand. I have also edited the topic's title.

Please read this topped thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SimonGray]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
from my point of view probably the B52, especially when you take into account of how long it has served and still is serving + it's payload ect



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
The mighty BUFF, The B-52 Stratofortress. Everything bomber became obsolete and every thing since hasn't yet measured up to the mark. Both the B1B and B2 will long gone to the boneyard before the last BUFF is retired. Still a dangerous threat as low level penetrator but why do that when you can standoff and launch 20 long range cruise missiles. More recent platforms are faster or stealthier but will have a long tough row to hoe to match the BUFF's combat record. The only other aircraft IMHO that comes close to it is the equally well designed C-130 Hercules.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Hmm, so ighters that serve as bombers are allowed in this thread?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Hmm, so ighters that serve as bombers are allowed in this thread?


hey bro........

some aircraft can do both role good......i think u understood it



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I did understand it, but i thought this would be a only "bomber thread" If you want fighters too, I understand. F-22 and F-35.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I dont really get this thread, is a persons "super bomber of the world" their favourite?

Also the Berkut is the Su-47 not -37 and thats a technology demonstrator.

My favourite is the B-3 because it has anti-gravity and super stealth and runs of a secret element brought to us by aliens and can flick around the sky without any ill effects on the pilot and can go at Mach 20 and can go all round the world without refuelling its liquid hydrogen tanks!


That was a joke btw!



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Give me the B-1. The USAF is just now realizing what they can do with that plane. Besides it's way better looking than the other two, it's faster, and carries a heavier payload. If we could solve that range problem it would be perfect.

Also, what other big bomber do you know of that can do barrel rolls? Seriously.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Its obvious really, there can only be one winner.


The B-29.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
Give me the B-1. The USAF is just now realizing what they can do with that plane. Besides it's way better looking than the other two, it's faster, and carries a heavier payload. If we could solve that range problem it would be perfect.


I love the looks of the B-1 and wish it had come at a different time. Anyone that thinks that its only problem is range is ignoring the reason why the problem was cancelled in the first place, STEALTH.

The B-1 was just coming into operation as the stealth revolution was brewing. After the F-117a showed how low a planes RCS could become it rapidly became pushed to the bottom of the pile as generals started dreaming of a stealth bomber.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

I love the looks of the B-1 and wish it had come at a different time. Anyone that thinks that its only problem is range is ignoring the reason why the problem was cancelled in the first place, STEALTH.

It's still has a pretty low RCS even if it wasn't designed for it(~1 sq m). At least it doesn't blow up on radar like the B-52.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
Give me the B-1. The USAF is just now realizing what they can do with that plane. Besides it's way better looking than the other two, it's faster, and carries a heavier payload. If we could solve that range problem it would be perfect.

Also, what other big bomber do you know of that can do barrel rolls? Seriously.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by JFrazier]


I've seen the mighty BUFF do a barrel roll. It wasn't pretty and it was done very slowly. The B1B has the swing-wing curse. The B1B has proven so unreliable a platform that it lost its nuke certification some time in the 90's. A B-52 can cruise as fast and lot longer than the B1B. It has better low altitude handling qualities. The B1B might be a faster sprinter sprinter but as long range heavy bomber, the BUFF's still the king. Here's a little known fact, the B-52 was once equipped with air-to-air missiles in case it had to go shoot down an errant Hound Dog cruise missile during training flights.
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.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
A B-52 can cruise as fast and lot longer than the B1B. It has better low altitude handling qualities. The B1B might be a faster sprinter but as long range heavy bomber, the BUFF's still the king.

I'll admit that the B-52 will cruise longer at the same speeds. The B-1 has always had a sort of range problem. However, better handling qualities at low level? I don't know about that. The B-1 has been described as a biggest fighter in the inventory in terms of handling qualities. It main mission was to be near Mach 1 at 500ft during bombing runs. If the B-52 was better than the B-1 at low level then someone messed up. I will have go ask a source about that one.

Also, the reliability of the B-1 now is much better than it used to be. As long as the maintainers have spare parts then they can beat the B-2 no problem at mission-up times.

