galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

"B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:42 pm

according to the latest AF times and AF vision statements the buff will be around till 2040. yeah rock on baby.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:49 pm

Afghanistan was more proof to add to the modern combat argument that advanced itself in the Gulf War and Vietnam...

..the sheer terror of a conventional B52 strike has as much psychological effect on an enemy as tactical.

As long as US forces can negate the threat of high altitude SAMs, B-52s will be an unmatchable weapon in terms of cost and return.
 
Lt-AWACS
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 2:40 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 01, 2002 7:57 am

which is what I was trying to say on that future aircraft thread....where is that kid who didn't believe me........

BUFFsssssssssssss  Smile

Ciao and Hook 'em,
Lt-AWACS
Io voglio fica ogni giorni da mia bella moglie!
 
FlyBoeing
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 01, 2002 10:58 am

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
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 12:38 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 01, 2002 11:07 am

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
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 01, 2002 12:15 pm

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.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 01, 2002 1:55 pm

Here's another perspective. Using B-52s in combat in 2040 will be about the same, timewise, as if we had used Spads, Neiuports, SE-5s and Sopwith Camels in Afghanistan.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sat May 04, 2002 8:28 am

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
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 7:53 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sat May 04, 2002 10:06 pm

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
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 3:34 am

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....  Nuts
 
usafjr
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 7:53 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 11:23 am

You Said...
"As long as it is possible to keep the aircraft flying at a affordable cost, no problem!"

Ok, I have an idea! In world war II, the P-51 Mustang was one of the best allied planes, we coulld build P-51s cheaper than A-10s Or JSFs. So Why not use them instead? BECAUSE THERE OLD AND OUTDATED!
 
Lt-AWACS
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 2:40 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 11:56 am

The difference is the B-52 is not outdated. The Design is old, the plane is not outdated.
an old platitude comes to mind- "if it isn't broken don't fix it"
The B-52 isn't broken


Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS
Io voglio fica ogni giorni da mia bella moglie!
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 12:02 pm

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.
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 8:16 pm

USAFJR: The P-51 comparison is the most valid comparison I have hard in a long time.  Nuts
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 8:27 pm

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
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 7:53 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 9:26 pm

I'm not saying it wont work... I'm saying that evey other formitable nation has something better.

Hey, Flyf15...
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
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sun May 05, 2002 10:04 pm

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.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
usafjr
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 7:53 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 06, 2002 4:16 am

I'm just saying that in the near future all defence sytems will shoot it down so quick its not funny.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 06, 2002 4:59 am

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.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 06, 2002 7:11 am

The (X)B-52 first flew 50 years ago.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 12:45 am

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
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 11:06 am

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...
 
flight152
Posts: 3211
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 12:03 pm

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.

The re-engined program has been canceled. Due to the large amounts of replacement engines from scraped aircraft, it makes it hard to ecnomically justify replacing the engines.


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...

The TU-95 Bear is a four engined swept wing turboprop, apposed to a eight engines turbojet (or turbofan in some cases). They are hardly copies of each other.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 2:41 pm

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
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 2:57 pm

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.

Cheers-
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 8:09 pm

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 however.

By the "Bull", I'm assuming you're refering to the Tu-4?

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Mon May 13, 2002 8:33 pm

There is no An-226, it's the An-225 Mria.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mathias Henig



LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue May 14, 2002 5:26 am

Yes, I knew the Coot (i think?) was license built. Russians have always hung their own engines on a/c, but of course most of their gas turbine technology was reverse engineered as well. Rolls let them "license build" an engine. They built several, then renigged on the deal, but kept building the engine as their design...

The Bull was the B29 clone; Tu4 sounds correct (?), and I always mistakently refer to the An 226, b/c I always associate the "Dream" and the "226" w/ 6 engines. I'll suggest a desig change to Antonov.


Cheers-
 
sterne82
Posts: 394
Joined: Sun May 07, 2000 4:50 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue May 14, 2002 6:04 am

And if nearly all Russian aircrafts are copy of American one, explain me

Which are the missing one:

AN-225 /??
TU-22/??
TU22M/??
Mi4/??

And so on...

Regards,

Benjamin
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue May 14, 2002 6:22 am

You missed a point as well.

The AN2 was definitely NOt a copied design or one that shared a US counterpart either; neither were the majority of Russia's rotary wing designs.

Obviously the US/former USSR military and civil programs are not identical copies of each other (and I never impled they were) as the operating budgets, working enviroments, etc differred GREATLY b/t the two countries.

**The point is that MAjor US a/c programs were copied very closely by the Soviets.**

The USSR had more a/c types, more ship and submarine classes, etc. than the US.
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Tue May 14, 2002 7:02 am

There are a couple of flaws in some of the arguments in this post, that we consider during the specification and design phases of an aircraft programme.

