AR15.Com Archives
 Best bomber of the current day??
CFII  [Member]
5/21/2004 9:35:06 AM EST
For a change of pace, no more fighter topics. I want to see what you all think the best modern bomber currently in service is.

My vote

B1B. Carries a shit load of bombs, JDAM, CMs, fast, sleek, low radar cross section (kinda stealthy), manuverable, and sexy.


your vote?
Paid Advertisement
--
AR_Rifle  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 9:36:39 AM EST
The F-117 or the B2 win in this category. Stealth is the way to go.

Fly-Navy  [Member]
5/21/2004 9:44:22 AM EST
B2. You can't see it.

B1B can't carry nukes anymore, I think that's a hit against it.
VTHOKIESHOOTER  [Member]
5/21/2004 9:49:42 AM EST
B1B all the way
TUBBY  [Member]
5/21/2004 9:51:12 AM EST
B-52 by far. Carries a shitload of bombs, easily seen so it gives the bad guys time to pray to Allah before their violent deaths.
uns69  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 9:53:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By TUBBY:
B-52 by far. Carries a shitload of bombs, easily seen so it gives the bad guys time to pray to Allah before their violent deaths.



nice
DOW  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 9:53:19 AM EST
B1B is a nice bomber, but you simply can't argue with stealth. The B2 blows it out of the water in every category other than speed, which you really don't need if you have stealth. If I'm wrong so far as ordnance capacity, etc, somebody correct me. I'm interested as well.
RS39  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 9:55:24 AM EST
Soften em up with stealth, then saturate them with cheaper B52s. But B1 if had to have only 1 in the inventory.
uns69  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 9:56:34 AM EST
In a suprise attack I would want to be in a B2. In almost any other mission, I would want the B1b. The B52 is perfect in Desert Storm conditions when its more psychological.
Clay-More  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:05:08 AM EST
The B-52 is the most combat proven bomber platform still flying today, but the advent of stealth tech in the B-2 is pretty awesome.
AR_Rifle  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:07:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
B1B is a nice bomber, but you simply can't argue with stealth. The B2 blows it out of the water in every category other than speed, which you really don't need if you have stealth. If I'm wrong so far as ordnance capacity, etc, somebody correct me. I'm interested as well.



We all saw it in "Desert Storm", those triple A lit up the sky like the Fourth of July. Imagine that without stealth.

The B1B is a good Bomber but it is a thing of the past.

CFII  [Member]
5/21/2004 10:07:29 AM EST
I know that the B1b carries more dumb bombs that either, and the B2 carries the least. However, I wouldnt want either of them parked over my city...
vito113  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:14:42 AM EST
I'd go with the B1B… it has big load and SPEED!

To operate in daylight speed is life. The B2 cannot operate safely in daylight, its a big slow sitting duck in a visual environment. The B1B can hold it's own in the sunshine, fast and on the deck.

Andy
DeltaAir423  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:18:05 AM EST
Gotta go with the Buff.
John91498  [Member]
5/21/2004 10:23:06 AM EST
Another vote for the buff.
Winston_Wolf  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:24:32 AM EST
... That's easy, without peer: the B-2 Spirit

CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:29:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
B2. You can't see it.

B1B can't carry nukes anymore, I think that's a hit against it.



Sure it can, it just takes a slight modification with a forklift and some electronics.
Forest  [Member]
5/21/2004 10:31:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
The B2 blows it out of the water in every category other than speed, which you really don't need if you have stealth.



WTF have you been smoking?

B1B has speed and most importantly PAYLOAD advantages ove the B2. The B2 is nice if you're going against a 1st world country with sophisticated RADAR - for all others the B1B is a better choice.

and yes the B1 does have more capacity for 'carpet bombing' than the B-52.

The B-52H, payload of 70,000lb (51 x 500lb or 30 x 1,000lb)

B2 has a 40,000 lbs payload

The B-1B with a weapons payload of 80,000 lb (84 x 500 lbs or 24x2000 lbs) makes it the 'big boy' on the block.

Data taken from: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82
CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:45:10 AM EST
Depends on what you want to use it for.

With a nuclear strike you need to consider your target:
- B-52 can carry 12 ACM on the wings
or
- B-52 can carry 12 ALCM on the wings and 8 internally on the CSRL
so
Using the B-52 you can launch missiles from many, many miles then turn back for reconstitution

- B-2 will usually carry 4 internal B-83 bombs, sometimes 4 B-61 bombs
so
Using the B-2 you actually have to fly, in a stealthy manner, over the target.

Usually you won't have to fly directly over the target unless you're delivering a B-61 mod 11 (ground penetrating)

The ALCM and ACM each carry the W-80 which is a select low yield weapon.

