The B-52 and the future

[Slater]

Think the B-52 will actually serve til 2040? From National Defense Magazine:

 

 

 

The longest serving military aircraft in the world, the B-52 Stratofortess, often is praised for its storied history, but it also has become a symbol of the Pentagon's inertia in moving forward with the development of a new bomber.

 

“I think there's been a huge disparity in how much money is invested in bombers versus the short-range aircraft,” said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash.

 

“There still isn't a program for a new replacement bomber, and there needs to be,” he told a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments forum. The Air Force, Dicks said, is “limping along” with aging bombers.

 

Retired general and former head of the Air Combat Command, Richard Hawley, said the Defense Department needs to start planning for a new generation of bombers to be deployed by 2020 at the latest. “We've got to get off this do-nothing kick,” he added.

 

The Air Force, meanwhile, does not appear to be in any hurry to build a new bomber, and maintains that the Stratofortress fleet is healthy enough to continue to fly for many years.

 

The B-52 is going to remain in operation for three more decades, Col. James Nally, B-52 program director at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., told National Defense.

 

Current plans call for the Air Force to keep the B-52 H-class fleet active until 2040. By that time, the last aircraft to roll off the Boeing assembly line in 1962 will be 78 years old.

 

Because the B-52's first mission was to stand ready to deliver nuclear payloads, the aircraft spent most of its hours on the tarmac, Nally said. “Even though it's an old airplane, it doesn't have the amount of wear and tear for it that you would expect,” Nally said. “Long term, we don't see any issues with the structure of the airplane.”

 

Richard Martin, B-52 deputy program director, said the average B-52 is in the air about 250 hours a year. The upper wing surface has a limit of 28,600 to 33,200 hours of life, and the average unit has logged about 12,500 hours so far. Ninety-four aircraft remain in the fleet. “Our chart doesn't go past 2040, but on the line they are on, it could go past 2040 for sure,” Martin added.

 

The B-52 has evolved greatly from its Cold War days and will continue to add new missions with upgrades, such as the standoff jammer, in the works. Air Force officials said.

 

The original B-52 models were designed for long-range, high-altitude flights to deliver nuclear payloads. The H-class, however, included defensive and structural modifications that allowed it to fly lower to evade Soviet air defenses. The Air Force then used the B-52 during the Vietnam War to drop conventional munitions, Hawley said. This evolution, from strategic bomber to the close air support it provides today, has made the aircraft the most flexible of the three bombers, its supporters said.

 

With precision-guided munitions, the “bombers have come of age,” Hawley said. In Operation Desert Storm, the Stratofortress flew more than 1,600 missions while the B-1 was hampered by a bomb-loading process that took nearly 24 hours, said Hawley, who has in the past advocated cutting both the B-52 and B-1 programs.

 

Upgrades to replace obsolete components, such as avionics, and to add new capabilities continue, Nally said. Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin currently is upgrading the B-52's mission computers with the avionics control unit to increase its power and allow the aircraft to deploy new precisions weapons. The upgrades are expected to be completed by 2009.

 

Communications modifications will include the satellite-based Link 16 system, which allows for in-flight retasking and connectivity to ground forces. Structural upgrades for the fuselage and wings extending the B-52's life took place from 1964 to 1985, Martin added.

 

The standoff jammer is the next phase in the evolution, Nally said. The Stratofortress will not only have the ability to protect itself, but other aircraft in the theater by interrupting any kind of communications the enemy can employ including surface-to-air missiles, aircraft-to-aircraft communications and data transfers. The Air Force is still in the contractor-selection process with development not due to begin for another two years. The jammer won't be fielded until 2015-2016, Nally added.

 

Even with new capabilities not due to come on line until the middle of the next decade, new-bomber advocates such as Dicks—whose 6th district includes Boeing's manufacturing base— said now is the time to look for a replacement.

 

However, since the disbanding of the Strategic Air Command in 1992 there are few left within the Air Force willing to take up the mantle for long-range strike aircraft, Dicks said.

 

Nally sounded an optimistic note on the future of the B-52, perhaps not what proponents of a new bomber want to hear. Not only is the aircraft proving its worth on a daily basis in Afghanistan and Iraq, it could continue to serve a vital role on future conflicts for decades to come, even beyond the 2040 retirement date.

 

“Structurally it's doable, but even if it is doable, it's not necessarily a given the Air Force would choose to do that,” Nally said.

[Guest pfcem]

While I do not doubt that the B-52 will serve to at least 2040, I do not believe that it should (even though, theoretically, it can).

 

The longer we wait to replace them, the more expensive (& more vital) it will be to do so.

 

My personal preference would be to build more B-1s &/or B-2s ASAP as a interim solution.

