steve%revolver@gatech.edu (08/09/89)
From: steve%revolver@gatech.edu
I have seen so much posting from radical liberal groups which insist that
none of the new bombers coming off the line during the last few years are
needed, that I feel compelled to ask some serious, challenging questions.
The B-52 has been the mainstay of the Air Force fleet for decades now. We've
probably all heard the joke: "Join the Air Force and fly the plane your father
flew," at least once. Since my knowledge of weapons is miniscule, and because
my purpose here is to get some factual information, please forgive any
naivete you might perceive in my questions.
(1) I am told that the B-52 has been upgraded continuously with respect to
avionics and electronic warfare capability since its inception - true or
false? How do these improvements compare with the electronic capabilities
of the B-1B, stealth, etc? Are there specific electronics in the B-1B
and stealth (if these facts are even known to the public) that can NOT be
placed in the B-52?
(2) All the major services are habitually favoring new equipment over old
or less fancy equipment, regardless of whether such new features actually
make the soldiers/flyer's job easier. With this in mind, is the B-52
still usable? Is the airframe itself so worn that it will have to be
replaced anyway, regardless of what new planes are coming online? How
much life have they left in them?
(3) If the B-52 is such a big radar target compared to the B-1B and Stealth
can it still be usefully employed as a cruise missile launching platform?
What are the real benefits of having a bomber that can penetrate radar
and drop BOMBS on specific targets over launching cruise missiles from a
greater distance away? In terms of usable payload, can you drop more
bombs than launch the equivalent number of cruise missiles?
[mod.note: A couple of comments here. Yes, a plane can carry more
explosive payload in bombs than in missiles; with the missiles, you
have to carry the extra weight of the airframe, guidance, engine,
and fuel, which aren't necessary in bombs. However, that's the trivial
answer: cruise missile can be launched further from the target, so
you don't need as much fuel; also, the launching craft is less likely to
encounter enemy forces, so perhaps other areas, such as electronics, can
be decreased.
Of course, manned bombers can react to changes in the target environment
in ways missile cannot. They're more resistant to certain forms of
countermeasures, such as jamming. They can report immediately on the
effectiveness of the strike.
However, I suggest an even better reason to maintained a manned,
over-the-target bombing force: redundancy. If we place all our confidence
on cruise missiles, and the enemy finds a way to effectively counter them,
we have zero capability. This is the basis of the Triad itself, and is
sound military planning. - Bill ]
I don't want this to become an arms control discussion, which is not
allowed here in any event. Assume that we've made the decision to keep the
3rd element of the triad, and that you are being asked to specify the bomber
system that will do the job for the smallest number of dollars. Make the
argument that the B-52 can or can not do the job even if retro-fitted with
new electronics/cruise missiles, etc. Please be as specific as possible, and
remember that no answers is better (to me) than the wrong answer.
**************************** DISCLAIMER *******************************
The preceding opinions or statements are solely those of the author
and should not be interpreted to represent the beliefs of any other
person, institution, government agency, or business entity. jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) (08/16/89)
From: jeffm@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff Medcalf) >From: steve%revolver@gatech.edu > >I have seen so much posting from radical liberal groups which insist that >none of the new bombers coming off the line during the last few years are >needed, that I feel compelled to ask some serious, challenging questions. It is good that you asked. Most people would have simply made a judgement without asking. >(1) I am told that the B-52 has been upgraded continuously with respect to > avionics and electronic warfare capability since its inception - true or > false? How do these improvements compare with the electronic capabilities > of the B-1B, stealth, etc? Are there specific electronics in the B-1B > and stealth (if these facts are even known to the public) that can NOT be > placed in the B-52? I am sure that there are some electronics in these aircraft that cannot be put in the B-52, although these are of course classified. The reason may not be space so much as compatability with other systems. >(2) All the major services are habitually favoring new equipment over old > or less fancy equipment, regardless of whether such new features actually > make the soldiers/flyer's job easier. With this in mind, is the B-52 > still usable? Is the airframe itself so worn that it will have to be > replaced anyway, regardless of what new planes are coming online? How > much life have they left in them? The B-52G and H are still somewhat usable, however, they will not be so for long. The B-52 tool dies are mostly gone, so many of the parts needed for replacement must be handcrafted, which is VERY expensive. Some parts cannot be replaced, and must be fixed with make-do. I would estimate that the B-52 fleet will need to be completely retired, regardless of upgrades, by 1997. > I don't want this to become an arms control discussion, which is not >allowed here in any event. Assume that we've made the decision to keep the >3rd element of the triad, and that you are being asked to specify the bomber >system that will do the job for the smallest number of dollars. Make the >argument that the B-52 can or can not do the job even if retro-fitted with >new electronics/cruise missiles, etc. Please be as specific as possible, and >remember that no answers is better (to me) than the wrong answer. The B-52 cannot do this for more than 10 years. By then, the airframes will be overstressed, impossible to repair or more expensive to repair than replace, and also easy prey to new (and old) Soviet missiles. The B-1 has problems in its electronics, but these are being worked out. The B-2 has one major problem: it costs $530 million per copy. Perhaps the best bet is a combination of modified 747's as cruise missile platforms (that's a lot of missiles), a large fleet of B-1's with the teething problems fixed and some B-2's for the stickiest penetration missions. In addition, I think a new bomber needs to be developed to handle the low-end missions, especially the conventional ones, that would be cheaper than the B-1 and B-2 and at the same time could do the job if the air defenses were not on a par with Soviet homeland.