The b-52

[bmgarcangel 0]

Hey

I'm very surprised about this information, so I was watching the news and the Air Force said they plan to use the B-52 well INTO 2040'S!?!?!?! wtf is going on here?  Like don't we have a nice replacement for it....the B-1

Aside from the massive payload the B-52 can carry, its older then anyone in these forums!  

I also found that on the internet that hte workhorse has been no other then the B-52 during this recent wars:

Quote[/b] ]It's only a matter of time before aircraft routinely fly strikes without any pilot in the cockpit. But in this first war of the 21st century the workhorse has been that quintessential cold war weapon, the B-52 bomber. You might not call it "old think," but you could call it back to the future.

~Bmgarcangel

[hellfish6 7]

It's also older than any other actively serving major weapon system in the world, I think, including naval vessels. Only the M2 .50 cal and the AK-47 are older as far as I can recall, but they're not considered major weapon systems.

[Badgerboy 0]

There's no need to drop it if it can still do its job. (Dropping tons of bombs of countries with little or no AA defenses)

Can't see them being commitied agaisnt any serious AA equipped country without being blown to peices, but they are great for blowing the crap out of 3rd world countries.

[hellfish6 7]

but they are great for blowing the crap out of 3rd world countries.

God Bless America!

[bmgarcangel 0]

I can see that. Its like how many bombs they can carry, its utterly uncompareable to any other bomber that we have in service.

But they are all older then hell I mean seriously, wouldn't there be some kind of danger keeping them in service like this?

~Bmgarcangel

p.S. Ak-47 was developed in the late 1940's

[Donnervogel 0]

but they are great for blowing the crap out of 3rd world countries.

God Bless America!

roflmao

[bmgarcangel 0]

LOL

Ya hell, don't make fun of the USA....its there problem 3rd world bitches can't speed up to 2nd or 1st

one more comment before the bell rings here at Squalicum High school in Bellingham, Washington, USA........ITS NUTS THAT THEY WANT TO USE IT ALL THE WAY INTO THE 40's or 50's!!!!!

[hellfish6 7]

Pfff. It'll only be about a hundred years old. I'm 367 years old and I'm not complaining.

[llauma 0]

They propably decided to stick with it of the same reason they cancelled the the Comanche project. They don't expect any fighting against advanced enemies so the current weapons are more than enough to handle the required tasks.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

What a bs to compare a B-52 with a B-1! The B-1 moves in the target-area while in low-level flight and makes a "battle jump" (goes up to let's say 250m and fires everything it carries) short before it's at the target.

The B-52 is called "Stratofortress"...why you think that is? Because B-52s fly very high (in the Stratosphere) and drop their load from up there.

Also the B-1 was developed as "nuclear-bomber" only and not to carry conventional weapons into the target-area.

That's why flying on B-1s was called "working in the never come back airline"!

Greetz

Plage

[hellfish6 7]

The B-52 was also developed as a nuclear bomber. Only during Vietnam did they ad the conversion kits for conventional bombs, IIRC.

[ran 0]

is it me or does the service time of large military gear gets bigger with the time ?

In the 20's/30's, in France, we would have new combat vehicle model fielding every couple of years or so because the others were obsolete. Then the US sherman has been used in most western countries from the middle of WWII to the mid/late fifties, the AMX13 (created to replace the US M24 and M4)has been in wide use from the early fifties to the mid 80's, the AMX30 has been fielded in 1966 to replace older US tanks (M26 and M47)and is stil used now waiting for its replacement by the Leclerc. The Leclerc is planned to stay in service for the next 40 years or so

The US M4 served wit France during about 15 years.

The AMX13 (all versions) served during about 35 years.

The AMX30 has served during about 40 years.

The Leclerc is ment to be used for a good century half.

Maybe it's just a natural evolution course, but who knows what may happen tomorow, if needed, i'm sure the USAF will find a good replacement to the B52 and you know, times change.

[EiZei 0]

Think flying a 50-year-old jet would be costly and unconvinient but guess not.

I can see why M2 is still in use but a strategic bomber?

[hellfish6 7]

I think the life cycles have to do with development costs. With new technology, the costs get more expensive. And one tank today has more firepower than a company of tanks in WW2. As the expensive equipment gets older, more money is spent on upgrades and improvements, which are cheaper than designing things from the ground up.

[Bordoy 0]

Think flying a 50-year-old jet would be costly and unconvinient but guess not.

I can see why M2 is still in use but a strategic bomber?

