
After 60 Years, B-52s Still Dominate U.S. Fleet - otoolep
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/b-52s-us-air-force-bombers.html
======
azernik
The New York Times tries to play up the issues of the (indeed, terrible)
American military procurement system, but I think there's something else going
on. The B-52's Soviet equivalent, the Tu-95 (turboprop-powered, even!) is also
still flying!

Part of the cause is that big bombers with enormous payload capacity and long
range can always be adapted to new missions and tactics - there's always
something you can do with an extra few tens of tons of ordnance.

Where the US military-industrial complex _has_ fallen down on the job is that
the physical airframes are still from the original production run. While the
USAF always thought its new and different (first supersonic, then stealth)
bomber designs would allow it to retire the B-52, the Soviets kept building
new variants and retiring old airframes. So while American B-52s have been
heroically kept operating since the 50s and 60s, Russian Air Force Tu-95s were
all built in the 80s and early 90s with assorted design improvements and new
avionics.

~~~
mangeletti
Indeed!

I've often wondered why, for instance, we don't build brand new A-10 Warthogs.
They provide the best close air support in perhaps the entire history of
military aviation worldwide (great range, extremely resilient to small arms
fire, low altitude / low speed capabilities, etc.). Instead, the Marines Corps
scrambles (no pun intended) to find a replacement after realizing that the JSF
program wasn't real (it turns out that the F-35 will bankrupt the Milky Way
Galaxy before being finished, not to mention it has too much wing loading to
provide adequate close air support). Yet, the wonderfully designed A-10
Warthog languishes in military relic status.

Why not make new copies these greats, with any of the little kinks worked out?

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
The A-10 is great, but there are a number of reasons why we aren't building
more of them. Chief among them is that the teams and facilities that produced
them have been gone for decades now. It's not a product you can simply re-
order. Of the planes in inventory, it's efficient and useful in low intensity
CAS, but if you were ordering new for those missions you'd likely focus on
something that's less overkill and lower cost like the super tucano.

~~~
s_q_b
Ironically, after the request from JSOC and the Marine Corps for a modified
Super Tucano (A-29B) was nixed, the United States' main procurement facility
for this plan is still building them... _for the Afghan airforce_.

Sure, the Super Tucano doesn't have the punch from the main gun or crazy
survivability of the A-10. But in a battlespace where air supremacy is
guaranteed, it has the advantage of being able to get a close-up visual on the
target, and accurately fire ordinance tens rather than hundred of meters away
from friendly forces.

My personal understanding is that the Super Tucano was sacrificed on the alter
of _the myth of technological progress._

Every airframe, every digital HMI, and every weapons system must be more
technologically sophisticated than the last, even if that solution is
completely unsuited to ongoing and forecasted combat missions.

The fact that our most common enemies can't field a proper SAM site, much less
a fifth-generation fighter, be damned.

Of course there is also the cultural issue. That the great United States might
have to admit that the South Americans know more than us about air warfare in
counter-insurgency campaigns is anathema to both the military and the civilian
government.

~~~
mangeletti
However, I think light attack roles that the Super Tucano can fill can be
filled by the new Sikorsky S-97 Raider, and because the Raider is a
helicopter, it can also server a number of other roles, and it can land
anywhere, and when you consider the cost and strategy differences between a
helicopter carrier and a carrier battle fleet, or between a helicopter carrier
and taking over / maintaining / defending an airfield behind enemy lines, the
Raider, IMHO, will be a godsend for roles where the Apache Longbow is overkill
and where the goal is to continually push for new FOBs behind the lines (range
for Thunderbolt II and Super Tucano is ~800nm - got a new air field every 325
miles? Only plan to attack targets near the ocean?).

~~~
s_q_b
The Sikorsky S-97 is the perfect emblem of what I mean by _the myth of
technological progress._

The Super Tucano A-29B:

•Has a greater range, at 800nm vs. 320nm, much more for the Tucano with one
pilot and the extra fuel tank, with an even greater difference if the Raider
flies at top speed. (Yes, I know, it's easier to refuel a helicopter.)

•Is currently in proven service in CAS roles in COIN operations with 23,000
combat hours vs. the S-97's zero combat hours, which only flew its first
demonstration flight in 2015.

•Costs far less at $9 million per unit with almost no development cost vs. a
government projected program cost of $200 million and a unit cost of $15
million at full production. Defense analysts expect this to rise to $30
million a unit and $500 million in development costs.

