B-52 Gets First Full IT Upgrade Since 1961

An anonymous reader writes in with good news for everyone who wants to hold a LAN party in a Stratofortress. "The US Air Force's 10th Flight Test Squadron recently took delivery of the first B-52H Stratofortress to complete a refit through the Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) program. It's an effort to bring the Cold War era heavy bomber into the 21st century way of warfare—or at least up to the 1990s, technology-wise. While the aircraft received piecemeal upgrades over the past 50 years of flying, CONECT is the first major information technology overhaul for the Air Force's B-52H fleet since the airplanes started entering service in 1961."

Comments

The B-52 will be a century old at this rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Those things just keep on flying, despite more hours than can be believed.

Re:The B-52 will be a century old at this rate

[k6mfw]

not sure why this was modded down (currently at -1) but really considering first B52 flight was more than 60 years ago. Think of US entering Vietnam on massive scale like it did in 1965 with weapon systems from 1905, that doesn't include aircraft. Army Signal Corps bought first US military aircraft from Wright Bros in 1909.

I wonder

[stox]

if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?

Re:I wonder

[myowntrueself]

if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?

I don't know that I'd call it a 'major weapon of war' these days, more counterinsurgency.

Re:I wonder

[o'reor]

Tell that to the russian engineers at Tupolev. The Tu-95 "Bear", the soviet counterpart of Boeing's B-52, was first flown in 1952, and is still in active service 62 years later. Pretty damn fast too for a turboprop bomber.

Re:I wonder

[gman003]

Some of the ones that just got upgraded will probably keep flying for another 50 years - the Air Force plans to keep flying them at least until 2040, and I see no reason why they won't just keep using it.

It's the pickup truck of strategic warfare. It's cheap, it can carry a huge payload, and it's reliable. Sure, it's slower than the speed of sound and is about as stealthy as a jackhammer, but for some jobs that doesn't matter.

To this very day, the Air Force has more active B-52s than B-1 or B-2 bombers.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

They did build only 21 B-2s, and barely over 100 B-1s.

B-52s? 744. G's and H's were 193 and 102.

Re:I wonder

[mirix]

Counter rotating props are pretty neat. Shame about the racket they make, though. Never seen one flying, but they're supposed to be loud as hell.

Re:I wonder

[Darth Turbogeek]

Given the number of cruise missiles it carries - yes it is. If you absolutly, positively need to fuck up someone's day, a B52 is still one of the ebst weapons to do it.

Re:I wonder

[cavreader]

Today's stealth fighters, early warning radar systems, satellite tracking, and advanced anti-air missile systems on land or water makes this plane nothing more than a slow moving target. Even if they were able to release all it's ordinance it would still be a one shot weapon. They would be better served to take all the money spent on an outdated weapons platform and build a few more B-2's if they are really hard up for more strategic bombers.

Re:I wonder

[Lumpy]

a single B52 can utterly destroy any country on this planet. Yes even china and russia. The number of heavy nukes one can carry is quite scary.

In the Bay it can carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles. That is 20 cities obliterated.... But wait...
It can also carry12 AGM-86s, on underwing pylons.

So now not only can we nuke 20 cities out of existence, but it can also blow to hell 12 military bases or small towns just for giggles.

Now here is some fun, when they SCRAM they fly in 3-5 aircraft formations towards their targets. That is 60-100 Nukes and 52 Kaboom splatters each.

Still think they are just for dropping small bombs on goats?

Re:I wonder

[nojayuk]

A couple of Tu-95 Bears flew down towards the north of Scotland a few weeks back, the RAF went up to welcome them outside the national limit and got some nice pictures. I grabbed them off the MoD website and bundled them up since most of my friends are Apple fans and don't do Flash.

https://www.mediafire.com/?fs5...

Runs to about 12MB or so as a zip download.

Re:I wonder

[lgw]

We only built a handful of modern fighters and B2s. If that handful gives us air supremacy, the B52s work just find for the heavy lifting. Since the military actually tries to save money these days, and budgets only shrink, a cost-effective bomber that's already built and flying certainly has its place.

Re:I wonder

[charlesr44403]

The B-52 goes back just as far as the Bear - it's the current H series that came out in 1961.

Re:I wonder

[DaveAtFraud]

...Sure, it's slower than the speed of sound and is about as stealthy as a jackhammer, but for some jobs that doesn't matter.

But the electronics bays are about the size of a typical garage and as easy to get into and out of. The airframe may have the radar cross section of a battleship but stick enough jammers in the electronics bays and you'd be surprised how hard it is to hit one.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the Tu-95 was still in production well into the '90s. The B-52 was only produced for 10 years, so a pilot flying a B-52 today could be flying the exact same airframe that his father or grandfather flew!

OTOH, I can see how an engineer in the 1950s would not expect that his turboprop bomber design would still be in use six decades later, while the jet bomber engineer might not see much to improve.

BTW, the tips of the props on the Tu-95 actually exceed the speed of sound! I don't know of any other aircraft with that feature.

dom

Re:I wonder

[myowntrueself]

But they aren't being used as weapons of war. They just do shit like bomb weddings. And goats.

Re:I wonder

[myowntrueself]

Given the number of cruise missiles it carries - yes it is. If you absolutly, positively need to fuck up someone's day, a B52 is still one of the ebst weapons to do it.

Still being used purely for counterinsurgency operations.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it doesn't affect the operation of the CRM 114.

jr

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if we use it for shit bombing of your home? I bet you are also anti gun.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

Still being used purely for counterinsurgency operations.

Only true, today, because that's the only kind of wars the US is fighting at this time. But B-52s absolutely are used in other roles than counterinsurgency.

"B-52s also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom," long before the insurgency even began.

"B-52 strikes were an important part of Operation Desert Storm," in which the US did not face a notable insurgency.

"B-52 had the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF in 2001."

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The loading of 20 AGM-69s is including the pylons on the wings, and you can't use them twice. Which is kind of besides the point, as they were all decommissioned 20 years ago. I think the 86's are still around though.

Stupid argument anyway. They'll never be used in a nuclear role, because if a b-52 gets through and hits a target inside russia, it's good night, anyway. And if they're using conventional weapons they'll be shot down in short order by anyone with half decent AA. Hell, 1960's AA for that matter.

They are very effective at carpet bombing civilians, though. on a budget.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

Today's stealth fighters, early warning radar systems, satellite tracking, and advanced anti-air missile systems on land or water makes this plane nothing more than a slow moving target.

Which is why a few stealth fighters and bombers go in first, take out ALL the air defenses, THEN the B-52s go in there and carpet-bomb the hell out of the rest of the place. The B-52 is fairly slow, but that fills a role than the military badly NEEDS at times.

Even if they were able to release all it's ordinance it would still be a one shot weapon.

Circular logic. If they release all their weapons, then they won't have anymore. If they release one or a few at a time (which is what they do in Afghanistan), then they've got a long-long time in the air, able to fire a few more at any time, lingering over targets longer than just about any other aircraft.

They would be better served to take all the money spent on an outdated weapons platform and build a few more B-2's if they are really hard up for more strategic bombers.

Demonstrating that you know nothing about the subject. B-2s don't have the linger time, maneuverability, survivability, as much payload capacity, and operating costs are several times higher. If the B-52 is to be replaced with anything, it'll be the non-stealth B-1s.

Re:I wonder

[The Grim Reefer]

Drones as decoys (and eventually attack roles) in conjunction with stealth planes are used to disable radar stations and SAM launchers. in the beginning of an air campaign. Once they've done their mission they are pointless. They don't carry much of a payload in comparison to a B-52, and are very expensive. A current B52 can carry 72 - 750 lb. bombs. Vs. a B2 that can carry 36. Once the B52 gets this upgrade, they will use internal rotary launchers that will increase their payload capacity by 66%.

