AR15.Com Archives
 B1 vs B-52 ---- Payloads ----- Capabilities.
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 10:49:49 AM
There are quite a few Airforce and Naval Reservist's in the A&P course I'm taking, and the topic of discussion frequently focuses on US Military birds and their capabilities/reasons for retiring them ect.

Today the topics centered on the B-52 and how massive it's payload is in comparison to all other US Bombers.

I said "Yes it does have a massive payload but it is quite a bit less then that of the B-1B",

AF reservists "NO WAY; have you even seen a B-52 in person? That thing is huge!"

Me: Yes I have seen the B-52 and the B-1 at Andrews AFB open house they have each year and the B-1 looks about the same size. Pluse there quite a few reputable websites that even state that the payload of the B-1 exceedes that of the B-52.

Naval Reservist: Nah, your wrong, their retiring it because of it's lack of payload....but it's still a neat plane.

AF Reservist: Besides, do you think they would publish the actuall bomb payloads of these things?

Me: I'm telling you that the payload of the Bone .3 times larger then the 52's, here look at this------->




AF Reservist: That's a typo.....

Me: Ok..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WEAPONS-B-1 Link

The B-1B does not currently carry nuclear weapons. The aircraft has three internal weapon bays and six external hardpoints under the fuselage. The maximum internal weapons payload is 75,000lb and maximum external weapons payload is 59,000lb. The internal weapons bays are capable of carrying the AGM-86B Air Launch Cruise Missile (ALCM), the AGM-69 Short-Range Attack Missile and the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). The external hardpoints can carry the AGM-86B ALCM.

AGM-86B is a strategic cruise missile, fitted with a conventional warhead with a yield of 200kt and a range up to 2,500km. The aircraft is certificated to carry the AGM-69 nuclear strategic stand-off missile, although it is not currently carried. The Boeing JDAM uses global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation guidance for delivery of the 1,000lb Mark 83, 1000lb BLU-110, 2,000lb MK-84 and 2,000lb BLU-109. The B-1B can carry 24 JDAM, with a range up to 15 miles and strike precision within 13m.

The bomb payload of the B-1B includes the Mark 82 general-purpose 500lb bomb. It can also carry up to 30 Textron Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW). SFW has ten anti-armour submunitions, each with four Skeet warheads. The B-1B can also carry the 500lb Mark 36 Mine and the 500lb Mark 62 Sea Mine.


WEAPONS-B-52 Link

The B-52H, with a weapons payload of more than 70,000lb, is capable of carrying the most diverse range of weapons of any combat aircraft.

The nuclear weapons capacity includes twelve AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMS), 20 AGM-86A Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM) and eight bombs. The conventional weapons payload is eight AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, four AGM-142 Raptor missiles, 51 x 500lb bombs, 30 x 1,000lb bombs, 20 AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles (CALCM), 12 Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW), 12 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and 16 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). WCMD was first deployed by the B-52 in 2002 in Afghanistan. JSOW entered service in 2003 and was deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The B-52 will be the first aircraft to be equipped with the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), which was cleared for operational use in October 2003.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom in April 2003, a B-52 was fitted with the Northrop Grumman Litening II laser targeting pod, which was used to strike targets in Northern Iraq.

The B-52H can also deliver 51 x 500lb, 30 x 1,000lb and 20 x 2,000lb navy mines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I ask the knowledgeable he on arfcom to please give me the lowdown on whether or not the capacity of the B1 is larger or are these sites full of it. Also why exactly did the AF not embrace the B-1 (which by all info that can be found on it, seems to be a much more capable bomber at both High altitude and low altitude.) more then they have?


Thanks
Paid Advertisement
--
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:29:52 AM
.
Jm03  [Member]
5/2/2005 11:39:49 AM
Thats interesting considering the B1 was never meant to carry conventional payloads.Only Nuclear.

I think the AF had to retrofit them or face losing the program after Desert Storm I.
1Andy2  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:40:32 AM
who cares about payloads... the B1 is sexier...
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:45:15 AM

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
who cares about payloads... the B1 is sexier...


Agreed, but....


...which has the bigger payload.
Citabria7GCBC  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:49:05 AM

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
who cares about payloads... the B1 is sexier...



