Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, it seems the B-2 is slated to be retired by 2032.  This seems a bit premature to me, given the low number of heavy bombers we will have by then and the fact it is still one of the most advanced planes in the world (as well as our massive investment in them). I wonder if, like the F-117, its unique technology is becoming compromised and countered, rendering it becoming more vulnerable. Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the tech, no point flying if its become too easy to shoot down. But the B-52 keeps going I guess.

 

I would also guess the hours of maintenance between flight hours must be really high. Shades of retiring the Tomcat while it still worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda makes sense on the B-2.  If we are spending billions on the stealthy B-21 Raider, do we really need a small number of B-2's as well?  what advantage does the B-2 have over the new aircraft that would justify the cost to keep it in service (assuming the B-21 actually does what it supposed to do and also, assuming it doesn't get cancelled if there happens to be a change in next presidential election a couple of years from now)?

 

 I'm more surprised by the B-1.  Can't believe they are still going to keep the B-52 chugging along after all these years as a "bomb truck" for scenarios like Afghanistan or Iraq.    At least the B-1 has some ability to penetrate modern air defenses.   Are they at least going to finally re-engine that old dinosaur?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went looking around the web just now. Hadn't realized there were so few B-2, and I even live in the general region of Whiteman,

Quote

"Currently there are 20 B-2s in service, with just a handful of them being mission ready at any given time. There are 60 B-1Bs in the USAF's portfolio."

 http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18410/usafs-controversial-new-plan-to-retire-b-2-and-b-1-bombers-early-is-a-good-one

Crazy, yet cool,

Quote

"The plan leaves the USAF's fleet of 75 B-52H untouched through the 2050s, with a real possibility that the venerable bomber would reach its 100th birthday while still in service."

 

Okay, I can see that making sense,

Quote

 

At the same time we have also become very accustomed to viewing the B-2 fleet as an indispensable and rare national treasure that is absolutely worth the cost of sustaining as no other aircraft can do what it can. But once the B-21 is on the ramp that will no longer be the case. And considering that Northrop Grumman is getting the chance to build a B-2 "2.0" of sorts, with all that they have learned from building and supporting the B-2 since its first flight nearly three decades ago, the B-21 is set to leapfrog the B-2 in terms of raw capability. 

In other words, in the B-21 the USAF gets greater density and enhanced capability, making the case for supporting the B-2 far less salient than it ever has been in the past. Additionally, the B-21 will be able to benefit from the outgoing B-2's braintrust and even its infrastructure to some degree. 

The idea of fielding a bomber inventory of over 250 aircraft made of up four separate types would mean the support footprint for America's bomber force would have to be expanded massively, and the cost of operating such a diverse fleet simply isn't sustainable. Under this new plan, the bomber force would still grow from 157 aircraft to 175—and maybe even larger if more than 100 B-21s are procured—but that is a far more manageable proposition considering the fleet is going from three types to just two.

 

 

and that too,

Quote

Second, this plan will open up funds for the B-52H to get some serious upgrades, most important of which are brand new engines that will not only make the jet more reliable and economical to fly, but will also unlock new payload, range, and airfield performance potential.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though admitting this may mark me as a failure as an aviation fan I had lost track of the B-2's age and couldn't have said how long it has been in service.

 

Quote

 

B-2 stealth bomber, at age 25, to get major upgrades from Air Force

By MATT CAMPBELL

The Kansas City Star

July 14, 2014 06:46 PM

The bat-winged aircraft first took to the sky on July 17, 1989. Its maker, Northrop Grumman Corp., is throwing a party for it on Thursday in Palmdale, Calif.

At Whiteman, about 70 miles southeast of Kansas City, the pilots and the people who maintain the B-2 are looking forward to upgrades to the aircraft’s communications, avionics and other systems— even as the Air Force contemplates buying a whole new next-generation bomber.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was the rational for retiring the B-1 and keeping the BUFF around for another 50 years?   The B-1 has good weapons capacity, good endurance, much more modern systems, one less crew member and I gotta believe it's cheaper to operate.  Certainly would be more survivable against any potential adversary except the Taliban or maybe if we decided to invade Haiti.   

 

Doesn't seem to make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 11bee said:

So what was the rational for retiring the B-1 and keeping the BUFF around for another 50 years?   The B-1 has good weapons capacity, good endurance, much more modern systems, one less crew member and I gotta believe it's cheaper to operate.  Certainly would be more survivable against any potential adversary except the Taliban or maybe if we decided to invade Haiti.   

 

Doesn't seem to make sense.

Maybe not the whole reason but the B-1 is a maintenance hog with poor availability numbers. B52 is nuke capable while B-1 is not. Nobody is penetrating any airspace with a non-stealth bomber. They use standoff weapons like cruise missiles to do the job so the high performance of the B1 isn't needed, loiter time is. 

