B-52H turns 50!

[chequita guevara]

I also left out stuff by the US. Maybe the list isn't complete on eitherside, and the ratio might be slightly off, but let's face it, there is a clear winner in the agressiveness catagory. Heck, there is just no way I was gonna copy down everything the US did. I'd aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome.

It's true, the world did need protection, but not from the USSR.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Tingkai

As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC.

As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52.

I'm confused. You start by criticising the B-52 as a WoMD (which it isn't) and then suggest they be phased out in their nuclear role in favour of SSBN's/SLBM's !!!!

SLBM's, unlike gravity bombs, are not counterforce weapons - designed and tasked to eliminating enemy delivery systems before they can be used against you.
SLBM's are dedicated weapons of last resort which aren't accurate enough for the counterforce role and whose only purpose is the destruction of cities and other very large military/economic targets.

That sort of thinking would bring about civilian casualties on an unheard of level and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Tingkai]

What's so difficult to understand. The B-52s, AFAIK, are still equipped to carry nukes as are subs. Eliminating the B-52s doesn't change anything, other than saving the US taxpayer some money.

If, by gravity bombs, you're referring to nuke gravity bombs then these are not a counterforce weapon. All nukes are weapons of last resort.

If you are referring to conventional bombs then these can be dropped by other aircraft.

[ravagon]

B-52's carry predominantly tactical nuclear weapons. SSBN's carry much less accurate strategic weapons.
If you can't understand the difference between tactical weapons, used against an enemy's launching systems in some isolated region or a formation on the front line, and utterly wiping out a nations cities then I guess I should be glad you never have your finger on the button.
Wrt relative yields there is a pretty big difference between the two and advocating the use of utterly devastating weapons against cities when you could instead have used smaller more-accurate weapons against specific targets ... ???
Nato made the mistake of thinking this way in the 50's and 60's. Thankfully they were rethinking this policy in the 70's and fixing it thereafter. Otherwise ...
You might classify all nuclear weapons as being weapons of last resort but, to paraphrase, some are much more of a last resort than others...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC.

If SAC had their way the B-52 would have already been replaced twice over. In fact they have had their way up to a point, since the B-1 and B-2 have each in their turn replaced the B-52 as nuclear delivery systems. The only thing that hasn't gone their (SAC's) way is the de-emphasis of nuclear bombing itself.

Originally posted by Tingkai
As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52.

Which is why the B-52 was transformed completely into a heavy conventional bomber years ago.

Originally posted by Tingkai
The B-52 is not needed in its role of carrying cruise missiles. The B-2 is better. The USN can also deliver the same punch more effectively.

Sort of. As I stated above, the B-52 is mainly used as a heavy bomber, not as a cruise missle platform. The SLCM's that the Navy uses are half as expensive as the ALCM's that the B-52 carries. The advantage of the ALCM's is that they can be carried thousands of miles in a few hours and launched from over land or sea. This gives them a great deal more fexibility and the capability of reaching almost anywhere.

Originally posted by Tingkai
For general bombing, the B-2 is better, but this role is being phased out by the development of "smart" weapons. A couple of bombs dropped accurately from, say, an F-18 is more effective than carpet bombing a general area.

Well the B-2 would be better except that it's too expensive to risk in sustained operations. It's a first day of the war weapon. As for the F-18, it's a joke compared to the B-52 for bombing. It doesn't have anywhere near the range, payload or loiter time of the B-52. Perhaps you weren't aware of how the B-52 was used in Afghanistan recently. They loaded it up with smart bombs and let it circle the battle area at high altitude all day. Whenever a call for air support comes in, the B-52 let loose one of it's bombs and it falls to it's target. The F-18 would require endless refueling to accomplish the same mission, and because it's a one-seater (no co-pilot) even if it could be constantly refueled, it would have to return to base to give it's pilot a rest. And once it dropped it's one bomb, he has to return anyway.

Originally posted by Tingkai
So what good is the B-52? It keeps a lot of air bases open and that keeps the politicans happy. It gives the USAF an excuse to have nukes. And it keeps a lot of people employed in the USAF.

