Which of these two bombers would you rather have in your corner?
Is supersonic not quick enough?
How transparent is stealth and who has the equipment to see invisibility?
Depends how experienced the crews are and how well they know their aircraft and how well they work as a cohesive team on the flight deck.
If the crew knows the plane well enough to avoid exposing its weaknesses and how to best capitalize on its strengths then either aircraft would be good.
Though I have heard that if the aircraft had to be taken on a low level mission of a more tactical nature, the B-1 would generally be your better bet down in the weeds. I’ve heard its handling characteristics are pretty solid and dependable in a high speed low altitude scenario.
The technology of any opponent we might have in future engagements would determine the type of mission we would have to support and it would dictate the type of aircraft that would be assigned to perform the task. You have selected two aircfraft that were designed to do a specific tasks and both of them are fantastic in doing what they do. Only the situation of the battlefield would determin who does what. Good question.
Regards,
Richard
I am quite partial to both of these a/c. I would think that the B-1 flying super low using terrain following capabilities would be just as invisible as a B-2 flying at a higher level. I think it is correct though that the B-1 has a better tactical application. The B-2 is an awfully cool looking bird though… I don’t think I could pick a favorite though!
I think Stealth is the way to go. The B1-A was largely dropped because of it and the B1-B born.
I’d still take a B2 over the Bone. If any enemy countryman looked up and saw a flock of those batwing birds overhead, that’d strike more fear in me that the actual bombs!
No matter how good your capabilities of stealth are they still haven’t figured a way to defeat the mark-1 eyeball and bad luck. I’d much rather have a speed edge in and out of the ‘being a target’ area. Any type gunner can get lucky and the more time you give someone the better their chances are.
Well writing from the land of the Batwinged Bomber, I like the Bone better, it carries a larger load (84 MK-82’s to 16), it’s faster and it has stealth TOO, the B-2 was designed to knock out the Enemies radar for the Bone & BUFF to run in and hit the HIGH PRICED TARGETS, but with the success of the F-117 during Desert Storm that made minds turn to just having the B-2’s hit all tagets but if a Bogie engages the Bat its down, but the Bone is for the is day the fastest thing at 200-300 ft, no fighter will be able to engage the Bone on her bomb run, just think about it, the bomber was designed back in the late 60’s and can’t be touched by fighters of the 21st century, the closest one to get close was retired back in the early 90’s
well being from Rapid City, SD, I am very partial to the B1. Ellsworth AFB has the biggest fleet of 'em and watching those thongs flying around is awesome. the B1 has quite a stealth capability though, is fast nd carries a large payload.
Y’all realize, the B-1 is a stealth aircraft as well, right?
It has around 1% of the B-52’s radar cross-section, if I remember rightly.
I’d have to say the B-1, the B-2 doesn’t look right. No intimidation here! If I saw one of those things flying overhead, I’d laugh and think it was some prank! Shortly thereafter, I’d smack down that thing with a flakcannon!
Not if he had a couple F-15E’s flying CAP for him. [:p][:D]
Mike
If we are talking B-1A then the topic question is valid. If we are talking B-1B then the question should be stealth vs. low-level tactical. Speed is life & below radar is stealthy right! [;)]
Tought call! I love them both and I wish we had more of them. It would really have to come down to the situation. They have significantly different capabilites, advantages and weaknesses. It’s almost comparing apples to oranges.
But being forced to choose, I would go with the B-2. With modern “look-down, shoot-down” capabilites on most modern fighters, the terrain following capabilites don’t have the same effectiveness that they used to. Plus, if you look at the loss statistics of most aircraft over the past decade, most were shot down my ground fire at low level. The British Tornado crew suffered the heaviest losses during low altitude attack runs. It is a dangerous world when anyone with a slingshot could hit you.
The B-2 is currently being upgraded to carry more bombs (I think currently at 60 Mk-82 JDAMs and eventually around 80) which gives it a payload capability very close to the that of the B-1Bs. Also, the fuel economy of the B-2 makes it able to fly much farther without refueling. And nothing beats the ability to hit an enemy before he even knows you are there. The fear of the B-2 is not in its unusual shape, it is the ability to strike at any time without warning.
But there are certainly good things to be said for the B-1 too. The B-2 can’t run as fast and can’t operate during the day as effectively (not to say that it can’t at all, it just becomes more vulnerable… but still better than a B-52). There is still something cool about a plane the size of a 777 that flyies like a fighter!
One of the most impressive sights I saw was the B2 fly over my house in Seattle when it was in town for an air show. I could hear this strange engine sound… like nothing I heard before. Since we were not in the flight path of the airport, I ran outside to see what it was, just in time to see it fly over head. The engine sounded like a very high flying jet, very difficult to describe, but this thing couldn’t have been more than a thousand feet over my house (?), and it looked huge. It was cool!!
