Russian bombers

[Cujet]

Just how heavy are those nukes?

I'm not sure 0.67M and 0.72M are the same speed tactically. One aircraft will arrive considerably earlier on a 7 hour flight. One aircraft will be 227 miles ahead of the other. I certainly could be wrong, but I don't believe that is tactically insignificant. Or maybe you mean for intercept purposes? In which case, I see the point. I was simply thinking about the response time necessary.

I do think the B52 is capable of .80M cruise. Considerably faster than the Bear.

 

[Astro14]

I don't know the precise range/speed tradeoff for the B-52. I will tell you that in planning their flights from Diego Garcia to the CENTCOM AOR, we used a relatively slow cruise speed. I suspect that max range was the limiting factor, and we relied on the bomber guys to tell us what they wanted in that regard...and I know they were flying with a considerable amount of ordnance, but they were space limited (magazine slots for 500# JDAM), not weight limited, so the speed was likely lower, as it tends to be when you're lighter...

You can cruise at 0.80 IMN in the B-52, no doubt, but then the published numbers all vary...that's why I hate Wikipedia...unconnected data points that have little to do with understanding airplane performance.

If you said that your airplane burned 15 gallons/hour, I would ask at what altitude, what speed, what temp, what RPM, what mixture? You take 15 gallons/hour, take the max speed of the airplane, look at the tank capacity and then derive its range, you and I both know that number is completely bogus. The burn depends on speed, you have no idea if that burn number is accurate on the profile you're flying. The range is affected by wind, the burn changes with altitude, the TAS/IAS changes with altitude and the fuel reserves required vary with mission and weather...

You can characterize max range on the basis of AOA alone...max range speed is a function of wing design, engine performance, load and altitude, but when all those factors are corrected, then you end up at the same AOA for that wing. So, lighter airplane, lower IMN. Higher altitude, higher IMN to get the same AOA...

Interestingly, max range, true absolute max range, in the F-14A was .72 IMN. But look at the leading edge...20 degree sweep at that speed, it was designed for slow speed flight, to give it great loiter and low speed landing as well as top speed. But the fuel/NM varied tremendously with speed, load (drag), weight and, of course, wind...

How heavy are nukes? Depends on the weapon family. Early Thermonuclear devices, around the time of the B-52 design, were upwards of 30,000# each. The B-36 was designed around those size/weight weapons (size was more of an issue then, too). Later models were much smaller/lighter.

 

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
You can characterize max range on the basis of AOA alone...max range speed is a function of wing design, engine performance, load and altitude, but when all those factors are corrected, then you end up at the same AOA for that wing. So, lighter airplane, lower IMN. Higher altitude, higher IMN to get the same AOA...


Good summary. Interesting to note that the U-2 has been flying at max altitude and max airspeed possible at a very precise angle of attack (AOA, alpha), which best illustrates the task of flying near Mach buffet (too fast).

 

[stickybuns]

Here is the graph I wanted:

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

With the advanced Tomahawk it would be tough to defend against but alas our CIC is attempting to cut them as well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...ogram/?page=all


I looked it up and it doesn't sound as controversial as your source:

Quote:
The Navy believes its inventory of 4,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles are sufficient for future scenarios, so production is planned to end after 2016 with Tomahawk stocks to hold until the next-generation land-attack weapon is developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29

Furthermore, it's not a cutting edge, but subsonic and can be shot down:
Quote:
Remnants of a shot down Tomahawk from Operation Allied Force, showing the turbofan engine at the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade, Serbia.

Getting lucky a few times is expected. The difference between a tactical tomahawk and nuclear tomahawk is very big. If one nuclear strike is successful then a country's defense failed amongst many different political and intelligence failures.

Tomahawks have evolved and it is very difficult to track and shoot down a ground hugging target even at subsonic speeds. Tomahawks are not "skunk works" cutting edge any longer but they will still be the backbone of the surface Navy's strike capability for at least until 2025 and I suspect it will be farther out before the Tomahawk replacement is ready for service.

 

[fdcg27]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but in comparing these two aircraft, it seems that they should be capable of similar speeds over similar distances.
If the two have the same angle of sweep as well as about the same aspect ratios and wing loadings and neither appears to be power limited, then how fast either one could be flown would be a matter of how much fuel you wanted or could afford to burn on any given mission.
The B-52 does have considerably more useful load than the Tupolev does, but I wonder how much of that additional useful load is eaten up by the need to carry more fuel to feed thirstier engines?
As an aside, put a different fuselage on the basic Bear wings and tail and you've got yourself what was in the early 'sixties a long range, high capacity airliner, the TU-114, that was operated safely and successfully for years.
Try that with a B-52.
Another little fun fact is that a single engine on the TU-95 makes more power than all four Allisons used on the Lockheed Electra, while all eight of the B-52's engines together make only about 20K lbs more maximum thrust than a single GE-90 115B is capable of.
Irrelevant, but interesting.