AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6732 times:
I was amazed to read that in 1991, the United States destroyed 365 of the 744 total number of B-52's ever produced.
"As part of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, 365 B-52s were flown to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. The bombers were stripped of all usable parts, then unceremoniously chopped into five pieces by a 13,000-pound steel blade dropped from a crane. The modern-day guillotine crashed down four times on each plane, severing the mammoth wings and leaving the fuselage in three pieces. The ruined B-52s remained in place for three months in order for orbiting Russian satellites to confirm the bombers had been destroyed, after which they were sold for scrap at 12 cents a pound."
The United States only has 85 B-52's left in active service, all of the "H" model, with 9 reserve.
Remember when Rumsfeld was saying a few years ago that we needed more bombers? Well, considering that the B-52 is so well-respected and maintainable, some of that 365 sure would have come in handy!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10208 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6698 times:
Yup, all destroyed to show they were in compliance with a treaty the USSR never ratified.
Those aircraft can not be made airworthy again (even if it were allowed under the treaty), they're gone forever.
The only option the US currently have if more strategic bombers are needed is to reopen B-2 production (AFAIK B-1 tooling no longer exists).
SCEagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6686 times:
I always find the guillotine to be such a sad for an aircraft. Especially those that were likely to be so lovingly tended to by their crews. Meticuously cared for, and then... to be slashed like that. Very sad.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6635 times:
Great replies, everyone.
Really -- this whole strategic arms reduction thing worries me. We're reducing and reducing and reducing, and in the meantime, the threat only mutates.
Look at all those beautiful Stratofortresses we destroyed. You can't tell me that, had they not been chop-shopped and sold for scrap, they couldn't make a difference today if used as conventional bombers. I think we're basically short of conventional bombers.
The B-2 Spirit costs, what, two billion per copy? We could have maintained the entire 365 fleet for two billion dollars! From 1991! That may be an exaggeration, but considering that they could have been inactive reserve for most of the last 15 years, I don't think that it's much of one.
Argh.
They're also reducing our strategic stockpile (nukes). Apparently the Russians are reducing theirs, too, except that they start from an even higher nuke count than ours (40,000 total nukes compared to somewhere around 12,000 for the U.S.A., last time I checked).
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6619 times:
Jwenting, quite sure the Russian's (as they were after Sept 91), did not comply?
Because I've seen photos of rows of dismembered Bisons and Bears.
The undignified chopping in half was to allow satellite verification, by both sides.
A sad, but necessary end, the bombers had done their job, better to focus on keeping the newer ones relevant to a changing world, as was done with the remaining B-52's and latterly, the B-1's and B-2's.
How many of those B-52's were already at the boneyard by then anyway, in 1991 were not the B-52G/H models the only ones in service?
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6615 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 4): How many of those B-52's were already at the boneyard by then anyway, in 1991 were not the B-52G/H models the only ones in service?
Quite possibly they were. But the older airframes could still have been upgraded, I would imagine.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10208 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6582 times:
The Soviets complied with SALT I and partially complied with START I, they never complied with either SALT II or START II.
Yes, they scrapped some bombers, but those were aircraft already earmarked for retirement.
They didn't comply with the ban on fielding mobile ICBMs for example, nor the ban on developing new ICBMs.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6580 times:
If those Russian bombers were due to be retired, or actually were, then the same goes for the B-52's.
IIRC, the US decided, by itself, soon after Bush 1 came to office, to scrap the mobile 'Midgetman'.
I recall seeing footage, on TV, of Russian mobile ICBM's being scrapped.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6576 times:
I believe the B-52D's and such were long due for retirement, but the B-52G's could have stuck around alot longer..they served in the Gulf War very well, and still had some years on them. The fact that we only have the H model, and very few of them, is something that should have thrown a reg flag in congress a long time ago.
