Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong 403
Hugh Pickens writes "Those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s knew the B-52 Stratofortress as a central figure in the anxiety that flowed from the protracted staring match between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Now CNET reports that it was 60 years ago, on April 15, 1952, that a B-52 prototype built by Boeing took off on its maiden flight and although the 1950s-vintage B-52s are no longer in the US Air Force inventory, the 90 or so H models delivered between May 1961 and October 1962 still remain on active duty. 'The B-52 has been a wonderful flying box,' says retired Brig. Gen. Peyton Cole. 'It's persevered all these years because it's been able to adapt and still continues to fly. It started out as a high-level flying platform during the Cold War. Then as air defenses got better it became a low-level penetrator, and more than that was the first aircraft to fly low-level at night through FLIR (forward looking infrared) and night-vision TV.' The B-52's feat of longevity reflects both regular maintenance and timely upgrades — in the late 1980s, for instance, GPS capabilities were incorporated into the navigation system but it also speaks to the astronomical costs of the next-generation bombers that have followed the B-52 into service (a total of 744 were built, counting all models) with the Air Force. B-52s cost about $70 million apiece (in today's dollars), while the later, stealth-shaped B-2 Spirit bombers carried an 'eye-watering $3-billion-a-pop unit price.' The Air Force's 30-year forecast, published in March, envisions an enduring role for the B-52 and engineering studies, the Air Force says, suggest that the life span of the B-52 could extend beyond the year 2040. 'At that point, why not aim for the centennial mark?'"
B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia quotes the unit cost at under $750m introductory in 1997, and with current inflation just over $1b. Where did the $3b number come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I've heard, the cost in today's dollars would be ~$1,5 billion - ~$2 billion, depending on serial number (costs go down as you build more of them), which should include R&D
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly some prices are including just the fuselage and the R&D for it, whereas others might include the cost to have them fully loaded with ordinance and equipment as well.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there is another piston-to-jet style sea change in airborne combat, I don't see why the B-52 wouldn't be used for its primary mission in the next 28 years.
After all, the C-130 is still being produced brand new, despite the basic design being only two years younger than the B-52!
Carrying X amount of bombs to target Y doesn't change much over the years - once suppression of the air defences is secured, it doesn't matter if you send in a Boeing 747 with a midget pushing Obama-For-2008! badges out a door, the risk is going to be the same.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Carrying X amount of bombs to target Y doesn't change much over the years
At a given altitude and given airspeed and given mission size / bomb weight, there's an optimum airframe shape. That shape is the B-52. You could make a new bomber to do the same mission. It would look exactly like a B-52.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Funny)
That shape is the B-52.
No, that shape is Chuck Norris. He just lets the B-52 have all the glory.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that, unless you add more constraints. Optimum in what sense ? Speed ? Durability ? Range ? Load-capacity ? Fuel-efficiency ? Price ?
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Funny)
-Big as a whale
-Seats about 20
-About to set sail
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe not exactly like it. Maybe a BWB or flying wing might have better payload/range, considering that the replacement would be able to be made more aerodynamic due to the availability of more powerful computational devices than a slide rule. However, possibly not that much better that the investment is going to be worth it.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And slide rules turned Lunar landers into Lunar impactors [wikipedia.org] while powerful computation devices got us multiple [wikipedia.org] Mars landings [wikipedia.org].
It's almost like there's other factors at work!
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
That shape is the B-52. You could make a new bomber to do the same mission. It would look exactly like a B-52.
Utter tosh. The B-52 configuration was designed in a hotel room using 1940s aerodynamics and material knowledge. Even in the early 1960s it was easily out-performed by RAF V-bombers which could cruise past at Mach 0.96 and 20,000 feet higher. As well as operating from airfeilds half the length and twice the elevation.
A modern design would probably be a blended-wing. Or a Vulcan.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
He specifically said 'at a given altitude and airspeed'. You are talking about planes that operate at DIFFERENT altitudes and airspeeds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. Mach 2 eh? And people modded this up.
The B-52 has always and will always be a subsonic aircraft.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Funny)
Utter tosh. ...
