Outside View: U.S. still needs its B-52s

[Afro-European]

by Ilya Kramnik
Moscow (UPI) Jul 30, 2008
The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber that crashed in the Pacific Ocean near the island of Guam was the third plane of the U.S. Air Force's strategic aviation to be lost in the last six months.

The fact that expensive heavy bombers fall so often raises doubts about the U.S. Air Force's battle readiness in general.
In February 2008 a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber crashed shortly after takeoff from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. In April a Rockwell-Boeing B-1B Lancer strategic bomber exploded after landing at the al-Udeid Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.
Even though the immediate cause for the crash of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has not been named yet, it is likely to have something to do with its venerable age. These planes went into mass production in 1953-1963, and Boeing B-52H planes entered operational service in 1960-1963, making their average age about 47 years.
The Boeing B-52 has been modernized repeatedly, but the modernization that improved the plane's equipment and weapons could not give new life to the worn-out superstructure, while capital repairs can prolong the life of the plane but not make it immortal. At the same time, however, the Boeing B-52 is not on the way out as a combat vehicle, because there is no adequate substitute available. Indeed, it is likely to stay in service up to the 2040s.
This seems absurd, especially when the United States has developed several types of strategic bombers to replace the Boeing B-52. Its first attempt was the XB-70 Valkyrie, but this supersonic bomber turned out to be too expensive and the program was canceled.
The second was the B-1A bomber developed in the 1960s and 1970s. However, by the late '70s this plane, which was equipped only with bombs, seemed to be obsolete. Instead, the United States started developing the B-1B. But even the modernized version could not carry ALCM long-range standoff attack missiles, but only shorter-range SRAM missiles.
As a result, the Boeing B-52H equipped with long-range missiles remained the main strategic workhorse of the U.S. Air Force. Moreover, in accordance with the Soviet-American agreements on nuclear weapon reduction, the B-1B lost its SRAM missiles, which were eliminated, and since then has been carrying only bombs, although the United States is planning to bring into service the new JASSM cruise missile.
The last strategic bomber to be developed was the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, which went into production in the beginning of the 1990s. But this replacement for the Boeing B-52 turned out to be too expensive even for the American budget -- one aircraft cost about $1.5 billion. As a result, the United States produced only 20 Northrop-Grumman B-2 Spirits and kept the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress in service. At this moment there is no alternative to the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. It is the only aircraft that can fulfill all the tasks of strategic aviation, from carpet-bombing to strikes on well-protected targets using long-range high-accuracy missiles. The development of a new aircraft that would replace all these planes is in the pre-design stage. Taking into account the terms and the cost of modern planes, it is possible that the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, like its Russian counterpart, the turboprop-powered Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its operational service. We don't have to wait long -- only until 2055

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_US_still_needs_its_B-52s_999.html

[Paddy51]

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

I am glad to note that the B 52 will be in service for a few more years. I was also interested to note the development of a replacement. This I shall have to look into. :)

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

It doesn't seem like developing a replacement for the B-52 would be too hard if you didn't try and develop 50 new technologies.

Something with the same capability, but not 50 years old would not be a hard thing to come by.

[wasser]

This article is a bit misinformed...


The fact that expensive heavy bombers fall so often raises doubts about the U.S. Air Force's battle readiness in general.So often? This was the first B-52 crash since 1994 and that one was due to pilot error. The B-2 crash was the first ever and the B-1b was the first crash since December 2001. I really don't see how this "raises doubts about the U.S. Air Force's battle readiness in general."

Here's an interesting read about the reliability of the B-52. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/TWO07218.xml) Yeah, the aircraft is incredibly old, but it's got a great record of safety. It does need a replacement and the A.F. is working on it. 2018 is the operational target date - that seems like an incredibly short amount of time to me.

XB-70 was canceled due to Francis Gary Powers ;) (not because it was too expensive)

[noname]

Has the cause of the crash even been determined structural, as the author of this piece is inferring?

[wasser]

No. There has been no official word on the cause of this crash.

[Pralix]

When you consider how many hours the b-52 have been flying, the safety margin on them is great. I remember watching them do the "Elephant Walk" 24/7 in the 80's. They are truly great machines.

[Andreas]

I seem to remember they use explosives to fire up the engines of the B-52's?

[Paddy51]

When you consider how many hours the b-52 have been flying, the safety margin on them is great. I remember watching them do the "Elephant Walk" 24/7 in the 80's. They are truly great machines.

I also remember the news item of the B52 returning to base after mission in the original Gulf conflict. The plane was shot to pieces and still flying - remarkable machine and engineering.

[oldsoak]

Thats what you get for a plane that was designed with slide rules and engineering tables and built on jigs useing imperial measurements.
Everyone from Boeing through to Hawker rounded up to be on the safe side so the actual structure ended up a bit beefier and stronger than the engineers envisaged -even with safety margins penciled in. Somewhere theres a B52 pilot who's flying his grandads aeroplane.

[Paddy51]

Thats what you get for a plane that was designed with slide rules and engineering tables and built on jigs useing imperial measurements.
Everyone from Boeing through to Hawker rounded up to be on the safe side so the actual structure ended up a bit beefier and stronger than the engineers envisaged. Somewhere theres a B52 pilot who's flying his grandads aeroplane.

