NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Attrition Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

B-52s Going Into Storage

August 1, 2008: The first of 18 U.S. Air Force B-52H bombers has been retired. All 18 will have been decommissioned and put into storage by next Spring. That will leave 76 still active. The retired B-52Hs have been in service 47 years. These aircraft could continue for another decade or more, but it was decided (between Congress and the air force) that the money saved from not maintaining such elderly aircraft could be better used elsewhere.

What's happening here is part of a major change in how heavy bombers are used. A B-52 armed with JDAMs (GPS guided bombs) is more effective than over a hundred B-52s armed with dumb (unguided) bombs. The air force is still trying to sort out where all of this is going. GPS guided smart bombs have revolutionized warfare, but not to the air force's advantage. The greater reliability and accuracy of the GPS bombs means that far fewer bombs, and bombers, are needed. The air force still has its 65 years of air superiority, and maintaining it, to worry about. Many officials in the Department of Defense fear that this advantage may be lost if the United States does not keep up with coming shift to robotic fighter aircraft, or any other revolutions brought about by advances in sensor and missile technology. The pilots who run the air force (and naval aviation) are not keen on adopting robotic air superiority fighters, but less partisan observers have seen such parochialism cause disasters in the past.

There is a push for robotic bombers, and these already exist in the form of UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper (or, if you want to be picky, the 1980s era cruise missile).

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article LEADERSHIP: More Careers Up In Smoke


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

J3       8/1/2008 11:57:33 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper and just as effective to modify an off-shelf commercial airplane to carry these precision guided weapons?  Why spend money on supersonic speeds and exotic construction techniques when it is the weapon into which all the performance is designed.  There are lots of examplye: 707 AWACS, Rivet Joint and other electronics warfare airplanes, and now the 737 besing used for AEW (Wedgtail) and anti-sub platforms. 
 
J3
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       8/1/2008 2:13:29 PM

Wouldn't it be cheaper and just as effective to modify an off-shelf commercial airplane to carry these precision guided weapons?  Why spend money on supersonic speeds and exotic construction techniques when it is the weapon into which all the performance is designed.  There are lots of examplye: 707 AWACS, Rivet Joint and other electronics warfare airplanes, and now the 737 besing used for AEW (Wedgtail) and anti-sub platforms. 

 

J3



Yes and no.  The problem is a much larger issue than merely stuffing a plane full of munitions.  The Comet was modified at great expense to become the Nimrod.  The munitions simply could not be stored internally because that would affect the pressurized cabin and its associated design.  Instead, an unpressurized weapons bay was added underneath.  The same issue arose with the P-3 Orion and the P-8 Poseidon - however these aircraft did not require as much modification.
 
There was a proposal to modify a 747 to act as a large cruise missile carrier - but again - the modifications for ALCM deployment were minor in comparison to mounting large bomb bays, racks and then testing release.  Even the P-8 has run into some difficulty in the weapons bay modifications and ordinance release.  Keep in mind - the kind of weapons load for a P-8 is a fraction of the load a B-52 can carry.
 
Thus, it would appear that a bomber - designed from scratch to be a bomber - is more apt to serve than a modified cargo/commercial variant with a bombing capability.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    Right, Softwar   8/2/2008 3:56:25 AM

Yes and no.  The problem is a much larger issue than merely stuffing a plane full of munitions.  The Comet was modified at great expense to become the Nimrod.  The munitions simply could not be stored internally because that would affect the pressurized cabin and its associated design.  Instead, an unpressurized weapons bay was added underneath.  The same issue arose with the P-3 Orion and the P-8 Poseidon - however these aircraft did not require as much modification.
 
There was a proposal to modify a 747 to act as a large cruise missile carrier - but again - the modifications for ALCM deployment were minor in comparison to mounting large bomb bays, racks and then testing release.  Even the P-8 has run into some difficulty in the weapons bay modifications and ordinance release.  Keep in mind - the kind of weapons load for a P-8 is a fraction of the load a B-52 can carry.

Thus, it would appear that a bomber - designed from scratch to be a bomber - is more apt to serve than a modified cargo/commercial variant with a bombing capability.


 
An interesting design point about modern aircraft design that is often forgotten.  Modern passenger liners depend on the internal pressurization of their fuselage to help keep it rigid in order to save weight.  It is a bit like a skinny balloon with wings.
 
Doesn't sound like much?  Take a fuselage 20 feet in diameter and apply a 10 pound per square inch pressure differential and you have 'hoop' load (that the force on longitudinal seams) of nearly 4 tons in tension!  Axial tension (force pushing the nose and tail apart and keeping the fuselage straight) is over 900 tons!
 
Eliminate the pressurized fuselage, and the stiffness those forces generate needs to be replaced with structure strength.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    B52H   8/5/2008 10:13:08 AM
I thought the only thing the B52H's were being used for was to deliver the CALCM's. I can't see the B52 flying into any territory that had SAM's or Fighter protection even to drop JDAM's.I know they were working on the JSOW, but I thought that was being delivered by the B1 platform.
 
Isn't this retirement of B52's mostly about getting more money for F22's?
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       8/5/2008 10:00:52 PM
I think the reason behind the retirement is that there is a contingency, not longer considered relevant.
 
The big role of the B-52 today is to pummel a large area, as they did during the Gulf 2 war, where an Iraqi Division moved against the coalition forces under the "cover" of a sandstorm. That division never arrived.
 
The only opponent that could amass a force worthy of the attention of a B-52 visit would be China. I speculate that in the continued assesment of the warplans some reevaluation of specific Chinese countermoves. It could be marshalling a reserve force or it could be collection of an invasion force, is no longer a possibility.
 
The B-52 has by normal standards outlived its usefullness. That is normal standards; but there remain certain mission, where the B-52 has an edge. The comparison I can come up with: The RAF kept the Mosquito in the inventory till about 1960 because it could use a version of the Barnes Wallis skipping bomb (used against the Möhne and Eder dams) for antishipping purposes. I think it was the Buccaneer that killed that mission off.
 
Quote    Reply

Mrbinga       8/8/2008 11:31:08 AM
I think this is a bad idea.  An aircraft that can fly long distances, carry a significant payload, and haul just about any ordnance type in the U.S. inventory at a relatively economical cost is not going to be obsolete anytime soon.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy