# Coolest Bomber aircraft **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 1, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356 "2009-06-01T14:40:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/101 "2009-06-05T19:58:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m just throwing in another vote for the Tu-160, which really is the single most perfect strategic bomber to ever grace a runway (stealth ain’t got nothing on sprint speed, if you ask me). Bah. They just ripped off the B-1B Lancer and made it a little bigger. I’ll take the original to a knockoff. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/102 "2009-06-05T20:00:38Z")
You might wanna call 'em REMFs, wog don’t mean what you appear to think it means. =P ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/103 "2009-06-05T20:07:39Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Bah. They just ripped off the B-1B Lancer and made it a little bigger. I’ll take the original to a knockoff. Blasphemy. The Tu-160 blows the doors right off the B-1 in almost every category – double the combat radius, more internal capacity, top speed 0.75 Mach higher at altitude. Plus it just LOOKS better. Frankly, it just keeps up the tradition of the top-end Soviet aviation being vastly superior to the similar US/NATO gear, except that the Soviets could only afford a few of their top-end platforms. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/104 "2009-06-05T20:32:26Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Blasphemy. The Tu-160 blows the doors right off the B-1 in almost every category – double the combat radius, more internal capacity, top speed 0.75 Mach higher at altitude. Plus it just LOOKS better. Remember the B1-B is a downgraded version of the B1-A. Partly to reduce costs and partly to fill a different role (although not sure if this was just a way to make the downgrade look better). The B1-A was meant to be supersonic, the B1-B not so. Presumably the B1-B had some modifications which reduced the RCS so it would go low and slow(er) to penetrate rather than high and fast. Anyway, while the Tu-160 probably still had “bigger” specs than the B1-A it is not quite fair to compare it to the B1-B. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/105 "2009-06-05T23:47:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Anyway, while the Tu-160 probably still had “bigger” specs than the B1-A it is not quite fair to compare it to the B1-B. Well, it’s a fair comparison because they’re both actual production aircraft in roughly the same role. The B-1B is kind of a mess, unfortunately. The end result of mid program mission changes, budget cuts, compromises, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/106 "2009-06-06T00:28:44Z")
B-2 Spirit, baby. That’s where it’s at. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![czarcaztic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ec9cab/32.png) [@czarcaztic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/czarcaztic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/107 "2009-06-06T21:43:46Z")
The B-52 does the trick for me. She’s getting old, but she can still carry the load. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/108 "2009-06-07T04:24:10Z")
After having flown in a B-17 and B-25 I’d have to say those are my favorite two. The whole experience of meeting the surviving Doolittle Raiders and attending the Goblet Ceremony was incredibly moving. The B-25 immediately captured my heart after that. And I learned a new respect for the crews who flew in those tin cans with flak popping all around them. The B-17 is like a Harley in the skies. Classic, majestic, all-American. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/109 "2009-06-07T04:54:15Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > The B-17 is like a Harley in the skies. Classic, majestic, all-American. Yeah, but Boeing isn’t still trying to sell B-17s. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356/110 "2009-06-08T13:18:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Remember the B1-B is a downgraded version of the B1-A. Partly to reduce costs and partly to fill a different role (although not sure if this was just a way to make the downgrade look better). > > The B1-A was meant to be supersonic, the B1-B not so. Presumably the B1-B had some modifications which reduced the RCS so it would go low and slow(er) to penetrate rather than high and fast. > > Anyway, while the Tu-160 probably still had “bigger” specs than the B1-A it is not quite fair to compare it to the B1-B. “Fair”? This is a “coolest” thread. That’s like sayin’ Fonzie should lose his leather jacket to be fair because they didn’t have 'em in The Great Gatsby’s time or something. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coolest-bomber-aircraft/498356.md?page=5)