USAF to Retire B-1, B-2 in Early 2030s as B-21 Comes On-Line

While Nahom acknowledged that many B-52s are old in years, they’re relatively young in terms of flying hours, because they sat on nuclear alert during the Cold War and weren’t flown as hard.
By upgrading key parts of the B-52, including replacing engines, adding a new radar and other new technologies, “we’re going to be able to do things with that airplane that we would not be able to do with a B-1 or a B-2,” Nahom said.
Click to expand...

Un-be-lie-va-ble. In your face, supersonic and stealth wonders !
 
Archibald said:
While Nahom acknowledged that many B-52s are old in years, they’re relatively young in terms of flying hours, because they sat on nuclear alert during the Cold War and weren’t flown as hard.
By upgrading key parts of the B-52, including replacing engines, adding a new radar and other new technologies, “we’re going to be able to do things with that airplane that we would not be able to do with a B-1 or a B-2,” Nahom said.
Click to expand...

Un-be-lie-va-ble. In your face, supersonic and stealth wonders !
Click to expand...

I wonder what other new technologies will be put into the B-52 in the future beyond the radar and new engines?
 
Extinction of B-2 seems to be driven by final FUBAR with DMS-M (literally, DMS is a continuous FUBAR since mid 80s) and an endless struggle with exhaust system (ducts and aft deck) cracks.
 
flateric said:
Extinction of B-2 seems to be driven by final FUBAR with DMS-M (literally, DMS is a continuous FUBAR since mid 80s) and an endless struggle with exhaust system (ducts and aft deck) cracks.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem that the tools required for the upgrade to succeed were actually available. Hopefully NG will not be blamed for this difficulty.
 
I have a hard time believing any money for more than basic maintenance will be forthcoming in this climate. I wouldn't be surprised if some B-2 airframes are retired for canibalization before being replaced by B-21s. In addition to the high maintenance problems the type has always had, the aircraft are increasingly old and operating a fleet of just twenty aircraft is quite the opposite of cost effective. Unfortunately I can also foresee the B-52 upgrade being thrown under the bus, which would be particularly alarming in that no replacement is envisioned for that aircraft and some types of oversized ordnance likely won't be carried by the B-21.
 
If only Boeing could get their act together, a bomber version of the KC-46 would make a good stop-gap solution until a proper B-52 replacement could come online.
 
Desertfox said:
If only Boeing could get their act together, a bomber version of the KC-46 would make a good stop-gap solution until a proper B-52 replacement could come online.
Click to expand...

A KC-330 variant would have been even better, all considered.
 
From the range point of view the Boeing 787 would surely be the best platform, though a mix of 747-400s and 777s may well be available at bargain prices
 
No one is developing an entire new aircraft program as a stop gap, and no one is converting a civilian airliner into a useful bomber. There is a reason this historically has never occurred. While there have been several MPA conversions, this role prioritizes range and crew above payload. Civilian airliners are not remotely designed to be good ordnance carriers for obvious reasons.
 
And also having an airliner built as a Bomber, the epitome of offensive military action, would depict only a tremendous lack of insight. What would you think any SAM operator will do detecting your Bombliner signature?

Shoot.

No commercial aircraft or DC-3 were safe during WWII, even during the onset of hostilities.

Please at least do not forget the last airliner shotdown only weeks ago.
 
TomcatViP said:
And also having an airliner built as a Bomber, the epitome of offensive military action, would depict only a tremendous lack of insight. What would you think any SAM operator will do detecting your Bombliner signature?

Shoot.

No commercial aircraft or DC-3 were safe during WWII, even during the onset of hostilities.

Please at least do not forget the last airliner shotdown only weeks ago.
Click to expand...

It was the argument the Soviets used for shooting down KAL-007. They thought it was an RC-135. (Or so they say.)
 
TomcatViP said:
And also having an airliner built as a Bomber, the epitome of offensive military action, would depict only a tremendous lack of insight. What would you think any SAM operator will do detecting your Bombliner signature?

Shoot.

No commercial aircraft or DC-3 were safe during WWII, even during the onset of hostilities.
Click to expand...
Same thing a SAM operator will do if they spot a E-3, KC-46, or P-8. DC-3s flew combat missions into defended airspace and got shot down just like B-17s did. Its not like a B-52 is exactly invulnerable to a modern IADS. But if all you need is something to lob ALCMs or HGVs from outside IADS defended airspace, what does it matter if its a KC-46 or B-52? we are not talking about sending them into 1972 Hanoi here.

And its not like a KC-46 is mass or volume limited. Bomb bays have been fitted into commercial airliners (P-8), heck there where designs for stuffing Minutemen into 747s. It can be done, the only question is, is it cost-effective to do so?
 
And the answer is no, it is not cost effective to do so. The structure of an airliner is not designed to have bomb bay sized holes in it, nor is the wing/wheel support system something that can be cut open or worked around. At most you could have two very meiocre bomb bays in front of and behind the wings of such an aircraft. The P-8 for instance sports five positions for Mk54 size/weight ordnance. That's is 3000#s of ordnance. That is more of a bomb bike than a bomb truck.
 
