Should the Vulcan have been replaced

[Seawitch]

So do we need a V-Bomber? No, not really.

I know we don't, I said replaced, not renewed.
I wonder if you read the first post here?
This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go, I'm wishing I never bothered starting it.

 

[beaupower32]

I think I know what your saying seawitch. You are wondering if England needs a long range heavy bomber after the fact that they retired the Vulcan. Does England need one, probably not. They have the Tornado which is a good little low level penatrator aircraft, and with the precision of todays weapons, there really is no need for a heavy bomber.

The U.S. has 3 heavy bombers the B-1, B-2, and B-52. The B-1 has been hit and miss (more like miss) ever since the program has been started. The B-2 is a great platform, but is very expensive (although it does have the heavest bomb load of the 3). The B-52 is a proven aircraft that has completed the mission time and time again. Yeah she is old, but with upgrades she is keeping pace with the B-1 and B-2. They are using parts off the B-52's at Davis-Monthan AMARC center.

Again, I think England doesnt need a heavy bomber. I dont know much about the aircraft that are in service there (other than the tornado). Eventually, we will fase out all our heavy bombers, as drones will take the place of them. Its just a matter of time.

 

[Colin1]

This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go

I wonder if you read the first post here?

Rhubarb
the thread consists solely of points for and against a new heavy bomber for the RAF.

I wonder if you've read the posts subsequent to the first one?

 

[red admiral]

There isn't the same need for a long range aircraft any more. Last month, four Typhoons deployed to the Falklands from the UK non-stop with tanker support. Just one of those aircraft has greater capability than the Black Buck Vulcan because the weapons _will_ hit the target. There's no need to drop lots of weapons when you can actually hit accurately.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Was I saying any different? Point is this time al that accuracy didn't help, blow the wrong person of his bog seat and your in the sh*t!
OK...nobody agrees there will ever be a need to deliver a large amount of ordnance again.

You do not need a large bomber to deliver a large amount of ordinance. Have you been reading anything anyone has said? We are not in 1944 anymore. You do not need a thousand bomber formation to destroy your enemy. Precision weapons and modern attack aircraft and weapons have negated that.

I know we don't, I said replaced, not renewed.
I wonder if you read the first post here?
This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go, I'm wishing I never bothered starting it.

1. There is no need to get your panties into a bunch here. You obviously do not like the fact that people do not agree with you. I have news for you....

That is life! This is a forum where people will discuss things, not everyone is going to have the same views. That is what people do in forums, discuss there different ideas and views on different topics. If you do not like that, then maybe a forum is not the right thing for you.

Again don't get bent out of shape and rude because others have a different view than you.

On a side note however, everyone is correct about the fact that there is no need for a large bomber force any more. Just look at how the major wars have been fought in the last 20 years and you will.

2. This thread is not off topic. It is just not what you wanted to hear. Tough, that is life! Every post here in this thread has been discussing the topic that you started. Have you actually been reading the posts?

There isn't the same need for a long range aircraft any more. Last month, four Typhoons deployed to the Falklands from the UK non-stop with tanker support. Just one of those aircraft has greater capability than the Black Buck Vulcan because the weapons _will_ hit the target. There's no need to drop lots of weapons when you can actually hit accurately.

There it is again. That is the main reason and the whole reason why.

 

[Seawitch]

Thanks for your answer Beaupower, it made good reading and got to the point, without trying to wreck someones day!

 

[Colin1]

...without trying to wreck someones day

Have you considered the possibility that you might be a little fragile for normal forum activity?

Everyone who posted in this thread 'knew what you were thinking' - they just didn't agree with you.
Get over yourself

 

[beaupower32]

Thanks for your answer Beaupower, it made good reading and got to the point, without trying to wreck someones day!

No problem, but what you have to realize is that in todays age and time, the heavy bomber final days are comming to a end. You can send in a small force of F-15's, A-10's, Tornado's and do the same amount of damage one heavy bomber can do just dropping tons of ord. The precision of todays weapons is increadable. They can go through a window, give the guy a hair cut, then blow his ass out the window it came through. But like I said before, drones will most likey take the place of alot of military aircraft (especially heavy bombers), its just a matter of time.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I think that the B-52 is useful in the COIN role. The ability to endure over the target in long slow circles as very high altitude is valuable when most of our aircraft have very short endurance. It could be used to drop cheap GPS guided bombs to provide fire support to pinned down troops or strike predetermined targets prior to an assault with no need to turn around and leave as soon as they were dropped off.