You mean a plane designed the old fashioned way - what was it called again, oh yes, Engineering! I am a Scientist with considerable experience of the aircraft industry and I wholly approve of your attitude.

Your words, "Somewhere theres a B52 pilot who's flying his grandads aeroplane." are brilliant Sir.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I also remember the news item of the B52 returning to base after mission in the original Gulf conflict. The plane was shot to pieces and still flying - remarkable machine and engineering.

During Desert Storm a B-52 survived being hit by an AGM-88 HARM missile which accidentally locked on to the tail radar.

[oldsoak]

@paddy51
:lol:

off topic - I've still got copies of my Cambridge 4 and 7 figure tables somewhere - logs, antilogs, sines etc. I was even taught how to use a slide rule ! Still got one somewhere in the attic - plus me abacus and counting beads...:-P

- the B52 is an immensely well engineered aircraft. I've had a look at the Duxford one and its impressive. Those HAR wings are quite incredible. If you want to have a look of some massive engineering - take a look at the Vulcan !

[Paddy51]

@paddy51
:lol:

off topic - I've still got copies of my Cambridge 4 and 7 figure tables somewhere - logs, antilogs, sines etc. I was even taught how to use a slide rule ! Still got one somewhere in the attic - plus me abacus and counting beads...:-P

- the B52 is an immensely well engineered aircraft. I've had a look at the Duxford one and its impressive. Those HAR wings are quite incredible. If you want to have a look of some massive engineering - take a look at the Vulcan !

I still have by undergraduate slide rule on my desk along with an abacus.

I have seen the B52s at the Scottish Airshow at Leuchars and what a wonderful beast. I would love to go on board one.

The Vulcan is one of my favourites for sure. Some years ago at Leuchars the Vulcan took part in the show for the last time. They did a spectacular take off and somewhere I have a photograph of it. Maybe it is time to search out the photo, scan and share. :)

I am also happy to note the rebuilding of the Vulcan and hope to see that one in action soon.

[chino65]

In the book about Australia's 8RAR tour in Vietnam - "Combat Battalion" - is an account of the American "CT" weapon the B52.

A unit of 8RAR was beseiging a bunker complex with tanks. The fighting was very tough, casualties on both sides high, and progress was slow. But there was progress.

Then a call for withdrawal to a "safe distance" as some bright spark had called for a B-52 strike - TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AGO. 24-hours is needed to prepare for a B-52 strike.

But in that 24-hour it took the B-52 strike to materialise, 8RAR had already made some advancement.

But now the B-52s are coming and 8RAR had to give up all the gains and pull back.

The VC were quick to exploit this ease up and most got away before the B-52's dropped its first bomb.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I was recently reading the book "A Better War" by Lewis Sorley about the last years of the Vietnam War. He described a strike on the DMZ where B-52s dropped their loads every couple of minutes, one after the other, for an entire day. The North Vietnam/South Vietnam border was not that wide, you can imagine what it did to the area.

Not a single shot was fired across the DMZ for several weeks. :D

[chino65]

Carpet bombing eliminates insurgents but also help create many more new ones.

I remember pictures of civilian survivors of B52 strikes in Afghanistan whose village was "carpeted" by B52s with heavy casualties of old men, women and children.

No surprise the number of new Taliban recruits increased that week.

The B52 is great but maybe not for these kinds of conflicts?

[wasser]

No surprise the number of new Taliban recruits increased that week.

Do you have weekly recruiting numbers for the Taliban? :p

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Carpet bombing eliminates insurgents but also help create many more new ones.

I remember pictures of civilian survivors of B52 strikes in Afghanistan whose village was "carpeted" by B52s with heavy casualties of old men, women and children.

No surprise the number of new Taliban recruits increased that week.

The B52 is great but maybe not for these kinds of conflicts?

That's what people say all the time but I really doubt this.

I think it's just as likely that people see the Taliban get bombed by bombers they can't even see or hear and think "HOLY FREAKING CRAP if that's what happens to the Taliban I'm not joining up!"

[wasser]

Carpet bombing eliminates insurgents but also help create many more new ones.
...
The B52 is great but maybe not for these kinds of conflicts?

The B-52 isn't just a nuke/carpet bombing platform.



Combining precision-guided munitions with real-time targeting data changed the very nature of some weapons platforms. The 50-year-old B-52 bomber, formerly a strategic weapon, discovered a new role: that of battlefield loiter weapons platform.

Instead of flying thousands of miles to disgorge a planeload of gravity bombs suddenly on each target below, B-52s in operation Enduring Freedom loitered high over the theater, flying figure eight patterns while awaiting targeting data. The ground-based special operations controller with his laser viewfinder and GPS system would radio target coordinates tc personnel aboard the B-52, who enter the data into a joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) precision-guided munition. The large bomber opens its bomb bay doors, and the single JDAM is unleashed to destroy its intended target-a mission that can be confirmed by the ground controller, by the way.

