exdraken Posted October 3, 2021 Share Posted October 3, 2021 2 hours ago, 11bravo said: The BUFF already has sufficient range for the mission set it's tasked wit Hmmm you can hardly task it with missions where it would not have the required range, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spruecutter96 Posted October 3, 2021 Share Posted October 3, 2021 1 hour ago, tomprobert said: In short, the B-1s are knackered whereas the BUFF is still fighting fit. Is that another way of saying: "They don't build 'em like they used to!" Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 3, 2021 Share Posted October 3, 2021 At this rate the B-52 will beat the C-47 as longest-served military aircraft. But with some C-47 airframes approaching 80 years old, the BUFF has some way to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 3, 2021 Author Share Posted October 3, 2021 During the Cold War the B-52H's spent a lot of time just sitting on alert, so their airframes didn't see a lot of stress during that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 16 hours ago, tomprobert said: From what I’ve read the low-level work the B-1s have/were tasked with has been hard on the airframe and their fatigue lives are rapidly running out of hours as a consequence. The B-52H model was built from the off with low level work in mind - it’s got a stronger core and higher grade of alloys throughout when compared to the earlier models. In short, it’s built like the proverbial brick ****house and even the most elderly in the fleet have at least half of their designed fatigue life left. I believe Boeing are currently undertaking close analysis of various components from an H-model to gain an exact insight into the levels or wear/fatigue in order to upgrade as necessary when they go in for overhaul and the new engines and avionics are fitted. In short, the B-1s are knackered whereas the BUFF is still fighting fit. Tom The B-1 was also built for low level work, and actually for lower level work compared to the B-52H. It should be also said that B-52s haven't really operated at low level for decades as all their missions in the last 30 years have been quite different. In any case the fatigue behaviour of the B.52 wings in particular has been constantly studied since the mid '60s, in order to keep the fleet going. 14 hours ago, spruecutter96 said: Is that another way of saying: "They don't build 'em like they used to!" Chris. It's not much that they don't build them like they used to, the B-52 fleet has been constantly monitored and upgraded over the years. The B-52 program has been one of the most expensive military programs ever, partly because it was a very expensive program from the start and partly because of the continuous work done on the fleet. Each airframe has seen milions poured into it over the years to keep them serviceable and as much up-to-date as possible, in a way that few types have seen. Said that, IMHO the B-52 remains one of the real great designs in aviation history ! Yes part of the long success of the type is due to the huge amount of money spent over the years, yes part of the reason for its long life is due to the introduction of weapons that have allowed the Buffs to fly in ways more similar to an airliner than a combat aircraft, but it is a testimony to the soundness of the original design that all the various upgrades could be introduced without much trouble and that new weapons could be added quite easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan-o Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 More here, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rolls-royce-win-2-6bn-contract-to-re-engine-b-52-bombers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 2 hours ago, ivan-o said: More here, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rolls-royce-win-2-6bn-contract-to-re-engine-b-52-bombers/ anything new here that was not said before? 3 hours ago, Giorgio N said: Said that, IMHO the B-52 remains one of the real great designs in aviation history ! Yes part of the long success of the type is due to the huge amount of money spent over the years, yes part of the reason for its long life is due to the introduction of weapons that have allowed the Buffs to fly in ways more similar to an airliner than a combat aircraft, but it is a testimony to the soundness of the original design that all the various upgrades could be introduced without much trouble and that new weapons could be added quite easily. I somehow see it similar to the Soviet T-16 and Tu-95 bombers.... although the T-16s now flying are not Tu any longer, but the Chinese Xian H-6 both(all 3 actually) flew first in the very early 1950ies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 3 hours ago, exdraken said: I somehow see it similar to the Soviet T-16 and Tu-95 bombers.... although the T-16s now flying are not Tu any longer, but the Chinese Xian H-6 both(all 3 actually) flew first in the very early 1950ies.... In a sense the qualities that make a good "bomb truck" lend themselves to good, durable and versatile designs: robustness, range, good load carrying capability, reliability. It is no surprise that a number of bomber types have survived for quite a long time, although most often in secondary roles since these same qualities make bombers well suited to conversion to a number of other rolesTo the types you mentioned I would add the Canberra and the Il-28 (of course these were medium bombers in their days but certain qualities are the same). What makes the B-52 unique is that the type is still today used as bomber, while for most other types this role was abandoned at some point in their career. It's also worth mentioning that the number of bombing missions performed by the B-52 is far superior to those performed by all other postwar heavy bombers, with maybe the exception of the B-1 that has been heavily used over Iraq and Afghanistan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 On 03/10/2021 at 16:07, 11bravo said: I believe the primary factor for the replacement is increasing reliability. Those old J-57's are an absolute beast to maintain. The BUFF already has sufficient range for the mission set it's tasked with. The lower fuel consumption of the new engines offers the potential to cut a mid air refuelling out of some mission profiles. That’s a big saving right there; delivering a gallon of fuel at 30,000ft isn’t cheap. J. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 39 minutes ago, JasonC said: The lower fuel consumption of the new engines offers the potential to cut a mid air refuelling out of some mission profiles. That’s a big saving right there; delivering a gallon of fuel at 30,000ft isn’t cheap. J. And be ascertained, that mission profile will change as well with new capability... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 The old "D" models modified under the "Big Belly" program could carry up to 108 Mk 82's or M117's. They could make quite an impression during an Arc Light mission in Vietnam. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Slater said: . They could make quite an impression during an Arc Light mission in Vietnam. Indeed.. but not very long lasting either.... not sure if the Vietnam war was the B-52s most glorious time actually! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, exdraken said: Indeed.. but not very long lasting either.... not sure if the Vietnam war was the B-52s most glorious time actually! Well, I'm not sure that "glorious" would be the proper term, but certainly it's period of most intense combat and heavy losses. I doubt that the number of VC/NVA killed will ever be known. And all this despite the fact that SAC had to be more or less forced into the war. The wanted to keep the B-52's reserved for war with the Soviet Union. When I joined the USAF in 1978, all my NCO's were Vietnam veterans. They had a few tales to tell. Edited October 4, 2021 by Slater 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 On 10/4/2021 at 4:07 AM, 11bravo said: For the life of me, I don't understand why they are dragging the -52 out for another few decades while retiring the B-1. Quite simply it is beancounters at work. The BUFF is one of the cheapest airframes to operate on a "per hour" basis. Also you don't have fancy paintwork to maintain either (stealth coatings). Just a shame they didn't go all-out and Megafortess the old girls (AKA flight of the old dog). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 On 10/4/2021 at 11:07 PM, Slater said: Well, I'm not sure that "glorious" would be the proper term, but certainly it's period of most intense combat and heavy losses. True, but the orchestration of the B-52's during Linebacker II was one of the most impressive feats of timekeeping and co-ordination in modern warfare. The fact that these big ol' aircraft were coming over Haiphong and Hanoi (the most contested airspace in modern combat history) in multiple waves, levels and directions from Thailand and Guam and putting bombs on target to the second in perfect synchronicity was really special. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 12, 2021 Author Share Posted October 12, 2021 IIRC, in the early part of the campaign, mission planning was conducted from Offutt AFB in Nebraska which was a considerable distance from the war zone. This caused some resentment from some of the B-52 crews as they felt that the mission planners were too far removed from the combat environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted October 13, 2021 Author Share Posted October 13, 2021 There are many good books on the Linebacker II campaign. One that I've read is "The 11 Days Of Christmas" by Marshall Michel III, who flew F-4's and RF-4's in Southeast Asia from 1970 to 1973. One interesting paragraph from the book reads as follows: " As Brown's wave of B-52's approached their refueling point, he looked out of the right window of his B-52G and saw a glowing object with a heavy contrail racing across the sky at very high altitude heading for Hanoi. Brown had seen the contrails of SR-71's before, but this one was much higher and going much faster, and the exhaust was orange, not blue like an SR-71. He wondered what it was and then decided it was something new. We're really pulling out all the stops, he thought." Speculation is that this was an expended satellite booster or something along those lines. Interesting nonetheless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 I thought the B-52s which are still airworthy have already been heavily reworked and extensively rebuilt already, including some re-sparring. It is now essentially operating as a carrier of stand off weapons, to get them within a reasonable range. Operating at height and at fairly low speeds, they have plenty of reserve capability for this 'trucking' mission. Makes sense to refurbish and re-engine old well understood airframes. Some must be like 'my grandfather's axe' by now., especially with re-engining coming along. Last time I saw a 'low level' B-52 I was astonished at slow it looked - because of its size. John B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 On 9/24/2021 at 6:24 PM, bentwaters81tfw said: There is no other option, the thrust dynamics and rudder authority preclude anything else. Also, the B-52 is already wired/plumbed for eight engines, although some of that will obviously have to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 3 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said: Tornado was known initially as the M R C A ((Multi Role Combat Aircraft). It was, perhaps cynically suggested at the time that M R C A meant Must Refurbish Canberra Again! 😉😂 John Yup, or Must Respar Canberras Again. A ver fine aircraft Mind you many folk reckoned updating Buccaneer instruments and doing some fatigue check work would have given us a more capable strike aircraft than the Tornado ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 Or, Mother Riley's Cardboard Aeroplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 42 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said: Yup, or Must Respar Canberras Again. A ver fine aircraft Mind you many folk reckoned updating Buccaneer instruments and doing some fatigue check work would have given us a more capable strike aircraft than the Tornado ! this is going rather off topic now.... but at least many Tornado aircraft gave excellent service until very few years ago. The Bucc would have been old, very very old! (the Tornado actually could have worked on easily, but the mostly air to air Typhoon had to be updated ad-hoc to finally integrate Storm Shadow and Brimstone (Centurion..).... still no replacement for the recce pods....) back on the BUFF.... 22 hours ago, John B (Sc) said: Last time I saw a 'low level' B-52 I was astonished at slow it looked - because of its size. Saw one at Czech NATO days many years ago! great sight! eg here: https://www.reccereports.com/ostrava-nato-days/ https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/238825// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatFlyHalf Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 On 25/09/2021 at 15:21, Mike said: Looks like we could run out of alphabetic suffixes to the B-52 before we run out of BUFFs. She just keeps on trucking. Those spars must be tough as old boots. That's the secret of the B-52. The spars are made out of old boots ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 On 9/25/2021 at 2:10 PM, bentwaters81tfw said: The radar signature for a B-52 is 100 times greater than a B-1B So 10 B-52s look like a Thousand-Bomber-Raid on radar. Nice deceptive capability 😋 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSG0 Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 (edited) Just my 2 cents but, I would want as part of the upgrade(s) a capability to carry more long range stand off missiles, especially hyper sonic ones to do DEAD. I would bet that some SAM sites would take more than one missile. I expect that better drones are coming online, but, for now at least, if you have to fight, then hit as hard as you can especially first day. Edited October 14, 2021 by NoSG0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now