Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Tim wrote:

TC wrote:

it doesn't get much prettier than watching one takeoff at night time.

Unless of course you've seen the SR-71 do its night time take off, not to take anything away from the Bone of course

Now, now - no reason to rip my heart out over something that I wish I'd have seen but never got the chance...

F-16.net Sponsor

One of the few SR launches I was fortunate enough to see WAS a night launch. I remember just being able to make out the shape of the aircraft, and seeing those two bluish-white afterburner flames. Very cool...and it was about as loud as the BONE as well. However, for those who never had the opportunity to see it, seeing the BONE launch at night is quite a similar experience.

I read somewhere that the Bone has matured enough that it's the bomber of choice in OEF these days, and probably OIF too. I remember being at McConnell for F-16 HOTS training back in 1991 when they had bones on the other side of the field. They'd do single-engine AB runs in the chocks.

Takeoffs were very loud--and way cool!

SixerViper wrote:

I read somewhere that the Bone has matured enough that it's the bomber of choice in OEF these days, and probably OIF too.

The author of what you read is absolutely correct! Nearly every night when I was deployed, there was at least one BONE going downrange, doing good things to bad people. Cool

Just for break-in Cool

:

@TC: Agree with you, agreed also with ATFS crash on the operational readiness (or lack of it Wink

) of the tu's, but that's another thing.
As long as supersonic strategic bombers go, I personally believe that the blackjack is untouchable as an aircraft. That speed & size really matter (again personal opinion). Crew training, flight time, avionics, defence suites, pods & combat readiness add value to the the USAF, not the bone as a plane. That's what I'm trying to say.

PS. Don't tell me you don't find this Mach2+ behemoth ultra-sexy?

Not really. I've seen it before, when Rockwell originally designed it, and made it look better. The Blackjack has always had an @$$ ugly cockpit window alignment to me.

I don't follow your logic on how something can benefit a branch of service, but not the aircraft flying the modifications. Is the BONE's Sniper pod going to increase my paycheck? Is it going to improve my chow hall? Will it help end Blues Mondays, or give us back our old dress coats? Hell no! So, I don't really see how it benefits the USAF. It benefits the weapon system that is utilizing it.

As I said, the operational readiness of the Blackjack is the pits at best, and its numbers are far too limited to present a realistic threat. Its crews are under-trained, and not combat tested. Over half of the fleet sat unused for many years.

Meanwhile, the tactics, training, avionics, and weapon delivery capabilities have only improved for the BONE. Its crews are some of the most combat experienced out of all of the world's strategic bomber forces, and now, they have a pod that will help put munitions on a very small, individual target.

Yeah, the Blackjack can go faster and farther, and that's really cool, but when it comes to combat, it can't touch the BONE.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

I agree with TC about the Blackjack's seemingly 1930's era windscreen(s). Uuuuu-gly. The rest of the aircraft looks nice, but it's a butterface.

The windscreen looks like something out of the old Buster Crabbe "Flash Gordon" serials.

regards, OL

TC wrote:

I don't follow your logic on how something can benefit a branch of service, but not the aircraft flying the modifications. Is the BONE's Sniper pod going to increase my paycheck? Is it going to improve my chow hall? Will it help end Blues Mondays, or give us back our old dress coats? Hell no! So, I don't really see how it benefits the USAF. It benefits the weapon system that is utilizing it.

It benefits USAF not as an employer, but as a fighting force.
I'll use another example. Let's take an F-1 team, e.g. scuderia ferrari. This year we have F2008 and drivers Felipe Massa and Kimi Räikkönen. If we improve the drivers (experience level, training etc) and add a lot of track time, it won't benefit F2008, it'll benefit scuderia ferrari F-1 team. That's what I'm saying.
Same goes for numbers. If I have 60 vipers or 35 does it make the jet better? No, but it makes my fighting ability better!
I have to agree though that it's not exactly the same for avionics/pods/self-defence, as those are part of the effectiveness of the jet, even as a single element.

P.S. Butterface may be, but what a body...

When I look at the Blackjack, I can't help but think of this old comic strip that used to run in Airman Magazine. One particular strip I recall seeing, had this crew chief briefing the commander, with a MiG parked behind him. The crew chief said:

"We didn't learn anything from the defector's plane, sir. Everything on it, they stole from us!" Laughing

Last edited by sferrin on Oct 24, 2008 - 09:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

JpoLgr wrote:

Now for the Tu-160, those jets are unarguably superior to bones. .

Depends on how you qualify "superior". Speed? Sure, but then that was a decision made to introduce RCS reduction. The B-1A was good for Mach 2.2. Consider the 5000km FAI record with a 30,000kb payload however. The B-1B beat the Blackjack on that and flew it faster. And the Blackjack did it second so they knew what to shoot for-and failed. Blackjack got it's class record for that but the Bone got it for the unlimited class. Also keep in mind the Bone is MUCH smaller than the Blackjack.

lampshade111 wrote:

and so could SM-3. THAAD may also be able to hit a bomber at high altitude.

No way in hell either of those could hit a plane.

As sweet as the Bone and Blackjack may look they still have a ways to go IMO.

Anybody remember the Superman comic book series from the '60s? Remember the character "Bizarro"? He was just like Superman but came from another dimension and lived on a cube-shaped world. He was a lovable buffoon who tried to do all the good things Superman did but somehow messed them all up.

The Tu-160 looks to me like it was an attempt by Bizarro to build a B-1. For that matter, a lot of Russian airplanes look like that. Examples are the Tu-160, the Tu-144, the An-124, the Il-76, Tu-154, etc. I could go on and on, but you get my drift. Somehow the Russkies just can't seem to get the lines quite right on these airplanes.

SFERRIN! The XB would have been a beauty...Those foreplanes/canards spoiled it for me though!

Oh, and the Blackjack was just a BONE-CLONE! Still pleasing to the eye though!

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Tu-160 "White Hype"