|
USAF outlines plans for upgraded B-52
|
To provide context to the link ...
As the U.S. Air Force moves closer to starting a major re-engining program for its B-52H Stratofortresses, it is reportedly considering adding in additional upgrades to ensure the bombers will remain combat capable through at least 2050. These updates could include improvements to the iconic plane’s avionics, defensive suite, sensors, ejection systems, and flight data recorder, with the resulting aircraft receiving the new designation B-52J. |
Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?
|
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10235433)
Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?
|
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10235433)
Just how long could the Vulcan have been eaked out for?
|
21 x 1000 lb? |
Might even be the first aircraft to run out of alphabet.
|
Try the Huey/Cobra...
UH-1A to AH-1Z |
Originally Posted by EricsLad
(Post 10235697)
Might even be the first aircraft to run out of alphabet.
-RP |
Buster
Originally Posted by Buster15
(Post 10235586)
Why would we need to have 'eaked out' the Vulcan??? and for what purpose I wonder.
It had upgraded engines with reheat, increased crew and crewspace, an extended fuselage, and ejection seats for everyone! With the demise of the Skybolt program, it never saw the light of day. |
One reason for the longevity of the B-52 was its ubiquity as a bomb truck during the Vietnam war and, much later, during GW I, at whilst stage the addition of PGMs has continued to show its value to the USAF in operations where a long range/endurance is of benefit. Additionally it’s design makes upgrades and refurbishment economic - unlike the B-1, whose centrebody and wing is, apparently, a nightmare to work on and impossible to replace. The Vulcan structure, especially the wing, I am led to believe, would also have been a nightmare to refurbish - and the Vulcan fleet in total only ever dropped a single 1000lb bomb on a target in anger*. (* Yes, I know, the string was dropped diagonally so only 1 or 2 were supposed to hit the runway - and one if the Dhrikes hit the TPS-43 generator. But a bit of hyperbole for effect...) |
If it ends up looking like this, Dale Brown could make a mint in copyright.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...142b58cf88.jpg |
ORAC and the Vulcan fleet in total only ever dropped a single 1000lb bomb on a target in anger*. |
Sad, but true. once the RN took over the deterrent it was a fleet looking for a role. They were totally OTT doing oil field/rig surveillance, never more than a stop gap as a tanker. It was a magnificent aircraft - but there was never any possibility of it staying in service in the way the B-52 did. |
Sad, but true. once the RN took over the deterrent it was a fleet looking for a role. Some people have no idea that the Vulcan remained in the low-level nuclear role with assigned targets into the 1980s. Funding priority was elsewhere, however. Most ECM equipment was uselessly obsolete, fatigue mitigating policies hampered training (as was also the case with the F-4). By the time of the South Atlantic war, most aircrew capable of being retrained for other roles had long since left the Vulcan force. The AAR systems hadn't been used for years, neither had crews trained to drop weapons except at low level. As the RAF didn't have any non-nuclear anti-runway weapons which could be carried by the Vulcan, the only option was medium level dumb bombing with the only self protection afforded being provided by borrowed ECM pods and smart operators. Apart from the so-called I-band jammer (or missile magnet as I termed it when I found out how useless it was against Home-on-Jam attacks a few years later), there had been no thoughts given to Vulcan upgrades for well over 12 years after the RN took over the detergent... Had the Vulcan been refurbished and upgraded after 1982, to cope with the sort of threat again but from elsewhere, I'm sure that it would have given a good account of itself. Just as the Buff did! |
It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials.
PDR |
It wasn't that the AAR system "hadn't been used for years" - it had never been cleared for use because the original trials suggested AAR with a Vulcan was just to challenging for the pilot. So while the provisions were there in the airframes the capability had never been used for anything but trials. I do remember one Vulcan tanker trial when, IIRC, the receiver called a mayday with a multiple engine flameout after something went wrong and there was a large fuel spill into the intakes. Managed a relight though. p.s. Surplus, I don't think Dale Brown should sit my the mailbox waiting for any checks - the engine upgrade will replace 8 engines with 8 modern biz-jet type engines to limit the changes required. |
Buster15,
Did the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again completely pass you by? Seriously though, I guess for exactly the same reason that the USAF decided to 'eak out' an even older airframe when they also had in service B-1's, B-2's and a large force of other Tornado like strike attack assets. As some above have said, the ability to carry 21 x 1,000lb's or equivalents a long way, a bomb bay and pylons stuffed with LGB would have been extremely useful in various Gulf escapades, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, the list goes on and on. Add to that it's ability to act as an AAR asset as it dod for a few years, I remember a conversation with a 1 Grp AAR planner about the Vulcan tanker, expecting him to diss it. His remark? "if the VC10 or Victor fleet could give me the same availability I would be delighted!" |
I would presume the number of B52s built vice the number of Vulcans also has something to do with its longevity as opposed to the Vulcans.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:00. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.