[milwank] A question about B-52s

[Rabid]

The B-52 is currently the most economical and available bomber in the US bomber fleet. As the workhorse of the US bomber fleet, it is scheduled to stay in active service up until the beginning of the 2040's, more than 80 years after it first entered service.

But, B-52 production, as far as a cursory Wikipedia reading show, as been stopped in the 60's or 70's. A lot of them have already been dismantled since the end of the Cold War, and those that aren't in active service have been put into strategic reserve.

Thing is, from 2011 to 2040, there's still 30 years or so to go, and a lot can happen in that time : Machines breaks, planes crash, wars happens...


My question is : does the Department of Defense have plans to restart production of new B-52s in case it would be necessary, and if the answer is yes, how fast and at what cost can they produce new B-52s ready to fly from the moment the order to restart production is given ?
If the DoD doesn't have plans to restart production, can they improvise one ? Do they still have all the plans ? Is there some critical contractor that has ceased its activities ?
Finally, if they can't produce new B-52s in any reasonable way, is there plans to adapt some B-1 or B-2 to the mission profile of B-52s (high bomb capacity, high endurance, high availability, low costs) ? If so, how ?

[Sea Skimmer]

Restarting B-52 production would not even remotely make sense, nor would it be physically possible without massive investment in some very high end (like things that weigh hundreds of tons) machine tooling that the US doesn't have anymore. We build planes differently now. The B-2 is kind of a joke as a general use aircraft, ideas did exist to build some with much less stealth but that makes no real sense at all. The B-1 is just expensive to operate, it can do just fine for hauling bombs. Nothing reasonable is going to change that.

If we wanted another bomb truck then we'd just design another one or throw bombs out the back of more C-5M cargo plane upgrades turned bomber. The US does have some very low level work going ahead for a new bomber, but in the remote chance it happens it is not likely to be big, most likely under 200,000lb MTOW so it can be twin engine, and penetration will be the goal, not massive bomb tonnages. Most emphasis these days is on smaller weapons to strike a vastly greater number of aim points. Money is highly unfavorable to the idea of a new bomber any time soon.

[weemadando]

Speaking of that kind of stuff, whatever happened to the plans for the modular bomb bay system that could sit in the back of a Galaxy or Globemaster? Or was that another of the high-speed low-drag fever dreams that died on paper?

[open_sketchbook]

I have a rather odd but related question. Looking back, it seems like for a while new military designs were being churned out in every field at a constant speed; the standard for a given piece of combat equipment seems to have changed more or less every decade at least. But somehow nowadays we've ended up with the same equipment being fielded for decades upon decades even though US military funding and the military-industrial complex is as strong as it's ever been. Was the prior escalation of equipment and subsequent slowdown due to branching out into new fields causing a high rate of error finding and replacement, the Cold War arms race, a consequence of greater political willingness and physical infrastructure for local manufacturing, all of the above, or has equipment always stayed in service for as long as the stuff we're talking about today and I just haven't noticed because I didn't live through those decades?

[tim31]

Cold War was a big factor, but it has always been requirement versus budget; this is how you wind up with fighter programs that have peaked with the F-22 on one hand, and on the flipside the M-16, which hasn't changed significantly since introduced fifty years ago.

[Elheru Aran]

Wasn't the F-22 something like 30 years in development until it started actually being issued and flown operationally by the Air Force in the past decade, though? Are they even looking at a replacement for it right now?

The M-16 has been around since Vietnam, but they've tweaked and modified it in that time-- from A1 to A2, then the M4 and all kinds of tacticool stuff nowadays... the big thing people don't seem to like about it is its caliber. Is that the future of military hardware-- keep the same old stuff and just keep glomming on new stuff and changing the guts up every now and then?

[Rabid]

@ Sea Skimmer :

RE : Converted C-5M : :smacks own head: Damn, I had totally overlooked the possibility of converting cargo planes into bombers ! See ? That's why I ask those questions, it's always enlightening !

