Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bye-bye B-52, or maybe not.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bye-bye B-52, or maybe not.

    The Air Force seems to want to dispose of the B-52's.

    Congress says no, you must keep them all. (My Senators included, after all MAFB is a BIG economic boon to ND.)

    Who is right?
    sigpicUSS North Dakota

  • #2
    They are retiring half of the fleet for more Raptors.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 2DREZQ
      The Air Force seems to want to dispose of the B-52's.

      Congress says no, you must keep them all. (My Senators included, after all MAFB is a BIG economic boon to ND.)

      Who is right?
      I think theres really nothing to replace the B-52's with. Their cheap to run and maintain, they do what they're designed to do. During operations in Afganistian and Iraq they were invaluable.

      The B1 and B2 by comparison are more capable perhaps but also more expensive to operate. In the case of the B2 they're also far to expensive to by used on risky missions unless its absolutely nessessary.

      Comment


      • #4
        The B-52s are still great assets, but they're not cheap to run by any means.

        If we're going to keep them they should really be re-engined, but that sure looks like it's not happening either, since the USAF also cancelled the EB-52 stand off EW platform program too(IIRC).

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by M21Sniper
          The B-52s are still great assets, but they're not cheap to run by any means.

          If we're going to keep them they should really be re-engined, but that sure looks like it's not happening either, since the USAF also cancelled the EB-52 stand off EW platform program too(IIRC).

          So which would have been better as far as cost vs performance is concerned, the EB-52 or the B-1R? I dont know much about either but I know both planes are expensive to begin with, so I have no doubt new builds or rebuilds of them would be even more expensive.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
            So which would have been better as far as cost vs performance is concerned, the EB-52 or the B-1R? I dont know much about either but I know both planes are expensive to begin with, so I have no doubt new builds or rebuilds of them would be even more expensive.
            Well, the B-52's are already built and wouldn't cost that much as far as upgraded Rolls-Royce RB211 Engines, rated at 43100 lb.st each. IIRC, it would cost around a couple billion to upgrade the existing fleet with anywhere of 20 million - 25 million each B-52.

            Edit - Link http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2...e-engining.pdf

            Also, roughly One Squadron of B-52's could equal the fire power of 3 carrier strike platforms. Of course, if mission outfitted.

            The Buff is what it is, raw firepower at reduced costs. However, at not so reduced costs today but far lower then other bombers.
            Last edited by Dago; 14 May 06,, 23:31.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              I's rather get more B1As unlike the B1B thanks to the spine and ductless inlets they can reach Mach 2. The B 52 is too slow but it would be great as a standoff jamming platform with all that space. They shouldnt have cancelled the EB 52.

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, the new ducts make the B-1 look a little smaller than a planet on radar, and the spine probably serves either as fuel storage or a structural improvement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  How about the B-1B before it's hardpoints were welded to conform with START.
                  Last edited by Dago; 15 May 06,, 04:52.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jimmy
                    Well, the new ducts make the B-1 look a little smaller than a planet on radar, and the spine probably serves either as fuel storage or a structural improvement.
                    Yea but you get alot more speed and you can still coat it with RAM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, the B-1B has a very low RCS, but isn't stealth. A tiny fraction of the B-52s whopping 100m2, the B-1 actually has an RCS less than A-10.
                      The biggest RCS planes I know are the B-52 with it's 100m2 mountain-size RCS, the F-4 with half of that at 50m2 and the comparatively steathy A-10 with only 25m2. Nothing much to the Raptors 0.0002m2 or Typhoon/SuperHornet's 0.2m2, or even the F-15s 5m2.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by urmomma158
                        Yea but you get alot more speed and you can still coat it with RAM.
                        You get a lot more speed at the cost of a lot more fuel, and a lot less range.

                        RAM doesnt equal invisibility, either. It helps. Shape helps more. Especially around engines.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The USAF should have just retired all those B-52s, B-1Bs and SR-71s long back just to keep one plane going - the Valkerie XB-70. At Mach 3, it would have fulfilled the job of all the 3 put together and maybe at an all overall better cost.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jimmy
                            Well, the new ducts make the B-1 look a little smaller than a planet on radar, and the spine probably serves either as fuel storage or a structural improvement.
                            The B-1B still has significantly lower RCS than the ancient, mountain-sized RCS B-52, ducts or no ducts. I say the B-52 should simply be retired as soon as possible. The sight of Raptors escorting Stratofortresses is like the sight of F-4s escorting B-29s over Vietnam. The sight of Raptors escorting B-1Bs is like the sight of F-86s escorting B-50s over Korea. Of course, there would be no sight of B-2s being escorted by any fighter at all. They operate alone, a solitary plane, not in a flight group or maybe in pairs or trios if necessary. No fighter escorts whatsoever.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Drunk
                              The USAF should have just retired all those B-52s, B-1Bs and SR-71s long back just to keep one plane going - the Valkerie XB-70. At Mach 3, it would have fulfilled the job of all the 3 put together and maybe at an all overall better cost.
                              And it would have been obliterated by Foxbats and the new SAMs the Soviet Air Force were bringing in at the time, with the express purpose of killing the Valkyrie. Thats why it got cancelled; because it wasn't go to be able to effectively attack the USSR, especially in comparison to ICBMs.
                              That, and the protoype exploded.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X