Howver for rapid deployment, cruise missile capability, and loiter time nothing has beaten the B-52 yet.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
Give me the B-1. The USAF is just now realizing what they can do with that plane. Besides it's way better looking than the other two, it's faster, and carries a heavier payload. If we could solve that range problem it would be perfect.

Also, what other big bomber do you know of that can do barrel rolls? Seriously.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by JFrazier]


Too bad it's a maintenance PIG. One of the crew chiefs told me once that there's no such thing as a fully mission capable B-1. EVERY B-1 has some kind of problem with it.
And they all have huge problems with the electrical. They had to remove one generator to save weight, so it doesn't have nearly enough power for everything it tries to do.

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]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This may seem a bit odd or out of sorts.. but I suggest the machine which replaced the SR71, or the latest black project machine, mach 8 or more.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Here's a few comments from a B-1 pilot. I wish Rockwell had just gone ahead and done it right from the factory. I kind of wish Boeing had put it together instead.

"I flew both Buffs and Bones operationally and in flight test at Edwards. Even flew the Buff in Desert Storm, low level and high level. Let me tell you, there is no comparison in capabilities. The Bone is the weapon of choice for all ongoing ops in the Mid East. You can park a Bone w/ 16 or 24 JDAMs and orbit waiting for targets to come up. With the 3 foot resolution radar and ground moving target indicator radar modes, there is not much that can slip by. Also, the super high subsonic speed and outstanding acceleration allow the jet to keep energy up for the fight. I flew many Red Flags and other exercises in the Bone (never in combat, though) and we were never "tapped" by the Red Air. All my buds who flew Bones in the Gulf said that the performance was better than ever anticipated. I'm proud of every hour that I flew in that jet..."

"What is killing the B-52s is the low level flight. When I was flying test at Edwards, they restricted the operatianal Buffs from low levels. Only Weapons School and my test unit at Edwards were the only ones authorized for low levels. The Bones were designed for low level, but it still takes its toll. The Bone also had the active turbulence suppression system (Structural Modes Control System, SMCS, aka Smucks to the crews) that really reduces the bending on the fuselage, and smoothed out the ride quite a bit... Quite honestly, at TF altitudes (200-400 feet) and 0.9+ Mach, there are few interceptors that can catch you. Our best tactic was to not turn at all, but point the nose straight ahead and go to mil power; that would give you 0.93 Mach without even touching the blowers (afterburners). If you really needed to move out, min burner would get you about 0.96 Mach, but the SMCS were only cleared to 0.95. Though I do recall a Red Flag when we had to haul butt away from a Red Air F-16 aggressor and we were at about 200 feet AGL and 1.1 Mach..."



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Speaking of B-3? HERE IT IS: Keystone B-3 bomber


IMO, best bomber of all times is/was B-17 Flying Fortress.

And speaking of modern bombers, one should mention Russian Tu-160 Blackjack (it's VERY similiar to B-1).

Tu-160 Blackjack



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hey, its not fair just picking the lastest and best in absolute terms!!!



Its like saying the F-22 is better than the P-51D because it can supercruise!!

While a B-1B, B-52 or B-2 are miles better than older machines - the older machines had to fight in extreme threat environments.



The B-25, B-17, B-24, B-29, Mosquito, Ju-88 etc all did their time in very hostile airspace.

The B-1B or B-2 in comparison, have done fook all to deserve the same respect. There is no way you can compare operations over Iraq or Serbia to raids over Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII!


The BUFF can make a case as it fought in several larger scale wars against competent opponents, yet it never had to fight its own way into hostile airspace, reach the target, drop bombs and clear off.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duby78

IMO, best bomber of all times is/was B-17 Flying Fortress.


I rejected the fortress as until the G version arrived (with the chin turret) it was very vunerable to head-on attack.


The B-29 in contrast, was pretty much uninterceptable by all aircraft of the time.

edit: www.historylink.org...


Sorry incorrect earlier, later bombers in WWII un-interceptable. Others just extremely tough nuts!

The linky mentions a bomber that shot down 14 fighters over Tokyo!!

[edit on 14-9-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
That is true kilcoo. But did the OP mean modern bomber or just all-time. My vote would have changed to the B-52 if he had specified the time period.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join