I like the phrase "utter tosh" and want to use it more in conversation.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not difficult. Between hearing excuses from interns and the fact this world is mostly full of bullshitters I find cause to use it at least 10 times a day.
In fact, if you just walk over to and randomly barge into people's conversations and say it I'd wager there's a 90% chance you used it correctly.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that even in 1940s, subsonic aerodynamics were pretty well understood, and could be well studied in wind tunnels. We have better engines now, but other than winglets the shape of subsonic jet aircraft has remained remarkably the same - probably because it is near optimal.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh no your are wrong.
"Even in the early 1960s it was easily out-performed by RAF V-bombers which could cruise past at Mach 0.96 and 20,000 feet higher."
From the wikipedia
Performance
Vulcan B.1
Maximum speed: Mach 0.96 (607 mph (1,040 km/h)) at altitude
Cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (567 miles per hour (912 km/h)) at 45,000 ft
Range: 2,607 mi (4,171 km)
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (17,000 m)
B-52H
Maximum speed: 560 kt (650 mph, 1,047 km/h)
Combat radius: 4,480 mi (3,890 nmi, 7,210 km)
Ferry range: 10,145 mi (8,764 nmi, 16
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not precisely- most certainly it would have at most four turbofans (much more fuel efficient), a full - flying (split, indepedendent) elevator and rudder (avoiding the wacko landing gear configuration or at least allowing greater adjustment and manuverability), more extensive ECCM and SEAD capabilities. It would also probably be cancelled as the USAF would fill it with composite materials which drive up production costs, new instead of proven commercial engines and so on. Also, without an asshole like Lemay in charge, it's tough for anything to make it through the system these days. Something as reliable and straightforward as the B52 wouldn't have a chance- just a a replacement for the A-10 doesn't have a chance.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not precisely- most certainly it would have at most four turbofans (much more fuel efficient), a full - flying (split, indepedendent) elevator and rudder (avoiding the wacko landing gear configuration or at least allowing greater adjustment and manuverability), more extensive ECCM and SEAD capabilities. It would also probably be cancelled as the USAF would fill it with composite materials which drive up production costs, new instead of proven commercial engines and so on.
Yes but you're basically agreeing with me, that it would look the same. From the outside, only a trained repair tech can tell the difference in ECCM gear and while in the air you don't see the retracted gear. Fundamentally the fuse is gonna be about the same diameter and length, the wingspans going to be about the same probably with the same or at least very similar airfoil...
I will give you the engine selection and configuration would almost certainly be different. Then again, you could almost unbolt the old engines and bolt new ones on. It would be a major job, but certainly theoretically possible. Unlike most cars, where almost all cars go to the crusher with the same engine they had installed on the assembly line, old planes occasionally get new engines both in the .mil and civilian world.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. The B-52 uses the NACA 63A219.3 and 65A209.5 airfoils (root and tip, respectively). While the 6-series [wikipedia.org] airfoils are designed to extend laminar flow towards the rear of the wing, they have been improved upon by the 7- and 8- series. The 8- series are known as "supercritical" airfoils [wikipedia.org], which specifically improve performance (and therefore efficiency) at high subsonic speeds.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Initially created to be a low-level penetrator capable of delivering (relatively) low-yield tactical nuclear payloads deep into the heart of the USSR (thereby avoiding setting off Russian ICBM early alert systems that a ground-based missile launch would cause), with the end of the Soviet Union the B-1's primary mission was diminished/removed. At that point, cost of running the damn thing (various sources put the amount at roughly twice that of the B-52 per flight hour) makes the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat... ahem) a smart choice for supporting ground troops, etc, with conventional JDAMS, at least for the US's current engagements.
If Cold War-era threats ever rear up again (and there are a few countries who could still pose these types of challenges), the B-1 and B-2 will be the strategic platforms of choice. In conventional engagements, the B-52 has proven to be far more than simply adequate.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
The B-1 Lancer has nearly double the bomb load of the B-52, higher speed and better stealth. Also the B-1 has excellent loiter times so it can sit near a target area and when a high priority target is identified, accelerate in at high speed and take out the target with a heavy bomb load in minutes. Unfortunately all this increased capability has a tradeoff of increased complexity, and from what I hear poor and low cost construction, so costs and maintenance time are greatly increased.
