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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Look at the type of wars you guys are fighting for Godsakes.

Taliban type forces with no airforce no major sams and low medium altitude AA and short range low level MPADS.

Even those who have had a semblance of AD networks have had them smashed by first wave strike aircraft, cruise and SOW leaving B-52s to do what they can do best....shake the earth.

Just in case you havent noticed there were a lot of images of B-52s ripping the crap out of cave tunnel and trench systems in recent years with cheap dumb iron bombs instead of dozens of expensive PGMs.

They can also fly the SOW launch role thank you very much, and we have seen them configured to sow mines and launch Harpoons.

Yes the B-2 is stealthier and the B-1B is faster and UCAVs are all woo hoo.
But the B-52 is cheap, it is reliable and it can last.

It sounds like you want those other aircraft because they are newer and shiny. Do you want to spend what?...$2 billion on a B-2B because you NEED to or because it looks cooler than a B-52.

Jeez!




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Jsut because we play in the small leagues doesnt mean we shouldnt be ready to play in the big leagues.

Eventually the B-52 will need to be retired because its just going to wear out. We need a replacement, so why not start now?



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Jsut because we play in the small leagues doesnt mean we shouldnt be ready to play in the big leagues.

Eventually the B-52 will need to be retired because its just going to wear out. We need a replacement, so why not start now?


Yep they will in 2044 or so. The airframe etc, will hold out that long. The engines are the weakpoint right now and if the replace them with comercial turbofans, they will save money over the long haul and increase capability. The wing skins may need replacing, but as CA pointed out, it does the job, its cheap, its already flying, and we have the B-1 and B-2 to take on integrated air defences etc.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I know the B-52 still has some life in her, but its allready lived a half of century, I would have this plane phased-out in 10 years.

Yes, it was used in Afghan in 2001, I think they used it just to try and say that it still does its job great, when the reality is, its going more and more un-needed.

I'm not saying use UCAV's instead because there "shinier", its because it makes more sense. Like the Predator A, it can find a target and then take it out, while the B-52's just drop thier load where they think that the terrorist might be hidding. and with the Predator B, and other UCAV's the B-52's purpose will be diminishing quickly.

BTW, does anybody know how long ATS will be operating in "Low-bandwidth mode", or is it just my pc?


[edit on 2-11-2004 by Murcielago]

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Murcielago]


jra

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I think the plan is to slowly faze out the B-1, B-2 and B-52 and at the same time, slowly replace them with the B-3 in around 2037 or so. That's what this graph here seems to imply.

www.fas.org...

I don't think the B-3 is anything more than just an idea right now, but all the more reason to keep the B-52's around until something new comes to replace all there current bombers.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I have seen that chart before, its old. They are no longer planning on keeping them all going that long anymore, due to the increase of other countries militaries, they relized that by that time other countries (china) will have better stuff then we would have.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think the bandwith problem will last at least a few days......may be 26
until the US election is over with and a new.... sorry....a president is confirmed.

Until then a lot more posts by people bludgeoning each other will be chewing things up.

BoT

I think new B-52s could do this job at a fraction of the price (why is it America is obsessed with sending its self bankrupt by buying over developed new toys?) with SoW, State of the Art Systems and fuel efficent engines.

Buffs flying until 2044......"we regret B-3 has been cancelled due to lack of funds....we are refurbishing 36 B-52s instead of buying 3 B-3s......the new B-52-22 are expected to fly until 2095"

Reminds me of the TSR-2 >F-111K >Tornado saga.

The Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) prototype (future Tornado) was so maligined by pundits saying it was an out of date concept that RAF types started saying MRCA stood for "Must Refurbish Canberra Again" ...for all those youngsters. English Electric /BAC/BAe Canberra twin jet light bomber 1948. At least until recently still in RAF service as the PR.9 over Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also a story from weapons and warfare about late 19th century coastal monitors of the USN. Congress was so tight with money for the US Navy in the 1880s-90s that the Admirals created the fiction they could refurbish Civil War era designed Monitors as new with a completely new appearance. As the old ships were sent off to the yards for "refit" they were broken up and replaced with a completely new and larger coastal monitor with the same name....the new ships were the stepping stones to the modern dreadnought US fleet of the early 20th Century.

I don't know if congress truly brought it or if they saw it as a way around public objections to military spending in peace time.

Hey.....a black flat baterang shaped refitted "B-52"...do you think thier gullible enough?



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
dont you think by the time 2044 rolls around we will have anti-grav or some other type of flying objects? i dont think the b-52 is going to last THAT long. no matter how many upgrades you glue on to it!

by the way i use the term anti-grav loosley. i dont think we will get that far in 40 years.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

CA
Buffs flying until 2044......"we regret B-3 has been cancelled due to lack of funds....we are refurbishing 36 B-52s instead of buying 3 B-3s......the new B-52-22 are expected to fly until 2095"

ummmmm yeah
, maybe when this happens.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
The costs of maintanence for the current fleet of B2s are already a lot,B-52s are a lot "better",in the sense that it can carry anything in huge amounts (including prescision missles) and it is cheap,both production and maintance.The only reason to use B2s or F117s would be to take out AA defenses (SAM sites).Otherwise,Using the B2s or other stealth aircraft is/was and always will be a huge waste of money for conventional bombing.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago






nice pic!!



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   

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.


Sound good, but it doesn't work that way! Stealth has to be part of the design, you can't really add it on. You can reduse the RCS to a limited degree, but it won't be enough to make a big difference in the B-52's ability to survive. It was a good thought!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I'm a little prejudiced, (I was a B-52G Crew Chief 1989-1994) but I'd love to see a 4 engined B-52J.

I know that the airframes will take it, and there will be a role for that magnificent, ugly birdy to play.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Ouizel........were you in around the time that BUFF hit wires and came down at the airshow?

I wasnt by the way (I was Australian Army Reserve) but I've got a lot of respect for the BUFF.

She will always have a role in the inventory. I just cannot understand why people want $2 billion bombers to replace her in the roles she is perfect for.

They want to deny the roles exist, despite the evidence.

Sure, keep your core of B-2s to deal with AD where they exist, but why risk a $2 billion aircraft everytime you dont have to?

I too hope a "B-52J" out of Guam non stop return flyover will come to be a regular event at future Australian Airshows, as B-52 fly overs have been at past shows when they have not been "busy"

You know what? I'd say to those who talk about the age of airframes as a justification to scrap types? That I would add the B-52 to my list of contenders (F-15,-16,-18, Harrier, Tornado) for green skin new builds, new systems .....Thats right! Factory fresh B-52Js - the Next Generation!

Say it with me! Testify! Amen Broooothherrrr!


Sorry about that. I'm quite calm now



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Yes, B-52 Stratofortress Bomber is an amazing piece of military hardware.

And I understand why it will last until 2044.

But as one person mentioned, believe it or not, there is speculation that Anti-grav already exists.

But still, Building 2 billion dollar bombers instead of using already built B-52's that do the job better, would be a very bad idea.

That would be throwing away money, and UCAV's we have a long way before implementing them in everyday strategic bombing exercises and missions.

Trusting a computer to do something that should be done by a person? There is always that percent margin error, it may save pilot's lives, but I would never stick seveal millions of dollars of hardware in the control of a computer, I don't care how advanced, how loyal it is, I would never give so much power to one computer program.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Yes, B-52 Stratofortress Bomber is an amazing piece of military hardware.

And I understand why it will last until 2044.

But as one person mentioned, believe it or not, there is speculation that Anti-grav already exists.

But still, Building 2 billion dollar bombers instead of using already built B-52's that do the job better, would be a very bad idea.

That would be throwing away money, and UCAV's we have a long way before implementing them in everyday strategic bombing exercises and missions.

Trusting a computer to do something that should be done by a person? There is always that percent margin error, it may save pilot's lives, but I would never stick seveal millions of dollars of hardware in the control of a computer, I don't care how advanced, how loyal it is, I would never give so much power to one computer program.


the USAF wont be using the B-52 in 2044.

I doubt we have anti-gravity tech, so i hope your not expecting a future a spacetravel for all.

Why do people phrase it as if were currently building 2 billion dollar bombers to replace the B-52, THEIR ALREADY BUILT, all we have to do is use them.

UCAV's arn't far off, hell, you could classify the Predator a UCAV because its unmanned and fires hellfires.

Yes, computers can have errors, but so can humans. Human error is the highest cause of plane crashes. I believe a computer is more reliable then a airliner pilot.
It has nothing to do with loyalty, it has to do with programming. The future odf UAV's has to do with people in the loop, NOT AI.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
craigandrew: Only 2 went down while I was in. The one off Diego Garcia, and the one at Fairchild AFB, Washington. (Unless time has fogged my memory)

Fresh off the assembly line B-52Js? That'd be awesome! But, it really isn't necessary. I know how the USAF maintains those airframes. They'll last as long as they need to, be it 2010 or 2100. I'd like to think that we could come up with an inexpensive replacement for the venerable B-52, but they've had since 1961 (the year the last B-52H rolled off the line), and they haven't yet. The B-1 is capable, but there aren't enough of 'em. The B-2 is too expensive, and both the B-1 and B-2 are combat unproven.

So, to summerize,

Amen, Brotha!!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Ok Murcielago, you have your opinions and I have mine.

And ok, I understand that UCAVs are not far off, and I am aware that the Predator can be a UCAV as well, but I would never trust flight to a completely automonous A.I. program.

And you'd be suprised about antigrav.

And it has been said that the B-52 will last until 2044, that has been the plan for sometime now, I do not know where you have been.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

shatteredskies
And it has been said that the B-52 will last until 2044, that has been the plan for sometime now

true, BUT (theres always a but), It wont make it that long becaues the military relizes that China is getting to be a major player. and thats why they wont be having there long life.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The video of the crash at Fairchild is incredible. You can see the top come off as they tried to eject. The pilot had been warned about 'hot doggin' but still was allowed to fly. To bad it cost others their lives.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join