Not your grandfather’s B-52

Not your grandfather’s B-52

The Air Force wants its B-52s to keep flying until 2040, but the airplanes of that era won’t look like the ones we all remember from “Dr. Strangelove” — or even the bombers flying today.

According to an official story from the weekend, Lt. Gen. Jim Kowalski, the head of Global Strike Command, says the B-52 is set to receive a round of upgrades that will help both the airmen inside each one and also the top-level commanders moving them around on their maps. Even if that commander’s suit is a darker shade of blue:

These upgrades are integral to ensuring the B-52H is both effective and able to fully integrate with other services, as envisioned in the Air Sea Battle concept, according to command officials.


Among the upgrades is a guided “smart weapon” capability in the B-52H’s internal weapons bay, which provides a 66 percent increase in guided weapons payload. Another current program is an upgrade to the latest Advanced Targeting Pod, which will increase the B-52H effectiveness when performing close air support and other missions.

One of the test aircraft at Edwards AFB also featured an improved on-board communications upgrade called Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT). The CONECT program brings the B-52H from the analog into the digital age, according to command officials, providing an invaluable data link over which to pass mission and threat data.

With the new defense strategy placing a greater emphasis on the Pacific, it’s really important that our bombers are fully networked and integrated with the joint force, Kowalski said.

The mind races at the possibilities — a carrier strike group commander with B-52s integrated into her air plan? “Sensor netting,” as we’ve heard so much about, that lets a commander in Australia see what a bomber is tracking over the North Pacific? You can start to hear Navy Undersecretary Robert Work’s voice explaining how, of all things, the Air Force could help increase the effective size of the Navy’s fleet, along with his beloved P-8s, BAMS, E-2Ds and so on.

Part of the problem with imagining the future for this kind of integration, however, is a lack of clarity about exactly what scenarios U.S. planners are using to build it. This is where D.C.-based China fear-mongering gets a little frustrating, because it usually ends with people frowning severely, or arching their eyebrows, rather than spelling out what they believe would be involved with a potential future crisis.

Are American forces going to fight another Battle of Coral Sea with Chinese naval forces? Are they going to encounter a wall of “anti-access/area denial” missile and submarine attacks if they cross a keep-out “line of death?” Are they going to have to eject Chinese invaders from Taiwan? All three? Are American forces going to attack the Chinese mainland?

All that planning is on the high side, so it can be tough trying to put Kowalski’s comments into a larger context. But whatever Pentagon planners have in their red-edged briefing documents, this story makes it clear they’ll be counting on the 60 year-old B-52s to play a key part in it.

Join the Conversation

What an amazing aircraft!

“…B-52s to keep flying until 2040, but the airplanes of that era won’t look like the ones we all remember from “Dr. Strangelove” — or even the bombers flying today.”

Might as well go all “Flight of the Old Dog”.

And seeing as how well-received the upgraded C-5M Super Galaxies have been so far, we might as well finally pony up the money to re-wing and re-engine the old B-52s: those TF-33s (?) surely will not last another quarter century.

How’s P&W doing with their geared turbofan development, anyway?

Cool

This is a good way to ensure we have a superb cruise missile carrier and bomber and save money on it great way to go.

Soon we will be seeing “Flight Of the Old Dog” on the big screen,maybe the Air Force get a few idea’s from the movie,just look at how science fiction has really changed our lives!Weird huh!

What kind of risks are we running operating airframes with this many years and flying hours on them?? Anyone at the USAF think that “B-52 replacement + GOOD integration of latest proven technologies” should be a higher priority than “optionally manned bomber”???

Dang. 66% upgrade on munitions capacity equals a 94,000-pound payload. It’s moving up to (almost) B-1B with external racks levels, but with better range…nice.

Sweet. Bring the mods on. Five of the best years of my life–1963–68–spent in B-52E and F.

Spent 62 — 66 on a SAC base in southern Ga. and never got tired of seeing these planes get airborn.

72–76 in B-52s Mainly Hs up in Michigan. They were old at that time,
and still going strong today, that impressive !!! I thought it was cool to fly in them then. Loved to see the wings rise up, then the rest of the plane.

I don’t understand why there hasn’t been a move to replacing the old eight engine set up with four engines of a newer more efficient design. This would have to improve rediness and reduce costs.

Boeing has been proposing this sort of update since the early 90’s when I was a RN at K I Sawyer.

