B-52 Modernization

It's that time of the year again.

>>34793575
The BUFF will never die.

>>34795071
>Year 2117 Buff still flying thanks to second SLEP involving nano polymer metal bonding. Turns out the things just wont crack anymore. One landed gear up in costa rica during the sino-narco wars, and while the wings snapped off, the fuselage and crew were fine.

>Still not sure why its the last manned asset left in the fleet.

So the USAF is finally willing to admit that they will not be replaced "soon" by some hot shit mach 2 doritobomber? Only took them 60 years

File: wat_clr.png (390KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 500x498px

>>34795107
>Jibberish
You're a space fgt

File: b_1_gallery_med_02_960x600.jpg (141KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 960x600px

>>34795168
Hey, the Boner is cool too dude.

>>34793575
So does this mean it will be down to 4 engines instead of 8?

File: 1375904580599.png (26KB, 775x591px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 775x591px

>>34793575

Haven't they been talking about this for like 30 years? I like the idea. I love the BUFF, but also love the Bone. I'd figure that this procurement program would probably get pushed out by the new strike bomber program...that I believe is already underway.

>>34795181
They will never go through with the with the proposal to re-engine the bone with F119-PW-100s, because god hates us.

How old are the actual airframes now? Fuck!

>>34795795
Old enough to illegally fuck your great grandmother, sexy enough to be able to fuck your sister.

>>34795795
50ish years. As Iunderstand it the B52s currently in service were built in the mid-late 1960's.

File: 2015AFA_BlendedWingRenderA.jpg (822KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1920x1080px

Real talk, here's an actual list of potential B-52 replacements:

1. something based off an existing B777x frame, like the P-8

2. Lockmart's hybrid wing body concept (pic related), which both Boeing and Northrop have studied as well (and are capable of building)

3. B-1 production restarted because Fienstien wants more pork

4. B-21 used as a replacement, meaning factory orders quintuple

Ultimately I think it's going to be #2 since the HWB would also be used as a tanker and cargo craft, replacing the B-52, KC-10, and C-5 with one vehicle. Since logistics would be simplified, beancounters in Congress would be fine with the inevitable cost blowouts during procurement.

>>34796130
Unifying tankers, heavy strategic bombers, and cargo airframes would be a great move. Integrate stealth engines into a stealthy body and you got a winner.

That way you can have a non stealthy base, with optional stealthy paint/coating for when you need it. Tankers and cargo can be LO/RCS reduced, bombers and whatnot can be VLO.

>>34796152

Really it all depends on how important the AF considers stealth and whether or not they want to risk a new design. But, as with the F-35, the unifying everything into one vehicle really does give them a lot of leverage with Congress who will keep shoveling money into it since it will simplify things in the long term.

>>34793575
>2201
>the war between the Earth-based United Colonial Administration and the Martian People's Army seperatists has gone on for 3 years
>suddenly, insurgents look up from their domed cities
>B-52s, with new interplanetary engines, are dropping W-900 Plasma bombs, glassing kilometer after kilometer of Martian soil...

Meanwhile, the M2 is still in use.

>>34796130
>let's make a stealth aircraft and then remove any chance of it being stealthy by adding turbojets and a gigantic vertical stabiliser

>>34796200

It's still more stealthier than a comparable conventional jet aircraft, which is the point. Incremental improvements.

File: 022.jpg (276KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1971x1305px

>>34794962
This, it seems like every other year they talk about refitting the buff with new engines and they never do.

>>34795181
Bone is love, bone is life

>>34795795
55 years.

>>34796181

M2 is still in use, along with the M16A12 and the M1A4 SEPv9 TUSK IV

>>34796152
Cargo planes don't make good bombers and they definitely don't make good stealth aircraft.
Cargo, especially people, don't have high density like bombs and fuel do.

>>34796269

so build it to take high density things like bombs first then develop a cargo plane from that

the blended wing design plays into this since it generates more lift

>>34796269
Both of our tankers are modified cargo/passenger aircraft.

Your theorys do not pan with reality.

>>34796200
Are you fucking serious? That is not supposed to be a stealth aircraft, that design is for fuel efficiency/payload. Jesus you are so retarded.

>>34795786
The F119 has enough thrust to turn an F-111 into a fighter.

On a semi related note, do any of you know why the chairforce is pulling B1b's from the boneyard back into service?

The C-5's engine is twice the thrust of a single b52 engine.

So you could go to 4 engines with a slight improvement in power and range. Plus it makes logistics easier since the powerplant is already in the inventory and has trained airmen to maintain it already.

>>34795181
The Bone is cheaper to operate and more capable than the B52.