•A low-flying CAS helicopter is a great idea, unless of course you're flying
in thin air in the Hindu Kush, or your opponent has the ability to down such
aircraft. Ask the Soviets how that worked out...

But the totally unproven S-97 incorporates new technology, which requires R&D
thus inviting the procurement bonanza, so it beats out the combat-tested Super
Tucano in the GAO procurement arena every time.

There's a reason JSOC wants the A-29B.

~~~
mangeletti
You're right, except for the first point. The value of not having to return to
a base or ship to refuel cannot be passed up as a small point. It's a game
changer. Being able to establish FOB and project from there changes everything
in irregular warfare.

I hadn't heard about the Raider costing $30 million eventually, but that's
ridiculous, if it turns out to be correct. However, $30 million is still less
than half that of the AH-64D.

The one thing I'll add to your criticisms is that the Raider (badly) needs
more armament (perhaps another 7-shot Hydra 70 pod).

------
vpribish
This is a worthless article. Yes, the B-52 is old - but it works. Yes,
replacements with different missions for different times have failed, or come
and gone. We're about to build the LSB which will try to replace the old plane
more directly than those previous programs. Defense procurement is messed up.
none of this is news.

the article is wrong in so many of the pithy little notes that the whole thing
comes off as snarky propaganda at best.

* the nuclear-powered bomber was never seen as a practical program - just a way-out-there experiment

* the B-58 was retired because ICBMs did it's job much better as soviet defenses improved

* The (x)b-70 did not have highly toxic exhaust - it used regular jet fuel. author was confused about 'zip fuel' which could have been used in many planes - but didn't go into use.

* weighed down by infamy?

* like taking a biplane to iraq? huh?

geeze - having gone over this in more depth I think that the author actually
has no message at all. it's just a bit of filler, with some 1960's antiwar
jabs, and an arch tone.

~~~
WatchDog
Had a little bit of trouble figuring out what the LSB was.

It appears you are referring to the LRS-B.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber)

~~~
vpribish
that's the one - thanks for clarifying!

------
pretzel
What I don't get is, if it is such a simple aircraft - pretty much an airliner
with the passenger section being a bomb bay - and we're pretty good at making
airliners these days - why don't they as a short term stop gap just turn an
airliner airframe into a bomber?

With modern materials, avionics and engines you could have a aircraft that
flies faster and more efficiently, thus able to fly further and for less
ongoing maintenance cost. I also imagine training would be simpler, if it
meant they didn't have to train pilots with slide rules...

~~~
jonathankoren
You would think right?

For a parallel, let's look at the state of the USAF tanker fleet ("Nobody
kicks ass without tanker gas!") The workhorse of the fleet is the pride of
1957, the KC-135. They're old, and so the Air Force wants to replace them,
with the KC-46, which is pretty much a Boeing 767 but with seats replaced with
big gas tank, and boom off the back. The 767 isn't a new airframe, it's a 30
year old design. And aerial refueling isn't a new technology either. Afterall,
the plane that's being replaced has been in service for almost 60 years.
Proven airframe. Proven technology. This is a slam dunk right?

Well, no. The KC-46 keeps getting delayed.[1] It's essentially too complicated
and too flashy. For exampe, Boeing is ditching the tried and true, and dirt
simple system of guiding refueling booms by having a guy look at a window and
put the boom into the receptacle, and instead go with some unproven system
using an occulus rift and stereo cameras. Why? I don't know. I guess because
it's "high tech".

And do you want to know the most damning part of all? Boeing currently sells
the KC-767, a refueling tanker based on the 767 airframe, that not only works,
but is cheaper than the KC-46, and available today!

It's almost as bad as the F-35 debacle, but not quite.

Honestly, I don't think the military knows how to buy anything, and the
contractors take advantage of that. It's Eisenhower's Military-Industrial
Complex writ large.

[1] [http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/broken-booms-why-is-it-
so-h...](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/broken-booms-why-is-it-so-hard-to-
develop-procure-a-1698725648) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus)

~~~
engi_nerd
Question: is Boeing pushing this high tech approach, or are they just
designing and building to match a requirement?

In other words, is the government dumb enough to ask for it and pay for it, or
is Boeing just out to lunch?

