Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-52 Bombers To Get $12B In Support  
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

Interesting article on upgrading the B-52s.

Quote:
The nation's fleet of nuclear-ready Boeing B-52 bombers, the bulk of which are here at Barksdale Air Force Base, will get almost $12 billion in upgrades and modernization over the next eight years, the Department of Defense announced this week.
Quote:
With no new bombers on the drawing boards, with a limited number of B-2 Spirit bombers and less-capable B-1 Lancers relegated to non-nuclear missions, the B-52 is expected to serve at least another 30 years under current Air Force planning.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...B-52-bombers-to-get-12B-in-support

The interesting part for me is that we can upgrade the B-52 to last another 30 years, but the KC-X program is so urgently needed.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
ut the KC-X program is so urgently needed.

Ya I'm a little confused by this also


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6974 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
With no new bombers on the drawing boards, with a limited number of B-2 Spirit bombers and less-capable B-1 Lancers relegated to non-nuclear missions, the B-52 is expected to serve at least another 30 years under current Air Force planning.

The B-52 is superior to the B-1B? In what way?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently onlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6939 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2):
The B-52 is superior to the B-1B? In what way?

I assumed it meant less capable than B-2s.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2103 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2):

Payload would be my guess


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
The interesting part for me is that we can upgrade the B-52 to last another 30 years, but the KC-X program is so urgently needed.
Quoting dl767captain (Reply 1):
Ya I'm a little confused by this also

I agree. There is no reason the KC-135Es cannot be upgraded to last for another 30+ years.

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2):
The B-52 is superior to the B-1B? In what way?
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 3):
I assumed it meant less capable than B-2s.
Quoting silentbob (Reply 4):
Payload would be my guess

No, they did mean the B-1B is less capable than either the B-52H or B-2A. All of the authencation and arming equipment for nukes on the Bones have been removed, making it an only 'conventional munitions' truck airplane. To put this equpment back into the Bone will cost billions as new equipment has to be designed and tested before it is approved. That process will take 10-15 years and by then all the B-1Bs may be retired.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7407 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6596 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
No, they did mean the B-1B is less capable than either the B-52H

I thought the B1-B had a much greater bomb load than the B-52, with it's smaller crew, speed and lower radar cross section shouldn't it be the better bomber. I realise it's range isn't as great but isn't that why the airforce have people like you?


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

Does somebody know what upgrades are going to be done on the Buffs?

$12 billion, that's roughly $140 million per plane. That's roughly the same as the price of an all new aircraft of similar size and payload/range capability, for instance an A340-300. (Maybe not a good comparison, I know that those two plane are optimized for very different tasks, but anyway - it does give a picture of the magnitude of this program).

It cannot be only "life extension". It has to be a lot more than that, something about new and advanced weapon systems.

Does it include re-engining? But even if it does include new engines, then there has to be a lot more than that.

Is it known to be classified information?



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6266 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 7):
prebennorholm

As far as I know, it is for new avionics, new bomb/nav system, and ECM improvements. There is no reengine program approved for the B-52H.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
No, they did mean the B-1B is less capable than either the B-52H

I thought the B1-B had a much greater bomb load than the B-52, with it's smaller crew, speed and lower radar cross section shouldn't it be the better bomber. I realise it's range isn't as great but isn't that why the airforce have people like you?

It does have a bigger bomb load than the B-52, however, most times one of the 3 bomb bays carries an extra fuel tank. Yes, the Bone does air refuel, but in the SIOP it uses a lot of tankers, about one more than the B-2, B-52, or FB-111 per mission.


User currently onlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 7):
$12 billion, that's roughly $140 million per plane. That's roughly the same as the price of an all new aircraft of similar size and payload/range capability, for instance an A340-300. (Maybe not a good comparison, I know that those two plane are optimized for very different tasks, but anyway - it does give a picture of the magnitude of this program).

That $12 billion is also for 8 years of support for the fleet. Not minor expense.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6182 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I agree. There is no reason the KC-135Es cannot be upgraded to last for another 30+ years.

But that wouldn't fit in with Boeing's Sales plans... I mean, the Pentagon. I mean, oh darn I confused them again.  


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6176 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
But that wouldn't fit in with Boeing's Sales plans...


For some reason I can't open the referenced article. Does it say Boeing has already won this contract or is it out for bids?


