Air Force might retire fewer B-52 bombers than planned

[tigershark]

Air Force might retire fewer B-52 bombers than planned

 By Megan Scully  CongressDaily  March 27, 2008

The Air Force is seriously considering increasing its requirement for the B-52 Stratofortress to 76 bombers, a move that would mark a significant reversal from its long-standing plans to trim the venerable fleet of 1950s-era bombers to just 56.

The service, which now has 94 B-52s in its inventory, has wanted to retire about 40 percent of the aging fleet to reduce maintenance and operational costs and make room in its budget for a next-generation bomber to be fielded in 2018 and upgrades for the B-2, B-1 and remaining B-52 bombers. But Air Force Gen. John Corley, who heads the Air Combat Command, told reporters Thursday he may need 20 more B-52s in active service than planned. This would allow creation of a six-month rotation for B-52 squadrons during which pilots and crews would focus exclusively on the nuclear mission, Corley said.

"To make sure the Department of Defense restores its focus on the nuclear enterprise, we need to look at having individuals focused [on a] rotational basis on just the nuclear mission," Corley said. "For me, to be able to do that plus the other conventional deterrence missions ... the total number of aircraft required is probably more like 76 than 56."

The Air Force has not dedicated a portion of its bomber fleet to potential nuclear strikes since the end of the Cold War, preferring instead to assign squadrons to both nuclear and conventional missions. But after the Air Force mistakenly flew six nuclear warheads aboard a B-52 from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., last August, Air Force officials determined more attention was needed to keep the nuclear arsenal secure and flight crews trained and ready to conduct nuclear attacks.

Corley acknowledged Thursday that discussions about creating a rotation of B-52s for nuclear missions were in some ways an outgrowth of the lessons learned from that incident. Corley said he was scheduled to discuss the issue Thursday morning with Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley and stressed that no firm decisions had yet been made.

Moseley floated the possibility of maintaining at least 76 B-52s during a Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing earlier this month, but added he had to work out the specifics with Corley.

Any proposal to maintain a larger bomber fleet is likely to receive strong support on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have vigorously resisted efforts to retire as much of the B-52 fleet as the Air Force has requested over the last two years. The enacted fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill requires the Air Force to have at least 76 B-52s, 63 of which must be capable of conducting wartime and training missions. In its Statement of Administration Policy on both the House and Senate versions of the bill, the White House said preventing the retirement of many of the B-52s would divert funds intended for new weapons systems. Thursday, Corley said he could not estimate the costs associated with maintaining a larger B-52 fleet than planned and did not know where the Air Force, which already says it needs another $20 billion annually, would trim funds in its budget to pay for it.

"I think you have to look at the overall investment strategy," Corley said. "Is it going to cost additional dollars? Yes, it will."

Link'
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39626&dcn=todaysnews

[tigershark]

I can see where having so many nuclear mission capable B-52s would be costly but as a bomb hauler and missile thrower they still serve a purpose.The USAF just doesn't have enough B-1s and B-2s to retired large numbers of B-52s yet.  Always felt the USAF needed something larger then a F-15E but smaller then a full size bomber.  Something in the F-111 class maybe even a bit larger but basically a bomb/missile hauler and to be used in the same way a C-130 Gunship would be used.   Basically in safe air space with little or no fighter threat you bring this platform into a theater of operations instead of flying in costly full size bombers.   

[Webmaster]

The USAF just doesn't have enough B-1s and B-2s to retired large numbers of B-52s yet. 

Well, unfortunately, what I think will happen since this eats away funding for new systems that as a result the number of B-1Bs will be cut further down! In the future the air force would then face problems funding the acquisition of enough new bombers in adequate numbers to replace the ageing B-52s in time and there wouldn't be enough B-1s left to fill that gap either.

In principal I agree though that retaining more B-52s is a good idea, primarily as reserve for airframes reaching the end of their life or to better distribute the accumulated flight hours among the bigger fleet. I think that the B-52s should scale back its nuclear mission though, 20 B-2s and I don't know how many subs & Minuteman ICBMs in service... how many nuclear weapons do you want to deliver? Sorry, it just doesn't make much sense to me to eat away funding of the next generation bomber in order to retain so many old aircraft for the nuclear mission.