Off-topic Talk Where overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.

B-52s

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 10:29 AM
  #21  
WestSideBilly's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Default

Originally posted by Tedow
That's a bit harsh don't you think? No other plane in the world can fly over the most heavily defended regions on the planet (read: around Baghdad), then drop 16 2000-lb GPS/INS-guided bombs at 16 separate targets, then fly away without anyone being the wiser. I promise you this: you won't see any B-52's anywhere near Baghdad. You won't see B-2's either, but for a different reason . Of course, you could do the same thing with F-117's, but those only carry two weapons at a time. IMNSHO, the B-2 was well worth the investment...without it, there'd be a lot more pilots and aircraft put at a lot more risk to accomplish the same missions. Remember the footage from the other night when there were 6 or 7 huge explosions in rapid succession, and THEN the air-raid alarms went off? That was a B-2 at work my friend. I will grant you, however, that they are a royal pain in the rear to maintain.
Very harsh, yes. I didn't really have time to elaborate on my thoughts, though. I do agree that the B-2 is the safest method of delivering bulk munitions into Baghdad.

My biggest irritation is that the B-2 was given to Northrop Grumman instead of Lockheed Martin (Skunk Works). LM already had the know-how to build a cost-effective stealth plane from its work on the F117, NG had to learn what was already known. I suspect LM could have produced a more capable bomber (longer range, larger payload, etc) for 1/2 the cost. Also, while the F117 is a fairly reliable and maintainable plane; the B2 is neither. The Air Force has made a lot of questionable decisions in the past 20 years, principle among them being awarding the B2 to NG for sake of "supplier welfare" and scrapping the SR-71 program in favor of satellites that are either stationary or on a fixed path (and are therefore easily defeatable). Oh well - bridge under the water, I suppose.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 11:39 AM
  #22  
Tedow's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,751
Likes: 1
From: Arlington, VA
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestSideBilly
[B]My biggest irritation is that the B-2 was given to Northrop Grumman instead of Lockheed Martin (Skunk Works).
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 12:16 PM
  #23  
Da Hapa's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
From: Dana Point, CA
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestSideBilly
[B]The B-2 is a pile of crap.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 12:19 PM
  #24  
Da Hapa's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
From: Dana Point, CA
Default

Originally posted by Tedow
Heh, they call it the BUFF for a reason...

Big Ugly Fat er

That's funny. If anyone is interested in reading some pretty entertaining B52 fiction you should check out the Dale Brown "Patrick McClanahan" series of novels.

The B52 is an amazing and versatile airframe. Its unbelievable that its still in service today and is slated to continue service for years to come.

Its slow, ungainly, and must make a dot on a radar screen the size of a Mack truck but it can carry a buttload of ordinance (and lots of different weapons systems at that) for very long distance and put the bombs on target.

I have a feeling that the Republican Guard is going to get to know how effective a B52 can be if they continue to stay out in the open desert to fight the Coalition troops.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 12:57 PM
  #25  
Bieg's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
From: :spam:u
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestSideBilly
[B]

...My biggest irritation is that the B-2 was given to Northrop Grumman instead of Lockheed Martin (Skunk Works).
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 02:10 PM
  #26  
DarioManfretti's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,277
Likes: 0
From: Lyndhurst
Default

Just so you know, the German's developed the Flying Wing at the end of WWII.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 02:11 PM
  #27  
DarioManfretti's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,277
Likes: 0
From: Lyndhurst
Default

Plus, I wonder which bomber is going to carry the MOAB to Iraq???
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 02:40 PM
  #28  
ElTianti's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
From: Rome, GA
Default

Originally posted by DarioManfretti
Plus, I wonder which bomber is going to carry the MOAB to Iraq???
That would be the C-130 Hercules. It isn't dropped per se, rather a gang of men
push it out the back.
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2003 | 06:44 PM
  #29  
DarioManfretti's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,277
Likes: 0
From: Lyndhurst
Default

Did anyone see The History Channel tonight at 9:00? It was on the B-52 Stratofortress. They said that the plan is for it to be in service until 2045. Plus, it can carry 70,000 lbs. of ordinace!!! That's 30,000 lbls. more than the B-2!!! What an amazing plane.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2003 | 03:43 AM
  #30  
Palmateer's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
From: St. Pete, Florida
Default

MOAB can also be dropped by the B2.

Of course, it can also be dropped from the B-52, but it isn't stealthy, so the B-52 has been used mostly as a stand-off launcher of cruise missles.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 AM.