The B-83's warhead is select yield with a 1 megaton capability. This is useful mostly at high altitude burst which will allow a far-reaching EMP burst to knock out enemy communications.

So you see, the weapons systems compliment each other.

In a single strike though, I'd have to go with the B-1B.

You can easily find any of this on the internet.
NewbHunter  [Member]
5/21/2004 10:51:44 AM EST
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that currently carry nukes according to him. I'd take the B1B almost any day over anything else. The B-2 is better for night bombing runs, but you better believe that during daylight the B1B owns. It's what we've been using in Afghanistan very effectively.

Apparently the B1B also has some classified weapons systems that my brother is not allowed to talk about. He told me that when the WSO's train for that aircraft that all of the weapons system information is contained and taught in ONE building in the country. All studying and all educational materials about the weapons systems of that plane are not allowed to leave the building. He said that basically in order to be a B1B WSO you have to know EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that the US has and EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that any other country we might be fighting would have (that we know about).

Sounds pretty sweet to me. Oh, and did I even mention that it also has the terrain following system where a computer can basically controls the plane over mountains and extremely rugged terrain at extremely high speeds and extremely low altitudes? He told me that when the fighter jets escort the B1B that as soon as it turns on the terrain following computer (whatever it's called) and hits the deck the fighters have to peel away because they can't keep up.
CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 10:54:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that can carry nukes according to him. I'd take the B1B almost any day over anything else. The B-2 is better for night bombing runs, but you better believe that during daylight the B1B owns. It's what we've been using in Afghanistan very effectively.

Apparently the B1B also has some classified weapons systems that my brother is not allowed to talk about. He told me that when the WSO's train for that aircraft that all of the weapons system information is contained and taught in ONE building in the country. All studying and all educational materials about the weapons systems of that plane are not allowed to leave the building. He said that basically in order to be a B1B WSO you have to know EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that the US has and EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that any other country we might be fighting would have (that we know about).

Sounds pretty sweet to me. Oh, and did I even mention that it also has the terrain following system where a computer can basically controls the plane over mountains and extremely rugged terrain at extremely high speeds and extremely low altitudes? He told me that when the fighter jets escort the B1B that as soon as it turns on the terrain following computer (whatever it's called) and hits the deck the fighters have to peel away because they can't keep up.



No. Everything else is mostly right, except for the red.
Fly-Navy  [Member]
5/21/2004 10:57:46 AM EST
According to an Air Force Captain who is a backseater in a B1B that I talked to...they don't carry nukes.
CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:00:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
According to an Air Force Captain who is a backseater in a B1B that I talked to...they don't carry nukes.



True. They are no longer nuclear capable by our choice. Nor will they be any time in the future. They once were capable, but the systems were removed and a bulkhead was added to prevent certain things from being loaded into the weapons bays.
Fly-Navy  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:01:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By CAR-10:
True. They are no longer nuclear capable by our choice. Nor will they be any time in the future. They once were capable, but the systems were removed and a bulkhead was added to prevent certain things from being loaded into the weapons bays.



Yeah, I remember reading about that.
thelastgunslinger  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:02:37 AM EST
The TU-160 Blackjack is pretty fucking awesome.
CFII  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:03:38 AM EST
I believe that was when we took the bomber from nuclear strike only, to JDAM usable. The aircraft is expensive, and now we can use it for more than just nuclear holocaust and carpet bombing. Still a badass plane tho....
CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:04:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By CAR-10:
True. They are no longer nuclear capable by our choice. Nor will they be any time in the future. They once were capable, but the systems were removed and a bulkhead was added to prevent certain things from being loaded into the weapons bays.



Yeah, I remember reading about that.



I have a lot of friends who used to work the B-1 weapons systems at Carswell and some other places. It's just part of the drawback. When the system was operational for nuclear missions, it apparently took three B-1's fully loaded for the leadership to be satisfied that the target would be destroyed (because you could count on two of the planes not working properly). Apparently there were many reliability problems which have since been resolved.
limaxray  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:05:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that currently carry nukes according to him.



All true except the nuke part. That would be a direct violation of the START treaty.

We gave away the B1's capability to carry nukes when START 1 was signed, and went into effect when we took the bombers off alert in 1992. We epoxied over the hard points on the wings, and removed some of the equipment required to make it nuclear capable. Not to say it CAN'T do it (as CAR-10 says, it's a matter of electronics and some equipment), but it's not SUPPOSED to do it.

