I am at work right now so please accept my apologies, but I have some info at home that shows that the B-1B holds a lot of records for getting payload to altitude and distance in the shortest time.
I don't know what the post above is saying about a B-1 not being able to climb high enough. That is simply not true. And, I guarantee that a B-1 with its hardpoints loaded to the hilt would still have a smaller radar signature than a B-52. I remember this issue from years ago with the original B-1A. It had a long dorsal fin running almost the length of its spine that tied into to vertical stabilizer. The plane was reflecting radar pretty bad - something like the size of a pickup truck. When they removed this fin on the B-1B, the result was a radar cross section equivalent to the size of a basketball. Pretty cool, huh. As much as I love the B-52, it's 1950's technology would definitely not allow it to evade rader nearly as well as the B-1B. (Jammers excluded of course!)
If I had to penetrate real air defenses (not like pussy Afghanistan), I would definitely rather be in a B-1B. It's faster, quicker, manuevers just like a fighter, has terrain following radar for high-speed, low-level penetration, has plenty of power and carries tons of payload. Don't listen to the B.S.!!!- Some people are still pissed that Rockwell International got that contract years ago and in their envious, jealous state they began spreading these viscious rumors that have never quite died.
The B-52 and the B-1 both rock!!! Neither is a POS. Look towards Russia if you want to find a POS!