I went to tech school at Chanute AFB 64…haven’t worked on the 1st one yet. Was assigned to MATS which later became MAC and put my AFC code to F from E after I passed my 5 level. Thanks for your service.

In 64 they said a year or two at the most. We thought the XB-70 would be the future.From Travis to Anderson and back again. We flew them up the Ho chi min trail. Started in the D’s ended with the H’s. Loved those aircraft, Wish i could take one for a spin just one more time. Talked to a young man who was flying the newest addition. Hell they arn’t flying, and we thought we had technology!

The idea has been around awhile. I’ve never understood why it was never a higher priority for the USAF. Here is a report from 2004 on reengining the aircraft: http://​www​.acq​.osd​.mil/​d​s​b​/​r​e​p​o​r​t​s​/​A​D​A​4​2​8​790

Armageddon to go. The ultimate close support weapons system. Delivering truckload quantities of high explosives to any point on the planet, cost effectively, for two generations. We have the technology, we choose not to unleash it…YET!

The AF was trying to replace them, so mod money was almost non existent.
Congress ordered the AF to keep about twice the number that the AF wanted to.
What did the AF do? It got rid of the “excess” spares that were not needed for the number that the AF wanted to keep. Many of the excess spares were things that existed in AF supply inventory only, and had not been made in decades. As a result, the need for serious modification finally has a high enough priority to have been funded. I remember one software mod in the 90s. Seems that it required a “minor” and quite simple hardware change to some indicator lights that were part of a switch assembly, and a minimal wiring change. No money for parts, since it was a “software” mod.
No money for T.O. revisions, as the revision covered hardware changes. Scrap parts and switches were cannibalized to obtain the raw materials, and the indicators were rebuilt/modified, (not by depot, no money) by the equipment specialists, who also generated and physically printed and published the T.O. changes.
Using the “bean counters” criteria, a mod must pay for itself, and do so in a relatively short period.
If you cannot show at least a payback factor of 10x or more over the remaining life, it’s usually a no go for funds.
I’m just glad that I retired, and don’t have to deal with such problems anymore!

Decades ago, one of the numerous B-52 related program offices had a gentleman that occasionally answered an extension that was normally reached only by transfer. He had an extremely deep voice that was almost chilling over a phone. The shortened informal version of the office title was “WARFARE”, followed by “We Deliver”, about an octave lower than that of T.E. Ford’s in “Ten Tons”.

The bottom line is the B-52 is a superb aircraft past, present and undoubtly into the future. A more effective solution would be to ramp up production of the B-52 utilizing the existing technology, as well as what comes up in the future. In essence a new aircraft would be developed but utilizing the current frame from the bomber, make it more stealthy, more fuel efficient and load the bird up with as much technology as possible to defeat the enemy.

“the B-52 is set to receive a round of upgrades that will help both the airmen inside each one and also the top-level commanders moving them around on their maps. Even if that commander’s suit is a darker shade of blue.” Intergrating the B-52 so it can be utilized to it’s best ability regardless of where it is located should be a relatively easy problem to solve. Establishing “zones” and getting the attorneys out of the equation when a decision has to be made would be the idea solution all the way around.

But what do I know — I was a Army grunt and we’re supposed to let others do the thinking for us when it comes to matters of this magnitude.

Beef up the wings, slap on new engines, and upgrade the flight deck to a glass cockpit. Maybe even a new rotory launcher. That would be bad a$$!

I really liked that book. Thanks for mentioning it.

Worked Bomb/Nav from 1974 to 1992, spent about 6 years at K. I. in the 80’s, was a Master Instructor at Lowry and Chanute, retired in 1993 as Chief of Military Training when Chanute closed. Miss the Old Dogs. The U. S. taxpayer definitely got their money’s worth out of the BUFF. Was on from the AN/ASQ-38, did some –48 work at Lowry, and was there for the transition to OAS in the 80’s. Nothing does it like a BUFF. Last one I worked was 6101040, the last one built. This aircraft never ceases to amaze me. Why don’t we keep all the BUFFs, and retire most of Congress?

I worked on the C-141 at the Warner Robins ALC Depot right up until the USAF reitired the last one. We worked diligently to make sure the structure was safe. We instituted load restrictions if needed and used some of the most advanced composite repairs to keep the wings functional. The attention and funding given to front line combat aircraft like the B-52 is better than anything we could hope for. The engineers at both the depot and Boeing work diligently to keep the B-52 safely flying.

