Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7442 posts, RR: 5 Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5811 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.
dl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5816 times:
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5785 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.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5750 times:
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2): The B-52 is superior to the B-1B? In what way?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5515 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.
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.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5407 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?
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5247 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
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5077 times:
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.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5053 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.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7435 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4993 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.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4987 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?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4727 times:
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.
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4521 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!
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 842 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4193 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.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5011 posts, RR: 29 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4155 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.
cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4118 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.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1532 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3954 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7442 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1639 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6017 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5011 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