 

For the long term, I see the need for two heavy bombers. One being as high-tech/capability stealth bomber (like the B-2) & the other being a less expensive not so high-tech/capability non-stealth bomber (like the B-52).

 

If we build more B-1s &/or B-2s ASAP, they can fulfill the high-tech/capability stealth bomber need so that a not so high-tech/capability non-stealth B-52 replacement can be built 1st, with an IOC around 2020. The IOC for the high-tech/capability stealth B-1/B-2 replacement should be no later than 2040 but preferable closer to 2030.

[Gunguy]

With the Air Force getting kicked in the crotch so hard over the F-22. You can bet there is no interest in working on a new bomber.

They will be trying to keep the assembly line open for the F-22 and increasing the build in the next six years. No time for a new bomber.

 

But, I agree, we need a bomber that can haul a LOT of ordnance (major bomb truck) so that it can hit multiple targets on each flight. This gives the US, a major force multiplier over flying short range F-35s around with a few bombs. But, no one has the job of fighting for a new bomber........

[Gregory]

Honestly, I see no real need to develop a new manned bomber. If we started to develop a new bomber today, it wouldn't roll off assembly lines until 2015 at best (assuming great expenditures on what amounts to a crash program). More realistic date would be 2020. By that point, the UCAVs will be able to fly circles around it - very literally.

[Gunguy]

Honestly, I see no real need to develop a new manned bomber.  If we started to develop a new bomber today, it wouldn't roll off assembly lines until 2015 at best (assuming great expenditures on what amounts to a crash program).  More realistic date would be 2020. By that point, the UCAVs will be able to fly circles around it - very literally.

265545[/snapback]

 

 

True, how about a huge bomb truck UCAV then......I mean big!

[Scott Cunningham]

We dont need a $2billion B-2 to replace the B-52.

 

The priorities of the new bomber need to be range, loiter ability, payload, defensive electronics, speed, stealth (in that priority).

 

The B-52's fundamentals as a bomb truck has made it a far more usueful airframe than the B-1 or the B-2 (which costs more than i it had been made of solid gold!!)

 

No need to get all crazy with the design, just build a new jet that can haul a shitlaod of bombs anywhere needed.

 

I think the USAF spends 90% of development costs trying to wring out the last 10% in performance. Design it on the cheap (like the A-10) and get a plane that is useful, rather than a useless technological curiosity.

[Guest pfcem]

We dont need a $2billion B-2 to replace the B-52.

265570[/snapback]

1st of all, the B-2 would not cost $2 billion if we had built enough of them.

 

It is true you do not need the B-2 to replace the B-52, you need the B-2 (or something like it) to suppliment the B-52.

 

 

 

The priorities of the new bomber need to be range, loiter ability, payload, defensive electronics, speed, stealth (in that priority).

265570[/snapback]

For the priorities for a B-52 replacement, I would agree with you (range, loiter ability & payload being "interchangable in a good design") but there is also a need for a bomber with prioritios swapped around.

 

 

 

The B-52's fundamentals as a bomb truck has made it a far more usueful airframe than the B-1 or the B-2 (which costs more than i it had been made of solid gold!!)

265570[/snapback]

But there are situations when you need something more than just a bomb truck.

 

 

 

No need to get all crazy with the design, just build a new jet that can haul a shitlaod of bombs anywhere needed.

 

I think the USAF spends 90% of development costs trying to wring out the last 10% in performance. Design it on the cheap (like the A-10) and get a plane that is useful, rather than a useless technological curiosity.

265570[/snapback]

For a B-52 replacement, I would agree with you but there is also a need for a more capable (& unfortunately more costly) bomber as well.

 

Something along the lines of two-three [b-52] for every one [b-2] would propably suffice.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Much as I love the BUFF, and the improvements that will be result from the CONECT and AMI programs, it's a very old airplane. It is very expensive and manpower-intensive to maintain, and is a gas hog, which is not only expensive but puts much stress on the tanker fleet. A typical OEF/OIF mission (and note that the B-52 is still heavily involved in combat ops) requires two tanker sorties in support. It requires lots of AGE, which is not so good when the force needs to deploy to fight.

 

I would like to see the wings, tail, engines and APU of a 777 or 787 combined with a new fuselage to create a B-3 to replace the B-52. No stealth, no supersonic speed, no low-level penetration -- those are the gold-plating that drive costs through the roof. Built in large quantities, I don't see why it should cost much more than an comparable airliner, and it would be economic to operate relative to the B-52H.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Exactly!

 

We dont need a $2billion B-2 to replace the B-52.

 

The priorities of the new bomber need to be range, loiter ability, payload, defensive electronics, speed, stealth (in that priority).

 

The B-52's fundamentals as a bomb truck has made it a far more usueful airframe than the B-1 or the B-2 (which costs more than i it had been made of solid gold!!)

 

No need to get all crazy with the design, just build a new jet that can haul a shitlaod of bombs anywhere needed.

 

I think the USAF spends 90% of development costs trying to wring out the last 10% in performance. Design it on the cheap (like the A-10) and get a plane that is useful, rather than a useless technological curiosity.

265570[/snapback]

[Ivanhoe]

I would like to see the wings, tail, engines and APU of a 777 or 787 combined with a new fuselage to create a B-3 to replace the B-52. No stealth, no supersonic speed, no low-level penetration -- those are the gold-plating that drive costs through the roof. Built in large quantities, I don't see why it should cost much more than an comparable airliner, and it would be economic to operate relative to the B-52H.

265643[/snapback]

 

I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to bring in the "bombliner" concept, since its been discussed here a number of times.

 

When DOD tries to deal with weapon systems with high operating costs, all too often they drag the project out over such a long time that savings turn out to be illusory. And there's no project more expensive than one that gets cancelled after 10 years. Create a spending bill (or sub-bill, or amendment, or whatever) that requires first flight within 6 years of contract award and first airframe in service within 10 years, and the B-3 really would save money overall.

[Ivanhoe]

I think the USAF spends 90% of development costs trying to wring out the last 10% in performance. Design it on the cheap (like the A-10) and get a plane that is useful, rather than a useless technological curiosity.

265570[/snapback]

 

Its not just the USAF. The Army did it with Comanche. In that particular case, its understandable even in the post-CW era. The Apache is expensive to operate, and they were dealing with the still current trend that ground forces can rely on aviation to replace arty and even heavy armor. But they wanted advances on every facet of its technology, and that's a recipe for project management failure.

 

Of course the counter example is the B-58 (fun article in the current Air & Space Mag). Too much of a hurry getting the thing built and in service. It needed to spend some time as a "Y" plane so it wouldn't end its service as a "why" plane.

[Scott Cunningham]

B-2 is the B-58 of today. It has a limited ability to do utility missions, being goog for deep penetration missions, and thats about it. We anly have 18-20, so who really cares anyways.

[seahawk]

Give the BUFF 4 modern turbofans from todays airliners and replace the old 8 engines and you have done a big stepp to keep the plane flying with much less costs.

[GdG]

A 380, anyone?

[swerve]

A 380, anyone?

 

A340 would be better, because of runways, etc. There's already been an offer to France by EADS to develop a cruise missile carrying version, & the proposed missile launch system would be adaptable for dropping unpowered PGMs, e.g. lots of SDBs.

[Smitty]

A340 would be better, because of runways, etc. There's already been an offer to France by EADS to develop a cruise missile carrying version, & the proposed missile launch system would be adaptable for dropping unpowered PGMs, e.g. lots of SDBs.

265684[/snapback]

 

 

Airbus would never win this. Politics would force it to be a Boeing product.

[Slater]

Somehow the "let's stuff an airliner with weapons" ideas never seem to make it very far. I remember the Cold War proposals of loading a modified 747 with ALCM's or whatever the favored weapon was. Interesting but it was relegated to the dust heap fairly quickly, IIRC.

[Smitty]

I would like to see the wings, tail, engines and APU of a 777 or 787 combined with a new fuselage to create a B-3 to replace the B-52. No stealth, no supersonic speed, no low-level penetration -- those are the gold-plating that drive costs through the roof. Built in large quantities, I don't see why it should cost much more than an comparable airliner, and it would be economic to operate relative to the B-52H.

265643[/snapback]

 

At this point, why even bother with a manned design? Especially one that can only operate in benign environments. You might as well go with a longer-ranged, armed UAV like the Predator C. They could make up in numbers what they lack in payload capacity, compared to a larged, manned bomber.

 

Now I could see modifying aircraft that we already have, or plan on buying, such as the C-17, C-130 or 737 MMA.

 

The MMA is already being built with a bomb bay, wing hardpoints and a capable C4ISR suite. Sure it isn't the bulk bomb carrier the B-52 is, and doesn't have the same range, but it's relatively cheap, and in the pipeline.

 

Personally, I wish we would've just stuck it out with the B-2 and produced 50-100, preferably along the lines of the cost and maintenance reduced B-2C proposal. Then we could've retired the B-1s and had a useful number of heavy bombers that could penetrate, allowing us to focus on other areas besides a B-3.

[cjr]

There has been talk of converting the C-17 into a bomb truck

[Richard Young]

"No, no, nno, NO! We don't WANT to keep using this perfectly good old stuff- we want NEW whiz-bang stuff that coasts more than its weight in gold and does less! That's why we MUST spend trillions of taxpayer dollars!