RADAR REFLECTIONS. It turns out that a high bypass turbofan in the 50,000lb thrust class creates a radar return much larger than the two low bypass turbofans when the B-52H is getting hit with the radar beam head on or nearly head on. I know, use the thing as a stand off attack platform and the problem is reduced. The problem is the USAF expected to have a few hundred B-2s to use with the B-52 and B-1 retired completely. No planning was needed to provide for using the B-52 as just a long distance stand off attack plane if you think it will be retired.

Started working on the B-52H in 1966. Saw many modifications in my career as mechanic, crew chief, instructor and finally Field Training Detachment superintendent. Except for a year in Illinois and a year in Vietnam, I spent 20 years in North Dakota dealing with the B-52. Great airplane. Wouldn’t trade those years for anything.

A site for those who associate with the BUFF. http://​www​.stratofortress​.org/

We need an EB-52 Megafortress like in the Dale Brown series!

I was in nam in 71 and BUFF was always supporting us grunts, nothing like being danger close to arch light. Now that made Charlie pucker up.
Thanks for all the memories.

No, it’s not a weight increase, it’s a capacity increase. Right now they can’t carry the mentioned weapons in the bomb bay so they are limited to the wing racks. Opening up that big ass bay to them would greatly increase the number of weapons they can carry.

Still the same bombload weight though. Not like anyone’s tried to upgrade past those 1960 vintage engines.

And I have to ask myself why the Navy is retiring the USS ENTERPRISE. A couple of years in drydock and remove some of the 8 nuclear reactors is going to be a whole lot cheaper than 17 billion+ dollars for the FORD and more for the 2nd JFK. By the way, JFK really doesn’t deserve a 2nd carrier due to his sexual proclivities with Hollywood starlets. And, aside from Camelot, he really wasn’t that great a president. I propose the carrier after the FORD be the USS OREGON. The navy stole the old OREGON (BB-3) from Portland at the beginning of WWII and used it as a powder barge at Guam and later on it went to Japan to be scrapped.

I went to the 50th Anniversary of the B-52 in Wichita in 2003. One of the speakers said that the last Air Force Pilot to fly a B-52, has not been born yet. Same comment can be made today. I have time in every model of the B-52 and a son (now 52 years old) that flew the same B-52H tail numbers as I did. I remember Gen. LeMay speaking to us on alert at WPAFB in 1962 that the B-70 was going to replace the B-52. The Buff may be old and ugly but she keeps on “ticking”.

What doe this have to do with the B-52 LOL.

Advanced Technology has always been the answer to whatever warfare we engage.…Having the capabilities to fight our enemies at any level, at all times includes our advanced technological capabilities. All of this is provided we can overcome the idiots (Social Engineers) that seem to interfere with great consistency?

None of the avionics and weapon upgrades mentioned for the B-52H will make it any more survivable against air-to-air or anti-access surface to air missile systems capable of engaging the B-52 outside the range of its standoff weapons or sensors. Unless we can pick a less sophisticated threat and operate with impunity like in Iraq and Afghanistan again, all the investment is for naught. Buzzers, lights and whistles do not make the venerable old lady more survivable.

I went to tech school at Chanute also in 86. I studied fuel systems maintainance.

Not going to happen. The molds for the b-52s were destroyed decades ago. To start ramping up b-52 production would create an aircraft that will be almost the same cost as the B-2.

Why can’t we modify the b-52s to use the same engines as the 777? Replace 8 engines with two and use the remainder for hardpoints.

worked on B-52 out of Castle in the 80’s what a great plane

Sgt Beatty I need to thank you for your work and ALL the other maintenance troops at KI. i was there from 81 to 87 and have never seen people doing a better job. I can only praise the guys who worked in freezing weather, snow, wind and rain to get the aircraft airborne. The best group in my career. There were few late takeoffs and even less BS between the crews and maintenance. The B-52 can and will do a lot of work compared to any of the new toys DOD wants or plans to make. The KISS principle works if you let it. At one time 611040 had such a good autopilot, you could refuel hands off. The kids of today don’t know how good of an airplane they have.

