Slashdot Mirror
Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong
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?'"
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?
In other news, the B-52's from 'Love Shack' fame, are still going strong after 36 years..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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 get for old computers.
Strip the B52 of all computing and it can still fly and even get the job done, strip any modern aircraft of all computing and you have a brick. That's why the B52 will be a viable option for a long time to come. Add to it the fact that it's a strong and flexible platform that can be assigned to carry a lot of stuff, not only nukes.
How about 60 years of western freedom, which was guaranteed by things like this?
In the September 1965 National Geographic 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?
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
How about reality, which is somewhere in the middle of the extremes you guys are throwing around?
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).
Western freedom:
Decades of defense by B-52's
Murdered one day by a quartet of 757/767's
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.
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.
If there ever was a war with China, it would probably be lost by the US's unwillingness to create mass casualties. We'd have to kill hundreds of millions, and the only way that would be acceptable was if it was an all-out invasion-and-enslave type of war.
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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 military bases...
The survivability fact came as a happy bonus later on when the B-2s role was switched to a more conventional one during other conflicts.
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.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
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.
That shape is the B-52.
No, that shape is Chuck Norris. He just lets the B-52 have all the glory.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
> 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?)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I doubt that, unless you add more constraints. Optimum in what sense ? Speed ? Durability ? Range ? Load-capacity ? Fuel-efficiency ? Price ?
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nope. Remove the flight crew. Drones will do this work. I would not be surprised to see the BWB/X-48 be developed and then used for such a mission. The advantage is that it would require a fraction of the fuel, while being able to carry a bigger load. Add a small band of drone fighters around it and issues solved.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually -- they are so worn out that their bomb load is less than 30% of the original. Yup, Aluminum wears out when repeatedly stressed. When you decide you want to cry, the CO2 cost of the B-1 and B-2 are substantially lower per ton of bombs dropped. If we hadn't let the politicians lie to us, we could have had a newer fleet for a much lower cost. Though the unit cost is around $1.5B in current costs, the operational costs are an order of magnitude or more (how deeply do you dig into the AF budget) higher.
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....
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
The B-1B flies at 725 knots, while the B-52 is at 560. Less than 50% faster.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
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.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That's about the most asinine comment I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've been reading here for same time. The USAF, USN, and USMC all used aircraft (F-16, F-15, F/A-18) as a first strike aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan within the last decade. Yes, they also sent in many cruise missiles from Naval platforms (DDG, CG, SSGN) and air platforms, but for the most part, it was the F-15 and F-14 taking care of air superiority, and the F-16 and F/A-18 dropping guided munitions and taking out enemy air defenses, where necessary. After the initial suppression of enemy air defenses, the B-1, B-2, B-52, AC-130, and A-10 were used for high yield bombing and close air support. At the same time, the fighter aircraft were still bombing the bejesus out of hardened points on the ground. As for the visible range of an enemy, the only thing that's really good for is small arms fire, maybe a shoulder launched missile. In most cases, a fighter aircraft is going to be too fast for a guy to hit with an AK-47, though it has been known to happen. A low flying, fast platform would be out of range very quickly, and even if the enemy were able to snapshot a ground to air missile at the aircraft, flying low would help confuse the missile, due to the effect that ground clutter has on radar. Moving on to fourth gen fighters, you're greatly overestimating their worth in the hands of poorly trained pilots from any air forces the US might encounter, and the point of a B-2 is that it's invisible to radar. You can't hit what you can't see, and even if an enemy pilot caught one visually (they're used primarily at night), the same principles of radar evasion apply. If his aircraft's radar can't see the B-2, how do you think his missile's radar will be able to?
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.
Yea that's it, piss off the whole world. That would be fucking hilarious.
In ten years? My guess is that the date was ~3 years ago- Obama's really ramped up the drone program and unless you restrict "bomb" to something free falling rather than a Maverick or Hellfire the number of drone strikes vastly outnumbers manned bomber runs.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
I was an Air Force brat (my father flew KC-135 and KC-10 tankers, "flying gas stations") and we were stationed at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, a major B-52 base. I can confirm that I have heard from airmen the same things you have stated. B-1 has some excellent qualities, but cost of operation is not one of them.
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.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
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.
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.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
"Muzzies"? Grow the fuck up.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
I couldn't find your source on that, but it likely means that there are hundreds of older B-52 models that have been retired, while the newest, -H models, are the only ones left in service.
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 allowing remote retargeting, since if your encryption scheme was compromised your own weapons could be turned against you. You could still enable a 'recall' command. If you did allow retargeting, that would seem to be the perfect spot for one time pad encryption.
The US Navy is already developing an autonomous bomber, based on the X-47 program.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
He specifically said 'at a given altitude and airspeed'. You are talking about planes that operate at DIFFERENT altitudes and airspeeds.