Meanwhile, the B-52, its bomb bay still largely full of precision-guided munitions, could continue to loiter over the theater, awaiting new target data. Technology effectively has transformed it from a strategic strike weapon into an omnipresent delivery service.
source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5438/is_200209/ai_n21317650/pg_3)

[Paddy51]

@wasser

Good description, thanks for posting. The B52 is a big reliable delivery system?

[jackehammond]

Carpet bombing eliminates insurgents but also help create many more new ones.

I remember pictures of civilian survivors of B52 strikes in Afghanistan whose village was "carpeted" by B52s with heavy casualties of old men, women and children.

No surprise the number of new Taliban recruits increased that week.

The B52 is great but maybe not for these kinds of conflicts?

Dear Member,

The B-52 carpet bombed villages in Afghanistan? Thanks for the information. I never knew that. Have you any information about the mass carpet bombing by B-52 in early 1980 of the three cities in Iran to try and force the Mullah's in Iran to release the US embassy hostages?

BTW> The B-52s did not carpet bomb any villages during 2003. The first use of so called carpet bombing by B-52s was at Tora Bora which was basically devoid of villages and civilians. That was the famous video that was being shown all the time. And would you like to take a guess at how many civilians were killed by the Xmas 1972 bombing raids over Hanoi? And this was the exact figure given by the mayor of Hanoi when a Swedish news crew was reporting from Hanoi claiming tens and thousands of innocent civilians had been butchered. The mayor (ie to everyone's surprise in the Pentagon) stated that they were incorrect. The true figure was around 1200. Which considering the bombing campaign is low. Even the North Vietnamese were surprised the B-52s hit the military targets and hitting very few civilian homes, shops, etc.


Jack E. Hammond

.

[jackehammond]

Folks,

Does anyone want to take a guess at what was one of the most accurate level bombers of the Vietnam War? The answer will surprise you.

Jack E. Hammond

.

[Klatuu]

The reputation of the B-52 as an indiscriminate weapon of mass murder is propaganda, largely started by the North Vietnamese who feared the B-52 and knew that their allies in the American press were their only hope to stop it. Even before it carried GPS guided bombs, the B-52 was accurate enough to carry out CAS missions at ranges that would have been deadly to US troops had the aircraft not been such a precise weapon.


A new application of a proved weapon system that became highly effective at Khe Sanh was the use of the B-52 in close support. Originally restricted to drops at some distance from friendly lines, the B-52 crews felt that they could deliver their bomb loads with great accuracy much closer to the lines. The enemy, aware of the restrictive bombline, had moved his forces close to friendly lines for protection from air attack. The B-52 proposal appeared worth a try. After a single B-52 had demonstrated its accuracy of delivery under control of a ground radar station, the bombline was moved to less than one-third the former distance from the Marine perimeter. The first few B-52 strikes close to the line proved devastating to the massed enemy forces. The Marine defenders were particularly enthusiastic, and subsequent B-52 strikes were used largely in this role.Khe Sahn (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1970/nov-dec/greenhalgh.html)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_B-52_Ordnance_Display_lg.jpg

[wasser]

Folks,

Does anyone want to take a guess at what was one of the most accurate level bombers of the Vietnam War? The answer will surprise you.

Jack E. Hammond

.

C-130's dropping big arse bombs.


In World War II C-47s occasionally were used to drop bombs, usually when no bombers were available for the job. Twenty years later, during the Vietnam War, their C-130 successors also dropped bombs, but in a mission that was anything but a matter of expediency. The C-130 bombers of Project COMMANDO VAULT had a reputation for accuracy exceeding that of all other airplanes dropping bombs during the Vietnam War.

...

And just now accurate were the bombers? I have a slide in my files showing a M-121 exploding smack on the top of a mountain peak west of Da Nang! In 1969 SAC sent out a letter showing the average circular error of all aircraft dropping bombs in Vietnam using the ground radar method. The C-130s had the lowest circular error of all the types - including SAC's own B-52s!

source (http://hometown.aol.com/samc130/bc130.html)

[Mastermind]

Carpet bombing eliminates insurgents but also help create many more new ones.

I remember pictures of civilian survivors of B52 strikes in Afghanistan whose village was "carpeted" by B52s with heavy casualties of old men, women and children.

No surprise the number of new Taliban recruits increased that week.

The B52 is great but maybe not for these kinds of conflicts?
First of all...this is total bs. There were no use of carpet bombing in Af of civilain targets! The Allied forces were extreemly carful to avoid collateral damage and many coalition troopers died becasue fo the conservative approach to use of aerial weapons...almost all were precision guided munitions.

I really hope a mod sees this idiotic propaganda crap. You had better begin checking your facts before you come on in here with just eleven posts and spout crap.

[jackehammond]

Ref: Message #25 on most accurate level bomber of Vietnam War

Dear Member,

I AM IMPRESSED! If you ask that question of a 100 USAF officers I would bet none would have known the answer of the C-130.

Again, thanks for the posting. Also their is an excellent AIR CLASSIC article (from the late 1970s) on the whole program I scanned if you wish the links.

Again: IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!

Jack E. Hammond

.