The US would get more bangs for the buck and be far better off by retiring these old dogs of war.

You have it exactly backwards. There is nothing the techno geeks in the Airforce want more than to retire old airframes and build new ones. And they have a lot of support from the politicians whose districts stand to gain from military procurement. The only thing holding them back is the faithful and thrifty few in the military who rightfully point out that old systems can be updated at a fraction of the cost of a new program and with a much greater chance that they will work as advertised, and be completed on time. Their great allies are force commanders who want weapons that work right now rather than dreams that might work someday, and those politicians who are either fiscally conservative or see a chance to shift some pentagon pork in another district into some other sort of pork in their own district.

The B-52 is incredibly cost effective, unlike the B-1 and B-2 which were overly ambitious and expensive, difficult to get into service and keep in service, and too expensive to have been built in anything like the numbers necessary to benefit from an economy of scale, a problem that will continue to dog them until they are retired.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by ravagon
B-52's carry predominantly tactical nuclear weapons. SSBN's carry much less accurate strategic weapons.
If you can't understand the difference between tactical weapons, used against an enemy's launching systems in some isolated region or a formation on the front line, and utterly wiping out a nations cities then I guess I should be glad you never have your finger on the button.

You actually think there is a difference in the use of tactical nuclear weapons and ICBMs. You do realize that both lead to all-out nuclear war if the opponent has nukes. If the opponent doesn't have nukes then it does not pose a big enough threat to the United States to justify the use of tactical nukes. Any use of nukes will result in nuke retaliation. That's the whole concept behind MAD. Or put another way, would you use tac. nukes knowing that this would significantly increase the likelihood of a retalitory nuke strike?

Tac nukes are another weapon that serve no purpose.

It's a good thing you don't have a finger on the trigger if you actually would consider using tac nukes. This ain't no Civ game. This is real life.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
If SAC had their way the B-52 would have already been replaced twice over. In fact they have had their way up to a point, since the B-1 and B-2 have each in their turn replaced the B-52 as nuclear delivery systems. The only thing that hasn't gone their (SAC's) way is the de-emphasis of nuclear bombing itself.

Which is why the B-52 was transformed completely into a heavy conventional bomber years ago.

You're right about the air force wanting better aircraft, but it is also part of a gigantic political game that in the end leaves the USAF with a strategic bombing force that is not required.

Originally posted by Sikander
The advantage of the ALCM's is that they can be carried thousands of miles in a few hours and launched from over land or sea. This gives them a great deal more fexibility and the capability of reaching almost anywhere.

The existing deployment of the USN gives the US the ability to launch cruise missiles in almost any trouble spot in the world within a few hours.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sikander
Well the B-2 would be better except that it's too expensive to risk in sustained operations.
{/QUOTE]
And you think this logic makes sense. We'll build a weapon that we will never use cause it is too expensive to use, except in the event of an all-out war, a battle which no other nation is capable of fighting for the next 50 years.

Originally posted by Sikander
As for the F-18, it's a joke compared to the B-52 for bombing.

You make the mistake of comparing a single F-18 to a single B-52. You can use cycles of F-18s to achieve the same effect of the B-52s. The F-18s on a carrier can provide extensive support that matches the B-52, and that is particularly true if the USAF provides support as well. The B-52 job is simply duplicated by other aircraft.

AKAIK, the F-18s were delivering the "smart" weapons in Afghanistan while the B-52s were simply dropping conventional bombs.

Originally posted by Sikander
There is nothing the techno geeks in the Airforce want more than to retire old airframes and build new ones. And they have a lot of support from the politicians whose districts stand to gain from military procurement.

I agree completely, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether any type of strategic bombing force is required.

Originally posted by Sikander
The only thing holding them back is the faithful and thrifty few in the military who rightfully point out that old systems can be updated at a fraction of the cost of a new program

You have fallen into the trap. There is nothing faithful or thrifty about maintaining a bombing force that is not required.

The Air Force line is: "Isn't it great that we're maintaining the B-52s cause they're a lot cheaper than replacing them."