Exactly.........Style is what really counts. Esspecially in war time!
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:49:16 AM
Couldn't tell ya.

My edition of The U.S. War Machine barely even lists the B-1.

Yes, it's THAT old!
ghengiskhabb  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:49:55 AM
When you have absolute air superiority, all you need is bomb trucks, not bomb corvettes. The B52 has a secure future.


I wonder if anybody has proposed modifying a C5 to hold a zillion Small Diameter Bombs.
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:50:12 AM

Originally Posted By Citabria7GCBC:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
who cares about payloads... the B1 is sexier...



Exactly.........Style is what really counts. Esspecially in war time!



+1!



But hey! They're both going to be replaced by the ultra-sexy F/A-18 anyway, so.....
1Andy2  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:50:45 AM
oh, and that rear pic of the B1 taking off, BEGS for someone to photoshop some chrome Spinners in the exhaust ports...
bmick325  [Member]
5/2/2005 11:51:03 AM
The AF as an institution likes the B-52 because they are cheaper to keep flying. There are shitloads of spare parts from all the B-52H's that have been sent to the boneyard. The "fighter mafia" that runs the AF likes that becuase it means they can keep bombers on the cheap and not have to invest in newer ones.

The B-1 doesn't have that luxury. Only 100 or so were built and parts are hard to come by and expensive in any case. That said the B-1 is IMHO a much more versatile and survivable aircraft. The B-52 may win on unrefueled range, but the B-1 comes out on top in just about every other category.

I must admit I'm biased. I was assigned to B-1 wing for a while and worked up close and personal with the A/C and crews.
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:51:09 AM

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:

I wonder if anybody has proposed modifying a C5 to hold a zillion Small Diameter Bombs.




Can you imagine the pattern that puppy would spread if you loaded it up with Rockeyes?
bmick325  [Member]
5/2/2005 11:54:35 AM

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:

I wonder if anybody has proposed modifying a C5 to hold a zillion Small Diameter Bombs.




Can you imagine the pattern that puppy would spread if you loaded it up with Rockeyes?



Showing your age again. Rockeyes haven't been in the active inventory in a while.

Beautiful to watch them "splash" though.
Brohawk  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:55:17 AM
B-1: More payload, more speed, smaller radar signature.

The BUFF was a heck of a machine, but time marches on...
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 11:57:01 AM

Originally Posted By bmick325:
The AF as an institution likes the B-52 because they are cheaper to keep flying. There are shitloads of spare parts from all the B-52H's that have been sent to the boneyard. The "fighter mafia" that runs the AF likes that becuase it means they can keep bombers on the cheap and not have to invest in newer ones.

The B-1 doesn't have that luxury. Only 100 or so were built and parts are hard to come by and expensive in any case. That said the B-1 is IMHO a much more versatile and survivable aircraft. The B-52 may win on unrefueled range, but the B-1 comes out on top in just about every other category.

I must admit I'm biased. I was assigned to B-1 wing for a while and worked up close and personal with the A/C and crews.



The number of B-1's purchased was that low due to Pres. Carter cutting the origional program procument numbers correct?
natedogg42  [Member]
5/2/2005 12:09:40 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Originally Posted By bmick325:
The AF as an institution likes the B-52 because they are cheaper to keep flying. There are shitloads of spare parts from all the B-52H's that have been sent to the boneyard. The "fighter mafia" that runs the AF likes that becuase it means they can keep bombers on the cheap and not have to invest in newer ones.

The B-1 doesn't have that luxury. Only 100 or so were built and parts are hard to come by and expensive in any case. That said the B-1 is IMHO a much more versatile and survivable aircraft. The B-52 may win on unrefueled range, but the B-1 comes out on top in just about every other category.

I must admit I'm biased. I was assigned to B-1 wing for a while and worked up close and personal with the A/C and crews.



The number of B-1's purchased was that low due to Pres. Carter cutting the origional program procument numbers correct?



He completely cancelled the program though it was picked up later under reagan as the B-1B (originially the B-1A...they may have decided to make the changes anyways) the B-1A was MUCH faster but thats pretty much the only "better" thing it had going for it...
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:14:52 PM

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:

I wonder if anybody has proposed modifying a C5 to hold a zillion Small Diameter Bombs.




Can you imagine the pattern that puppy would spread if you loaded it up with Rockeyes?



Showing your age again. Rockeyes haven't been in the active inventory in a while.



DOH!
go3  [Member]
5/2/2005 12:18:52 PM
Ah, the B-1A. What a great plane it would have been.
Stoney-Point  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:29:21 PM

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
oh, and that rear pic of the B1 taking off, BEGS for someone to photoshop some chrome Spinners in the exhaust ports...




[Bubb Rubb] WOOO WOOO!! [/Bubb Rubb]
Brohawk  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:45:20 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

The number of B-1's purchased was that low due to Pres. Carter cutting the origional program procument numbers correct?



As noted above, Carter killed the B-1. However, after Reagan got in office he put them into production.

I miss Ronnie.
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:49:05 PM

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

I miss Ronnie.



Me, too.....



My old avatar in tribute to The Man...
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:49:24 PM

Originally Posted By natedogg42:

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Originally Posted By bmick325:
The AF as an institution likes the B-52 because they are cheaper to keep flying. There are shitloads of spare parts from all the B-52H's that have been sent to the boneyard. The "fighter mafia" that runs the AF likes that becuase it means they can keep bombers on the cheap and not have to invest in newer ones.

The B-1 doesn't have that luxury. Only 100 or so were built and parts are hard to come by and expensive in any case. That said the B-1 is IMHO a much more versatile and survivable aircraft. The B-52 may win on unrefueled range, but the B-1 comes out on top in just about every other category.

I must admit I'm biased. I was assigned to B-1 wing for a while and worked up close and personal with the A/C and crews.



The number of B-1's purchased was that low due to Pres. Carter cutting the origional program procument numbers correct?



He completely cancelled the program though it was picked up later under reagan as the B-1B (originially the B-1A...they may have decided to make the changes anyways) the B-1A was MUCH faster but thats pretty much the only "better" thing it had going for it...



I'm looking at the engines for the B1-B and they are the same as the F-15 engines (ETA They aren't the same. The B-1's=F-101-GE-102 turbofan engines with afterburners and the F-15E's=Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 )

How much faster was the A than the B if it's even been unclassified?
LPDtactical  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 12:51:19 PM
Sweet thread!

I have always loved the B1, that thing is fast!
go3  [Member]
5/2/2005 12:56:18 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

How much faster was the A than the B if it's even been unclassified?



Max Speed: Mach 2.3 at 50,000 feet (1,450 mph / 1,259 knots)
H46Driver  [Member]
5/2/2005 1:02:33 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

The number of B-1's purchased was that low due to Pres. Carter cutting the origional program procument numbers correct?



Actually the reason that B-1 procurement was slashed was because it was an ineffective system for its designed purpose, high-speed low-level penetration of Soviet airspace to deliver a nuclear payload. Studies showed a projected 70% first sortie loss rate. Also late in Carter's term Lockheed-Martin had prototype F-117s developed enough to project far greater survivability of a stealth aircraft penetrating the USSR. Check out Skunk Works for details.
BRONZ  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 1:09:07 PM
I wont start to say I know anything close to the Air Force guys but what I know is:

B-52
Very large radar signature
Can't do nap of the earth flying
A lot more munitions carrying capibility
A long service life. Once its gone no more like it.

B-1
Nap of the earth flying, but has gotten crews killed with that
smaller radar sig.
capable to go supersonic, I think
1st gen. stealth thats so/so

my .02 or maybe just .01
CFII  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 1:13:28 PM
The Bone is the sexiest aircraft in the military. There is just something about a huge plane that can perform aerobatic manuevers, fly at 500 feet past mach one, and level an entire city with its bombs.
SmilingBandit  [Member]
5/2/2005 1:22:40 PM
Let's just leave it at they're both extremely capible aircraft. The BUFF is larger (factsheets), however it wasn't designed for multiple rotary launchers like the B-1 and B-2 were, which kinda limits its carrying ability.

Once the got some of its origional kinks worked out the bone (B-one) has matured in to an impressive platform. That being said, the BUFF hasn't finished evolving either. The AF is starting to modify the old girls to replace the drop tanks on the outboard wing (which are barely used) with jammer pods, giving it the ability to provide jamming similar to the EA-6B or the old EF-111.

That would make the B-52 kinda like the F/A-18E, just without the tailhook.
texasAR  [Member]
5/2/2005 1:22:47 PM
I was stationed at Dyess AFB Tx during the original beddown of the aircraft in the mid 80's. I watched the transition from the B-52.

Like earlier posters noted the B-1 doesn't have the amount of spare parts available the B-52 has but is an extremely capable aircraft. It has the radar signiture of a fighter and basically it is a big fighter. It was the first heavy bomber with afterburners.

With the end of the Cold War and basically the end of its nuclear mission it was neccessary to retrofit the aircraft for a conventional role. Alot of people were surprised that the aircraft wasn't used in the first Gulf War and wasn't conventional capable.
Katana16j  [Member]
5/2/2005 1:23:22 PM
Point, there are problems with the forward weapons bay on the b-1. They aren't allowed to carry payload in it becuase opening it cuases some sort of interference with the engines. Practically speaking its bomb load is less then the b-52.

Now the B-52 is just a great bomb truck, no more no less. Not all missions are interdictions deep into the enemies radar line, many are well within our air cover. In that case it makes sense to use the cheaper, more reliable platform.

Lemme put it this way, what would you rather use for the squirrels in your yard. The cheapo .22 is not sexy but it will do the job day in and day out and won't cost you much to do it, Whereas the .50 cal barret will be very expensive and frankly a waste to use in the same fashion.
Ross  [Member]
5/2/2005 1:46:03 PM
It's all about money.

B-1 was cancelled by Carter, who mentioned it wasn't needed because we were working on a bomber that was invisible to radar. He wanted to pour the funds into that (B-2). With the curise missel coming on board during his administration, he figured it was cheaper to put crusie missles on B-52's so they wouldn't have to penetrate all the way to the target (remember the original strategic cruise missle had something like a 1200 mile range) and spend the money on the B2 and have that the follow on penetration bomber.

I remember many people who had no clue what was going on saying Carter was an idiot for making up the "invisible plane" story.

Reagan won the election, and part of his election promises was to bring back the B-1. So nothing was ever said about stealth, since making fun of the "insivible bomber" was part of the election, and the B-1 came back.

Carter was probably right in his move at the time, though I think he was an idiot on many other fronts.

Reagan was right in bringing it back, because he knew that bringing it back would give the Soviets one more thing to spend money on and sink them faster. Same thing with "Star Wars". It didn't matter if it worked. The only thing that mattered was if the Soviets had to spend more money they didn't have.

After the crumble of the Soviet Union, both the B-1 and B-2 are harder to justify in the gigantic numbers that would be required to replace the B-52. So if you don't buy B-1's and B-2's (remember they aren't cheap, a B-1 costs ALOT of money, and the B-2 is outrageous) to haul bombs in lower-intensity conflicts you need something. Since the USAF already had B-52's and it's cheaper to upgrade, they simply spent the money wisely. The USAF keeps enough B-2's to do anything a B-2 type aircarft would be needed for, enough B-1's to do what you need that type of aircraft for, and enough B-52 for what it does. They aren't exactly the same tool. Sort of different size hammers. Sometimes you need the right size hammer, most of the time you just need a hammer.

Ross
CalGat  [Member]
5/2/2005 2:00:22 PM
I believe the B-1 dropped more bombs in A-stan than the B-52.
-M60_Gunner-  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 2:34:19 PM
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?
Zaphod  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 2:53:02 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)?




If they can reach orbit, they can bloody well shoot down planes at angels 70.
Forest  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 2:58:24 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)?



SA-2s are good to 60K feet, the S75 version (SA-2 Guildline) is good for 88,582 ft. That is the type that shot down Gary Powers U2.

The S-300 (NATO SA-12) is good for 82,000 feet.

The S-400 (NATO SA-20) is expected to be even better and has anti tactical ballistic missle capabilities

It's much easeir to make a high flying SAM than it is a high-flying aircraft.

dport  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:02:13 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?



