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

Originally posted by Canada_EH
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

No not Really! A flying wing has the entire body of the aircraft contined within the wing. The F-117, though facted has a conventional configuration: a body, two wings, and a tail! However I wll give you that it does employ some of the characteristics of a lifting body.

However, Strictly speaking, the F-117 is NOT considered a flying wing!

Tim

Dang it that was a miss spelling on my part and now it will forever haunt me. I meant to say that the F-117 is not considered a flying wing. Dang it oh well we all make mistakes (crawls into dark corner alone and curls into the fetal position).

Canada_EH,

Hey buddy, you don't have to beat yourself up over it. We all make mistakes sometimes. It's a part of being human!

To make it more intresting, the body of the F-117 does have some lift generating qualities to it's design. Many have made the same error. Believe it or not, I've even seen a book with that misinformation written in it.

Tim

You really cannot pick between the two. They are both great!

Hold on, am I missing something, or shouldn't it be that if an aircraft's mission changes, it can no longer replace an older aircraft whose mission is different than the latter?

Shattered OUT...

The B-52's mission was to deliver nuclear bombs to the USSR. It wasalso a bomber that can fly non-stop around the world. The B-2's mission was to deliver the payload in style, or stealth. The B-2 is full capable of completing the B-52's mission, but they each have their specialties.

Originally posted by waynos
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]

No it's not! You are contradiction hunting without a licence, Waynos!

You can't truly hold a fair comparason, BECAUSE the mission has evolved and changed in the way it is conducted. let me give you a more Darmatic example:

The World War 2 P-51 was built for Air Superiority. For it's time it was one of the best ever.

Now, let's jump forward to the F-15 Eagle, also an Air Superiority Fighter. Also a legiond in it's own right.

If you flew them in head to head compatiton, which plane is the better fighter? Your answer (based on your logic) would be the F-15!

However, the comparison is unfair because modern fighters use different weapon and technology then World War 2 aircraft, makeing it an unfair match up.

As technology evolves and changes, you need to evaluate different generation of aircraft on their OWN merits, and not against each other as you are doing here. Why does NOONE seem to get this?

Tim

Actually tim, that's what the original comparison WAS for. This entire thread is comparing two generations of bombers originally built for the same purpose, but whose missions later changed.

Shattered OUT...

no tim. I think you may be the one who is missing the point. The question, as originally posted, is firmly in the present tense and that is how I answered it. Hence my comment about everyone involved with developing the B-2 deserving to be shot if it had NOT been vastly superior.

Also, despite the role evolving, they are both still strategic bombers, as are the B-29, Lancaster and O/400. Of course they have evolved, its a natural process. You can still see that the B-52 is a better bomber than the ones that went before it. This is not an unfair comparison, it is evolution.
When comparing the P-51 and F-15 the same applies, the context of the comparison is what is important. in terms of direct capabilities it is clear cut, in terms of contemporary impact the comparison is much less clear cut.

Regarding the quote, if an aircraft was concieved to replace another aircraft, this is a simple fact. Whatever happens afterwards does not change that. It is a matter of history that the B-2 was created as a B-52 replacement. The fact that it hasn't doesn't mean history has to be rewritten to accommodate that fact.

Originally posted by waynos
Regarding the quote, if an aircraft was concieved to replace another aircraft, this is a simple fact. Whatever happens afterwards does not change that. It is a matter of history that the B-2 was created as a B-52 replacement. The fact that it hasn't doesn't mean history has to be rewritten to accommodate that fact.

Alright, if the B-2 was created to replace the B-52, how come the B-52 is planned to stay in service for another 40-50 years? Is it because that each B-2 costs 2.2 billion dollars, or is it because of the low cost to upgrade the B-52?

Because the B-52 and B-2 missions have changed since their original conception.

The B-2 was conceived to replace the B-52 at its role, but due to the low number of crafts available for the price, the B-2's mission changed. Also the changing climate of world politics had changed over the years. There are really many reasons why the B-2 will no longer replace the B-52 unit for unit, but in some aspects the B-2 has indeed replaced the B-52 with of the aid of the B-1B of course.

Shattered OUT...

do you know how long it will take to replace the B-52 completely?

Originally posted by galm 1
do you know how long it will take to replace the B-52 completely?

I don't even think the Pentagon knows that answer to that one! Remember the Airforce has been trying to replace the B-52 since the late 1950's. The first plane intended as a replacement was the B-58. After the B-58 fell through, came the XB-70 Mach 3 bomber. The XB-70 was turned into a research aircraft and the B-52 carried on for a few years until the Rockwell B-1A was conceived and built as the B-52's replacement. In the Carter era the B-1A was canclled and the ATB concept first invented. A few years later under Regan the B-1 was revived as the B-1B with the Idea of being a B-52 replacement. After the B-1B, came the B-2 Spirit.

After all these tries, the B-52 is still in service with the Air Force. Given this history, I seriously doubt that ANYONE can give you a real answer on how long it will take to replace the B-52 once and for all.

Tim

Do you think that the B-52 will be in service until it is run to the ground? What I mean is that will it be in service until it can't be upgraded before, or will it go out before that time?

The B-52 will be retired because it's going to run out of airframe hours. You can only fly an airframe so long before the repairs you'll have to make will cost more than it's worth to fix. At that point it's cheaper to retire it than to keep it flying.

So, at this point, which bomber is most likely to stay in service the longest? I think that the B-2 will stay in service for a while longer, but the B-52 is going to stay in service for about 50 more years. The B-2 is cutting edge, but it will be obsolete in the future, but how far into the future. Do you think that it will be in the distant future or the foreseeable future?

The B-52 won't MAKE another 50 years. It's going to run out of airframe hours before that happens. They MIGHT be able to keep 62 airframes in service until around 2044, IF they only fly 350 hours a year, but I seriously doubt that we'll see them last that long either. It's going to get too expensive to keep repairing them, and upgrading them. They're going to have to make MAJOR changes to them to keep them flying for that long.

[edit on 4/15/2007 by Zaphod58]

So, do you think that we should spend more money on improving our B-2 fleet?

That's not going to happen either. We're going to have to develop an entirely new bomber platform that combines the best of both of them.

How true! I bet it might be another flying wing design. The Flying Wing would give the Air Force the long range, heavy payload, and fule effiency of the B-2. However, I would expect them to cut back on the over the top stealth features. Another thing they might do is go for some off-the-shelf technology instead of developing everything from scratch like they did on the B-2. Useing off-the-shelf technology would save the Air Force a boat load of money.

Tim