View Full Version : Strategic Bomber Requirements
Team Sergeant
07-23-2008, 09:28
There was no immediate word on the cause of the crash. The Air Force said a board of officers was investigating.
None except those aircraft are all over 200 years old.......
It's time to retire those friggin A/C...........
It's time to retire those friggin A/C...........
Agreed,,
RIP
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 11:21
None except those aircraft are all over 200 years old.......
It's time to retire those friggin A/C...........
We do not have anything to replace them with, especially for conventional bombing.
TR
Ret10Echo
07-23-2008, 11:33
We do not have anything to replace them with, especially for conventional bombing.
TR
..and a lot of other capabilities that they bring...
Team Sergeant
07-23-2008, 11:35
We do not have anything to replace them with, especially for conventional bombing.
TR
In Desert Storm we had 10% smart bombs and 90% dumb bombs.
New Iraq war, it was 10% dumb bombs and 90% smart bombs.
IMO we don't need their capability anymore. I'd rather see one bomb one target practiced.;)
We do not have anything to replace them with, especially for conventional bombing. TR
Actually we are closer than you think..
The Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk has a wing span of the 707.. It's primary use is intel, with 30 hrs on station. The technology is not to far off to allow armed flights. Load it with a bunch of J-DAM's & it's got your back..
Another is the Grumman X-47B J-UCAS, it may replace ALL the Tom Cruises in the world as the go-to attack delivery craft. NG just got a contract to develop a carrier based version.. Think of it as the F-22A, with no windows...
We are talking UAV's,, combined with the latest technology smart-bombs,, why pay for the truck driver who wants star billing,, and coffee brakes??
Other's are working this topic,, Grumman is not the only provider, but it's the one where my kids work...
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 13:31
Actually we are closer than you think..
The Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk has a wing span of the 707.. It's primary use is intel, with 30 hrs on station. The technology is not to far off to allow armed flights. Load it with a bunch of J-DAM's & it's got your back..
Another is the Grumman X-47B J-UCAS, it may replace ALL the Tom Cruises in the world as the go-to attack delivery craft. NG just got a contract to develop a carrier based version.. Think of it as the F-22A, with no windows...
We are talking UAV's,, combined with the latest technology smart-bombs,, why pay for the truck driver who wants star billing,, and coffee brakes??
Other's are working this topic,, Grumman is not the only provider, but it's the one where my kids work...
Let's say I am looking for a replacement capability for the Buff.
Which UAV has a 70,000 pound paylaod and a combat radius of 4,400 miles?
TR
None.
But why would we need a direct replacement for the B52?
The B1/B2 fleet has the nuclear penetration mission covered.
The B2 and again the B1 to a lesser extent have the capability to operate in a high ADA EM threat environment to deliever nuclear or conventional munitions....Although we will at the onset of hostilities do whatever it takes to gain air superiority and reduce the ADA threat.
If we're after tonnage of dumb bombs, the B2 and the B1 can dump a bunch of them just like the B52
IMO, A next gen UAS could fill the role of JADAM carrier with as much loiter time/payload as necessary support us playing single bomb wack-a-mole against HVTs/MVTs and provide CAS.
Once we get a UAS that we can hang a serious amount bombs onto (and enough of them) then IMO, the need for the B52 drops greatly.
I'm certainly no expert. Am I missing something?
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 14:20
None.
But why would we need a direct replacement for the B52?
The B1/B2 fleet has the nuclear penetration mission covered.
The B2 and again the B1 to a lesser extent have the capability to operate in a high ADA EM threat environment to deliever nuclear or conventional munitions....Although we will at the onset of hostilities do whatever it takes to gain air superiority and reduce the ADA threat.
If we're after tonnage of dumb bombs, the B2 and the B1 can dump a bunch of them just like the B52
IMO, A next gen UAS could fill the role of JADAM carrier with as much loiter time/payload as necessary support us playing single bomb wack-a-mole against HVTs/MVTs and provide CAS.
Once we get a UAS that we can hang a serious amount bombs onto (and enough of them) then IMO, the need for the B52 drops greatly.
