B-52 Still Relevant?

[Media Buff]

The US Air Force continues to rely heavily on the B-52. In fact, the service life has been extended until past 2040. Can the B-52 still be relevant in an increasingly complex operating environment (especially given its penetration challenges in Asia) through its end of life?

 

[Todjaeger]

The US Air Force continues to rely heavily on the B-52. In fact, the service life has been extended until past 2040. Can the B-52 still be relevant in an increasingly complex operating environment (especially given its penetration challenges in Asia) through its end of life?

You might want to do a bit more research before posting a question like this. You might be amazed at what you find.

Currently aircraft like the B-52 and B-1 strategic bombers are being used to provide CAS over Afghanistan. They are being used in this fashion because the range to target, loiter time on-station, as well as amount of ordnance carried makes it impractical for tactical fighters to provide the same amount of coverage. While the B-52 was AFAIK never invisioned as a CAS aircraft when it was first designed, capabilities and capability requirements change over time. In this case, a new use for older aircraft was realized.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

The US Air Force continues to rely heavily on the B-52. In fact, the service life has been extended until past 2040. Can the B-52 still be relevant in an increasingly complex operating environment (especially given its penetration challenges in Asia) through its end of life?

Does the ability to fly a very long way, drop heaps of precision and even greater numbers of unguided bombs and the fly home again, still produce a useful military effect?

If so, then yes, the B-52 is still relevant.

Next.

 

[Kalasag]

If anyone's been reading a few military scifi books, Dale Brown's EB-52 Megafortress seems like an interesting concept as an overhaul to the B-52.

 

[ADMk2]

If anyone's been reading a few military scifi books, Dale Brown's EB-52 Megafortress seems like an interesting concept as an overhaul to the B-52.

Er, no...

It might make good fiction, but that's all it is... Twin v tails, pointed nose, anti-tank missiles, no thanks...

 

[Kalasag]

Er, no...

It might make good fiction, but that's all it is... Twin v tails, pointed nose, anti-tank missiles, no thanks...

That's actually just a game version of the design. The US did really consider a proposal for it. US Air Force cancels SAM-jamming EB-52 for second time

USAF already has the Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call, but in the book an EB-52 was also heavily weaponized and could operate on its own against any threat. Being a large plane it could carry a very large volume of armaments.

 

[Media Buff]

Quick to assume

I meant this as a means of starting a conversation not an assertion that the B-52 is not relevant.

I am well aware of these capabilities in current operations but I am quizzing over future ones.

Given that possible high-end combat situations (i.e. China) would present far more difficult penetration challenges than Afghanistan, I therefore believe it is a fair question to ask when you are looking out over a 2040 time horizon. In such an environment, survivability matters as much as capability.

You might want to do a bit more research before posting a question like this. You might be amazed at what you find.

Currently aircraft like the B-52 and B-1 strategic bombers are being used to provide CAS over Afghanistan. They are being used in this fashion because the range to target, loiter time on-station, as well as amount of ordnance carried makes it impractical for tactical fighters to provide the same amount of coverage. While the B-52 was AFAIK never invisioned as a CAS aircraft when it was first designed, capabilities and capability requirements change over time. In this case, a new use for older aircraft was realized.

-Cheers

 

[Media Buff]

AOL Defense just ran an interesting piece on the capability of the current US strike bomber fleet. In it, they assert: "today's Air Force cannot hold every contested target at risk, a fundamental strategic goal." Whether one agrees with this point or not is probably a key indicator of how relevant one feels the B-52 will be in the future - of course if one assumes that high-end combat operations are possible in the next few decades.

Another interesting point: "According to Air Force Global Strike Command, current analysis shows a mean time between failure (MTBF) of 32 hours on average for the B-52 strategic radar." While this may not bring into question the return on investment of the platform, sustainability may become an issue through 2040 as well depending on other strategic decision-making (incuding basing).

Does the ability to fly a very long way, drop heaps of precision and even greater numbers of unguided bombs and the fly home again, still produce a useful military effect?

If so, then yes, the B-52 is still relevant.

Next.

 

[My2Cents]

I meant this as a means of starting a conversation not an assertion that the B-52 is not relevant.

I am well aware of these capabilities in current operations but I am quizzing over future ones.

Given that possible high-end combat situations (i.e. China) would present far more difficult penetration challenges than Afghanistan, I therefore believe it is a fair question to ask when you are looking out over a 2040 time horizon. In such an environment, survivability matters as much as capability.

Threats are not uniform but cover a wide range, and you need a range of aircraft to match them. Against a foe like China after 2020 probably only the B-2 has a chance of survival. Against someone like Afghanistan the B-2 is too expensive to risk, and the B-52 is cheaper than possibly any other alternatives.

We are likely to be involved in dozens of Afghanistan type conflicts over the next 30 years. We may never fight China. In between are the operations like Libya where the B-52 probably cannot survive in the first couple days, but could be very useful after that.

It is the old story of ‘The Perfect vs. The Good Enough’. The B-52 is good enough for a lot of conflicts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The B52 still has merit as a launch platform - even against china.

eg the shift towards multi stage stand off hypersonics means that the B52's could still have a very credible role, even against a continental power such as china.

 

[fretburner]

I was thinking about that as well -- the B-52 can carry a large number of cruise missiles and probably decoys and HARMs. If you have a bunch of B-52s flying in formation with F-22 escort, they can launch a salvo of missiles at SAMs and then drop their JDAMs on airfields and they'd be a step closes to getting air superiority.