Also, the B52 is still nuclear capable. CAR-10 once again hit the nail on the head--methinks he does something with ALCMs & ACMs? (CAR-10--you a 2M0 or a 2W2?) The B52 is designed as our cruise-missile platform. Since it's not stealthy, we would use the B52 in the standoff mode, while the B2 would be the penetration bomber and drop gravity weapons.
CAR-10  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:07:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By limaxray:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that currently carry nukes according to him.



All true except the nuke part. That would be a direct violation of the START treaty.

We gave away the B1's capability to carry nukes when START 1 was signed, and went into effect when we took the bombers off alert in 1992. We epoxied over the hard points on the wings, and removed some of the equipment required to make it nuclear capable. Not to say it CAN'T do it (as CAR-10 says, it's a matter of electronics and some equipment), but it's not SUPPOSED to do it.

Also, the B52 is still nuclear capable. CAR-10 once again hit the nail on the head--methinks he does something with ALCMs & ACMs? (CAR-10--you a 2M0 or a 2W2?) The B52 is designed as our cruise-missile platform. Since it's not stealthy, we would use the B52 in the standoff mode, while the B2 would be the penetration bomber and drop gravity weapons.



Sure enough sir; former 2W2 NCO, now a newly commissioned 64P1 Contracting Officer. I like to look back on the memories cause working on nukes is about the coolest thing ever. I'll change the avatar when I get to Beale.
Armed_Scientist  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:07:09 AM EST
I guarantee you that the best bomber in the world is none of the above, the USAF has a great way of keeping it's best toys to itself. Although in a few years I think orbital weapons will make the concept of the bomber more or less obsolete.
NewbHunter  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:09:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By limaxray:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that currently carry nukes according to him.



All true except the nuke part. That would be a direct violation of the START treaty.

We gave away the B1's capability to carry nukes when START 1 was signed, and went into effect when we took the bombers off alert in 1992. We epoxied over the hard points on the wings, and removed some of the equipment required to make it nuclear capable. Not to say it CAN'T do it (as CAR-10 says, it's a matter of electronics and some equipment), but it's not SUPPOSED to do it.

Also, the B52 is still nuclear capable. CAR-10 once again hit the nail on the head--methinks he does something with ALCMs & ACMs? (CAR-10--you a 2M0 or a 2W2?) The B52 is designed as our cruise-missile platform. Since it's not stealthy, we would use the B52 in the standoff mode, while the B2 would be the penetration bomber and drop gravity weapons.



Ok, well I was just repeating what I thought my brother had told me the last time I had talked to him, but I might have not remembered that part right. Regardless I still think that the B1-B sounds like the most bad ass bomber we have. Not that I'm an expert, but I'm sure that my brother will tell me all about it, or at least what he's allowed to next time I see him.
Fly-Navy  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:10:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By CAR-10:
When the system was operational for nuclear missions, it apparently took three B-1's fully loaded for the leadership to be satisfied that the target would be destroyed (because you could count on two of the planes not working properly).



Or getting shot down.
Fly-Navy  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:10:34 AM EST
Bring back the A-6 Intruder!!! (ok ok, it's technically an attack aircraft)
thelastgunslinger  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:13:31 AM EST
No one cares to comment on the Blackjack?
KA3B  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:15:23 AM EST
If he is going to fly in the F-15E the he is in the Strike/Fighter pipeline.

If he is going to fly in the B-1B then he is in the Strike pipeline.

Two different pipelines, same result, self-loading baggage.


In VT-86, students fly the T-39 and T-2 aircraft.

They are selected for the strike pipeline, training to become electronic countermeasures officers (ECMO) or tactical coordination officers (TACCO) for the EA-6B"Prowler" or S-3"Viking"aircraft respectively.
USAF strike students will become defensive/offensive systems operators for the B-1B "Lancer".

Students in the strike/fighter pipeline train to become Navy radar intercept officers (RIO) in the F-14"Tomcat"or weapons systems operators (WSO) in the F/A-18F.
Marine Corps and Air Force WSO's are assigned to fly the F/A-18D or F-15E "Strike Eagle".




Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E.

Planerench  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:15:43 AM EST
The B1B has more payload than the B-52 and 1/100th the radar cross section. It was designed with stealth in mind. At it's speed, a dozen of them comming toward your country would be VERY scarry. Think very intermittent blips on the radar screen moments before the strike. If the budget of the B2 were used to build and improve the B1B I think the world would be a better place. (not to disrespect the achievement of the B2). Planerench out.
vito113  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 11:15:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
No one cares to comment on the Blackjack?