Otherwise, when you talk about focusing on penetration, what is the idea ? High altitude, high speed (supersonic), stealth/reduced radar signature, electronic warfare capabilities, anti-missile capacities ? Something else ?


Edited for proper grammar

[Number Theoretic]

I think they still have hundreds of B-52s mothballed at this airplane gravejard site somewhere in the Mojave desert. In an emergency they still can take the cells of these planes and retrofit them with new avionics, engines or other systems needing replacement.

[Count Chocula]

The BUFF was designed for strategic nuke-em-till-they-glow bombing, back when the latest word in civilian transport was the Douglas DC-8. Boeing's 707 didn't enter service until 1958. It's a miracle they've lasted this long in service, but slide rule calculation and conservative construction gave the BUFF a durability few current planes have. A better option for today would probably be THIS: a Boeing 747 that can launch cruise missiles from standoff range or drop bombs in secure areas. Re-tooling the B-52 is a loser's game.

As for the fighter series: most Cold War US types were not designed for longevity, since they would probably get shot down in a total war scenario. Even our F-15A-C models and early marque F-16s are showing signs of airframe fatigue. More modern planes, like the B-1, F-15E and F-22, are designed for a longer service life. The major "short life" failure component on the B-1 bomber, IIRC, is at 10,000 air hours.

[Zaune]

...when you talk about focusing on penetration, what is the idea ? High altitude, high speed (supersonic), stealth/reduced radar signature, electronic warfare capabilities, anti-missile capacities? Something else ?

Ideally? All of the above, plus good low-level performance. Realistically, they'll probably focus on either speed and altitude or low-level performance and EW, because radar and other sensor technology is inevitably going to catch up to every new stealth aircraft.

[phongn]

I think they still have hundreds of B-52s mothballed at this airplane gravejard site somewhere in the Mojave desert. In an emergency they still can take the cells of these planes and retrofit them with new avionics, engines or other systems needing replacement.

Those planes were destroyed to comply with arms control agreements.

The BUFF was designed for strategic nuke-em-till-they-glow bombing, back when the latest word in civilian transport was the Douglas DC-8. Boeing's 707 didn't enter service until 1958. It's a miracle they've lasted this long in service, but slide rule calculation and conservative construction gave the BUFF a durability few current planes have.

Don't forget that the present -H force wasn't really all that stressed in service.

A better option for today would probably be THIS: a Boeing 747 that can launch cruise missiles from standoff range or drop bombs in secure areas.

That is a terrible idea (though a modified C-17 or C-5 would work)

[Rabid]

I think they still have hundreds of B-52s mothballed at this airplane gravejard site somewhere in the Mojave desert. In an emergency they still can take the cells of these planes and retrofit them with new avionics, engines or other systems needing replacement.

Those planes were destroyed to comply with arms control agreements.

Hmm, yes, about that... How arm control agreements are likely to influence any new bomber design, now and in the future ?

[Count Chocula]

That is a terrible idea (though a modified C-17 or C-5 would work)

Why? A B-747 probably could not drop a MOAB, but it has a wider fuselage than a BUFF and a huge payload capacity. Shit, we send converted airliners (KC-10s, EC-135s, P-3s, etc.) into potential harm's way all the time. The Navy is looking at, or has selected, I'm not sure, a B-737 as our next ASW plane. C-17s and C-5s are much better used carrying oversized ground war shit to the theater, we don't have all that many of them for our needs you know. Cargo planes are tasked out months in advance. C-5 tooling was destroyed, and C-17s run around $200 million US each.

[Rabid]

C-5 tooling was destroyed

What.

Shutting down a factory, I understand. You can always move the tooling to a warehouse somewhere and forget it there until the plane is retired or something.
Destroying the tooling of a piece of hardware which is still more or less the backbone of you force projection capabilities, in the other hand, seems utterly idiotic.

I must be missing something important, here...