The B-1 is a very underrated platform. I love the B1-R concept, which would upgrade the B-1 with F-22 engines, improved radar and a new rotary launcher for around 20 AMRAAM missiles. That would let it supercruise (possibly along with F-22 escorts) at around Mach 1.5 as it was originally designed to do, and it would have an insane air-to-air capability if needed as well.
The B-1 is already fairly stealthy, if new airframes were built for the B1-R program fairly minor enhancements could get it within shouting distance of the B-2. That kind of capability would be invaluable when (not if) we have to deal with a first-tier adversary.
Re: (Score:3)
The best part of the B-1R is that the unofficial nickname of the B-1 is the "Bone"*. Who wouldn't want to have a "Bone R" in their strategic arsenal?
*The (probably apocryphal) source is a newspaper article where the hapless reporter spelled out B-1 and left out the hyphen.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it would do worse, because there's over 60 years of collective knowledge centered around the construction, maintenance and flying of B-52s, whereas whatever new hotness comes out will have its own little quirks.
It's the same reason why big software re-writes never work [joelonsoftware.com]; the old software is old and convoluted because it's had to solve problems you'd never think of the first time around.
Re: (Score:3)
Software becomes entropic, just like other designs. B-52s flying today probably have what remaining parts are original thoroughly examined for airframe stress, and go through a lifecycle just like an app does. I don't know, and I'm guessing, but I'll lay odds that very little of what's flying called a B-52 is what originally flew from Boeing. The parts are comparatively low-tech. It's not a fly-by-wire aircraft, and the failure modes are pretty well-known at this point.
I do, however, doubt that the collecti
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's something like over 90% of all dropped munitions these days are precision-guided. Look up JDAM. They cost significantly less than a Tomahawk.
And when precision isn't required, B-52s still do one thing better than anyone else. Carpet bombing.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
B-52's nickname: BUF (Score:5, Interesting)
I hauled AGE (Aerospace Ground Equipment; power generators, lights, air condistioners, etc) to the BUFs in 1973-4 at Utapao AFB in Thailand. B-52s were commonly known as BUFs -- Big Ugly Fuckers. They certainly were ugly, ugly as in REALLY mean looking.
I got to Thailand 4 days before the congress' mandated end to the bombing, and one took off every thirty seconds from when I got there until the deadline. I thought they were trying to drop as many bombs as they could before the cutoff time, but I later met a man who'd been stationed there five years earlier, and one took off every thirty seconds the whole year he was there.
I was stationed at Beale in California after coming back to the states, and had the best job in the world. It was to take a pickup truck, make sure it was full of gas and everything worked, then play pool, read, play pinball, watch TV while waiting for Armageddon, when I would drive the pilot to his BUF to nuke Russia.
There were more BUFs there than I could count. Every one of them was loaded with nuclear ordinance.
I always referred to Beale as Armageddon Air Force Base.
More interesting were the SR-71s at Beale, they had nine of them. The only louder sound I ever heard was a space shuttle taking off. Watching from a mile away, the ground shook as it shot down the runway, did a wheelie, and looked like a bottlerocket taking off.
The military has some amazing tech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
easy != unnecessary
A lot of jobs qualify as "easy until a point" (that point being when the sh** hits the fan)
Re:B-52's nickname: BUF (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess: you also complain about IT twiddling their thumbs when the network is running, right? Or about support staff taking a two hour break in the afternoon to play SC2 when things are just fine and dandy?
Here's a little secret: you can either staff optimally for when everything's fine, or you can staff optimally for when the shit hits the fan. If you choose option 1 though, don't complain to me though that nothing gets done when shit hits the fan, because everyone is completely overworked.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of libertarians (they seem to have a lot of mod points recently), I'm thinking you're either a tea partier, a MBAer or a libertarian. It's the main places where I see this sort of thinking come from.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but that's the reality. At least, as well as I can tell. As for leaving politics out of something: that's virtually impossible. Everything that touched more than one person is politics. Lastly, there are libertarians and then there are libertarians. Unfortunately, the term has been so corrupted by Ayn Rand wannabes that it is virtually impossible to use properly anymore.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It will not need to. At this point, we will no doubt be making heavy use of drones. My guess is that within 10 years, most of our bombing runs will be via drones.
