Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MigBuster

How mature can a B-52 get exactly!

Recommended Posts

B-52 Airborne Electronic Attack Technical Maturation Contract awarded

Written on June 27, 2008 – 9:25 pm | by FIDSNS |

 

The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has been awarded a $14.9 million contract by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory to develop and mature technologies required to enable airborne electronic attack from long distances, filling the stand-off electronic attack role. The contract includes systems engineering studies focusing on potential pod installation on the B-52H aircraft, as the designated demonstration airframe. This effort will advance the technology required for the planned Core Component Jammer (CCJ).

 

“We look forward to maturing the planned CCJ technology, which will keep our warfighters safer as they complete missions in the air and on the ground,” said Scot Oathout, director of B-52 Programs for Boeing. “This is the first step in getting this capability fielded, and the B-52H is the right platform to mature this technology.”

 

The multi-mission B-52H is the only platform in the Air Force inventory that accommodates all necessary attributes for jamming electronic attacks while delivering its full complement of weapons, including responsiveness, range, loiter time, size and power.

 

“Adding this capability to the B-52H will strengthen its position as the most versatile aircraft in the U.S. inventory,” said Jeff Weis, CCJ program manager for Boeing. “The B-52 will still be able to deliver precision weapons on target while protecting other allied forces in theater.”

 

The Boeing-led team will employ the electronic-attack expertise of Bethpage, N.Y.-based Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems. After successful completion of this initial three-year effort, a follow-on effort to demonstrate in-flight, stand-off jamming on the B-52 is scheduled for 2011-2012.

 

from Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what kind of attack...? LOL

it sounds like more than jamming pods, or am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny thing about this article...referenced program was already canceled...put it in the stack with the re-engining program they have been discussing for 23 years (or more)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is this the plane I read about in a cheap paperback printed 20 years ago, but minus the laser turrets and charged-ion cannon?

 

Another thing is how thay said the B-52 is the most versatile aircraft in USAF inventory, and it's a 50 year old leviathan of a bomber, the US equivilant of a Star Destroyer. If you ask, I'm sure the Navy will inform you that the most versatile aircraft they have is the F-18 (and it's various unholy devil-spawn that are taking over the roles of my favorite aircraft GRRR!!!!), which is significantly smaller, lighter, more moderen and more useful than a lumbering B-52. Not saying that the air force is out-dated, but it kinda looks that way, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-52 is outdated, they just don't have a replacement nor do they ssem to want one. I've been working it for 2 years now and it is too old and too heavily modified. Causes some real PITA work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing one must note though is that it is only alive still because of the community...those guys will take on anything...NOT saying that "other" bombers wont...but you have to give credit to those guys...if they honestly thought it would prolong their beloved leviathan, they would convert it into a tanker in 0.3 seconds...bolt a radome on top of it and call it Buff-WACS...they will do it.

 

So that is part of it I think, the attitude of the community.

 

Again, not scruffing the guys with the sexiest airplane with four afterburners (they know who they are) for that is one mean killing machine...just BUFFS are, well, BUFFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the B-1B and B-2A were both replacements for the B-52. The problem is we didn't buy enough of either to make retiring them attractive. The B-1B was only supposed to be interim until the B-2A anyway, yet we sent a significant amount into storage so we could afford to upgrade the ones we kept in service. As for the B-2A, no doubt we seriously bought too few of those. Yet no one wanted to pay for anything in the 90s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..