>>34796264
>M16A5 chambered in full size cartridge
>It's too heavy, can't control on auto!
>M16A6 chambered in intermediate round
>No pen! No distance!
>...
>M16A12 chambered in 6.348mm caseless magnum cartridge and made of carbon nano tubes, weighing a mere 2 pounds loaded

File: 003.jpg (486KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1971x1305px

>>34797060
>boneyard
ISWYDT

>>34796264
M2A5
>50 BMG adaptive smart rounds
>electronic action powered by waste heat
>powered breaching armor interface
M16A12
>M855A4 rounds with stun, kill and HEAT modes
>BCOG networked to squad leader
>7 position stock
M1A4 SEPv9 TUSK IV
>osmium sabot railgun (manually loaded by android support crew)
>regenerative particle shields
>elerium battery for unlimited range

>>34793575
They have been "trying" to do this shit for like the last 40 years and Congress never gives them the money for it because they spend it other places like burger kings, "Dorms", Ice Cream Parlors and F-35's instead.

>>34793575
holy shit that thing will be 100 years old in 2052

if it aint broke dont fix it i guess

>>34796604
Which is why the B-1R makes my dick rock hard. Mach 2.2 at sea level, for only a 20% reduction in range. 21st century avionics and ECM. Rigged for tactical nukes and SDB deployment.

Rock.

Hard.

>>34799502
>Mach 2.2 at sea level
No, mach 2.2 at high altitudes.

>>34799502
The avionics packages have already rolled out, but yes I agree the engines need upgrading if only for the fact that they're maintenance pigs.

File: andersen1.jpg (176KB, 1809x952px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1809x952px

>>34793575
Are these B-52's parked next to the B-1's on Guam? Asking for a friend.

File: 1500256027309his.jpg (202KB, 988x380px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 988x380px

I'm going to ask a really stupid question, please be gentle.

If Phalanx can shoot down missiles, why not remount the tailgun on the B-52 and use a similar radar for flying CIWS?

>>34798322
>there might be a 100 Years of Rolling Thunder airshow while the B-52 is still in service

>>34800663
Yes

>>34800691

Well, per Wikipedia a CWIS unit weighs 12,500 lbs. That would probably not only throw off the center of gravity of the aircraft but reduce the bomb load.

And it wouldn't really be cost effective. I don't believe that BUFFs operate without near-total air superiority. Plus whatever decoys the actually carry are probably more cost effective.

File: 580b585b2edbce24c47b29e8.png (61KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x400px

>>34793575

Are they like, actually gonna do it this time?

>>34800663
>Guam
No! Get them out of there before it's too late!

>>34800663
Judging by the lighting difference, those could be two different periods of time, so no--potentially.

>>34800663
Look more like KC-135s or some other 707 variant

>>34800663

Nice try Kimmy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871416

>>34800663
I bet the holy trinity is still deployed to Guam. We have had all three SAC bomber types on station recently, but no recent news about the B-2s or any others coming back..

>>34803183
>>34800663
Just to elaborate a little:

You can see the shadow of the fuselage on the left wing of the aircraft, so it's a low-wing config which rules out the B-52. The nacelles look like single engines as well, not the double layout of the Buff. No plethora of antennae and sensors that would denote the EW or ELINT variants of the -135, and there are several of them. Finally, the wingspan of the B-52 is almost 50% bigger than a Bone, and the two types there are roughly equivalent.

>>34803228
You are correct, they are not B-52s. But those photos are also not current.

File: 1468597611568.png (46KB, 741x290px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 741x290px

>>34796181

>>34800691

Didn't they already replace the cannon pod on the B52s with an 8-pack of Stingers in the 1980s?

File: In HARMs Way.png (134KB, 567x405px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 567x405px

>>34803779
They replaced the .50 cals with a 20mm and then removed the defensive guns after a HARM hit a B-52 rather then an air defense site during Desert Storm.

>>34800663
If you look at the shadow of the vertical stabilizer, you see a little horizontal shadow. That's from the mid-air refuelling boom, so these would be KC-135s.

>>34803836
Holy shit I'd never heard that story - just read about it.

File: NB-36H_producing_contrails_in_flight.jpg (140KB, 1600x1034px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x1034px

Wrong plane to refit.

File: 35775.jpg (187KB, 1800x1215px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1800x1215px

>>34805147
the GOAT

>>34793575
why is this video so faggy
even a B-52 video has to be fagged up
so sick of this shit

>>34803073
>Well, per Wikipedia a CWIS unit weighs 12,500 lbs.

The B-52 already has a radar so you would only need the FCS and the actual gun itself, much lighter.

File: images.jpg (22KB, 259x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 259x400px

>>34793575
One day....