USAF Assesses B-52H For Electronic-Attack Role

Jane's Defence Weekly | December 11, 2002 | Michael Sirak

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[hchutch]

Better idea:

Why not pull those B-52Gs, B-1Bs, and FB-111s we retired and make them the jammers?

[Poohbah]

The Gs aren't exactly supportable unless you re-engine them.

[hchutch]

Well, we also need to re-engine the H models, too. Why not give `em both the same re-engine job, and get a lower price for a bigger order? :)

[Poohbah]

The differences between the Gs and Hs aren't trivial...and there's the START treaty issue, as well.

[jriemer]

Sounds like someone's been reading "Flight of the Old Dog" by Dale Brown around the Pentagon again...

[El Gato]

Why not pull those B-52Gs, B-1Bs, and FB-111s we retired and make them the jammers?

We already retired EF-111s. B-1Bs were retired because of high maintence and operations costs (money saved is used to keep the rest flying) B-52Gs would need new engines. Why not just use some old 727s or 737s retired from airline service? They can go anywhere a BUFF can, expect down low, and an EB-52 wouldn't be doing that anyway. I think we need all the -Hs models to remain bomb droppers. The coming conflagration may prove their numbers insufficient as it is.

[hchutch]

START treaty issues?

They are electronic-warfare aircraft. Last I checked, that type of aircraft was not a part of the START treaty. Furthermore, START only applies to nuclear-capable bombers. I don't think an EB-52G would have the proper certifications for nuclear weapons, would it?

*pauses*

Okay, I admit it, I'm looking for some loopholes in the treaty. :)

[hchutch]

It would not be a bad idea to start producing more B-1s and B-2s.

[Poohbah]

They are electronic-warfare aircraft. Last I checked, that type of aircraft was not a part of the START treaty. Furthermore, START only applies to nuclear-capable bombers. I don't think an EB-52G would have the proper certifications for nuclear weapons, would it?

Can you hang a nuke inside the bomb bay?

Okay, I admit it, I'm looking for some loopholes in the treaty. :)

Good grief, man, I thought you were taking English lessons from Bill Clinton ("now this is where we determine the meaning of 'is' in this particular context").

[hchutch]

"Can you hang a nuke inside the bomb bay?"

Not without removing the TALDs - and the wing racks are needed for HARMs or modified ACMs (we installed a HARM seeker and a 750-pound conventional warhead on `em). ;)

"Good grief, man, I thought you were taking English lessons from Bill Clinton ("now this is where we determine the meaning of 'is' in this particular context")."

Hey, there's a difference here: I'm looking for a loophole in an arms control treaty so we can maximize national security. Clinton was trying to duck responsibility for the fact that he couldn't refrain from getting it on with an intern in the Oval Office.

As I said earlier, the treaty does not seem to preclude converting B-52Gs into EW platforms. Kinda like Cap Weinburger calling the device used to power the X-ray laser a generator (Colin Powell's memoirs tell that story).

[Poohbah]

Kinda like Cap Weinburger calling the device used to power the X-ray laser a generator (Colin Powell's memoirs tell that story).

To quote Abe Lincoln, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

[Poohbah]

Seriously--weaseling on START is not going to make Mr. Putin's job any easier, and making his job harder will not endear us to him.

[Paleo Conservative]

Why not just use some old 727s or 737s retired from airline service?

For the same reason they aren't still flying on 727s and 737s. They are much less efficient than new engines and require lots of maintenance. It would be better to lease new engines bundled with maintenance contracts if the DOD can't find the cash to buy them.

[Paleo Conservative]

Also instead of eight engines Boeing could install four engines. The efficiency improvements would pay for re-engining, because fewer tankers would need to fly to refuel them.

[ArrogantBustard]

Many of them were taken out into the desert and chopped up.

[hchutch]

Crap.

Not good news...

[Paleo Conservative]

I know all the D and F models were chopped up, but how many of the G models?

[Paleo Conservative]

Nothing prior to the G models were worth keeping.