From Wikipedia The B-52 turned out the lights in Baghdad."[187] During Operation Desert Storm, B-52s flew about 1,620 sorties, and delivered 40% of the weapons dropped by coalition forces.

The conventional strikes were carried out by three bombers, which dropped up to 153 750-pound bombs over an area of 1.5 by 1 mi (2.4 by 1.6 km). The bombings demoralized the defending Iraqi troops, many of whom surrendered in the wake of the strikes.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

a single B52 can utterly destroy any country on this planet. Yes even china and russia. The number of heavy nukes one can carry is quite scary.

In the Bay it can carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles. That is 20 cities obliterated.... But wait...
It can also carry12 AGM-86s, on underwing pylons.

So now not only can we nuke 20 cities out of existence, but it can also blow to hell 12 military bases or small towns just for giggles.

Now here is some fun, when they SCRAM they fly in 3-5 aircraft formations towards their targets. That is 60-100 Nukes and 52 Kaboom splatters each.

Still think they are just for dropping small bombs on goats?

The SRAM was retired in the 90's, however the BUFF can carry 8 AGM-86B in the bomb bay, and 6 on each wing for a total of 20 missiles.

Re:I wonder

[Dahamma]

One shot weapon?? It's a strategic nuclear bomber. It flies 500mph at 50,000 feet, launches potentially nuclear cruise missiles and guided bombs from hundreds of miles away from its target, and each one can carry enough ordnance to wipe out a small country in Europe.

A few might be shot down when used against a 1st world military, but first, calling strategic bombers one shot weapons is silly, and second, if they are ever used against militaries that would have any chance at shooting many of them down (ie. Russia or China) "one shot" is pretty much going to end the war (any maybe much of civilization).

Re:I wonder

[Rob the Bold]

if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?

I wonder if he'd be alive to ask. It went into service in 1955. A junior engineer just out of college getting in on the tail end of development would be 81 years old now. A "senior engineer" at Boeing -- let's say mid 30s -- in the 1946-52 timeframe from contract award to first flight would be pushing 100 now . . .

Re:I wonder

[timeOday]

Stealth is like making a ground vehicle mine-resistant or amphibious - it's an advantage, all else being equal, but due to design compromises all else cannot be equal.

Re:I wonder

[QQBoss]

The BUF (Big Ugly F*cker) and the Warthog earned their nicknames honestly, but I bet if the person who nicknamed the A-10 had been from the southern USA, it would have been nicknamed the Armadillo for the bathtub, with the double bonus of being only slightly better in a beauty contest than a warthog. Although there is the wrong speed bump metaphor going on with the name Armadillo...

Both of those platforms have a niche which no other can compete with yet. Wikipedia has the following to say about the A-10, though: In the House Armed Services Committee's markup of the FY 2015 budget, language was included that to allow the retirement of the A-10 fleet. The markup limited the availability of funds for retirement unless each plane could be kept in type-1000 storage, meaning they could be readily reactivated if needed. Even with this condition, the markup did not specifically prohibit the Air Force from retiring the fleet in FY 2015. The day following the HASC markup, the Senate refused the idea of placing the A-10 in any type of storage and reaffirmed its position that the fleet be kept fully active. Shortly after, the HASC passed an amendment to their markup blocking A-10 retirement. It stipulates that the fleet cannot be retired or even stored until the U.S. Comptroller General completes certifications and studies on other Air Force platforms used to perform CAS. Assessments will include cost per plane for conducting CAS missions, identifying if other aircraft able to successfully perform the mission, and the capabilities of each plane used in that role. The Senate Armed Services Committee markup would direct $320 million saved from personnel cuts to keep the A-10 flying. Both chambers of Congress have now drafted plans to keep the A-10 in Air Force service for at least another year.

At least another year... hopefully we can keep that going until there is a true replacement for the ground pounder's best friend.

Re:I wonder

[amiga3D]

It's big slow and ugly but it still fulfills it's mission perfectly. It's the ultimate bombing platform. Sure you can't use it at will unless you have air supremacy but once you do it's the single most economical way to destroy someone.

Re:I wonder

[amiga3D]

Actually it's more like 500 knots at 300 feet. Under the radar is what it excels at.

Re:I wonder

[ColdWetDog]

One of the primary designers of the B-52, George Schairer died in 2004.

Re:I wonder

[DigiShaman]

I live outside of Houston and work inside the 610 loop. I'm very much a target as any other major city on this planet. I don't think many people are fond of nuclear weapons being used anywhere. When living in a major populated city, you're a target whether you like it or not.

Re:I wonder

[Zeio]

Not correct. You could use a B-29 SuperFortress for this role these days. It could be anything. max speed could be 200 kts. The point is that modern air combat and ordinance delivery by first-world combatants is largely done after the total and complete destruction of SAM, Radar, AAA and a knowledge of about how many Stinger-style hand held SAMs exist in the theater. The B-52 is a cheap, existing heavy lift platform that has a good operational history and low incident rate and is reasonably efficient in terms of mileage. It also has the most flexibility in ordinance available today, it can literally deliver anything in the arsenal - maybe not the BLU-82, but I think even the MOAB will go in there. The point is that yes it has a radar cross-signature of the empire state, but with an operational capability at FL35 and a ceiling at FL50, this thing is good enough to cart ordinance to whatever tird world nation is being burnt from the air this week. As the Valkyrie XB-70 and the corresponding interceptor the MiG 25 foxbat has shown that using insane speed as a mechanism for ordinance delivery is ineffective. In fact, the more interesting thing about the B1B is originally it was much faster but they slowed it down and gave it ground-hugging avionics to evade radar to deliver. However, this strategy is no longer effective either. For "real war" ICBMs can destroy everything down to radioactive dust, and for any other target without ICBM a crushing salvo of radar killing missiles and strikes will be deployed and the radar and SAM capability will be completely destroyed before any manned sorties are flown. As we saw with the B-2 spirit, speed is no longer needed - stealth was and the B-2 has been rendered useless by the latest generation of Russian radar technology.

Re:I wonder

[Zeio]

As someone whose spouse works in government and I have friends in the government supplying parts to the Air Force, I have knowledge about budgets. They are NEVER cut. In fact, not getting an increase is getting a cut. Also they ALWAYS burn all the money appropriated, as not doing so will mean that the money will not be available the next budget cycle. The stupid corrupted government may take the money they have a use it stupidly but lets not even claim there is ever a cut.

In fact the government uses baseline budgeting which prevents the ability to ever even cut the total amount - its just moved around from one corrupt thing to another.

I do agree that between radar hunting missiles and missile systems and the ability to completely destroy any country's (beside China or Russia) radar and SAM and AAA capability before flying manned sorties over enemy airspace prevents the need for anything more than a B52 - a radar cross signature of the the empire state building and subsonic - perfectly usable in a modern theater. If the B52 cant fly at FL350 with impunity, you have a lot more work to do or your friends that need burning from the air got a fresh load of portable/hand held SAMs.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Boeing layed them off years ago and outsourced the work to Russian and India.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

Counter insurgency is probably going to continue to be the major job for the US Military, well into the future, so the B-52 will have job security for quite a long time.

"I think you could say that there are two fundamental ways to fight the US Military: asymmetrically and stupid." -Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster (2014/05/24)

Re:I wonder

[DaveAtFraud]

When you don't want them to know you're coming: stealth.

When you don't care if they know you're coming but don't want to get shot down: jam.

All current (B-2 and F-22) and past (F-117) stealth aircraft become "unstealthy" for weapons release. If you have achieved surprise, that doesn't matter. When it's not a surprise, well, that's how the Serbs shot down an F-117.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:I wonder

[Pinhedd]

They'd be fine. The AGM-69 was decommissioned in the early 90s.

