B-52 Still Relevant?

[Todjaeger]

Abe probably has some stats stuck somehere in the encyclopaedia that doubles up as his brain, but I was pretty sure that there are some interesting stats on how quickly runways and airfields have been made combat ready within 24hrs of sequential cratering...

Out of curiousity, was that cratering accomplished via standard bombs or delayed-blast penetrating munitions like Durandal and whatever the follow-on to that was? As I understood it, with a penetrating munition, it would cause greater disruption to the tarmac and runway surface, without necessarily causing a larger physical crater. Therefor any repair crews would have more work to re-surface the runways, etc.

OTOH other areas of infrastructure in and around an airbase might be better targets. Like a penetrating/incendary strike on the airbase's tank farm. Depending on the layout, rate of flow, etc. it could be possible to start a fuel fire that can burn on its own for a week. Something like that would definately put a crimp into base operations, nevermind the problems such a fire would cause refueling vehicles and aircraft.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Out of curiousity, was that cratering accomplished via standard bombs or delayed-blast penetrating munitions like Durandal and whatever the follow-on to that was? As I understood it, with a penetrating munition, it would cause greater disruption to the tarmac and runway surface, without necessarily causing a larger physical crater. Therefor any repair crews would have more work to re-surface the runways, etc.

I've seen data on both.

admittedly delayed muntions had the desired effect on cleanup and rebuild opportunity, but they were able to be overcome by companion munition clearing.

the delayed munition issues were on first generation cratering capability though, so the data may be a little dated as such

 

[StevoJH]

Would a mine flail based device detonate delayed munitions or just dig holes in the runway?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would a mine flail based device detonate delayed munitions or just dig holes in the runway?

You'd be chewing up the runway - now if you're all loggied and engineered up with all the gear on tap that might not be such an issue as you could do a prelim organic layer and then mesh and matte the rest.

but, I reckon you could back up a high thruster like a C17 or even 737 and use the backblast to shift some of those puppies (as long as they weren't diggers)

 

[StobieWan]

US still use B-52 And keep mordernising them. Russia keep using the 'bear' as long range maritim platform. China keep mordernising their 'copy' of TU-16 for more or less what the US has in mind with B-52.

Just to show those big 50's design do still have use in this digital era. Shame that UK already scrapped those Vulcan.

The Vulcans were fairly clapped out - most had reached or were reaching their fatigue indexes. Neither did they take very well to air to air refuelling by all accounts (described as "unsafe at any speed" in at least one account as a receiver.

 

[fretburner]

Cratering runways versus hitting Fuel stores... more Red Storm Rising memories I guess there's a lot of realism with that particular Tom Clancy book eh?

Diverting the topic a little... Can the B-52 unload JDAMs which are individually targeted like the B-2s?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Diverting the topic a little... Can the B-52 unload JDAMs which are individually targeted like the B-2s?

yes they can

 

[fretburner]

yes they can

That is AWESOME!

I wonder what sort of technologies will be further integrated to the B-52 before it will finally be retired. It's a pity that standoff jamming development was cancelled. However, MALD and MALD-J should be integrated with the BUFF right?

 

[nielsenkc]

The b-52 is great for launching a large amount of joint stand off weapons during the early phases of any war against a modern country. They could destory ports... warehouse bridges airports planes on the ground fuel and other things of that nature.
But not a lot people know this the b-1 can carry more bombs then the b-52

 

[Beatmaster]

The B-52 when it first appeared was a monster, today it still is a huge monster the only difference with 40 years ago is that the B-52 of today has so much hardware and software systems running that it can do so much more then just dropping bombs.
On futureweapons from discovery and several other programs it was shown that there are a number of B-52's out there who have been modified to even serve as a sort of flying relay and command & support system (AWAC's but then with steriods)
While still being able to deal a incredible amount of damage if it really needs.
On the other hand the B-52 desipite its digital moderization and upgrade packages is a prime target for any enemy airforce, as virtually every nation has the ability and the technological options to shoot down a B-52.

In that regard a fast stealth bomber similair to the B2 would be more usefull i think (Not sure)
However lets say this if you want BANG BANG and i mean ALOT of BANG BANG then the B-52 the by far the biggest and probably the very best aircraft to do the job.
yesterday, today, tommorow and next week the B-52 will remain a key asset to the USAF i believe, so in that regard yes the B-52 is still very usefull.

However with the technological achievements worldwide it does become clear that newer future aircrafts (even if the can carry less load and have less options) could do a better job then the B-52 ever could mainly due the limitations that the B-52 will have in the next years to come (I mean you can upgrade it as much as you like but there comes a point when its internal and external architecture will not fit anymore no matter how much you change it)

Also the new more potent weapons / bombs /rockets that are being made worldwide will also enable future aircraft to do similair or more damage then a B-52 while being smaller, faster, more stealth and probably a hell of alot more digitalized and networked with other systems and units.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[StevoJH]

The B-52 is kept around because it can carry a lot of ordinance a long distance without refueling at a fairly low cost.

The B-1B can carry more, but likely costs a fair bit more to operate.

The downside is that the B-52 is a lot more vulnerable then the other platforms (B-1B and B2).

A current generation heavy bomber along same lines as the B-52 but possible unmanned would presumably be perfect, since its less important to worry about vulnerability to threats with an unmanned platform.

 

[Beatmaster]

The B-52 is kept around because it can carry a lot of ordinance a long distance without refueling at a fairly low cost.

The B-1B can carry more, but likely costs a fair bit more to operate.

The downside is that the B-52 is a lot more vulnerable then the other platforms (B-1B and B2).

A current generation heavy bomber along same lines as the B-52 but possible unmanned would presumably be perfect, since its less important to worry about vulnerability to threats with an unmanned platform.

True, and yes unmanned is the future, however i got a offtopic question here.
You say a unmanned version would be perfect which i can understand and agree to.
But you are not talking about some UAV or some nice little toy with a machine gun and a few hellfire rockets......making a platform similair to the B-52 but then unmanned is just unreal....would the US army in general go that far and cancel out human intervention (I mean pilot and service man wise) to make the B-52 a computer operated system? Keep in mind if such a platform would develope a bug while flying around then the results could be HUGE.
So i am not saying that it cannot be done as i know it can, but are we ready to take it to the next level and have one of our key assets such as the B-52 being operated by a computer with all the risks that come from it? see my point?

 

[fretburner]

True, and yes unmanned is the future, however i got a offtopic question here.
You say a unmanned version would be perfect which i can understand and agree to.
But you are not talking about some UAV or some nice little toy with a machine gun and a few hellfire rockets......making a platform similair to the B-52 but then unmanned is just unreal....would the US army in general go that far and cancel out human intervention (I mean pilot and service man wise) to make the B-52 a computer operated system? Keep in mind if such a platform would develope a bug while flying around then the results could be HUGE.
So i am not saying that it cannot be done as i know it can, but are we ready to take it to the next level and have one of our key assets such as the B-52 being operated by a computer with all the risks that come from it? see my point?

I remember that Fire Scout wandering off to the Washington DC area.

One can only imagine if a B-52 suddenly had a glitch and wandered around some major city -- JDAMs in its bomb bays and cruise missiles hanging by those huge wings. That is a nightmare even if you get to intercept those!

 

[Beatmaster]

I remember that Fire Scout wandering off to the Washington DC area.

One can only imagine if a B-52 suddenly had a glitch and wandered around some major city -- JDAMs in its bomb bays and cruise missiles hanging by those huge wings. That is a nightmare even if you get to intercept those!

Well thats exactly my point, Obviously before a unmanned B-52 would be made hundereds of tests and such will be conducted and safety protocols will be in place to ensure that even if there is a major glitch that it can be taken care of right away.
Still even with the new data, command, control, mission and operational networks that the US is testing and developing specially for unmanned systems i would perfer to have certain key assets like the B-52 and other "bigger / special toy's" 100% controlled and operated by humans and not by remote acces but by direct human contact and intervention.
Because even with all the new techs today the UAV sector has still ALOT to learn and alot to test before we can make sure that 99,9% of all the future problems are tackled, found, solved and learned from.
Obviously the US are pioneering this specific branch and they are way ahead of anyone still my personal opinion would be wait a little more and test ALOT more.

On topic:
The B-52 is one of the corner stones of the world technologic and weapons developments its one of the greatest machines ever build and its power 40 years ago and its power today and tommorow is already a mighty good reason to keep them around, as the airplane itself without dropping one single bomb can already end wars and disputes just by taking off.

 

[Masquerader]

In September 2021, the US Air Force chose the Rolls-Royce BR725 turbofan as the engine for the B-52H Stratofortress Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) to re-engine the B-52H fleet, designating the BR725 as the F130. In 2023, the designation B-52J was formally assigned to B-52Hs slated to be re-engined with the F130, so when the B-52s are fitted with the F130, they will still be eight-engine aircraft.

While the B-52 is cheaper to operate compared to the B-2 and B-1B, and it has outlived the Cold War and the very USSR against which it was designed to carry out nuclear warfighting missions, the age of the B-52H fleet begs the question of whether all operational B-52Hs will be converted to B-52J iteration. However, initial operating capability for the B-52J has been delayed to 2033, and with the B-21 Raider poised to enter full scale production, it could be a matter of time before a handful of B-52Hs are retired from service.

Links:

Rolls Royce offers BR725 for B-52 re-engine effort

Rolls Royce is pitching its BR725 engine for the US Air Force's B-52 bomber re-engine effort, though the service has yet to establish a programme of record or release a request for proposals.

www.flightglobal.com

Rolls-Royce Begins Testing of B-52 Replacement Engine | AIN

The engine-maker is expecting to deliver more than 600 F130 turbofans to re-engine the USAF’s entire B-52H fleet.

www.ainonline.com

The B-52 Is Getting a Big, Ugly, Fat, F***ing Upgrade

The re-engined bomber is about to be deadlier than ever.

www.popularmechanics.com

New Report: B-52J Initial Operational Capability Slips to 2033

The B-52J will be ready for action in 2033, a total three years later than initially planned, the Government Accountability Office reported.

www.airandspaceforces.com