The B-1 and B-2 will be on the Chopping Block but Not the Buff

[westwall]

Correct, but there is virtually none of the original airframes that dates back to construction in 1962. They have all been rebuilt, and reskinned multiple times.

It's still the same airframe dating back to 1962. It flies until it runs out of air frame time or has enough cracks in the air frame it can no longer be repaired. Luckily, there are quite a few H models that can be brought in from the Boneyard. And if we run out of H models, there is a number of rows of G models that can be brought up to H specs and fly on. The Gs got caught up in the Start Agreements.

There were only 102 H models ever built. I believe there are 74 of them remaining. All the rest of the B-52 fleet has been consigned to Davis Monthan, where the majority have already been scrapped, and those that remain are stripped of parts to keep the H models going. And you may want to take a gander at the boneyard, there are only TWELVE B-52's on the base. And some of those are looking pretty peakid.

In all fairness, there were 744 B-52s produced of all kinds. And ALL of the B through Gs left are at DM or have been recycled or crashed or placed on static display. There are quite a few rows of Gs left at DM as of today. But I doubt if there are any B-D models left since they would have much less in common with the H model today.

I just looked at a google earth view of DM and there are 12 B-52's. All the rest are gone.

You are looking at a very narrow map. On the map I just viewed, I saw 27 total and the map did not cover everything. There are 12 parked together and the rest are scattered throughout DM. But as the G runs out of parts for the H, even the Gs are being scrapped since they have no further use. Those 12 you see are all H models in Ready Reserve (type 1000) storage and not used for parts nor are they to be destroyed.

Look at google earth. it shows you a a more recent overhead view and you can cover the entire base. I think your map is out of date by quite a while.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's still the same airframe dating back to 1962. It flies until it runs out of air frame time or has enough cracks in the air frame it can no longer be repaired. Luckily, there are quite a few H models that can be brought in from the Boneyard. And if we run out of H models, there is a number of rows of G models that can be brought up to H specs and fly on. The Gs got caught up in the Start Agreements.

There were only 102 H models ever built. I believe there are 74 of them remaining. All the rest of the B-52 fleet has been consigned to Davis Monthan, where the majority have already been scrapped, and those that remain are stripped of parts to keep the H models going. And you may want to take a gander at the boneyard, there are only TWELVE B-52's on the base. And some of those are looking pretty peakid.

In all fairness, there were 744 B-52s produced of all kinds. And ALL of the B through Gs left are at DM or have been recycled or crashed or placed on static display. There are quite a few rows of Gs left at DM as of today. But I doubt if there are any B-D models left since they would have much less in common with the H model today.

I just looked at a google earth view of DM and there are 12 B-52's. All the rest are gone.

You are looking at a very narrow map. On the map I just viewed, I saw 27 total and the map did not cover everything. There are 12 parked together and the rest are scattered throughout DM. But as the G runs out of parts for the H, even the Gs are being scrapped since they have no further use. Those 12 you see are all H models in Ready Reserve (type 1000) storage and not used for parts nor are they to be destroyed.

Look at google earth. it shows you a a more recent overhead view and you can cover the entire base. I think your map is out of date by quite a while.

I did use a current map. I still counted 27. The 12 you see are parked all together which are all H models in Ready Reserve status. There are a few parked by themselves that are probably G models used for parts or waiting demolition. But both of us are picking nits at this point. The Buff does have replacement air frames of 12 so it will still be being flown well into 2050. It gets replaced when it runs out of Air Frames.

 

[Borillar]

If the B-52's are good for a hundred years, why not just make an updated version of them?

 

[westwall]

If the B-52's are good for a hundred years, why not just make an updated version of them?

The USAF only wants to buy super expensive fast, or stealthy aircraft.

 

[Borillar]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

 

[westwall]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the B-52's are good for a hundred years, why not just make an updated version of them?

Because it would cost as much to build new improved versions than if we start with a clean slate like the B-21. And we get more for our money.

In the meantime, the Buff gets new internal and external systems. For the Nuke side of things, it's not the bomb carrying capability that makes it all work. It's the Extreme Ranged Alcoms that do. The Buff launches from 1500 miles away. In fact, it can be in International Waters and launch on many places in Russia or China. The difference between the F-35A/F-15E is the number the Buff can dispatch.

As for tactical in a threatened area, the Buff really can't be used. But that is why we have the F-35 and need the B-21. The B-1 can't either. The B-2 can as long as it gets off the friggin ground.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

It's already been seen that a Cruise Missile can be shot down. It's not stealthy one bit and can be picked up on radar and IR. If you launch 59 and 40 get through, that's a good thing. But a manned bomber that you can't hear, see or launch on will usually get through. Now, getting out is another matter.

 

[Borillar]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

 

[westwall]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the B-52's are good for a hundred years, why not just make an updated version of them?

The USAF only wants to buy super expensive fast, or stealthy aircraft.

You are doing sour milk. Your favorite boat (dig) was only made for a couple of years. The reasons for that was was the 1 billion price tag to make it do the job. Tell you what, instead of trolling on this, why not start your own message and we can discuss it there. I reserve any comment about the navy on this one since it has nothing to do with the Navy in the first place.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

No, but we can spend less than half of that for one that does. The Money Pit is not without a bottom.

