Comments on: B-52s Axed for More Raptors

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:37:27 +0000

We live in a sad age where rank-hungry incompetents will sell out not only our best hardware assets but personnel as well. Sad indeed. That is why I have decided to seperate from the joke we call a military. I’m sick to my stomach at the lack of fortitude, integrity, constitution and overall leadership. Shame on them.

By: Kevin McCune

Kevin McCune — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:53:58 +0000

I know its fiction, but talk to Dale Brown-Anyway the Raptor can sure help out everything else we put in the air.Navy please keep the Battleships-Kevin

By: matt

matt — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:12:06 +0000

The B-52 is the workhorse of the bomber fleet. Our Jets are currently unchallenged, and the B-52 along with the A-10 and C-130 are the main workhorses for the AF. We have already extended its longevity. We do need a new bomber program, but the B-1 should be cut.. it NEVER works, never launches, and is muuuuch more expensive to maintain.

By: jerimiahuno

jerimiahuno — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:44:45 +0000

Here we go again. None military politicians deciding to throw away military hardware that works so their fat cat business [lobists] can make millions on a replacement that does not work. They retired the U-2/SR-71 2 or 3 times already only to find they had to put them into servie again.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:35:56 +0000

What did I say, guys?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,90636,00.html
The Air Force is looking to get a fly-away bomber before 2018. They aren’t cancelling the B-52 for nothing.
All may bow down and worship me now. Tell me you love me.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:17:07 +0000

Axing the B-52s early may not be a bad move. They’re wonderful aircraft, but last I heard, current plans were to try and extend their lifespan out to the 2050s. At that point, the planes would be nearly a century old, older than the grandparents of the pilots who would be flying them. Cutting them now for more Raptors may be a way to ensure that we get a newer long range bomber. “Oops, no more B-52s. Guess we need a new bomber now.”

By: Trustbutverify

Trustbutverify — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:16:21 +0000

Mr. Skinner–
I certainly agree that the X-47 (but not, it seems, the X-45) will give us a leg up in strike capability, as will the Raptor… When they’re available in sufficient numbers.
No, sir, I don’t think stealth is dead yet. Not when you’re taking on someone with a modern air defense. You might recall that F-117s dropped the first bombs of OIF.
As to the UHF/SHF backscatter detection method I can say that I’m aware of it as a prototype system but I don’t buy that this method was used by the Serbs. Can you provide some references here?
The Serbian air defense commander was interviewed recently and none of the periodicals which covered it mentioned this– they all mention certain SA-3 tactics (optical guidance, radar tweaking) and the constant re-use of the air corridor as being key to the shootdown. It was posted on Strategypage, published in some aviation journals, and kicked around the message boards a bit so you shouldn’t have a problem reading it yourself.
As a final note I’d like to point out why in my opinion we need to retain some of the systems for major theater war– North Korea, Iran, and China. And a low-observability strike capability just such a system.

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:34:35 +0000

Skinner,
There’s no such thing as radar invisibility for aircraft. (Properly, it’s “low observability”, anyway.) I don’t know how much you know about the F-117 downed by the Serbs but the excellent Wonderland.org.nz site (presently down for rehosting so I cannot give you a direct link) covered this several years ago. Without giving a lecture on radar cross sections and radar types, if the radar is close enough to the target you’ll eventually get a strong enough return for a shootdown. That NATO planners had their strike pacakges using the same air corridor every night. Eventually the Serbs wised up and got some SA-3s close enough to get a kill by a combination of optical cueing and luck. If the NATO air staffs hadn’t used the same corridors every night this might never have happened.
So there you have it– that F-117 was killed more by complacent planning than anything else.
Your point about the new LO UCAVs is a good one, but I do not think we are well served by retiring the ol’ Goblin before we have a replacement on call.
And four F-22As don’t carry anything like the wallop of a B-52 full of JDAMs. Or a B-1. I’d prefer the Buff for reasons of economy.
And be careful, the casual reader might mistake your post as supporting the F-22!
(Ah, the old A-1. I wonder if even the A-10 will ever live up to the legacy of that old warhorse… Breathtaking in simplicity and effectiveness by any yardstick. Wouldn’t want it near any kind of air defense, though.)

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:55 +0000

Good Morning,
May lightening strike me down, I can’t find anything to disagree with Murc about. All his reasons for scrapping the aircraft in question seem to be valid.
The only thing I can add is that Stealth as in the F-117 just doesn’t exist. That was shown during the Kosovo (I hate to call it a war) air exercise when an F-117 was shot down by the techonlogly advanced Serbs. A country that has put the M-98 Mauser in 7.92mm back into production.
Since currently there are only 97 B-52’s and about 40 B-1B’s still on active flying status I think the days of the large Strategic Bomber is more or less over.
With the X-45 and X-47’s advancing at the pace they are it would seem that the F-22 and the F-35 JSF (if it is ever built) will be the last manned Fighter/Attack aircraft built.
The A-1 Sky Raider got us into jets and these two aircraft will ground the heros.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: AirSix

AirSix — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:22:15 +0000

They’ll have an interesting fight this time, though. Not only does the appropriation bill contain money for the B-52s and 117s, the authorization conference report expressly prohibits retirement of any 117s in FY06. So they can’t start until next year, by which time the fight will have been truly joined.