That BS hides the fact that the B-52s should not be replaced. The US military needs money for other items that are more cost-effective and more useful into today's world. Maintaining the bombing force is simply a failure to recognize that the way war is waged today has changed from the days of WWII.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

You're right about the air force wanting better aircraft, but it is also part of a gigantic political game that in the end leaves the USAF with a strategic bombing force that is not required.

Where you are wrong is that you condider the B-52 to be a strategic bomber. It was designed as a strategic bomber, and for most of its life was a strategic bomber. But AFAIK every single combat mission ever flown by a B-52 was a tactical mission. This started in Vietnam, where the B-52s were assigned huge military area targets while the fighter-bombers were assigned the pin-point strategic targets where there was a large civilian population nearby or the target required extreme accuracy to hit. This has continued in every conflict since. In the Gulf War the B-52s hammered the Iraqi front lines while the F-119 etc. carried out the strategic bombing campaign.

Finally doctrine has been modified to meet reality. The B-52 is a tactical bomber, with long range and a large payload. It is the B-1 and B-2 which have hewn closer to the strategic nuclear bomber line, and you can tell that the Air Force is getting worried that they will be cut, as evidenced by the phone in performances both of these airframes have given in the Balkans and now Afghanistan. The Air Force is trying to justify these planes by trying to prove their worth as tactical aircraft. The B-52 doesn't have to play these games because it has proven itself a very useful weapon for attacking enemy troops on the ground in Vietnam, The Gulf, Kosovo (where it literally won the war), and now Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Tingkai
The existing deployment of the USN gives the US the ability to launch cruise missiles in almost any trouble spot in the world within a few hours.

A lot of that coverage is very light, with just a submarine to do the heavy lifting. The Navy cannot bring any augmenting firepower to bear very quickly. The Air Force can. Whether this is a critical need or not is certainly a matter open to question, but there is no doubt that this capability is useful where we are caught flat-footed. The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies. This weapon can provide a decent amount of fire power and show the flag in the event of hostilities erupting while our carriers are busy thousands of miles away.

Originally posted by Tingkai
You make the mistake of comparing a single F-18 to a single B-52. You can use cycles of F-18s to achieve the same effect of the B-52s. The F-18s on a carrier can provide extensive support that matches the B-52, and that is particularly true if the USAF provides support as well. The B-52 job is simply duplicated by other aircraft.

AKAIK, the F-18s were delivering the "smart" weapons in Afghanistan while the B-52s were simply dropping conventional bombs.

The B-52s drop both. They carpet bombed the Taliban in the North to help the Northern Alliance break out early in the war. In the war in the East of the country they have been used much like the AC-130's, as firepower on call. I don't care how many F-18s you have, you can't add their range to one another. Thus the F-18s can spread out and attack many targets at once better than a single B-52, but they cannot wait around until something happens like the B-52. Another thing they cannot do is operate from a base thousands of miles away. They need a local base or a carrier, which can present problems when the area of operation is a land-locked country like Afghanistan, or adjacent to a claustraphobic stretch of brown water like the Gulf.

Originally posted by Tingkai
I agree completely, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether any type of strategic bombing force is required.


You have fallen into the trap. There is nothing faithful or thrifty about maintaining a bombing force that is not required.

The Air Force line is: "Isn't it great that we're maintaining the B-52s cause they're a lot cheaper than replacing them."

That BS hides the fact that the B-52s should not be replaced. The US military needs money for other items that are more cost-effective and more useful into today's world. Maintaining the bombing force is simply a failure to recognize that the way war is waged today has changed from the days of WWII.