M2? do u mean B-2? But i don't know every aircraft so you may beat me.

I aint surprised by this decision at all.

[llauma 0]

is it me or does the service time of large military gear gets bigger with the time ?

In the 20's/30's, in France, we would have new combat vehicle model fielding every couple of years or so because the others were obsolete. Then the US sherman has been used in most western countries from the middle of WWII to the mid/late fifties, the AMX13 (created to replace the US M24 and M4)has been in wide use from the early fifties to the mid 80's, the AMX30 has been fielded in 1966 to replace older US tanks (M26 and M47)and is stil used now waiting for its replacement by the Leclerc. The Leclerc is planned to stay in service for the next 40 years or so

The US M4 served wit France during about 15 years.

The AMX13 (all versions) served during about 35 years.

The AMX30 has served during about 40 years.

The Leclerc is ment to be used for a good century half.

Maybe it's just a natural evolution course, but who knows what may happen tomorow, if needed, i'm sure the USAF will find a good replacement to the B52 and you know, times change.

The time between the world wars was quite tense so it's not strange at all that countries had to counter any new weapons other countries had developed.

If a huge world war is approching you can be sure that we will see a major arms race.

[EiZei 0]

Think flying a 50-year-old jet would be costly and unconvinient but guess not.

I can see why M2 is still in use but a strategic bomber?

M2? do u mean B-2? But i don't know every aircraft so you may beat me.

No, I was indeed referring to the M2 heavy machinegun which has been in use for god knows how long.

[hellfish6 7]

Since 1920, I think.

[Ionio 0]

Yeah the M2 has been around since well before WW2. The B1 lancer is being phased out - even though it's pretty new, it's too expensive. The B2 spirit isn't a good carpet bomber, it's better for attacks on radar stations than on taliban caves. The B52G (G is the latest version) is great for vaporising ragheads.

I have to say that the Russian Tu160 blackjack (i think it's blackjack) is the best bomb, it has the largest payload of any bomber, and it's partialy stealth - like the B1. In other words it's an uber B1.

[llauma 0]

The B52G (G is the latest version) is great for vaporising ragheads.

That statement a racist. Read the rules before you post.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Yeah the M2 has been around since well before WW2.  The B1 lancer is being phased out - even though it's pretty new, it's too expensive.  The B2 spirit isn't a good carpet bomber, it's better for attacks on radar stations than on taliban caves.  The B52G (G is the latest version) is great for vaporising ragheads.

I have to say that the Russian Tu160 blackjack (i think it's blackjack) is the best bomb, it has the largest payload of any bomber, and it's partialy stealth - like the B1.  In other words it's an uber B1.

Racists are not welcome on this forum.

Your posting rights have been removed permanently.

[ozanzac 0]

Think flying a 50-year-old jet would be costly and unconvinient but guess not.

The Big Ugly Fat F****r carpet bombs equally as well today as it has done so since the Vietnam era. Noone has anything equal to it, and I doubt anyone is about to make an equal to it. When there is no equal to it on either side of the fence, there is no need to better it. All the basic design needs to make the BUFF more modern is it to be given turbofan engines, modern avionics suite and a corresponding glass cockpit.

No need to go with the costly expense of developing a replacement strategic bomber of the same size. With very little modification, the buff would be well set for the remainder of its massive lifespan.

Whether there is a neccesity for an aircraft the size of the BUFF in the currrent situation, is an entirely different arguement.

[Bordoy 0]

Think flying a 50-year-old jet would be costly and unconvinient but guess not.

The Big Ugly Fat F****r carpet bombs equally as well today as it has done so since the Vietnam era. Noone has anything equal to it, and I doubt anyone is about to make an equal to it. When there is no equal to it on either side of the fence, there is no need to better it. All the basic design needs to make the BUFF more modern is it to be given turbofan engines, modern avionics suite and a corresponding glass cockpit.

No need to go with the costly expense of developing a replacement strategic bomber of the same size. With very little modification, the buff would be well set for the remainder of its massive lifespan.

Whether there is a neccesity for an aircraft the size of the  BUFF in the currrent situation, is an entirely different arguement.

Please stop being racist towards the carpet bombs, how can all of them be big fat and ugly etc.

ban him

[walker 0]

Hi All

It is a weapons platform and a big one.

Untill there is a similar size platform with the same capacity for multiple weapons systems and with the same loitre capabilities, multiple crews, bunk beds, galley, mid air refuel etc. it wont be replaced.