Upgrading the BUFF or any other spectacular weapon system only makes half-sense if the powers that be don’t have the ‘nads to use them when and where necessary. It doesn’t make sense to spend billions on armored Hummers and trucks when it would be much more efficient to have a Tomahawk or JDAM crawl into bed with the likes of Akhmadinejad or Assad one night about 0300, with the admonition to their successors warning of a similar fate if they don’t start getting along with others. With the exception of the Infantry, armor and artillery, all other members of the armed services exist to aid, support, and, if at all possible, negate the need to use the Combat Arms. Oh.…silly me—we don’t want to offend anyone.

They put fuselage splints on the B-52H’s in the 60’s, it’s about time those splints are wearing out

As ships go, she is done. The cost of refueling the reactors is high as well. She is also manpower heavy. All new ships have more automation for less crew size. As for JFK? Pure politics. The Navy is getting worse in that department lately. It may sink even lower.
http://​www​.military​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​r​e​p​-​s​e​e​k​s​-na

Was a 2LT and went to Boeing in 1961 to pick up a B52H, Only time I ever hand more fglying time then the aircraft I was flying. Best yeras of my life was spent in an “eight hole outhouse” as my AC used to say.
Flew them for 5000 hours 1961 thru 1978. Still amazed that they climb nose down.

1960–1964 Loring AFB. 52’s and KC-135s!

My first aircraft, in 1974! Fairchild AFB, worked G models in phase, BPO & thruflight teams. I always thought it strange that I was working on an aircraft almost as old as I was, nice to see they are still doin’ it!

The upgrade appears to be similar to that has been done with upgrading the Lockheed Martin C-5A/B to become the C-5M as this includes new pylons and engines as well as a new digital fly-by-wire avionics suite and controls.

I don’t know the reason but see my previous comment was deleted by administrator, I’ll just say I was assigned to SAC 9/64 — 6/74 and again 3/77 — 6/79 and it is amazing the B-52H is still in the air.

Andrew is right. It is specifically a reference to going from being able to only carry 12 2000lb JDAMs on the wing pylons, to also carrying another 8 2000lb JDAMs in the bomb bay for a total maximum load of 20 2000lb JDAMs.

To gain significant efficiency you would have to go to those large diameter turbo bypass fan jets. I think they already upgraded the engines to as modern a jet as can be put on the limited space they have(JT3D turbo fan). Of course David already mentioned the radar problem with big turbo fans.

Any further mod would require a massive redesign, I should think. Either change the engine sponsons to mount above wing to keep the intake scoops out of the FOD, or have ridiculously tall landing gear to do same. Perhaps a whole new engine design is in order. Something with a radical change in the understanding of physics. With the need for fuel efficiency such a huge motivation for the commercial market, who knows what will pop on the horizon.

Contractors still have the old metal working molds, but your right as far as furthering more modern methods of restructured air-frame on the original design would seem impractical from a cost standpoint. I would have no idea what kind of jet engine they would come up with, because they definitely destroyed all excess spares and “molds” for those old power plants.

Seems like it would be almost more practical to build a new “truck” out of a commercially available design. I’m sure the Air Force would love a redesigned B-1 better.

I remember as a kid seeing the B-52s in various stages of being built sitting out in the open near Plant Two in Seattle, WA. Always wondered why they would do that, since the plane was considered a secret issue. Anyone, such as we, could see the planes as they drove on Highway 99 that transverses through a lot of BOEING properties. Later, I watched BUFFs taking off and landing at Amarillo AFB, TX with Bomb Wing that was there in the 1960’s. Actually saw one that came in with the right wing “outrigger wheel” up in the wing rather than down as was supposed to be. Made for some interesting time for that crew I am sure. No crash, but we did have lots of Air Police, me being one, and Fire personnel standing by just in case. The BUFF, a great plane all around. Was in Vietnam and heard, did not see, the dropping of bombs about 8 or so miles from TSN. The ground concussions were vibrating through the ground to the point you felt like you knew what a popcorn kernel felt like as it popped.

PULEEASE don’t give BUFF a pointy nose though that is all I ask ;-)

DEAR GOD man the BUFF looks like an inbound Planet on the decrepit Spoon Rest or Fan Song who gives a crap if the radar sig is increased just jack up that EW till the scope readers gold fillings melt.

yeh but then you lose that deafening noise and soot trail that warms the soul.