Gotta love the B-52...someone over 50 that you can trust.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9134 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6575 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): Remember when Rumsfeld was saying a few years ago that we needed more bombers? Well, considering that the B-52 is so well-respected and maintainable, some of that 365 sure would have come in handy!
Because the day of the heavy bomber are long gone. Local missions can be carried out with one of a number of modern fighter/bomber aircraft. The days of massive carpet bombing are gone and if needed can be done with the existing fleet of B-52's.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2500 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6540 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 4): sad, but necessary end, the bombers had done their job, better to focus on keeping the newer ones relevant to a changing world, as was done with the remaining B-52's and latterly, the B-1's and B-2's.
Why was it nescessary? THe former USSR was already headed down a path of extinction and even today some 15 years later the economy of Russia still prhobits it from competing with the US in military spending - why did the US need to bow to Russia when their own factors were already sealing thier fate? We all know how well the Third Reich lasted in WWII without fuel or spares.
Perhpas our problem if not as far from being solved as some might think? With the new Boeing P-8 the modern-precendent of taking a highly successful commerical airline airframe and carving a bomb-bay out of it's fueselage opens the pandora's box for a whole slew of potential heavy bombers.
Ask yourself this - what does the B-52 airframe provide for that say a 777-300LR, 747-8, or even a 787-9/10 could do? Speed, range, payload - Boeing has it all covered with modern day commerical airliners.
The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is a perfect example of how you can take an otherwise fundamentally flawed airframe and turn it into a somewhat competitive military platform simply by stuffing it full of the latest in modern military electronics.
So what couldn't a 748 or 777 converted into a strategic bomber outfitted with numerous rotating bomb racks and equipped with the same hi-tech electronics that a B-52 relies upon for survival (because a B-52 doesn't and cannot rely upon stealth or speed to evade the enemy,) is not the lack of B-52's not all too entirely a grave concern because (and I'd like to think this has already been done at least to some extent,) Boeing can start production of B-747 or B-777 in a relative short period of time?
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11345 posts, RR: 89 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6518 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 11): Yes, they scrapped some bombers, but those were aircraft already earmarked for retirement.
They didn't comply with the ban on fielding mobile ICBMs for example, nor the ban on developing new ICBMs.
Which is one of the reasons why the US did not comply with some items in STARTII, much to the chagrin of many who focus on what the US does.
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): IIRC, the US decided, by itself, soon after Bush 1 came to office, to scrap the mobile 'Midgetman'.
I recall seeing footage, on TV, of Russian mobile ICBM's being scrapped.
The Russians did field the mobile ICBMs and they have kept them. They did limit the number of warheads in their missiles, but this was our advantage more than theirs.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15): With the new Boeing P-8 the modern-precendent of taking a highly successful commerical airline airframe and carving a bomb-bay out of it's fueselage opens the pandora's box for a whole slew of potential heavy bombers.
I don't believe that commercial aircraft are as effective in tactical military use, as they are not designed to withstand AAA, and are optimized for passenger/cargo carrying, not precision bomb dropping. The P-8 is a compromise and not a purpose built design. You would have a tremendous amount of wasted space on the 777 if you tried to use it as a bomber, and it would be far too expensive for what you got. No stealth advantage, and very high profile.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28885 posts, RR: 67 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6518 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15): The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is a perfect example of how you can take an otherwise fundamentally flawed airframe and turn it into a somewhat competitive military platform simply by stuffing it full of the latest in modern military electronics.
There is a lot of people who would argue that Boeing did the exact opposite. Take a good platform, cram it fully of avionics making it overweight, and made it so fundamentally it isn't a good platform.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15): With the new Boeing P-8 the modern-precendent of taking a highly successful commerical airline airframe and carving a bomb-bay out of it's fueselage opens the pandora's box for a whole slew of potential heavy bombers.
Funny thing is that Lockheed did that with the Electra and the P-3 forty years ago.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
SCEagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6515 times:
One other consideration... is it wise to convert a passenger airframe into an offensive one?