 

[westwall]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When the B-21 is introduced, the AF will be replacing the B-2 one for one. When they have all the B-2s out of service, they start going one for one on the B-1. The Buff sticks around since it's by far the most versatile of the current 3.

It goes with cost of operation as much as how versatile the bomber is.; It's the fact that the B-2 is extremely high in operation costs. And they can only get about half of them operational at any given time. Just flying around, the stealthy paint chips which degrades the stealth capability. This means when it degrades enough the whole B-2 has to head for the Paint Shop and have it repaired. This includes at least 3 days of cure time. Plus, the cost of actual operation is one of the highest per unit in the AF.

Then there is the Bone. They are running out of parts for it. They are Cannibalizing from the boneyard at too high a rate. They know the Bone is not long for the world so they aren't spending a lot of money on new parts when the Boneyard has been well stocked. Then there is the Bomb bays. In order to carry more bombs, they used a shorter bomb bay than the Buff. it's slightly shorter. With the new long ranged air launch cruise missiles that are longer than the bomb bay, it has to get closer to fire it's weapons. Making it less important than the Buff which can fire, drop, etc. everything in the AF inventory short of the MOAB. Plus, the Bone has a much higher operating cost than the Buff. The Bone was being looked at as a Missile Truck since it could carry more than 16 AMRAAMs. But with the F-15 being modified to carry 12 of them that pretty well negates the need. Plus, the F-15 does have offensive capabilities where the Bone doesn't have any. Once it launches, if it's too close to the fight, can't disengage. It becomes a missile magnet.

The B-21 can be made at a fourth the cost of the B-2. Plus, like everything else, it's borrowing heavily technology from the F-35 and expanding on it. It ends up making the B-2, in comparison, a wright flyer.

The AF only wishes 2 types of bombers. It's almost impossible to support all 4 so they had to make a choice. And the Buff will be flown by the Grand Kids of the original crew that once flew them. They will be in service at least until 2050. Meaning that the Buff will be around for at least 70 years in one for or another. The Buff went into service in 1955 making it already in service almost as long as the C-130 which was put into service 1954.

Amazing the B52 will outlast them both
Over 65 years and still going strong

It was built right the first time around. It's the C-130 of the Bombers. In all fairness, the ones in service today are the H models made during the 60s so it's only 55 years old. It is going to make it to 90 years though.

Correct, but there is virtually none of the original airframes that dates back to construction in 1962. They have all been rebuilt, and reskinned multiple times.

All of the Airframes are from around 1962. You can't replace an Air Frame. You can everything else but when the Airframe runs out of flyable hours or gets damaged beyond repair, the bird heads for DM and is used for parts. One B-52H is running out of Airframe hours. Hence the rebuilding and upgrading of one of the Ready Reserve B-52Hs out of DM. When it's completed, the Buff being taken out of service will be used for parts while the recycled Buff goes on for a few more decades. We are limited to X number of heavy Bombers by treaty so it has to be done on a one for one basis.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In an age of drones, guided missiles, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc., is there a need for planes that are too expensive to risk using? Is there something a half billion to 2 billion dollar bomber can do that a terrain following cruise missile can't do?

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

 

[westwall]

Not drop the bomb, or pick a better target while on the way to bomb the briefed target.

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

I see. The B-2 costs an exorbant amount to operate and can't be replaced by other B-2s and USAF want's to replace it with a Bomber that does a better job, costs a quarter of the cost and has a much lower operations cots and that's a bad thing? Please stay on track. It's not about you. It's about USAF getting in a better bomber into the enventory and getting rid of the high cost birds that can't be replaced. Sounds pretty damned smart to me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Maybe, but you want to spend a billion dollars on a plane just for those reasons?

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

 

[westwall]

Nope. I think the USAF has been incredibly stupid in its choices.

The B-2 has made 20 years and will be on cycle for 30. The B-1 has made 30 years and is on cycle for even longer. But both will see their days end for a better, cheaper Bomber. I know I said I wouldn't but since you are bringing up Military Decisions, why do we need another Ford Class? There are a lot of other boats (dig) that have been overlooked to get those. I think we have enough Heavy Carriers already or too many. But we don't have enough smaller ships that can handle all the other jobs that needs to be done. Does that mean the Navy is as stupid as USAF?

In many ways, yes. In my opinion the various services spend way too much on the "next big thing" when the reality is by the time "the next big thing" gets built, it is already obsolete, or the mission has changed. The LCS is a prime example of that. That and the fact that it is a stupid idea anyway.

The rather than raining on the B-21s parade why not start your own message line. I'll be happy to comment with the same zest and zeal you have done on this subject.

And this is about the B-21 not the B-2. The B-2 is just about history. USAF can't afford to keep it around if there is a better and cheaper alternative. Hence, the B-21.

Please point to a single post I have made about the B-21. I am talking about a problem as a whole. i know you are a big fanboi for anything that is expensive, but I care about getting the mission done. The LCS is a great example of a retarded idea. Sending a vessel into littoral waters that is all cool looking and stealthy, but which has ZERO armor is retarded beyond belief.

That is the sort of thinking I am attacking.

It's all about the B-21 replacing other bombers. You crashed the party just to troll it appears. If you want to discuss anything else, go start your own message. I'll be right over. It's not about you or me, it's about the B-21 which goes into production in the next decade.

Actually, the OP is about the B-52. But thanks for playin...