B-52s
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tedow
Heh, they call it the BUFF for a reason...
Big Ugly Fat
er
Heh, they call it the BUFF for a reason...
Big Ugly Fat
er
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.
Originally posted by DarioManfretti
Plus, I wonder which bomber is going to carry the MOAB to Iraq???
Plus, I wonder which bomber is going to carry the MOAB to Iraq???
push it out the back.
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.
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.
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.