Do we want to offer a threatening airforce the "opportunity" to shoot-down a passenger aircraft and then say, "Oops, we thought it was an invading bomber"?
(And before anyone jumps up and down, yes, there's the history of KE 007, the Iran Air flight in the Gulf, and quite likely, a few others.)
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2456 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6444 times:
Not to nit-pick too much, but weren't those airframes from the Ukraine, not russia? Ukraine did give Russia some TU-22M and TU-95 back, but many were retained after the breakup of the USSR, only to be scrapped later (with US financial incentive, or in otherwords, the US bought off their nuclear deterrance). I don't think this was part of the START treaties.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6395 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9): The days of massive carpet bombing are gone and if needed can be done with the existing fleet of B-52's.
Sitting on both sides of the carpet bombing fence?
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10): The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is a perfect example of how you can take an otherwise fundamentally flawed airframe and turn it into a somewhat competitive military platform simply by stuffing it full of the latest in modern military electronics.
Yeah, heavy slow, very limited range......
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10): Ask yourself this - what does the B-52 airframe provide for that say a 777-300LR, 747-8, or even a 787-9/10 could do? Speed, range, payload - Boeing has it all covered with modern day commerical airliners.
How about "G" load factor, low level flying, tarrain following, missile platform, ECM platform, penetration capability??????
Oh yeah, I forgot, great looks, too....that's why she is call BUFF!!!!
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 45 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6320 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9): The days of massive carpet bombing are gone and if needed can be done with the existing fleet of B-52's.
Carpet bombing was done on Taliban front line forces at some point during the Afghan campaign I believe.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Ghostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 353 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6298 times:
This is a very interesting thread
The in-service dates and retirement to MASDC/AMARC dates of each mark of the B-52 runs something like this:
B-52B 1955-66 To MASDC 1965-66
B-52C 1956-66 To MASDC 1966-75
B-52D 1957-83 To MASDC 1978-83
B-52E 1957-70 To MASDC 1967-70
B-52F 1958-78 To MASDC 1967-78
B-52G 1959-94 To AMARC 1989-94
B-52H 1961-current
I have not included the B-52A because they did not enter USAF service.
Also important to remember that each mark of the B-52 was constructed for a different mission, hence some enjoyed a very long service life while others had a relatively short career. So...
B-52B: pure bomber, dual-capable reconnaissance/bomber, training (air and ground).
B-52C: pure bomber including nuclear mission, latterly as crew trainers.
B-52D: initially pure bomber then converted to conventional warfare capability inc low-level role. Famous for role in Vietnam.
B-52E: Constructed for low-level bombing role, this mark also performed the nuclear mission. Did not participate in Vietnam.
B-52F: Initially nuclear capable including Hound Dog operation, converted to conventional warfare capability and flew Arc Light missions in Vietnam.
B-52G: Initially nuclear role then Hound Dog, Quail, SRAM and then ALCM. Also conventional warfare and participated in Vietnam.
B-52H: Multiple roles.
No doubt plenty of errors in the above which I am confident will be pointed out
The disposal of 365 of these aircraft in 1991 actually makes sense. I have visited AMARC four times - 1987, 1989, 1994, and 1999. My visit in 1987 was an awesome experience with B-52's littered all over the storage facility. The photos below give an idea of what it was like:
Many of the older C, E and F models were literally scattered around like abandoned kid's toys. They had long been picked clean of all useful parts and were way overdue for disposal. I understand that they had been retained as 'bargaining chips' for use as limitation talks with the Soviets proceeded. I understand that these aircraft were among those disposed of in 1991 and in fact probably formed the majority.
In 1989 we were given a view of the B-52D fleet which had been in store for mostly less than ten years:
They were in excellent condition and had been held as a 'war reserve fleet'. I believe that these were broken up in the mid 90's and indeed I saw many being scrapped during my 1994 visit. Sadly my photos of these are not up to A.Net standards
The B-52G models started arriving in late 1989 and I was lucky enough to capture one of the first examples. By 1994 this type had filled all the storage areas freed up by the 1991 scrappings.