[Count Chocula]

Politics. IIRC, the AF ordered the C-5 tooling in Atlanta destroyed. LockMart is making the F-22, C-130 and F-35. Boeing makes the C-17. We gotta have two aerospace companies in bidness to ensure fair competition and longevity, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

[Shroom Man 777]

Heck, the B-52 tooling got destroyed too, rite?

[TimothyC]

Heck, the B-52 tooling got destroyed too, rite?

Long ago.

The B-1B tooling is still mostly around though!

[Sea Skimmer]

Wasn't the F-22 something like 30 years in development until it started actually being issued and flown operationally by the Air Force in the past decade, though? Are they even looking at a replacement for it right now?

A project office has been/is being formed to examine the technological requirements for a 6th generation fighter. Even the earliest work on a specific aircraft should not be expected before the 2020 period, which is bad, but in general the US military is suffering from a comprehensive failure to invest sufficiently in R&D while people keep bitching that it wastes too much money on research.

Why? A B-747 probably could not drop a MOAB, but it has a wider fuselage than a BUFF and a huge payload capacity. Shit, we send converted airliners (KC-10s, EC-135s, P-3s, etc.) into potential harm's way all the time.

No, we don’t. Those aircraft do not overfly enemy territory and they do not have defensive systems. A bomber is a lot more then payload; you for example need a damn way to drop the bomb out of the damn plane. The B-747 ALCM carrier concepts came in two flavors. Ones with crazy internal railroads to move around clusters of missiles to fire one by one, totally unsuited to a bombing raid though acceptable for ALCM only, and ones which involved designing a new 747 to fit massive internal bays. Neither made any real sense.

What.
Shutting down a factory, I understand. You can always move the tooling to a warehouse somewhere and forget it there until the plane is retired or something.
Destroying the tooling of a piece of hardware which is still more or less the backbone of you force projection capabilities, in the other hand, seems utterly idiotic.

I must be missing something important, here...

You are. First of all you are talking about a really fucking massive warehouse which must be climate controlled, and a lot of tooling will need regular maintenance to be worth anything in the future. That costs real money. Secondly tooling does not give you production processes. How the tools were used, how everything was done. Prior to modern digital video it was highly impractical to record the entire production process of an aircraft, all the details, jigs and tricks that are worked out for how to build the sucker during pre-production. That BTW often turned into pre-production aircraft being near worthless or flawed and only used for training. And the first time you did it, you did it with the help of the aircraft design team that knew all about the plane and what was needed, what might be okay to change. You want to restore production even ten years down the line, you don’t have any of that. The people are dead, retired or scattered to the wind and the industry itself has changed. Many minor parts which were not designed for the aircraft may no longer be produced, and were not produced with the production line tooling. So you have to start redesigning to handle that problem, and you'd be changing all the wiring on a plane like the B-52 already because it already was changed, and you can't get new engines so that has to change and hey, we don't need eight engines anymore so why not change the pylons ect...

What it comes down to is, rarely would it make sense to restore production, so tooling was usually not kept, or recycled into other projects when possible. Also some tooling, such as some of the forges used to make custom parts for the B-52 were not organic to the B-52 line even if the part was, they did other things too and ended up being retired for other reasons. In the 1960s when the B-52 line died the US was still cranking out new aircraft projects like crazy, so even less reason existed to want to save the tools for a bomber that was already obsolete.
It makes no sense to try to or want to resurrect a decades old design, especially not a subsonic bomber which is all about efficiency. The B-52 is not efficient, it guzzles fuel, and should have been reengined, and generally is old in every respect. The thing has external fuel tanks, space for a six man crew and actually a very modest internal payload, it’s not very desirable for the future when things like radar signature matter.

As for how long the B-52 will really last, the estimates are 2030-2044 depending on how hard the aircraft are used and just how long the upper wing surfaces last. This also assumes a minimal fleet of 62 bombers is required. At either date, the US has time to wait to think about a replacement.

[Simon_Jester]

Heck, the B-52 tooling got destroyed too, rite?