 

Edit to add some additional stuff.

Edited by Dafixer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dafixer said:

Maybe not the whole reason but the B-1 is a maintenance hog with poor availability numbers. B52 is nuke capable while B-1 is not. Nobody is penetrating any airspace with a non-stealth bomber. They use standoff weapons like cruise missiles to do the job so the high performance of the B1 isn't needed, loiter time is. 

 

Edit to add some additional stuff.

The B-52 has better availability numbers and lower O&M costs than the B-1?    Even if it does today, would that still be the case in 15 years?   With regard to nuke capability, I assume that can easily be retrofitted back, since the B-1 originally worked for SAC.   Unless of course, we are bound by a treaty.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I was at an airshow at which both B-1's and B-52's were attending. The B-1 has an issue with its landing gear and had to divert to another airfield. Later in the day I was standing by the B-52 while the pilots talked to people. At approximately the same moment someone asked "Why is the B-52 still in service if the B-1 was meant to replace it?", the repaired B-1 appeared overhead. One of the B-52 pilots pointed at the B-1and made a snide remark about the B-1's reliability, then started laughing.

 

I am surprised by the low number of B-2's ready at anyone time, however that is still a serious amount of firepower. Is there issues with the reliability of the stealth coating?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and don't quote me on this as I just read this the other day and now can't find where I read it, is the B-52 besides the fact there are a lot more spare parts for them verses the B-1 & B-2 is that the B-52 is the only bomber in the Air Force that is nuclear capable. The B-1 & B-2, due to international treaty with Russia, are required to be unable to carry nuclear weapons while the B-52 can carry nuclear bombs and/or nuclear cruse missiles. But like I said, I just read this and now can't find it.

Edited by Falcon053
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-02-14 at 10:44 AM, 11bee said:

The B-52 has better availability numbers and lower O&M costs than the B-1?    Even if it does today, would that still be the case in 15 years?   With regard to nuke capability, I assume that can easily be retrofitted back, since the B-1 originally worked for SAC.   Unless of course, we are bound by a treaty.  

 

Yes, and it will probably get worse. First the AF will finally re-engine with B-52 which will vastly reduce maintenence requirements (4x modern jet engines vs 8 1960s era engines) and fuel costs. You can't really do that with the B-1. Second, the design of the B-1 is for high speed penetration with limited low observability features, which means it has less tolerances and higher costs. Finally there are 76 B-52s that was backed up by a massive production run. While most of the aircraft were dismantled, parts are plentiful. There are only 66 B-1s, and no more to pull from a parts pool, meaning greater difficulty to keep then flying. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A B-52 engine replacement reference,

Quote

 

Air Force solidifies options for B-52 engine replacement

By: Valerie Insinna   December 22, 2017

Now the clock is counting down for the Air Force to make a decision, as age, obsolescence and diminishing sources for spare parts could make current engines unsustainable as early as 2030, according to slides presented at a Dec. 12 industry day.

First, it wants new — not refurbished — systems and intends to maintain an eight-engine configuration on each B-52, knocking out competitors who have floated a four-engine solution. The engines must be able to be integrated without having to significantly rework the B-52’s wings, although the service expects some design changes to structures such as struts and nacelles may be necessary.

Additionally, the service wants improved reliability and at least 20% greater fuel efficiency over the current TF33, while maintaining its takeoff performance and combat ceiling. It also is interested in a new power architecture that could support an increased number of power generators, as well as new digital engine control wiring, the document stated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is It just me or does the concept of the Stealth Bomber dropping leaflets create a vision of something suitable for being from the Dilbert comic?

 

Quote

 

B-52 testers complete leaflet bomb drops

By Kenji Thuloweit, 412th Test Wing Public Affairs / Published July 25, 2017

 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- An important part of U.S. military operations overseas is communicating with the local population. This can be done in a number of ways including something as simple as distributing leaflets.

In psychological operations, leaflets with messages are often dropped from aircraft in order to reach a wide area.

Testers from the 419th Flight Test Squadron are looking to see if B-52 Stratofortress bombers can accomplish this task.

The squadron recently completed two successful sorties where a B-52 released eight PDU-5/B leaflet bombs over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range and eight more over the Precision Impact Range Area on Edwards.  

“We are primarily looking to see safe separation from the external Heavy Stores Adapter Beam,” said Kevin Thorn, 419th FLTS B-52 air vehicle manager. “We are ensuring that the bombs do not contact the aircraft, and/or each other, creating an unsafe condition. Additionally we are tracking the reliability of the bomb functioning.” 

 

 

 

http://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1257402/b-52-testers-complete-leaflet-bomb-drops/

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what's been shown through the years I'm pretty sure being on the receiving end of carpet bombing ain't a walk in the park, and there's probably nothing left of the park anyway.

