The B-52 Flying in 2044?????

The following aircraft program updates comes from AWST 10/18/2004

BOEING B-52: The aging aircraft is the subject of several modernization programs. The bomber is currently powered by eight Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3 turbofans (17,000 lb. thrust each). It may receive upgrades, including new Rolls-Royce RB211-535, Pratt & Whitney F117 or CFM56 engines.

With AF plans to keep the BUFD's till 2044, the engine upgrade sounds like a great way to go. The use of 4 CFM56 engines would give it more thrust and much better fuel economy than the existing TF33's. The bomber also may play a factor in the standoff jamming role. While the current B-52's are the last of the production run, the design will almost be 100 years old when they hit the boneyard. Talk about a timeless design!!!!!

Kinda like looking out your window and seeing a Wright Flyer with Air Force decals flying around today. I have to believe this is pure pork. Some politician is making sure the folks in his home district get government contracts. Put the BUFF out of our fiscal misery and save us all some tax money.

[edit on 10-21-2004 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by groingrinder
Put the BUFF out of our fiscal misery and save us all some tax money

Its not really pork. the BUFF have an actual mission and have contributed in every major actionwe have taken in the last 2 decades. What would you replace them with? Now that would be pork IMHO

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by groingrinder
Put the BUFF out of our fiscal misery and save us all some tax money

Its not really pork. the BUFF have an actual mission and have contributed in every major actionwe have taken in the last 2 decades. What would you replace them with? Now that would be pork IMHO

I would replace them with PEACE!!!!! WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT!!

Originally posted by groingrinder
I would replace them with PEACE!!!!!

WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT!!

You can never negotiate peace from a position of weakness.

Come on now. We have B-1's and B-2's and cruise missiles that can be launched from practically every ship in the navy. What do we need the BUFF for? Why did we develop the B-1 and B-2 if it was not to replace the B-52?

Because you found out the B-1B was not the be all and end all it was designed to be

and

You cant afford to build anymore B-2s

Missiles are not recallable, on the spot or have loiter over target capability.


The surviving B-52s have an amazing combinations of capabilities....range, payload (any mini bombs the others can carry, B-52 BUFF will carry more) versatility ( hi alt dumb bombing in TAC role, ALCM and SOW role, Anti Shipping and minelaying operations) all coupled in an established, cost effective and lets face it expendable airframe.


For instance. A B-52 crashing at an airshow in the 1980s was a tragedy. A B-2 going down anywhere would be a national and financial disaster.

Its called tactical diversity.

The RAAF is going to loose it when F-111 retires in 2010 and we get F-35 in its place several years later. We don't have and can't afford a lower and upper tier like the US



[edit on 21-10-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by craigandrew]

Originally posted by groingrinder
Come on now. We have B-1's and B-2's and cruise missiles that can be launched from practically every ship in the navy. What do we need the BUFF for?

Why did we develop the B-1 and B-2 if it was not to replace the B-52?

The number of B-1 has declined and there are only 30 B-2's and far too expensive to use as cruise missile carriers. Its hugely versitile, its a great design, and most improtantly it fits a role we need. The B-1 and B-2 were intended to replace the B-52's, but never panned out in the numbers that they needed.

FredT

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by groingrinder
Come on now. We have B-1's and B-2's and cruise missiles that can be launched from practically every ship in the navy. What do we need the BUFF for?

Why did we develop the B-1 and B-2 if it was not to replace the B-52?

The number of B-1 has declined and there are only 30 B-2's and far too expensive to use as cruise missile carriers. Its hugely versitile, its a great design, and most improtantly it fits a role we need. The B-1 and B-2 were intended to replace the B-52's, but never panned out in the numbers that they needed.

FredT

Just for the record! The latest issue of Combat Aircraft( October Issue) states that the USAF is Scrapping several of the B-1B, dew to cost and maintaince problems. The bomber fleet is srinking fast. Saving the B-52's is a good start, but we're going to need a new bomber soon, if we want to hold on to a functional strategic bomber fleet.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Replacing the engines on the B-52H's is the way to go. Most of the current H series have gone through extensive overhaul work for structural integrity. I have a friend who was stationed with BUFF's durring the late 60's. With the TF33's now on the H's they do not use all the thrust that is available. Putting new engines such as the Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofans, the will be more fuel efficent, and an easier maintained engine.

BTW - all of the BUFFS went through a major ECM upgrade, and datalink/inflight databus systems are due for upgrades in the folllowing months.