Re:I wonder

[FatdogHaiku]

Cruise missiles can carry a nuclear warhead. A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery#Cruise_missile) and is the only platform usable for these stealth weapons. We allegedly agreed not to put stealth weapons on stealth aircraft in a treaty (honored but not ratified), so this bird is going to be around for a while... And 20 nukes targeted to that extreme would certainly fuck up the day of a lot of people.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

B-52, toughest truck ever to fly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJuEAQbxWRo

Re:I wonder

[WindBourne]

Well, the B1 is NOT likely going to replace the B-52. Instead, it will be hyper-sonic drones flying at mach 10 or more around 2025.

Re:I wonder

[WindBourne]

Yes, they bombed weddings and goats.
Of course, there were AQ there in all cases, though many choose to ignore the fact that AQ warriors like to surround themselves with innocent ppl and goats so as to spread the death.

Re:I wonder

[WindBourne]

Well, first off, Houston will not be first. They do not have enough military right there. BUT, they will be in the second wave and yes, the chinese WILL use multiple waves.

As to not being fond of them, well, that is why we need them. The last thing that we want to do is lower the count to say 1000 missiles, esp. since China is obviously building many more and trying to keep it quiet.

Re:I wonder

[dbIII]

Yes even china and russia

The Japanese, French and Germans or anyone that has paid some attention to the history of those places would disagree. Vast amounts of destruction in China and Russian just meant that defence material had to be supplied from a different few hundred little cities or towns that were not destroyed.

Re:I wonder

[dbIII]

It's over. There's no point pushing the propaganda of a perfect machine anymore, especially since the truth has come out about civilian spooks playing James Bond, leapfrogging chains of command and fucking up military operations.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

Well, the B1 is NOT likely going to replace the B-52.

The two are largely equivalent, TODAY. The B-1 and B-52s are regularly in competition for each bombing run... In other words, the B-1 replaces the B-52 every time it takes off. They say it has lower operating costs, so it makes sense as a replacement.

it will be hyper-sonic drones flying at mach 10 or more around 2025.

The B-52 has long linger time over a target... A feature which is often used to support soldiers on the ground. A supersonic craft would have just about ZERO linger time, making it absolutely useless for this task, and meaning that they'd have to keep the B-52 in service if that's the only replacement on the table.

More than that, there's only vague plans for a prototype of a Mach 6 spy-aircraft from Lockheed in the 2020s, if they suddenly get full funding.. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of Mach 10 drone bombers by 2025.

Re:I wonder

[Sardaukar86]

- maybe not the BLU-82

Wow, what a fascinating weapon. Thank you, now I know what a Daisy Cutter is. :)

Re:I wonder

[Sardaukar86]

Well, first off, Houston will not be first. They do not have enough military right there.

Well, that's a crying shame for Houston then. I understand one either wants to be first (night-night, WWIII is now someone else's problem) or last (oooo-oooh, pretty, wonder when mine's going to arrive?).. on the whole I'd prefer the latter, myself, on the assumption that I don't make it through *all* the loud bits alive.

BUT, they will be in the second wave and yes, the chinese WILL use multiple waves.

You're quite right of course. When we're talking food it seems there's never enough, always a shortage somewhere in the world because of yield, or transport problems or local warlords etc. When we're on the topic of launched nukes though, it seems there's always plenty enough for a generous helping for everyone.

Re:I wonder

[mjwx]

Today's stealth fighters, early warning radar systems, satellite tracking, and advanced anti-air missile systems on land or water makes this plane nothing more than a slow moving target.

Which is why a few stealth fighters and bombers go in first, take out ALL the air defenses, THEN the B-52s go in there and carpet-bomb the hell out of the rest of the place. The B-52 is fairly slow, but that fills a role than the military badly NEEDS at times.

The heavy bomber's day has come and gone like the battleship. It's main role is demonstration, not waging war.

First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.

Most people have forgotten the last total war and only remember the wars where the enemy could not effectively fight back in the air.

The B52 has never been tested in the crucible of war, they've always been out of reach. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52. To imagine how a B52 would perform against an enemy that can field a full array of anti-air defences you have to go back to the B52's great, great, great granddaddy, the B17. The B17 was a very hardy, venerable aircraft but it was still shot down by the bucket loads by the Germans.

At the start of the war (WWII), 18 months before the entry of the US, the British war ministry made a calculation that their existing fleet of Blenheims and Wellingtons would be destroyed within 3 months (and that the existing designs were insufficient for the task) they immediately began producing more, this resulted in aircraft like the Mosquito and Avro Lancaster being produced. However the point is that losses were expected and replacements would be needed.

The same story was true with the B17. The B17 and Lancaster fit the bill for being capable aircraft but above that, cheap and easy to produce.

That is the problem with the B52. It's all good and well to say the current fleet is fine but the current fleet wont last six months against Russia or China if it is used. You'll need replacements and it's much faster and cheaper to build a multitude of drones than it is to build a manned heavy bomber.

A B52H has a flyaway cost of $81 million and requires 6 crew.
A MQ9 Reaper has a flyaway cost of $17 million.
A MQ1 Predator has a flyaway cost of $4.5 million.

Going by the last war, it takes a minimum of 3 months to train an aircrew.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

The heavy bomber's day has come and gone like the battleship. It's main role is demonstration, not waging war.

First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.

Except B-52s were getting frequent and daily use in Afghanistan. They are still extremely useful.

Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52.

Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world. They certainly had plenty of air defenses.

the current fleet wont last six months against Russia or China if it is used.

Many weapons are useful against certain enemies, and not viable against others. The later doesn't eliminate the former. Humvees and Strykers would be death-traps driving among enemy tanks... And yet soldiers in Afghanistan don't go down the street in M1 Abrams.

It's utterly idiotic to claim that we need ONE weapon that does everything for everyone, all the time.

Besides, there's very nearly zero chance we'd ever get into a land war against a major nuclear power. Either our air-power will decimate their capabilities in the first few hours, or theirs will do so to us, soon after.

it's much faster and cheaper to build a multitude of drones than it is to build a manned heavy bomber.

And the drones you listed are faster and cheaper to build because they don't have the tiniest fraction the capabilities of a heavy bomber... Bullets are cheaper and faster to build than cruise missiles, too.

Re:I wonder

[nojayuk]

A Korean comics artist name of Anyan does a web manga with anthropomorphic representations of military aircraft as high school girls. Tu-95 is very inquisitive, always sticking her nose in other people's business and always surprised that folks notice her doing it because of the racket she makes.

http://www.batoto.net/read/_/1...

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

and budgets only shrink

Not in the case of the military. Military spending is at an all time high (even accounting for inflation). I know that's tangental to your point, but figured it was worth pointing out...

Re:I wonder

[Alioth]

I lived in Houston, and it would be an early strategic target due to the concentrated oil industry rather than the military. Perhaps not the Houston CBD itself, but places like Texas City, La Porte, Baytown etc. where all the oil terminals and a huge amount of refining capacity is, plus a great deal of oil engineering expertise is located there.

Re:I wonder

[advocate_one]

First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.

I'd like you to ask the Iraqui army about that one...

You'll need replacements and it's much faster and cheaper to build a multitude of drones than it is to build a manned heavy bomber.

Drones can't deliver the seriously special/heavy ordnance required to bust deep bunkers

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

In WW2 France, we called it Resistance. Now, we are calling it Insurgency.

Re:I wonder

[zippthorne]

Nah, food and nukes are the same. On paper there is plenty to go around, and then some. In practice, logistics and politics and local resistance get in the way of the distribution. We have been fortunate not to see this demonstrated with nukes, though.

Re:I wonder

[excelsior_gr]

Why is this modded flamebait? The post expresses an opinion quite politely and clearly. Correct or not, bringing arguments that need to be addressed in the discussion is a good thing.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who can google the budget and works in the AF I am lol'ing pretty hard.

