Is the B-52 considered obsolete for today's battlefield.
- Thread starter Mike Powell
- Start date
I think F-22 has stand off missile, that means JSF-35 definitly has it. B-2 ur right r very expensive. They r worth $1 billion & they cant fight. About cruise missile, yes. I think B-52 is idle bomber to carry Crusie missile because of the size. But GF says 30 more years, I blieve by than USA can build some thing more advanced.neel24neo said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Sabre, the USAF has vague plans to replace it's bomber fleet (B-52, B-1B and B-2) with a single large bomber. Unfortunately as far as I'm aware, these plans are conceptual only with no real plan or funding to progress the ideas. The only "plan" announced so far is a modified F-22 known as the FB-22, which is a much larger "bomber" type aircraft than a normal F-22 and is akin to a stealthy B-1B.
The US only operates 21 B-2 bombers. Due to recent retirements they also "only" operate 90 B-1B's. Unfortunately the B-1B's airframes are wearing out a much more rapid rate than the B-52's, which is why the B-52's will be around longer than them. The USAF currently plans to operate the B-52 until around 2040, mainly though, in cruise missile carrying roles and bombing once air superiority is achieved.
The F-117's are pure tactical strike "fighters". They are called fighters but in fact they have no air to air capability whatsoever. They are purely designed to conduct deep penetration strike missions and have a warload of 2x Laser Guided bombs, (either GBU-10, GBU-12 or GBU-27). They are also being modified to carry JDAMS, but due to their size they'll still only be able to carry 2. They have a very narrow operational role, attacking high value, extremely well defended targets. They do not have any self-defense capability though, other than of the electronic kind and their inherent "stealth"...
A B-52 can currently carry 16 GBU-31 JDAM's (2000lbs) and will soon be able to carry up to 64 GBU-38 (500lbs). There is nothing else that can match that type of capability. F-22s and JSF's will be able to carry JASSM's (as will basically every other Western Tactical fighter) but nowhere near as many as B-52's can, and besides the F-22's and JSF's will be busy ensuring air superiority (or "Air Dominance" as the USAF now calls it) so the B-52's can drop all those JDAM's!!!
A bit of a ramble, but hopefully it clarifies a few issues. Cheers.
The US only operates 21 B-2 bombers. Due to recent retirements they also "only" operate 90 B-1B's. Unfortunately the B-1B's airframes are wearing out a much more rapid rate than the B-52's, which is why the B-52's will be around longer than them. The USAF currently plans to operate the B-52 until around 2040, mainly though, in cruise missile carrying roles and bombing once air superiority is achieved.
The F-117's are pure tactical strike "fighters". They are called fighters but in fact they have no air to air capability whatsoever. They are purely designed to conduct deep penetration strike missions and have a warload of 2x Laser Guided bombs, (either GBU-10, GBU-12 or GBU-27). They are also being modified to carry JDAMS, but due to their size they'll still only be able to carry 2. They have a very narrow operational role, attacking high value, extremely well defended targets. They do not have any self-defense capability though, other than of the electronic kind and their inherent "stealth"...
A B-52 can currently carry 16 GBU-31 JDAM's (2000lbs) and will soon be able to carry up to 64 GBU-38 (500lbs). There is nothing else that can match that type of capability. F-22s and JSF's will be able to carry JASSM's (as will basically every other Western Tactical fighter) but nowhere near as many as B-52's can, and besides the F-22's and JSF's will be busy ensuring air superiority (or "Air Dominance" as the USAF now calls it) so the B-52's can drop all those JDAM's!!!
A bit of a ramble, but hopefully it clarifies a few issues. Cheers.
Ever heard of B-52's flying ON TOP of Baghdad?Aussie Digger said:
About your VSTOL SU-27, I doubt the Russians would have the ability to do it financially, unless some country pay them to do it (e.g India).
A bit simplistic? Well just like you, I wasn't exactly serious with that "SU vs B-52" point either, I was just suggesting the Americans may not roam a country's air space with decent air defence as easily.
But for some reason, people just don't get the hint and just builds on it.
Well if memory serves me right, a B-52 won't "carpet bomb" a place when its thousands of kilometres away from it. Am I right?
Oh, is that why? Corz I was thinking about the B-1's too.
I personally the like the B-1's more than the B-52's.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
What does this mean as well?
Do you mean, "have I ever heard of a B-52 flying over Baghdad?" Yes I have. They fly at medium altitudes to avoid the inevitable AAA fire and only once the tactical jets have destroyed or severly limited the SAM threat. The B-52's droipped numerous JDAM's over every part of Iraq, in the most recent Iraqi conflict.
