re: B-52 Stratofortress, how is it still in service?

quote:

---

I don't understand why they don't replace the B-52 with the B-1B. It's got the B-52 beat in everything but range.

---

B-52 trounces the B-1 in availability (percentage of the fleet not in the hangar for maintenance). So, while the B-52 is slower, carries less payload, and costs more per hour to operate, the "cost per bomb-day" (cost for the fleet to drop one bomb per day) is comparable between the two since about half of the B-1 fleet is stuck on the ground for maintenance instead of dropping bombs at any given time compared to 25% or so for the 52. So, if you don't need the speed and response time of the B-1 and just need something bombed until it is dead sometime in the next 12-24 hours, the B-52 might be the more appropriate choice in many situations where you might find the need to drop steel and high explosives on people.

Plus, the higher availability means that at times of high demand, the B-52s may simply be the only fleet with a plane still available to take on new missions. There was one of the recent conflicts in the Middle East where this was important because all of the B-1s that could get off the ground were tasked, and the mission planners started tasking the 52s more and more because the B-1s availability was starting to bite into the planners' ability to get bombs on target when needed.

Also, nuclear fricking weapons. Oddly enough, though envisioned and designed to carry nuclear fricking weapons at sonic velocities in nap-of-earth flight, that capability has been rendered obsolete. This means that it's no longer a first-strike type of weapon system, putting it on par with the B-52 in terms of its role in the nuclear triad. When you consider both planes playing the same role, the B-52 is the better choice because of its range. So, the B-1 no longer carries nuclear fricking weapons. The BUFF still carries nuclear fricking weapons, though. That may even be partly due to treaties, but I'm not sure on that point.