What was worrying about the second photo was that this B-52G had no effort made to preserve her at all - her lack of future was assured! However, I understand that many of the G models still survive though their condition is very poor and would certainly never be returned to flight.
I guess in summary the 1991 scrappings were mainly of the older 'tall finned' BUFFs which were beyond further use and this freed up the space needed for the multitude of aircraft which flooded into AMARC in 1993/94 as a result of the forces drawdown after the end of the Cold War.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10388 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6264 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): Well, considering that the B-52 is so well-respected and maintainable, some of that 365 sure would have come in handy!
How would additional B-52s have helped in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly?
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11345 posts, RR: 89 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6248 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 18): Carpet bombing was done on Taliban front line forces at some point during the Afghan campaign I believe.
You do know that carpet bombing can be accomplished by a 3 airplane cell of BUFFs?
The 210,000 pounds of high explosives dropped in one grid square is incredible, and approximates the damage of a low yield nuke.
4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2643 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6181 times:
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6153 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20): How would additional B-52s have helped in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly?
Well, there are still a few countries around that the experts are saying we might have to fight. One of them has a name that begins with "Ira", but isn't Iraq, if you know what I mean.
We used the B-52 in Afghanistan to destroy terrorist hide-outs, by the way.
25 DL021: Yeah, and we used Bones as on-call high and low level strike aircraft that could loiter for long periods on call and drop an egg on a cave mouth or m
26 AvObserver: I too find it sad the relatively new 'G' models were also phased out but part of the reason, when the former Strategic Air Command (SAC) transitioned
27 Scbriml: You've made valid points, but not answered the question! How would another 250 B-52s have helped in either situation? I suspect they wouldn't have.
28 AerospaceFan: Well, for one thing, consider the wear and tear on the fleet as it stands. Surely the work of 85 could be more evenly distributed among a fleet of 33
29 N844AA: But even with concentrated wear and tear, the B-52 fleet is projected to remain economically viable through 2040 and beyond. How much longer do we ne
30 Boeing4ever: I wasn't aware the disparity was THAT big in terms of number of warheads. Could someone provide a year by year breakdown? Besides they *technically*
31 CX747: I don't believe that the United States needs all of those B-52s in the boneyard, but I do believe they need more heavy bombers available. If the USAF
32 Cloudy: The large bomber has always been attractive because it can more cheaply, reliably and efficiently carry and drop weapons than smaller platforms can. T
33 Sovietjet: Let's look at it this way for those that say that Russia didn't scrap enough bombers. I will list (with some approximation) the number of bombers the
34 DL021: The TU-22 has longer range than the Soviets were willing to admit and they are air-air refueling capable. Do you really think the Russians don't regar
35 Sovietjet: Yes the Tu-22M was made air-air refuel capable but the probes were removed on a lot of them. If China is a serious potential threat to Russia why woul
36 DL021: Well, since the refueling probe was a screw on device I would say that's like taking the drop tank off and saying you've reduced range.....while stor
37 Stall: Do you pay taxes ? That remains to be seen. I really don't believe technology can't defeat low tech guerilla. At least technology won't defeat it on
38 Sovietjet: If anybody wants to see specifics regarding number of aircraft in the Russian AF these links might help. Seems my numbers were a little off regarding
39 N844AA: Indeed, which is why I'm glad more logical heads prevailed. I'm just saying, if there were a need, it could have been done.
40 CX747: There definitley was and is a need, it is just the fact that logical heads did not prevail.
41 Pope: Doesn't the advent of highly precise munitions substantially reduce the need for bombers? A recent Discovery Wings show gave the statistic that if dur
42 AerospaceFan: Sub-based nuclear deterrence is good, but outside of that, conventional bombing seems more economical than the use of submarine-based cruise missiles.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10208 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2456 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 867 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
