One of the two new Tu-160 bombers that are expected to join the force in 2005 will be equipped for carrying gravity bombs. according to: http://russianforces.org/aviation/ So is it safe to say that there are about 16 in service :roll:
That seems a bit strange to me to Ricky as those are just bombs without guidance (or have the russians a new idea about them) :roll:
Ah, ok. I did wonder, but it seems like an odd word to use. I suppose if it has been translated badly that will happen though.
Wow, 14 Blackjacks. Now if we look at how many B52s are ready to bomb butt, I think America has quite a big lead. Seeing as Russia has no other bomber that can match the B52's size. Plus, there's the B1, B2, and F117. And, for everything that can attack ground targets in the US inventory, then, F15E, F16, A10, F18, F22, and F111 (correct me if the Ardvark's been retired please). Of course, probably a lot of Migs, Sukhois and Yaks are strike fighters as well....
Blaster do you even check up what you write? You said yourself the Tu-160 is bigger than a B-52 :-? The USAF F-111 Aardvark force was retired in 1996....
Didn't the B-52 just get retired from service? Maybe they were just talking about it. Although technically any modern fighter can be used as a 'ground attack' plane if it's armed with surface to air missiles right? Either that or I'm getting confused...not that it's hard :lol:
Pretty much every jet powered military aircraft is capable of carrying nuclear arms, right down to the F-16: it just depends how big a bomb you want to drop. The funny thing is that the Ukrainians have more Tu-160 Blackjacks than the Russians do, despite the obvious lesser need for them, but i think there were plans to hand some of them over... By the way FNG, when i siad that Patriots only downed 40% of Scuds I forgot to mention that all surviving warheads missed their targets At least i think that is what happened, you'll have to check
And they are probably still serving when B1B's and B2's are retired. 80 years of service, thats a lot for any kind of warmachine. I wonder if those planes have single original part left in year 2040
The B-1 will probable survive the B-2 as well...IIRC those things can't stand any weather condition without doing damage to it's frame ! With any i really mean any! sun/rain you name it, it damgaes it
In the early 60s' the US Navy also had a "Nuclear-Bomber." The North American A5A Vigilante. It was a big, handsome bird. Tim --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In 1961, the first A5-As had entered service with VAH-7 (Heavy Attack Squadron 7), embarking with USS Enterprise in 1962. These aircraft operated in the attack role until about 1964 when the type was converted to become the RA-5 reconnaissance platform. The A-5 Vigilante was originally intended to deliver a nuclear payload, which would be ejected rearwards from the tunnel-like bomb bay while the aircraft executed a mach 2 low level dash over the target. In the mid 1960s, the role of the Vigilante was changed from attack to reconnaissance with the A-5A being superseded by the RA-5C. This particular variant proved it’s worth over the skies of Vietnam flying countless sorties over hostile territory, during this conflict a further 48 Vigilantes were produced and 18 were lost on operations. The Vigilante was well loved by the pilots that flew it although its size and high approach speed could make carrier landings difficult for pilots not used to the aircraft. In the air, the RA-5 had outstanding performance and could quite easily outrun its F-4 Phantom II escorts while on reconnaissance missions." --from aero-vault.co-uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ome Joop, I said that no other bomber can match the B52! What's the exception? Tu-160! And, actually, the B52's gonna' be flying the USAF's insignia until 2044. Long live the Stratofortress! And, you know what I think is really weird? The B1's smaller than the B52, but it can carry over twice the bombs! That's weird! The Stratofortress is, like the second-largest bomber around, and I'm being told that it gets beat when it comes to bomb load by something that's smaller than it!? Anyone? PS No wonder the Vigilante had no armament! It was so fast and manuverable that it could dodge and outrun it's attackers! Still, if I were the designer, I'd still give it a Vulcan and at least two AIM-9s.
And, you know what I think is really weird? The B1's smaller than the B52, but it can carry over twice the bombs! Exception Nr.II i would say :lol: As it's bombload is bigger! BTW Did we mention the Tu-95H? With a length of 49.6 Meters it's 1,1 Meter longer than a B-52H
Objection, m'lud -- matter of personal opinion It all depends what you want the bomber to do. For carrying a large load over a long range, the B-52 is good. For carrying a larger load over a shorter range much faster the B-1B is better For carrying a small load to a precision target without attracting much enemy attention, the F-117 is excellent. You get the general idea? There is an old saying "Horses for Courses" which I think applies in this instance. Regarding the Vigilante, there is a naval saying that speed is an armour in itself. Admittedly the Battle of Jutland caused a re-think but it can still apply in aviation. If the defensive weaponry reduces the bombload it is wasted. Also, did you note that the A5A ejected its bombs through the tail, so where will you fit the Vulcan? Tom
Tom: Perhaps Blaster was referring to the "Viggie' needing a vulcan-cannon mounted as was done with the F-105D Thunderchief. I believe the A5A was unique in it's "delivery-system" with the tunnel between it's two engines acting as bomb-bay... correct me if I'm wrong about this. As a kid in the early 60's, the A5 Viggie was one of my favorite contemporary aircraft. While the RA5-A made an excellent photo-recon bird... I can't help but wonder if it would have provided the USN a capable, dedicated Wild-Weasel platform as well. Sans the F-105G Thunderchief: a two-seater, big and fast enough to get out of trouble--or into it--quickly. Use the bomb-tunnel for an auxillary fuel tank--like the fuel-cell in the bomb-bay of the F-105--add a vulcan cannon in the nose, and an improved AN/APR 25 system for the back-seater. A couple hardpoints on the wings would faciliate carrying radar-homing AGM-45 Shrike, and later AGM-78 Standard anti-rad air-to-ground missles... and you've got a Wild-Otter? for the US Navy. Tim
Vigilante is indeed one of those great aircraft (if you seen one you won't forget it, it's a real beauty) BTW about those tunnel tanks found this: I think external stores(bye bye clean lines) and a vulcan (more weight) would make the Vigilante to slow and big for those kind of missions?
Yeah. Although if they really wanted to they probably could. A-5 joke...Guy shows up in heven after being instantly vaproised by a nuclear explosion. "what happened?" ask St Peter. "something flew overhead and shat on my house." Bad joke I know.
I don't get it. Anyway, I still can't find the answer to my question: how can the B1 carry more bombs than the larger B52? Does it have a fatter, wider bomb bay or what?
