FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7896 times:
I like the BUFF. I wonder whether we could replace it with *drumroll please* 747Fs? Still, the B-1B has always retained a certain charm for me. Wonder if they'll ever work the maintenance goblins out of that plane. Perhaps the psychological effect of having a strategic bomber shriek overhead at Mach 1.5 dropping 50 Mk. 82s will replace the effect of the carpet bomb.
Airforce1995 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7896 times:
NASA just recieved their "new" buff in a fresh new paint job that will replace 008 or balls 8 that is the oldest one with the least flying hours. the one that was used in the X-15 drops and other things. still looks good and flys occasionally
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6246 posts, RR: 36 Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7898 times:
I met a man several months ago that flew the B-52 when he was a mere captain. He was with his grandson, another mere captain. The grandson also flies the B-52. In addition the older mans son flew the B-52 as well. At that rate we could expect 4 generations of the same family flying the same aircraft.
Put in another perspective, the B-52 first flew before I was born, as did the KC-135, and both will probably be in service after I die.
Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7839 times:
A great aircraft to be sure and they should keep it as long as it's airworthy. I'm alarmed however at the current Air Force plan to pare our bomber fleet down to 100 aircraft or less, including all 3 types. The projected extent of the war on terrorism suggests we'll need more, not less, long-range strike platforms.
USAFJR From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7820 times:
The B-52 is not fast enough! It cant even make mach1! How do you think its going to be able to strike anywhere in the world like the pentagon wants its bombers to? by 2040 the b-2 may not even be in service... it will be way to old, even though the b-2 is long range. the b-52 is not stealthy at all.
Contact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7815 times:
As commented bye Lt-Awacs some time ago, the B-52 still has a role even if it is slow. Speed is not everything, at it is certainly not an issue when we talk about global reach. Many very fine aircraft in the US and Nato arsenal is sub-sonic, and still perform to great effect. I know that many will be sorry when the A-10 is retired, a slow aricraft, the most superb CAS aricraft ever buildt. (We was supported by an A-10 during a live fire drill in Bosnia in 99, it was awsome)
As long as it is possible to keep the aircraft flying at a affordable cost, no problem! The USAF is not the AF with the oldest inventory, at least not compared to many potential opponents.......
Btw: The swedish air force scrap Ja-37 Viggen aircraft with between 1000-1500 hours on the airframe, because they need to have the Gripen.
Some of the oldest Gripens actually have more hours on them then the Viggens beeing scrapped....
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7811 times:
Planes do what they were designed to do and have functioned in as the past. As long as they're kept flying, they do the same job they've always done. The only thing that makes them outdated is when threats against them make them no longer survivalbe in a modern battle. That and such things as the cost of excess fuel burn and spare parts. As long as those factors do not become a problem, the aircraft will be able to what its always done. For the B-52, it can still pound the enemy with the best of them, and it can survive while doing it. So why waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to replace it? Its already the best you can get...if you were to design a new bomber for long range and heavy bomb load, it would be very similar to the B-52. Big, noisy, non-stealth, and subsonic.
Please try to think of the military as planning their aircraft by use, capabilities, and costs instead of what you think looks cool.
About the P-51 thing...I'm sure that there will be at least once where a JSF driver in a close in, visual, slow and low dogfight would wish he was in a P-51.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7812 times:
USAFJR....here is somthing to consider....
I was standing in the bomb bay of a B-52 on static display at the Artic Thunder Airshow last year. There was an old man in there talking to one of the B-52 drivers, then he pointed out the bomb release mechinisms. Aparently they are the same ones that where on the B-17's that he flew over Germany during the way....
Just because something is old doesn't mean it won't work.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
USAFJR From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7806 times:
I'm not saying it wont work... I'm saying that evey other formitable nation has something better.
You Said, "if you were to design a new bomber for long range and heavy bomb load, it would be very similar to the B-52. Big, noisy, non-stealth, and subsonic."
Have you not heard of the B-1b? I has long range, a heavy bombload, its not similar to the B-52, It isnt VERY noisy, and it is fairly stealthy. Maybe you should do your research. If I picked what I said by what looks coolest, I wouldnt have wanted Boeing to win the JSF Competistion... But no, in 2008 we will have the F-35 instead.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7788 times:
Look, the B-52 is perfectly suited for the missions it performs today, which are on the most part launching stand-off and cruise missile from a safe distance from any threats, as well as carpet bombing in low-threat areas (Afghanistan). It being noisy does not have anything to do with it. If the Buff goes, it will not be replaced by anything, so just be thankful that it has been spared by the politicians.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7785 times:
Actually USAFJR...aren't we already in the future? I mean, it first flew about 40 years ago. Its still surviving mighty fine on the battlefield. And in places like Afghanistan, there aren't really any SAMs left (if there were any in the first place) to knock it down.
