The Best Cold War Bomber? - Page 2




View Poll Results :The Best Bomber of the Cold War?
B-29 1 6.25%
Vulcan 3 18.75%
B-52 Stratofortress 7 43.75%
Victor 0 0%
Valiant 0 0%
B-2 Spirit 3 18.75%
B-1 Lancer (AKA "Bone&quot 2 12.50%
B-47 Stratojet 0 0%
B-36 Peacemaker 0 0%
Russian: Bison 0 0%
Russian: Blackjack 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
September 11th, 2004  
e=mc2
 
The B1 hands down should be the answer here.

This plane scared the living Bejesus out of them. It is specifically mentioned in Arms treaties and limited to only INTERNAL payloads by treaty. Actually it is already a so called "Stealth" plane and a flying electronic monster capable of low level high speed flight. The former Soviet Republics/Union/Warsaw pact had little to counter it until the Cold War was over. SA10/12 didn't exist then and a B-2 either, but the B1B and SA-6 did, and the USSR knew that this plane was threat numero UNNO and most definetly capable of overcomming their IADS through most of the 80s. This plane probably drove a lot of the ADA upgrades they undertook.
September 11th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
I think the Valkyrie was actually cancelled because of the Soviet's development of the Mig 25 'Foxbat'. Not only was the Mig 25 very fast, it also had a very high altitude ceiling.
I've always found it kinda funny that the Valkyrie XB70 was the primary reason taht the Mig 25 Foxbat came into existence. The capabilities of the B70 scared the crap out of the Russians.

Then we were silly and scrapped the Valkyrie, leaving the Mig 25 in full production, but its primary target absent. Then we, in turn, were scared to death when we found out about the Foxbat and have to upgrade our own fighter technology. So on.
September 12th, 2004  
e=mc2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
I think the Valkyrie was actually cancelled because of the Soviet's development of the Mig 25 'Foxbat'. Not only was the Mig 25 very fast, it also had a very high altitude ceiling.
I've always found it kinda funny that the Valkyrie XB70 was the primary reason taht the Mig 25 Foxbat came into existence. The capabilities of the B70 scared the crap out of the Russians.

Then we were silly and scrapped the Valkyrie, leaving the Mig 25 in full production, but its primary target absent. Then we, in turn, were scared to death when we found out about the Foxbat and have to upgrade our own fighter technology. So on.
The F15 was designed as an air supremecy fighter from the get go. It was designed as a pure air to air fighter (focus on other fighters) and later modified for air to ground. While the F104 was a wave rider and very fast/efficient at speed keeping its stubble wings tucked into the bow wave it was designed to climb fast, go fast and shoot a heater into a bombers rear. The MIG25 though it looks similar to the F15 is more that type of plane in concept.

The Arrogant American will speak again now. Since Korea we were threatend by no one in the air. The Russians during the cold war just about gave up competing with the USAF in all reality. They knew the US would achieve eventual air supremecy and therefore pumped so much ADA into their ground forces. Their maneuver elements on the ground were very fat on ADA, capable of keeping up with the ground combat elements. Even their MIG29s which was stated as being their answer to the F15 has been shot down twice by a F15. In fact, the F15 has a kill record of 80:0; including two MIG29s "The F15 killer". We were VERY dissapointed because in the begining of Vietnam we had a kill ratio of 2:1 in our favor. Of course that was against the (At that time new) MIG21, pilots trained by the Russians and fighting over enemy air space at a time and place he more or less chose. So we were dealing with their ADA while chasing their planes which they flew at altitudes that maximize their capabilities by forcing our F4 to fly low. By wars end the kill ratio of the F4 was nearly 10:1 (If I remember correctly) despite this.

The MIG25 is a big piece of FOD.
--
September 12th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
well...The pilots flying all those migs against the F15 were not well terained. One can only speculate what a Russian in a Mig29 could achieve when the plane was brand new.
September 12th, 2004  
e=mc2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
well...The pilots flying all those migs against the F15 were not well terained. One can only speculate what a Russian in a Mig29 could achieve when the plane was brand new.
Not much more.

Here's a little fact. Our Mi24 pilots at JRTC get more hours flying than most Russian pilots assigned to this bird.

The flaw with all the matched up simulations is that they consider a missle leaving a rail a hit. They don't take into account about 50% of the variables which will determine success or failure (Like jamming, flares etc). Our jets then operate in a altitude where it's ideal for the enemy. Missile capabilities and BVR capabilities are left out, so for example a fight might start in such a manner that gaurentees a merge between a MIG29 and F16. Yet in reality the F16 (Especially in its block 60 version) will see the MIG before the MIG the F16 and will knock him out of the sky before they ever get close. In reality the F16 will be operating at mid altitudes where the MIG29 has NO advantege anymore even in a close in fight. Reality is that if this fight acures at night (Most often the case real world) we have the advantage. In these simulations are our fighters being feed data in real time from AWACS, Rivit Joint, etc?

The best a SU27 can do even against a F16 block 50/52 is hope for a mutual kill. Even their newest is only equal to our aging inventory which is being replaced as I write. Even the F16 in its block 60 version as sold to UAE will outperform ANYTHING they have. The F16 block 60 is as of now the worlds most advanced fighter.

They want to sell their stuff too. So let them twirl their fighters into the ground doing meaningless acrobatics and jump tanks. Fact is, technologically they're no match. Except in some .ru websites imagination.
September 13th, 2004  
SAINT
 
B1.. always my favourite bomber.
October 8th, 2004  
BigBert96
 
Its obvious, its gotta be the B-52. My god what a monster. What does a terrorist in Afghanistan, and a Vietcong soldier have in common? Thier scared Shi@$%$#! of it. Its payload is unbeatable. Many x-vietcong all agreed after the Vietnam war that a B-52 ARCLITE raid was the most horrible thing anyone could go through. Add its range and payload, its unbeatable.
Somebody said earlier that the F15 that shot down the 2 Mig 29 was up against poorly trained pilots. Ok thats fair. What about the Israeli pilots who shot down the Migs in their F15's? Or is anybody other than a Russian "poorly trained" just because thier not russian?
F15 wins hands down against Migs. Simply put.
October 8th, 2004  
SAINT
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBert96
F15 wins hands down against Migs. Simply put.
I like the F-15.. it's mighty

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/f15ekp_1.htm
October 8th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I'd say B-52.
It's still useful today after about 50 years of service. How can you say that's not the bst bomber?
October 8th, 2004  
Rufus Excalibur
 
The reason I chose the Vulcan is its design, streaks ahead of anything in the mid 1950's. In terms of payload the B52 is unsurpassed, in terms of ability to deliver the payload then the B2. The F15 is the ultimate strike aircraft, but the Vulcan has to be the best looking bomber by a mile