Re:I wonder

[cheesybagel]

The B52 has never been tested in the crucible of war, they've always been out of reach. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52.

Bullshit. Hanoi had some of the most sophisticated air defenses of the time. B52s were shot down by them just read about Operation Linebacker II.

The fact is the B52 has been 'obsoleted' by tons of planes which turn out to be retired while the B52 continues being used. They just do not have the payload or the loiter time to compete. And that is without replacing the utterly obsolete fuel guzzling engines it comes with. If you used currently available commercial turbofans in it it would have a lot more loiter time and range.

Re:I wonder

[Richard_at_work]

From about 2008 onward, the sole aircraft providing theatre wide close air support in Afghanistan was the B-1B, as it has tremendous loiter time and can get on target very very quickly indeed - the coalition still used smaller aircraft to provide regional CAS, but there was always a B-1B in the air on patrol in-case it was needed.

Re:I wonder

[necro81]

if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built

If they thought about it at all, they probably were wondering if humanity itself would still be around in 50 years.

Re:I wonder

[myowntrueself]

Still being used purely for counterinsurgency operations.

Only true, today, because that's the only kind of wars the US is fighting at this time. But B-52s absolutely are used in other roles than counterinsurgency.

"B-52s also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom," long before the insurgency even began.

"B-52 strikes were an important part of Operation Desert Storm," in which the US did not face a notable insurgency.

"B-52 had the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF in 2001."

Right, so when its not used *in* counterinsurgency operations its used to set up the conditions for a nice long running counterinsurgency operation.

Re:I wonder

[StatureOfLiberty]

The only combat aircraft that can suffer a bird strike from the rear. Man they are slow.

Re:I wonder

[Talderas]

Refining oil is not a target of first strike priority. It is a capacity that permits fighting a protracted war. First strike targets are always of direct military value and are designed to eliminate the enemy's ability to wage war. Oil refineries occupy a place somewhere below factories producing equipment like tanks and planes.

Re:I wonder

[DigiShaman]

Well, it could certainly start out that way at first. No doubt in my mind that it wouldn't escalate higher. It would be a tit for tat situation where we cripple the other side of equal hurt. Before you know it, entire cities are excavated with giant craters. Regardless of how and where it starts, get the hell out of dodge and head for non-populated areas. If your smart (and paranoid depending on POV), you will have a bug-out bag ready to grab-n-go.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Perspective.

Revolutionary Freedom Fighter
Resistance Insurgent
Conservative Republican
Liberal Democrat
Job Creator Plutocrat

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Perspective.

Revolutionary -- Freedom Fighter
Resistance -- Insurgent
Conservative -- Republican
Liberal -- Democrat
Job Creator -- Plutocrat

Shoulda' previewed.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Having personally known one of the electrical engineers that worked on the B-52 I can say with confidence; no, they wouldn't have. Towards the end of his career CAD was just becoming a thing and modern IT infrastructure wasn't something they would have imagined. While he was computer literate, at the time he was working on the B-52 computer systems were very very different things and the whole aircraft was designed with pen and paper. Near the end of his life I taught him about the internet and he saw the value of networks, but when it came to things like aircraft design he was big on conventional, dedicated wiring for all communication and control. I still wonder what he would think of these modern drones that are basically flying computers.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The heavy bomber's day has come and gone like the battleship. It's main role is demonstration, not waging war.

First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.

Except B-52s were getting frequent and daily use in Afghanistan. They are still extremely useful.

Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52.

Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world. They certainly had plenty of air defenses.

They may have had plenty of air defenses but it was old Russian stuff (if I remember right). Hell, most of their equipment was old. Basically surplus ex-Russian military gear that the Russians sold off to help finance their new stuff. During the Iraq invasion (if I remember right) a dozen or so Apache attack helicopters took out a majority of the air defenses on the border within the first 15 minutes of the war...

As with men, it is not the size but how you use it (or equip it in this case). Take for example China, I think that they have improved their gear in the past decade but the biggest threat they used to present was that there were so many of them (something like 500k standing army with another 500k reservists and the ability to conscript a hell of a lot more). With the western military technology at the time, the biggest problem would have been running out of ammunition if you were to go against the Chinese.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that against an enemy like Russia or China drones will be completely ineffective as they can jam the control frequencies reducing them to glorified cruise missiles. At that point you may as well be deploying cruise missiles from a B52 that's loitering outside the combat zone.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Largely equivalent? The Bone is conventional only, it does not carry nuclear missiles, you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

History is written by the victors. I'm sure in an alternate universe the French Resistance is a "Terrorist Organization"

Re:I wonder

[WindBourne]

Piper, plenty of dark money being spent on drones these days.
There will be a mach 10 bomber by 2025.

Re:I wonder

[WindBourne]

All of which a nation like CHina would want. They will not go after houston, esp. not in the first round.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM suggests they have been decommissioned. Other cruise missiles can be ship launched and carry nuclear warheads if you so desire though.

Re:I wonder

[lgw]

Not if you count "war spending" together with the rest of the military budget (and why wouldn't you?). The peak was in 2010.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.

I'd like you to ask the Iraqui army about that one...

I'm not aware of any carpet bombing in Iraq. If you want to see carpet bombing look at the second world war where it didn't work. Neither Germany nor the UK pulled out of the war because of it and both bombed the shit out of each other with massive civilian casualties.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

A drone can be the equivalent of a cluster munition without having to break the treaty.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression they shot it down using visual targeting & a cannon

Re:I wonder

[careysub]

Right you are. Could you imagine someone discussing military spending in the early 1940s and saying "but leave war spending aside"? For that matter, any of the other major post-WW-II conflicts: Korea, Vietnam?

Re:I wonder

[FatdogHaiku]

You know, if I were upgrading my only airborne cruise missile launch platform, I might make accommodations for the new generation of cruise missiles while I was at it... I would also leave "Update Wikipedia" off my To Do list...

Re:I wonder

[careysub]

One of the primary designers of the B-52, George Schairer died in 2004.

Age 91.

If he were to tie with the oldest person ever (reliably) recorded he would have lived to 122 (in 2035) and still would have seen the B-52 flying in service.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, AND it flies like a bat at low altitudes, especially if you're in the ground effect: just don't pull the wings off it. Routine training flights were at 300 feet or less and 300 knots or more. You get in trouble doing it now (like the nut who crashed the BUFF a while ago practicing for an airshow) but you can make that airframe do amazing things.

http://www.jetbombers.com/chapter6.html

" Now, boys, we got three engines out; we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio's gone and we're leaking fuel, and if we's flying any lower, why, we'd need sleigh bells on this thing. But we got one little budge on them Russkies: at this this height, why, they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen." - Dr. Strangelove

Re:I wonder

[mirix]

It was a S-125 SAM. Cave tech, nearly.

Re:I wonder

[geekoid]

" They are NEVER cut. "

haha, I LOLed when I read that. I speak as some whose budget is being cut.

in short: You are a liar.
" as not doing so will mean that the money will not be available the next budget cycle."
false. An urban myth based on people ingnorance of accounting practices... mostly. It gets complected at certial levels becasue the budge it cut for the amount not used, but the funds they didn't use are still available.
So you get 100 bucks, you spend 50. Next you your budget is 50 bucks, but you still get the 50 bucks you didn't spend. If this happens for a number of years, then the budget is cut. Again, it depends on why. For example a project that will happen, gets a delay start.

In march 2013 they cut 80 billion dollars.

The rest of your post is just ignorance, so I won't bother.

Re:I wonder

[geekoid]

High speed drone are easier to design and build then piloted craft. We have mach 10 and 20 craft in experimental phase right now.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

no: they tuned their radar very carefully, used multiple sets in "strobe" mode (sequential brief ON periods), worked with lots of ground observers, turned the radars off after missile launch to prevent the 117 systems from realzing it had been "painted", and then NATO handed them a lot of help by using the same air routes all the time.