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3595 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

So 30 more years of TF-33 engines? Wonder if any of the designers of that engine is still alive...

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 4):
Payload would be my guess
Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):
Does it say Boeing has already won this contract or is it out for bids?

Yeah, don't think anyone not named Boeing got a shot on this handout....

http://www.ktbs.com/news/25256420/detail.html

Quote:

B-52s To Get $12 Billion In Upgrades
The Pentagon has awarded a $12 billion contract to help modernize B-52 weapons systems over the next eight years.

The majority of the Air Force's fleet of the bombers are located at Barksdale Air Force Base.

The contract was awarded to Boeing.

The Air Force also announced that its cyberwarfare unit is now fully operational at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

Barksdale was a favorite to get cyber command before it went to Texas. Barksdale now has command over the nuclear arsenal.


User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
Barksdale was a favorite to get cyber command before it went to Texas. Barksdale now has command over the nuclear arsenal.

Completely off topic... Barksdale didn't get Cyber command? My home town Offutt AFB was in the running, and we were dissapointed to see it go to Barksdale... and now I find out it went elsewhere!?!?

Back on topic: The USAF will need a bomb truck for the next 30 years, no doubt, and I think it's a good thing they are keeping the BUFFs properly equipped. $140 million per plane for modernization and 8 years of support actually doesn't sound that bad to me. I can't believe I just said that!


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 972 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

I think it's a great deal...keep in mind all of the training costs on a new airframe for both flightdeck and ground support staff.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5344 times:

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 14):
Back on topic: The USAF will need a bomb truck for the next 30 years, no doubt, and I think it's a good thing they are keeping the BUFFs properly equipped. $140 million per plane for modernization and 8 years of support actually doesn't sound that bad to me. I can't believe I just said that!

I really wonder what the are doing for the upgrades? The C-5M upgrade costs less and includes new engines. Of course, the C-5 doesn't face the same hazards but that seems like a lot of cash for electronics only.



What the...?
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Quoting RaginMav (Reply 14):
The USAF will need a bomb truck for the next 30 years

With total control of enemy air space, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy used 747 and modify them to do the job? Long term operating cost will also be cheaper.


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
Yeah, don't think anyone not named Boeing got a shot on this handout....

I'm sure people said the same thing about Lockheed when the C-130 AMP program was out for bid back in 2000....... It went to Boeing.



My Country can beat up your Country....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-52 Bombers To Get $12B In Support
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...
USS Ranger To Be Moored In Fairview, Or posted Tue Aug 10 2010 19:17:59 by CGKings317
DOD To Get Csar Req. By September posted Fri Jun 5 2009 10:56:44 by AirRyan
CV-22 To The Rescue In Hurricane Ike posted Fri Sep 12 2008 10:21:15 by RedFlyer
Usaf Going To Release Findings In B-2 Crash Today posted Thu Jun 5 2008 04:55:04 by Jgarrido
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
RAF Mrtt To Be Built In USA? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 16:00:35 by KennyK
Canada To Get A Fleet Of UAVs posted Sun Oct 28 2007 12:26:17 by FighterPilot
Airborne Laser To Test-fire In Flight posted Mon Jan 29 2007 22:44:44 by JakeOrion
Mossie As Close In Support Plane? posted Sat Dec 16 2006 04:18:34 by MD11Engineer
Swedish Air Force To Get 2 C-17 Globemaster posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:33:12 by Solnabo
Canada To Get Jsf In 2018 posted Sun Feb 6 2005 17:20:51 by BT
Pakistan To Get 50 JF-17s From China Real Soon posted Fri May 20 2011 19:37:10 by comorin
Norwegian Fighters Might Get A Base In Scottland posted Sat Nov 13 2010 01:24:58 by Mortyman
USS Ranger To Be Moored In Fairview, Or posted Tue Aug 10 2010 19:17:59 by CGKings317
DOD To Get Csar Req. By September posted Fri Jun 5 2009 10:56:44 by AirRyan
CV-22 To The Rescue In Hurricane Ike posted Fri Sep 12 2008 10:21:15 by RedFlyer
Usaf Going To Release Findings In B-2 Crash Today posted Thu Jun 5 2008 04:55:04 by Jgarrido
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
RAF Mrtt To Be Built In USA? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 16:00:35 by KennyK
Canada To Get A Fleet Of UAVs posted Sun Oct 28 2007 12:26:17 by FighterPilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format