A new B-52

Pangur

Donor
I have wondered for some time now if we will ever see a new B-52 type hevay bomberm bascially a long range bomb truck. AFAIK the last B-52 was built in 1962 or 63 which is a very long time ago. I know there was lots of plans to replace it over the decades however none of the designs look to me to be bomb trucks. I appreciate that they B-1 can and does drop iron bombs however to my eyes its just not in the same league as a B-52. Seeing as they still go on combat missions that would suggest that role/requirement has not gone awy so that being the case will be see another heavy bomber in the next say 20 years?
 
One solution would be to do a rebuild of parts of the B-52 that are going to hit their end of life.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm

Upper wing is the pressing need. Something similiar was done for the A-10's. While in rebuild things like the engines could also be updated.

C-130's have been used as bomb dump trucks dropping super heavy bombs for example. The 22K pound GBU-43/B MOAB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B

In theory could do some type of conversion of cargo plans to do the same. Or base a new design on such. Something with long range and heavy bomb load. Odds are in 747 size range.

Michael
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The current B-52 in service (they have retired all the -52D "Big Bellies" can deliver 70,000 pounds of bombs. The B-1B can handle 75,000 in her internal bomb bays (along with another 50,000 pounds that can theoretically be carried on external hard-points). The B-2 can "only handle 50,000 pounds, but can drop that payload against targets that no other aircraft on Earth could attack and live to tell the tale. The only significant advantage the BUFF has over the B-1 & B-2 is unrefueled range, something that is hardly a serious issue in this era.

The B-52 has one other "advantage", namely that it is almost impossible to miss when it is making an attack. Between the huge size of the aircraft and the contrails the B-52 is scary as hell and its reputation precedes it. It is a remarkable aircraft, but in today's world it is no more a true bomber than a C-130 (which, BTW, also excels in roughing up undefended infantry).

The Lancer and Spirit are, frankly, too valuable to use in the bomb truck role, although they are more than capable ofperforming it. They are aircraft that can actually attack a near peer enemy with reasonable hope of success, something that the B-52 hasn't been able to do for 30 years.
 
The only significant advantage the BUFF has over the B-1 & B-2 is unrefueled range, something that is hardly a serious issue in this era.

Maintenance Cost and mission capability numbers grossly favor the B-52. The B-2 in particular is a bitch to service as it requires way more service hours per hour of flight time than anything else in service. Stealth costs.

Michael
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The B-1B can handle 75,000 in her internal bomb bays (along with another 50,000 pounds that can theoretically be carried on external hard-points).

So besides horrible range, what is the down side that prevents using hard points?
 
The B-1B is half-way to being a stealth aircraft, but with external munitions that advantage of a smaller radar profile disappears. The extra drag will probably hurt their top speed a bit as well.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
The B-1B is half-way to being a stealth aircraft, but with external munitions that advantage of a smaller radar profile disappears. The extra drag will probably hurt their top speed a bit as well.

But for the air truck mission against infantry without good anti-air, that does not matter. Any mission a B-52 can do, can't a unstealthly B-1 with 120,000 tons of bombs do?
 
IIRC the B-1 has an exceedingly poor rate of readiness. Over 1/3 of the fleet is grounded at any given time due to repairs or maintenance. Those swing-wings are a bitch to keep running properly.
 
But for the air truck mission against infantry without good anti-air, that does not matter. Any mission a B-52 can do, can't a unstealthly B-1 with 120,000 tons of bombs do?
Sure but in '98 dollar-values, each of the remaining 74 B-52Hs still in service is worth $53.4 million, whereas each of the 65 B-1Bs is worth $283.1 million or more than five times the price.
 