Small leather cosh…
MichaelSavage  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:22:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By CAR-10:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E. According to him the B1B has more payload capacity than the B-52, it's WAY faster, WAY more manuverable, and can carry almost anything that the US has in it's arsenal INCLUDING nukes. The B1B and the B-2 are the only two that can carry nukes according to him. I'd take the B1B almost any day over anything else. The B-2 is better for night bombing runs, but you better believe that during daylight the B1B owns. It's what we've been using in Afghanistan very effectively.

Apparently the B1B also has some classified weapons systems that my brother is not allowed to talk about. He told me that when the WSO's train for that aircraft that all of the weapons system information is contained and taught in ONE building in the country. All studying and all educational materials about the weapons systems of that plane are not allowed to leave the building. He said that basically in order to be a B1B WSO you have to know EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that the US has and EVERYTHING about EVERY weapon that any other country we might be fighting would have (that we know about).

Sounds pretty sweet to me. Oh, and did I even mention that it also has the terrain following system where a computer can basically controls the plane over mountains and extremely rugged terrain at extremely high speeds and extremely low altitudes? He told me that when the fighter jets escort the B1B that as soon as it turns on the terrain following computer (whatever it's called) and hits the deck the fighters have to peel away because they can't keep up.



No. Everything else is mostly right, except for the red.



Yep. Even an F-16 can carry a tactical nuke.

NewbHunter  [Member]
5/21/2004 11:24:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
If he is going to fly in the F-15E the he is in the Strike/Fighter pipeline.

If he is going to fly in the B-1B then he is in the Strike pipeline.

Two different pipelines, same result, self-loading baggage.


In VT-86, students fly the T-39 and T-2 aircraft.

They are selected for the strike pipeline, training to become electronic countermeasures officers (ECMO) or tactical coordination officers (TACCO) for the EA-6B"Prowler" or S-3"Viking"aircraft respectively.
USAF strike students will become defensive/offensive systems operators for the B-1B "Lancer".

Students in the strike/fighter pipeline train to become Navy radar intercept officers (RIO) in the F-14"Tomcat"or weapons systems operators (WSO) in the F/A-18F.
Marine Corps and Air Force WSO's are assigned to fly the F/A-18D or F-15E "Strike Eagle".




Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Well, my brother is training as a WSO right now in Pensecola and will be flying on either a B1B or an F-15E.




Well, he hasn't been assigned to either pipline yet. He knows it will either be B1B or F-15E, but he won't know which for a while yet. Both piplines train in Pensecola and then they get selected from there. He's currently in flight training, but not on the T-39 or T-2, but the T-6 (yay for an ejection seat!). I don't know when he'll find out which plane he's going to, but I think it will be a while yet.
AR_Rifle  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 12:09:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By DOW:
The B2 blows it out of the water in every category other than speed, which you really don't need if you have stealth.



WTF have you been smoking?

B1B has speed and most importantly PAYLOAD advantages ove the B2. The B2 is nice if you're going against a 1st world country with sophisticated RADAR - for all others the B1B is a better choice.

and yes the B1 does have more capacity for 'carpet bombing' than the B-52.

The B-52H, payload of 70,000lb (51 x 500lb or 30 x 1,000lb)

B2 has a 40,000 lbs payload

The B-1B with a weapons payload of 80,000 lb (84 x 500 lbs or 24x2000 lbs) makes it the 'big boy' on the block.

Data taken from: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82



As I can recall correctly the B1 have some technical problem and after a few crasches, it was grounded for awhile. You are talking about speed at low altitude?.....not a very good way to deliver smart bombs.

B1 is of the Cold War. We flew high (very high) they shot us down, we flew high and fast and with their catch up technology they still can intercept and shoot us down, then we flew low and fast ... Well we have problem there too (same as the F-111)

Stealth is not a sure thing, but who said we have to bomb in daytime?



SJSAMPLE  [Member]
5/21/2004 12:14:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR_Rifle:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By DOW:
The B2 blows it out of the water in every category other than speed, which you really don't need if you have stealth.



WTF have you been smoking?

B1B has speed and most importantly PAYLOAD advantages ove the B2. The B2 is nice if you're going against a 1st world country with sophisticated RADAR - for all others the B1B is a better choice.

and yes the B1 does have more capacity for 'carpet bombing' than the B-52.

The B-52H, payload of 70,000lb (51 x 500lb or 30 x 1,000lb)

B2 has a 40,000 lbs payload

The B-1B with a weapons payload of 80,000 lb (84 x 500 lbs or 24x2000 lbs) makes it the 'big boy' on the block.

Data taken from: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82



As I can recall correctly the B1 have some technical problem and after a few crasches, it was grounded for awhile. You are talking about speed at low altitude?.....not a very good way to deliver smart bombs.