Re:I wonder

[geekoid]

"...fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness."
you seem to be ignoring all the cruise missiles it carries.
Fact is, its a large capacity vehicle; weather to fill it's capacity with drop and forget, or self guided bombs, or missiles is a tactical decisions.

"fine but the current fleet wont last six months against Russia or China if it is used." based on..what, exactly?

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, they are, but those turbofan engines just suck up shrapnel, rattle it around, spit it out, and keep flying and those *uckers are just plain hard to damage enough to bring down. Read about Cpt. Rich Biley and his A-10 that sucked up a direct SAM strike and brought him home. Or Cpt. Kim Campbell who flew hers home in full manual reversion after it got all shot up. Truly a pilot's friend, that Warthog...

Re:I wonder

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. You take out the enemies with your modern stuff. Then you use your glorified 747's to bomb them back into the stone age. No point risking $750M on a fight to drop 50,000lbs of bombs when a $50M plane will drop 70,000lb once you own the skies.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not why the Serbs shot down an f117, the reason is two fold one the flight path and departure time was leaked to them by one of our allies cough..France..cough, this lead them to be able to position their anti aircraft trucks in optimal position and turn on their tracking radar for only 17 seconds. This just happened to correspond with when the weapons bay doors were open. They were unable to shoot down any more f117's after that because France was cut out of the loop, even though the Serbs knew an attack was going to happen, they had lookouts positioned near runways that would call when planes took off, they couldn't position their SAMs close enough to the flight path to track the 117. If a stealth aircraft flies directly over head there is an excellent chance of tracking it, but when the sam site turns on it can be detected, avoided or eliminated before an aircraft flies overhead. Only an instance where the first time it turns on just happens to be the optimal time to turn on could tracking be possible. There are rumors that the missiles were fired before the lock even happened which would indicate knowledge of the plane's exact location.

Re:I wonder

[ILongForDarkness]

Indeed. The B-1 has about a 12k km range and about 5,000lb greater ordinance. Yeah it's combat radius is maybe half that but no one is launching their planes during sustained hostilities from 6k km away. So say they have to fly 500km to get to the CAS area, they can float around for another 11k km /speed time roughly ... then they refuel from a tanker. No one says you have to fly them supersonic all the time though cruise is 0.9 mach so you probably lose range at slower speeds not sure if the extra linger works out in your favor or not.

Re:I wonder

[MisterToad]

We could have designed automobiles the same way. My grandfather claimed he used the same straight razor for 70 years. It had three new blades and two new handles. How much of the original B-52 is really original? Of course that's the point. We allow our manufactures to design, engineer, and produce goods that are not upgrade-able.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

That ... is one of the WTF-est things I have ever seen in my life.

Re:I wonder

[Zordak]

Chuck Hagel's fantasy of decommissioning the A-10 is proof positive that the idiot has no business being anywhere near the DoD. The dude is former infantry. He ought to be the first one standing up to stand up and defend the Warthog.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiction -

If the pilot's good, see. I mean, if he's really...sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low, HA!, you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane, like a '52, vroom! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard! - Dr. Strangelove

Real life (this is the guy who crashed a BUFF showing off before an airshow at Fairchild AFB):

"We came around and (Lt) Col Holland took us down to 50 feet. I told him that this was well below the clearance plane and that we needed to climb. He ignored me. I told him (again) as we approached the ridge line. I told him in three quick bursts 'climb-climb-climb.' . . I didn't see any clearance that we were going to clear the top of that mountain ... It appeared to me that he had target fixation. I said 'climb-climb-climb.' again, he did not do it. I grabbed ahold of the yoke and I pulled it back pretty abruptly ... I'd estimate we had a cross over around 15 feet . . . The radar navigator and the navigator were verbally yelling or screaming, reprimanding (Lt) Col Holland and saying that there was no need to fly that low ... his reaction to that input was he was laughing--I mean a good belly laugh."

His final idiocy and some earlier idiocy that shows what a BUFF can do at low altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTOOtPST4Rs

Re:I wonder

[Alioth]

Nope. You don't want to survive it, a nuclear war of that scale will lead to a devastating nuclear winter and you'll just end up freezing to death.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

The Bone is conventional only, it does not carry nuclear missiles

Only because they felt like disabling that option after the fall of the Soviet Union. It could easily be reinstated.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

You admit you were utterly wrong, but can't resist the urge to spin it, somehow, to make it seem like a less-idiotic statement.

Re:I wonder

[evilviper]

With the western military technology at the time, the biggest problem would have been running out of ammunition if you were to go against the Chinese.

It's not theoretical at all. The US (and UN) fought massive numbers of Chinese forces in Korea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:I wonder

[dywolf]

Yes. Because engineers then didnt believe in planned obsolescence. They didnt build the prettiest, or the fastest, and the most high tech bomber.
They built a bomb truck.
A reliable, tough, adaptable truck.
Like a 70s Ford F150.

Re:I wonder

[dywolf]

You know nothing Jon Snow.
I had a big long post, but its just easier to say: "Shut up, you dont know what youre talking about."

Re:I wonder

[MiSaunaSnob]

how exactly would the UK have pulled out of the ware? given up and learned german, they didn't really have a lot of options but to continue.

Re:I wonder

[david_thornley]

Carpet bombing and strategic bombing (two different things) were very effective in WWII, although bombing with conventional weapons didn't win wars by itself.

Re: I wonder

[Zeio]

You are a pawn in a larger game. The total amount being consumed is going up but your fiefdom may be going down. I covered this in the post. Good job trying to defend baseline budgeting with ad hominem and nothing to back it up.

Re: I wonder

[Zeio]

What's so funny? The fact total outlay is the same or higher, costs are rising and the readyness of the air force is going down with more expense than ever in part due to rising costs, the deleterious effects of inflation and ineffciency. If we the people can't make you honest maybe the chicoms and Putin can remind you.

Re:I wonder

[Dahamma]

No, the B-52 is called the "Stratofortress" for a reason. It's not supersonic like the B-1 or stealth like the B2, it was basically a replacement for the B-29 with jet engines.

It was designed back when 500 mph (440 kn, not 500) and 50,000 feet was enough to effectively avoid most antiaircraft fire.

Re:I wonder

[findoutmoretoday]

The Resistance was also called "Terrorists and bandits" in this universe and still is.

As General "Buck" Turgidson said

[Vinegar Joe]

"If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust......frying chickens in the barnyard!"

Re:As General "Buck" Turgidson said

[GrahamCox]

And here are the results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs I guess he wasn't that good after all. Actually if you look into the story here it's really tragic.

Re:As General "Buck" Turgidson said

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Important safety tip: don't let a hot-dog get a B52 sideways. Especially only 250 feet AGL, at just above level flight stall speed.

Re:As General "Buck" Turgidson said

[Deadstick]

I guess he wasn't that good after all.

Not nearly as good. That crash advertised itself in advance, repeatedly, and everybody else missed every opportunity to head it off.

Good!

[homey of my owney]

Good... Now if we could just get the FAA stuff off of 360's, we're in business!

So I get to play COD while on COD?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Captain, this is a complete rip off, I thought they put Xbox Kinects in these. I was totally going to play COD too, and not Kinectimals.

In all seriousness, Happy Memorial Day.

Re:So I get to play COD while on COD?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Just a clarification, I'm not in nor was in the military, the pronoun I is designated as a random person exclaiming it.

YeeeeeeHaaaaaa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonna kill me some ruskies!
Yours,
Maj. King Kong

Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-52

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there is a tactical angle I don't see here, but it has to be very expensive to keep these carpet bombing condors flying.

Admiral Adama wouldn't allow this.

