Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-52H, B-1B, And B-2 Payloads  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 28814 times:

I was doing a bit of research as to the relative payloads of the B-52, B-1B, and B-2, and here is what struck me regarding the Lancer:

In addition to 75,000 lbs of internal payload, the Lancer has:

"6 external hardpoints for an additional 59,000 lb (27,000 kg) of ordinance (use for weapons currently restricted by START I treaty)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer

"In addition" to? That would make the total payload capability 134,000 lbs.!

The payloads for the B-52H and B-2 are usually given as about 70,000 lbs. and 40,000 lbs., respectively.

Are these figures accurate, in your opinion? I had always thought that the B-1B's payload was smaller than that of the B-52H. But it seems that it may be in fact quite a bit larger.

By the way, from various sources, it appears that the long-range heavy bomber count for the United States is: 85 active B-52H's, approximately 60 active B-1B's, and approximately 20 active B-2's, for a total of approximately 165 long-range heavy bombers.

Opinions?

Thanks in advance.

[Edited 2006-01-02 16:20:58]

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 28819 times:

Yes the Bone can carry a larger payload than the Buff, it was designed as a major upgrade over the B-52, it's stealthier, can fly lower and faster, and carry a larger payload.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 28815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think you were looking the specs for the B-1A. It was rated to be able to carry somewhere around 115k lbs counting both internal and external loads.

I believe that the B-1B can carry around 40-45k lbs payload.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months ago) and read 28801 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Are these figures accurate, in your opinion? I had always thought that the B-1B's payload was smaller than that of the B-52H. But it seems that it may be in fact quite a bit larger.

No, the B-1B carries about 2/3s the payload of the B-52H, that is one reason 35 B-1Bs (along with the high operating costs of the Bone) were selected for storage at DM.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
I think you were looking the specs for the B-1A. It was rated to be able to carry somewhere around 115k lbs counting both internal and external loads.

I believe that the B-1B can carry around 40-45k lbs payload.

That is correct.

BTW, the B-2A can carry up to a 60,000lb payload. The B-52H carries up to 70,000lbs.


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 28788 times:

If you've never seen them up close & in person, the B-1 is huge, it makes the B-52 seem ordinary.
Jane's lists the B-1 payload at 134,000 lbs & the B-52 at 60,000 lbs.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 28760 times:

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

I don't understand the diversity in payload figures. The B-1B's MTOW was increased to 477,000 lbs. over the B-1A's 390,000 lbs., according to one source. The B-1B is also slower (maxing out at 1.25 Mach compared with the B-1A's 2.2 Mach). It doesn't seem to make sense that it would carry less payload than the B-1B.

An Air Force article I found said that one particular B-1B carried 48,000 lbs. of payload, but that might refer to that specific mission.

I'm puzzled.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 28741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Air Force tailored the B-1B to fly fast at low levels and this required specific intake configurations which limit the airplanes top speed (similar to the IDS Tornado). If they changed it then the thing could fly at Mach 2 but to what point? They need to fly between hills as fast as it can go if it's headed in to a ADA protected target.

What they generally experience now is ingress/egress in areas where they are not facing much of a threat, or are heavily protected by SEAD aircraft.

I have read a couple of accounts that say the B-1B is capable of toting up to 115k lbs, but I don't know how accurate those figures are. Air Force Tech says they can carry a bunch between external and internal loads.

Anyone out there know the accurate numbers?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 28710 times:

I don't believe you can count the weight of the external stores for the B-1B, as they will never be used.

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 28705 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
don't believe you can count the weight of the external stores for the B-1B, as they will never be used.

Assuming that they are never going to be used, still, what, I wonder, is the total payload that the B-1B can carry? From most (but not all) indications, it's at least that of the B-52. And the B-52, by all accounts I have read, can carry at 70,000 lbs.

One possible means of calculation is to work from the actual weapons the B-1B can carry. The Air Force site, as well as others, state that the B-1B can cary 84 units of a certain kind of bomb (Mark something-or-other). Know the weights of these units, and you have a rough idea of what the B-1B can carry.

Further, it is said that the B-1B can carry 20 ALCM's, which represents the same capability as the B-52.

The issue is confused by the B-1A / B-1B differential. But as I said, the higher MTOW represented by the B-1B suggests to me that it can carry quite a payload, and more than the 2/3d's of the B-52 that was suggested above.

Of course, I'm no expert, but merely a layman.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 28696 times:

Does anyone know where a picture of a B-1 with external stores can be found?

Also, is it true that the B-1 is no longer certified / allowed to fly supersonically at all?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 28686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

I don't believe you can count the weight of the external stores for the B-1B, as they will never be used.

