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.

 

Which is the better bomber- the B-52 or the B-2

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The B-52 is the classic aircraft and be upgraded many, many, many, many... anyway, many times, but like any other aircraft it too can only be upgraded so many times. The B-2 is the most up-to-date bomber. In my opinion, the B-2 is the better equipted jet, but the B-52 is the most cost effective jet. It is a tie. Tell me what you think.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
depends on the situation really. if you want to go in stealthly and hit a precise target or if you want to carpet bomb the bejeezes out of something



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pita
depends on the situation really. if you want to go in stealthly and hit a precise target or if you want to carpet bomb the bejeezes out of something


Both airframes can do both almost 100% the same from what I've been lead to believe in theory at least. Its just costs again and how much your willing to put on the line and what sort of target it is. situations determine the plane not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
It is very difficult to accurately compare the two aircraft because both are in the same inventory and both do different things and are designed to do different jobs.

A B-2 can do what a B-52 can't and a B-52 likewise.

You'd probably be better off comparing bombers of different Air Forces, not of the same Air Force.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Or why not ask the question "is a plane designed in 1950 as good as one designed to do the same job 30 years later"?

Its a no-brainer. Of course the B-2 is a vastly superior bomber. If it wasn't every engineer at Northrop and every planner in high office in the USAF should be taken outside and shot.

When ATB was launched it was intended to replace all B-52's and form a partnership with the B-1B, eventually replacing that too if possible.

The only reason it hasn't is cost, that is why production ended after number 21. There was no sudden realisation that the B-52 was better at something, the US just wouldn't/couldn't spend the money.



[edit on 7-4-2007 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Its a no-brainer. Of course the B-2 is a vastly superior bomber. If it wasn't every engineer at Northrop and every planner in high office in the USAF should be taken outside and shot.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by waynos]


The B-52 must be good for something, its still around.

Now i read a good book where they took a B-52 gave it a set of 747 engines, black radar absorbent paint, and added some ECM pods.

They put on a couple doxen ASRAM missiles and made it a air to air platform.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Of course the B-52 is still a good platform, no one is saying it isn't. But it's also not a front line bomber anymore. It goes in AFTER area defenses are suppressed. It's also a cruise missile platform more than a bomber anymore.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   


The B-52 must be good for something, its still around


Of course, but that wasn't the question.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Which is better? this is really an unfair comparrison. The B-52 and B-2 compliment each other. They were built to fill different rolls in the startegic mission.

The B-2 is optimized for deep penetration and precision strike of critical targets. The B-52, on the other hand is better at sustained heavy bombardment of large targets.

What your asking is like saying which job is more inprotant in you community, a Police Officer or a Fire Fighter?

Tim



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   


Which is better? this is really an unfair comparrison. The B-52 and B-2 compliment each other. They were built to fill different rolls in the startegic mission.


No they weren't Tim, thats not true. They were built for exactly the same mission, but decades apart. Remember the B-2 was supposed to have replaced the B-52. If all 100 planned aircraft had been produced there would be no B-52's in service today.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   


If all 100 planned aircraft had been produced there would be no B-52's in service today.



And the US would have no other planes in it inventory as already pointed out.

jokes. But honestly the plane is a fortune and cut to a rediclously small force. Also why does the F-22 which is another 5th gen plane so much cheaper? was the cost of the actual planes (B-2) cheaper but the massive R&D triple the costs?



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Of course B-2 is better, just see the price!



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Hey all,

Since I'm stepping into a conversation way above my pay grade, go easy on me. I answered the the question of which one is better by thinking of which one I would rather fly into hostile airspace. That may be oversimplified, but that is why I think the B-2 is better. I'm biased toward the B-2 because I live approximately 100 miles away from Whiteman AFB and get to see them on a fairly regular basis.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I'm biased toward the B-2 because I live approximately 100 miles away from Whiteman AFB and get to see them on a fairly regular basis.


