Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Form 4th B-52 Unit Under Resurgent Nuclear Role  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24710 posts, RR: 46
Posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8905 times:

Seeming tit-for-tat with the Russians.

From what I understand one reason for the 4th squadron is to better allow for improved 24/7 ready launch capabilty a role which is rotated with B-2 unit currently.

Quote:
B-52 expansion underpins resurgent nuclear role

The U.S. Air Force is standing up a fourth operational B‑52 squadron to work under the newly announced Global Strike Command as part of sweeping restructuring efforts to rejuvenate its nuclear capability.

The extra squadron will play a key role in helping to “restore credibility and confidence in the Air Force to do the [the nuclear] mission,” says Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force and the U.S. Strategic Command’s nuclear bomber and reconnaissance Task Force.

Minot AFB is the expected home for the soon-to-be-formed squadron of B-52Hs. Minot will be the “preferred location” for the new squadron but no decision has yet been made on the unit’s designation. Pending a favorable analysis, the new B-52 squadron will stand up by late 2009 or early 2010, the service adds. Minot currently already has one operational squadron, 23rd Bomb Squadron, under the 5th Bomb Wing.

The total active B-52 inventory is 76 aircraft, of which 57 are currently believed to be nuclear-capable.

Full story: (subscription required)
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/a...xml&databaseName=awst&keyword=b-52


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8689 times:

Why B-52Hs when there are B-1Bs in storage at DM? B-1 can't handle the nuclear mission?


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8670 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
Why B-52Hs when there are B-1Bs in storage at DM? B-1 can't handle the nuclear mission?

Due to START treaties the B-1s were more or less denuked with all equipment that made it nuke capable removed and destroyed, the hard points on the fuselage that carried ALCMS had been deactivated. It is strictly a conventiol bomber only. Plus the ones in the bone yard have been stripped of all usable parts plus they were the hanger queens of the fleet anyhow.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 8597 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
Why B-52Hs when there are B-1Bs in storage at DM? B-1 can't handle the nuclear mission?

Due to START treaties the B-1s were more or less denuked with all equipment that made it nuke capable removed and destroyed, the hard points on the fuselage that carried ALCMS had been deactivated. It is strictly a conventiol bomber only. Plus the ones in the bone yard have been stripped of all usable parts plus they were the hanger queens of the fleet anyhow.

But the 20 remaining USAF B-2As are also nuclear capable.

SAC is coming back, my friends.  bigthumbsup   box 


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8546 times:

Do you have enough spare B52H?.

User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8507 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 4):
Do you have enough spare B52H?.


At Minot they had about over 17 airframes that were considered attrition reserve and were not combat coded, the Wing there had to take care of them but were nut funded or manned for them. Plus here at Tinker they a backlog of B-52's awaiting heavy D check or as the USAF calls it Programed Depot mx which most likely all Buffs now in the system will no longer be sitting .



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineTiger119 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8370 times:

Where are the three current B52 wings located? I thought all USAF B52s are based in Louisiana and the B2s were in Missouri?


Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8302 times:



Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 6):
Where are the three current B52 wings located? I thought all USAF B52s are based in Louisiana and the B2s were in Missouri?

B-1s are at Dyess afb TX and Ellsworth AFB SD
B-2's are at Whiteman AFB MO.
B-52's are at Minot AFB ND and Barksdale AFB LA.
All 3 acft are heavy D checked at Tinker AFB.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7471 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
SAC is coming back, my friends.

SAC should have never been disbanded.

One reason for it's return may be Putin's desire to bring the Soviet Union back.

There are also some nut cases out there that need to know that there might be consequences for ones beliefs that it would be religiously justified to use neuclear weapons.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2031 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7308 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 8):
There are also some nut cases out there that need to know that there might be consequences for ones beliefs that it would be religiously justified to use neuclear weapons.

Killing them just fulfills their goals anyway. You can't scare people who are willing to die for their cause.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7300 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
Due to START treaties the B-1s were more or less denuked with all equipment that made it nuke capable removed and destroyed, the hard points on the fuselage that carried ALCMS had been deactivated. It is strictly a conventiol bomber only. Plus the ones in the bone yard have been stripped of all usable parts plus they were the hanger queens of the fleet anyhow.

Another worthless one-sided treaty we never should have signed....

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):

Killing them just fulfills their goals anyway. You can't scare people who are willing to die for their cause.

I'd rather they die as opposed to being scared.