So now we know what the next refit for the B-52 will be. They'd be bloody big drones - if the remote control apparatus weighs less than the crew-related equipment, the armaments or fuel could even increase....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree... the best way to respond to past atrocities is to indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorism is justified when we do it, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Since you want to nit-pick, Cyprus and Israel are also in the Middle East, and they are both more progressive than either Turkey or the UAE. Of course, you can debate that also since Cyprus has two different governments and Israel has its own issues.
Re:Extend the lifespan of B-52 beyond 2040? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
For its original mission, probably. OTOH, the B-52 will still be well-suited for its current active mission: a big slow cheap reliable bomb truck standing off outside the range of the surface-to-air missiles insurgents have, holding position for hours, loaded with smart guided munitions, providing air support for ground troops. Observer on the ground sends request to
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
does the thought that you are about to burn a BILLION DOLLARS cross your mind
That's a question for the politicians who built it and "paid" for it, not the pilots.
My grandfather crashed a B-17 in free-at-that-time France, from his stories he was worried a hell of a lot more about fire and impact, than about who would pay the bill. It all turned out well in the end for everyone in the crew, probably because he worried more about being a pilot than doing accountant work.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:4, Insightful)
My grandfather crashed a B-17 in free-at-that-time France
How can that be? France was invaded in 1940, before the US and its B-17s were in the war, and was liberated in 1945 with the rest of Europe. Are you saying he crashed in peace time? Sounds a bit careless.
Lots of crashes during training, if there weren't, we wouldn't need to train so much, would we?
Seriously, though, a whole lot of time spent in the air during peace time can be just as hazardous as a single mission during wartime.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Informative)
He was in the 487th and this happened in January of 1945, or the winter of 45, anyway. Paris was liberated in ... the fall of 44 or so, like august?
He's dead more than a decade so I can't get further clarification, and, like most veterans, he didn't like talking about it much. The land was not German occupied land at that moment.. he was happy to land on free french land rather than having to set down while still in Germany, which would have been rather awkward, having just bombed it. He mentioned the French farmer was pretty happy to see him, they drank booze until a bunch of trucks came to pick them up, a much warmer welcome than the Germans would have given him.
Unlike modern 48 hour wars, WWII kind of dragged on a bit... there was not a flip of the switch in 1940 and/or 1945 where all of france was instantly under german control or instantly free.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:4, Informative)
And by the magic of GOOG, the date appears to be 8-Jan-45. link to pix below. They just write "Aircraft crash landed on continent with battle damage" but verbally I was told by him that it was definitely landed on a farm in free-at-that-time France.
http://www.487thbg.org/Photos/43-38816.shtml [487thbg.org]
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:4, Funny)
An distinguished British airline pilot in his sixties had just landed at Berlin Tegel Airport airport, which is notorious for having miles and miles of taxiways. Ground control instructed the pilot to turn left at the next intersection, but as some intersection had six taxiways, he took he "wrong" left.
Irate, Berlin Ground Control berated the pilot and sarcastically ask if he had ever been to Berlin before. The pilot responded in a very aristocratic British accent, "Yes, but it was a long time ago, at night. And I didn't land."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Wikipedia cite is all screwed up. If you look at the citation for unit cost, it's a GAO report from 14 Aug 1997 that lists an estimated per-unit cost of $2.131 billion in 1996 dollars.
The Wikipedia article also cites the same document for program costs through *2004*. I'm guessing we've spent some additional funds between 1997 and 2004....
Wikipedia: worth every penny you paid to get it.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Informative)
Using Wikipedia, scroll down and you'll get this gem: "The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts. The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft." If you use the $.737 billion in 1997 = $1.07 billion today with inflation as a guide, and apply it to the $2.13 billion you will get ~$3 billion.
So it cost twice the cost of the entire fleet just to research, develop and build the facilities needed to build these fighters. Though originally there was supposed to be another hundred of these things made instead of 21. Had the full fleet of 32 been constructed the price per B-2 would have plummitted to a total cost of ~$1.25 billion per craft in "todays" dollars, but the cost around have been another ~$111 billion inflated adjusted dollars for the project as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo, full fleet of 132 B-2s, not 32.
