As you can see, that's not quite correct. Even if you include the external stores.
Posted on 03/30/2006 5:19:36 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
Be a shame is one of those Iranian reactors randomly exploded?? Achmed Raghed may have left a vent closed/opened!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The B-52 only has room for 51 500 pounders, The B-2 hauls 80. Except for the ability to externally carry some of the older technology cruise missiles externally, it cannot haul more stuff than a B-2. The B-2 will carry 192 of the new LOCAAS autonomous miniature cruise missiles, that have a 70 mile range and search out their own targets with a ladar.
It is not a bad aircraft, but the the B-2 is superior in every way. Comparing the new generation of aircraft and miniaturized weapons now hitting the battlefield is like comparing WWI to VIETNAM. It is THAT much different, and better.
I'll let you in on another secret, 60's muscle cars ARE NOT faster than 2006 models.
In Afganistan and elsewhere we did not just target "tents and camels"; the SpecOps boys took out bunkers, AA guns, etc. from miles away with their laser designators. Using our technology to kill the islamonazis is a mitzvah!
I don't think that there will be a significant threat to any aircraft flying over Iran after H+30 minutes. At that point their Air Force and Missile defences will be quite similar to that available to Afganistan.
The B-2 hauls more stuff actually.
Does that also include the extra ground crew and support required for the maintenance? That plane is extremely complicated, FBW-dependent, weather dependent, and exhorbitantly expensive, etc.... The stealth aspect is over-rated; alluding to it's radar invisibility is, in my estimation, misinformation. There are always conditions under which they or any other 'stealth' can be seen by radar, maybe not just the type one would expect being used with SAM systems.
I don't know anyone who would argue against that.
Now, other than the Mother of All Wars Against the Somalian Aspirin Factory, what about the Tomahawks during the '90s?
Just speculation, but I suspect it's more a matter of the aircraft being able to "talk to" all those smart bombs. I suspect that the previous configuration could carry as many bombs, but only a few could be "addressed" either at all, or independently, by the aircraft systems. So more of a wiring and software job than a stuffing of a whole lot more bombs into the bay.
That's old stuff, although still slightly more accurate for the really close stuff. All Joe Snuffy needs to do is pass the GPS coordinates of the target to the bird and it's bye bye target. We still do the laser guided thing too, but the GPS version is cheaper, meaning we can buy more of them, and can be used if all you have is map coordinates of the target.
That means that it wasn't going real fast. It's capable of Mach 0.9 or so at sea level. Meaning that the aircraft is only slightly slower than the sound waves coming from it. If it was 5 miles off, and headed right towards you at Mach 0.9, the sound from 5 miles away would arrive less than 3 seconds before the aircraft.
While it might be somewhat longer to drop 5x as many bombs, they wouldn't generally be dropping them all at the same time. They'd pop the bay doors, drop one or three, pop the doors shut and go on the next "recipient" of their eggs. Thus they would be vulnerable 5x as long, it would not increase their overall vulnerability much, since each would be a separate "event" for the defensive systems on the ground.
As you can see, that's not quite correct. Even if you include the external stores.
Thanks..that makes sense...I guess I envisioned a saturation-bombing scenario.. like an Iranian nuclear fascility..where you had lots of smaller structures...buildings, ulitity infrsturcture..vents to underground vaults...etc, scattered over several square miles..where using a 500lb bomb was "overkill"..but if the time over target was longer..that would but the aircraft at greater risk..I assume the USAF has gamed it..
Total poundage, or number of specific munitions?? There "is" a difference, y'know. All the replies thus far are comparing apples and oranges.
Ask the F-117 pilot who got SAM'd.
No it isn't. The B-2 has a much lower mission capable rate and much higher MMH/FH than the BUFF. The B-2 can't forward deploy without an environmentally controlled hangar so all that tape and caulk can be repaired and cured. The return on investment is lousy.
Some are, but unsafe over 90 mph. New suspension designs can do twice that in relative safety. Modern cars are so smooth and effortless that they are deceptive in speed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.