Peace through superior firepower.


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7231 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):
Killing them just fulfills their goals anyway. You can't scare people who are willing to die for their cause.

I'm not sure which ones are willing to die for their cause, it sure doesn't seem to be the ones who are in charge. They set one nuke off in my country, then I don't care how many of them get their goal fulfilled.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7018 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
SAC is coming back, my friends.

SAC should have never been disbanded.

 highfive   bigthumbsup 

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 8):
There are also some nut cases out there that need to know that there might be consequences for ones beliefs that it would be religiously justified to use neuclear weapons.

Killing them just fulfills their goals anyway. You can't scare people who are willing to die for their cause.



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10):
I'd rather they die as opposed to being scared.



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 11):
I'm not sure which ones are willing to die for their cause, it sure doesn't seem to be the ones who are in charge. They set one nuke off in my country, then I don't care how many of them get their goal fulfilled.

 bomb   bomb   bomb 

If you kill all of them, not all of them would get the 72 virgins.  cry   cry   cry 


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6591 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
If you kill all of them, not all of them would get the 72 virgins.

Not to mention everyone would get a free windshield, with all that new glass we would be making.

My comments in regards to SAC's resurgence were more to do with the Soviet Union coming back than the middle east. We know how to handle a nuclear Soviet Union. MAD still applies here. That may be ugly, unpopular, and all that, but that is how it is.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3473 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6528 times:

Will this new role lead to more flying hours for the B-52s? I mean, while they are certainly well maintained, they are getting really old, and might thus need earlier replacement than 2040...

User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6501 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 14):
Will this new role lead to more flying hours for the B-52s? I mean, while they are certainly well maintained, they are getting really old, and might thus need earlier replacement than 2040.

I worked on B-52-G's back in the 80s, and they had in the 20,000 hour range of time on them.

Later I worked on airliners, and a few had in excess of 100,000 hours on them. So I strongly feel that the military thinks that they log a lot of hours when in actuality they don't. Granted flying a B-52 at low level can cause some stresses that an airliner would not be subject to, but with proper maintenance, inspection, and modifications the BUFF fleet could handle the mission. We do have some B-1s, and B-2s around also.

What I want to know is, are they going to resurrect the SRAM missile if they return the B-52 fleet to a nuclear role, or would they just cram more ALCMs into the bomb bay.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 15):
I worked on B-52-G's back in the 80s, and they had in the 20,000 hour range of time on them.

Later I worked on airliners, and a few had in excess of 100,000 hours on them. So I strongly feel that the military thinks that they log a lot of hours when in actuality they don't.

Of course the two types of aircraft are built to different standards. AFAIK, the major life limiting part of the B-52's are still the upper wing surfaces, with an expected life of about 35,000 hours (+/-2000). Repairing or replacing those is considered to be impractical or not economically feasible (same thing, really). And if you do fix those, the major fuselage structures and the horizontal stabilizers are the next major items to reach their life limits, both in the mid-40s.


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

I understand that the H models already had the upgrade to the wing box area mods that the Big belly D's got. Had to do with the higher rated engines, that is what I was told anyway.

I realize that sooner or later that the H's will have gone beyond what is cost effective, and it doesn't take a whole fleet of Nuke loaded bombers, be it B-2s or B-1's to take care of the saber rattling aspect of a nuclear triad, especially the B-2s.

From an intimidation and nostalgic point, I would hate to see the BUFFs get sent to the bone yard. I have looked at the pics. of the G's getting cut up, and have seen a few "old friends" getting the chop.......not a good feeling.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6363 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 17):

The Bone's have been neutered as respects to the nuke mission so the B-2's will have to shoulder a larger role until the next generation comes along around 2020. With technology gains the next bomber will probably be smaller than the B-2, but will have a manned aircraft in the mix as I don't think we are ready to put a nuke out without a a couple of sets of eyeballs at the release point (not an option for the missile legs of the triad).


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6223 times:

Here is the plan for keeping 76 B-52H's combat ready. I cut and pasted this from Air Force Times.

In order to stand up a fifth B-52H squadron this year, Air Combat Command is reorganizing the Stratofortress community — trading missions among existing B-52H units, reducing the number of B-52Hs in each squadron and getting all 76 authorized bombers combat-ready, ACC officials said.