=-Rich

ghost
The bomber fleet is srinking fast. Saving the B-52's is a good start, but we're going to need a new bomber soon, if we want to hold on to a functional strategic bomber fleet.

thats why were making UCAV's.

The B-52 has been around far to long, it has no purpose in todays modern air force, or anywhere else for that matter, it gets used often by Nasa for experimental aircraft, but they could build a different jet to fill that role, and for a cheaper price as well. and the USAF, the days of droping hundreds of dumb bombs is over, and so should the B-52's life.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Murcielago]

B52's are too slow and they are not stealth.Only reason to use B52s now would be because they can carry a bigger payload.However,if we put stealth on the B52,it would last a lot longer.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
B52's are too slow and they are not stealth.Only reason to use B52s now would be because they can carry a bigger payload.However,if we put stealth on the B52,it would last a lot longer.

Can't the amount of money you would need to shell out to stealth a Buff, your could proabably build a hypersonic bomber. Its exceedingly hard to stealth an existing design.

Recent attemps include:

The redesigned F/A-18E/F/G is stealthier than the F-18 A/B/C that it replaced but its really a pretty new design and the engine inlets are way different.

The B1-A vs. The B1-B The engine pods were redesigned to reduce signature.

The F-15 with the new ESRA is actually stealthier than the conventional radar equiped F-15's. The radar face does not move and thus reduces return. Still has a big signature.

Why keep the Big Ugly Fat Fu****? If you have ever been anywhere near a group of B-52's carpet boming a target you would not even need to ask that question. If the bombs don't kill you fright just might.

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Why keep the Big Ugly Fat Fu****? If you have ever been anywhere near a group of B-52's carpet boming a target you would not even need to ask that question. If the bombs don't kill you fright just might.

Thats pretty funny,but the thing is anti-air defenses or mobile AA guns would shoot down the damn b52 before it dropped its bombs.But,being the Big Ugly Fat Fu**** it is,it can probably take a few direct hits

If anyone remembered,The F117 was unknown until 7 years after the first actual plane was made.I reckon they are messing with hypersonic aircraft now,like maybe the Aurora aircraft.

[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Why keep the Big Ugly Fat Fu****? If you have ever been anywhere near a group of B-52's carpet boming a target you would not even need to ask that question. If the bombs don't kill you fright just might.

Carpet bombing days are over. Everything these days is precision munitions. carpet bomb is/was/and always will be a huge waste of money. Whats the point in droping hundreds of bombs and still possibly missing your target?

The B-52 was a good plane.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Why keep the Big Ugly Fat Fu****? If you have ever been anywhere near a group of B-52's carpet boming a target you would not even need to ask that question. If the bombs don't kill you fright just might.

Carpet bombing days are over. Everything these days is precision munitions. carpet bomb is/was/and always will be a huge waste of money. Whats the point in droping hundreds of bombs and still possibly missing your target?

The B-52 was a good plane.

I guess you did not watch the news when they were carpet boming in Afghanistan?

www.rte.ie...

just do a google on it and there are more stories and videos than you can count.

Is it possible to 'carpet bomb' with a single plane? I'd have thought a spread of aircraft was necessary to meet that definition.

Thats pretty funny,but the thing is anti-air defenses or mobile AA guns would shoot down the damn b52 before it dropped its bombs.
[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Nope. AAA doesn't have the ceiling. In VN and Cambodia the first thing that warned you was the sudden explosions, B52s flew higher than their sound would travel and didn't always leave contrails. It wasn't 'til the Russians shipped SAMs to Hanoi that it became dangerous to use B52s up north.

Put a BUFF e-jammer out front and things get a lot more comfortable for the crews.

Plus ZSU 23 quads need radar to target. And radar gives HARMs a big target to aim for.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Thats pretty funny,but the thing is anti-air defenses or mobile AA guns would shoot down the damn b52 before it dropped its bombs.
[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Nope. AAA doesn't have the ceiling. In VN and Cambodia the first thing that warned you was the sudden explosions, B52s flew higher than their sound would travel and didn't always leave contrails. It wasn't 'til the Russians shipped SAMs to Hanoi that it became dangerous to use B52s up north.

Put a BUFF e-jammer out front and things get a lot more comfortable for the crews.

Plus ZSU 23 quads need radar to target. And radar gives HARMs a big target to aim for.

If so,then why the need for newer aircraft?You are saying B-52s are safe from AA fire,so that means we can keep using them until 2044?