A 60 year old bomber planned to fly another 30-40 years

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yep, I've been seeing them for as long as I can remember. I'm actually a couple of years older than the plane. I watched as it carried the X-15. I saw them bomb Vietnam. I saw them star in movies about the Cold War. Now it looks like they might outlive me.


One of my favorite BUFF stories involves a famous...no, legendary actor. Jimmy Stewart set his acting career aside and joined the Army Air Forces in World War 2, flying a full set of missions in B-17s. After the war he remained in the Air Force Reserve, and in the movie Strategic Air Command there's a scene in which he's being checked out in the B-36, which had a cockpit big enough to set up cameras in. In the scene the flight crew suddenly get up and go for coffee, leaving Stewart alone flying the plane. I watched that movie a couple of times before I found out the scene was real, and Stewart really was alone with the camera crew flying the huge bomber.

During the Vietnam War Brigadier General James Stewart went along for observation rides with the B-52 crews, and experienced at least one close call.

Holy crap. Never saw a Jimmy Stewart movie I didn't like. Knew he was a reservist, always had a ton of respect for him as an actor, saw (and loved) the movie Strategic Air Command, but had no idea of the connections. Learned something new, now off to go do more research on it. Thanks for sharing this, you just made one of my childhood heroes bigger than life.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The B-52s suffered heavy losses because the higher ups where forcing them to fly the exact same flight paths mission after mission also they where flying an already obsolescent manner of attack partly because they where flying older B-52Ds and Fs which never had the NOE system installed that the B-52Gs and Hs had from around 1970 they did want to risk the latest models on a type of mission that insures large loses(they cant give away their NOE tactics) I also speculate that they used the older WWII style attacks in Vietnam because they knew that the Soviets would study the NV radar and had they flown NOE missions in Gs and Hs it would have been a windfall to the Soviets.You are correct that the B-52 is obsolete in the old type bomber role something that was never the primary mission of H and G model 52s I doubt you know for certain what you are talking about to be frankly honest a B-52H can do what several fighters can do and has a much better loiter ability as well.And Dr.Strange Love is accurate form the interior details but they did not show an important part of the early G and H models weapons systems the "Hound dog" cruise missile AGM-28 which was supposed to blow wholes into Soviet air defense networks(this weapon had a nuclear warhead also preventing its use in Vietnam just one would wiped out 90% of the radar grid up north I bet) The B-52 is the ultimate adapter even the B-2 can not make this claim nor the B-1B both are more costly and can carry and loiter for less time.

I see you suscribe to the simplistic notion that SAC HQ was responsible for all the heavy losses in Linebacker II, well hindsight is always 20/20. SAC planners had two choices: fly high and avoid the AAA/MIG threat or fly low and avoid the SAM threat. Given the fact that US tactical bombers were routinely bombing Hanoi in 72 and that B-52s carried the most sophisticated ECM suite of any strike aircraft at the time, it seemed like a resonable gamble. The simple fact is that after 7 years of war, the Vietnamese/Russians could read U.S. tactics and make a good guess at the target and ingress and egress routes. This was also made simpler by the fact that B-52s were big, slow, less maneuverable and therefore more predictable. Even after the change in tactics, B-52s still suffered losses. The fact that losses went down could just as easily be explained by various other factors: effect of previous strikes, going after easier targets, employing vastly increased numbers of supporting EW, CHAFF and SEAD aircraft and the simple fact that the Vietnamese were running out of SAMs.

Even in 1972 SAC would not flown a strike on the USSR in the manner that the bombings where flown in 1972 you are taking into consideration an isolated incident of forced use of the B-52 in an exposed manner it is incorrect and you completely fail to take into account how the B-52 would have truly been flown against the Soviets.Since then the BUFF has been adapted to the differing role of what a bomber is.

Let me guess, go in low and fast? Good luck avoiding AAA and MIGs or do you really believe that a large, non-stealth, subsonic bomber could penetrate alone thousands of miles into the USSR?

The fact is that the B-52 was already obsolete in 1972 for its primary mission, any nuclear strike against the USSR would have been carried out by land/sub based ICBMs.

[Karle94]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I see you suscribe to the simplistic notion that SAC HQ was responsible for all the heavy losses in Linebacker II, well hindsight is always 20/20. SAC planners had two choices: fly high and avoid the AAA/MIG threat or fly low and avoid the SAM threat. Given the fact that US tactical bombers were routinely bombing Hanoi in 72 and that B-52s carried the most sophisticated ECM suite of any strike aircraft at the time, it seemed like a resonable gamble. The simple fact is that after 7 years of war, the Vietnamese/Russians could read U.S. tactics and make a good guess at the target and ingress and egress routes. This was also made simpler by the fact that B-52s were big, slow, less maneuverable and therefore more predictable. Even after the change in tactics, B-52s still suffered losses. The fact that losses went down could just as easily be explained by various other factors: effect of previous strikes, going after easier targets, employing vastly increased numbers of supporting EW, CHAFF and SEAD aircraft and the simple fact that the Vietnamese were running out of SAMs.



Let me guess, go in low and fast? Good luck avoiding AAA and MIGs or do you really believe that a large, non-stealth, subsonic bomber could penetrate alone thousands of miles into the USSR?

The fact is that the B-52 was already obsolete in 1972 for its primary mission, any nuclear strike against the USSR would have been carried out by land/sub based ICBMs.

The bombers were more of a second strike rather than a first strike weapon, at least in the 70´s and 80´s. During the 50´s and early 60´s it was physically impossible for the Soviets to shoot down the B-52 because no weapon at that time could reach a B-52 at its maximum cruise altitude.

