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



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

BUFFs Return To Their Roots

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS

January 23, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is going back to the future, by creating a new B-52 squadron, so that it will be possible to give all squadrons time to train for nuclear bombing missions. With a max takeoff weight of 240-250 tons, the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fellow) is basically a large aircraft designed to carry bombs cheaply and efficiently.

Currently, the B-52 force is limited, by law, to 76 aircraft. The current four squadrons each have 14 bombers and 17 crews. The remaining aircraft are assigned to a training squadron, or idle while awaiting upgrades. Twenty B-52s will get electronic and mechanical upgrades that will make all 76 of equal capability. To obtain the aircraft for the fifth squadron, each unit will now have 13 aircraft and 15 crews. The active duty training squadron will become the fifth operational squadron, and the reserve training squadron will take over all the training duties it used to share with the active duty squadron. 

The B-52 is the cheapest, to operate, heavy bomber in the air force, and one of them can cover all of Afghanistan. B-52s are based on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia when they are supporting operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. With five squadrons, there will be time available for squadrons to train each year for nuclear missions (using nuclear armed cruise missiles), while still covering overseas obligations.

During the Afghanistan war in late 2001, ten B-52s dropped a third of the bomb tonnage. That's a remarkable record for a fifty-year-old aircraft design. The B-52 carried that much of the load because it's the most cost-effective heavy bomber we have. The B-52 has a lower accident rate than the B-1 and B-2. Compared to the supersonic B-1 and high-tech B-2, the B-52 is a flying truck. Thus the B-52, despite its age, was the cheapest, safest and most reliable way to deliver smart bombs over Afghanistan.

Lacking the supersonic speed of the B-1, or the stealth and automation of the B-2, the B-52 can carry up to 150 tons of fuel, and normally carries 12-20 tons of bombs (max load of 35 tons). What made the B-52 so useful in the Afghanistan war is its ability to stay in the air for so long. The B-52s flying out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia to Afghanistan typically stayed in the air for some 16 hours. Since it can refuel in the air, the B-52 can fly anywhere in the world with a load of bombs or missiles.

Over Afghanistan, carrying a dozen 2000-pound JDAM (GPS-guided bombs), or a larger number of smaller bombs, a B-52 could circle a combat area for hours, waiting for the special forces guys or Air Force controllers on the ground to send them the coordinates of a target. The JDAM landed (over 90 percent of the time) within 50 feet of the location the ground troopers wanted it. Better yet, most of the bombs arrived within ten minutes of the request.

Surviving enemy troops admitted that they were demoralized once they realized how this was working. At that point, the enemy fighters knew that if they saw Americans looking at them with binoculars (that included a laser range finder, to provide the B-52 with precise location data for the target), they had ten minutes to run away, or die. And often the enemy troops didn't know they were being set up for a JDAM. No place was safe from the one ton JDAMs. If you ran into a cave, it had better have another exit, because the JDAM would permanently close the one you just entered.

The B-52 can carry a large variety of weapons, including eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles and 20 cruise missiles. The B-52 has seen a lot of action in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, in the Balkans and over Afghanistan. The B-52 prototype first flew in 1952. The last one built, a B-52H, was in late 1962.

It's a large aircraft, with a wingspan of 185 feet, a length of 159 feet and a height of 17.5 feet (to the top of the fuselage, 40.6 feet to the top of the tail). Empty weight is 86 tons. It has a crew of five (pilot, copilot, navigator, electronics warfare officer and radar navigator). There used to be a gunner for a rear-firing 20mm cannon, but this was eliminated in the 1990s. Automation can reduce this even more. The 1970s era B-1 has a crew of four, and the 1980s era B-2 has a crew of two. The only B-52s flying are the B-52H model, all built in the early 1960s.

A true replacement for the B-52 was never built because no one foresaw the development of such accurate smart bombs, and the ability of the U. S. Air Force to destroy most anti-aircraft defenses. Indeed, even when faced with heavy defenses, the B-52 was able to fight its way through. During the twelve days of Linebacker II raids against North Vietnam in 1972, 15 B-52s were shot down by Soviet-built SAM-2 missiles. The 150 B-52s stationed in Guam flew 729 missions, for a loss rate of two percent. But because of the number of sorties flown, ten percent of the B-52s involved were brought down. Of the 92 airmen in the downed aircraft, 33 died.

After Vietnam, the B-52s received several generations of new electronic warfare equipment, learning much from the experience during Linebacker II. But there never was enough money to keep the B-52 completely up to date, especially with the equipment needed to use some of the newer bombs. Some B-52s got their JDAM equipment just before the 2001 war in Afghanistan. And this was mainly because the upgrade was cheap - wiring from the weapons officer's station to the bombs so GPS location data could be changed in flight. The 50-year-old B-52 became the weapon of choice over Afghanistan, able to hang around for hours and drop one-ton JDAM bombs on demand. The B-52 was upgraded to use JDAM before the B-1B because the B-52 is more reliable.

