• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The BONE headed to the boneyard?

Time Article said:
Even if the Air Force decides to retire the fleet, Congress gets the last word. Lawmakers count on the planes to generate jobs back home.
Click to expand...


Wait, wait wait wait... So even if the AF says that they don't need it anymore, and want to be able to save the money/spend it elsewhere, Congress can decide to keep the airplane because it keeps people employed? Wow...
 
I remember hearing a story that Rockwell, in order to revive the program after the Carter administration, arranged for a piece of the BONE to be manufactured or supplied in all 50 states.
 
As cool of a plane as it is, I don't exactly see why they need it. I guess it makes sense to retire it and use the cheaper solution to putting bombs on target.
 
jtmedli said:
As cool of a plane as it is, I don't exactly see why they need it. I guess it makes sense to retire it and use the cheaper solution to putting bombs on target.
Click to expand...

B-52 is much older, less maneuverability/speed and needs to focus on the nuke mission. B-2 is much more expensive and a national asset in short supply. When taken as cost/weapon dropped the B-1 actually has one of the lower costs (6-9 hours of loiter time and 24 JDAMs=8-ship of F-16s plus a lot of tankers).
 
They had a Bone here at NAS Kingsville for the airshow this past summer. While it's aging and costs a lot to fly and maintain, it looked simply awesome. Sleek lines for such a large aircraft. Truly impressive to see for real vice through a computer monitor.
 
magnetfreezer said:
B-52 is much older, less maneuverability/speed and needs to focus on the nuke mission. B-2 is much more expensive and a national asset in short supply. When taken as cost/weapon dropped the B-1 actually has one of the lower costs (6-9 hours of loiter time and 24 JDAMs=8-ship of F-16s plus a lot of tankers).
Click to expand...

This is my take on the B-1 as well; given the similarity in payload capacity between the B-1 and the B-52, I would have figured the B-1 would be given preference over the B-52. JMHO.
 
Here is a pic I took of the B-1 at Kingsville down past marshal. Forget how many bombs it can hold, but it had three huge bays that use multiple rotary launchers to drop ordinance. Bad ass.
B-1.jpg
 
magnetfreezer said:
B-52 is much older, less maneuverability/speed and needs to focus on the nuke mission. B-2 is much more expensive and a national asset in short supply. When taken as cost/weapon dropped the B-1 actually has one of the lower costs (6-9 hours of loiter time and 24 JDAMs=8-ship of F-16s plus a lot of tankers).
Click to expand...

I'm no anthropologist, but it seems giving the bombing missions to the bombers (B-52), not the fighters (F-16), would be more cost effective.
 
Pepe said:
I'm no anthropologist, but it seems giving the bombing missions to the bombers (B-52), not the fighters (F-16), would be more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Depends on what threat you're sending them in to. Once you own the airspace the BUFF/BONE combo makes a lot of sense. First night into Iraq / Kosovo or anyone else with a decent IADS not so much. That's what the B-2 is for.
 
Saw one taxiing out at Al Udeid today - even thru the shimmering heat, it's a mean looking aircraft! I find the proposal very credible - after all, the AF has mortgaged just about every other platform in their inventory for the F-22, so why not sacrifice a few more? Park them next to the EF-111s at Davis-Monthan...
 
A Bone driver in the VT's used to recall the horrendous FMC rate and certain propensity to go through motors. Great stories of having to tap the burners when tanking under certain conditions.
I'm under the impression many Bone's were mothballed only to be brought back out some years ago.
 
magnetfreezer said:
B-52 is much older, less maneuverability/speed and needs to focus on the nuke mission. B-2 is much more expensive and a national asset in short supply. When taken as cost/weapon dropped the B-1 actually has one of the lower costs (6-9 hours of loiter time and 24 JDAMs=8-ship of F-16s plus a lot of tankers).
Click to expand...

The B-1 may be faster but with it's size and where it operates it wold present a huge target for any credible IADS, not much different than the B-52. As for you assertion that the B-1 is cheaper I seriously doubt it if you look at the total maintenance and other unique lifecycle costs coupled with it's atrocious mission availability that it is cheaper. Plus, the F-16 can fight back while the B-1 can only turn and run.

ozyran said:
This is my take on the B-1 as well; given the similarity in payload capacity between the B-1 and the B-52, I would have figured the B-1 would be given preference over the B-52. JMHO.
Click to expand...

The B-52 has almost twice the availability for half the cost as well as the flexibility of the nuke mission, not a very hard choice at all.

Pepe said:
I'm no anthropologist, but it seems giving the bombing missions to the bombers (B-52), not the fighters (F-16), would be more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Depends on how much it costs to get a bomber in the air and keep it in the fleet and the B-1's are pretty expensive.

Hozer said:
I'm under the impression many Bone's were mothballed only to be brought back out some years ago.
Click to expand...

They mothballed 1/3 of the 99/100 aircraft fleet a few years ago, they might have pulled out one or two to replace the ones they have lost but the rest are still in the boneyard.

FlyinSpy said:
Saw one taxiing out at Al Udeid today - even thru the shimmering heat, it's a mean looking aircraft! I find the proposal very credible - after all, the AF has mortgaged just about every other platform in their inventory for the F-22, so why not sacrifice a few more? Park them next to the EF-111s at Davis-Monthan...
Click to expand...

I thought the Intruder and Prowler proved that looks aren't everything. ;) And it's not the F-22 anymore, it's the F-35 now!
 
Flash said:
Plus, the F-16 can fight back while the B-1 can only turn and run.
Click to expand...

Given that the B-52 is cheaper to operate and only has that option in a fight, I do agree that it makes sense to keep it. My only concern, though, is overall platform age. While the B-52 has done a great job during its time in service, my question would be if the Stratofortress has seen any new replacements in the heavy squadrons in recent history vice airframe refreshing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top