Forget the B-1 and B-2, they are already scheduled for retirement. But not the old reliable B-52, planned to continue to operate at over 100 years old into the 2050s. Cold War-era B-52 bomber will outlive younger, sleeker rivals The Air Force on Monday revealed its long-range plan to eventually jettison its supersonic B-1 and stealthy B-2 bombers earlier than planned while keeping the venerable B-52, an aging Cold War workhorse that first flew in 1954 and was last built in 1962, flying into the 2050s. The Air Force confirmed that it plans to send its two newer bombers into early retirement, but keep the B-52 in the inventory well past its 100th birthday. “With an adequate sustainment and modernization focus, including new engines, the B-52 has a projected service life through 2050, remaining a key part of the bomber enterprise well into the future,” said Gen. Robin Rand, Air Force Global Strike Command commander, in a statement issued by the Air Force. But today’s B-52 has evolved from the planes first flown in the '50s. The Stratofortress has undergone numerous upgrades and modernization over the years, including the addition of an advanced communications system that displays real-time intelligence feeds overlaid on moving maps. The B-1 conventional bomber and the B-2 stealth bomber are also getting upgrades in the Air Force budget, but eventually their mission will be taken over by the new B-21 long-range stealth bomber, now in the design stage. B-1s were supposed to fly into the 2040s and B-2s until 2058, but the new plan moves their retirement up to the early 2030s, Air Force Magazine reported. While the B-52 will continue as a conventional bomber, it will also carry the new long-range stand-off nuclear cruise missile. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...mber-will-outlive-younger-sleeker-rivals.html Of the 744 built, 76 remain serviceable. Someone we know in the Air Force said the B-52 can do something a B-2 can't: fly with 5 engines out. The plus of the B-52? They are rugged, can take a lot of damage. They are not as massive as they seem in photos. A quite sleek airframe. Long but narrow wings.
The B-52 was built back when America was still great and knew how to build things when quality was what mattered on the bottom line.
In my opinion far too many aircraft are retired because a new one 3% better comes along, thus minimizing the size of our air force. There is value in numbers.
Pound for pound, it’s a good bomb/Missile truck. I don’t know about retiring the B-1 though (the B-2’s are crazy maintenance hogs. The B-21’s probably will be too and we don’t need two of those kinds of aircraft). The B-1’s should get upgraded to the proposed B-1R configuration.
Reads like you know what you are talking about. Someone I know in the AF describes the Lockheed C-130 Hercules as a "Rube Goldberg" aircraft of insane design and absurd levels of maintenance. Many of our aircraft do not need to be cutting edge design against the most advanced adversaries as most our adversaries have extremely primitive to no air defenses that are easily defeated. The person I just mentioned has come under anti-air missile attacks in the ME theater more than once and said there is nothing to fear from them. "The only thing I don't like about coming under missile attack is the defensive systems explosions are so loud they wake me up. I don't want to be woke up until we reach the target." (LOL) Rather, the fear is screw-ups on maintenance, systems failures and aircrew blunders. Many of our aircraft are so worn or of such unreliable designs that it is not rare that teckies have to go along just to keep them functioning while in the air.
Aircraft and tanks built at the beginning of WW II were no match for those built toward the end 6 years later, yet here we are with tanks and planes decades old still hanging in there.
The C-130 has kind of a rugged maintenance need. Like yeah, it’s engines and avionics require a lot of upkeep, but any grease monkey can do the work. The B-2 requires super specialized and expensive maintenance, especially for the composite materials that make up its skin. The hangers they have for them at Whiteman look like giant clean rooms.
We’ve effectively reached the upper limits of what our technology can do. You can only improve a horse and buggy so much while you are waiting for someone to invent a car.
I don’t understand why the B-52 hasn’t gotten an engine upgrade. If for no other reason than ease of logistics, they should pull its 8 turbojets and replace them with 4 turbofans from the C-17.
The Obama did a pretty good job of breaking the U.S. military. The U.S. military is in really bad shape today. https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary
There is a limit as to how much g-force the body can take and limitations to reaction times pilots can do. Drones will be the future of much of our top end aircraft in the not too distant future. Imagine a manned aircraft having to dogfight with an autonomously functioning drone that can accelerate and turn at 30g-s, making a billion calculations per millisecond - with no design, weight or size factors having to allow for a pilot? That's the future.
It is all relative to what the other militaries have. Also, compare the price tag of WW2 aircraft and tanks to now. How many Shermans could an Abrams take on? I doubt a Sherman could even harm an Abrams, but those Abrams sure are expensive as are our aircraft.
Happened to spot a bald eagle in flight today. There are a lot of birds of prey around here - lots. Massive barn owls, very powerful birds. Hawks. Osprey. Eagles. Unless it's black, if you have a cat or small bred dog you'd like to get rid of, just leave it outside a few days. It'll be gone. For some reason, they avoid dogs and cats that are black - except black squirrels. Doesn't have anything to do with this topic, but it was cool to see.
The B-1B can fly with only one engine operational. And take off with only two engines working even if both are on the same side.
The air force has to deal with a double edged sword. They dont need many of the best aircraft in the world because there arent many missions that require them. They need to order more than they need to keep the price tag down. They need them delivered faster than needed for the same reason.
I spent some time hammering on C-130Bs. I never heard about any engine or avionics issues, but then those weren't my area of responsibility. They didn't seem to need any special care. In fact, they seemed to be pretty reliable and not at all finicky. At least, not compared to the HH-53Cs that I started with, LOL. I thought they were a dependable workhorse. Maybe they're just getting old.
The military procurement process is a tough problem to solve. On the one hand, Congress bases much of their decisions on returning government largesse to their states. They regularly foist unwanted systems upon the military. On the other hand, many military decision makers often end up as highly paid "consultants" to the defense industry. On yet another hand, we need a viable defense industry. We have to provide a system that allows them to remain in business, and provide continued support for the systems we buy from them.
It goes way beyond that. An aircraft maintainer we know in the AF often commends on the deliberate waste. For example, if a small screw is needed it is required to open a complete overhaul kit for the single 25 cent screw, the rest of the kit is basically discarded.