I can’t say I find the B-2 funny looking. Saw one for the first time four years ago and there’s something…evil about the way it looks. Now, I’m an educated man; I know what it is, what it can do, etc. But somehow I still felt a chill run down my spine and the hair on my neck rise watching that thing fly by. It looks like it’s alive.
Hey Caine;
not to rain on your prade but the B-2’s only have 8 hard points( on rotary weapons pallets ) in each of the 2 weapons bays, the B-1 could carry 84 weapons internally and has 6 to 8 external hard points(but never used) externally, the B-1 is the second to the B-36 in internal weapons loads and she has the largest in the world, I think you might have a cross wired the info on the loads
Rockwell B-1 Lancer
Origin: USA
Type: long-range multi-role strategic bomber
Max Speed: 8716 kt / 825 mph
Max Range 12000 km / 7,455 miles
Dimensions: span 41.67 m / l36 ft 8.5 in spread and 23.84 m / 78 ft 2.5 in swept
length 44.81 m / 147 ft 0 in
height 10.36 m / 34 ft 0 in
Weight: empty 87090 kg / 192,000 lb
max. take-off 216,364 kg / 477,000 lb
Powerplant: four 13,962-kg (30,780-lb) afterburning thrust General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofans
Armament: three internal bays for up to 34019 kg (75,000 lb) of weapons, plus eight underfuselage stations with a capacity of 26762 kg (59,000 Ib); weapons can include AGM- 69 SRAMs, AGM-868 ALCMs, B-28, B-43, B-61 or B-83 nuclear bombs, and Mk 82 or Mk 84 conventional bombs
Operators: United States
Northrop-Grumman B-2 Spirit
Origin: USA
Type: two/three-seat strategic ‘stealth’ bomber and missile-launch platform
Max Speed: 416 kt / 475 mph
Max Range 18,532 km /11,515 miles
Dimensions: span 52.43 m / 172 ft 0 in
length 21.03 m / 69 ft 0 in
height 5.18 m / 17 ft 0 in
Weight: empty 45,360 kg / 100,000 lb
max. take-off 181,437 kg / 400,000 lb
Powerplant: four 8618-kg (19.000-lb) dry thrust General Electric F118-GE-110 turbofans
Armament: up to 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of disposable stores carried in two side-by-side lower-fuselage weapon bays; each bay can accommodate one eight-round Boeing Rotary Launcher for a total of 16 1.1 megaton B83 thermonuclear free-fall bombs; alternative loads are 20 megaton-range B61 thermonuclear free-fall bombs, or 22 680-kg (1,500-lb) or 80 227-kg (500-lb) free-fall bombs
therefore i conclude that b-1 rules b-2 sucks!
I believe that the lesson learned in Vietnam was that low level, high speed bombing goes hand in hand with high loss rates. The F-105 Thunderchief out-ran everything on the deck, accounted for 75% of all bombing missions, and had the highest loss rate. This was a tough aircraft that could absorb lots of damage. I believe that the Bone has lost several aircraft to bird strikes at low altitudes. Stealth, or the lowest observability allows for higher altitude, higher than most triple A can be effective. As far as radar guidance…, stealth would have the upper hand. Both aircraft serve extremely well.
Looking at the overall picture, the B-2 has a combat record that the Bone could never reach. The payload on the Bone is limited to the external stores and two internal bomb bays. The third bob bay houses a fuel cell that must be present. Fuel consumption of the Bone is similar to the 105, Thirsty! The Bone is impressive on low level, full afterburner passes
Having watched both planes perform at Mildenhall airshow in 2000, I’m confident to say it’s not even a contest. That B-2 flew by slowly and quietly [V], making a few half-hearted attempts at turning, and left (very sensitive skin/paintjob, it would apparently shrivel in British climes, lol). I thought the thing was quite whimpy to be honest, only looking cool from the side. The Bone on the other hand, took off with all four burners at maximum, pulled up steeply to the left, pulling vortices from the wingtips while shaking the crowds with a deafening roar. It then made a few more impressive, fast and furious, passes showing off its amazing handling. Now THAT is an impressive display.[8D][bow][bow][bow][8D]
Who cares about bombing? Low-level airshow capability is what counts.[;)][swg]
If its not Marine Corps air providing the CAS, then I’ll just do without, given the sister services tendancy to drop ordinance on USMC vehicles, mistaking them for the other side…
It’s a case of machismo (B-1) versus finesse (B-2). Finesse is a beautiful thing and so is raw power. I like the B-52 at low level, finesse be damned!