If what you say is true then why are we using the B-52 so often? Are we fighting in an out-moded fashion, and if so then why aren't we losing? We have always been about firepower and the B-52 provides that in spades. Whether we have a target which has been pinpointed by Intelligence or an area that needs to be supressed by heavy area fire the B-52 can deliver. We haven't pounded cities in WWII style since at least the Korean War, and our nuclear doctrine has been moving away from the bomber since at least the 1960s. I agree that the B-1 and B-2 are relics of Cold War nuclear war mentality and they need to adapt or be scrapped. The B-52 has so far been able to adapt to the new realities. When it comes time to finally retire the old bird I am certain that it will be replaced with weapons which match or exceed it's ability to provide heavy firepower quickly anywhere on the planet. What sort of weapons would suggest to replace our long range bombers?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
The Air Force is trying to justify these planes by trying to prove their worth as tactical aircraft. The B-52 doesn't have to play these games because it has proven itself a very useful weapon for attacking enemy troops on the ground in Vietnam, The Gulf, Kosovo (where it literally won the war), and now Afghanistan.

That's exactly the air force line. They used the B-52 to justify its existence and then they turn around and say we don't have to justify the B-52's existence because look, we used it. Typical bureaucratic justification.

Other aircraft can perform its role and other roles.

Originally posted by Sikander
The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies.

If you accept this premise then it is all the more reason to get rid of weapons that are not really needed, for example the B-52s, tactical nukes, land based ICBMs, etc.

Originally posted by Sikander
They need a local base or a carrier, which can present problems when the area of operation is a land-locked country like Afghanistan, or adjacent to a claustraphobic stretch of brown water like the Gulf.

I thought most of the air missions were by the carrier a/c. Guess I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Sikander
If what you say is true then why are we using the B-52 so often?

So the air force guys can justify the B-52s existence.

Originally posted by Sikander
When it comes time to finally retire the old bird I am certain that it will be replaced

I absolutely agree, but that says more about politics in the military and Washington then it does about military need.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing just the American military. The same problem exists in other countries. We have armoured brigades in Canada that are totally useless now that the Cold War is over, but we'll never get rid of them, even if they are completely out-dated. The Canadians have fighters which are not much use. But the military says we have to have fighters and tanks cause everyone else has them.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
remember: Guns don't kill people. people kill people .


*runs*

guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Bullets don't kill people, holes kill people. Holes don't kill people...oh sh*t, yes they do.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sikander





A lot of that coverage is very light, with just a submarine to do the heavy lifting. The Navy cannot bring any augmenting firepower to bear very quickly. The Air Force can. Whether this is a critical need or not is certainly a matter open to question, but there is no doubt that this capability is useful where we are caught flat-footed. The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies. This weapon can provide a decent amount of fire power and show the flag in the event of hostilities erupting while our carriers are busy thousands of miles away.

This is actually an interesting area. I attended an Air Force run 5 day class on Joint Air Operations (basically how the AOC operates and how the ATO is promulgated.) The AF has much more of a campaign mindset than the Navy does. Basically they actually think about how to redo WW2 or a reasonably decent sized war (1.5 times Gulf War size). To fight this way requires a lot of planning and a lot of forces in theatre. (months and months). This is a very different mindset from the way Navy guys at least up to O-6 think. We are much more expiditionary in mindset. (Grenada was planned over a weekend with aCVBG basically doing a wheelie in the Atl. In contrast Panama was an op with months and months of staff weenie planning. NOt saying one is better than the other...it's just different.)

One of the advaantages of the CVBG is that it does not need basing rights and that it can move "medium forces" into play in a relatively short amount of time. 1000's of miles means days of travel. So, it is not a "time-now" asset unless on station. In that case, Buffs might be quicker especially if sent out of CONUS. (no basing needed.) Obviously a few buffs can drop a lot more ordnance than a sub or a destroyer with a few TLAMs. Buffs are not perfect either (no fighter cover, etc.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As for the dates, I was remarking on the B-52 in general, not specifically the B-52H. In order for the plane to be 51 years old, it would have had to have entered service in 1951, which leaves it plenty of time to be landscaping the Korean pennensula.

Quit making things up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GP
Quit making things up.

That's a mighty charge there. You got evidence to back that up?

[Simon Darkshade]

Happy birthday to the B-52. A great bomber, and a great weapon against evil.

"1973 - 75, Australia"

>Groan< Not the hackneyed paranoid story about American CIA attempts to get rid of the Whitlam government.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's a mighty charge there. You got evidence to back that up?

FAS.org says the B-52 entered service in February 1955.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm