Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bomber Basing Question  
User currently offlineCannibalZ3 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

Why does the US base its strategic bombers so far from their targets? I understand the need for distance to protect these huge aircraft, but why so far? Bombers are flying out of Fairford in the UK to hit targets in Iraq, and return to the same place. Why not just put them in someplace like Italy or Spain, which seems closer but still makes the bombers unreachable?

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

The infastructure and support are already in place at Fairford and Diego Garcia, large bombers like the B-52 needs lots of infastructure to support.

Building brand new bomber support bases are not cheap, Fairford and Diego Garcia were designated B-52 bases many years ago during the Cold war.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

"If it isn't broken, why fix it?" -relevant cliche

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

The other problem is that because of the outriggers, the B-52 requires a base with wider then standard taxiways.

If you look at the AFD's for some of the airforce bases, you will see that some bases or some location on base airports are banned from B-52 operations.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

I believe another relevant issue is the capability of the paved surfaces to support the weight footprint of the aircraft. If I'm not mistaken, a fully-loaded B-52 carries one of the most significant footprints.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bomber Basing Question
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...
Bomber Basing Question posted Mon Mar 24 2003 22:02:40 by CannibalZ3
Alaska Defense Force- Bomber Fleet-Beagle Question posted Sun Oct 9 2005 23:08:11 by L-188
F-15 Engine Question? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:08:08 by Venus6971
Buff Picture OTD Question posted Mon Nov 13 2006 06:37:12 by TedTAce
U.S.A.F Squadron/Wing Question posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:03:55 by Tiger119
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
'Stupid' Carrier Ops Question: Soaking The Jets. posted Sun Oct 22 2006 23:21:53 by TedTAce
Old Jet RAF Aeroplanes Question posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:17:54 by Gary2880
Coast Guard Question posted Tue Oct 3 2006 03:12:49 by United767
U-2 Flight Profile Question posted Mon Oct 2 2006 02:03:38 by Bhill

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format