He had to drop altitude because he was hit by an SA-2 fired shotgun style.
Chairborne  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:07:13 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?



The BUFF does NOT fly at 65K feet. The only airplanes in our inventory to ever reach those altitudes (and sustain them) were the SR-71 and the U-2. The BUFF lumbers along at 30-40K well within range of every 1950s+ SAM system. It's radar signature is the size of an entire squadron of B-1s, and it carries everything externally since it has teeny tiny bomb bays so the signature is even bigger. The B-1 can carry more Mk82s than a BUFF can, even with its external stores. The problems with the B-1s forward bomb bay FODing out the engines were fixed years ago. It can carry three rotary launchers with 8 2000 pound bombs (dumb or JDAMS) or 8 cruise missiles (Nuc or Conv) on each launcher. The Bone kicks the BUFFs ass in every conceivable way, and since they finally got smart and retired a few "problem child" B-1s and cannibalized them for parts the spares situation is under control. Both B-52s and B-1s are part of my career field, although I have never worked on either. I do have to study the systems on them for promotion and I know dozens of people who have worked one or both of them. The only reason the B-1 was not used in the first gulf war is they were still pulling nuclear alert here while the BUFFs had already given up that role. The B-1 can carry an auxiliary fuel tank in the aft bomb bay to extend its range if it needs to. BUFFs are a big piece of crap, would you rather go to war in a deuce and a half or a bradley?

vito113  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:17:23 PM

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?



Dude, you DO remember the Vietnam War don't you???

1950's tech SA-2's were knocking down B-52's over Hanoi… the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

B-52 = Large Slow Target, RCS over 100 times that of a B1, very vulnerable to even primative air defence capabilities. A Mig 17 could knock down a B-52 with ease.

B-1B = Small Fast Target, agile, reasonably stealthy(ish), reasonably survivable even in a high threat environment.

Andy
dport  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:21:25 PM

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?



Dude, you DO remember the Vietnam War don't you???

1950's tech SA-2's were knocking down B-52's over Hanoi… the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



You know it took the North 50 in '66, then 59 in '67 then by 1968 over 100 SA-2s to down one plane? In fact, they were using more missiles than they could take in.
Chairborne  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:21:29 PM

Originally Posted By vito113:
the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



Sure it can.

I got some prime real estate to sell you in Florida, any takers?
Forest  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:22:36 PM

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
The only reason the B-1 was not used in the first gulf war is they were still pulling nuclear alert here while the BUFFs had already given up that role.



That and the B-1s had no real way to aim the bombs. The Block-D upgrade to the Radar allowing the B1 to target the bombs didn't happen till well after the Gulf War. IIRC this was the same time as the B1s were given internal racks to carry conventional munitons.
vito113  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:27:10 PM

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By vito113:
the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



Sure it can.

I got some prime real estate to sell you in Florida, any takers?



Come on, you're no KK… taking out a tactical (less than 4.8km/sec) ballistic missile is no biggy for most modern SAMs.

ANdy
Chairborne  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:27:21 PM

Originally Posted By dport:

You know it took the North 50 in '66, then 59 in '67 then by 1968 over 100 SA-2s to down one plane? In fact, they were using more missiles than they could take in.



Better tell the families of these guys that the North couldn't shoot: www.nampows.org/B-52.html

Tell the guys on the ground that the BUFFs were bombing that we are 100% with our bombs too, oh wait we didn't hit jack, just made some nice bomb craters in the jungle. Those "targets" are probably still alive. "Bombing accuracy" in Vietnam was a contradiction in terms.
Chairborne  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:28:47 PM

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By vito113:
the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



Sure it can.

I got some prime real estate to sell you in Florida, any takers?



Come on, you're no KK… taking out a tactical (less than 4.8km/sec) ballistic missile is no biggy for most modern SAMs.

ANdy



Tactical, thats true, I thought you were taking about stategic warheads, no normal SAM has a shot at killing them, and our dedicated interceptors have a pretty spotty record as well.
Katana16j  [Member]
5/2/2005 3:29:11 PM
Chairborne, you speak accurrately but I don't think you meant every concievable way.

In terms of $$$ per pound of payload delivered, How does the b-52 stack up.