B1 is of the Cold War. We flew high (very high) they shot us down, we flew high and fast and with their catch up technology they still can intercept and shoot us down, then we flew low and fast ... Well we have problem there too (same as the F-111)

Stealth is not a sure thing, but who said we have to bomb in daytime?






I believe it was the terrain hugging radar and collision avoidance system. Pilots were trained to fly extremely low and fast and to rely on the radar/collision system. When it failed, game over.
Va_Dinger  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 12:27:14 PM EST
I'm going to have to say the B-52. Enormous bomb load, and far cheaper than the others. We don't seem to need all the high cost, high tech crap to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
KA3B  [Member]
5/21/2004 12:30:19 PM EST
The best bomber?

The C-130!

The only bomber in the US Military where an Enlisted person gets to drop it!
OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 12:41:18 PM EST
B-52, slow, big, with a large bomb load, relatively ;pw tech and reliable

B-2 Stealthy. Slow, fragile, not usable during the day, lighter bomb load. Of course they are also based and flown from the US to drop bombs, then the rwturn to the US. That is due to security concerns and complicated maint. regimens.

B1B fast, somewhat stealthy, big bomb load. These can flow low and fast, using radar terrain following systems, or high and fast. They are supposedly difficult to load. They can carry weight, but the bays are small with a rotating drum that holds the bombs.

So if you have a stationary high value target, with ADA protection B-2 is the way to go. Because of stealth technology only one bomber can be sent to a target. Don't expect it to be ready for another mission for at least 32 hrs.

Large target, no high altitude ADA, B-52. Or if you need air launched cruise missiles, either for the range or extra kaboom over ground launchers.

B1B large or small target, partly stealthy, really fast in/out. If no ADA up top it can go in high. If needed it can come in at speed 25 ft off the deck.

All are good, all have drawbacks.
avengeusa  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 4:57:17 PM EST
B52
Alien  [Member]
5/21/2004 5:16:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
I'm going to have to say the B-52. Enormous bomb load, and far cheaper than the others. We don't seem to need all the high cost, high tech crap to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq.



The B1 has a larger payload than a B52, and better in every coneivable way except cost. The question wasn't what's the most cost effective bomber. The question was what is the best. I nominate the B1, but I'm no expert .
1776  [Member]
5/21/2004 5:22:38 PM EST
I kinda like this one. Not very stealthy but the payload is MASSIVE and it has STOL capability.
Something your B1 and B52 are severally lacking. It also has quick refueling turn around times that translates to more missions per day. Where's your BUFF now? huh? Thats what I thought.




Notice the modern ALL glass panel. Thats about as good as it gets boys.



ar10er  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 5:26:57 PM EST
The one that can hit a dish towel from 35,000 ft.
MiG-21  [Member]
5/21/2004 5:28:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
I kinda like this one. Not very stealthy but the payload is MASSIVE and it has STOL capability.
Something your B1 and B52 are severally lacking. It also has quick refueling turn around times that translates to more missions per day. Where's your BUFF now? huh? Thats what I thought.

www.aircraftbrowser.com/1981%20Cessna%20152%20(N4852P)%20Right%20Side.jpg


Notice the modern ALL glass panel. Thats about as good as it gets boys.


www.dkk.com/images/fleet/im7303lp.jpg


Would this be the AC-152? (attack version)
MiG-21  [Member]
5/21/2004 5:31:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By CAR-10:


Sure enough sir; former 2W2 NCO, now a newly commissioned 64P1 Contracting Officer. I like to look back on the memories cause working on nukes is about the coolest thing ever. I'll change the avatar when I get to Beale.


Ah, a fellow Barksdale man! I see the 2'n BW in your avatar. 917th myself.
cmjohnson  [Team Member]
5/21/2004 5:33:54 PM EST
The B52D had the capacity to deliver up to 108 bombs (500 or 750 pounders) in one mission.

In terms of numbers of bombs dropped, it was the high point of bomb delivery.

All subsequent versions had slightly less capacity in terms of the number of bombs that could be mounted.

The B52, though not stealthy, can use that very fact to its advantage as a weapon of immense intimidation ability.

(Don't hot link to this....copy and paste)
www6.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/21/ret.afghan.strikes/story.b52.vapor.trail.jpg

This vapor trail was left by a B52 over Afghanistan as a visual threat directed at resistance in Afghanistan. When they saw the vapor trail and realized that trouble was flying overhead, the resistance surrendered quickly without a shot being fired or a bomb being dropped.


And I'm sure of this: Nothing LOOKS more intimidating than the venerable B52!




CJ

Paid Advertisement
--