Long ago.

I.e. back when everyone expected new bombers to enter service on a regular basis, like they had been since World War One. Look at it this way: we went through about 100 fighter designs (P-this, P-that, F-the other thing) from 1920 to 1970, and no more than a few dozen (if that) from 1970 to 2020.

I think what happened is that the planes just got so damned expensive; you can't afford to build all that many of them because they're not like automobiles anymore, they're converging on the cost range typical of spacecraft. Without a society willing to accept a very heavy collective tax burden to fund huge air forces, and an enemy for those huge air forces to fight, inevitably you're not going to be able to rustle up the money to reinvent your air force every ten years.

Which of course means that we no longer get to buy numerous planes to spread out the development costs of the plane (which have also skyrocketed, because of all the complicated systems that go into them and the move to computerized hyper-precise, hyper-detailed design processes). So the per-unit cost of a given fighter project goes through the roof even further, which kills the incentive to design new fighters at all; what's the point in spending 50 billion dollars designing a warplane that you're only going to fly fifty of in the first place? People will ask: will they be able to do that continued production of existing types can't?

And that's a hard question to answer.

[Rabid]

I have another question, somewhat convergent to what has been said in this thread :


Does the foreseeable progresses to be made on ground-level AA defense and the escalating cost of modern military aircrafts are likely to make it cost effective to somewhat "neglect" the air superiority role of your air force, if you don't plan on having an important force projection capability ?
I think here of the mutations small countries armies with relatively low-budget armed forces could be forced to take.


Related :

At which date can we expect Laser-AA defenses to enter active service in the USA ? In China ?

[Number Theoretic]

One quick comment on rising costs of fighter planes: The rise of unmanned warplanes may perhaps stop of postpone the rise in per-unit costs of fighter planes, at least for the unmanned ones because they are cheaper. For example a Predator drone costs about 2.5 million dollars. Try finding a manned fighter plane at this price

[Rabid]

Minor nitpick, but a predator doesn't fit the "fighter" role. It's more akin to a "ground attack" airplane, from what I gather.

If you really want to compare, you can take for example the Dassault nEUROn, an UCAV demonstrator platform. Its unitary cost is estimated at €25 millions, if wikipedia is to be trusted. And it doesn't even have the sophistication its successors will have. And, anyway, barring significant improvements in artificial intelligence, it is likely that UCAVs will not be used as fighters, where a machine would have to show impressive initiative and "quick-thinking", so to speak ; but as bombers or ground attack planes, where you can more or less set them on a predetermined path, and leave to them to avoid being detected/shot down by the enemy AA-defense. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have any serious data to support my claims here.


My point is : I don't know if UCAV can be competitive with manned aircrafts in the "fighter" role in the near-future.
Maybe, if you could pay yourself 5 or 10 UCAV-Fighter for the price of one 5th of 6th generation Manned-Fighter, even with comparatively reduced performances... Well, Iosef said it best : quantity is a quality of its own (see : T-34 Vs. King Panther).
We need more data.

[Sea Skimmer]

Unmanned systems are not any cheaper, not for similar high capability roles anyway, for merely providing a camera that might not be true. The job of Predator would not be done by a modern jet fighter, it could be done by a small turboprop plane, indeed the US has modified some small turboprops with Iraq and Afghanistan and some Latin American countries to basically act the same way, orbiting camera platform. In fact most evidence would suggest going unmanned will make stuff even more expensive plane for plane, and can even require more manpower because maintenance requirements can end up higher. That isn't even considering the need for satellites to control current models of long range UCAV, though high capability future fighter like UCAVs on the lines of X-47B are basically dependent on software being proved that can reduce this requirement. Also for non global ranges airborne relays and other options exist.