~~~
jonathankoren
That's a good question. Either way, it doesn't look good for the military.
Either they're snowed or stupid.

~~~
engi_nerd
A lot of what I see large defense contractors get attacked for is just them
simply giving the government what the government asks for. Now, that doesn't
mean the big guys are or should be immune from criticism. But they're not
going to ignore a big pile of money to do something, even if that something is
dumb. The days of Kelly Johnson sending money back to the government because
"we're building you a real dog" are (sadly) over.

------
perlgeek
> Even as the bombers were being assembled, defense officials were planning
> their replacement, but each plan was undone by its own complexity. First was
> a nuclear-powered bomber able to stay aloft for weeks (too radioactive),
> then the supersonic B-58 with dartlike wings (kept crashing), and then the
> even faster B-70 (spewed highly toxic exhaust).

Second system syndrome at its finest.

Sounds like what they really want is a new implementation of roughly the same
design as the B-52.

~~~
ufmace
From what I've read, it seems like a problem of being overly obsessed with the
highest tech and most dramatic missions. Every new bomber is designed for the
goal of nuking Moscow, including figuring out the best way to get past
defenses. Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use
ICBMs instead.

What we really seem to have demand for is something that can carry a whole
bunch of bombs cheaply and reliably in airspace that we already have air
supremacy over. But apparently the Air Force can't get it's head around that
design goal. Nobody seems to want to champion a cheap, dumb bomb truck plane
that does simple stuff right every time. Instead, they keep going for the
technological marvel designed for a goal that we'll probably never need to do
and already have better weapons for anyways.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Never mind that if we actually wanted to nuke Moscow, we would use ICBMs
instead."

Look up "nuclear triad", "not putting all your eggs in one basket", and
"suspenders and belt".

~~~
ufmace
Yes, I'm aware of the value of having multiple weapons systems to do a
critical job. But that doesn't mean that every new bomber must be designed to
nuke Moscow. Let's make the bomber version of a 747 for when we need to attack
Afghanistan or ISIS, something that we can crank out cheaply and is already
proven and reliable. Then we can have another project to try and make a bomber
that can hit high-value well-defended targets. Or at least decide how many
billions of dollars we want to spend for a redundant weapon system meant for a
deterrence mission.

~~~
Turing_Machine
You are pretending that "nuke Moscow" is some kind of specialized mission
requiring specialized planes that can't be used for anything else, _even
though the B-52 itself is a glaring counterexample_.

"Carry a heavy load of weapons anywhere in the world while having a decent
chance of penetrating air defenses" is a better description of what a bomber
does, but that doesn't lend itself to the kind of facile sneering that was in
your original post, does it?

------
trhway
Russia still uses the "Bear"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95)
too.

In particular it has been just used to fire stealth cruise missiles Kh-101 -
by contrast, the most modern weapon, almost 60 years younger than the bomber
itself - in Syria.

------
thebiglebrewski
Two things strike me: 1\. If it ain't broke, don't fix it 2\. The
military/red-tape bureaucracy/contracting/bid system behemoth that has been
created in the meantime disallows any innovation that could ever take its
place

~~~
justinator
If you RTFA, you'll see that it is broken.

This article is silly. The replacement of the B-52 isn't a better bomber, it's
a different tech; ICBMs, drones, etc. - which the article doesn't even
mention.

The article also mentions the amount of B 52s there are, and were. Today's
fleet could be described as, "small" in comparison.

~~~
chrisseaton
I think the US considered using ICBMs to deliver conventional strikes (and in
fact they didn't even contain a warhead - just the kinetic energy of the
missile was enough), but decided against it as they couldn't be differentiated
from a nuclear strike by early warning systems.

As for drones - the B-52s are very long range aren't they? As in they take off
from the US to strike in the middle east or anywhere else? Can any drone do
that? So if you don't have a drone in theatre, it can't replace what the B-52
does.

~~~
snerbles
Conventional ICBMs are being considered under the Prompt Global Strike project
[1]. From the summary:

> Conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapons would allow the United
> States to strike targets anywhere on Earth in as little as an hour. This
> capability may bolster U.S. efforts to deter and defeat adversaries by
> allowing the United States to attack high-value targets or “fleeting
> targets” at the start of or during a conflict.

> Some analysts, however, have raised concerns about the possibility that U.S.
> adversaries might misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional
> warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons.

[1]
[https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf](https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf)

------
lmm
The C-130 is still in service too, for the same reason. The mission hasn't
changed. The B-52 simply doesn't do anything really technological - it's not
stealthed, it's not intended to go head-to-head with fighters. It carries a
big load of bombs and drops them somewhere, and the technology for that was
fundamentally done by the '60s. There will come a time when we don't need to
redesign our aircraft every few decades any more than we do our infantry's
rifles.

