B-52 Bomber Carrying Six Crew Members Crashes Off Guam

[Hawkmoon]

Didn't there used to be a bunch of B-52s in "mothball" storage at Williams AFB outside of Tucson? I haven't been there for a number of years, so maybe they've all be cut up for scrap but, if not, there's no chance they could be retrofitted and returned to service?

[Bigjake]

Fox hasn't updated this, y'all hear anything?

[wmenorr67]

Actually Hawkmoon I believe it is Davis-Mothan that is home to the bone/graveyard.

At one time, until Desert Storm, there was talk of turning the A-10 over to the Army to use as MI collection assests to replace the Mohawks.  Of course then the A-10 proved itself in battle and that talk ended quickly.

[wmenorr67]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25777752/

MSNBC has an update stating 3 dead, 3 still missing.  Keep these airmen's families in your prayers.

[wmenorr67]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,387923,00.html

They are saying that the chances of finding any survivors is zero.  And now the report of 3 bodies found was incorrect, just 2 were recovered.

[Firethorn]

They are saying that the chances of finding any survivors is zero.  And now the report of 3 bodies found was incorrect, just 2 were recovered.

crud.

There has been talk of putting different modern jet engines on the B52's for years with a net increase in power and efficiency but nothing has ever come of it.

I've seen that as well.  With current plans to keep the B52 in service out to 2040(!!!), longer than it's supposed replacements(B1 and B2), and current fuel prices it might actually happen.

Alright, so the old assembly lines are gone.  If we wanted new bombers, wouldn't we want to design something newer and better anyway?  Why not just design a new bomber from scratch and build it in a new assembly plant.

Here's the problem.  As I note - I don't mind that we can't really build F-15s anymore.  F-16s are still being built, but I wouldn't mind if we couldn't build them anymore.  We can always ramp up F-22 production.

As others have noted - designing a new bomber from scratch takes a LONG time.  Occasional aircraft losses are inevitable, even/especially if you don't fly the craft regularly.  If SHTF, we could loose aircraft by the dozen.  At this point, if we lose a dozen B52s - we can't replace them.  For that matter, we lose any of our bombers, we can't replace them.  We can't replace our A-10s.  At least we're working on replacement refuelers.  Unless the skunkworks are up to something, we don't have any replacement bomber in the works.

I wouldn't mind so much if we had the YB-3 and YA-12 in workups.  But we don't.  My standard policy would be to not retire production line equipment such as tooling, machining, and documentation until a replacement was in production.

The current plan is for the F-35 to replace the A10 when they are retired eventually.  I'm not sure how will that will work out myself give just how different the aircraft are from one another.  But, maybe the idea is as military weapons technology gets better it will be increasingly less safe for an A10 to operate at slow speeds.

But then it's not as good of an air support option.  A A-10 can survive attacks that a helicoptor wouldn't, and loiter where a fast plane can't, providing precise firepower with cheap munitions that require expensive smart bombs from a faster/higher plane.

[Sergeant Bob]

But then it's not as good of an air support option.  A A-10 can survive attacks that a helicoptor wouldn't, and loiter where a fast plane can't, providing precise firepower with cheap munitions that require expensive smart bombs from a faster/higher plane.

They wanted to retire the Hog many years ago and use F-16's (seriously!!!) as its replacement. At least the F-35 comes with a VSTOL option but, it's still no replacement for the A-10.

[Manedwolf]

But then it's not as good of an air support option.  A A-10 can survive attacks that a helicoptor wouldn't, and loiter where a fast plane can't, providing precise firepower with cheap munitions that require expensive smart bombs from a faster/higher plane.

They wanted to retire the Hog many years ago and use F-16's (seriously!!!) as its replacement. At least the F-35 comes with a VSTOL option but, it's still no replacement for the A-10.

Didn't they back off that F-16 idea after ground fire took that one down in Bosnia and the pilot had the high-profile rescue and all? An A-10 would have likely soaked up that hit and flown on back to base. The F-16 is agile and all, but it's not a street fighter. It's rather fragile. The A-10 fights low and dirty and can take a lot of ground fire without loss of aircraft function. (Plus the titanium bathtub under the pilot!)

[Sergeant Bob]

But then it's not as good of an air support option.  A A-10 can survive attacks that a helicoptor wouldn't, and loiter where a fast plane can't, providing precise firepower with cheap munitions that require expensive smart bombs from a faster/higher plane.

They wanted to retire the Hog many years ago and use F-16's (seriously!!!) as its replacement. At least the F-35 comes with a VSTOL option but, it's still no replacement for the A-10.

Didn't they back off that F-16 idea after ground fire took that one down in Bosnia and the pilot had the high-profile rescue and all? An A-10 would have likely soaked up that hit and flown on back to base. The F-16 is agile and all, but it's not a street fighter. It's rather fragile. The A-10 fights low and dirty and can take a lot of ground fire without loss of aircraft function. (Plus the titanium bathtub under the pilot!)

IIRC, they were talking about it prior to GW1, but once they saw its actual performance in that conflict they changed their minds. Wouldn't surprise me if it was brought up again. After every war there's always a lot of talk about weapons systems we don't need any longer.....

[wmenorr67]

Actually Hawkmoon I believe it is Davis-Mothan that is home to the bone/graveyard.

At one time, until Desert Storm, there was talk of turning the A-10 over to the Army to use as MI collection assests to replace the Mohawks.  Of course then the A-10 proved itself in battle and that talk ended quickly.

Yep, you are correct SGT Bob.  I was with the Army unit that was getting ready to send pilots to the transition course when Desert Storm happened and the plan was canceled.

[Tallpine]

The problem is that they couldn't (wouldn't) design a replacement for the B-52 today. 

They would try, but end up including every conceivable whiz-bang new technology that would make the plane too expensive, fragile, and incapable of doing the job that the B-52 can do.

It's like you can't buy a brand new 1960 GMC 3/4 ton pickup.  Sure, the new pickups are prettier and more comfortable, but not nearly as usable for hauling a cord of firewood off a rugged mountainside.  The paint on the old GMC is thicker than the metal on new pickups. 

[roo_ster]

Any conflict in the future will be "come as you are," for the first few years at least.  (Yes, Rumsfeld was correct.)

So, what we have in the inventory will have to do the job.

Acquisition times can be sped up, but it will still take years to produce new hardware.  It would take a WWII-scale effort, though.

If anything were to happen that destroyed a number of our high-dollar assets, we'd be in a world of hurt.

[Firethorn]

The problem is that they couldn't (wouldn't) design a replacement for the B-52 today. 

They would try, but end up including every conceivable whiz-bang new technology that would make the plane too expensive, fragile, and incapable of doing the job that the B-52 can do.

See the B-1 bomber.

What would I use to replace the B-52?  I'd take something like the 747's wings and engines, re-engineer the fuselage to enable bomb dropping as you can't just use the existing fuselage, and modification is probably impractical.  I'd probably shrink it by a bit, mostly due to the extra weight that steel cased bombs would have, and add extra fuel bladders to increase range.  Add all the goodies added to the B-52 over the years.  A smaller fuselage with the same engines should increase max speed - modify the engines to support that if necessary.

Oh, and you can still buy trucks capable of the old style stuff- they're just special order today.

[Tallpine]

What would I use to replace the B-52?  I'd take something like the 747's wings and engines, re-engineer the fuselage to enable bomb dropping as you can't just use the existing fuselage, and modification is probably impractical.  I'd probably shrink it by a bit, mostly due to the extra weight that steel cased bombs would have, and add extra fuel bladders to increase range.  Add all the goodies added to the B-52 over the years.  A smaller fuselage with the same engines should increase max speed - modify the engines to support that if necessary.

That's an excellent idea and the sort of thing that I would have suggested.  But that's not what will ever happen    Instead they would start with a blank sheet of paper and come up with some ridiculous requirements and an unworkable design.

Oh, and you can still buy trucks capable of the old style stuff- they're just special order today.

Um, where exactly  

[roo_ster]

The problem is that they couldn't (wouldn't) design a replacement for the B-52 today. 

They would try, but end up including every conceivable whiz-bang new technology that would make the plane too expensive, fragile, and incapable of doing the job that the B-52 can do.

See the B-1 bomber.

Which plane delivered the most lbs of explosives on target during 2003's GWII?  A wrong answer is "B-52."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

warthog?

[wmenorr67]

The problem is that they couldn't (wouldn't) design a replacement for the B-52 today. 

They would try, but end up including every conceivable whiz-bang new technology that would make the plane too expensive, fragile, and incapable of doing the job that the B-52 can do.

See the B-1 bomber.

Which plane delivered the most lbs of explosives on target during 2003's GWII?  A wrong answer is "B-52."

I will say either the F-117 or F-16.

[Manedwolf]

The problem is that they couldn't (wouldn't) design a replacement for the B-52 today. 

They would try, but end up including every conceivable whiz-bang new technology that would make the plane too expensive, fragile, and incapable of doing the job that the B-52 can do.

See the B-1 bomber.

Which plane delivered the most lbs of explosives on target during 2003's GWII?  A wrong answer is "B-52."

That would be the B-1. Air & Space had an article about it.

[Firethorn]

That would be the B-1. Air & Space had an article about it.

What I was saying is that the B1 is/was to be the replacement for the B52.  The problem with the B1 is that it's a maintenance hog and just too bloody expensive.  There's reasons why we're still flying B-52s.

[Sergeant Bob]

That would be the B-1. Air & Space had an article about it.

What I was saying is that the B1 is/was to be the replacement for the B52.  The problem with the B1 is that it's a maintenance hog and just too bloody expensive.  There's reasons why we're still flying B-52s.

Kind of like the B-2? 1.4 BILLION dollars a pop and that's not including the special hanger for each one, in addition to all the specialized support equipment. Add to that the fact there are only 22 21 of them in existence (including the prototype).

Compare that to the cost of a destroyer, attack sub or aircraft carrier. It's crazy.

[Firethorn]

Compare that to the cost of a destroyer, attack sub or aircraft carrier. It's crazy.

Well, yeah.  We've shown that we still need a bomb truck - maybe not particularly survivable, but cheap, replaceable, and efficient enough that you can afford to carpet bomb a city or country to rubble.  If the need is less we can always slap precision guidance packages on the bombs and drop them with discretion.

Ouch - just did some figuring...  A 747-400 weighs 393k pounds empty, I'll figure the bomb truck based off of it will weigh 400k.  Smaller fuselage will reduce weight, but we'll also have more equipment.  Fuel capacity of 57k US gallons @~6.74 pound each is another 384k pounds.  Call it 400k as I'm increasing fuel as well.  800k total weight, 875k takeoff capacity, 75k available for bombs - Or 37.5 2k bombs, or 150 500 pounders.  More if you're willing to launch without full fuel and top off in flight.  Ouch...

Figure just under ~$500 million each, not including development costs(A 747 is ~$230 million).

Stuff I'd want to look at:  Can we get the max speed up a little?  What's the range going to be like?  Can we cut weight?  Maybe it'd be better to go with a newer platform like the 787-9 for the basis of our conversion. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

B-52 specs, according to wiki:

Unloaded weight:  185k lbs
Loaded weight:  265k lbs
Max takeoff weight:  488k lbs
Fuel capacity:  48k gallons
Bomb load:  60k lbs

Your 747-based bomber looks like it would compare favorably to the existing B-52s.  Larger bomb load, more fuel.

If we can build 747s left and right, why on earth can't we build a B-52 replacement?

[Manedwolf]

B-52 specs, according to wiki:

Loaded weight:  265k lbs
Max takeoff weight:  488k lbs
Fuel capacity:  48k gallons
Bomb load:  60k lbs

The B-52 seems to be much lighter than the 747, but otherwise they seem pretty comparable. 

If we can build 747s left and right, why on earth can't we build a B-52 replacement?

Bombers suddenly lighten their load quickly. That puts a lot of stress on an airframe, and they need to be designed accordingly. Even the airflow has to be optimized to let the bombs fall, and not get tumbled to slam against the fuselage. There's lots of factors.

[roo_ster]

Given the per-unit cost here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer

And the consumer & producer price indices here:
http://www.cdrpc.org/CPI_PPI.html

A B-1B would cost ~$368 million 2008 dollars.

And can carry many more more lbs of bombs than a B-52.

Less than 100 of each aircraft type are currently operational (64 B1/94 B-52)

The hundreds of mothballed B-52s and the B-52's simpler design give it an insurmountable advantage, maint cost wise. "...the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%."