Watching the history channel and they stated the B-52 bomber is planned to be inservice till 2045...

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Watching the history channel and they stated the B-52 bomber is planned to be inservice till 2045...

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:26:49 AM EDT

..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:27:47 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

Its all Bush's fault!

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:30:23 AM EDT

[#2]

The flying truckload of doom continues on..
Why replace it? Al it needs to do is fly a long ways with a lot of bombs, why spend the money for development when there are specialized aircraft for certain missions.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:31:20 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:36:03 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:36:41 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...

It would've been tits if we did, though.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:38:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:39:30 AM EDT

[#7]

Iam glad that is one beautiful bird!!!!!

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:41:06 AM EDT

[#8]

Can't blame the Govt for not getting it's money's worth. I once peaked into the bomb bay of a B52 during an open house at Edwards AFB(Palmdale Calif 100 miles N. of Los Angeles), and those aircraft are carrying at least 1,000 pounds of wires and carbling for obsolete weapons systems that date back to the Hounddog(this was the SotA cruise missle of its day) missle systems of the late-1950s and early-1960s. The crew chief said that they don't remove them because it may screw up something else.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:49:15 AM EDT

[#9]

B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:49:56 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.

No you heard right.

What they said was the B-52 was bomber is planned to be in service PAST 2045... 100 years.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:51:49 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

It ain’t going to amuse you much if you are the target.

Posted: 1/21/2006 8:56:52 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

Maybe back during the 50's, but not any more. They do not put out that much black smoke anymore and radar capabilities are much better also.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:02:27 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

I noted that to my wife too! Uhh, guys, they weren't using the BUFF in Korea you know...

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:04:34 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.

No you heard right.

What they said was the B-52 was bomber is planned to be in service PAST 2045... 100 years.

mmmm, I think we heard different. I thought hey said "In the year 2045..." which makes it sound like the B 52 was in service in '45.

oh well. Even if it's 90 years... that's NINETY YEARS, which is insanely good longevity!

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:10:47 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:32:08 AM EDT

[#16]

The 52' isn't going to be flying much past 2020, when that documentary was made the Air Forces 'bomber roadmap' was still the baseline for bomber aquisition. That went out the window two or three years ago, no doubt the BUFF was a formidable weapon, it's past it's prime, and having issues with generating stress cracks in it's wing roots and fusalage. Also lets not forget the sheer amount of JP-1 that thing burns, it's running on 8 archaic engines. If you just want a giant subsonic bomb truck their is a proposal for a BC-17 that would not only carry more but be significantly more efficent.

I think in the next five to ten years (or whenever it is we have to actually use it) you'll see a heavy hypersonic/suborbital bomber come out of the woodwork. the FALCON concept is going to change the way we fight wars. (Force Application Launched from the CONtinental US)

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:37:40 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

Maybe back during the 50's, but not any more. They do not put out that much black smoke anymore and radar capabilities are much better also.

I recall seeing this as late as the early 90's.

As far as radar capabilities, they are entirely about countermeasures once they detect they've been detected. There's no way they can get that shaped airframe to compete with modern low cross section designs. They have to deal with being a big target rather than trying to remain undetected.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:38:56 AM EDT

[#18]

I guess they haven't seen the AF's plan to cut half the B-52 fleet in the next 10 years.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:41:05 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The 52' isn't going to be flying much past 2020, when that documentary was made the Air Forces 'bomber roadmap' was still the baseline for bomber aquisition. That went out the window two or three years ago, no doubt the BUFF was a formidable weapon, it's past it's prime, and having issues with generating stress cracks in it's wing roots and fusalage. Also lets not forget the sheer amount of JP-1 that thing burns, it's running on 8 archaic engines. If you just want a giant subsonic bomb truck their is a proposal for a BC-17 that would not only carry more but be significantly more efficent.

I think in the next five to ten years (or whenever it is we have to actually use it) you'll see a heavy hypersonic/suborbital bomber come out of the woodwork. the FALCON concept is going to change the way we fight wars. (Force Application Launched from the CONtinental US)

We use JP-8 these days. Origionally it was JP-4.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:43:25 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.

It is a large cross section, but flying down at lowest altitudes any radar is going to have a tough time picking even something that big out.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:48:30 AM EDT

[#21]

I heard somewhere that they were thinking about replacing the 8 engines with 4 more up to date engines. Can't remember where I heard that, but sounds like a plausible move to me.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:58:34 AM EDT

[#22]

The B-52's 8 fan faces help give it just about the biggest radar signature in th sky... an AW Officers wet dream.

Why they are keeping them flying defies logic when they are paying off much more combat worthy and survivable B-1B's that carry far more weapons, and could operate in a defended airspace.

B-1B.... a FAR better combat aircraft

ETA, DOH! B-1B!

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:19:16 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.

It is a large cross section, but flying down at lowest altitudes any radar is going to have a tough time picking even something that big out.

First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:20:52 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
The B-52's 8 fan faces help give it just about the biggest radar signature in th sky... an AW Officers wet dream.

Why they are keeping them flying defies logic when they are paying off much more combat worthy and survivable B1-B's that carry far more weapons, and could operate in a defended airspace.

home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/b1b.jpg

B1-B.... a FAR better combat aircraft

Come on man, you can do better than that. It's B-1B not B1-B.

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:39:15 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Come on man, you can do better than that. It's B-1B not B1-B.

I can offer no excuse for this brainfart on my part!

My old man used to build and install these beauties flight sims for the USAF...

ANdy

Posted: 1/21/2006 11:10:19 AM EDT

[#26]

I don't know where the 2045 estimate came from, but I wonder if whoever made that number up factored in the fact B-52s were relatively low hour aircraft, spending so much time pulling alerts, up until the early 90s. So simple extrapolation wouldn't work.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:17:28 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.

Dude, you're not the only one who may have some background with radar, so be prepared to read differing experiences from others who may be less, or more experienced than you.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:22:52 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:

First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.

Dude, you're not the only one who may have some background with radar, so be prepared to read differing experiences from others who may be less, or more experienced than you.

The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:27:31 PM EDT

[#29]

Considering the ECM package on the BUFF is still classified, I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum has any idea what one would look like on enemy rader.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:29:51 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Considering the ECM package on the BUFF is still classified, I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum has any idea what one would look like on enemy rader.

There's a differnence between what a -52 looks like on radar and what its ECM does to radar.

However, considering I've seen what national assets designed to jam radars can do, I'd be willing to bet a paycheck the -52's ECM package isn't as capable.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:34:25 PM EDT

[#31]

Does the B-52 really have ejection seats?

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:39:41 PM EDT

[#32]

I thought they died in the early 90's

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:42:44 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Considering the ECM package on the BUFF is still classified, I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum has any idea what one would look like on enemy rader.

It would look like a 'target'.... a big, slow, non manoeuverable target...

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:44:18 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.

I don't want this to turn into a pissing match, but as I've said, I've experienced the black plume as late as the early '90's.

Posted: 1/21/2006 12:48:38 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.

I don't want this to turn into a pissing match, but as I've said, I've experienced the black plume as late as the early '90's.

In other words, you don't want to share your background.

You see to be a pissing contest, one would have to claim they have more experience than someone else, I've never claimed that and you've never claimed that. I'd love to know, however, under what circumstances you had such an experience. I find it so difficult to believe that I personally think it is borderline impossible based on the circumstances you described.

Posted: 1/21/2006 1:41:14 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.

2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years

+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...

It would've been tits if we did, though.

only if they were manned by nuclear mutants