B-52 with props instead of jets - would it last?

In 1948 (I think) Boeing produced at least one blueprint of the B-52 with swept wings and turboprops, a la Tu-95.

The Soviet / Russian Bear has lasted to the present day like the BUFF, although the Russians did keep the Tu-95 in production longer.

So would we be seeing prop powered B-52's in service today, having served in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and Iraq again)?

Or would it be easier to make a case for replacing the B-52 much earlier based on an even more antiquated appearance?
 
its nickname would likely be BUNF (big ugly noisy fucker)

but if it does its job just as good as the jet powered from otl, i wouldn't see a problem.
 
Most military transport planes use props, technically a bomber is also a transport plane, it just happens that the bomber loses its freight mid-flight.

There's nothing wrong with propellers, the issue with the bear bomber is simply that it's the strongest turboprop engine ever produced (and a quite old one too) - put 6 or 8 weaker ones on your bomber, like the B-36, and done.

Convair_B-36_Peacemaker.jpg
 
The reason the B-52 is still in service is that it still fulfills its mission and building a new replacement bomber is extremely expensive.
If the B-52 had a quality turbo-prop engine it would likely still be flying today.
 
The reasons the B-52 is still around today are

1) Modifying it has always been far, far cheaper than replacing it with a newer bomber.

2) It has been historically relatively easy to fly for a large plane. Very forgiving. Which makes it popular among air crews

3) Aside from its vertical stabilizer structural problems early on, most of which were dealt with in the 1960s it has not had any high profile mechanical issues that had to be dealt with.

4) The US bought 744 of them. Which meant plenty of planes for modification, experimentation, and most especially to serve as an easy source of spare parts for the ones still flying.
 
For my money? No, but the B-70 or B-1A would have seen service, along with a large force of widebody tankers.
 

Driftless

Donor
The C-130 has been used a bomb-truck into the 90's, so why not a turbo-prop B-52?

Off on a tangent (it's what I do..), with the extraordinary cost of developing bombers to be used against topline militaries; could you convert any of the modern transport aircraft to fill the bomb-truck/cruise missile carrier for use in secondary battlegrounds?
 
The C-130 has been used a bomb-truck into the 90's, so why not a turbo-prop B-52?

Off on a tangent (it's what I do..), with the extraordinary cost of developing bombers to be used against topline militaries; could you convert any of the modern transport aircraft to fill the bomb-truck/cruise missile carrier for use in secondary battlegrounds?

This is an idea which comes up every so often, and the short answer is "yes, but...".
The longer answer is that its not easy in most cases. Most aircraft do not respond well to sudden changes in the position of their Center of Gravity during flight (note how most bombers have their weapon bays under the main wing spar). But most transports are not equipped to offload their cargo at that point, instead using tail ramps or side cargo doors. You have to move the payload around inside the aircraft in order to drop it, with corresponding effects on the CoG. This isn't impossible - anything which can paradrop cargo can cope with it - but it isn't something to be done casually. Accuracy would also not be high.

If you have to use a cargo aircraft I'd choose something like a C-130, load smartbombs on wing pylons, and get someone else to designate a target for them. Rolling pallets of bombs out the back is very much plan B.
 

jahenders

Banned
Even though it's from the same timeframe as the Tu-95 and propellors could still allow it to do much of what it does today, I think the props would have made a difference. American technological perception would be against it. Quite simply, most Americans (including AF & DoD leaders, congress, the people, etc) would PERCEIVE the B-52 as being older and more old-fashioned than they do today.

Those perceptions alone might likely have made the difference in various considerations to replace it. However, there would also be realities in that it would likely be 100 mph or so slower, making it more vulnerable and less flexible.

So, it probably would have been replaced by the B-47, B-58, B-1, XB-70, or something much like the B-52 but with jets.

In 1948 (I think) Boeing produced at least one blueprint of the B-52 with swept wings and turboprops, a la Tu-95.

The Soviet / Russian Bear has lasted to the present day like the BUFF, although the Russians did keep the Tu-95 in production longer.