Granted the b-1 delivers more pounds further and faster, but sometimes, oftentimes (especially where there is local air supremacy or dominance) its a matter of just getting the ordnance delivered as cheaply as possible.

I'm not saying the b-1 isn't better. I'm certainly not going to call the b-52 crap however. It is an exceptional platform that is still finding use decades after being bought and paid for.
ghengiskhabb  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:29:40 PM

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By vito113:
the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



Sure it can.

I got some prime real estate to sell you in Florida, any takers?



Don't know about the ruskies, but the US Navy can do most of that stuff now with the SM3. The Patriot PAC-3 can do that same sort of stuff for ground forces. It is not a stretch for the ruskies to have the same sort of capability.
Chairborne  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:32:20 PM

Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Chairborne, you speak accurrately but I don't think you meant every concievable way.

In terms of $$$ per pound of payload delivered, How does the b-52 stack up.

Granted the b-1 delivers more pounds further and faster, but sometimes, oftentimes (especially where there is local air supremacy or dominance) its a matter of just getting the ordnance delivered as cheaply as possible.

I'm not saying the b-1 isn't better. I'm certainly not going to call the b-52 crap however. It is an exceptional platform that is still finding use decades after being bought and paid for.



I will concede that in a conventional only war, with total air supremacy, and no SAM threat, the BUFF does a fine job of trucking in bombs. In a hot conflict of any kind they would be stomped by SAMs, or enemy air in a very short time. Anybody want to man a BUFF and head for the strait of Taiwan?
vito113  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:32:43 PM

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:
Do the Russians or any of our enemies have any missiles capable of reaching the BUFF at altitude (which is between 65-70 thousand feet)? If not, then why all the hub bub over stealth when you can simply fly higher than their missiles and be moving quick enough that by the time their missiles reached your altitude you'd be gone?

Yeah the U-2 was shot down but that was only because the pilot had to drop the planes altitude for some reason correct?



Dude, you DO remember the Vietnam War don't you???

1950's tech SA-2's were knocking down B-52's over Hanoi… the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



You know it took the North 50 in '66, then 59 in '67 then by 1968 over 100 SA-2s to down one plane? In fact, they were using more missiles than they could take in.



And your point is? that 40 years ago a bunch of poorly trained peasants soldiers could knock down a B-52, that was state of the art, but took 50-100 missiles? Put trained Soviet missile crews in those SA-2 batteries and the B-52's would have been in a world of hurt. SA-2's shot down a number of U-2's over Cuba and China in the hands of better trained operators.

ANdy
Dracster  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:34:08 PM
I know I'm a novice and all but...



AGM-86B is a strategic cruise missile, fitted with a conventional warhead with a yield of 200kt and a range up to 2,500km.


That's an awful damn big conventional warhead!
























(Yeah, Yeah, I know it's a typo.)
vito113  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:35:00 PM

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By vito113:
the Ruskies are now on to (and widely sell) the SA-20!!! That thing can hit ballistic missiles at an altitude of 125,000ft!!!

ANdy



Sure it can.

I got some prime real estate to sell you in Florida, any takers?



Come on, you're no KK… taking out a tactical (less than 4.8km/sec) ballistic missile is no biggy for most modern SAMs.

ANdy



Tactical, thats true, I thought you were taking about stategic warheads, no normal SAM has a shot at killing them, and our dedicated interceptors have a pretty spotty record as well.



My apology, I should have specified 'non strategic' ballistic missiles…

ANdy
vito113  [Team Member]
5/2/2005 3:36:40 PM

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Chairborne, you speak accurrately but I don't think you meant every concievable way.

In terms of $$$ per pound of payload delivered, How does the b-52 stack up.

Granted the b-1 delivers more pounds further and faster, but sometimes, oftentimes (especially where there is local air supremacy or dominance) its a matter of just getting the ordnance delivered as cheaply as possible.

I'm not saying the b-1 isn't better. I'm certainly not going to call the b-52 crap however. It is an exceptional platform that is still finding use decades after being bought and paid for.



Anybody want to man a BUFF and head for the strait of Taiwan?



… the phrase "a short, but very exciting war" springs to mind…

Andy
Paid Advertisement
--