I'm certainly no expert. Am I missing something?
How many B1s and B2s do we have, or high capacity UAV bombers?
How long do you think it would take (and cost) to build enough to cover the B-52's share of the conventional bombing mission?
TR
Let's say I am looking for a replacement capability for the Buff.
Which UAV has a 70,000 pound payload and a combat radius of 4,400 miles?
TR
TR,
That probably will never happen, for a bunch of reasons. I think in the current world of PC citizens, carpet bombing is a monster that died,, or they want it to die..
In the near future, I can see an FA lying on his belly, laser device in hand calling for support by pressing the trigger and one of these new UAV's slipping a couple 1 ton's out the door.. More like a personal artillery battery in your pocket, waiting at 40k ft...
Don't get me wrong,, I like carpet bombing,, use to love being awakened at 3AM by the Arc-Light runs along the Cambodian boarder,, night after night. Thank god we have some of the B-52's still flying..
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 15:00
TR,
That probably will never happen, for a bunch of reasons. I think in the current world of PC citizens, carpet bombing is a monster that died,, or they want it to die..
In the near future, I can see an FA lying on his belly, laser device in hand calling for support by pressing the trigger and one of these new UAV's slipping a couple 1 ton's out the door.. More like a personal artillery battery in your pocket, waiting at 40k ft...
Don't get me wrong,, I like carpet bombing,, use to love being awakened at 3AM by the Arc-Light runs along the Cambodian boarder,, night after night. Thank god we have some of the B-52's still flying..
Carpet bombing is not what I am talking about. The first couple of JDAMs may not be enough till the next aircraft arrives on station.
We sure needed the B-52 capability in the fall of 2001, along with the Navy aircraft, and everyone else's we could grab.
B-52s allowed extremely long loiter times to drop lots of smaller strikes, without the expense of building an equivalent load carrying capacity of B-1s or B-2s, and without the unneeded (and expensive) stealth capability of the B-2.
Still waiting for someone to tell me how many B-1s and B-2s we have, vs. B-52s.:munchin
TR
Still waiting for someone to tell me how many B-1s and B-2s we have, vs. B-52s.:munchin
TR
They built 21 B2's, one down, 20 remain..
There was four(4) B-1A's built 4 and one hundred(100) B-1B, but I think 1/2 are already retired..
Somewhere around 750 B-52's built,, Lord only knows how many are still air worthy..
Monsoon65
07-23-2008, 15:43
Still waiting for someone to tell me how many B-1s and B-2s we have, vs. B-52s.:munchin
According to the USAF fact sheet, it looks like we have:
B52H - 94
B1 - 65
B2 - 20
This isn't counting test aircraft.
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 15:50
According to the USAF fact sheet, it looks like we have:
B52H - 94
B1 - 65
B2 - 20
This isn't counting test aircraft.
So the current B-52 fleet represents what percentage of our ability to delivery large quantities of ordnance long distances?
What would it cost to replace that capability with more modern aircraft?
BTW, for those who do not think we need that many strat bombers, imagine the need if the NKPA decides to come south, or the Chinese decide to take Taiwan back into the fold by force.
TR
Red Flag 1
07-23-2008, 16:36
Sad day losing an air crew and the aircraft. Rest in Peace! Prayers out!
The B-52 is still a great weapons platform. The aircraft and crew remain a vital and powerful deterrent in our nations' defense. There is no replacement. If all B-52s were removed from the inventory, we loose considerable capability.
Weapons systems and avionics change regularly. Two aircraft that have stood the test of time are the B-52, and the C-130. Not a bit stealthy but highly adaptable, very capable platforms for many different configurations.
I have no doubt that B-52 crews would rather be in a spiffy, new aircraft, and not the one dad flew. On the other hand, if you'll recall, a "new" B-2 went in after take-off from Guam a few weeks ago.
My $.02
RF 1
So the current B-52 fleet represents what percentage of our ability to delivery large quantities of ordnance long distances?
