Tous
← Back to Squawk list
The 60-Year History of the B-52 Stratofortress
When General Nathan Twining, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force from 1953 to 1957, called the Boeing B-52 “the long rifle of the air age” shortly after it entered service on June 29, 1955, no one imagined that the eight-engine, 390,000-pound bomber would still be operational 60 years later. (gearpatrol.com) Plus d'info...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Worked 18 years maintenance at KBAD on G's and H-models as Bomb-Navigation Systems Spec, Expeditor and Pro Super. Never has been thrust reversers on B-52 of any model.
Given the current congressional budget criticism for the high cost per airplane for new planes, what is the total money (in todays dollars) spent on buying and upgrading the B-52 over its lifetime divided by the total number of current operational units. My guess is that it way over a billon dollars per plane.
We need new, combat capable bombers, not make believe capable bomber force.
We need new, combat capable bombers, not make believe capable bomber force.
You need to consider the lifetime performance of the platform and the reasons units dropped out of the inventory in your cost-analysis. On the benefit side, how do you monetize deterrence- how do you put a dollar value on an event that did not happen because a BUF would spoil your party?
Would a new bomber not have deterrence? Does congress discount the program cost for expected airplane losses? Has the B-52 actually had to use the retrofit systems in actual combat against an enemy for which the feature was installed, e.g. active fighter force, modern SAM force, or stealth? Would it work as well as a new bomber designed for these arenas? Would you rather be flying a B-52 or a B-2 over eastern Ukraine or anywhere in Russia?
Were you referring to a hypothetical 'new bomber', the current F-35 jobs-program-cum-porkbarrel, or some other bombing platform?
You know, this all takes tis thread way off topic, but I just can't understand it. They cancelled a big end of the F22 order because it got so expensive; same thing on the B2's, yet it is full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes on the F35. Boy Lockheed has a good Lobby.
Off-topic: Fairy god senators, and spreading contracts around to a majority of states.
Everybody gets a piece of the action, and Lockheed gets a piece of each of those pieces.
Everybody gets a piece of the action, and Lockheed gets a piece of each of those pieces.
Yeah, if the BUFF was built by Lockheed instead of Boeing, we'd have a squadron on about any base that had a Christmas tree, and still have SAC and looking glass going just to show the world we could, with the Federal Reserve printing out money to cover the cost and everybody would be dancing in the street.
Of course, on the reality side, if it were built by Lockheed, it probably wouldn't be flying 60 years, but then that'd be OK too cause we'd just build some more and put more people to work.
Those were not the only things that the new systems were installed for. They used the cruise missles and conventional bombs in the middle East with impunity. Some came from all the way across just like the B-2's did and some did TDY at Diego Garcia but again, they just all went in in the early Desert storm and then back again into Iraq and Afghanistan, just loitering over station, with missiles into hotspots and bombs on the other. Unmerciful was the term used by enemy soldiers that survived