 

 

(Otherwise, I'll NEVER land a fat-cat job with a defense contractor upon retirement...)

 

...oops, did I say that out loud?"

 

Examples: F-14 vs. SuperBug, Iowa class reactivation vs DD(X), more Nimitz class CVs, vs. SLEP America, John F.Kennedy, etc, Comanche vs. OH-58D, Crusader vs. M109A6, etc, etc, etc.

[SILL2]

The longer we wait to replace them, the more expensive (& more vital) it will be to do so.

265532[/snapback]

 

Irrelevant static. Does a 2006 Ford 500 cost more than it's 1957 counterpart. Yesss. Irrelevant. Does your new 2006 Laptop cost $1500 and is exponentially more capable that the $5000 desktop PC of 1990. Some what relevant.

 

Cost increase, so do resources (income or taxes). Value for the $ is what is important. And ability to do the task.

 

Fuel hog? At 250hr/yr who cares. Like replacing your 35000mi SUV with an overpriced do nothing POS hybrid/Prius just to get a bit higher MPG. Like mentioned elsewhere, if really worries you hang some modern engines on it as with the 135 series.

 

A bomb truck may be a great idea but chances are nil (it's outside of the box). Refit with new engines can happen, just maintence. If you're going to build a box truck what earthly benefit is there in making it a R/C bird vs manned. R/c is turning into a religion as much as environmentalism, darwinish, etc.

[Guest pfcem]

Irrelevant static.  Does a 2006 Ford 500 cost more than it's 1957 counterpart.  Yesss.  Irrelevant.  Does your new 2006 Laptop cost $1500 and is exponentially more capable that the $5000  desktop PC of 1990.  Some what relevant.

 

Cost increase, so do resources (income or taxes).  Value for the $ is what is important.  And ability to do the task.

265784[/snapback]

If the increaseing costs of new weapons systems is irrelevant, then why are so many people complaining so much about it.

 

 

 

Fuel hog?  At 250hr/yr who cares.  Like replacing your 35000mi SUV with an overpriced do nothing POS hybrid/Prius just to get a bit higher MPG.  Like mentioned elsewhere, if really worries you hang some modern engines on it as with the 135 series. 

265784[/snapback]

A more accurate analogy would be replacing your old SUV with 100,000 miles on it that gets 10mpg with a new SUV that gets 20+mpg.

 

 

 

 

If you're going to build a box truck what earthly benefit is there in making it a R/C bird vs manned.  R/c is turning into a religion as much as environmentalism, darwinish, etc.

265784[/snapback]

I agree.

[Smitty]

A bomb truck may be a great idea but chances are nil (it's outside of the box).  Refit with new engines can happen, just maintence.  If you're going to build a box truck what earthly benefit is there in making it a R/C bird vs manned.  R/c is turning into a religion as much as environmentalism, darwinish, etc.

265784[/snapback]

 

If by "R/C" you mean radio controlled ala UAV, then there are definitely benefits. The first being loiter performance. Predator C is supposed to have 80% of Global Hawk's capability at 20% of the price. A G.Hawk can loiter for a full day at the end of a 3000nm radius, without refueling. No heavy bomber can do that.

 

Another benefit is cost. Predator B's are supposed to cost $8-10 million each. C's will be more, but will still be a far cry from the $650 million estimated for a new B-2C, or $220+ million for a civillian 777.

 

Cheaper means you can buy more. More aircraft means greater sensor coverage area and/or density.

 

Lastly is, of course, it's unmanned. Losing a manned aircraft is front page news. Losing a Predator is page 10, at best.

[Samson]

I agree that the B52 can keep on hauling bombs until a UCAV is ready to take its place.

 

I think we can hold off for 10-15 years before work starts on that UCAV.

 

At that point it can be made out of super light/strong materials so it can carry more fuel and SDBs or what have you.

 

Also it can have better stealth and a active HEL defensive system.

 

Wait for a while, the BUFF is fine.

 

Edit:

 

And if we wait 15-20 years to start development there is a good chance to have a "AI" pilot onboard the UCAV BUFF that is good enough to coordinate with ground forces. IE can understand speach, release and direct weapons to where the guys on the ground want them.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Samson

[Smitty]

And if we wait 15-20 years to start development there is a good chance to have a "AI" pilot onboard the UCAV BUFF that is good enough to coordinate with ground forces.  IE can understand speach, release and direct weapons to where the guys on the ground want them.

265812[/snapback]

 

You don't need AI for this. You just need to be able to datalink precise target coordinates to the UAV. Or downlink UAV video to the guys on the ground so they can designate their own targets. Or SATCOM with a UAV operator sitting in Nevada to walk him in to the target.

 

The machine orbiting up above doesn't need to be "smart".