Lucky dog is all I can say!!
Oh that and welcome to ATS be sure to just ask if you have any questions alot of the guys and gals in the aviation forums shuch as myself will be glad to help you out with any problems. Cheers EH



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I could be wrong but I would assume that the B-52 can carry a heavier bomb load and is well a more stable design while the B-2 has the stealth advantage.

Flying wing designs are naturally unstable. One of the F-117 Nighthawk's nicknames is the "Wobblin`gobblin" because its handling is rumored to be somewhat erratic.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
I could be wrong but I would assume that the B-52 can carry a heavier bomb load and is well a more stable design while the B-2 has the stealth advantage.

Flying wing designs are naturally unstable. One of the F-117 Nighthawk's nicknames is the "Wobblin`gobblin" because its handling is rumored to be somewhat erratic.


Couple of problems with this. The B-2 is actually a very stable plane and most military planes are with only fighters and the like having a unstable charateristic that is brought back under control by fly by wire and other systems in simple terms.

The wobblin gobblin F-117 nickname came about during mid air-refueling trials when the test pilots and those that followed found the plane to behave some what tipsy handling characteristics. In actuality the F-117s is actually a fine plane to fly outside of landing and refueling. Also the F-117 is considered a flying wing. It was orginally desgined to be stealthy and then given some plane like feaetures and then compinsate for the instablity that followed. Those issues had been solved when the B-2 was create years later.

And for anyones interest in this thread the following information:

B-2
40,000 lb (18,000 kg) of Bomb Rack Assembly mounted 500 lb class bombs (Mk82) (total carriage quantity: 80)
27,000 lb (12,000 kg) of BRA mounted 750 lb CBU class bombs (total carriage quantity: 36)
16 Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA) mounted 2000 lb class weapons (Mk84, JDAM-84, JDAM-102)
16 RLA mounted B61 or B83 nuclear weapons

B-52H
Guns: 1× 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon in a remote-controlled tail turret, now removed from all operational aircraft.
Ordnance: up to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) bombs, missiles, and mines, in various configurations



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Here's more of a breakdown for those that are interested:

B-52:

Armament:
# NOTE: The B-52 can carry 27 internal weapons. Authoritative sources diverge as to maximum munition loads, with some suggesting as many as 51 smaller munitions and 30 larger munitions, while others suggest maximum loads of 45 and 24, respectively. The Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam [HSAB] external pylon can carry only 9 weapons which limits the total carry to 45 (18 external).
# The AGM-28 pylon could carry lighter weapons like the MK-82 and can carry 12 weapons on each pylon, for a total of 24 external weapons, for a the total of 51. However, the AGM-28 pylon is no longer used, so the B-52 currently carries on HSABs, limiting the external load to 18 bombs, or a total of 45 bombs.


Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles.

NUCLEAR
20 ALCM
12 SRAM [ext]
12 ACM [ext]
2 B53 [int]
8 B-61 Mod11 [int]
8 B-83 [int]
CONVENTIONAL
51 CBU-52 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-58 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-71 (27 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 87 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 89 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 97 (6 int, 18 ext)
51 M117
18 Mk 20 (ext)
51 Mk 36
8 Mk 41
12 Mk 52
8 Mk 55
8 Mk 56
51 Mk 59
8 Mk 60 (CapTor)
51 Mk. 62
8 Mk. 64
8 Mk 65
51 MK 82
18 MK 84 (ext)
PRECISION
180 GBU-39 SDB (72 ext)
18 JDAM (12 ext)
30 WCMD (16 ext)
8 AGM-84 Harpoon
20 AGM-86C CALCM
8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext]
18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext)
12 AGM-158 JASSSM [ext]
12 TSSAM
2 MOP / DSHTW / Big BLU

www.globalsecurity.org...