The b52 is the future of our airforce. Just as we cant build new bombers and have to rely on half century old upgrades, we can no longer build fighters either. 50 years from now we will still be relying on upgraded 15, 16 and 18s and lamenting the latest round of jsfailures to produce a decent aircraft.

I don’t get why they don’t get the old production line re-going to make NEW B-52 airframes, with all this technology built into them, rather than patched on / in.

While they are at it, they could do the A-10 as well. Both are proven aircraft that are effective in their role, and aren’t going to be easily replaced with the new generation jets like the F-35.

Unlike all the presidents who followed, JFK FOUGHT for this country. via his brother he initiated the movement to end overt racism, fought against corporations and possibly had some extramarital sex. What a president does outside of his presidential duties has little to nothing to do with him being our president. What he did tdo was avert WWIII (aka Cuban missile crisis). Apparently, you don’t mind a FORD, or a war-dodging BUSH or God forbid, a war-dodging REAGAN here and there, but you object to a decorated veteran?

did you ever serve in the military? Do you have any idea what it would involve to turn the now ancient Enterprise into a ship that would survive for another 3–4 decades?

Yes the B-52 was a great aircraft, but if we ever get in a war with a country like Russia or China, those B-52s will be sitting ducks. For that matter if the B-2 loses has its stealth compromised, it will be a sitting duck as well. Both planes are slow and easy to spot visually, the B-52 is easy to spot on radar. The plane we need to upgrade is the B-1, in particular the B-1R: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​F​F​s​Y​c​K​5​l​WrQ

This aircraft could be available very soon and has a lot better chance of surviving against the Russian or Chinese.

As a guess, the B-52 has a radar cross section the size of the Statue of Liberty; that said, current thinking has given the US 1,100 foreign military bases and loads of low-tech stuff (and human beings) to bomb, tasks made to order for the ancient craft. The B-2 would be better suited to high threat environments, although I’d personally hate to test the concept, especially the moment it opens its bomb bays.

What a great idea: two huge engines, lower fuel consumption, rips wings off fuselage. So, new wings, revised fuselage. Engines drag on ground, so revise landing gear, revise fuselage. Replace all avionics and communications gear, revise weapons systems, revise federal budget, borrow money from China.
This is great.

We don’t like to offend anyone? We have one thousand, one hundred plus military bases OUTSIDE of the US borders. We have F-22’s 200 miles from Iran and 7060 miles from DC; we have six thousand military dead, ten times that number have been wounded, and double that number who require years worth of medical treatment; we have hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi dead, mostly civilians, we spend as much on our military as the rest of the world, we are talking war with N. Korea, Iran, Russia (the idiotic, never-served-in-the-military Boehner) and of course we’re bombing the crap out of Yemen, and various other neighboring countries. But you think we don’t want to offend anyone? Most of the world is so pissed at this country because of our indifference to the sanctity of human life that we are today in far greater danger from terrorists than we ever were. I hope I didn’t offend you. Really.

“…B-52H effectiveness when performing close air support.“
The Air Force obviously has a VERY different definition of what close air support means.

Keep on Flying! I am proud to have been a crew chief on the B-52G and H model. I loved working on them! I can still remember how to load a drag chute. 320th OMS and 7th OMS.
It’s up to maintenance to keep them flying!
Cowles

They need to just break down and put new engines on this thing. They’ve been talking about new engines since the 1970s. But ya The B-52 is just an awesome war machine.

I was in the D and loved it. Still has a fond place in my heart. One would assume, I know that bad word, thye have checked the engineering and stress thus the air frames will handle the flying hours.

I flew on the C-141s in the late 90s and the forward bulkheads were cracking (irreparable) and we had flight restrictions below 10,000 feet because we couldn’t keep the planes pressurized. Every airframe has a limit before the backbone breaks and you may as well just build a new plane. Look at the F-15. How long until the Buffs start breaking up in mid-air?

I was at Sheppard AFB in 1965 for C130/C133 school. On Nov. 9 the great North east blackout occurred. It was my mothers birthday, and I called to wish her a happy birthday. As I was talking to her the power went out in NY. About that time KC 135’s and B-52’s started firing up. I was witness to a max effort t/o. Most impressive sight to my young eyes. Cuban missle crisis barely over, no one knew what happened to knock out power to 25% of the country. SAC put every AC that was flyable in the air. The last 52 to launch rolled almost to OKlahoma it seemed like. Still hear the J-57’s from time to time. My best friend flew D’s&G’s from 71–85, and retired O-5 with over 5K hrs.