[PsychoSlashDot]

Not even when he was only a Commander.

B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintaince

[raymorris]

If missiles are called for, you'll need something to get the missiles within range. A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles 5,000 miles. Since the US has B-52s stationed around the world, they can put missiles anywhere on the planet.

You COULD use ICBMs, but maintaining appreviously purchased aircraft is a lot less expensive than building a bunch of ICBMs.

A former co-worker of mine worked on designing a drone that can be dropped from the B-52. The earlier comment was pretty accurate - the B-52 is the pickup truck of the air, very versatile and conservatively inexpensive.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[raxx7]

Bombs, even precision GPS or laser guided ones, are much cheaper than missiles. And a B-52 can carry a lot of them.
As a platform for loitering around an area and dropping precision weapons as requested, it should be the most cost effective platform USAF has.
And the option of carpet bombing is occasionally useful too.

IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT

[erice]

Well, not exactly. But certainly if you proposed having a computer onboard in 1961, the first reaction would be: The B52 is big but it's not that big!

Second would be "What would you do with one?"

Re:IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT

[DerekLyons]

Well, not exactly. But certainly if you proposed having a computer onboard in 1961, the first reaction would be: The B52 is big but it's not that big!

That wouldn't be the first reaction of anyone with a clue - by 1961 there were already small computers in production. (For use in missile guidance systems if nothing else. This picture shows the Polaris A-1 (1960) guidance on the right, the unit includes both the inertial assembly *and* the guidance computer.)

Re:IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT

[tlhIngan]

Well, not exactly. But certainly if you proposed having a computer onboard in 1961, the first reaction would be: The B52 is big but it's not that big!

Second would be "What would you do with one?"

You would be surprised, but there were computers onboard at the time. Not digital ones though - analog ones. And most likely only partially electronic - usually just a collection of gears and gyros.

The computer is for aiding the bombardier with targeting the weapons - it gets as inputs the plane's direction, airspeed, windspeed (or groundspeed), etc. and drives a bombsight for aiming purposes

Crude, but they work.

Digital computers didn't make headway into aircraft until the mid to late 70s or so, though analog computers still ruled, this time instead of being huge mechanical beasts, they shrunk down to analog electronic computers. (Hint: thank you op-amps. The "operation" part does computations like addition, subtraction, integration, differentiation, multiplication, division, etc).

Re:IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT

[dbIII]

Apparently the large cargo Antanov has control systems made up of racks of gear with valves. A retired electrical transmission engineer I know (who did plenty of design work with valves in his career) was shown around inside one, and he suspected it was to deal with an EMP pulse. There's probably American stuff that is EMP hardened as well but there are solid state ways of doing it that were used by NASA before they sent the first probe near Jupiter.

Re:IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT

[unitron]

Apparently the large cargo Antanov has control systems made up of racks of gear with valves. A retired electrical transmission engineer I know (who did plenty of design work with valves in his career) was shown around inside one, and he suspected it was to deal with an EMP pulse. There's probably American stuff that is EMP hardened as well but there are solid state ways of doing it that were used by NASA before they sent the first probe near Jupiter.

When you say valves, do you mean what in the US are referred to as vacuum tubes, or are you referring to a mechanical device such as might be used in pneumatic or hydraulic control systems?

BUFF

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said.

2040

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't remember where I read it but the B-52 is planned by the military to be in service until 2040.

Re:2040

[amiga3D]

I imagine they'll replace it with an autonomous aircraft around then. Manned warcraft will most likely be well on the way out by then.

Re:B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintai

[Lumpy]

A B52 can put a nuke on target faster than an ICBM can.

Oh Damn...

[avgjoe62]

Now Skynet has bombers!

Let me guess...

[NReitzel]

Let me guess. The New B-52 IT upgrades feature a raft of combat-certified computers, all running Windows XP.

That thought makes me smile. Can you plan Hack-a-Bomber ?

I'm not serious, but the Pentagon and USAF have done dumber things.

Re:Let me guess...

[amiga3D]

I do believe they've upgraded to Vista!

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[DaveAtFraud]

...And the option of carpet bombing is occasionally useful too.

The politically correct term in today's environment is "long stick." I understand that the 750 lb. bombs typically dropped by B-52s for this kind of mission are extremely effective.

Cheers,
Dave

Woot

[Greyfox]

Cyborg Rock Lobster!

Re:B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintai

[evilviper]

You COULD use ICBMs, but maintaining appreviously purchased aircraft is a lot less expensive than building a bunch of ICBMs.

ICBMs are a no-no. Too quick from launch to impact, and too difficult to quickly tell where they are going to land. The Russians would be having heart attacks at record-setting levels if the US switched to all-ICBMs all-the-time, since the middle-east isn't far from Russia (not far for an ICBM, that is).

Not quite so true in the reverse case, as since Russia doesn't ever get into skirmishes with any American countries, so we've got a big ocean buffer.

Besides, I think the GP was just assuming that a new model of aircraft would be more cost-effective than B-52s... Not realizing that the engines have been replaced/upgraded, aerospace materials haven't changed yet, and the aerodynamics of the old sky truck are still good.

Re:B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintai

[JeffAtl]

Could you elaborate?

A Race Against Time

[Anonymous Coward]

The B-52 Stratofortress will live on.

The SR-72 will prevail, conquer and vanquish.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2013/sr-72.html

ReI don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:I don't know that I would call you an intelligent person when it comes to air war.

21st century way of warfare

[manu0601]

It's an effort to bring the Cold War era heavy bomber into the 21st century way of warfare

You mean, make it hackable?

B-52?

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of the band with Keith Strickland, Cindy Wilson, Kate Pierson, and Fred Schneider.

but seriously, I didn't know that the plane is still flying. I thought the B-2 stealth bomber and B-1B Lancer took over the B-52's job.

LAN party in a Stratofortress?

[shikaisi]

Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

Nooooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't network them, they are the only cylon immune hardware we have left...

Doctor Strangelove lives!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the aircraft has outlived all of the actors and the director of that fantastic movie.

Re:Doctor Strangelove lives!

[Anonymous Coward]

James Earl Jones is still alive, idiot.

Re:Doctor Strangelove lives!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. James Earl Jones is still very much alive.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[Anonymous Coward]

But to drop bombs you have to penetrate enemy airspace, which is not a realistic option for the B-52 if the enemy has a modern IADS. (Integrated Air Defense System) The B-52 is however capable of carrying missiles which can be employed from outside enemy defenses. The AGM-86 comes in both nuclear (ALCM) and conventional versions (CALCM). The conventional versions were used in the opening days of both Iraq wars, as well as Afghanistan. Once the IADS was destroyed by the CALCM the BUFF was then used to employ smart weapons such as the JDAM and WCMD. In addition the B-52 is used for CAS (Close Air Support) where they are required to communicate with forces on the ground to receive targets, and destroy said targets which are usually in close proximity (read shooting at) friendly forces.

And bombers are easier to recall,

[Grey Geezer]

Dr. Strangelove references aside, long range bombers, standing off, in holding patterns, might be less likely to escalate tensions than a missile launch would.

Re:And bombers are easier to recall,

[dbIII]

When the records were released in Russia apparently a US historian went looking for references to such games played when Nixon was doing his "madman theory" sabre rattling and failed to find anything to indicate they were taken seriously. Then again, they were used to real madmen in charge why fall for a fake?
Reagan on the other hand managed to restart the cold war to an extent and couldn't resist poking the dying empire of the USSR - I wonder if he knew how dangerous that was with the USSR on a vast building spree of nuclear bombs corruptly engineered for the personal profit of some people involved in bomb production? The "missile gap" invented by Kennedy really did exist when the USSR fell.

Scary to think about on 2 fronts

[JasoninKS]

There are a couple things that come to mind in regards to this upgrade.

