Eli5 why does the US still use a bomber from the 1950s when they have built two newer ones since then?
In: 7
The B 52 is huge and has the capacity to fly very high and carry an ungodly payload of ordnance. Everything from stand off long range missles to Jdam and other more conventional dropped ordinance. Its a beast, that can loiter in fhe area and absolutely bring the death when needed. It has been thru a lot of upgrades thru out its life and is still viable on the modern battlefield.
Right tool for the right job. B52 carries the payload, does the job and we already have a billion parts for it. It’s been refitted with new stuff for ages now, and it works just fine. That being said, most jobs call for a strike aircraft like the F35 nowadays so we don’t use b52s for anything other than nuclear deterrence
The B1 was originally designed to be a Supersonic bomber, and then was modified mid-design to penetrate Soviet air defense at very low altitudes where there wasn’t any radar coverage.
The B1 project was then scaled back due to costs and changes in tactics (low altitude attack was no longer practical after the Soviets changed their air defenses)
The B2 famously doesn’t show up on radar making it a better tactical bomber. The problem is the aircraft was ungodly expensive and the Soviet Union collapsed so it was no longer considered a priority.
The B-52 meanwhile was built in absurd numbers, many of the airframes had relatively few hours on them, and they cost very little to operate (compared to alternatives)
So the Air Force has continued to extend it’s service life because they don’t have any other aircraft that can do what it does, as cheaply, and in such high numbers.
You use the B2’s on day one of a war, and once the air defenses are smashed why risk a 2 billion dollar airplane that they won’t even let land outside the US?
The same is now becoming true for the F-16 and F-15 as the US Air Force is buying newer versions because the F-22s and F-35s are too expensive to buy and operate. So in order to maintain the Air Force at it’s present size, and also to try to keep operational costs under control the Air Force is having to operate A-team aircraft and B-team aircraft
Congress and the Air Force meanwhile are too stubborn with regards to high cost Stealth Aircraft, so there hasn’t been any practical proposals to replace the B-52 with another low cost ‘workhorse’ bomber platform.
Many have argued that a modified 737 would be more that adequate
Even though there are more newer strategic bombers then the B-52 none of them have the same range, fuel efficiency and bomb capacity. In addition the B-52 is much cheaper, both to buy and operate. So the US still have a lot of B-52s and fly them very often. Especially for modern combats where the bombers have to circle over the target location gathering intelligence on the target and waiting for the right time to strike there are no other good alternatives.
The newer bombers were built to fill areas of combat where the B-52 were lacking. So they were designed to do different things. Instead of designing new bombers the US have been upgrading the B-52. If there were to be a new design to replace the B-52 it would probably be very similar to the existing design so why do this? It should be noted that the B-52 today have received a lot of upgrades since its launch. All of the old 50s technology have been replaced. It is no longer the dumb strategic bomber it was designed as but rather a modern combat platform with all the technology you would expect from an aircraft straight off the production line today.
The basic airframe still works. The equipment and engines can be upgraded over time considerably cheaper than designing and building a brand new aircraft, so that’s what they do. Bombers nowadays have advanced equipment and radar and carry advanced weapons with new engines and it’s really just the airframe that holds it all together that’s old, but it’s reliable and we have multiple generations of people that know how to service them.
In short because the B-52 still works and it’s already paid for. New B-1s and B-2s are expensive.
For the same reason that the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are still flying after we have developed and fielded the F-22 and F-35. We already have a lot of them. They have a lot of life left. They’re cheaper to operate. Most missions don’t require the special characteristics and capabilities of more advanced aircraft. The newer aircraft are impressive in many respects, but severely lacking in others (range and payload capacities of the stealthy aircraft, due to internal weapons and lack of external fuel tanks, for example)
There’s just no reason to get rid of them.
They have been stripped down many many many times. See YouTube. Many good videos on this.
B-52 just does it’s mission-set so well. There is no need to R&D a whole new heavy bomber fleet… wasted money, when we can just iterate and upgrade the internals/tech on the reliable workhorse.
We’ve made plenty other, much newer bombers. So many, actually. But just on the short list, we’ve since made the B-1, fast strategic bomber. We’ve made the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. But both of those are for a different mission set entirely. They don’t do what the B-52 does, at the same scale. And the B-52 can’t fly as fast and is the opposite of stealthy.
Then you get into the plethora of fighter/bombers and strike craft and CAS….
The B-52 fits into the whole toolbox of aircraft. Why burn money needlessly functionally the same type of craft and oldschool Cold War era mission set? That money is DESPARATELY needed for the new NGAD, stealth drones to wingman the F-35, and hypersonics…
Once the B-52 mission set is obsolete, they’ll retire it, or more likely they’ll repurpose it. I could see them tossing a “rapid dragon” type system into the B-52 and making them drone or missile carriers for dozens or hundreds of assets.
The coming round of engine updates for the B52 will see it in service for 100 years.
Amazing.
Latest Answers