~~~
morgante
> There will come a time when we don't need to redesign our aircraft every few
> decades any more than we do our infantry's rifles.

Except that the M4 is from 1994, making it significantly younger than the B52.

~~~
CydeWeys
Huh? The M4 was directly based on the M16, which was based on the AR-15, which
was all ultimately based on the AR-10, which was first made in the mid 1950s,
thus making it almost exactly as old as the B-52 bomber.

There's a lot more differences between a B-52 bomber when it first rolled off
the production line and what they're like now than there are between an AR-10
and a modern M4, though of course the rifles are a lot less complicated.

~~~
morgante
So then maybe we should just rebrand the "modern" B52 and call it a day.

~~~
CydeWeys
It's not really analogous because the rifles that are called M4s today aren't
retrofitted versions of the same actual rifles that were previously AR-10s.
This all has to do with rifles and airplanes being very different from each
other in size, complexity, and cost, so there aren't many accurate analogies
to be made.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Are you sure about that?

The lower receiver - the part of the gun that's a controlled "firearm" \- is
identical between the AR-15 _, M-16, and M-4. The only things that really
change are the barrel length and the parts that go in the lower to
differentiate between automatic fire and burst fire.

_ the "real" AR-15, by Armalite - not the semi-automatic version commonly
available to civilians.

~~~
nl
True, but they are physically new devices.

The B-52s are the _same planes_ as were built in the 50s (not just the same
designs. It's true that there aren't many parts in those planes that exist
from the '50s, but and M-4 isn't a AR-15 that was taken the factory and
rebuilt - it is a brand new rifle.

------
tim333
I'd say that they are still using unreliable 60 year old bombers is something
to celebrate in that carpet bombing is passe so who cares if the tools are a
little clunky. Along the same lines I hope the UK fails to spend £100bn to
replace the Trident nuclear deterrent. I mean if come WW3 we push the button
to nuke Moscow and the thing doesn't go off who really cares? The money would
be much better spent on humanitarian projects.

~~~
kqr
Nobody really cares whether or not the button actually works, but when you say
"it works" that is supposed to be a credible threat. If you think it works,
then Kremlin probably thinks it works, and will think twice about nuking you
in the first place.

It's a deterrent, not a weapon.

~~~
tim333
Yeah but if you have several nuclear ICBMs pointed at you even a 25% chance of
each working is probably a deterrent.

------
unchocked
The B.U.F.F. (Big Ugly Fat Fucker) is a bomb truck: it carries heavy ordinance
over long distances in uncontested airspace. Yes it drinks fuel, yes it's a
maintenance hog, but it's paid for.

~~~
elemenopy
I think you mean ordnance [1] :)

1\. [http://grammarist.com/usage/ordinance-
ordnance/](http://grammarist.com/usage/ordinance-ordnance/)

~~~
mikeash
Once we master the art of political warfare, we can send B-52s to drop
destructive parking regulations, zoning requirements, noise restrictions, and
other heavy ordinances to cripple the enemy.

------
kevinbluer
One thing I've been wondering recently in regards to the NYT Online is why
some articles allow for comments and some don't (as generally the debate is
reasonably well balanced).

This article is obviously more of a magazine-style, so perhaps from an
aesthetic perspective it doesn't fit. However, even in more "standard"
articles they are sometimes available and sometimes not. I appreciate that
some articles / topics are more sensitive, but surely they are the ones that
need debate more than ever. Also if it's appropriately moderated anything
deemed inappropriate can of course be removed.

------
drdeadringer
Think of when we reach the point where a piece of "high technology" reaches
its 100th year of operation.

Some bank of servers or other type of computer, or this B-52 airplane, or
cruise-liner.

