7 ms·
The New York Times tries to play up the issues of the (indeed, terrible) American military procurement system, but I think there's something else going on. The
by azernik 11y ago
The New York Times tries to play up the issues of the (indeed, terrible) American military procurement system, but I think there's something else going on. The B-52's Soviet equivalent, the Tu-95 (turboprop-powered, even!) is also still flying!
Part of the cause is that big bombers with enormous payload capacity and long range can always be adapted to new missions and tactics - there's always something you can do with an extra few tens of tons of ordnance.
Where the US military-industrial complex has fallen down on the job is that the physical airframes are still from the original production run. While the USAF always thought its new and different (first supersonic, then stealth) bomber designs would allow it to retire the B-52, the Soviets kept building new variants and retiring old airframes. So while American B-52s have been heroically kept operating since the 50s and 60s, Russian Air Force Tu-95s were all built in the 80s and early 90s with assorted design improvements and new avionics.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> So while American B-52s have been heroically kept operating since the 50s and 60s, Russian Air Force Tu-95s were all built in the 80s and early 90s with assorted design improvements and new avionics. I'd expect modern B-52s are mostly Ships of Theseus and that little of the original avionics, wiring, metal, etc. still exist.
- mikeash 11y agoWiring and avionics and such, yes, but the structure is still original. This matters because of metal fatigue, which means that the structure is getting worse by the year.
- sokoloff 11y agoSemi-modern inspection techniques (eddy current inspection) and X-ray inspection can detect hidden defects and cracks and aluminum airframes are fairly readily repairable. I wouldn't expect that metal fatigue will prove to be an impediment to the B-52's ability to continue to deliver ordinance.
- rdtsc 11y agoIt would seem to me that if they didn't have fancy CAE (Computer Aided Engineering) and CAD packages to precisely calculate tollerances they would over-estimate and overbuild to be on the safe side. Perhaps as a positive side-effect is that those frame would last longer because of that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThe B-52 airframes have long been planned to be in use for 95 years when they're finally retired. I wish I could find an image but I distinctly remember a publication from the 80's that showed a chart of the all aircraft in use from their first year of entering service to the projected EOL. The B-52 was a notable outlier in how long it was going to be kept in service. I always assumed it was an extended life test for the USAF. They are also insurance against a cataclysmic event that makes modern technology hard to maintain.
- radiowave 11y agoThe B-52 was intended to carry out the airborne nuclear deterrent role, and therefore accrue a colossal number of flying hours. But of course after about 1992 they stopped flying quite so much.
- ekianjo 11y agoIf I remember correctly, nuclear deterrence with planes flying 24/7 in the skies was still a thing until the early 2000s. It took a long time for the Air Force to scale down that role.
- CompelTechnic 11y agoThankfully, our fleet of submarines makes sure that the threat of nuclear apocalypse remains imminent.
- ekianjo 11y agoAnd ICBMs, too. I prefer the idea of submarines, though. There were several cases of very serious incidents involving planes losing control and crashing while carrying nukes, at least with submarines the collateral risk on population is much less.
- niij 11y agoYummy radioactive ocean water!
- cstross 11y agoYup: the Russian Tu-95 fleet (over 60 flying airframes) is currently undergoing modernization (upgraded navigation and weapons systems, including newer nuclear-warheaded cruise missiles) and is expected to stay in service until 2025 or later: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151121/1030508547/tu-95-bomber-upgrade.html http://sputniknews.com/military/20151121/1030508547/tu-95-bo... (They're trying to restart production of the Tu-160 -- the world's biggest, fastest bomber ever to enter service: a bit larger than a B52 but with supersonic dash capability -- but having real trouble with the engines; my money is on the Tu-95 sticking around at least as long as the B52, for exactly the same reason.)
- yareally 11y agoEh, the Tu-160 looks like a faster clone of the B-1 Bomber. The B-1 was supposed to replace the B-52, but proved to be much more expensive and nowhere as versatile. Guessing Russia is going to find out it's also not a practical replacement for the the Tu-95 as the US did with the B-1.
- antubbs 11y agoPretty much. The B-1 was designed for a role (low altitude nape of the earth bombing) that was obsolete before they worked out the bugs in the jet (Russian interceptor and fighter aircraft got look-down shoot-down capability). The B-1 was kept alive because of its electronic warfare capabilities, but efficiency of the bomb trucks matter more than high-speed delivery in a hostile radar environment these days.
- rjsw 11y agoThe B-1 makes a pretty good bomb truck itself, it can carry a bigger payload than the B-52.
- antubbs 11y agoThere have never been very many operational Tu-160 bombers in service. The Tu-160 is focused on the standoff weapon role, and is ideally meant to delivering tactical ordinance while enemy air defense is still in effect. Standoff weapons are expensive, even compared to "smart" conventional weapons. Tu-95 is a big dumb bomber much in the way the B-52 is; since it also has/is getting the standoff capability, it's hard to argue the purpose of the Tu-160. A lot of the newer bombers were built with the nuclear role in mind; in reality the world went in the direction of smart conventional weapons instead. For that role, aircraft like the Tu-95 and BUFF are more ideal, as they can just act as a large "bomb truck" and drop a large quantity of guided conventional munitions very efficiently once air defenses are suppressed.
- Shivetya 11y agothrow in that the enemies it is used against aren't first rate and the stand off ability with cruise missiles and why wouldn't it have a place?
- mangeletti 11y agoIndeed! I've often wondered why, for instance, we don't build brand new A-10 Warthogs. They provide the best close air support in perhaps the entire history of military aviation worldwide (great range, extremely resilient to small arms fire, low altitude / low speed capabilities, etc.). Instead, the Marines Corps scrambles (no pun intended) to find a replacement after realizing that the JSF program wasn't real (it turns out that the F-35 will bankrupt the Milky Way Galaxy before being finished, not to mention it has too much wing loading to provide adequate close air support). Yet, the wonderfully designed A-10 Warthog languishes in military relic status. Why not make new copies these greats, with any of the little kinks worked out?
- MrBuddyCasino 11y agoThe A-10 is not a plane that will be useful for long. It is great against rebels with kalashnikows, but it is far too vulnerable to rockets. In 10-20 years, manpads will be commonplace, and the A-10 will be an easy target. Its a great plane, and the JSF is shit, but we need a different solution going forward.
- dsfyu404ed 11y agoThe A-10 was meant to go head to head with Soviet armored divisions. It's built to be hard to take out with a rocket which is what makes it so great for CAS. MANPADS have been common for a very long time. The Mujaheddin used them with great success.
- swang 11y ago1. Manpads are already pretty common 2. A-10 has both jamming and flare countermeasures against infrared. 3. Anything terrorist groups can acquire are probably going to be infrared MANPADs. My guess is ISIL would probably have acquired MANPADs from the large cache of SA-7 MANPADs Gaddafi stocked, meaning they're all likely infrared MANPADs. A-10s are not invulnerable against MANPADs, but they're not helpless against them either. In fact, one of the biggest reasons the air force hated the A-10 was because it was "too slow" and could be "easily" hit by a SA-7
- caf 11y agoYes, compare it to the C-130 which entered service around the same time as the B-52 - it's been revised many times over the years, up to the J model.