I'm not 100% sure why the B-1B fleet is wearing out so quickly compared to the B-52, but the kind of aircraft it is and the kinds of missions it fly's gives some hints. It is a large supersonic (just) aircraft, fitted with a "swing wing" (just like our F-111's, which are wearing out according to the RAAF), although they are many times larger than the F-111's, they were used for comparable missions with the B-1B's conducting low level high speed strike missions, just like the F-111's.
This type of flying puts enormous strain on an aircraft and is probably the reason for they're early retirement, (though as early stated I'm not 100% sure about this)...
I do agree with you about the B-1B. It is an excellent aircraft that is far more capable than the B-52's, it's a pity it's flown so hard is all...
I agree with the B-1 concept. in the tom clancy book Red Storm Rising B-52s are used again and again against a soviet base in iceland but most of them are shot down by Mig-29s with their escorts even though they manage to release their bombs. What this proves is that sure the B-52s can reach their targets and bust em but getting away is another story. Ofcourse this doesnt matter in a low intensity conflict like vietnam and iraq but theyd definitely be mauled by the PLAAF or perhaps the iranians if they can get their act together without gettin busted entirely on the ground.
The B-1 is a more sensible idea because it encorporates all necessay features and still has a good payload. I guess the B-52s are just stickin around cuz the USAF wants to use em to the last nut.
The B-1 is a more sensible idea because it encorporates all necessay features and still has a good payload. I guess the B-52s are just stickin around cuz the USAF wants to use em to the last nut.
As in, if you want to "carpet" bomb a place, you need to fly over it, and I'm pretty the SU's can get them there....neel24neo said:
If the Iraqis would just have an operating airforce for a start, I don't think the B-52 can roam the air like how it did in 2003.
The B-1 is a very agile plane, since its so agile AND big, that should explain why it's wearing out so fast, in contrast, the B-52 is flying not much more aggressive than a 747 is.
But you are conveniently ignoring doctrine - there is no need to use iron bombs when you can standoff outside an EADS and kill the target.berry580 said:
And your point is?? you don't expect combined arms to actually be put into play if it gives you the advantage? The Iraqis never had a capability even when they had air dominance over Iran. Iranian F14's regularly clipped Iraqs fixed wingers.berry580 said:
Actually, a plane that's flying high, slow and cold is putting it's airframe under more strain than one flying hot, fast and high. Thats why aircraft are subjected to "cold wing tests" such as done by the USAF and RAAF.berry580 said:
The reason why the B1B has fatigue problems is exactly the same reason why F-111's and F-14's and Blackjacks fatigue faster than other aircraft. The swing wing cycle degrades the platform faster than a normal jet. They could fly at the same speeds as a B-52 and would degrade faster.
It's got nothing to do with high speed and size or aggressive flying. It has everything to do with the problem characteristics that manifest themselves in swing wing aircraft.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Iraq DID have an Air Force in the first Gulf War Berry, over 750 of some of the best fighters in the world in fact. It was the world's 5th or 6th largest air force at that point (or something like that). Even the Iraqi MiG 25', MiG-29's, and Mirage F1's didn't or couldn't stop the B-52's from "carpet bombing" the sh*t out of the Iraqi forces.
Remember for all your hatred of the US, their Air Force's capability is simply amazing. They are not stupid enough to commit their high value assets in a dangerous area, that's where tactical jets like F-14/15, F-16/18's and F-117's go. It's also why the US has and uses Tomahawk's, JASSM's and CALCM's. They systematically attack and break apart pieces of an IADS and an airforce to give them a tactical or strategic advantage,.
Only then do they commit their high value assets like B-52's, B-1B's etc to strike their enemies with the overwhelming firepower that only they can employ (from the air)...
They did this in GW1, Bosnia and GW2 and will do it again wherever they should fight next.
Remember for all your hatred of the US, their Air Force's capability is simply amazing. They are not stupid enough to commit their high value assets in a dangerous area, that's where tactical jets like F-14/15, F-16/18's and F-117's go. It's also why the US has and uses Tomahawk's, JASSM's and CALCM's. They systematically attack and break apart pieces of an IADS and an airforce to give them a tactical or strategic advantage,.
Only then do they commit their high value assets like B-52's, B-1B's etc to strike their enemies with the overwhelming firepower that only they can employ (from the air)...
They did this in GW1, Bosnia and GW2 and will do it again wherever they should fight next.
Most of the Iraqi force was to flee to iran during the early stages of the conflict. And with a substantial number destroyed on the ground i dont see how they cudve stopped the bombers let alond the recon aircraft.
And bosnia is a peace of cake when you consider what would have occured had the bad guys inducted some of the advanced russian sams in their inventory prior to the conflict. it woudnt have stopped the west but it couldve given them some attrition to deal with.
