Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: New B-52s? Message-ID: <1991Feb4.050136.11972@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 05:01:36 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 48 Approved: military@att.att.com From: greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) I've a crazy notion, but I've not seen it discussed before. It goes something like this: The B-52 is a rather well-proven design, having been used in at least two major U.S. wars (Vietnam and Iraq). In both cases, the bomber has been extremely effective and suffered little. Today's 30 year old G and H versions are expected to be used well into the year 2000. (I could be wrong about the G - is it retired?) Most of the concerns around B-52 longevity is centered around airframe life, not viability on tomorrow's battlefield. B-52s were successfully modified for low-level bombing and retain a high-alititude capability, as is used currently in Iraq. The only serious production alternative to the B-52 is the B-1B. The B-2 is too far away and too expensive. However, the B-1B is more complex (does it retain the swing-wing of the B-1?) and has been plagued with reliability problems. Is the B-1B capable of carrying external stores like the B-52? The B-1B is subsonic, like the B-52 (although I know the original B-1 was supersonic). What would reviving the B-52 production line involve? Does the tooling still exist? I would think that a "modern" B-52 might have a significant cost advantage over the B-1B and, of course, the B-2. It should be trivial to replace the eight-engine configuration with a more modern configuration of four high-bypass engines. I would think the fuel and weight savings of such a modified "new" B-52 would make it very attractive. My copy of Jane's lists the gross weight of the B-1 (not B-1B) as around 400,000lbs, whereas the B-52 is around 500,000lbs. Does the B-1B have a greater bomb capacity than the B-52? Would deletion of 4 of the B-52s engines make up for the deficit? The military must have vast amounts of knowledge about the B-52, versus little about the B-1B. Little crew re-training would be involved in the deployment of "new" B-52s, versus quite a bit for the B-1B and even more for the B-2. Am I blowing smoke or is this something the Pentagon just does not want to hear about? -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications Disclaimer: I heart hate email.