Currently, the Air Force has the capacity to shut down the high-altitude missiles systems of just about anyone, and then bring the B-52s in at high altitude to avoid low-altitude anti-aircraft guns and mobile antiaircraft missile systems. The B-1 and B-2 were built to deal with even more intense antiaircraft defenses. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, no one else has such a system. Perhaps, in the future, a nation like China may build another such formidable antiaircraft defense system. For the moment, because of the lack of first rate air defenses to stop it, the B-52 can still hack it in the combat zone, even delivering nuclear weapons.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: Why Israel Is Special


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

Krag    Still not getting it   1/23/2009 5:52:52 PM
So first there was an article about the B-52s getting new blast curtains for the cockpit, now the USAF is spending time and money to get B-52 crews up to speed for nuclear strike missions.  Yet we have two newer strategic bombers in the inventory specifically designed for nuclear strike...what the heck would happen that all the B-1s and B-2s are not enough and we actually need B-52s carrying nukes again as well?
 
Doesn't this seem an odd way to spend time and money during long term COIN wars that have no realistic possibility of going nuclear? 
 
Quote    Reply

kisscatman       1/23/2009 9:49:25 PM
Limiting the number of B-52s to 76 is patently stupid.  Revive some from the Boneyard to prepare for the coming conflict against China.  Of course Obama will not do this because he speaks soo well and would negotiate without preconditions.  After all, how could the Chi-coms not listen to our new Messiah?
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       1/24/2009 9:25:23 AM
Limiting the number of B-52s is not stupid, unless you want to risk another arms race.
And more likely is that military commmanders see the current U.S. Air Force inventory numbers as satisafactory, and see no need for more heavy bombers.
 
Also do you think the defence budget would support the reactivation and operation of a large number of heavy bombers, when as Krag said, we are in the middle of two longterm COIN wars.  If one B-52 can cover all of Afghanistan, we still have 75 aircraft left to be detailed for other missions. What do we need more for?
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Launch platforms   1/24/2009 11:47:50 AM

Limiting the number of B-52s is not stupid, unless you want to risk another arms race.


And more likely is that military commmanders see the current U.S. Air Force inventory numbers as satisafactory, and see no need for more heavy bombers.

 

Also do you think the defence budget would support the reactivation and operation of a large number of heavy bombers, when as Krag said, we are in the middle of two longterm COIN wars.  If one B-52 can cover all of Afghanistan, we still have 75 aircraft left to be detailed for other missions. What do we need more for?


You know, lack of imagination, is why people like you perplex people like me
 
 There is a lot you can do with a B-52. Launching SATELLITES is one of them.
 
 
 
Been doing that for a while.
 
Limit the numbers? I wish we had two hundred of them.
 
There is a lot I could do with a couple of hundred launch platforms that can get me up six miles above heavy air. And no, I don't mean blowing people up, either.
 
Herald
 
   
 

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oOOOo       1/24/2009 4:33:48 PM
Looks like it doesn't have to be a buff. Pegasus could be carried aloft by an L-1011. Looks like orbital sciences has had 40 Pegasus shots with only 3 failures.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/24/2009 8:35:35 PM

Looks like it doesn't have to be a buff. Pegasus could be carried aloft by an L-1011. Looks like orbital sciences has had 40 Pegasus shots with only 3 failures.
There are two technical reasons (SEE DIAGRAM) why I prefer the B-52 wing configuration. One of them is that you can carry TWO payloads. The other is that the B-52 is a much STRONGER aircraft.

 
Quote    Reply

jak267       1/25/2009 7:05:09 AM
"Risk" another arms race? We won the last one. And just who would we be competing with that we aren't already?
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       1/25/2009 10:22:45 AM
Only 200?  Bah, such a lack of imagination.  I wish we had 20,000.  There, now I have much more imagination than anyone else.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       1/25/2009 1:39:32 PM

Only 200?  Bah, such a lack of imagination.  I wish we had 20,000.  There, now I have much more imagination than anyone else.
20,000 aircraft flying around launching LEO rockets? Don't you think the eco-nuts would start complaining about three things?

-the seemingly permanent contrails
-the sudden increase in rainfall
-the rapid increase of garbage in orbit?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       1/25/2009 4:49:57 PM
Well, at the same time I'm imagining a force of 20,000 B-52s I'm also imagining that all of America's eco-fanatics have all boarded the same ocean liner cruise to the Galapogos Islands for a Darwinian Convention, only to encounter a freakishly-unexpected typhoon that strands them all on an otherwise deserted, yet barely habitable island, whereupon they live out their lives with only each other to hector about the "dangers" of global warming, ozone depletion, petrochemical consumption, etc., and we are free to get on with the continued progress of human history in peace.
 
 
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 - 2009StrategyWorld.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