You've got to keep in mind that our future battles aren't going to necessarily be against the most high tech and advanced nations in the world. We're fighting an enemy that still rides camels. I'm not so sure they'd say the B-52 is outdated and old.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 26 Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7743 times:
B-1 not noisy LOL Muhahahahaha. the B-1 ( bone ) has got to be the noisiest thing going USAFJR have you ever heard one take off. its about 3 times noisier than a Buff. also then buff has a longer range to payload capability than a B-1 or B-2. and thats what we need and want right now in afghanistan.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7723 times:
Fighters don't fight at supersonic speeds, and bombers don't bomb at supersonic speeds. The Bone's low level, supersonic egress is a fairly outdated defense based on capabilities on the former Soviet threat.
Now that the military has the capability to accurately and precisely target from medium and higher altitudes(greatly reduced SAM threat) due to near real time targeting data (drones/satellites/humint/etc), the heavy bomber mission has come almost full circle to the original design parameters of the B52. If the Buff fleet is re engined with the Rolls Rb211-525h???, 8 engines b/c 4, and the capability is improved by an order of magnitude.
As far as other countries go, not many have a heavy bomber to begin with. I think the closest counterpart is the Tupolev Tu95 Bear...which is simply a Buff copy...just like a Bull was, essentially, a reverse copy of the B29...
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7712 times:
1. There is no way the current engines will take the B52 until 2040. The engine replacement will come up again, especially when the RRs add something like 30% to the range of the a/c, and increase MGTOW on the order of 50,000 lbs, or enable more ordnance to be carried for a given mission due to improved fuel efficiency...The costs of maintaining spare engine parts for the original engines will continue to increase. Pratt, like any other company, has limited resources to dedicate to an old product line that requires more manhours to build than contemporary designs, which means they have a lower profit percentage on such a dated product. In any manufacturing process, as profit margin decreases, products get eliminated.
KC135s were upgraded to CFM56s. C130Js have the new 6 bladed, higher hp engine. The F14 got the GE 110 to replace the TF30. The C5 will get GE CF6s soon (in prog?). T38s are about as old as the Buff, and are getting new wings and inlets optimized for better sub sonic performance.
Every "old" airframe in the US inventory seems to have gotten an engine upgrade approved at some point; I don't think the Buff will be left out.
2. AAhhh, the obvious. But wait...
During development of the Tu95, the Soviets couldn't build a jet with good enough specific fuel consumption numbers or engine life in order to provide the range nec for a heavy bomber, which simply means they hadn't yet developed turbine alloys that could withstand the higher EGTcapability of US or western designs.
A BIG turboprop, combined with a swept wing, provided the exact solution. I doubt there is another turboprop that exhibits the extreme degree of wing sweep that the Bear does, combined with engines that produce around 17,000 shp ea provides probably the fastest production turboprop a/c ever built. It was designed as a high altitude, long range, heavy bomber...and as a DIREct counter to the B52 in the late 1950s. Range, max altitude and payload of both a/c are similar. Their armaments were almost mirror images, starting with dumb iron bombs and converting into cruise missiles. During this time, of course the Soviets had no KC135 type a/c, so the Bear was fitted with ISAR radar to prosecute surface targets in addition to its primary strategic mission, and all told I'm sure they operated around 15 distinct versions of the bear. If you still disagree w/ me, consult Janes. The parallels are the same as the An12-C130, Su24-F111, BlackJAck-BOne, B29 - Bull, IL76-C141, Tu204 - 757, Tu154 - 727, C5-An124......Space Shuttle - Buran, etc...
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7702 times:
Oh yeah. An Su 25 doesn't look like an A10 either, but they're direct counterparts. And the first example, the DC3 - IL2(?) IL something...they copied the DC3 to the point that Westinghouse designed some totally unnecessary slots in the radio racks...which were copied faithfully on the IL (Coot??).
Obviously, I find this topic fairly interesting, and I'm not picking on Russian a/c. Right after this forum started, I wrote on the Mig29/F16 comparison, and am a big fan of the -29. I've seen the AN 226 fly in person...WOW.
Anyway, this has probably been discussed more than the "Why Winglets?" topic on the tech forum, so I'll can it.
25 LY744: The Soviets produced the DC-3 under license from the manufacturer between 1936-1952, and designated it as the Li-2. They had Russian made engines howe