Re: (Score:3)
The originally requested B-2 fleet size was well over a hundred, but it suffered large cuts due to the weakening state of the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s.
Thats where the $3Billion price point came in - a large programme to build a large fleet, cut down at the last minute to a small fleet which had to bear all the costs rather than having them amortized over a larger unit figure.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure why you think certain costs are included in one price and not in another - the Boeing 747-8 is a derivative of an already profitable aircraft line, one which had brand new tooling, manufacturing and a factory built just for it. The costs were there, just included in the Boeing 747-100 rather than the current derivative - Boeing doesn't get to charge the costs of the factory to the fairies and imps, they have to be borne by the commercial products just as much as the DoD have to bear the cost of the R&D for their projects.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the bit that often fails with the euphamistic phrase 'collateral damage'
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
I made circuit breakers for B1s - over $1000 a pop, compared to about $600 for similar units for other planes, price difference mostly due to low volume.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Informative)
The gold hammer was a similar situation, a contractor was asked to come up with a sound deadening toolbox for working outside the sonicly protected envelope of nuclear submarines. They did a ton of research and put together the quietest toolset that could be acquired without designing new tools (other than the box itself which was a custom part which was both sound deadening as well as magnetically and physically harnessable). The design work was then spread amongst a few dozen production toolboxes for the fleet and a few dozen more for training purposes. When you ask people to do lots of research or work to produce a small number of objects it's always going to make those objects very expensive, but if the alternative is a new airframe or losing a nuclear submarine the work can easily be seen as a good investment. What we really need to do is focus on cost plus contracts and Congress keeping alive programs that are no longer needed by the military but which are kept alive for the sake of jobs in certain districts.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Low volume, certification and paperwork. Anything that goes in an airliner tends to be very low volume, and needs reams and reams of paperwork and certification to show it complies with aviation standards and won't do something dangerous. I should imagine the circuit breaker for the military is - instead of just what using Boeing use for a 747 - to some other spec for some reason and produced in perhaps only 2 digit volumes. Why it's a different spec to a functionally identical airliner part, I don't know without the facts.
Re:B-2 Spirit unit price - $3b? Said who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't speak for this particular case, but as someone who works in the industry, I can make some guesses:
I'll never claim that government contractors are suffering, or that there aren't some inefficiencies, but it certainly isn't ALL inefficiencies. In fact, at least for really expensive cost-reimbursement contracts, the companies are closely audited by the government and amount of profit is regulated by contract, limiting the opportunities for the abuse the companies are accused of.
Re: (Score:3)
Three phase (6 terminals), 100s of amps, remote control actuation of solenoids, low volume production - the things were chunks, about half the size of a lunchbox.
Commercial aircraft used lots of similar single-phase RCCBs, they were about $200 each.
Re: (Score:3)
Iis a little old place where we can get together.. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the B-52's from 'Love Shack' fame, are still going strong after 36 years..
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't a rock.
It was a rock lobster!
Let this be a warning to us all.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I thought the article was about the rock group. I suddenly felt old, very, very old. Fortunately, it's not that bad. I'm just old.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I thought the article was about the rock group. I suddenly felt old, very, very old. Fortunately, it's not that bad. I'm just old.
Some years back here on slashdot someone was posting a flame about "being a dinosaur from the 256 color era" and I was like "uhm... I grew up with the Commodore 64 and it had 16 colors". When you're older than the dinosaurs at 24, the scale is pretty much blown. Old and getting older, lol.
It probably makes sense. (Score:2)
I guess the USAF expects to have the better fighter jets in the decades to come, so they will maintain air superiority - and then, it doesn't matter that your bombers are 80 year old tech. They probably consider this a more viable option than counting on the expensive B-2 being purchased in large numbers.
Disclaimer: I am not an aviation or army expert. This is just something I was thinking about and you are welcome to extend or correct my thoughts.