Armament:
NUCLEAR
16 B61
16 B83
16 AGM-131 SRAM 2 CONVENTIONAL
80 MK82 [500lb]
16 MK84 [2000lb]
34-36 CBU87
34-36 CBU89
34-36 CBU97
PRECISION
216 GBU-39 SDB [250lb]
80 GBU-30 JDAM [500lb]
16 GBU-32 JDAM [2000lb]
8 GBU 27
8 EGBU 28
8 GBU 36
8 GBU 37
8-16 AGM-154 JSOW
8-16 AGM-137 TSSAM
2 MOP / DSHTW / Big BLU
Payload: 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms)

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Maybe people can't agree on what it means to be a better bomber?

Sure the B-52 has a greater payload. But carrying a greater payload didn't stop the Lancaster being replaced by the Washington (B-29) and Canberra in the RAF. They were better bombers of course. And even though the Vulcan had the same bombload as the Washington, it was still a much better bomber.

I would say that the better bomber is the one that can reach its target, deliver its load accurately and then survive the mission for another go.

To me, that is pretty obviously the B-2. Besides, what use is it carrying an 80,000lb bomb load if 90% of those bombs miss the target? Thats what happens when dropping masses of dumb bombs and that was the mission that the B-52 was designed for, way back when that was how bombing was done. Evolution has changed that thanks to cruise missiles etc, but it still doesn't make the B-52 better than the B-2.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
They were built for exactly the same mission, but decades apart. Remember the B-2 was supposed to have replaced the B-52. .


Waynos,

The B-2 is optimized to function as a Strategic penatrator with PGM's. The B-52 on the other hand was not. If you remember correctly the B-52's replacement was supposed to be the B-1! Origionally when ATB was first concieved in 1978, you comment was true! However, by the time the B-2 was taking shape in 85-86 the mission for the ATB had evloved, making your statement no longer valid.

Can you tell me why you think the US Air Force built both the B-1 and B-2 for the same mission?

If we go strictly for capibilities, the B-2 is the BETTER bomber, HANDS DOWN!


Tim

[edit on 4/8/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Sure Tim, the USAF has had as much trouble trying to replace the B-52 as the RAF had trying to replace the Canberra.

The first attempt was the B-70. That never materialized as an operational bomber at all.


If you remember correctly the B-52's replacement was supposed to be the B-1!


Yes it was, but the existence of the B-1 does not mean the B-2 wasn't also intended to replace the B-52. If you remember, the B-1 was begun around 1970, with a prototype flying in 1974. When Carter decided the B-1 was surplus to requirements he canned it in 1977 and that might have been the end for the programme.



Can you tell me why you think the US Air Force built both the B-1 and B-2 for the same mission?


In a nutshell, because when Reagan decided he did want a modern bomber force after all, in 1981, the B-1 was already available thanks to the earlier, but cancelled B-1A, and would fill the gap until the B-2 was developed. The alternative option of soldiering on with B-52's alone until the ATB programme bore fruit was unthinkable.

The original requirement for 132 aircraft foresaw the B-2 replacing both the B-1 and B-52, the reason you now have three types in service is because B-2 production, instead, ended after 21 had been built, which was clearly not enough.



The B-2 is optimized to function as a Strategic penatrator with PGM's. The B-52 on the other hand was not.


I absolutely guarantee you that it was, talk of PGM's is splitting hairs, you are talking about the munitions, not the plane. When the B-52 was new it was the very epitome of a strategic penetrator. The reason the B-2 operates in a different way is because the technology of warfare has evolved, not because the role is different. Its like saying the P-51 wasn't an interceptor because it didn't carry AAM's - only because they weren't around at the time.




Origionally when ATB was first concieved in 1978, you comment was true! However, by the time the B-2 was taking shape in 85-86 the mission for the ATB had evloved, making your statement no longer valid.


Sorry Tim but I think that statement is a bit contradictory. If it was designed to replace the B-52 when it was begun, then the subsequent evolution of the bomber role does not change that original premise, it still stands that the B-2 was designed to replace the B-52.



[edit on 8-4-2007 by waynos]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join