What a great aircraft! If I had to pick between flying a B-52 or lying on a beach in Hawaii, the B-52 would win hands down. Flew D, F, and G between 1970 and 1984. That machine was virtually indestructable. A lot of fond memories leaping off the 500 foot cliff at the end of the runway on Anderson. That aircraft truly has a heart and soul.

Because it would really screw up the wing bending load alleviation you get from the current four engine pylons, not to mention the complete redesign of the landing gear to accommodate the large fan diameters. A better idea would be to use four F117 (a.k.a the PW2000) or RB211 engines . The F117 is the same engine used on the C-17, so it is already in the logistics system, and both engines are used worldwide on B757s, so there is an ample supply of spare parts and repair know how. The smaller fan diameter will integrate with the existing landing gear, so all that will be needed is a new pylon design. The increased fuel efficiency will probably double the range of the aircraft. Remember: the TF-33 is a first generation turbojet. The fuel burn differences between a first-gen turbojet and a high-bypass turbofan are staggering.
I’d love to see them replace the ejection seats with ACES II or NACES seats, maybe updating the avionics to eliminate the need for the NAV and the RNAV crewmen. The aircraft as a whole has the lowest ejection survival rate in the USAF inventory, and the two downward-ejecting seats have a much lower ejection survival than the four upward-ejecting seats.

Todays’ optimum upgrade :

1: replace the 4x2 engines with 4x1s that have serious generator capacity

2: mount a larger aux power (generator) turbine in the tail

3: mount 4 or so 100kW+ solid state laser systems around the air-frame powered by the various generator upgrades

4: radar-controlled front+rear missile-interceptor-guns with xm25 type spin-timed=distance adjusted airburst shells (for CIWS defense if the lasers fail to destroy a next-gen / laserproofed incoming missile)

5: expand the bay options with a no-doors pod to drop mini-munitions on remote-command from uplinked ground-controllers like the approx 45-lb types of : http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​G​B​U​-​4​4​/​B​_​V​i​p​e​r​_​S​t​rik
and http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​A​D​ARM

6: for battlefield assistance, they can also mount telecomm bandwidth relays (the “flying wifi hotspot on steroids”)

And as someone commented above … Might as well go all “Flight of the Old Dog” … IIRC that included AMRAAM, HAARM, etc

Tomorrow’s optimum upgrade :

1: Use multiple onboard Brillouin-Energy type fusion reactors driving electric-motor-impellers instead of jet engines … which gives more electrical power for …

2: more / bigger lasers

3: laser-reflective armor under the skin paint

When I was in Vietnam (I was in the USAF) a friend of mine (Lewindowski — a tail gunner on a B-52) told me
that when he was at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota in 1967 his crew bet a two man crew of an F-4 Phantom
that their B-52 could beat them to 20000 feet altitude. They put on minimum fuel and beat the F-4 easily (I
don’t know if that story was true or not but he used to swear it was true). Another story about the B-52
(which is 100 percent true was when a two man crew of an F-111 fighter bomber from the 20th Tac Fighter Wing at RAF Upper Heyford, England was refueling along side
a B-52. When the F-111l was finished refueling it turned away and did a barrell roll. They contacted the
B-52 and said “Bet you can’t do that! The B-52 crew replied “No they replied but we bet you can’t do this. The F-111
crew replied “What did you do — we didn’t see anything”. The B-52 crew replied “we just shut down two
engines!!!” Bill alves (CMSgt, Ret).

Looks like hypoxia is affecting your spelling skills

When I was in the Marine Corps and the Buffs bombed the mountain outside our compound meet you got (a long over due) good night sleep. It would be all black and baron at night however when we got up in the morning it would be all green again. It is good to see the Air Force is keeping something that woks and is reliable. Bob a greatful Marine.

Wow, electronics upgrades, what about the airframe???? All the electronics in the world won’t mean jack if the wings fall off! Just saying

I imagine that if they re-engined it they would try and make it into a 4 engine plane.

Ahh, whoops. Or perhaps 80x SDB?

Why not use it as an aircraft carrier with indepent drones that can be its fighter escort or long range disposable bomber force. I could see it as a CURTIS LEMAY class carrier!

We (US) may have a tendency to use military power too casually, as a quick easy answer to political problems (“Kill them all, let God sort them out” kind of ideology). Unfortunately, putting the power in the hands of civilians (senators, presidents) rather than military leaders (generals) does not reduce that tendency (especially if it is acceptable to your political base — e.g. Obama and drone killings.) I’m with you so far….

But then you step off the deep end: “Most of the world is so pissed at this country because of our indifference to the sanctity of human life that we are today in far greater danger from terrorists than we ever were.” So…the terrorists are pissed at us because of our indifference to the sanctity of human life?? Terrorists are not known for their high regard of the sanctity of human life. Most terrorist (especially Islamic jihadists) see our pre-occupation with “protecting the innocent” as a weakness. Amongst themselves, they talk about our lack of devotion to a higher cause, our unwillingness to pay the high price (massive civilian casualties) required for victory. Of course, in public, they list the death of innocents as one of our great sins. But they haven’t a leg to stand on, and such complaints are aimed at fools who cannot see the obvious hypocrisy. A terrorist complaining about lack of respect for the sanctity of human life is like The Rolling Stones complaining about loud music, or the United Nations complaining about wasteful spending. Still, they persist, precisely because they know we are sensitive to such accusations. Meanwhile, they themselves have no serious objection to indiscriminate killing.

Flew the E’s at Dyess from 67–72, loved the airplane, hated the mission. Most of the airplanes I flew were older than me, and their probably still flying with modifications galore. Voted the best bomber ever, and it deserves the honor.

The TF33 is a first generation turbofan engine, not a first generation turbojet engine.

Not true unless you mean fought and injured.

Gerald Ford served in the navy and saw significant action. Per Wikipedia: “For his naval service, Gerald Ford earned the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with nine engagement stars for operations in the Gilbert Islands, Bismarck Archipelago, Marshall Islands, Asiatic and Pacific carrier raids, Hollandia, Marianas, Western Carolines, Western New Guinea, and the Leyte Operation.” He also was instrumental in saving his ship during a typhoon.

Nixon also served in wwii, though not in combat.

Maybe we ought to bring back the B-36. I remember their beautiful take-offs and banking out of Carswell AFB, TX back in 1956.

’61-’65 in E’s and F’s at Walker AFB, Roswell, NM. Drove thru that town last year. Base is gone, nothing but little green men on the street corners. Couldn’t find the bars or any of my old girl friends either. Damn!

Why is it today that an aircraft like the B-52 still performs daily and the brand new F-22 can’t get it’s job done. Overruns in cost, problems with oxygen systems, and it is still not right. I think we need more designers and builders like the ones that produced the B-52s.

I worked on the B-52D @ Turner AFB in Georgia in 1959,Moved to the B-52 G @ Dow AFB,Maine in 1960,and moved again in 1964 to Beale AFB, Ca on the G model,again in 1969 to U-TAPAO AFB in Thailand. Greatest time in my career. The B-52‘S are my favorites. Retired @ the rank of MSGT in 1980 and at air show even now still look for the B-52s more than any other aircraft.

The answer is simple (sorry to say) The B 52 needs a few dallors here and there to maintain and keep current, verses something new that keeps breaking and after the bugs are worked out replace it with something else. More money in some pockets and fewer in the tax payers pockets like us. It is not only the Air Force look at the USS Enterprise. You that the money it would cost to decommission it and invested it into a make over with upgrades for today and future needs verses putting new ships to replace her get the bugs worked and so forth. Like Vietnam vets we lost when they used us to work out bugs in the field when they were pulling the M 14 out (I saw frist hand and never gave up my M 14). Bob

No we dont. That aircraft is a farie tail for a damn reason.

what base was you station at in north dakota? I was station in Grand Forks

You should go look at the B-52’s program history if you think it was a quick and easy process. Thing went so many revisions it’s not even funny. It started out as a 6-engine propeller aircraft in late 1945 that didn’t see IOC until nearly a decade later, at which point we had a grand total of 3 aircraft. They perform well today because of generational knowledge over nearly 7 decades of service.
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​B​o​e​i​n​g​_​B​-​5​2​_​S​t​r​a​t​ofo

If the SecAF adds a funding line to put a singe B-36 on duty as a demonstration team for one FY, I’ll support it… provided I get to personally view a takeoff and a low-level flyover. Six turning, four burning!

By all means, please elaborate.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.