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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
And you're completely missing the FACT of how they were used in Vietnam. They were sent in on the same routes, at the same times, in small sections at a time. BUFFs were designed to go in in large waves, along random tracks, swarming the defenses. NOT going in in 10-20 plane "waves" along the exact same track at the exact same time, night after night.




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You lot still aren't reading what I'm saying.

The B-17, B-24, B-25 & B-29 all penetrated hostile airspace without fighter



If you think a few FB-111s are gonna clear out big lanes in the Soviet airforce to allow B-52s to trundle through, I'll leave you all to it, your obviously in a fantasy world!

[edit on 19-9-2006 by kilcoo316]


Need I remind you of what a civilian pilot did in the 1980's to the much vaunted Soviet Air Defense system. He flew all the way to Red Square. At 500 kts below the radar screens a B-52 could have easily penetrated Soviet airspace if it wasn't detected. B-52 crews were trained to avoid radar detection as were Soviet bomber crews. Electronic intelligence recon missions, satellite photos as well as active radar suppression missions were all part of the plans to strike back in the event of nuclear war with the Soviets. The Soviet Air Defense system were thinking like the French did after WW1 with its Maginot line. They relied heavily on fixed ground based radar systems for target identification and vectoring. I believe that they didn't even put radar on their interceptors till the Mig-21 came about. Once those ground based radars are destroyed or rendered ineffective, even with radar until the fighter makes visual contact he doesn't know if he's shooting at a bomber, passenger airliner or a decoy. The Soviets knew they had way too much air space to defend even with their huge defense systems.

Admin edit - Removed bold tag from entire post.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by SimonGray]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Could the B-52s do the same in their era? Nope is the definite answer, they just about got away with it in vietnam against what must be said, was a resourceful, but limited foe.


Ok, I'll give you that one! You caught me on the facts. I know the stories of the staggering B-52 losses during Linebacker and Linebacker II over Viet Nam.

Did the B-52 have the penetrating capibility in the 50's 60's and 70's that the B-17 had in the 1940's? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Tim



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
And you're both missing the key to the losses in Linebacker and Linebacker II. They were sent on the SAME ROUTES, and the SAME TIMES, in SMALL NUMBERS, and were even ordered to turn after the pass over Hanoi, which helped to kill the effectiveness of their EW systems. OF COURSE they're going to take staggering losses doing that.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I'm not sure I would call 15 lost bombers during Linebacker II as staggering--Heavy, perhaps, but not staggering.


A total of 741 B-52s were dispatched to bomb North Vietnam during Linebacker II, with 725 actually bombing. 15,000 tons of bombs were dropped on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including 8 SAM sites). 212 Arclight missions were flown during the same period. 10 B-52s were shot down over North Vietnam, 4 others crashed in Laos or Thailand, and 1 crashed at base. 26 aircrew were rescued, 33 were killed or missing, and 33 became prisoners of war.

en.wikipedia.org...


en.wikipedia.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.nampows.org...

[edit on 2006/9/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not sure I would call 15 lost bombers during Linebacker II as staggering--Heavy, perhaps, but not staggering.


Good links and information Grady... Considering that the USAF wrote off over 100 B-29's in Korea i do not think we can consider the loss of that many B-52's 'staggering' at all.

I do however side with Kilco on the ineffectiveness of the B-52 in a strategic bombing role and after 1980 it's widely understood ( as far as i discovered anyways) that the B-52's would not have been able to breach the USSR's air defenses in any meaningful way. The other point is obviously how many would have been able to get airborne ( beside the few dozen in the air at all time) before the first SLBM's arrived to destroy SAC's facilities...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
B-52's on alert could be airborne in as little as 7 minutes upon notification from launch authority, but I believe 12 minutes was the max requirement. I knew that a trained BUFF crew could reach altitude before our alert F- 4E's could get airborne at Carswell AFB in the late 80's.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
If I recall correctly we had 400+ B-52 in the early 80's. Each could be equipped with at least 12 cruise missiles.


Actually less than 250 were operational by 1983 and while they could carry as many cruise missiles as you say the DIA did not apparently consider this enough to make them effective by the start of the 80's.


If 25% of these bombers got through, that 100 bombers with 1200 cruise missile being launched into the former USSR.