I have an idea for a more powerful replacement system with unlimited loitre capabilities if some one in the US Airforce can send me a Billion Dollars I will sell them the idea Millitary version only though

Kind Regards Walker

[dm 9]

The B52G (G is the latest version)

Actually, the H model is the "latest" version, tho there are variants with various levels of weapon integration.

Technologically speaking, all 3 airframes (B-1, B-2 and B-52) will remain in service for a loooong time yet.

You have to look at it not in terms of age, or design, but capability and maintenance intensity. Also, all 3 airframes were initially designed for strategic nuclear strike, not tactical conventional bombing, so in this respect no one airframe has the advantage over any other.

The B-1B Lancer, or "bone" as its known "in the trade" has recently been upgraded to carry the JASSM (Joint Ait-to-Surface Standoff Missile) as part of the JJI (JSOW-JASSM Integration) program. This is technically the B-1's "saving grace" as no other airframe is capable of carrying the JASSM, and re-programming the weapon whilst the aircraft is en-route to the target. The JASSM, which is basically a low-cost cruise missile, with equal or greater accuracy than the current generation of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM's) means that the US can continue with its current doctrine of "surgical-strikes" without putting their own people at risk. And without spending as much per strike as they would if using TLAM's. And it also means that this aircraft can strike Time Sensitive Targets (TST's) with the precision weapon, because of its capability to re-program the target co-ordinates at any time in flight prior to launch.

Also, to call the B-1 a "low level" bomber is not really doing the airframe justice. It is highly capable in all areas of the flight envelope, and can carry a massive payload. (greater than that of either the B-2 or B-52)

The B-1's downside is that it is a maintenance intensive aircraft, requireing a much greater maintenance-hours to flight-hours ratio than any other airframe in the US inventory (including the ageing B-52)

This means that the numbers of these bombers will be cut, so as to save costs on maintenance and to use the surplus airframes as parts sources.

The B-2A Spirit is also undergoing a Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program, similar to the other 2 airframes, to allow it to carry a full range of conventional (non-nuclear) ordenance. The B-2 is capable of fielding the JSOW, JDAM and a variety of other J-class weapons, as well as the full range of "dumb" (unguided) weaponry.

The B-2 will be called upon to perform first-strike "global power" missions, operating from the US in the first hours of any war. Their main advantage is their stealth. This means that the aircraft can penetrate deep into heavily guarded enemy airspace without being noticed. This means that they can deliver their precision weapons (although with JASSM and other stand-off weapons, they will not have to penetrate very far into enemy airspace) without the enemy knowing until the ordenance detonates.

This provides the global power missions with the "shock and awe" factor that is key to current US Military Doctrine. Using the Massive Ordenacne Air Blast (MOAB) weapon as an example, the US aims to "petrify" their enemy into submission by a massive show of force and capability, with a "surrender or face these consequences" message being delivered to the enemy forces, and then the dropping of a massive weapon such as the MOAB or the 20,000lb "daisy cutter" weapons near the enemys' position. The B-2 is capable of adding to this effect by being able to penetrate undetected into enemy airspace, thus the enemy never knows when or where the next attack will be.

The B-2 fleet is only small as it is, this fleet will be retained at its current level (give or take attrition) for a long time to come, simply because it is a key player in the first-strike global power mission.

Finally, onto the B-52. The oldest of the 3 airframes, but by far the most useful.

This is primarily because of its low operating cost, and the fact that it is capable of carrying almost every air-to-surface weapon in the US arsenal. The B-52H can operate from many bases in the US, the UK and in many many other bases around the world. This coupled with its long range (aided by in-flight refueling) and its short turnaround time (around 6-8 hours plus mission time, compaired to the 12-36 plus mission time for the B-1 and B-2) means that the B-52 is used as the workhorse for almost all US operations.

Also undergoing the CMUP, the B-52 can carry almost all of the J-class weapons, as well as the Paveway Laser Guided weapons. This provides it with the accuracy and capability to support the troops on the ground, and to attack TST's.

The airframe its self is so well built, and because if the "gentle" style of flying (takeoff, cruise to altitude, target and back again) the fatigue lives of the airframes are very low. And because of the vast numbers of B-52's built during the cold war, there are plentiful supplies of spares, and they are relatively low-cost. The B-52 also has the lowest maintenance intensity of the 3 airframes, requiring the least man-hours to keep them in the air.

In the long and short of it, it is simple enough to say "they just don't make 'em like they used to."