5 replies to this topic

[NSwanberg]

[Dave Crevie]

All very interesting, but there are a number of issues making upgrading B-52s a bad idea. We are now in an era where long range manned bombers are no longer effective. Long range guided missiles are taking over that task. Also, a new generation of UCAVs are being developed that can hit as many as 25 separate targets and return to the U. S. without ever putting the life of a pilot in jeopardy. Plus, you have the factor of the age of the B-52 fleet, many of which are pushing 70 years old. ( most of the earliest versions have already been permanently mothballed.) They will become less and less airworthy. We can better spend those billions on new technology.

 

When I was growing up, I had a neighbor who flew B-52s in 'Nam. He participated in the "Rolling Thunder" program. He was a bit crazy. Early on, during the winter months, our street seldom got plowed. He would tow us kids on our sleds behind his car. He rigged up three tow ropes with handles like those used in water skiing. ( He had a really nice wood ski boat. Don't remember what make )  It's a wonder none of us got killed. His car was an early '50s Dodge businessman's coupe.

[old & gray]

Nice advertisement for RR engines. They fail to mention how many times the 52's have been re-engined, one of the updates years ago added strain gages to the wings and pylons. The readouts in the cockpit were simple green, yellow, red - light strips. It seems one of the upgrades in engines were able to pull the engines off the wings. 

 

The comment about adapting a commercial GE engine for military use was amusing. Commercial engines are designed for fuel economy and time between overhauls, Military engines are designed for response to throttle commands. We used to refer to them as the tight engines and the loose engines.  

[John Luongo]

i once asked a south east asian gentleman with a missing right leg, "what happened to your leg?" he answered "B52".

[Bill Seitz]

The military does still have a role, albeit a smaller one, for a heavy bomber, and the B-52 has a few other tricks up its' sleeve as a missile launcher and laser weapon platform. Not enough role for an entirely new replacement plane, but enough to warrant another update to the more fit of those still in the fleet (B-52H). In addition to the new, more efficient engines, there will be an overhaul of the avionics package and probably some structural refurbishment.

[Dave Crevie]

There is a very limited roll for the B-52 at this juncture. It is still part of the North American defense structure, plus some minor joint operation involvement with other NATO countries. Unmanned aircraft, both remotely operated and totally autonomous, are taking over. We are now in production of the B-21 Raider, which will most likely be the last manned long range bomber we produce. And reconnaissance roles are being turned over to drones. It's primary responsibilities remain mostly with Stratcom, the re-envisioned version of the old Strategic Air Command. 

 

https://www.stratcom.mil/

 

The B-21 will be taking over long range global bombing operations. Deployed in larger numbers, these stealth aircraft can hit many targets simultaneously. The B-52 has to hit targets one at a time, giving the enemy time to radio ahead to the secondary targets, which takes the element of surprise out of the equation.

 

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider 

 

 

Testing continues on the control systems for a new totally autonomous fighter/interceptor.

 

https://www.af.mil/N...nomous-testing/

 

So, knowing all this, I can't approve of a large investment in the B-52. Except maybe to increase the DOD budget.