 

Found leaflet images http://www.psywarrior.com/HerbDStorm3.html

 

Edited by southwestforests
Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-21 is being made to replace the B-2 and B-1. Why keep them around ? Also, alot can change by the time the B-21 is operational. The pentagon keeps changing their mind.  Examples: A-10, F-22, etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adamitri said:

The B-21 is being made to replace the B-2 and B-1. Why keep them around ? Also, alot can change by the time the B-21 is operational. The pentagon keeps changing their mind.  Examples: A-10, F-22, etc..

 

And the B-1 was made to replace the B-52, and the B-2 was made to replace the B-1.......

 

I've heard sooooo many iterations of the B-52 re-engine program over the years it's like every time it's like CNN says "Mars closest approach tonite"...  Not. Gonna. Happen.  Especially when new engines take $$$ away from the (take your pick) B-1 : B-2 : B-21 program....

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

And the B-1 was made to replace the B-52, and the B-2 was made to replace the B-1.......

 

I've heard sooooo many iterations of the B-52 re-engine program over the years it's like every time it's like CNN says "Mars closest approach tonite"...  Not. Gonna. Happen.  Especially when new engines take $$$ away from the (take your pick) B-1 : B-2 : B-21 program....

Word....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

And the B-1 was made to replace the B-52, and the B-2 was made to replace the B-1.......

 

 

Right. It seems crazy that the B-52 would be survivable at 100 years old while the B-2 won't be at that time.  Since the B-1's role has been changed, and is no longer a strategic bomber restricted to START treaties, rather becoming an extremely useful heavily loaded tactical platform, I would think it wouldn't even be considered in strategic bomber plans. Furthermore, given how bomber programs get off to a painful start, I was expecting the B-21 to supplement the B-2 as the front-line platform for a significant amount of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 4:48 PM, -Neu- said:

 

Yes, and it will probably get worse. First the AF will finally re-engine with B-52 which will vastly reduce maintenence requirements (4x modern jet engines vs 8 1960s era engines) and fuel costs. You can't really do that with the B-1. Second, the design of the B-1 is for high speed penetration with limited low observability features, which means it has less tolerances and higher costs. Finally there are 76 B-52s that was backed up by a massive production run. While most of the aircraft were dismantled, parts are plentiful. There are only 66 B-1s, and no more to pull from a parts pool, meaning greater difficulty to keep then flying. 

 

 lastest I heard was they wanted to stay with 8 engines in order to make the replacement easier (less systems to replace). I heard it was between three engines, the ones off the Global, the G5/550, and the G500/600. All three are in the 15,500-17000lb thrust range so there won't be much change in takeoff performace but the fuel savings would be huge!

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the aricle on re-whining the B52, P&W want to revamp the TF30s the modern standards, but it sounds the Airforce wants new engines . 4 engines is out as the wing structure would have to altered to accommodate the larger more powerful engines plus internal changes. RR has proposed their br725 engine with support, this engine is currently in Gulfstream 650 and Bombardier Global express E11 1000lbs lighter about the same thrust and almost half of the fuel consumption. Approx 2000 hrs between overhauls compare to 6000hrs. As far as GE there is speculation of which engine their TF34 or the Passport 20. Only thing that would also extend the range to a small degree are winglets on the wing tips, it would save 3 to5 % in fuel savings by reducing drag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 4:48 PM, -Neu- said:

 

Yes, and it will probably get worse. First the AF will finally re-engine with B-52 which will vastly reduce maintenence requirements (4x modern jet engines vs 8 1960s era engines) and fuel costs. You can't really do that with the B-1. Second, the design of the B-1 is for high speed penetration with limited low observability features, which means it has less tolerances and higher costs. Finally there are 76 B-52s that was backed up by a massive production run. While most of the aircraft were dismantled, parts are plentiful. There are only 66 B-1s, and no more to pull from a parts pool, meaning greater difficulty to keep then flying. 

 

Not sure I agree with you Neu.  There were 102 B-52H's built, vrs 100 B-1's so I'm not sure what you mean about a "massive production run" and  "parts are plentiful".  The H had significant differences compared to earlier model 52's.   I have a friend who used to work on the H model BUFF's back in the late 90's and he always said it was a b*tch getting spares for the jet. Replacing the engines will help things a bit but at the end of the day, you are dealing with a jet that was produced over half a century ago.  Many of the parts went out of production before I was born.  Unless they plan on gutting the jet and replacing the internals with new built parts, I have to wonder what the readiness rates for this jet will be down the road. 

 

Keep in mind that all of this this is all predicated on no political changes over the next couple of election cycles.  If there are changes, you might see some of the decisions made by the current administration being reversed by whoever comes into power. 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...