 

[StevoJH]

I was thinking about that as well -- the B-52 can carry a large number of cruise missiles and probably decoys and HARMs. If you have a bunch of B-52s flying in formation with F-22 escort, they can launch a salvo of missiles at SAMs and then drop their JDAMs on airfields and they'd be a step closes to getting air superiority.

I would have almost thought you would use them on stand-off operations for the first few days/weeks until air *dominance* is achieved before risking B52's over land.

If you want to send in bombers in while the air defense net is still either operational or semi-operational, wouldn't the B-1B and B2 be better choices?

 

[ADMk2]

That's actually just a game version of the design. The US did really consider a proposal for it. US Air Force cancels SAM-jamming EB-52 for second time

USAF already has the Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call, but in the book an EB-52 was also heavily weaponized and could operate on its own against any threat. Being a large plane it could carry a very large volume of armaments.

Hence the fiction part.

There IS a reason why the USAF doesn't just modify the B-1B with an air to air search radar, Link 16 MIDS-LVT data-links and load it up with 40-50 AIM-120D AMRAAM's.

That reason is because it won't survive against modern fighter or SAM threats on it's own and even the USAF has a limited budget to work within to try and cover ever possible scenario.

Spending dollars on upgrading B-52's or B-1B's to perform roles they were never intended to do, means that platforms that ARE intended to do those roles, aren't getting additional capability to address evolving threats.

The USAF didn't consider the EB-52 "Megafortress". What they considered was adding a standoff jamming capability to the B-52 to replace it's EF-111 tactical jamming capability.

They couldn't afford it in light of other priorities so it was cancelled. Adding further capability beyond this is further beyond the fiscal reality that USAF has to work within.

That's why.

 

[ADMk2]

The B52 still has merit as a launch platform - even against china.

eg the shift towards multi stage stand off hypersonics means that the B52's could still have a very credible role, even against a continental power such as china.

Completely agree.

Even as a MALD / MALD-J launcher it's going to be useful, saying nothing of JASSM / JASSM-ER and future standoff weapons (hypersonic or otherwise).

The reason of course is why the B-52 and B-1B were designed the way they were originally, which it seems a lot of this discussion is missing or oblivious to.

These aircraft can fly half way around the world launch and then fly home again. They don't require "basing rights" and they require limited air to air refuelling, or none depending on the target country.

The "penetrating" aspect is irrelevant. Day 1 strikes aren't conducted (in the main) by manned aircraft over-flying the target. They are engaged at ever increasing standoff ranges.

Larger bomber aircraft these days are the domain of the major powers, most especially the USA. They are still more than useful and will remain so for the forseeable future due to their inherent design characteristics (long range, large warload, increasingly sophisticated avionics and targetting capability).

 

[PCShogun]

Even if a modern opponent is never again faced, the sheer volume of explosives it can carry will always provide a deciding use of force, so long as air superiority is achieved prior to the B-52's deployment in theater. As mentioned before, modern technology has taken the strategic platform and allowed it to perform a large range of tactical support roles. Being able to loiter over the combat area, releasing single weapons on demand and being precision guided to the target by boots on the ground, provides a benefit that could never be understated.

In this world of smart munitions, the old carpet bombing method of destroying infrastructure is no longer needed, although it is occasionally useful in situations like the Iraqi desert against large concentrations of dug in troops where collateral damage is nearly non existent. The propaganda implications of such a move over a large population area today would most likely deem this as counter productive in the geopolitical sense anyway.

 

[fretburner]

I would have almost thought you would use them on stand-off operations for the first few days/weeks until air *dominance* is achieved before risking B52's over land.

If you want to send in bombers in while the air defense net is still either operational or semi-operational, wouldn't the B-1B and B2 be better choices?

They would be. But they can't carry as many cruise missiles and/or decoys than B-52s right?

I was thinking, a "swarm" of B-52s launching a few "salvos" of cruise missiles at standoff ranges, and then flying low letting ala Red Storm Rising, let loose those JDAMs and flatten/cratering airfields. That's of course the salvos virtually eliminated the enemy's air defenses.

I dunno... Just thinking out loud here

 

[Ananda]

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.

 

[Belesari]

One of the things about aircraft like the B-52 or the russian bear or even the C-130 is that they arent weapons in themselves. They are designed to carry a certain load of mass for a mission. The C-130 can function as a gunship because of the space and payload abilities. This along with a few upgrades and the right load out makes them excellent at their job of CAS day or night in all types of weather.

The B-52 is a plateform that has been upgraded so much because it does what its good at (huge payloads over long distances) better than any other platform. This along with a large amount of spare parts due to the huge fleet of retired planes means it is effectively cheaper than what would replace it.

Now i believe the Buff could be upgraded with a good EW and eventually a defensive laser system against SAMS. I believe in the future such a active defense would be as likely if not more so than a stealth configuration. So maybe one day a return to the fleets of bombers in the sky.

Of course could just do rods from god....but.

 

[StevoJH]

They would be. But they can't carry as many cruise missiles and/or decoys than B-52s right?

I was thinking, a "swarm" of B-52s launching a few "salvos" of cruise missiles at standoff ranges, and then flying low letting ala Red Storm Rising, let loose those JDAMs and flatten/cratering airfields. That's of course the salvos virtually eliminated the enemy's air defenses.

I dunno... Just thinking out loud here

You don't need to crater the runway when your missiles are destroying all the aircraft as they sit in the dispersal sites.

Runways are easier to repair (temporarily). Maintenance facilities, aircraft and other infrastructure not so much.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You don't need to crater the runway when your missiles are destroying all the aircraft as they sit in the dispersal sites.

Runways are easier to repair (temporarily). Maintenance facilities, aircraft and other infrastructure not so much.

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...