 

[red admiral]

The B-52's persistence is definitely useful, but given the large tanker support available, similar possibilities exist even for short range aircraft like Harrier. The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier. The typical strike is for 2xPWIV to hit the target from altitude whilst the wingman is at lower level ready with CRV rockets in case the target survives. All the B-52 can do is drop bombs from high altitude, I'm not sure whether it currently carries Sniper or Litening pods.

At the same time, most missions (about 90%) do not have weapons release so the B-52 becomes a really expensive rec platform. The large crew costs, fuel costs, maintenance and basing costs pretty much rule out the B-52. If persistence is needed, use Reaper.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-52's persistence is definitely useful, but given the large tanker support available, similar possibilities exist even for short range aircraft like Harrier. The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier.

I think you better check your sources......

 

[Messy1]

I thought the B52 is capable carrying almost any armament used in US arsenal, through continuous upgrades and additions. Which is the primary reason it has outlasted every other bomber in history for service length, because it has responded so well to upgrades over the years. I think it is scheduled to be in service until the middle part of this century. Definitely helps keep the cost down when you use the same airframe for 50,60, or 70 years.

 

[red admiral]

I think you better check your sources......

My point is that a standard strike is 2xPWIV or JDAM (even which is overkill in most situations). The other bombs the B-52 can carry basically act as deadweight given the paucity of targets.

 

[evangilder]

Uh, the B-52 can carry a huge variety of weapons:

NUCLEAR
20 ALCM
12 SRAM [ext]
12 ACM [ext]
2 B53 [int]
8 B-61 Mod11 [int]
8 B-83 [int]


CONVENTIONAL
51 CBU-52 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-58 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-71 (27 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 87 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 89 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 97 (6 int, 18 ext)
51 M117
18 Mk 20 (ext)
51 Mk 36
8 Mk 41
12 Mk 52
8 Mk 55
8 Mk 56
51 Mk 59
8 Mk 60 (CapTor)
51 Mk. 62
8 Mk. 64
8 Mk 65
51 MK 82
18 MK 84 (ext)


PRECISION
18 JDAM (12 ext)
30 WCMD (16 ext)
8 AGM-84 Harpoon
20 AGM-86C CALCM
8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext]
18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext)
12 AGM-158 JASSSM [ext]
12 TSSAM

 

[evangilder]

Also:
Additional capabilities
· AN/ALQ-117 PAVE MINT active countermeasures set
· AN/ALQ-122 false target generator [Motorola]
· AN/ALQ-153 tail warning set [Northrop Grumman]
· AN/ALQ-155 jammer Power Management System [Northrop Grumman]
· AN/ALQ-172(V)2 electronic countermeasures system [ITT]
· AN/ALR-20A Panoramic countermeasures radar warning receiver
· AN/ALR-46 digital warning receiver [Litton]
· AN/ALT-32 noise jammer
· 12 AN/ALE-20 infra-red flare dispensers
· 6 AN/ALE-24 chaff dispensers

Systems
· AN/ANS-136 Inertial Navigation Set
· AN/APN-224 Radar Altimeter
· AN/ASN-134 Heading Reference
· AN/APQ-156 Strategic Radar
· AN/ASQ-175 Control Display Set
· AN/AYK-17 Digital Data Display
· AN/AYQ-10 Ballistics Computer
· AN/AAQ-6 FLIR Electro-optical viewing system
· AN/AVQ-22 Low-light TV Electro-optical viewing system
· AN/ARC-210 VHF/UHF communications
· AN/ARC-310 HF radio communications

 

[Matt308]

The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier. .

It is my solemn duty to ensure that will go down in the Forum Archives.

 

[Messy1]

Impressive picture.

 

[red admiral]

It is my solemn duty to ensure that will go down in the Forum Archives.

I think it's fairly obvious I didn't mean that a Harrier and a B-52 can literally carry the same load. It's simply that the B-52's ability to carry a greater load is irrelevant. Is that difficult to understand?

Standard operating procedure is to drop two guided bombs from high altitude, which will destroy pretty much any target. For targets in a built up area just one weapon is used. Given the paucity of targets it is unusual for weapons to actually be expended. Hence it makes no sense to carry lots of bombs as they're just deadweight.

The B-52 would be great if you needed to indiscriminately carpet bomb large swathes of Iraq and Afghanistan but that isn't going to happen when you've got point targets and a need to avoid collateral damage.

 

[CharlesBronson]

B-52 for COIN missions ?, god damn...that would be expensive.

 

[Matt308]

How did we get strategic assets cornerned into anti-IED operations.