TR
1st I to propose this thread be split into two by the mods or locked,,
one thread for the B-52 crew
one thread for the heavy bombing requirements..
Having said that,,
A quick run thru my comic books shows the following AF delivery capabilities:
F-117 2 bombs <dead
F-18 13k lb <dead
F-111 31k lb < dead
F-16 4-6-8 bombs, depending on size
F-15 16k lb
F-22 23k lb
F-35 15k lb
A-10 16k lb & 1200 rounds of 30mm kickass
B-1 134k lb
B-2 50k lb
B-52 60k lb
You answer, The B-1 can carry up to 200+% of a B-52 load or 65 B-1's are equivalent to about 130 B-52's or the B-52 carries less than 1/3 the AF capacity, by weight,, excluding the F/A capacities..
PS: Thanks TS,, 1st time in a week the gray mater had to do a little sweating..
B-1 134k lb
B-2 50k lb
B-52 60k lb
You answer, The B-1 can carry up to 200+% of a B-52 load or 65 B-1's are equivalent to about 130 B-52's.....
Hard Points?
I have a question. The B1 is stated as having external hard Points for 59,000 lbs and Internal Hard Points for an additional 75,000 lbs giving a total of 134,000 lbs.
Yet under payload it is listed as only able to carry 81 Mk 82s (500 lbs each). Thats only 40,500 lbs.
Seems to be a bit of difference in what it could carry and what you can stick on and fly with.
Any AF types what to jump in?
The Reaper
07-23-2008, 18:35
Split thread.
TR
Hard Points?
I have a question. The B1 is stated as having external hard Points for 59,000 lbs and Internal Hard Points for an additional 75,000 lbs giving a total of 134,000 lbs.
Yet under payload it is listed as only able to carry 81 Mk 82s (500 lbs each). Thats only 40,500 lbs.
Seems to be a bit of difference in what it could carry and what you can stick on and fly with.
Any AF types what to jump in?
I'll just swerve a little out of my lane. I'm not AF.
The 75,000 lbs internal and 59,000 lbs external payload limits are structural limits. The payload also includes the racks that carry the weapons.
The internal bays are also limited by volume. They can only shoehorn in so many bombs. The external hardpoints are limited by the design of the racks attached to them and the drag component imposed on the aircraft.
Pat
longrange1947
07-23-2008, 20:38
I believe the B52 is due to be phased out in 2045. It has a place that the B1 and B2 can't replace or won't replace. Other wise it would have already happened. The main thing that it does very well is not cost as much so a loss is not as hard on the pocket book. :munchin
The age of the aircraft was probably not much of a factor in the Guam incident. They were on a flyover mission. They were most likely hand flying. There were six crewmembers and six e-seats. They were low.
Possibilities:
1) Fuel exaustion.
2) The engines stopped simultaneously from contaminated fuel.
3) The pilot flying turned and over stressed it, breaking a wing spar or vertical stabilizer/rudder, or stalled it.
4) The vertical stableizer or a wing separated due to poor maintenance.
5) It was shot down.
6) Fill in the blank________________.
Pat
p.s. I chose 3.
Ret10Echo
07-24-2008, 05:16
B-1
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm
Deployment
Cmd # Location Unit
ACC 39 Dyess AFB, TX 9th Bomb Wing
ACC 21 Ellsworth AFB, SD 28th Bomb Wing
ACC 9 Mountain Home AFB, ID 366th Air Expeditionary Wing
ANG 10 Robins AFB, GA 116th Bomb Wing
ANG 12 McConnell AFB, KS 184th Bomb Group
AMC 2 Edwards AFB, CA test aircraft
6 lost to mishaps [as of 18 Feb 98]
1 eliminated under START II Treaty
B-2
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm
Inventory: Total: 21; Active force: 16 (planned operational aircraft)
[-1 lost to mishap Feb 08]
B-52
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm
Inventory: 56 combat-coded
Active force, 94; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9
[-1 lost to mishap July 08]
The Reaper
07-25-2008, 10:56
Good read from our friends at SWJ.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/07/the-new-role-of-air-strike-in/#c001931
TR