The Air Force decided to create a new B-52H squadron after Defense Secretary Robert Gates directed the service to put more emphasis on its nuclear strike role, following the embarrassing discovery that a B-52H had carried six nuclear-armed cruise missiles across the U.S. without anyone realizing the missiles were loaded with real warheads.

Air Force leaders decided the only way to boost B-52H nuclear training while meeting ongoing deployment demands was to increase the size of the B-52H force, said Lt. Col. Grey Morgan, acting B-52 weapons team chief at ACC headquarters.

The squadron, which will be stood up later this year at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., likely will start with three or four planes and achieve initial operational capability in late 2009. Many of the start-up details are being worked out, added Morgan, who flies as a B-52H radar navigator.

Air Combat Command is overseeing the transition even though the Air Force plans for B-52H and B-2 Spirit bombers to eventually come under the new Global Strike Command once it is up and running sometime this year.

To staff the squadron, the Air Force already is steering airmen to the existing B-52H squadron at Minot with the goal of later transferring airmen to the new unit.

The four existing squadrons — the 23rd Bomb Squadron at Minot and three squadrons at Barksdale Air Force Base, La. — will feel side effects of the reorganization.

The Air Force Reserve’s 93rd Bomb Squadron becomes a training unit, said Col. Edmund Walker, commander of the squadron’s parent wing. The active-duty training unit, the 11th Bomb Squadron, continues its training mission as an associate unit with the 93rd.

Some Reserve aircrew members are already are flying training sorties, Walker added.

As part of the reorganization, Barksdale’s 11th Bomb Squadron will convert from a training squadron to an operational squadron. The schoolhouse role moves down the Barksdale flight line to the Air Force Reserve.

While the Reserve training unit will own its jets, the instructors will be a mix of reserve and active-duty airmen and reservists, Grey said. Some Reserve aircrew members are already are earning qualifications to fly as formal training unit instructors.

Trimming squadron size
The operational squadrons are shrinking to allow the Air Force to add the squadron while staying within the limit of 76 combat-ready bombers, said Tim Finch, a retired chief master sergeant who is helping ACC oversee the management of the B-52H fleet. Today, each operational squadron has 12 primary jets, two backup aircraft and about 17 five-member aircrews. The reorganization cuts primary planes to 11 and aircrews to about 15.

The training squadron is set to have 16 primary aircraft, twice its current number, Walker said.

Getting the entire fleet combat-ready will be a challenge.

For several years, the Air Force and Congress disagreed over how many B-52H aircraft the service needed. The Air Force asked for the dollars to man crew and maintain 44 to 56 aircraft; while Congress wanted up to all 96 bombers kept flyable.

The Air Force and Congress reached a compromise in early 2008, when Congress set the number of aircraft at 76 and allowed the Air Force to retire the remaining bombers.

To reach 76 planes, the Air Force must inspect and upgrade 20 planes to give them the same capabilities as the jets already flying combat missions, Finch said.

The 20 jets have been kept in flying condition but have not gone through the same inspection and upgrade regimen as the bombers flown daily, Finch said. Those 20 jets had to get in line with operational bombers already due for depot visits and upgrades, he said. Maintenance rules call for each B-52 to go through depot inspections every four years.

While the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center has increased the number of B-52Hs it can handle annually from 11 to 18, there is still a backlog, Finch said.

As the bombers leave the depot, some will be sent to Minot to equip the new squadron.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic US Form 4th B-52 Unit Under Resurgent Nuclear Role
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
CL-52, Only US Heavy Strategic Jet Bomber...... posted Sat Feb 19 2005 08:44:58 by Mconway
F-14:US Fighter Speed King posted Sat Nov 8 2008 22:18:21 by SCAT15F
Nasa Under President Obama posted Thu Nov 6 2008 15:36:56 by Thorny
Dems To Cut US Defense Budget 25%? posted Fri Oct 24 2008 23:55:06 by KC135TopBoom
US Space&Rocket Ctr, Huntsville: Recommended? posted Sun Sep 28 2008 22:32:45 by HT
B-52 Picture Question posted Mon Sep 22 2008 16:26:54 by CURLYHEADBOY
US Army Wants Additional Combat Aviation Brigade posted Sun Sep 21 2008 19:21:53 by STT757
State Of US Airpower posted Fri Sep 19 2008 15:04:51 by HawaiianA330
Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command posted Fri Sep 12 2008 14:43:12 by Venus6971
US Navy Fighter Nosegear Design posted Tue Sep 9 2008 22:17:22 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format