Bomb Trucks

we have seen a number a ocasions lately were there was a need for precision air support without any oposition capable of downing an high altitude aircraft. Modern bombers are expensive because they were built to penetrate air defences. There is a role today for a large high altitute bomb truck. Since most weapons would be smart, there is no need for a very large bombay and since it would be employed only against unprotected targets, no need for stealth or expensive protective mesures. The critical factor will be range, loitering time, crew confort and networking capabilities.
A converted airliner platform, packing a dozen smart bombs and with as low a operating cost as possible might be the way to go.
Since the P8 is already there, why not a bomber variant?
 
Why bother? Against unprotected target a drone will work just as well as a manned aircraft, and if you need more firepower then there's not much the F-15E can't lug in.
 

Riain

Banned
I`m thinking there might also be an element of fleet preservation involved. B1 and 2 are expensive and have finite lives, so why waste their fatige lifed components when an old buff can drop the shit on a lot of targets.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Why bother? Against unprotected target a drone will work just as well as a manned aircraft, and if you need more firepower then there's not much the F-15E can't lug in.

Yeah, but F-15Es don't have the loiter time, payload or head that the B-52 brings to the table, and yeah you could use drones, but the ones in service for the near term can't really handle anything larger than a few hellfires, while the ones currently on the drawing board can carry a couple of JDAMs at most. They're hardly suited for the sorts of missions the B-52 undertakes.
 
we have seen a number a ocasions lately were there was a need for precision air support without any oposition capable of downing an high altitude aircraft. Modern bombers are expensive because they were built to penetrate air defences. There is a role today for a large high altitute bomb truck. Since most weapons would be smart, there is no need for a very large bombay and since it would be employed only against unprotected targets, no need for stealth or expensive protective mesures. The critical factor will be range, loitering time, crew confort and networking capabilities.
A converted airliner platform, packing a dozen smart bombs and with as low a operating cost as possible might be the way to go.
Since the P8 is already there, why not a bomber variant?

I have thought of that too. Actually the B52s were also used as cruise missile firing platforms, firing ACLMs more than thousand if miles away from enemy airspace. This job could have also been taken over by a modified airliner. Take a 767 or 777 (in the future) and modify it accordingly.
 
Yeah, but F-15Es don't have the loiter time, payload or head that the B-52 brings to the table...
They can fly supersonic though, so they don't need to loiter, and if the target is more than 700 miles away then what exactly were you bombing anyway?

...and yeah you could use drones, but the ones in service for the near term can't really handle anything larger than a few hellfires...
The MQ-9 can carry a couple of GBU-12s or GBU-38s.
 
Yeah, but F-15Es don't have the loiter time, payload or head that the B-52 brings to the table, and yeah you could use drones, but the ones in service for the near term can't really handle anything larger than a few hellfires, while the ones currently on the drawing board can carry a couple of JDAMs at most. They're hardly suited for the sorts of missions the B-52 undertakes.

The MQ-9 Reaper - in operation now, mind you - can carry 2 JDAMs or 500lb bombs, along with 4 Hellfires (or 14 Hellfires if you forgo the bombs). That's not exactly comparable with a B-52, but it's hardly negligible given that it has a loiter time of over a day. As MattII pointed out, if you need more than that a F-15 can carry enough ordnance for any target you're likely to come across.
Put it another way - what mission that the B-52 currently undertakes are you thinking of that cannot be filled by another platform?
 
The MQ-9 Reaper - in operation now, mind you - can carry 2 JDAMs or 500lb bombs, along with 4 Hellfires (or 14 Hellfires if you forgo the bombs). That's not exactly comparable with a B-52, but it's hardly negligible given that it has a loiter time of over a day. As MattII pointed out, if you need more than that a F-15 can carry enough ordnance for any target you're likely to come across.
Put it another way - what mission that the B-52 currently undertakes are you thinking of that cannot be filled by another platform?

F-15 can't loiter to the same degree and pilot fatigue IS an issue. The drone can't carry heavier weapons.

B-52 has been used because it can do these things. It can carry lots of big weapons and it can just spend hours doing race tracks over a target area.

Michael
 
Top