And bosnia is a peace of cake when you consider what would have occured had the bad guys inducted some of the advanced russian sams in their inventory prior to the conflict. it woudnt have stopped the west but it couldve given them some attrition to deal with.
This is very true.gf0012-aust said:
Another factor was the weight gain when the platform was transitioned to a conventional bomber. The gross weight went up about 75,000 lbs. The Bone has a long skinny fuselage, and it flexes fore and aft under stress. Steerable vanes were added to the nose of the B1B to control this, and reduce the stress on the airframe. High speed terrain-following missions with full bomb loads are not exactly gentle on the airframe.
IIRC, the wingload of the Bone is in the neighborhood of 75lb/sq ft. A 747 is around 15. It makes for a nice ride, but you put that kind of load on a swing-wing, and the center box is going to wear out sooner or later. (mostly sooner)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
• TASK FORCE BACKS B-52 RE-ENGINE:
A Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force has recommended the USAF proceed with a proposal to re-engine its remaining B-52H bombers.
The USAF currently has about 76 eight engined P&W TF33 powered B-52Hs left in service, and has been studying the possibility of keeping them in service until 2037 and possibly beyond, some 75 years after they entered service. Proposals to re-engine the giant bombers with four engines in the 40-45,000lb (178-200kN) thrust class, either Rolls-Royce RB211s or P&W F117s have been mooted for several years.
Before making its recommendation, the task force examined how a re-engine would impact on B-52 capability, tanking requirements and fuel consumption, reliability, supportability and availability, and the technical risks and financial options in performing the modification.
The task force reached several major conclusions which supported the proposal, including finding that the B-52 remains the most versatile and cost effective bomber with re-engining likely to make it even more so, that a reduction of the fleet is unlikely in the foreseeable future, that it remains the most flexible and adaptable bomber platform in the US inventory, and that there is no new bomber aircraft currently in development.
It also found that the re-engining proposal represents low technical risk, that it would provide greater operational flexibility and range, reduce tanker demands, and produce significant savings in manpower and maintenance costs. Perhaps most notably, with the program being an excellent pilot candidate for expanding the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts into mobile systems, “the economic and operational benefits far outweigh the program cost.â€
The task force has recommended that the USAF place the B-52 re-engine program on a “fast acquisition track with a 4-5 year deadline to complete the processâ€, and that the impact of doing so be taken into account when considering which direction the USAF will take with its delayed tanker replacement program.
Obtained: ausaviation.com.au. (Subscribers only)...
Seems the USAF doesn't share the opinion of some on this board eh? I think the B-52 will be around until there is something capable of replacing it. So far nothing as ventured...
A Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force has recommended the USAF proceed with a proposal to re-engine its remaining B-52H bombers.
The USAF currently has about 76 eight engined P&W TF33 powered B-52Hs left in service, and has been studying the possibility of keeping them in service until 2037 and possibly beyond, some 75 years after they entered service. Proposals to re-engine the giant bombers with four engines in the 40-45,000lb (178-200kN) thrust class, either Rolls-Royce RB211s or P&W F117s have been mooted for several years.
Before making its recommendation, the task force examined how a re-engine would impact on B-52 capability, tanking requirements and fuel consumption, reliability, supportability and availability, and the technical risks and financial options in performing the modification.
The task force reached several major conclusions which supported the proposal, including finding that the B-52 remains the most versatile and cost effective bomber with re-engining likely to make it even more so, that a reduction of the fleet is unlikely in the foreseeable future, that it remains the most flexible and adaptable bomber platform in the US inventory, and that there is no new bomber aircraft currently in development.
It also found that the re-engining proposal represents low technical risk, that it would provide greater operational flexibility and range, reduce tanker demands, and produce significant savings in manpower and maintenance costs. Perhaps most notably, with the program being an excellent pilot candidate for expanding the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts into mobile systems, “the economic and operational benefits far outweigh the program cost.â€
The task force has recommended that the USAF place the B-52 re-engine program on a “fast acquisition track with a 4-5 year deadline to complete the processâ€, and that the impact of doing so be taken into account when considering which direction the USAF will take with its delayed tanker replacement program.
Obtained: ausaviation.com.au. (Subscribers only)...
Seems the USAF doesn't share the opinion of some on this board eh? I think the B-52 will be around until there is something capable of replacing it. So far nothing as ventured...
There is a recent photo of a B-52 re-engined on one side with a single pod.
I've mucked up all my digital photos so I can't find it.
The refurb reports on the B-52's have been quite promising. The problem is that some people who dismiss it's validity actually aren't looking outside the box. 2004 is not the same as 1999 even. The force and weapons delivery model has changed, and the B-52 is still in the hunt. There's a very good reason why China has kept some of her traditional bombers for a strike role - they agree with the USAF force modellers on the flexibility of task married to current and emerging gen PGM's.