Firstly, we have the concept of Combined Air Operations. In other words, we shouldn't just be considering the B-52 by itself. It is only one weapon in the inventory, which is allowed to do its job by tactics and the support of other assets. During Day One operations, we use these types of aircraft for stand off weapons, while higher survivability aircraft perform the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) operations. That's why the Tornado squadrons took out the Iraqi runways with conventional dumb bombs and JP233s, not Arclight raids from B-52s (which would REALLY mess up an airfield). Later on in the conflict, the mud moving operations can be performed in conjunction with EW and other a/c. The B-52 is an excellent platform for the job that it does.

Secondly, the power of SAMs is often overestimated. Yes, they are a hazard and a nuisance that can really ruin your day, but they are by no means a "One Shot One Kill" weapon. And with something the size and strength of the B-52, the shot must hit a vital area in order to down the aircraft.

I must confess, my first (youthful) impressions of the B-52 were not good. I really did not like it. But having seen its effects and its potential, I'm glad that we have it in the NATO arsenal.

As for the former Soviet Union copying western aircraft - I don't think that there is any problem with it. We copied their stuff, they copied ours, others copied both. So what? If it works, use it. Remember - there are some things that they built that we didn't even think of. I'm thinking of the Ekronoplans (spelling?) as a case in point. A fantastic concept that is now being internationally developed.

I just hope that they managed to fix the problems that our designers designed into our designs. Then we can steal their enhancements to our designs.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 15, 2002 11:21 am

1. For an a/c versus a/c comparison, comparing the B52 w/ the Tu95 is valid, as is any other comparison. The object that rolls off the production line is, in fact an a/c, not an operation of some kind. Countering any weapons platform means analyzing the system first, for its own specific capabilities, and second, for its capabilities within an overall strategy or order of battle. That is the whole function of the military test pilot, and the reason countries have fly offs when comparing the Tornado, Rafale, Su35, Mig 29, F16 Block ???, F15I,J,K, etc...in order to replace a/c.

2. The discussion of SAMs and AAMs was a specific discussion about turn performance. Lethality is an entirely different topic.

3. The simple fact of the matter is that Russian designs are inferior to US designs at this moment in time. The individual a/c design may be excellent, and many are. Reliability, durability and product support, KEy components in any analysis, particularly for military a/c, are terribly lacking in Russian designs at the moment. Kamov helicopters are an exception.

I want to stress that I'm not bashing the Russians or their industry. Mikoyan, Tupolev, Antonov - they are legendary and I greatly respect their capabilities.

Cheers-
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 15, 2002 8:04 pm

CIS/Soviet a/c have problems but reliability and durability are not among them.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Wed May 15, 2002 11:34 pm

Any type of "problem" tends to decrease reliability, does it not?

Why is it that the common specification for Russian built a/c is for western engines and avionics?

B/c the hot section life of Russian engines is probably less than half of an equivalent western design, and the MTBF on their avionics packages is about 1/3 that of western designs.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Thu May 16, 2002 4:41 am

"Why is it that the common specification for Russian built a/c is for western engines and avionics?"

That's what the customers want, and the customer is always right. Besides, it's no secret that CIS/Soviet countries don't produce as advanced engines and avionics as the West does. Don't see how that has anything to do with reliability.

LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Thu May 16, 2002 10:56 am

Baloney. It has everything to do with reliability, b/c for an airline or a military, it has everything to do with life cycle cost.

Western engines and avionics CLEarly have a much higher aquisition cost than Russian counterparts. So why the price premium? Durability (lifespan) and Reliability. The lifecycle costs are much cheaper.

 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Thu May 16, 2002 11:02 am

To add-

If PERm PS90s were cheaper to OPerate on a 7x7, or Llukulas/Saturns on a Fxx, you can bet an airline or military would buy them, b/c they're certainly cheaper to buy.

But they're definitely not cheaper to operate, and that's why the vast majority of airlines don't use Russian engines or avionics.

The customer is always right...or they pay the price.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: "B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040

Sat May 25, 2002 8:24 am

Being concerned about our shrinking bomber fleet, I wonder if it might still be feasible to reactivate B-52G bombers still in desert storage at AMARC for nearly 10 years or more (assuming they haven't yet been scrapped). I know the water injected turbojets were a hinderance to combat readiness but I don't see how else a sudden need for more bombers could be met quickly if it arose. With Northrop/Grumman's proposal to build more B-2s turned down, they'll dismantle the tooling used to build the stealth bomber. No new bomber design is in sight so if the DOD were to reverse their plan (a crazy one, in my opinion) to shrink the total bomber fleet (all 3 types) to 100 or less aircraft, where would we get extra bombers? Only, I'd imagine, if there were intact B-52Gs still waiting to be scrapped. I don't know if there are any, maybe some of you would know. But assuming yes, would it be feasible to reactivate them after all that time in the desert? And if so, would anyone in the Air Force or ACC, seriously consider it?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests