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.

 

Air Force looking at MOAB class weapon on B-52

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
In addition to making the B-52 more fuel efficient, and longer lived, the Air Force announced plans to carry a single weapon in the 20,000 pound class on the wing. The B-52 currently has the ability to carry weapons including the MOP internally, but the wings are currently limited to weapons up to 5,000 pounds. There is currently no schedule to develop the new pylon, but the Air Force plans on moving quickly once the contract is awarded.

Curtis LeMay originally saw supersonic bombers replacing the B-52s, but the Air Force now plans to operate them until sometime around 2060, making the H model 100 years old when it's finally retired.


In addition to making the Boeing B-52H more fuel efficient and sophisticated, the US Air Force’s ongoing makeover project also aims to make the pride of Gen Curtis LeMay’s Cold War-era bomber fleet more destructive.

A market survey opened on 21 June reveals the USAF’s plan to equip the B-52H wing pylon to carry a single weapon weighing up to the 9,070kg (20,000lb) class, which potentially includes the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB).

The B-52H now has the ability to carry heavy weapons, including the 13,600kg-class Massive Ordnance Penetrator, internally. But the the Improved Common Pylon on the B-52H wings are limited to carrying weapons weighing up to 2,270kg (5,000lb).

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Thats a long life for the aircraft!! Imagine if the Wright Brothers were still flying around in the "Wright flyer".



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Baby make a boom-boom.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I've always thought that a couple of C-5s loaded full up with MOABs might be interesting.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

My personal favorite is the C-5 ICBM carrier.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Or they could save all the upgrade money and throw it at the Raiders.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   
How many MOABs have been dropped anyway? This sounds like a real waste of money.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Yeah, going from 5,000 pounds on the wing to 20,000 pounds is totally a waste of money.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Or they could save all the upgrade money and throw it at the Raiders.


They can’t win without Madden coaching or another Jim Plunkett behind center


-Chris



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

And end up with all our eggs in one basket when they have to retire the B-52 too.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Yeah, going from 5,000 pounds on the wing to 20,000 pounds is totally a waste of money.

To drop what? On whom?
Whats the point of a B-52 being able to carry MOABs externally? There is no operational demand for this capability. Hell, the US probably has less than 50 MOABs anyway.
Dont see any advantage in using a b-52 over an MC-130 to deliver the weapon. Both are not suited for unpermissive environments.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Yes, because that 20,000 pound limit in the launcher can only be used to carry MOAB, and not things like LRASM or JASSM. What a stupid idea! They should just retire the B-52 now and get it over with.
edit on 6/22/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I like that one as well. Could you imagine loading up 10 C-5s with MOABs and doing a little pattern bombing? It would make an Arc Light look like a string of firecrackers.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
The pylons are already be perfectly capable of carrying LRASM and JASSM. The recent Internal Weapons Bay upgrade pushes the total to 20 JASSMs on a B-52, 8 internally, 12 externally.

Also, i never said anything about retiring them. The B-52s are badly needed as arsenal planes in the Pacific theate. As are B-1Bs for the forseeable future. There are however not needed as carriers for MOABs.

And if you look at the JASSM/JASSM-ER/LRASM or whatever situation, the limiting factor is not carrier aircraft but available ordnance. The US has way more aircraft to fire those weapons in one sortie than are available. They need to concentrate on building up the stockpile, getting even more missiles on the bombers should not be a priority at all atm.


edit on 22-6-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Or they could save all the upgrade money and throw it at the Raiders.


They can’t win without Madden coaching or another Jim Plunkett behind center


-Chris


Art Davis would replace the B-21 program with the B-70 rebuild! Speed, speed, and more speed!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Zaphod58
The pylons are already be perfectly capable of carrying LRASM and JASSM. The recent Internal Weapons Bay upgrade pushes the total to 20 JASSMs on a B-52, 8 internally, 12 externally.

There are however not needed as carriers for MOABs.





There is no operational demand for this capability. 


*Ding, ding*

See also, "cost-benefit"
edit on 22-6-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

The existing pylons have a weight limit of 5,000 pounds. If you can't see the benefit of going to 20,000 pounds, I can't help you.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

nevermind. misread the article.
edit on 22-6-2018 by anzha because: bah. PBKAC



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

nevermind. misread the article.


4x0 is still zero.

Even if they were slated as a platform, current payload would be 20 LRASM. A flight of 8 is already 160 missiles.
edit on 22-6-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As i understand it, the Improved Common Pylon is limited to carry weapons weighting up to 5.000lb individually, not in total. The good old AGM-86 weights over 3000lb and they put 6 on each pylon in two triple launchers. Just as with the JASSMs, they already can carry 12 externally.
This proposal is only about modifying the pylon so it can carry even heavier ordnance. But it wont increase the total number of missiles carried. They would need to develop new launcher to put on the pylon to carry more missiles, but this is not happening. So as far as standoff weaponry goes, there is exavtly zero benefit of this proposed upgrade.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join