Serious question

Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
from its base in the center of the United States and back without
stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
Others?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
refuelling. B1? Others?

ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Bill Silvey wrote:

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
refuelling. B1? Others?

ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the B-2
is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?

Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

In article , Bill
Silvey wrote:

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
refuelling. B1? Others?

ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not suggest
that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

It might be less true of the B-1 and B-52 if you consider that
some targets might be defended. For example, during the recent
Iraq war, a B-52 might not have been capable of flying to Bahgdad
and back and surviving over the target during the early part of
the war, while a B-2 would likely have had no problems.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message

In article , Bill
Silvey wrote:

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
refuelling. B1? Others?

ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not
suggest that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

It might be less true of the B-1 and B-52 if you consider that
some targets might be defended. For example, during the recent
Iraq war, a B-52 might not have been capable of flying to Bahgdad
and back and surviving over the target during the early part of
the war, while a B-2 would likely have had no problems.

-john-

Mm. Agreed. I think it largely (for the Buff at any rate) depends on how
much SEAD or degredation of the enemy air defense network has occurred
beforehand.

Hey, BUFDRVR, anyone take a (guided) potshot at you and yours during OAF?
Or can you talk about it or...?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
.nnz
Bill Silvey wrote:

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a
stealth bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2
billion per aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target
in the world from its base in the center of the United States and
back without stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop
from US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair
refuelling. B1? Others?

ronh

All of those statements are correct. The original quote does not
suggest that the B1 and B52 cannot also do the same.

True, and tks for response Bill. I agree it doesn't suggest B1 and B52
can't do the same, but SOME people might take the inference that the
B-2 is the only a/c that can do so -- otherwise, why mention it?

Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

You might consider:

"The B2, like it's non-stealthy counterparts B-1 and B-52, thanks to
in-flight refueling has a range limited only by crew endurance."

Hmm, that's a tad clunky, though...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

(BackToNormal) wrote:


Anyway, prob fixed. I'm suggesting adoption of a sentence from the B52
page which states "The use of aerial refueling gives the B-2 a range
limited only by crew endurance".

cheers

ronh

But is 'that' statement correct? Doesn't the B-52 and the B-2
(all a/c actually) use lubricating oil? How does that consumption
stack up?
--

-Gord.

isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling

Sure. So could a Piper Cub. (There was a sport in the 1930s whereby a
Cub driver would stay aloft for a week or two, picking up 5-gallon
fuel cans from a car below. In calm winds, a Cub could fly around the
world at the equator in two weeks. The major problem would be spotting
the cars

What's really remarkable is the Burt Rutan aircraft that can fly
nonstop around the world without refueling. The latest iteration is
the one he's building for Richard Branson, which will have only the
one pilot.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:
(BackToNormal) wrote:

isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling

Sure. So could a Piper Cub. (There was a sport in the 1930s whereby a
Cub driver would stay aloft for a week or two, picking up 5-gallon
fuel cans from a car below. In calm winds, a Cub could fly around the
world at the equator in two weeks. The major problem would be spotting
the cars

An Irishman named MacPail, a veteran of the bailing wire days of
aviation and Capt. John Donaldson, a WW1 pilot, remained
aloft for 13 days and 13 nights in 1930 via a primitive method of
air-to-air refueling. During their record-setting endurance flight,
the two men had to crawl outside the cabin in-flight to service
their single, 200 hp Lycoming radial engine out front.

Imagine changing plugs and lubricating the rocker arms at 2000 ft.
AGL while laying on your stomach out in the breeze with the prop
spinning a mere six inches away from your head!

Back in 1998, a Brit named Brian Milton flew a trike (a Pegasus
Quantum 912 exactly like mine) around the world in 80 flying days.
Although he landed to refuel numerous times during his epic journey,
it was still an amazing aeronautical achievement considering that
he flew nothing more than a tiny, open-air microlight at an average
speed of 57 mph for total distance of 23,130 statute miles.

He flew from Europe to Cyprus, outwitted a ****ed off Syrian MiG-21
around Damascus, continued on from Mandalay to Hong Kong,
crossed Siberia to Nome, then Alaska to San Francisco, San Francisco
to New York, New York over the Greenland Icecap and finally back to
London.

Incredible...gets my vote for the "Biggest Brass Balls of All" award!

What's really remarkable is the Burt Rutan aircraft that can fly
nonstop around the world without refueling. The latest iteration is
the one he's building for Richard Branson, which will have only the
one pilot.

And more importantly, only one engine (a fuel-efficient jet as
opposed to two recips that the original Voyager used) that
allegedly consumes less fuel per mile than a SUV does.

Costs.....

There are so many ways to parse the numbers (just like how many ways to
serve potatoes)....

If numbers are to be used, they all need to be based on same premise....
For example, total life cycle cost (your $2b figure????). Not to say the
B-2 program is cheap, but you can get some pretty 'flashy' numbers if you
look at total life cycle costs per aircraft/ship/tank (initial R&D,
procurement, O&M, system upgrades/enhancements, etc etc for ENTIRE life of
system -- divided by numbers procured). A single nuclear powered aircraft
carrier (sans aircraft) TRC is reported to run at $8b. Found numbers for
KC-135 fleet detailing a TRC of $76b. So whatever is used to compare costs
(acquisition, life cycle, etc ....) they all need to be off the same
accountants page.

Mark

"BackToNormal" wrote in message
p.nnz...
Is the following accurate?

"The U.S. Air Force's most expensive bomber is the B-2. It is a stealth
bomber built by Northrop Grumman. Its price tag was near $2 billion per
aircraft. This plane is capable of flying to any target in the world
from its base in the center of the United States and back without
stopping anywhere by means of midair refueling".

Costs for a start. AND, isn't a B52 also capable of flying non stop from
US to anywhere in world and return courtesy of midair refuelling. B1?
Others?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine