Well, maybe it is, actually. But the Stratofortress continues to fly high, more than five decades after its introduction, thanks to continual upgrades. The latest is a new $8.6 million avionics system.
A B-52 from Barksdale Air Force Base, La., was launched with Boeings prototype integrated weapons interface unit that allowed the bomber to release, for the first time, eight 2,000 pound joint-direct attack munitions from the internal bomb bay. The test took place at the Utah Test and Training Range.
The unit was developed by Boeing during a two-year sustainment program aimed at replacing the four aging line replaceable units currently carried in the B-52. The June 14 demonstration showed that the prototype interface unit, when fully developed and qualified for production, is capable of replacing the existing replaceable units and as a result, extending the combat role of the B-52.
The test sortie also demonstrated the B-52s capability to increase the number of JDAM weapons the B-52 can carry from 12 to 20, an increase of 60 percent. There is no existing program to formally pursue this capability, however, the demonstration allowed proof of the concept and provides future risk reduction.
These planes remain workhorses, and there’s no end in sight. The newer B-1B Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers, while both have served well, are not available in the numbers that today’s wars require while simultaneously maintaining a strong deterrent force. And since America’s current crop of enemies are without air forces or even modern air defense systems, the big lumbering B-52s (affectionately called BUFF for “Big Ugly Fat, um, Fellow”) can continue to make great contributions.
That’s just as well, since the operating cost of the newer planes and the per-unit price tag means that there won’t be more rolling off the assembly line any time soon. The next heavy bomber isn’t scheduled to be introduced until around 2040.
The current fleet of heavy bombers is expected to serve until the middle of the century, with the B-52s around until the 2030s. At peace, that might have been reachable. But the war has already put a heavy load on the planes and to count on them to hold up for fifty more years is probably a bit over-optimistic. The B-52s, being both the oldest and currently the most-used, will obviously wear out first. Their upper wing surface is the limiting factor.
In related news, the Royal Air Force is looking at converting some of its Nimrod reconnaissance planes into long-range bombers. This would give Britain the capability to send missile-armed planes to trouble spots far more quickly than ships could be deployed. The RAF hasn’t had a long-range bomber since the Vulcan was retired shortly after the Falklands War in the early 1980s.
These old, slow planes keep chugging along. And they’ll continue to do so as long as they don’t have to go up against a top-line opponent. Cruise missiles, advanced electronics, and GPS-guided bombs have made deadly weapons out of old airframes. Now if we can just keep them in the air.
– Murdoc
Would it be cost effective to divert money on the more advanced bombers to have Boing start up a B-52 production line or something?
Or maybe convert some 787s? Dunno, just sounds like good old fashioned bombers are the better way to go, save up our money for advanced stuff further down the road.
If the Air Force is planning to keep the B52s around for the next fifty years, they should upgrade the engines on the airframe now.The R+D was done on an engine upgrade in the late 90s.
A engine upgrade would extend the range of the B52, lower the operating costs and pay for itself it 3–4 years of use. It needs to be done now.
I flew the H model back in 69–73 out of the Kinch in the U.P. of Michigan. Great plane then and sounds like it still is. Question: The article states the current problem with the BUFF is its “upper wing surface.” Could you elaborate on that. Is it possible to replace that surface? The big problem in the ’70’s on the D models out of Thailand was wing spar cracks. All flights were red lined as one flight only back then. Cracks were spanded by thick slabs of steel bolted to each side of the crack.
Jerry
You can read about the structural life limits of the B-52 at this site
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm
Basically, in theory an airplane such as the B-52 could be flown indefinately, if cost was not a factor. The frame structure, has a certain structural life, and the upper wing surface is the first major structural component predicted to fail.
So yes, it is possible to replace the surface, but from a cost perspective it would not make sense. It is my understanding that the B-52 production molds have been destroyed or lost years ago. One of the reasons the bone yard is maintained, is to have a ready supply of spare parts for the old gals.
If [and its a big if] the technology developements in rapid protyping machinery continue to the point that large scale high strength components can be produced, the economic case against rebuilding the B-52 will go away.
The H model, was reengineered to address the stress issues. Wing stress was one of the main reasons the older B-52’s were retired. With the B-52 going back to its original role of a high altitude bomber, the structural upgrades to allow it to act as a low level bomber are allowing the B-52 to become the longest active duty bomber in existance.
Does anyone out there remember the 99th Bomber Wing Squadron that flew the B-52s in VietNam (Bien Ho)? Approximately 1968–1972.
Being limited in what I can say:
New bomber research is and has been current for some time, but there is no pressing need to build a new long range bomber fleet for the following reasons:
Most nations can not shoot down/intercept the BUFF
Long Range Bombing is largely handled by the B2
Long range missile systems and drones look to be the future.
I personally love the BUFF, and I imagine that an engine retrofitting will take place in the not to distant future. The BUFF will be in service, I imagine, until 2050 with ease.
Iam searching for my father;goes by “Jerry” the officer in vietnam war; bien hoa, cu chi.
Please visit http://www.myspace.com for picture.
Please remove the irrelevant (mainly spam) and also the nut case postings. Good info otherwise.