So would we be seeing prop powered B-52's in service today, having served in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and Iraq again)?

Or would it be easier to make a case for replacing the B-52 much earlier based on an even more antiquated appearance?
 
Expanding on my short comment earlier: a turboprop B-52 could do everything that the jet B-52 does today. It could not do everything that the jet B-52 did in the 1960s and especially 1970s as a penetrating bomber in the nuclear role, and USAF doctrine will not tolerate that.

The Soviets got away with the Tu-95 for so long because they didn't go in for penetrating strategic bombers. Instead, the Tu-95 was a standoff missile carrier for virtually all of its' service, as a supplement to ballistic missiles.

Since the USAF will not go down that route, the turboprop B-52 will need replacing before its' vulnerability issues become crippling. I'd expect the replacement to look a lot like a B-1A, but enter service in the late 1960s; since AMSA was widely considered to stand for America's Most Studied Aircraft, that timescale isn't challenging in the slightest.

It's also highly likely that the B-58 is procured in greater numbers; you might even see something similar to the B-36/B-47 pairing, with something like 300 long-range B-52s supplementing a short-range force of about 1,200 B-58s.

There would also be major knock-on consequences for air travel - no B-52 may mean no KC-135, undercutting the Boeing 707. It'll still exist, but it won't have the advantage of the big tanker order.
The C-130 has been used a bomb-truck into the 90's, so why not a turbo-prop B-52?

Off on a tangent (it's what I do..), with the extraordinary cost of developing bombers to be used against topline militaries; could you convert any of the modern transport aircraft to fill the bomb-truck/cruise missile carrier for use in secondary battlegrounds?
Yes - Boeing has proposed doing just that with the C-17, and Lockheed proposed doing it with the C-141. In the latter case, it seems to have been an alternative to the B-52D BIG BELLY for Vietnam.

Trouble is, it's a lot of cost to go to for an aircraft that can't contribute to a war against a near-peer competitor.
 
Im afraid impossible, the small wank generals of the 50's who thought the bomber made up for their defincies would never go for that after jets became popular. Possible for the navy if they could get an airbase for long-range recon and anti-shipping duties but no, not our air force.
 
Im afraid impossible, the small wank generals of the 50's who thought the bomber made up for their defincies would never go for that after jets became popular. Possible for the navy if they could get an airbase for long-range recon and anti-shipping duties but no, not our air force.

As somebody stated first, its the perception problem, when america get first info on the Bison Jet Bomber was a real scare of russian deep penetration bombing in USA while when tu95 was seen later there was no reaction as it seemed obsolete.
 
The B-52 was replaced several times - by the B-58, the B-1 and the B-2. It just forgot to phase itself out completely because it still works in its mission role.

The B-36 had propellers (and later added outlier jets) and didn't last. I can't see how a B-52 that had propellers would last. There would probably be calls to scale up a B-47 to a new specification.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Even though it's from the same timeframe as the Tu-95 and propellors could still allow it to do much of what it does today, I think the props would have made a difference. American technological perception would be against it. Quite simply, most Americans (including AF & DoD leaders, congress, the people, etc) would PERCEIVE the B-52 as being older and more old-fashioned than they do today.

Those perceptions alone might likely have made the difference in various considerations to replace it. However, there would also be realities in that it would likely be 100 mph or so slower, making it more vulnerable and less flexible.

So, it probably would have been replaced by the B-47, B-58, B-1, XB-70, or something much like the B-52 but with jets.

And I think this sums up the situation very well. The Tu-95 is a viable design for sure. I does its job well and should do so for a long time. One can imagine it outlasting the Tu-22M for example. And let's not forget the relatively short life of the all jet M-4 Bison.

However, the USAF may well have looked at a large fleet of B-52's powered by props and by the 1970's considered them more obsolete than they were.

The B-1A may well have entered service after all, even though a prop powered B-52 would still be able to launch AGM-86's all the same.
 
Top