Utter tosh. ...
I like the phrase "utter tosh" and want to use it more in conversation.
Memories of the cold war. You kids may not remember, but for a while there we and Russia were in a Mexican-standoff where if either of us had pulled the trigger it would have been the end of all life on Earth. On the bright side though, we didn't have to worry about being selected for an anal probe when going to the airport. You know. "The Good Old Days."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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?
Procrastination Man strikes again!
Not accurate. The B-52 carries about 16 JDAMs, which are the bomb of choice in Afghanistan. The B-1B caries 24.
The only benefit the B52 offers is a longer loiter time. Despite this, the B1B has dropped 70% of the JDAMs in Afghanistan, while only flying 5% of the sorties.
This is a well known paradox which is often called Theseus' paradox.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
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; the old software is old and convoluted because it's had to solve problems you'd never think of the first time around.
Not sure where 20,000 feet higher is coming from. B-52 operates at 50,000 and the V-bombers seem to operate at 55,000. Cruise for B-52 seems to be about 90% to 95% of the V-bombers.
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.
both wars were pointless responses to sound bites. the "taliban" we're fighting now isn't the taliban who hosted bin laden, they're long gone out of afghanistan. in fact, right now we're negotiating with the "taliban" that is there now, because we won't "win" over them. we're lining defense contractor pockets, we're giving power to some who crave it......but there is no just purpose
"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.
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 hit point A, B-52 crew loads coordinates into smart bomb and shove it out the door. Current JDAM and JSOW accuracy seems to be within about six meters; better if the ground troops can put a laser spot on the target and the munition is equipped to track it.
-Big as a whale
-Seats about 20
-About to set sail
Yeah, they totally scribbled it on the back of a napkin during lunch. Only thing is, that lunch lasted something like five years and six different configurations (some using turboprops) and involved wind tunnel testing, which must have been really hard to set up in that hotel room. I would be surprised if 1960s designs didn't outperform it, but it did hold speed records in the 1950s.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Sliderule got us to the moon while "more powerful computational devices" turned Mars landers into Mars impactors.
Black AND white? We only had black! Those were dark days, I tell ya.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I'm celebrating being the rainer, rather than the rainee.
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
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".
Candygram for Mongo!
If you read the referenced article on the history, you'll see that it started life as a high altitude bomber and was converted into a penetration role. Something tells me that the claim of "optimum for its mission" is indeed garbage. Much more important to its longevity is "hey we have a ton of these, and we can do more with the same funds if we modify them rather than starting from scratch."
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.
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.
And slide rules turned Lunar landers into Lunar impactors while powerful computation devices got us multiple Mars landings.
It's almost like there's other factors at work!
OK, I think you won the Internet, at least for the day. I am going to log off now.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Doubtful. The B-52 uses the NACA 63A219.3 and 65A209.5 airfoils (root and tip, respectively). While the 6-series 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, which specifically improve performance (and therefore efficiency) at high subsonic speeds.
Turkey is another example of a relatively progressive country in the Middle East. Turkey is becoming more conservative as the Military's influence in politics is challenged by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
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.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Wow. Mach 2 eh? And people modded this up.
The B-52 has always and will always be a subsonic aircraft.
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.
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 collective cost over the lifecycle of B52s is accurately portrayed. The chances of actually knowing those numbers won't likely happen in my lifetime unless Wikileaks gets busy.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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, 16,232 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
I have seen slightly different speeds given but they are always within about 20 knots.
I have seen different service ceilings given but the lowest for the B-52H was 47000 ft and I have never seen the Vulcan listed at 67000 feet which would be impressive to say the least
As too the Vulcan's short field performance and high field performance well if you only loaded a B-52 with enough fuel to match the Vulcan in range say about half it's max fuel load and then only loaded it with the 20,000 lbs of weapons that the Vulcan can carry instead of the full 70,000 lbs that a B-52 can carry then I would bet the B-52 might give the Vulcan a run for it's money in that category as well.
The Vulcan was a good medium bomber but the B-52 is a heavy bomber with much greater range and payload than the Vulcan.
The Vulcan was closer match to the B-47 in range and bomb load but with a much higher ceiling AKA 20,000 feet higher and a slightly higher speed, of course the B-47 had been in service five years before the Vulcan entered service.
Of course if the UK had spent the money that it wasted on the Nimrod AEW £1 billion "should have bought the E2, or put the E2s radar on a Nimrod or just bought the E-3 like they finally did" and the Nimrod MR.4 £3.6 billion Should have bought the P-3 updates or the P-8 now billons for nothing" on putting modern engines and avionics on the Vulcan it would still be a useful aircraft. Oh and let's not mention he money they are flushing down the WC on the A400M...
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.