It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B-52 questions

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
my question here is suppose a B-52 comes into attack by a squadron of enemy airplanes?
then does it hyave its own line of defense?
i mean guns, AAMs etc?




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
A B-52 defends itself with chaff, flare, and an ICMS package...On missions where it may face threat from enemy aircraft(not recently), it will be accompanied by fighter/strike escort patrols...More realistically, the latest versions stay out of the danger zone entirely, and fire air-launch cruise missiles into target areas....But to answer your question, no, no guns or AAMs are fired from a B-52....



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Unless theyve been removed recently, Im pretty sure the B-52 has two radar guided gatling guns in the tail for rear defence.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
You are right, on previous generations, B-52H aircraft were equipped with one Vulcan six barrel radar-directed 20mm cannon in the tail turret.....However, as far as I know, talking with the avionics/electricians on today's mobilized aircraft, that was removed, probably due to making room for the vast array(bands) of ECM/ICMS suites that have been incorporated into the jet(AN-ALQ-153, Tail Warning set, for example). All of today's USAF bombers incorporate very impressive electronic warfare measures along with conventional weapons systems....



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
so my larger question here is do we need bombers?
i mean what is their effective role in combat?



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
In the modern combat environment, a heavy bomber, such as a B-52H or B-1B serves as a "force multiplier". A single B-52 can deliver as much ordnance as a squadron of regular aircraft, such as F-15s or F-16s. They also have the ability to do this from much farther away). If they are from closer, then the range translates into longer loiter time, enabling them to stay in the target area much longer. As an example, B-52s armed with GPS-guided JDAMs have been used as close support aircraft in Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I recall hearing that given the B-52's probably serving on for quite some time they might replace the 8 engines currently used with 4 larger and more modern type engines. Anyone else hear this?



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I've heard this plan might be revived. Their was a plan to replace the B-52's engines with four big P& W turbofans about 25 years ago, when the ideas of doing it with the KC-135 fleet first surfaced, in the end only the tankers got done. I have an artist impression from the time knocking about, if I can find it I'll post it up.

edit; here it is, sorry its a bit wonky.



[edit on 18-1-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
hehe..Airbus reply to the B-52...Fit the A380 with ordanance!!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hehe..Airbus reply to the B-52...Fit the A380 with ordanance!!



Too big RCS and fuselage. Also the price (when equipped with avionics etc.) would be much higher.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Yeah, the B-52G still had a tail mounted M61A1 20mm cannon.

Currently, the older B-52's do the Cruise Missile shooting (CALCM) and the B-1B's do the carpet bombing since it's faster and more survivable...That's atleast what I heard...



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Judging by how much we use the B-52 in the wars we are fighting, I would say it is a very useful plane. They are planning to hold onto it for another 45 years, time for a new heavy bomber, there was a 747 cruise missle concept, maybe that would do.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Veltro
I recall hearing that given the B-52's probably serving on for quite some time they might replace the 8 engines currently used with 4 larger and more modern type engines. Anyone else hear this?


Actually yes.. there have been a total of 4 proposals on it.. 3 times submitted without a request by contractors, the most recent, commishioned by the air force themselves. It *looks* like Boeing is going to get the contract to re-engine and provide engine maintenance *and* field spares for it now.

The interesting thing is it will lighten the plane, and reduce fuel consumption, so the range should be improved by upto 10%.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Ah, I just an article about it on Global Security.
www.globalsecurity.org...

When I was younger I was facinated by the B-52 after seing one back in '89 at I believe Robins AFB museum in Georgia. I used to draw alot of planes and liked making b-52's with big 747 type engines instead of the smaller pods, so thats kinda weird lol. Im sure the range will increase as well with the more fuel efficient turbofans. Alway amazes me that an aircraft designed in the 40's and planned to be powered by turboprops is still soldiering on and will for a long time to come. Truely an amazing aircraft.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Imagine if it used that new engine for the 767 that gets something like 115,000lbs of thrust. Dag, yo.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ah yes, the huge one where you could drive a car into the inlet right? I think I saw a show where they had those on a testbed and thwey were blowing huge boulders around like styrofoam. I don't know if there would be enough ground clearence on a 52 with those.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
There is mention that Rolls-Royce will get the contract , as the engine they are offering is idea for the roll.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I remember someone in another thread talking about a B-52 as a possible future UCAV aerial platform. Something like it would have a small swarm of UCAVs it could release for defense or bombing .

I dont know if this was a real future plan but it would be amazing.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kyle325is
 

The basic concept that more avionics/ECM account for the gun going away is true, but the ALQ-153 is not a good example. It was a part of the ECM suite for many years prior to the guns going away. As an aside, you won't find many crewmembers in support of replacing the guns with more electronics.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kyle325is
 


One of the reasons we pursued stealth technology with such gusto since the 1970's was a B-52 (great plane by the way), had a radar cross-section approximatly the same as Pittsburg. Any enemy with a "radio shack" level of understanding on how to design a defense net, salivates when they hear "B-52". Times change. We can cloke current well proven , tough as hell aircraft like B-52's with certain skin coatings that change all the rules. You could coat something the same size and shape as the Pentagon, and conventional radar would not see it. Very neat stuff, really.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join