Of the few that would likely survive the initial strikes on air fields by FOBS/SLBM's ( or were on alert/patrol at the time) i do not think 25% or even 50% would have gotten even close to breaching the fighters sent to engage them and whatever missiles or planes got past that would still have to breach the dense air defenses in Western/European Russia. Remember that even modern cruise missiles can be shot with rather ancient air defense weapons as the Serbians proved quite well.


That not including the 8 SRAM and 4 gravitiy bombs they carried internally at the time. This was that standard strategic nuclear load they carried at the time. The B-52 pilots knew they were pretty much on a one way mission.


Both I and the DIA had/have doubts about just how effective Sram's would have ben against a layered air defense system...


But you've forgotten that FB-111's from Pease and Griffis AFB would have preceded the BUFF's to punch holes in the Soviet air defense system to clear lanes for them fly through.


They would have had to contend with strategic fighters and the same air defenses with those fighters getting time to land and refuel ( given proper amounts of dispersed airfields to survive the nuclear exchange) and probably reengage before SAC bombers could arrive en mass. Remember that American aircraft simple can not do what Russians one can in terms of grass landings and the like and their forward air bases in Europe would just get destroyed even faster by spetnaz and short range ICBM's. Whatever the case may be you can not nuke all the air defense sites and radars ( you would run out of warheads long before they run out of radars/air defenses) while they can surely target the few dozen air bases that could operate these theater bombers.


Any way you look at it a full out bomber only nuclear attack against the Soviets would have been devastating.


Well i can assure you that i have looked at it in more ways than you have and i did not get the impression that it would have been 'devastating' in the sense that the USSR would have just fallen apart. In strategic weapons and defenses the USSR were rather far ahead by the early 80's and imo had not only a clear advantage in most strategic weapons but also the passive civil defense capacity to absorb whatever blows they could not prevent their enemy from landing...


Let's not forget that the Navy would have launched the SLBM's first and by the time the BUFF's got there the ICBMs from the USA would have struck many targets.


Agreed but these SLBM's do not each fire at once and the missiles arrive spread out over time and space meaning they can be attacked by the SA-2/Sa-5/Sa-10 types of weaponry which would have ample time to reload before the Sac bombers arrive while there would be no ports to return to for the surviving US strategic boats.


There's hasn't been a bomber raid without fighter escort since WW2. So I still believe that BUFF fleet is probably the most effective bomber in the USAF today.


Which is not saying much considering it's age and the war it would have had to fight for most of it's service life.

If you want to check out some of my previous arguments on this and related topics...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'll bet a B-52 raid on Russia post 1970 would not have achieved 25% of its objectives.


I would say that for at least part ( if not most ) of thje 70's the B-52's would have been at least partly effective and would have achieved the destruction of plenty of targets but that it would not have been enough to offset America's lack of force projection in other areas.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Need I remind you of what a civilian pilot did in the 1980's to the much vaunted Soviet Air Defense system. He flew all the way to Red Square.


Ahh, do you know why?


He flew at 120 kts or something similarly slow in a cessna. Basically, he flew below the filter speed. A B-52 at 500kts will not be below the filter speed.


Not to take anything away from the pilot, superb demonstration of sustained low level flying.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The USAF currently plans to retire the B-1B in the 2020-25 time frame last I heard, I don't know when they plan to retire the B-2, but the B-52 isn't scheduled for retirement until 2040!
My guess is that they will retire the B-2 at some time before the B-52. There's no hard data how well it's composite components will hold up over the years. But even if it is retired in 2040, it will still be a 50+ year old aircraft.
You can put down hard money that before they retire the BUFF, it will be a vastly different aircraft then the ones flying today. It will probably armed with some form of airborne laser for self defense. The underwing pylons may carry some form of UCAV escort/strike fighter. It will also probably have some sort of passive radar absorbtion material to mask or change its signature to look like a commercial airliner. It will be re-engined to more modern turbofan engines probably from eight engines to four.
For those you who haven't worked with the BUFF, it is the most heavily modified aircraft ever built. When I last worked with them in '96, they had had over 13,000 different modifications since the original accepted aircraft design. When the last E/R/F/B-52XX goes to the boneyard, it will be the last of the Cold Warriors, long outflying most of its pilots.
This is my last post on this subject, you BUFF detractors!


[edit on 20-9-2006 by crgintx]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
When the last E/R/F/B-52XX goes to the boneyard, it will be the last of the Cold Warriors, long outflying most of its pilots.
[edit on 20-9-2006 by crgintx]


For the record, the B-52 is on "H" right now. Although a J model wouldn't be bad.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join