------
Roboprog
So when do the B-52s get the "Battleship Yamato" treatment?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato)

OK, kidding about the cartoon alien tech, but somehow, I would not be shocked
to see somebody strapping high tech engines under the BUFF to give it
[sub]orbital capability some day :-)

~~~
peckrob
Read "Flight of the Old Dog" by Dale Brown. It's a bit dated by modern
standards (it was written in the 80s, when the Soviet Union was still a
thing), but still good. I won't spoil it for you, but the book features a
heavily modified B-52 saving the day.

~~~
aaren
"Fatal Terrain" is good as well. Released in 1997 so slightly more up to date.
I read it hoping for fantastical descriptions of flying battleships hanging
from a paper thin plot and was not remotely disappointed.

~~~
peckrob
Dale Brown books are one of my guilty pleasures. Actually, Silver Tower was
the first sci-fi book I remember reading when I was a kid. He went to military
thrillers after that one and I've read all of them too. But Silver Tower and
Old Dog are still two of my favorites.

------
nickhalfasleep
The B-52 (and Tu-95) can stay in the air so long as their is no challenge to
air superiority. The last real challenge might have been the Vietnam war for
B-52's and their SA-2 missiles. Once real challengers show up, they have to be
herded away. Just look at the decimation of B-29's over Korea when Mig-15's
showed up.

~~~
Roboprog
Yes.

They bat cleanup in an established no-fly zone.

------
squozzer
Two reasons the B-52s are still around -

1) its replacements, even if they had worked perfectly, would not have
improved upon the original to a degree not already covered by ICBMs, cruise
missiles, and drones. It fills its niche perfectly, as does its Russian
counterpart.

2) its three toughest opponents have been Vietnam, Iraq, and Serbia. Scrappy
countries to be sure, but not first-class air defenses with targets deep in
enemy territory. So very few have been shot down.

I suppose once the parts run out to keep a decent fleet operational, we should
consider building exact duplicates - with some modern upgrades of course, and
just keep trucking.

------
tomohawk
"infamy lingering from the carpet bombing of Vietnam"

Carpet bombing is defined as bombing within a large boxed area with the goal
of obliterating everything in the area regardless of the military value of the
targets in the area.

Yes, B52s carpet bombed some jungle areas of Vietnam. No, there was no carpet
bombing of Hanoi, which is what this is probably referring to. Can't believe
after all of these years the NYT is still misreporting this. If Hanoi had been
carpet bombed, it would have been leveled. It's obvious that bombing was
limited to specific targets of military value.

~~~
trhway
> No, there was no carpet bombing of Hanoi

actually were.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20719382](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20719382)
"North Vietnam, 1972: The Christmas bombing of Hanoi"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Vie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Vietnam_War)

"The zenith of B-52 attacks in Vietnam was Operation Linebacker II (sometimes
referred to as the Christmas Bombing) which consisted of waves of B-52s
(mostly D models, but some Gs without jamming equipment and with a smaller
bomb load). Over 12 days, B-52s flew 729 sorties[148] and dropped 15,237 tons
of bombs on Hanoi, Haiphong, and other targets.[90][149] "

>If Hanoi had been carpet bombed, it would have been leveled.

Hanoi did have air defense.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/me...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:%D0%A1%D0%92%D0%A1_%D1%83_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%91-52_%D0%B2_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D1%85_%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8F_23.12.1972_%281%29.jpg)

~~~
rhino369
The air defenses weren't that great. They could knock down some B52s but the
majority could deliver their payload and return.

The Wikipedia article on Linebacks II says the US air force targeted military
targets and power plants.

Around 1700 people died. A true carpet bombing of a city like Hanoi would
result in a lot more than that.

~~~
aburan28
They lost dozens of B-52's during Linebacker

~~~
rhino369
Around a dozen over what like ~700 sorties.

------
protomyth
Well, if the B-1 had been designed for conventional payloads or hadn't become
such a political promise in the 1980 election, the B-52 would probably have
been retired. Even the B-3 specs don't look like something that will retire
the B-52.

Honestly, I'm really not sure that the whole justification on "strategic" vs
"tactical" bombing that spawned a separate Air Force was such a good idea
given the types of wars fought in the nuclear age.

------
WalterBright
The DC-3 is another airframe that just never goes obsolete.

------
known
Are they better than
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot)

------
Animats
There have been several proposals to re-engine the B-52 fleet with four
jetliner engines, but it hasn't happened yet.

------
tn13
It is common misconception that in military everything needs to be state of
art. It needs to be effective.