1. These planes are older than the flight crews and maintenance staffs upkeeping them and flying them. Last ones entered service in the early 60's. Pushing 90 years old by the time of retirement! That's simply insane.
2. There are good and bad to upgrades like this. Yes, it makes you more efficient, but you lose the skills of being able to do it by hand. Also, old systems are damn near impossible to hack, unlike newer, shiny systems.

Re:Scary to think about on 2 fronts

[Anonymous Coward]

Scary in a different kind of way: The B52 entered active service closer to the Wright Bros. first flight than to today.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[QQBoss]

When you figure out how to recall a missile without loss of the airframe and other important explodey-bits, get back to us. Not to mention freaking out a couple of other countries with their own ICBMs when they can't tell if the missile you say is headed over the pole to a given -stan is going to fall short and hit Russia or go wide and hit China, so they have to order their own launches before the descent half of the arc (bonus points for MIRVs).

As for drones, there is a reason why you always try to take out the C&C first when it even a modestly viable option. With the B-52 in stand-off mode, every flight team is its own C&C when things go sideways. Much harder all of them than to take out than a single 'air wing' (not intending to be derisive of drone pilots- a meaningful MOS, but it does bring clarification to ChAir Force) based outside of Las Vegas.

Some day, hopefully none of this will be necessary. It won't be in our lifetimes, though. Until then, Semper Fi, and, thank you, Dad and all other veterans.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[amiga3D]

They do have plans in effect to deal with air defenses. A portion of any attack will be targeted on the anti-air assets. Of course in a full scale nuclear assault ICBM's from both land bases and subs plus sub launched cruise missiles will be utilized as well. A lot to deal with. MAD makes a mess.

yay we can bomb people even better now

[Anonymous Coward]

citizens across the world rejoice

What about Col. Jack Ripper?

[msblack]

Will they be replacing those CRM-114 discriminators in order to prevent nuclear disaster?

Re:What about Col. Jack Ripper?

[tmjva]

The tragic thing is those CRM-114 discriminators worked in Baudot over HF at 110 bits, per second. I forget how long the they said it would take to crack the recall code, but the big bottleneck was the transmission speed.

Now the recall code can be spoofed at network speeds!

I think you're thinking of the B1B

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Which is the plane that's the low-level penetrator. (Man, that sounds dirty.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Re:I think you're thinking of the B1B

[amiga3D]

All modern bombers are designed to make low-level entry. The B-52 was originally designed for high altitude bombardment but later was given terrain following radar and other upgrades to enable low level attack. The B-1B has much more speed but really when you're down in the dirt it's all sub sonic anyway. We had a B-1 do a pass over the high school stadium here one year for Indepence Day celebration. He rolled across the north side of town on his way to the stadium which sits on the Southern side of the city. The damn thing busted windows all across the flight path and he never exceeded the sound barrier. They make so much noise it's incredible. I was glad when the noisy things went to Texas.

Re:I think you're thinking of the B1B

[drjzzz]

The B1 was a huge waste of money -- about $100 billion back then, probably over $200 billion in today's dollars. It was obsolete before it was built because low-level (below radar) bombers were impractical. Carter cancelled it and pushed the stealthy B2 but Reagan wanted to buy toys for his "Defense" Department and needed to pay off contractors, mostly in SoCal. The B1 has hardly ever done anything and never anything that couldn't have been done by another plane.

Still fit for purpose

[dbIII]

Another example is a DC-3 that took part in a search and rescue operation in Antarctica a few months ago. It was a situation where cost is not a consideration yet an airframe built in the 1930s was used because it was suitable for the job. That DC-3 has turboprops and has been cut in half then lengthened but every major structural part is over 70 years old. There's a few other DC-3s around.
As with the B52 the modes of failure are very well known now so maintainance is going over a checklist and the nasty surprises happened decades ago.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[Alioth]

However, the thing I find interesting is the advance in turbofan engines since the B52 came out. A single Rolls-Royce Trent engine can put out almost as much thrust as all eight B-52 engines put together (the 8 B-52 engines combined produce 136000 lbs thrust static, and a Trent has been tested up to 115000 lbs thrust). They could replace those 8 old school and very thirsty engines with 2 RR Trent 772 engines (70,000 lb thrust each) and have better performance.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[dbIII]

Good point. I wonder if there have been any engine upgrades on any B52s.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[s122604]

There actually has been talk of replacing the 8 50's era engines of the B52 with 4 modern engines (the same that Boeing puts on the 767)
Such an upgrade would give the B52 more thrust, better range, and a much more robust supply chain for spares.

As far as I know it has never gotten out of the proposal stage.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on one of those a few months ago. It was a show-n-tell of the one we have leased for scientific work. Very nice aircraft.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[dj245]

There actually has been talk of replacing the 8 50's era engines of the B52 with 4 modern engines (the same that Boeing puts on the 767) Such an upgrade would give the B52 more thrust, better range, and a much more robust supply chain for spares. As far as I know it has never gotten out of the proposal stage.

It would likely require changes to the wing/nacelle interface. It could very well be that the existing engine mounting points can't take the weight/thrust load so a more radical change to the wing might be required. If you're going that far, you might as well redesign the whole plane. Sometimes upgrades just aren't worth the cost, despite radical advancements in technology.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[PPH]

Its as simple a problem as engine diameter and ground clearance. The only way to fix ground clearance is to install longer landing gear. Which means bigger gear bays and now you might as well throw the whole structure out and start with a fresh design.

Looking at what today's mission for a B-52 is, I wonder why they don't just put a bomb rack in a cargo plane or a 747.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[cthulhu11]

The mounting pylons would need to be redesigned, and maybe the wings wouldn't be up to the different force distribution? Disclaimer: my ex-FIL designed a few B52 parts but IANAAE.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[s122604]

re-engining is completely doable, you can do a google search and you'll find some examples of B52s being used as testbeds for alternate engines. Because a B52 is a high wing design, ground clearance is not an issue.

Jet engines have come along way in the last 60 years. If the AF spent the time and money to actually do this (and yes, it would lots of both), they'd have a plane that's safer (even going down to 4 engines, the MTBF is so much greater in a modern engine it more than makes up for it), much more efficient (the B52s immense range would be that much longer, or alternatively leave more weight for bombs), and cleaner if you are a touch-feely environmental type.

Still, all these benefits aside, a combination of the serious up-front costs, and an Air Force who would rather spend their money elsewhere means it will probably not happen.

Re:Still fit for purpose

[Alioth]

The CFM-56 could do the job now since the highest rated version of that engine is as powerful as two of the B52s current 50s tech engines (and the AF have experience re-engining planes with the CFM-56). The nice thing about the CFM-56 is that it could be shoehorned onto a B737 by moving the accessories to the side of the engine solving the ground clearance issue that the 737 had. I'd imagine a CFM-56 doesn't weigh any more than the two existing engines.

Forgotten the name two steps away

[dbIII]

When you say valves, do you mean what in the US are referred to as vacuum tubes

Sorry, I'd forgotten that thermionic valves in English is thermionic tubes in American and vacuum tubes on wikipedia presumably because that was more commonly used.

Either way I haven't seen inside one of those planes myself and should probably try to talk my way aboard one to have a look while there are still some flying. Being unpressurised they may have a few more decades yet but the surviving ones are certainly running up the hours.

Coming Soon

[jaeztheangel]

B-52 bombing synced with the B-52 songs! Courtesy of Steve Jobs' iPod..

Re:B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintai

[kimvette]

> A former co-worker of mine worked on designing a drone that can be dropped from the B-52. The earlier comment was pretty accurate - the B-52 is the pickup truck of the air, very versatile and conservatively inexpensive.