HOWEVER, unmanned systems can do many things a manned plane never could. Such as physically, fighter pilots in a small cockpit are hard pressed to fly longer then 8-10 hours. They can do it once in a while for a ferry flight, but not for normal combat. That means no matter how many air refueling tankers you have, each fighters has a very real range limit, and most people don't have lots of tankers anyway. Unmanned systems dominate on flying range and endurance (time in the air, often just as important as physical range flown). That can turn into a real savings by reducing tanker support, reducing the need for forward airfields and all the requirements for defending them, allowing you to strike targets you never could before using cheap JDAM type bombs rather then long range cruise missiles ect... and a fair number of other things. It also means no requirement for Combat Search and Rescue, though only the US has any really great capability in this arena anyway.

With UCAVs you can think about making a fighter sized platform have the range of a B-52. Never gonna happen with a manned jet. Sure, it wont haul more then a few thousand pounds of bombs.. but what if that bomb load was all 50lb smart bombs, and the target is a bunch of oil tanks, or battle tanks, or parked aircraft, or a lot of other targets you might still inflict very massive levels of damage, maybe even more damage that a B-52 loaded with iron bombs wouldn't inflict 30 years ago. So this is bringing different capability to the table.

Does the foreseeable progresses to be made on ground-level AA defense and the escalating cost of modern military aircrafts are likely to make it cost effective to somewhat "neglect" the air superiority role of your air force, if you don't plan on having an important force projection capability ?

High power lasers might be a real game changer, nothing else will be. Right now SAMs are struggling to even remotely keep pace with offensive weapons improvements. One might notice in the modern world almost all interest in SAMs is now either an S-300 type of system or MANPADS. Everything in-between is falling off in large part. This isn't because S-300 is so great, its because in stark reality you won't be able to fend off a major air attack with anything else anymore. Smaller systems are useful for swatting away smart weapons and random UAVs, but they'll just crumple if jets attack with modern weapons and support. I mean you look at how many nations are now fielding 100-250nm range stand off weapons that can be carried by fighters, this now means even most configurations of S-300 can't actually stop you from firing on a target they are colocated with. Even glide bombs like JSOW already outclass most SAMs, and mere JDAM can out range the vast majority of smaller SAMs like SA-8 that were once pretty serious threats. Also ceiling is a big deal, better optics mean its not such a big deal to bomb from high level, even against very small targets as it was even 10 years ago. People go for MANPADS because well, its a cheap SOMETHING, and important against helicopters and small UAVs that the regular air defenses can't be bothered with all the time. It also prevents you from dieing from really cheap stuff, like strafing from an AC-130.

If anything air superiority, or at least making a good show of a fight in the air, most powers don't really expect air superiority is more important then ever. Defending fighters, once they take off, can't be destroyed 'cheaply' or by low capability or swarming systems the way a ground based defense can be. You still need a high performance weapon from a high performance platform to take them down, and meanwhile even a 'short' range fighter outclasses any SAM battery for reach, and can mass and disperse rapidly as the air battle requires. Simply by existing defending fighters force the enemy to escort his strikes and divert a major portion of his air effort to offensive counter air, bombing the shit out of your bases. If you aren't trying, the enemy will take advantage of this fully.

[PainRack]

So.... is the old ideas about having AA guns, long range SAM supported by a close range SAM defence system now obsolete?

[Sea Skimmer]

No, but purely ground defenses have simply never been a credible air defense system in history, and its just getting worse. Things like AA guns and short range SAMs will always be useful to some degree for countering enemy stand off weapons and small UAVs, and on the battlefield also enemy helicopters. Also of course, since money is limited, while a given weapon may not be obsolete, it may also just not be the best use of money when you are talking about a complete air defense. You start buying S-300 or what have you, and you'll run the price tag into the billions of dollars pretty quickly. Iran's abortive deal with Russia for S-300PMU-1, an older version of the system, was pegged at about 1 billion USD for just four firing units for example. That's rather expensive when you could buy a squadron of modern jets for the same price, or several squadrons of crappy but still noteworthy jets, like older MiG-29 variants. Jets cost more to operate, but they also have much more general purpose utility.