Re:It probably makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why 60 year old tech is still flying as a bomber. Air power is still king in conventional warfare, and once you've sent in your fleet of high-tech air-superiority and multirole/ground-attack fighters to clean out the AA threats, all you really require next is a very large flying tube that holds a lot of bombs. Hence, the B-52 is still around. You don't need a fancy stealth bomber because penetrating enemy airspace is better left to smaller stealthier craft - or you ignore the airplane altogether and use a cruise missile.
If you think about it, the B-2 is the real antique here. The B-52 is just practical.
Re:It probably makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, a Bone's radius is around 5000 km, while the Buff's is around 7000 KM.
The real advantage is that a Bone's payload is almost double what a Buff's is (120K vs. 70K lbs).
But as to the area, nope. Buff has the advantage. And considering that the Bone is expected for nukes, we would not really like one shot down over Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran. As it is, China has stolen far too much of our tech.
Re:It probably makes sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
All modern airforces play the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) game with a large amount of seriousness - the JSF will take over a large amount of that role when it eventually enters service (well, chances are the F-35B will be relegated to second day ops as its bring-back performance is derisory at best), but the B-1B is quite often tasked with it these days (a B-1B armed with a sniper pod is an awesome weapon).
The F-16 is used a lot in the wild weasel role these days as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you already have control of the airspace you don't need the stealth the B2 has, and the B2 has a disadvantage from an aerodynamic perspective - it requires computers to keep it under control at all times. The B52 is an example of the KISS strategy - it's rough but the only brain it really needs is the pilots so if something happens then it's up to the pilot to do his best. And computers has a tendency to age quickly - what was state of the art a decade ago is ancient today, and spare parts are hard to ge
Re:It probably makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
The basic model is now 60 years old, the oldest flying ones 50 years. But that doesn't make them 50-60 year old tech. The models will have received many modifications over time; look at the commercial Boeing 737 airliner with it's many sub-versions and modifications. A newly delivered model looks quite different from the first model, and that's just the outside.
On the inside, all the electronics will have been retrofitted several times over by now. Newer radios, navigation systems, etc. They all have GPS now, which didn't exist when the first B52 flew. Engines too, if only because they wear out over time. And then you will use a more modern, better engine to put in place of the old ones. Ongoing modernisation.
By the way, one of the main specs of an aircraft is it's top speed. The faster you are, the faster you can get in, do your job, and get out, outmanouvring a slower opponent in the meantime. However there is this thing called the sound barrier, limiting most aircraft to about 85-90% of the speed of sound. To go radically faster you need a radically different design of the plane, and a lot more engine power (so burning more fuel), for a generally smaller payload. The same for the B-52, it's speed is limited by the sound barrier, and any newer heavy bomber will have the same problem.
This also explains why, over the last 40 years or so, commercial aircraft have not received any speed increases (the Concorde being an exception - and underlining the problems of breaking the sound barrier).
Re:It probably makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
> But that doesn't make them 50-60 year old tech
Good point and well said.
But as for the airframe ... as long as they can confirm that the fuselage is sound and in good shape, there's no reason why they can't continue to fly. The truth is, even before computer modeling, the "best" shapes for both subsonic and supersonic craft were pretty well determined. They had to use wind tunnels and physical modeling to arrive at (for example) the familiar-looking rounded nose, the swept wings and so on. What the computer models do nowadays is (a) confirm that the people who came up with these basic airframe shapes in the 50's were surprisingly good[g] and (b) add refinements. Unless you're building a completely-new design (such as a stealthed aircraft), the tried-and-true designs that were arrived at in the 50's and 60's work just fine.
Take a look at an older 707 and compare it to the latest Dreamliner. The planform looks quite similar. The newer design uses composites and other enhancements, but unless you're looking closely, the shape of the airframe is quite similar on both. Why mess with success?
(In fact, with commercial aircraft, it's common to develop a basic design, then introduce subsequent models that "stretch" it for more seating, or change engines for better performance. Why re-invent the wheel?)
Re: (Score:3)
"But as for the airframe ... as long as they can confirm that the fuselage is sound and in good shape, there's no reason why they can't continue to fly"
The life-limiting factor on the B-52 isn't the fuselage, it's the upper wing, which has a maximum life of 37,500 flight hours.