The B-52 has a track record with drones already. One of them was modified to carry and launch the Lockheed D-21 after a fatal accident with an M-21 (The M-12 was a Blackbird/Oxcart platform). The D-21 was horrendously expensive for what in practice was a disposable drone (ballistic recovery usually failed) so it was discontinued after four (disclosed) operational missions but it was capable (considering the state of technology at the time - it relied on intertional navigation since it was pre-GPS and even pre-Loran) for surveillance once they resolved the launch issues but was a logistical nightmare. It was just cheaper and more reliable to send manned aircraft (Oxcart and Blackbird, or the cheaper to operate U-2 in less risky regions) over areas of interest.

Best To Keep Those Systems That Work

[Anonymous Coward]

The B-52 just works, so don't change it too much.

Any modern electronics may be susceptible to EMP, simple unreliability or hacking. Meanwhile the old stuff just keeps on working.

90s eh?

[mu51c10rd]

Please don't tell me they are running Windows NT 4.0 in the cockpit...

interesting. 2,000 MPH drone in 1963

[raymorris]

That's interesting. I see the D-21 had a lot in common with the SR-71, including its mach 3 speed. That was 50 years ago. I wonder what kind of aircraft we have today that we'll find out about in 20 years.

Re:interesting. 2,000 MPH drone in 1963

[kimvette]

> I wonder what kind of aircraft we have today that we'll find out about in 20 years.

In 20 years? Try at least two years ago. You've already heard about it. See: X-37 OTV. Also, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1 Predator, and MQ-9 Reaper.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[Anonymous Coward]

What is carpet bombing useful for? It failed in WW2 and I can't see why it'd work now.

Rats, they are no longer Cylon Immune

[Anonymous Coward]

I was counting on using these to defend us against the cylon menace; perhaps with the assistance of the USS Galactica...

Sardaukar86 classic "eating his words" (3x)

[Anonymous Coward]

"BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, Slashdot DID speak for you - it said "You are a troll". What else would you expect, you hypocritical, stalking, crap-spouting Slashdot Clown. wiping tears from my eyes, thanks for that good laugh... do you honestly think people here LIKE you? You're the most reviled, pathetic piece of shit to ever grace this site - that's saying a LOT too, because we all remember people like MichaelKristopeit and you don't even compare. Let me repeat this for you: YOU. ARE. NOT. LIKED. No amount of mod points will change that, ever." - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Monday May 26, 2014 @05:40PM (#47095129) Homepage FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

As usual You must "eat your words" (again) WHERE YOU WERE -1 "TROLL" DOWNMODDED (lol, "oh the SHAME of it" calling me what YOU WERE DOWNMODDED AS, hahaha, you HYPOCRITE) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

( & in that post that you did on 'rational discourse' (bullshit) which I showed EVERYONE READING how 'rational' your stalking ME, with YOU completely offtopic, is riddled with IRRATIONAL raving profanities, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ... lol! )

---

Unlike you, I don't *need* the "support" of others: I merely use facts ( + your own words you have to end up eating too, lmao) to TRASH you easily & again - I get that "last laugh" on YOU, as usual, using your own words against you, fool... lol!

* :)

(Lastly - Quit "projecting" troll - makes you look worse than ever, every time you do it...)

APK

P.S.=> Between this major screwup of yours yet again, your big mouth writing checks you can't ca$h? YOU FAIL AGAIN... badly!

Especially after ALL that above, + a 244++:1 ratio against your b.s. of our /. peers uprating my posts here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Where YOU had to "eat your words"!

Yes - You FAIL again & I'd recommend a dietary change (lol) - since eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION & I wonder (lmao): HOW DID "EATING YOUR WORDS" TASTE?!

... apk

What...

[flargleblarg]

No Love Shack jokes?

Re:Sardaukar86 classic "eating his words" (3x)

[Sardaukar86]

Is it any wonder you are not liked? Stop stalking, arsehole, it's unfair to the rest of the board. You and I have a perfectly available forum for sniping at one another, you don't need to wipe your arsehole all over Slashdot just to get at me.

Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B-

[DaveAtFraud]

What is carpet bombing useful for? It failed in WW2 and I can't see why it'd work now.

Actually, it didn't fail during WWII. You should review the US breakout from Normandy (Operation Cobra: month end July to early August 1944) and, in particular, what happened to the Panzer Lehr division. The division CO reported later that the division area looked like, "the surface of the moon." Carpet bombing basically removed that division as a fighting force. Another example where it worked was the air campaign against the Italian island of Pantelleria (mid-1943) which surrendered without a shot being fired to the invaision force after concerted "carpet bombing."

There are also examples where it didn't work (e.g., the British efforts to brakthrough at Caen). But simply saying, "it didn't work," is just wrong. Even where it appeared "not to work", it's hard to say what would have happened if there hadn't been a carpet bombing prior to the attack. Would the attack have been repulsed with even more casualties?

Cheers,
Dave

Oh, so it's "ok" for YOU to do it 1st? BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & this link (You hypocritical scumbag) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Sardaukar86 classic "eating his words" (3x)

[Anonymous Coward]

"BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, Slashdot DID speak for you - it said "You are a troll". What else would you expect, you hypocritical, stalking, crap-spouting Slashdot Clown. wiping tears from my eyes, thanks for that good laugh... do you honestly think people here LIKE you? You're the most reviled, pathetic piece of shit to ever grace this site - that's saying a LOT too, because we all remember people like MichaelKristopeit and you don't even compare. Let me repeat this for you: YOU. ARE. NOT. LIKED. No amount of mod points will change that, ever." - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Monday May 26, 2014 @05:40PM (#47095129) Homepage FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

As usual You must "eat your words" (again) WHERE YOU WERE -1 "TROLL" DOWNMODDED (lol, "oh the SHAME of it" calling me what YOU WERE DOWNMODDED AS, hahaha, you HYPOCRITE) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

( & in that post that you did on 'rational discourse' (bullshit) which I showed EVERYONE READING how 'rational' your stalking ME, with YOU completely offtopic, is riddled with IRRATIONAL raving profanities, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ... lol! )

---

Unlike you, I don't *need* the "support" of others: I merely use facts ( + your own words you have to end up eating too, lmao) to TRASH you easily & again - I get that "last laugh" on YOU, as usual, using your own words against you, fool... lol!

* :)

(Lastly - Quit "projecting" troll - makes you look worse than ever, every time you do it...)

APK

P.S.=> Between this major screwup of yours yet again, your big mouth writing checks you can't ca$h? YOU FAIL AGAIN... badly!

Especially after ALL that above, + a 244++:1 ratio against your b.s. of our /. peers uprating my posts here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Where YOU had to "eat your words"!

Yes - You FAIL again & I'd recommend a dietary change (lol) - since eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION & I wonder (lmao): HOW DID "EATING YOUR WORDS" TASTE?!

... apk

Re:Sardaukar86 classic "eating his words" (3x)

[Sardaukar86]

In your rush to claim victory you've failed to realise a couple of things:

1. to 'make someone eat their words' you'd have to actually prove them wrong in such a way that they cannot possibly refute your argument. Naturally I feel quite safe in this regard as you are a complete pushover and have nothing to hit me with but vitriol; logic having long since washed its hands of you.

2. are you seriously claiming victory over the fact that I got modded "troll"? For a single comment? Is this the point where I bring out a list of all my +5 mods to 'prove you wrong'? It might be if I was as mentally deficient as you APK, however I'm not going to waste my time - my comment hit +5 for a while before working its way down to -1. Plenty of people saw it, plenty of people agreed, mission accomplished. That post burned you so bad you're still applying anusol to your stinging ringmeat. Hmm, yet YOU are the only one stalking my posts following. Wonder why?

3. no amount of post-stalking is going to change the fact that you are the one with the problem here, that for all your shrieking and wailing you're still the least-liked member of the /. community and that your continued childishness only leads to to you being further ostracized by the very people whose approval you crave.

Loser.