Boeing wins a $2 Billion contract for the B-52

[Masherbrum]

The B-52 will get fitted with Rolls‑Royce F‑130 engines and they're starting with two test aircraft.   The two test aircraft will also receive upgrades to power generation and distribution, hydraulic and pneumatic systems, cockpit controls, displays, flight avionics and onboard engine start capabilities.

https://www.boeing.com/features/2026/1/boeing-wins--2b-award-to-modernize-the-b-52

[Eagler]

Hmm seems like investing in yesterday's technology..

But we better do something to keep our dollar using allies in line..

Eagler

[hazmatt]

Not sure putting new engines in a 70 year old air frame is the best use of those tax payer dollars. The government does what it wants and I think they decided a while ago that we work for them instead of they work for us. I doubt it would survive very long against a peer or near peer adversary even with new engines.

[LilMak]

Doesn’t seem so bad when a single B-2 costs about the same amount. B-52’s mission is based on logistics and the US having air superiority. As long as we maintain that superiority, it doesn’t matter what system delivers the hurt. C-130, A-10, F-16 and many others are all old airframes as well. But they still excel at their designed roles. Again…provided we own the skies.

I do get concerned as I watch the proliferation of drones as the modern weapon of choice. It seems there may be a shift in how combat will be executed in the future. Specifically swarms of small, cheap, self-destructive, semi-autonomous things running around may be more effective than entire air forces.

[Eagler]

How do we know we own the skies when that has not been tested lately...I don't believe it just because the latest talking heads says so..

Hypersonic anti aircraft missiles would take out b52s with np but if we can take those out 1st they might have a chance..

Drones did a heck of a job on russian bombers as they laid on the ground..do you not think that is possible at our b52 bases..

I don't have the confidence they go with what's best as much as what puts the most $$$ in their and their buddies pockets one way or another..

Eagler

[hazmatt]

Doesn’t seem so bad when a single B-2 costs about the same amount. B-52’s mission is based on logistics and the US having air superiority. As long as we maintain that superiority, it doesn’t matter what system delivers the hurt. C-130, A-10, F-16 and many others are all old airframes as well. But they still excel at their designed roles. Again…provided we own the skies.

I do get concerned as I watch the proliferation of drones as the modern weapon of choice. It seems there may be a shift in how combat will be executed in the future. Specifically swarms of small, cheap, self-destructive, semi-autonomous things running around may be more effective than entire air forces.

My concern is that it seems tough to "own the sky" when SAMS like the S400 can engage targets like the B52 at 250 miles and the S500 at closer to a 400 mile range. Heck a Buk‑M3 mobile system (which is going on 50 years old) could hit one at approaching 50 miles distance.

I guess if it's used as a standoff missle platform it could be useful.

[Spikes]

B-52s or any large airplane would not be going anywhere near SAM sites if they were active.

[hazmatt]

B-52s or any large airplane would not be going anywhere near SAM sites if they were active.

That doesn't make sense on the modern battlefield with mobile systems like the Buk‑M3 mobile system  and the S‑300V4 mobile systems. These things could be parked in a barn, hidden in a tunnel, hidden under some trees... The only option to avoid these systems would be to keep the planes out of range of the systems. This can be a bit hard to do because they're mobile and you don't know where they all are...

[AKIron]

Megafortress FTW!

[Spikes]

It makes perfect sense. The Air Force would never send in such vulnerable aircraft unless they were certain the area had every AA defense neutralized. The Buk system has been around for 3 decades, it isn't new tech.

[hazmatt]

It makes perfect sense. The Air Force would never send in such vulnerable aircraft unless they were certain the area had every AA defense neutralized. The Buk system has been around for 3 decades, it isn't new tech.

I just said the Buk is almost 50 years old. Who said it was new tech? My point is that these updated systems are a threat to a B52 even with new engines and there's no way to know that they've all be neutralized.

[AKIron]

It is possible to send them in with state of the art SAM and enemy aircraft killing escorts.

[LilMak]

How do we know we own the skies when that has not been tested lately...I don't believe it just because the latest talking heads says so..

Hypersonic anti aircraft missiles would take out b52s with np but if we can take those out 1st they might have a chance..

Drones did a heck of a job on russian bombers as they laid on the ground..do you not think that is possible at our b52 bases..

I don't have the confidence they go with what's best as much as what puts the most $$$ in their and their buddies pockets one way or another..

Eagler

I agree that we won’t necessarily have superiority which is why retrofitting B-52 makes a bit of sense. War is won by logistics. It doesn’t matter that a Tiger is worth ten Shermans if I can put a hundred Shermans on the battlefield. Hypersonic rockets are expensive. What isn’t expensive is a thousand drones in the flight path of said rocket or a F-22 or (insert aircraft here). My basic point was retrofitting 70 B-52s (if they’re doing the whole fleet) is probably a better bargain than fielding some other superior (and way more expensive replacement) that may become recycled aluminum anyway. The B-52s strength is probably not that it can turn earth into glass anymore but probably that it can deliver other weapon systems from anywhere at long range. 

[AKIron]

Need to resurrect a few SparkVarks. The only unarmed fighter to get an air kill.

[Spikes]

I just said the Buk is almost 50 years old. Who said it was new tech? My point is that these updated systems are a threat to a B52 even with new engines and there's no way to know that they've all be neutralized.

To me you act as if it is never-before-seen technology to the military. Like the US (or any country) has never dealt with mobile SAMs before and would be clueless if they stumbled upon one.

I don't know what else to say. There would be Apaches, Cobras, A-10s, and various other fighters and stuff puttering around the skies long before B-52s enter the airspace. It isn't Vietnam anymore where we just carpet bombed forests for years.