Why is that?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
the B-1B can cary 84 units of a certain kind of bomb (Mark something-or-other).

That site said it can carry 84 Mk82 500lb dumb bombs....

That's still a huge load....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 28664 times:

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 4):
If you've never seen them up close & in person, the B-1 is huge, it makes the B-52 seem ordinary.

I've seen the next to each other on the ramp, and I'd have to disagree with that statement. Both are giant aircraft. The B-1 has the massive center fuselage and wing gloves to accomodate the swing-wings, but the B-52 has an incredible span and is generally big all around.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 28653 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
That site said it can carry 84 Mk82 500lb dumb bombs....

That's still a huge load....

Yes, indeed. So, that would mean 42,000 lbs., if I'm reading it correctly. It would be interesting to compare this to the B-52H's load to get a bearing on whether it's simply a function of the limits of space rather than weight.

Here's an interesting resource:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/overview.htm

The illustration there is somewhat ambiguous to me because I'm not certain what to make of the "int/ext" or "internal/external" notation for the B-52H -- for example, whether this means that the specified load can be on both the internal bay and the external hardpoints.

Assuming that the load is not cumulative between the internal and external capabilities, and further that the maximum mix of weapons is intended to be denoted by each line, then it would appear that the B-52H and the B-1B can both carry the same number of Mk 82's and Mk 62's.

Of course, the B-52H is nuclear-capable (B82, B61) as well, whereas by treaty the B-1B is not.

[Edited 2006-01-03 08:26:26]

User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5364 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 28538 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
I believe that the B-1B can carry around 40-45k lbs payload.

So I had a wicked case of insomnia and was reading Tom Clancy's "Fighter Wing." In the section on the B-1B he notes as follows: "All of the offensive weapons are carried internally - and I mean a lot of weapons. The maximum ordnance load is 125,000 lb./56,700 kg. - twice the capacity of a B-52. But a more typical combat load would be about half that much." (Clancy 102)*

Now that puts yet another figure out there to chew on! I'd point out I'd be a bit hesitant to blindly accept the Clancy figure as no other resource I've seen points to a 125,000 pound internal load. Still, interesting that there's yet another figure floating out there!


*Clancy, Tom. Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing. New York: Berkley Publishing Group, 1995.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 28536 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):
That site said it can carry 84 Mk82 500lb dumb bombs....

The B-1 can lay a whoopin, as can the B-52 and B-2. I was fortunate enough to witness and photograph the Firepower Demo near Indian Springs this past year, probably the most impressive display I have ever seen. Two of each dropped over 65 live 500lb bombs.


User currently offlineLongbow From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 28300 times:

I definitely agree with the whoopin part. A BONE can carry up to 84 Mark 82 conventional 500-pounds bombs, or 30 CBU-87/89/97, or 24 JDAMS, or can be reconfigured for wide range of nuclear bombs. Imagine dropping 24 bombs knowing that each one hit their target within a few feet! Now that's a whoopin.

I think the real amazing part of this aircraft is the low level supersonic capabilities. There aren't a lot of planes that can catch the BONE at low levels and were not talking about a small aircraft here!


User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 28260 times:

B-52: ~70000 lbs (total internal and external)
B-1B: ~ 134000 lbs (internal: 75000; external 59000)

Great website.

http://www.boeing.com/history/master_index.html



Forever New Frontiers
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-52H, B-1B, And B-2 Payloads
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B-1B And F-15's At BUF posted Mon May 20 2002 01:54:37 by BUFJets
Lack Of "turkey Feathers" On F-15 And B-1B posted Fri Apr 6 2007 08:04:06 by SCAT15F
Amazing SR-71 Article (and Photo) posted Fri Oct 12 2012 18:12:26 by 9V-SPJ
KC-46 Vs Japanese/Italian 762 Tankers And SIN. posted Sun Oct 7 2012 17:29:45 by yyz717
Mars One And Reality posted Wed Oct 3 2012 02:35:16 by maxter
BAE And Eads Seeking Merger posted Wed Sep 12 2012 10:35:46 by tugger
Supermassive Black Holes And Hot Galaxies posted Thu Aug 30 2012 07:43:30 by NoWorries
B-1B Lancer Question posted Wed Aug 29 2012 12:33:43 by sturmovik
AIM-120 And Method Of Firing posted Thu Jul 19 2012 08:30:25 by moo
2 Great Documentaries On The Mig-29 And Su-27 posted Sun Jul 8 2012 21:21:51 by alberchico

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format