.
I've mucked up all my digital photos so I can't find it.
The refurb reports on the B-52's have been quite promising. The problem is that some people who dismiss it's validity actually aren't looking outside the box. 2004 is not the same as 1999 even. The force and weapons delivery model has changed, and the B-52 is still in the hunt. There's a very good reason why China has kept some of her traditional bombers for a strike role - they agree with the USAF force modellers on the flexibility of task married to current and emerging gen PGM's.
.
I think the point has been made on this thread. The answer has been given. B-52s r here to stay n they ll stay for long time.
but its still good to discuss what new changes have been made on B-52.
Has USAF ever considered to make it stealth or rather like an AWACs+Bombber if it cant get stealthy. I mean it has a size to be upgraded to an AWACs system. Would this be a good Idea or poor, foolish one?
but its still good to discuss what new changes have been made on B-52.
Has USAF ever considered to make it stealth or rather like an AWACs+Bombber if it cant get stealthy. I mean it has a size to be upgraded to an AWACs system. Would this be a good Idea or poor, foolish one?
It's amazing to think that aircraft of this vintage will still be fulfilling a role 20 years from now at 70 years old! How is it possible that these aircraft will be considered flyable? Surely the years have wearied them?
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2001/0601vision.asp - The Vision Force
Air Force planners look 20 years ahead and work back from there
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2001/0601vision.asp - The Vision Force
Air Force planners look 20 years ahead and work back from there
kashifshahzad
Banned Member
There are a lot of AC's being operated all over the world which are older then 30 years if the proper maintainess,availability of spares,the upgradation and new versions are made then there is no need for an immigiate replacement they could be replaced gradually.
The B-70 is a high-flying Mach 3 bomber, intended to replace the B-52's
The B-70 is a high-flying Mach 3 bomber, intended to replace the B-52's
Last edited:
Dr. Danger
New Member
The B-70 hasnt flown in 40 years.kashifshahzad said:
Obsolete? The BUFF?? Why, of course it is. I think it was 15 years ago, if not longer. But as long as we have 'old school' generals in the Pentagon the monstrosity is gonna be around.
That and of course the USAF has no aircraft in use or on the drawing board that can replace it. But that's mostly because 1)to build its replacement would be WAY too expensive & 2)they just love the damn thing. Personally, i think instead of potentially having 70 year old aircraft in the Force (god forbid!) they should just build straight up replacements for the current fleet. No changes (unless planned), that way there'd be no reason for R&D. Just some brand new frames so the current ones won't still be flying at ages where most HUMANS would be dead.
That and of course the USAF has no aircraft in use or on the drawing board that can replace it. But that's mostly because 1)to build its replacement would be WAY too expensive & 2)they just love the damn thing. Personally, i think instead of potentially having 70 year old aircraft in the Force (god forbid!) they should just build straight up replacements for the current fleet. No changes (unless planned), that way there'd be no reason for R&D. Just some brand new frames so the current ones won't still be flying at ages where most HUMANS would be dead.
Simple, cost. Upgrading the B-52 to fly another 25 years or so is cheap compared to the cost of additional B-2's. It amazes me that the airframe is that well built, mind you there are ww2 aircraft still flying, dakotas for example.
If you think back to what the B-1 and B-2 were originally designed for, to get past Soviet SAM's and deliver their payload, and what in fact they are currently used for, precision carpet bombing less advanced antagonists, then the B-52 is well suited for the task.
As to the B-2 being unable to protect itself, it does have a very powerful electronic warfare suite that can probably ensure any missile lockon is quickly countered. I'll leave further comments to those more knowledgable in these matters.
As the US has limited numbers of B-1's and B-2's I would think it prudent to keep their air hours down in order to save them for any future battle where their unique properties are more needed, example, going up against China if the China / Taiwan situation comes to blows. I was going to add NK due its volume of SA assetts, but I prosume their hardening technology lags far behind and any air strike will be preceeded with LRCM with E-warheads or HPM.
If you think back to what the B-1 and B-2 were originally designed for, to get past Soviet SAM's and deliver their payload, and what in fact they are currently used for, precision carpet bombing less advanced antagonists, then the B-52 is well suited for the task.
As to the B-2 being unable to protect itself, it does have a very powerful electronic warfare suite that can probably ensure any missile lockon is quickly countered. I'll leave further comments to those more knowledgable in these matters.
As the US has limited numbers of B-1's and B-2's I would think it prudent to keep their air hours down in order to save them for any future battle where their unique properties are more needed, example, going up against China if the China / Taiwan situation comes to blows. I was going to add NK due its volume of SA assetts, but I prosume their hardening technology lags far behind and any air strike will be preceeded with LRCM with E-warheads or HPM.