How long do you think that the B-52 will remain in service??

[NFS4]

The thing has been around for 50 years. How much longer do you think it will stay around with airframe modifications and engine refits?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4
The thing has been around for 5 years. How much longer do you think it will stay around with airframe modifications and engine refits?

more than 5 years i think

 

[oneshot47]

5 years? you meant 50 maybe?

 

[FoBoT]

he meant 50 years

probably another 10-20 ? who knows , it is pretty amazing what they can do with aircraft when they are properly maintained

 

[ElFenix]

Boeing has extended the structural life of the B-52 airframe to at least the year 2040 through a service-life extension program that has become an industry standard.

A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962. Only the H model is still in the Air Force inventory and is assigned to Air Combat Command and the Air Force Reserves.

The first of 102 B-52H's was delivered to Strategic Air Command in May 1961.

so each and every b-52 out there is 43 or 42 already

 

[raptor13]

It'll be around until we're faced with a battle which truly requires alternative bombers. As long as we can establish air superiority as well as we can right now, there's not much to stop the B-52 from doing its thing. Sure there are SAM batteries but those get taken out so fast once they start painting targets even they aren't really a threat.

I'd say it'll be around for another few decades at least. That or WWIII, whichever comes first.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yeah, I believe the goal is to keep them going for a total of around 100 years. Pretty amazing. I gather there have been significant issues with the B-1, and so the B-52 is still the bread-and-butter US bomber, although the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: raptor13
It'll be around until we're faced with a battle which truly requires alternative bombers. As long as we can establish air superiority as well as we can right now, there's not much to stop the B-52 from doing its thing. Sure there are SAM batteries but those get taken out so fast once they start painting targets even they aren't really a threat.

I'd say it'll be around for another few decades at least. That or WWIII, whichever comes first.

why would it get that near the target? the thing carries cruise missles if need be

 

[jamesave]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: raptor13
It'll be around until we're faced with a battle which truly requires alternative bombers. As long as we can establish air superiority as well as we can right now, there's not much to stop the B-52 from doing its thing. Sure there are SAM batteries but those get taken out so fast once they start painting targets even they aren't really a threat.

I'd say it'll be around for another few decades at least. That or WWIII, whichever comes first.

why would it get that near the target? the thing carries cruise missles if need be

It even will carry a hypersonic jet:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=255105

 

[nakedfrog]

When I was in, and talked to a guy who spent most of his career working on them, part of it is the fear factor. When you look up into the sky and see this giant behemoth lumbering above...

 

[ViperSSD]

According to an article I read, the US Air Force has soo many of them from when our nuclear arsenal was based on bombing and not ICBMs, that they will be around till they're alternative is cheaper than utilizing them, in terms of cost, both human and monetary.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Yeah, I believe the goal is to keep them going for a total of around 100 years. Pretty amazing. I gather there have been significant issues with the B-1, and so the B-52 is still the bread-and-butter US bomber, although the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

My best friend is a B-1...uh, something. He works with the computers on them down at Dyess. He cannot shut up about how great they are.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I flew in B-52H's. I heard they plan on keeping them til about 2030.

Edit: My dad also flew in B-52's. At that time the B-52's to him seemed like a very old aircraft. That was 30 years ago.

 

[So]

I agree with the 100yr prediction, The airforce has said that B-52's my become a 'century weapon' - that is, a weapon that is i service for ~100yrs.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

And that is an intention plural. Nukes... The BIG Lithium Hydride ones longer than my old truck (with the crew cab). The bay will hold a rotary MAGAZINE of Cruise Missles. Buff is bad unless when you want to pull some g's. Then it is just awful.

 

[NFS4]

B-52

Updated with modern technology, the B-52 will continue into the 21st century as an important element of US forces. There is a proposal under consideration to re-engine the remaining B-52H aircraft to extend the service life. B-52 re-engine plans, if implemented, call for the B-52 to be utilized through 2025. Current engineering analysis show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52?s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service

:Q:Q


B-1B

The basis for the projection of useful life of the B-1 is the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). The useful life of the structure is assumed to be the point at which it is more economical to replace the aircraft than to continue structural modifications and repairs necessary to perform the mission. The limiting factor for B-1?s service life is the wing lower surface. At 15,200 hours, based on continued low level usage, the wing?s lower skin will need replacement. Current usage rates, operational procedures, and mishap attrition will place the inventory below the requirement of 89 aircraft in 2018, while the service life attrition will impact around 2038.

 

[Pastfinder]

When I was in PME back in July-August, the time frame at this point is till 2049

 

[Armitage]

Yea, it's pretty amazing.
One thing to remember though, is that these aren't the bombers that were flying in Vietnam and such. These were the bombers standing alert. So they have relatively few hours given the years, and fewer still "combat" hours. When it came time to break up bombers for the SALT treaties, they broke up the old tired ones.

 

[JimRaynor]

it's got such skinny wings, they look like they're gonna break off

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

That's what I thought too, but not according to this page and this page. It lists the max payload for the B-52 at 70,000lbs and the for the B-1b at 80,000lbs.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

That's what I thought too, but not according to this page and this page. It lists the max payload for the B-52 at 70,000lbs and the for the B-1b at 80,000lbs.

I don't remember what the max payload for a B-52 really is, but that _sounds_ right. (Its been awhile) However it might be worth pointing out that some of those numbers might be wrong. For example it states "8,810 nm (16,300 km) with max fuel and 6,380 nm (11,800 km) with max payload". I flew on missions about 1000nm longer than what it states on that page. Probaby to throw off other countries as to what we can do.

Edit: I think the reason why they still keep B-52's is there range. The B-1 can't match that I believe.

 

[beer]

Don't forget the B1B is much more expensive to operate than a B52. When you're fighting an enemy whose only weapon against airplanes is RPGs (i.e, none)...does it matter how fast or stealthy it is?

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

That's what I thought too, but not according to this page and this page. It lists the max payload for the B-52 at 70,000lbs and the for the B-1b at 80,000lbs.

I'm a big man - I can admit when I'm wrong and all the facts here indicate that I am.

Although, I wonder if the max armament for the B-52 assumes a full fuel load at takeoff - a B-52 could take off on 2/3s of a tank and still have the same range as a B-1...

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: DonVitoalthough the B-1 has much greater load capacity and speed.

Negative on the load capacity; the B-52 has one of the largest load capacities of any bomber to date. It was designed to carry nukes, when nukes were BIG.

That's what I thought too, but not according to this page and this page. It lists the max payload for the B-52 at 70,000lbs and the for the B-1b at 80,000lbs.

I'm a big man - I can admit when I'm wrong and all the facts here indicate that I am.

Although, I wonder if the max armament for the B-52 assumes a full fuel load at takeoff - a B-52 could take off on 2/3s of a tank and still have the same range as a B-1...

Some planes can't land with a full load. The landing gear can't take it. Otherwise they have to dump all the ordnance. This can cost the military alot of money to drop a million dollar bomb in the sea. I know this is true for some fighters, but I don't know about B-1s. (However the new F-18 Super Hornets can takeoff and land with a full load) I know for a fact B-52's can.