Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Masherbrum on January 27, 2026, 07:04:23 PM
-
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 (https://www.boeing.com/features/2026/1/boeing-wins--2b-award-to-modernize-the-b-52)
-
Hmm seems like investing in yesterday's technology..
But we better do something to keep our dollar using allies in line..
Eagler
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
B-52s or any large airplane would not be going anywhere near SAM sites if they were active.
-
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...
-
Megafortress FTW!
-
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.
-
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.
-
It is possible to send them in with state of the art SAM and enemy aircraft killing escorts.
-
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.
-
Need to resurrect a few SparkVarks. The only unarmed fighter to get an air kill.
-
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.
-
Can we get some BUFFs with friken laser beams?
-
A7s attacked on the first morning of the gulf war.
Some carried “decoys” to get the enemy radars to come on.
The trailing A7s used “harm” anti-radiation missiles to wipe out whoever poked their heads out
-
Theater wide operations maybe a thing of the past like WW2. Large geographical areas with standing armies facing each other are also maybe a thing of the past. Doesn't mean it won't happen.
Same applies to airpower between sides. Reason.
Replacing destroyed and heavily damaged aircraft, tanks, ships, and other systems are too costly and most important way too long in building replacements. Months for a single fighter, years for a ship.
Losses can exceed that rebuild factor.
Currently, surgical strikes and limited engagements will happen. Targeting small areas, air, naval and ground superiority can be easily achieved with conventional forces.
The wildcard. Drones.
Drones being used as kamikaze tactical weapons can undermine achieving superiority. This can revert back to the quantity overpowering quality with mass cheap weapons in the thousands versus 85 million dollar and higher aircraft, tanks and billion dollar ships. Raw attrition can be a strategic weapon.
This is all debate amongst ourselves. I'm sure the 4 Stars are very up to date on these matters. That's why they earn the big bucks of $20,000 a month.
Upgrading the engines on th B-52s, they will keep being the deterrent for global nuclear strike strategy. They will be safe in protected airspace for launching. This is far cheaper than building 100 more stealth bombers.
If you really want to panic Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, then we should start building WW2 fighters and bombers for active-duty service. They see that. They will believe we know something that they don't.
WW3 will lose all we have now. WW4 might be a second round of WW2.
-
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.
I never said any of that. Maybe you should read what I actually wrote?
A F117 was shot down by a SA‑3 Goa system (late 50ies early 60ies tech) I don't see the logic of spending all the money on replacing the engines on the B52s unless it's to bomb third world countries. Any country with SAM systems fielded in the last 40 years has decent chance at hitting a B52 and if you have to bring a bunch of tactical assets to bear just to allow the B52 to survive kinda negates its value as a "stategic bomber"
-
WW3 will lose all we have now. WW4 might be a second round of WW2.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
A.E.
-
I wouldn't consider the B-52 a "strategic bomber" anymore. We have the B-2 and soon B-21 for that role. Even B-1s can play there. B-52s can carry a big payload though, even a bomb bay full of drones.
-
even a bomb bay full of drones.
THAT is an interesting idea.
-
Mount a big laser in that bird that can shoot rapidly in any direction. Link it to an F-35 that sees all and get the party started.
-
B-52s can carry a big payload though, even a bomb bay full of drones.
That was exactly my thought.
-
Hmm seems like investing in yesterday's technology..
But we better do something to keep our dollar using allies in line..
Eagler
What "allies" do you have left?
-
Meanwhile the Chinese are implementing a drone aircraft capable of deploying thousands of drones from it...
-
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.
Think about how crazy it could be if guys like us were able to join a website system with training where we could use our joystick and Sim set up to fly drones from undisclosed locations out of our own homes in case of emergency. You could have a massive drone army that way.
-
What "allies" do you have left?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
People don't like when they're held accountable. Same goes for some countries.
-
Think about how crazy it could be if guys like us were able to join a website system with training where we could use our joystick and Sim set up to fly drones from undisclosed locations out of our own homes in case of emergency. You could have a massive drone army that way.
You could charge gamers to man drones and defensive turrets.
-
AI will be controlling the swarms of drones soon.
-
You could charge gamers to man drones and defensive turrets.
That would be wild!
AI will be controlling the swarms of drones soon.
Thats a possibility. Thing is, I dont think AI will be good enough to beat man in the sky. If you see how AI flies in AH, to a novice they seem decent, but to me, they can easily be juked out since they dont have the ability to think ahead. All they can do is react to my movements and attempt to compensate. By that time, its too late for them.
-
Of course the quality of AI performance is dependent on the training and the hardware allocated. Games running on PCs can't compete with what will be controlling those military drones.
-
Something you can do to boost AI performance in DCS is run a dedicated server. Missions running on that handle all the AI so it is offloaded from the client machines.