[Platapus]

In the 1990's when I worked SIOP, we did not expect too many (if any) of the BUFFs to come back.

[Oberon]

The BUFF is an iconic and rugged bomber, for her original role I imagine that most major defenses would have received a bucket of sunshine before TOT. But I guess that casualty rate would be very high, even the vulcans would have had problems despite their better maneuverability. These days though it's mainly for dropping stacks on mujies where the AAA threat is low, and she does that job well, damn well. What's her upkeep vs the B1? Although the BUFF has a greater mult-role ability I believe.

[Ducimus]

If the Chair Force is intent on keeping the BUFF's around for decades to come, I wish they'd order some new ones already. I find myself VERY skeptical about the structural integrity of an aircraft so old, that the current generation of flyboy's could be parking their asses in Grandpa's plane.

[soopaman2]

I ask myself, with the advent of smart bombs, and JDAM attachments on dumb bombs, if we need such a large delivery system.

Not like we need them for the antique oversized nukes we used to use.

A fighter (fighter, not bomber) of today (with one bomb) can destroy what it took 100 plus bombers to do 60 years ago.


I know if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if we got something better, then why fund it?

(edit unless we go back to carpet bombing cities, I bet the crap in iraq and Afghanistan would calm down substantially. J/K)

[Stealhead]

Well A Buff can carry what several fighters can carry and with better loiter time and with less strain on an aircrew so from an over all cost stand point it is much more effective not to mention that one Buff or Bone can fly and carry a load out and can provide multiple CS missions to multiple spots needing remodeling.

The B-1B is a swing wing aircraft making it more costly to maintain right off the bat in comparison to a similar size aircraft with fixed geometry it also has more advanced avionics than the B-52 so it is very possible over all that the B-1B is more expensive to maintain that is part of the advantage of the B-52 it is a proven air frame and can perform nearly all the same missions.I am almost certain that it is the air frame is fairly simple on the B-52 and that cuts down maintenance costs the more complex air frame of the B-1B means much more TLC and the B-2 is another ball game all together.I have a buddy form the Air Force that was NDI(air frame inspector) he was stationed at Minot AFB one of the BUFF bases and later at Ellsworth AFB a home of the B-1B he said that they did much more work on B-1Bs in comparison to the Buffs and that the Buffs had notably less down time I also know guys that where stationed at Dyess another B-1B base and they also said that there was much down time for the Bone in comparison to any other aircraft they had worked with that should tell anyone who wonders why the DOD loves the B-52 so much it is cost effective it can be adapted it has an Atlas worthy air frame and it simply costs too much money to design a new bomber that can do the job for the same of less money.



A Bone or Buff on one mission might drop two 2,000 lb JDAMS to help some Marines in southern Afghanistan then drop a few on a target on the other side of the country and go round and round as calls come in.

@Bilge_Rat I did not say that every BUFF on a strike mission would make it back but some of them would certainly hit their targets and the Soviets lacked any good long range interceptors capable of BVR interception against a low flying aircraft until the early 80's they also could not possibly have been able to place enough AAA to cover every single route of hundreds of bombers they would have hurt us yes but we would have hit them much harder just because I do not mention every detail of our nuclear triad does not mean that I do not know about it.I can post several thousand words easily on the air war in Vietnam and SAC it has been a subject of study of mine for much of my adult life and I have written papers on the subject in college.I like to try and keep my posts simple if I can I do not feel the need to display every detail of what I might know on a given subject it just seems a little high and mighty to me but then guys like you come along

[Bilge_Rat]

you know Stealhead, this is the second time in this thread where you tried to turn this into a personal attack against my knowledge. The Vietnam Air War/Cold War is one of my favorite subjects and I have also read countless books and documents on the subject. I stand by the statements I made and I can also back them up. If you want to have a civil discussion about this fine, just leave out the snide personal comments.

[vienna]

Back in the 1970, I was driving between Los Angeles and San Francisco and I decided to take a longer, more inland route rather than using US 101. I wanted to see the smaller towns and farming communities rather than the endless parade of billboards, truckstops, etc. I stopped in a very small town I had never heard of before and whose name escapes me even now. It was one of those "one horse" sort of places where the local main road was also the Main Street. I went into the only sort of "general store" on the small business street, bought a few snacks and drinks and went outside. Suddenly there was a great roar and vibration. I stopped dead in my tracks and looked up to see the bottom of a B-52 flying very low over the rooftops, its landing gear just barely beginning to retract. It climbed, roared off to the west, banked south and disappeared out of sight. The effect was truly awesome and fear inspiring. The guy who owned the store had come out to watch the bomber pass over and he turned to me and said, "Impressive, isn't it?" He told me there was nearby military airbase and, on occasion, they would fly in and out some of the larger aircraft. Outside of seeing a Stealth bomber fly overhead in the San Fernando Valley, this was the most memorable aircraft sighting I have ever experienced...

...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

If the Chair Force is intent on keeping the BUFF's around for decades to come, I wish they'd order some new ones already. I find myself VERY skeptical about the structural integrity of an aircraft so old, that the current generation of flyboy's could be parking their asses in Grandpa's plane.

The ratio of maintenance hours to flight hours is unreal. There's a saying about airliners - "only as old as the last D Check". This applies tenfold with military aircraft. When a military aircraft is labeled obsolete it's because of advances in tech and avionics - the plane itself is maintained to a brand-new condition.


As to why they haven't re-engined the 52's with 4xRB211 as suggested back in the eighties is beyond me. Unless they just love the sound, which is a fair argument