Mike Powell
New Member
Hey everyone, remember B-52 Stratofottress. Is she considered obsolete? :?
Is the B-52 considered obsolete for today's battlefield.
- Thread starter Mike Powell
- Start date
It's not obsolete as long as you have air superiority. Even if you can't dominate the skies, B-52 is able to launch crusie missiles over a distance of several hundred kilometers for precision strike.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
B-52's are very far from obsolete. They have recently been upgraded to carry the J series of weapons (including JDAM's, JSOW and JASSM). They're were photo's of B-52's carrying up to 12 2000lbs JDAMS and independently targetting each and every one of them. When the GBU-38 (500lbs JDAM) comes into service the B-52 will be able to caryy up to 64 of them!!! How's that for strike capability? The USAF currently plans to operate them until 2040 at which point they will be 80 years old...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hey Berry, how are your SU-27's gonna take off when their runways are destroyed from CALCM's and JASSM'-ER's fired from over 1000nm's away by the B-52's? Even China hasn't got more airfields than America has missiles...
Maybe Russia could work on a VSTOL SU-27 to solve this problem... :roll
Maybe Russia could work on a VSTOL SU-27 to solve this problem... :roll
Actually AD, Russia has developed some sort of take off asisting platform for destoryed runway which greatly reduces the amount of runway needed for Su-27 to take off. I forgot the name of it, but hopefully GF knows something about it.
The B-52 is going to be around for another 30 years at current projections. That means that by 2040 it will be the longest serving active airframe in the world. Over 90 years of service.
The discussion about an Su-27 being a match for a B-52 ignores the issue that the B-52 has 4-5 times the range sans refueling, has a standoff capability and is able to launch well outside of the intercept range of the Su-27.
If one of the longest ranged fighters/interceptors in the world has trouble interdicting, then it will not be in a position to neutralise the threat adequately.
There have been JATO tested SU-27's, but I was under the impression that they were an abject failure.
Part of the problem of assessing a platform directly to another platform (eg Su-27 and B-52) is that people often ignore the issue of platform doctrine.
B-52's will be used to slowly peel back an enemies offensive points. They can do that without necessarily being put in harms way. A flight of B-52's with organic AWACs has a significant edge in threat delivery.
The discussion about an Su-27 being a match for a B-52 ignores the issue that the B-52 has 4-5 times the range sans refueling, has a standoff capability and is able to launch well outside of the intercept range of the Su-27.
If one of the longest ranged fighters/interceptors in the world has trouble interdicting, then it will not be in a position to neutralise the threat adequately.
There have been JATO tested SU-27's, but I was under the impression that they were an abject failure.
Part of the problem of assessing a platform directly to another platform (eg Su-27 and B-52) is that people often ignore the issue of platform doctrine.
B-52's will be used to slowly peel back an enemies offensive points. They can do that without necessarily being put in harms way. A flight of B-52's with organic AWACs has a significant edge in threat delivery.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It might shorten the distance somewhat Pathfinder, but big fighter jets like the Su-27/30 still require a long runway and modern runway denial munitions normally create devastation along numerous sections of the runway, so as to try and deal with this situation...
My point about VSTOL SU-27's was a bit of sarcasm, I wasn't being entirely serious, it was aimed towards Berry. Berry has a tendency (I've noticed) to make statements hereabouts that are a bit simplistic at times...
My point about VSTOL SU-27's was a bit of sarcasm, I wasn't being entirely serious, it was aimed towards Berry. Berry has a tendency (I've noticed) to make statements hereabouts that are a bit simplistic at times...
In some cases it would be more usefull to have a few covert operators with MANPADS on the ground near the airbases from which AWACS or B52 operate. In many case this won't be possible but in the European theatre it would; because of the population density few bases are located in remote and sparsely populate areas. Taking out a few AWACS that way would have been very effective in disrupting the NATO air campaign against Serbia a few years back.gf0012-aust said:
I agree, it's similar to the logic used for eliminating ballistic missiles and the use of the boost phase system. It's a lot easier to target the platform at its launch point than trying to get it as it closes with the target.tatra said:
That raises the issue of a generational change in assymetrical warfare as
well.
srirangan said:
B-2 is not a fighter, its a bomber & nothing but bomber. F-117 is close to being a figter. The only defence B-2 has is its ability of being stealth. Nothing else. Its just a single wing unable to perform manuverbility of any sort of fighter. If spoted by any armed plane, its doomed to go down. But question remains, can it be spoted?
B-52s r not obsolete. They do good carpet bombing. they did it in afghanistan. But I doubt that it woud remain in service fr long. Obsoletion will come, one way or an other. I dont know may be 8 to 10 more years and it would retire from its duties as a bomber. After that may be their bombing ability wuld be stripped down & the planes may be used for other purpose.
Wait I just raid what GF has said. 30 more years GF. Dont u think by than better bombers will be on duty. B-2 is there, F-117 is there. JSF-30 may have the ability to d it. Why such a huge bomber be kept for 30 more years?
B-52
B-2