Isn't the problem with the bones being metal fatigue? The 2 which cruises around like a jetliner has decades of life assuming they can continue to acquire spare parts for the scant 20 airframes. Either way we definitely need more 21s.
 
It seems to me retiring twenty high maintenance bespoke aircraft is always going to be the more cost effective route, but perhaps the Bone fleet is up against a hard airframe fatigue deadline that cannot be postponed.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems to me retiring twenty high maintenance bespoke aircraft is always going to be the more cost effective route, but perhaps the Bone fleet is up against a hard airframe fatigue deadline that cannot be postponed.
Click to expand...

Until you have a need that can only be met by the aircraft you just retired. *cough* SR-71, *cough* S-3 Viking, etc.
 
The B-21 presumably will fulfill the same attack profile as B-2, so I feel neither of those are equivalent comparisons. There also were capability, cost, and political reasons why the S-71 was retired. The S-3, purely cost reasons. Whether there is a need for either aircraft when it was retired is a matter of opinion.
 
We qq
shin_getter said:
www.thedrive.com

Air Force Eyes "Bomb Bay In A Box" To Rapidly Turn Airlifters Into Flying Weapon Trucks

A palletized munition system would allow the Air Force to turn its cargo aircraft into low-cost strike platforms.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Perhaps it was a mistake to burn airframe life in low intensity conflict. Is there a good reason to maintain a flight hours per year for bomber crews?
Click to expand...

The need for flight hours would seem obvious. If you don't fly often in peacetime, you won't be capable of flying effectively in high-intensity conflict when it happens. The Soviets sometimes conserved airframe and engine hours by limiting flight time -- it did not generally result in highly skilled pilots.

Also, many bomber missions were flown in places like Afghanistan because other platforms were simply incapable of effectively supporting troops in the ground (too far from base, insufficient loiter time, insufficient magazine depth, etc).
 
Josh_TN said:
The B-21 presumably will fulfill the same attack profile as B-2, so I feel neither of those are equivalent comparisons. There also were capability, cost, and political reasons why the S-71 was retired. The S-3, purely cost reasons. Whether there is a need for either aircraft when it was retired is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
From all my reading the sr71 never got the love it deserved and politics killed it because they never upgraded it to provide real time data. Never understood that lack of love from the brass. The Viking should still be flying today.
 
shin_getter said:
www.thedrive.com

Air Force Eyes "Bomb Bay In A Box" To Rapidly Turn Airlifters Into Flying Weapon Trucks

A palletized munition system would allow the Air Force to turn its cargo aircraft into low-cost strike platforms.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Perhaps it was a mistake to burn airframe life in low intensity conflict. Is there a good reason to maintain a flight hours per year for bomber crews?
Click to expand...
The B-1B has for an extended time period had no nuclear weapon role due to treaty restrictions.
In the absence of its (successful) use in the lower intensity conflicts the US has been engaged in the B-1B would have been retired years ago.
 
breakingdefense.com

Air Force, Don't Cut A Single Bomber - Breaking Defense

Bombers are the ultimate chess pieces in the US national security plan. Bombers are also a scarce resource, and, personally, I’m worried about retiring even a single one of the U.S. Air Force’s bombers. Until the new B-21 Raider bomber squadrons fill out, years from now, there’s nowhere to turn...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Economic and airframe stress realities are such that the bomber force is going to shrink before it grows. Until the replacement is in production, nothing can realistically prevent that.
 
TomS said:
The need for flight hours would seem obvious. If you don't fly often in peacetime, you won't be capable of flying effectively in high-intensity conflict when it happens. The Soviets sometimes conserved airframe and engine hours by limiting flight time -- it did not generally result in highly skilled pilots.
Click to expand...
There might be something I'm missing here: The missions should only provide experience on basic flying and operation, as well as proficiency in the CAS mission (which isn't central to the bomber mission). Just what is missing in simulator training in the context of bomber crews?

Now preserving bomber airframe life might not have been much of priority given that an active war was going on and future threats weren't clear.
 
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

America must build bomber capacity to compete in the Pacific

The U.S. appears to be headed for a “double whammy” in the early 2030s that will make its long-range strike gap particularly acute.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
As a result, AFGSC was compelled to retire 17 B-1s — enough to fire 408 cruise or anti-ship missiles in a single sortie — to pay for maintenance and upgrades of the remaining fleet.

When coupled with the simultaneous retirement of the Navy’s SSGN fleet, the nation appears to be headed for a “double whammy” in the early 2030s that will make the long-range strike shortfall particularly acute.

and the deterence is where now? w/ the more B-21s financed from sales to UK Aussys.is this guy serious??
 
There are broadly three roles for a modern USAF bomber
- dropping large quantities of ordinance on targets with no air defences (either after they have been neutralised or because they are not therr in the first place)
- acting as a platform for long range missiles
- penetrating to a target that requires a precision strike.
It is only the last category which requires something like the B2 or B21. The other roles need a modern version of the B52, with economical turbofans, colossal payload and rugged easy maintainability.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom