WC Military Inaccuracies

Happy

Spaceman
the man is right, the US Air Force is going to continue to use the B-52 another 40 years. it is up to it's G or H variant, and has no reason to be removed from service. they will also continue to upgrade it's package until they retire the bomber.
 

Ladiesman^

Spaceman
Originally posted by Happy
the man is right, the US Air Force is going to continue to use the B-52 another 40 years. it is up to it's G or H variant, and has no reason to be removed from service. they will also continue to upgrade it's package until they retire the bomber.

Yeah! See!

There's no reason to NOT use it...when you need to drop lots of bombs on a target, I can't think of anything better to use. And with enough electronic jamming devices it's massive radar signature is meaningless as well.
 
B-52 could very well be used for another 40 years but they are limited in their capablities. As far as saturation bombing goes there is nothing better out there. But for more precise bombing Tomahawk cruise missiles and smaller, fast bombers with laser guided bombs are better. The one thing that a B-52 can do is carry an air launched variation of the Tomahawk. It has the capability to extend the range of the Tomahawk so it isn't exclusively a surface-to-surface missile
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
So... you're saying that the B-52 is rendered obsolete by the Tomahawk missile... which it extends the range of...? Brain circle!
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
So... you're saying that the B-52 is rendered obsolete by the Tomahawk missile... which it extends the range of...? Brain circle!

Yeah, those bombers that can extend the range of cruise missiles really don't have that much use, do they? ;)

It's kinda like deciding to put fighters on carrier aircraft to allow you to get fighter coverage wherever you go.
 

Ender

Spaceman
Mostairframes can, with proper maintinence, last for around forty years easily. Hell, there are still DC3's hauling passengers and cargo out there.
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Originally posted by Haesslich


Yeah, those bombers that can extend the range of cruise missiles really don't have that much use, do they? ;)


I don't know, I kindof like the ability to decide where I want a strike anywhere in teh world and within a few hours have a couple of dozen tomahawk cruise missles hitting the target, much faster than any ship could get into range :)

It's kinda like deciding to put fighters on carrier aircraft to allow you to get fighter coverage wherever you go.

Isn't that kinof one of their jobs in a battle group?

C-ya
 

Penguin

Spaceman
If someone can cite some proof that the USAF plans to continue using B-52s up to the 2040s then I'll rest my case.

Until then...

t.c.cgi: AFAIK as time goes by and newbuild B-52s aren't produced the cost of producing parts for existing B-52s will increase, resulting in diseconomies of scale. Also there is a limit to how many parts you can scavenge - do you really want to depend on salvage? Remember 40 years is plenty of time to devise something new and more relevant to the 21st century.

Happy: If the USAF planned to operate the B-52 for a hundred years, why did they produce the B-1 and the B-2? Obviously this shows that the B-52 can't fulfill every role and new aircraft have to be built to either replace or supplement the B-52. In forty years time I'm sure they'll have come up with something better. In that same timeframe they devised the B-1 and B-2.

Ladiesman^: Electronic jammers have never been entirely sufficient to defeat anti-aircraft weaponry.

I'm thinkin...: The B-1 can carry tomahawk cruise missiles. The B-2 can be equipped to carry similar weapons. Also B-1s and B-2s can conduct carpet bombing as well as the B-52.

Ender: I did not say that airframes cannot last forty years. But do you want them too? By that time, the aircraft will have become very difficult to service. I'll quote the New Zealand Air Force as an example. They've been using the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for 30 odd years. The aircraft still do their jobs, but ground crews have stated that the aircraft are wearing out, its becoming harder and longer to service them and they are more prone to breaking down. Recently all of the Hercules deployed at home broke down, leaving the RNZAF temporarily without a transport capability at home. That's what happens when you use an airframe until its all worn out. Sure it still works, but the maintenance required results in such diseconomies that's it better to get something new.

In sum sure the USAF will continue to use the B-52. But in 40 years time, I'm sure they'll have something better.
 

Ladiesman^

Spaceman
Originally posted by Penguin
If someone can cite some proof that the USAF plans to continue using B-52s up to the 2040s then I'll rest my case.

Until then...

For more than 40 years B-52 Stratofortresses have been the backbone of the manned strategic bomber force for the United States. The B-52 is capable of dropping or launching the widest array of weapons in the U.S. inventory. This includes gravity bombs, cluster bombs, precision guided missiles and joint direct attack munitions. Updated with modern technology the B-52 will be capable of delivering the full complement of joint developed weapons and will continue into the 21st century as an important element of our nation's defenses. Current engineering analyses show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2045.

Taken from http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html THE US AIR FORCE WEBSITE....

Straight from the horses mouth.

Thank you, come again.
 

Happy

Spaceman
Penguin
Happy: If the USAF planned to operate the B-52 for a hundred years, why did they produce the B-1 and the B-2? Obviously this shows that the B-52 can't fulfill every role and new aircraft have to be built to either replace or supplement the B-52. In forty years time I'm sure they'll have come up with something better. In that same timeframe they devised the B-1 and B-2.

u answered ur own question, the b-1 and b-2 were developed for roles the B-52 was never intended to fill. yeas they are all bombers, but they do it differently.
the b-1 was originally a high alt. supersonic bomber, they have since changed it to low alt. it was designed because it was questioned wether or not the 52 could still penatrate the soviet air defenses.
the b-2 was designed to penatrate radar using stealth, and fly nonstop to anywhere on the globe.
when the 52 was orginall designed, none of those roles existed.
they will continue to use the 52, as it is a proven platform, meets the needed spec.s of the role it fills and would cost too much to develop a new platform, that in esance, is the same aircraft.


Originally posted by I'm thinkin...
B-52 could very well be used for another 40 years but they are limited in their capablities. As far as saturation bombing goes there is nothing better out there. But for more precise bombing Tomahawk cruise missiles and smaller, fast bombers with laser guided bombs are better. The one thing that a B-52 can do is carry an air launched variation of the Tomahawk. It has the capability to extend the range of the Tomahawk so it isn't exclusively a surface-to-surface missile

the b-52 CAN already carry and drop guided weapons. it does not use the glamorous laser-guided gbu, instead, it drops the
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), which uses a preprogramed GPS reciever. then there are also the forementioned cruise missles, as well as limited air-to-air capability.

b-52_11.jpg
 
I've seen that picture before Happy. It had a message across the top that said something like: "Al Qeada (sp) has won the toss and has chosen to recieve."
 

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Id like to see them receive a Tomahawk TLAM-N.

P.S. Isnt that a purty picture? I remember that picture from somewhere, only I can't remember if it said whether or not the plane could carry all of that stuff, or if it was just all the different types of ordinance it could carry?
 
Top