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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

Doctor Strangelove lives!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.