Air Force releases bomber plans

When you build them to last.... they last.

Amazing how that sucker still has legs and is viable 60 years after it was made. I'm surprised we don't have a fleet of newer planes of a similar type.

Oh and speaking of b-52. One of them got a hole in the tail from lightning.

www.ktbs.com...

a reply to: grey580

That's been making the rounds lately. Worst lightning hit seen in at least the last 20 years.

I flew a few training missions out of Castle AFB with them and did some training film. That was one heck of a strike and I'm glad I wasn't aboard. Good find for flag and my best,

In all my years I have never seen that much damage from a lightening strike. I'm wondering if there was some failures in properly electrically bonding the structure. Usually damage is limited to fried fasteners or a nice little blast mark from the exit point say 0.5" across at best. Something that bent and smashed the internal rib structure of the stab, that has me beat.

a reply to: thebozeian could be high pressure damage from steam, many years worth of cycles breathing in dust which will contaminate any moisture in there adding resistance. i,av seen that happern with composites.

a reply to: Zaphod58

All I can say is that based upon this from the article you linked:

The Bomber Vector pointed out that USAF’s bomber fleet has never been so small. Today’s fleet of 157 bombers (76 of which are B-52s) is only a tiny fraction of the 1960 bomber fleet of 1,526 aircraft. The Air Force said its bomber fleet is also spoken for many times over, on tap to support many missions all at the same time.

Looks to me like maybe they should re-up and retrofit some of the mothballed B-52's to take up some slack! What a mess! The US neglects the Air Force at its peril!

Back in the 80's when I lived in Spokane, we used to go out to a road near the end of the runway and watch the B-52s take off. What an awesome sight!

a reply to: TonyS

They're limited by treaty. That's why the B-1 can't carry cruise missiles or nuclear weapons. And returning the B-52s to service would be a non-trivial exercise. Counting the time that Ghost Rider spent at Barksdale having equipment installed, it took the best part of 2 years to get it back in service. And she'd only been parked about 7 years.

originally posted by: seagull
B52...

Giving new meaning to the word "legacy".

But, y'know, if it ain't broken, why fix it?

You expressed my thoughts and question perfectly. Once you have the stealth, speed, accuracy, nuclear, laser-whatever secret tech...and in fact dont even NEED to be anywhere CLOSE to bomb anything..."If it aint broke? Why fix it?".

We got everything now.....MS

For 20 years I have been asking, why are we trying to reinvent the wheel, as long as the working strategy is small planes blast their anti air capability to dust then bombers make small craters into big craters why exactly do we need a stealth bomber, or a fast bomber.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Because the roles are reversing. The big bombers are making doors for the little aircraft now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So, I suppose the B-52 could be used as an arsenal, and release swarm drones. I have no idea how many a B-52 could hold, but could you imagine a few releasing this lot to do their "stuff"

www.popularmechanics.com...

You are in for one unhappy day on the end of this lot from the belly of a Buff

a reply to: nelloh62

They're looking at multiple roles going forward. Arsenal plane is one of the options. They recently set a record for PGMs dropped by a B-52, using the new CRL and racks.

a reply to: Zaphod58

even still with the stand off capabilities of the buff, they could still wreck peoples day from a distance.


between the belly size and the wing pylons a world of hurt gets delivered be it gravity bombs or air launched cruise missiles.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Yep, but they're still vulnerable at long distance. In a fight against China they wouldn't have escorts available like they do somewhere like the ME.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yea got that, but you have a basic platform that is slated to outlive its replacements, so why not take the BUFF as a base model and look at ways of improving things to handle the increased risk.

Rather than reinvent the wheel form the ground up, which seems to lead to increased problems down the road or unintended side effects in the rush to do something new with all the bells and whistles.

originally posted by: thebozeian
In all my years I have never seen that much damage from a lightening strike. I'm wondering if there was some failures in properly electrically bonding the structure. Usually damage is limited to fried fasteners or a nice little blast mark from the exit point say 0.5" across at best. Something that bent and smashed the internal rib structure of the stab, that has me beat.

Yeah Ive been on board the chopper during one and there was a loud noise and we lost a few of our medical systems but that was about it. If we had a giant hole like that we would have gone down

a reply to: Irishhaf

Because it can't be updated to handle the new threats. It was designed against what were more or less dumb defenses. You aren't going to be able to upgrade a 1966 Mustang to beat a 2018 Corvette.

There is a finite limit to what you can upgrade, and even with new engines and power systems they're about as far as they can take it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am talking purely off the airframe, see what worked, figure out what can be carried forward and use it as the baseline for building your new bomber.

The bone and the b2 were both dream concepts , instead start with a known and improve on that, rather than spend billions on a theory. That might look great on paper but be a pure bag of suck in the field.

a reply to: Irishhaf

And what do you think they're doing? The Raider uses a lot of off through shelf tech. The basic design is updated from the original ATB design submitted for the B-2, etc.