WC Military Inaccuracies
- Thread starter di5tortion
- Start date
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
Yeah! See!
There's no reason to NOT use it...when you need to drop lots of bombs on a target, I can't think of anything better to use. And with enough electronic jamming devices it's massive radar signature is meaningless as well.
I'm thinkin...
Spaceman
B-52 could very well be used for another 40 years but they are limited in their capablities. As far as saturation bombing goes there is nothing better out there. But for more precise bombing Tomahawk cruise missiles and smaller, fast bombers with laser guided bombs are better. The one thing that a B-52 can do is carry an air launched variation of the Tomahawk. It has the capability to extend the range of the Tomahawk so it isn't exclusively a surface-to-surface missile
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
So... you're saying that the B-52 is rendered obsolete by the Tomahawk missile... which it extends the range of...? Brain circle!
Originally posted by Haesslich
Yeah, those bombers that can extend the range of cruise missiles really don't have that much use, do they?
I don't know, I kindof like the ability to decide where I want a strike anywhere in teh world and within a few hours have a couple of dozen tomahawk cruise missles hitting the target, much faster than any ship could get into range
Isn't that kinof one of their jobs in a battle group?
C-ya
If someone can cite some proof that the USAF plans to continue using B-52s up to the 2040s then I'll rest my case.
Until then...
t.c.cgi: AFAIK as time goes by and newbuild B-52s aren't produced the cost of producing parts for existing B-52s will increase, resulting in diseconomies of scale. Also there is a limit to how many parts you can scavenge - do you really want to depend on salvage? Remember 40 years is plenty of time to devise something new and more relevant to the 21st century.
Happy: If the USAF planned to operate the B-52 for a hundred years, why did they produce the B-1 and the B-2? Obviously this shows that the B-52 can't fulfill every role and new aircraft have to be built to either replace or supplement the B-52. In forty years time I'm sure they'll have come up with something better. In that same timeframe they devised the B-1 and B-2.
Ladiesman^: Electronic jammers have never been entirely sufficient to defeat anti-aircraft weaponry.
I'm thinkin...: The B-1 can carry tomahawk cruise missiles. The B-2 can be equipped to carry similar weapons. Also B-1s and B-2s can conduct carpet bombing as well as the B-52.
Ender: I did not say that airframes cannot last forty years. But do you want them too? By that time, the aircraft will have become very difficult to service. I'll quote the New Zealand Air Force as an example. They've been using the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for 30 odd years. The aircraft still do their jobs, but ground crews have stated that the aircraft are wearing out, its becoming harder and longer to service them and they are more prone to breaking down. Recently all of the Hercules deployed at home broke down, leaving the RNZAF temporarily without a transport capability at home. That's what happens when you use an airframe until its all worn out. Sure it still works, but the maintenance required results in such diseconomies that's it better to get something new.
In sum sure the USAF will continue to use the B-52. But in 40 years time, I'm sure they'll have something better.
Until then...
t.c.cgi: AFAIK as time goes by and newbuild B-52s aren't produced the cost of producing parts for existing B-52s will increase, resulting in diseconomies of scale. Also there is a limit to how many parts you can scavenge - do you really want to depend on salvage? Remember 40 years is plenty of time to devise something new and more relevant to the 21st century.
Happy: If the USAF planned to operate the B-52 for a hundred years, why did they produce the B-1 and the B-2? Obviously this shows that the B-52 can't fulfill every role and new aircraft have to be built to either replace or supplement the B-52. In forty years time I'm sure they'll have come up with something better. In that same timeframe they devised the B-1 and B-2.
Ladiesman^: Electronic jammers have never been entirely sufficient to defeat anti-aircraft weaponry.
I'm thinkin...: The B-1 can carry tomahawk cruise missiles. The B-2 can be equipped to carry similar weapons. Also B-1s and B-2s can conduct carpet bombing as well as the B-52.
Ender: I did not say that airframes cannot last forty years. But do you want them too? By that time, the aircraft will have become very difficult to service. I'll quote the New Zealand Air Force as an example. They've been using the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for 30 odd years. The aircraft still do their jobs, but ground crews have stated that the aircraft are wearing out, its becoming harder and longer to service them and they are more prone to breaking down. Recently all of the Hercules deployed at home broke down, leaving the RNZAF temporarily without a transport capability at home. That's what happens when you use an airframe until its all worn out. Sure it still works, but the maintenance required results in such diseconomies that's it better to get something new.
In sum sure the USAF will continue to use the B-52. But in 40 years time, I'm sure they'll have something better.
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
Taken from http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html THE US AIR FORCE WEBSITE....
Straight from the horses mouth.
Thank you, come again.
Penguin
u answered ur own question, the b-1 and b-2 were developed for roles the B-52 was never intended to fill. yeas they are all bombers, but they do it differently.
the b-1 was originally a high alt. supersonic bomber, they have since changed it to low alt. it was designed because it was questioned wether or not the 52 could still penatrate the soviet air defenses.
the b-2 was designed to penatrate radar using stealth, and fly nonstop to anywhere on the globe.
when the 52 was orginall designed, none of those roles existed.
they will continue to use the 52, as it is a proven platform, meets the needed spec.s of the role it fills and would cost too much to develop a new platform, that in esance, is the same aircraft.
the b-52 CAN already carry and drop guided weapons. it does not use the glamorous laser-guided gbu, instead, it drops the
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), which uses a preprogramed GPS reciever. then there are also the forementioned cruise missles, as well as limited air-to-air capability.
u answered ur own question, the b-1 and b-2 were developed for roles the B-52 was never intended to fill. yeas they are all bombers, but they do it differently.
the b-1 was originally a high alt. supersonic bomber, they have since changed it to low alt. it was designed because it was questioned wether or not the 52 could still penatrate the soviet air defenses.
the b-2 was designed to penatrate radar using stealth, and fly nonstop to anywhere on the globe.
when the 52 was orginall designed, none of those roles existed.
they will continue to use the 52, as it is a proven platform, meets the needed spec.s of the role it fills and would cost too much to develop a new platform, that in esance, is the same aircraft.
the b-52 CAN already carry and drop guided weapons. it does not use the glamorous laser-guided gbu, instead, it drops the
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), which uses a preprogramed GPS reciever. then there are also the forementioned cruise missles, as well as limited air-to-air capability.
I'm thinkin...
Spaceman
I've seen that picture before Happy. It had a message across the top that said something like: "Al Qeada (sp) has won the toss and has chosen to recieve."
Ripper
Peace Through Superior Firepower
Id like to see them receive a Tomahawk TLAM-N.
P.S. Isnt that a purty picture? I remember that picture from somewhere, only I can't remember if it said whether or not the plane could carry all of that stuff, or if it was just all the different types of ordinance it could carry?
P.S. Isnt that a purty picture? I remember that picture from somewhere, only I can't remember if it said whether or not the plane could carry all of that stuff, or if it was just all the different types of ordinance it could carry?