Given how many flight hours are on the airframes (at *most* 21,000) and the rate of accumulation, the mid-2040s is when we can't maintain the required numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a well known paradox which is often called Theseus' paradox [wikipedia.org].
B-52 in Airframe Only (Score:3, Interesting)
The B-52 may have the same airframe as those of the 1960's, but the aircraft is continuously retrofitted with the latest fly-by-wire and navigation/communication technology, and is capable of accepting newer and more efficient engines. For the role they play as a heavy bomber/delivery system (and in situations that do not warrant usage of expensive stealth technology or have additional fighter support), they are still quite effective in that role today.
Why be stealthy? (Score:2)
When your enemies live in caves and fire small arms it actually pays to fill their sky with the contrails of your bomber for hours on end. The Taliban can't shoot back at a B-52 so there is no need to hide.
Waaay past the original projection (Score:5, Interesting)
In the September 1965 National Geographic [flickr.com] feature article on the USAF, they write about the B-52's capabilities, but give a warning, saying (quoting as best I can): "Weapon systems have a useful service life of about a decade, and the B-52 is almost that old now. How long will it be until we need to replacement for it?"
Mind you, in 1965 that outlook did make more sense than it does in hindsight. The USAF/USAAF's primary long-range bomber had gone from the B-29 to the B-36 to the B-47 to the B-52 within the the space of twenty years, and the B-70 hadn't been cancelled yet. The same thing applies to fighters, going from one new deployed design per year on average, then, down to one every 10-12 years now. I presume part of that is due to increased computing capability allowing more tinkering and experimentation without having to actually build something, but that can't be all of it. Anyone care to speculate?
B52 Today Bears No Resemblance to B52 in 1965 (Score:4, Interesting)
Today's B-52 only vaguely resembles the original version of itself. The original B-52 flew on hydraulic systems controlled by mechanical computers, on inputs from pilots reading analog gauges.
Today's B-52 has been retrofitted with the most advanced fly-by-wire control systems, avionics, engines, radars, communications, and ordnance delivery systems money can buy - all of which can be obtained from multiple sources, which is why it can still be built for $70M, as opposed to the no-bid, single source, $3B B-2.
About the only thing it has in common with its ancestors is that it's still a tin can with 8 scrolls that can rain fire and death from 40,000 feet.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the B-52 doesn't fly at ll. It's so ugly the ground repels it.
But seriously, it is a strange plane to fly. The tail lifts off first, and it can climb in a pitch down position. It's just not natural!
The Poor B-1-B (Score:3)
The lowly B-1-B is now the weapon of choice for Afghanistan because its higher speed allows a single plane to be used to cover the country end to end.
Still more upgrades coming? (Score:3)
I do think that we could see B-52's get additional upgrades, notably:
1. An updated version of the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series engine, probably uprated to 42,000 lb. thrust. Four of these engines will replace the eight P&W TF33's now used on the B-52H.
2. More electronics upgrades--made easier by the fact the plane is big enough to accommodate them.
3. With more powerful engines, we could see B-52's carry heavier bomb loads and still fly longer ranges.
There's nothing magical about the B-52 (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what the author of this article might have you believe, the B-52 is not magical. "The B-52's feat of longevity reflects both regular maintenance and timely upgrades"? Bull.
The B-52's feat of longevity reflects two things: 1) the shift to ICBMs as primary mechanism to ensure mutually assured destruction in the cold war 2) the miserable failure of the USAF to solicit new bomber designs that don't cost orders of magnitude more than the B-52.
If the USAF had ever solicited designs to replace the B-52 with something *modestly* better, using cost as a priority, the B-52 would be long gone, and there would be a more capable aircraft in it's place. The fact that there's no need for such a plane does not make the B-52 magical. It's a pustule that's lanced regularly, that's all.
Did anyone else read this and think it meant the.. (Score:3)
Did anyone else read this and think it meant the band, The B-52's? I mean, Fred Schneider is looking kind of old, but geeze.
Ahh, The B52, Now That Brings Back Memories (Score:3)
Obligatory old B-52 joke (Score:5, Funny)
A military pilot called for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked".
Air traffic control told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah", the pilot remarked, " the dreaded seven-engine approach".
Prices! (Score:3)
Reading the prices in the original post triggered Bill Maher's rant in my head over and over again how the U.S. spends more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined. Ugh, at the same time he has guests on his show like Regan's David Stockman who thinks the entire U.S. economy could collapse like Greece within a year.
Do we really need to be spending 70 million to 3 billion dollars for bombers?
The journalist Fareed Zakaria believes that lack of spending on education, lack of spending on infrastructure and a loss of the saving ethic are the real reasons the U.S. economy has declined over the past few decades.
Maybe it is time to use some of the military budget to pay for things that make money.
Re:60 years of raining death and destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
How about 60 years of western freedom, which was guaranteed by things like this?
Re:60 years of raining death and destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
Western freedom:
Decades of defense by B-52's
Murdered one day by a quartet of 757/767's
Re: (Score:3)
More like a decade at best. ICBMs became the main method of getting nuclear weapons to their targets. Bombers rapidly became unusable due to advances in air defence. Instead they were relegated to taking part in various conventional wars against inferior enemies, none of which were necessary to guarantee western freedom.
Re:US Propaganda. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:US Propaganda. (Score:5, Interesting)
B-52s were the atomic bomb delivery system of choice long before either of those two. For the first couple decades, it was ALL strategic bombers. The Soviets captured and copied a few US craft just to get those capabilities themselves, back when they didn't have any.
Technology and training allows for a large disparity in kill rates. China only outnumbers the US by 4.3 to 1. Can 1 advanced fighter take out 4-5 of the Chinese's low-end junk? Most definitely. We've seen bigger disparities in previous wars.
For a quick comparison. The US has 11 active aircraft carriers. China has zero, working on one right now. That's a massive millitary advantage.
No, we're fighting for Afghani freedom. If we didn't care about them, we would have carpet-bombed the Taliban out of existence and left the wreckage for someone else to clean-up. Instead, the war has dragged on as we struggle in our attempts at nation-building.
Re:60 years of raining death and destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside your politics for the moment -- let's just say that I disagree with you -- this is about a well-designed and enduring piece of technology. I can admire the technical excellence of a something without liking what it was used for, or who used it. I can, for example, still appreciate the robustness and shallow learning curve of the AK-47 without being a Marxist -- and by the way, that weapon has almost certainly killed more people over those 60 years than the B-52 has. The ideal nerd should be able to look at a high-tech device and have some part of his mind thinking "whoa, that's freakin' cool!" right up to the moment that it kills him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, your conclusion isn't all that correct - the B-2 was not designed for crew survivability, it was designed for mission survivability in that it was supposed to be a first strike weapon against the Soviet command and control structures. Whether that allowed the crews to return to base after striking their targets in the Soviet Union was a mere byproduct, because it was always assumed that the Soviets would get off enough ICBMs to still cause significant damage on US soil, including major milit
Re:Drop the pilots (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth it in a democracy. The US public has substantially larger patience with a war costing a gazillion dollars than they do, over time, with coffins arriving in a steady stream.
Killing american soldiers who walk around on the ground is a lot easier to do than killing those that are in planes many kilometres up, or that control drones from dozens of miles away.
The only way to beat the US military at the moment is to take away their support at home in the USA. Make Americans demand that they come home. Beating them on the field of battle is not currently reasonably possible for any nation. This ain't surprising given that the expenditures are larger than for the next 3 runners-up combined.
Re:Drop the pilots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty difficult to make a stealth platform out of something that is constantly transmitting regardless of how secure and reliable that connection is. If your solution is to make the drone-based system autonomous (no communications required), then you might as well skip the whole drone bomber platform altogether and just use ballistic missiles.
Wrong, for a couple of reasons. First off, reusable autonomous bombers would be much less expensive than missiles per ton of delivered ordinance. Second, you can communicate with autonomous aircraft without compromising their stealth. Even if they send data back, it can be quite stealthy (directional satcom), but this would likely not be needed continuously, or even often. Damage assessment could be done with video stored on the vehicle until landing, for instance.
Personally I would be cautious about allowi