B-52 Weapons Upgrade to Add More Payload, Range of Weapons

Don't forget the ability to carry 12 Tomahawks on the wings, plus another 8 in the bomb bay.

If we resurrect the nuclear-armed Tomahawk (BGM-109A), then we would have a heavy-duty standoff strike capability.

Despite the Air Force always wanting cutting edge bombers, the vast majority of its work is done by these antiques.

So the simple matter is why not build a “more modern” version of the B-52 workhorses? More than anything else, the production should be focused on a small number of things.

1) Better materials. The science and technology of materials has exploded since the 1950s, so that we can make them more durable, lighter, stronger, etc., with little extra cost.

2) Redundancy. One of the biggest advantages of the A-10 Thunderbolt II (”Warthog”) is its redundant systems. Many of these aircraft were just torn apart in combat, yet their pilots could still land them.

3) Low maintenance. It is essential for these aircraft, as they are now so they need to remain.

4) Better engines. This technology has changed a lot. But fuel efficiency and power must be balanced against maintenance and durability.

5) The complete redesign of its weapons bay to maximize it for many different weapons.

They already did that:

They should have done the same with the F-14, instead of moving to the newer but less superior F-18.

But it failed on point #3.

A few responses

The only remaining flying B-52s are the H models with T-33 turbofans.

The B-52 has never carried Tomahawks. They were evaluated vs the Boeing AGM-86 during the 70s. Boeing won that competition.

There have been multiple attempts to replace the engines. In each case, someone just wasn’t willing to pay the money despite tremendous operational improvements.

All the cut up bombers at DM are B-52G or earlier. They were cut up to satisfy arms control treaty requirements. The are cut in places to make them unrepairable.

Intact aircraft on display are required to have the exact position reported to Russia and can’t be moved.

Supplant the C17 for the B-52 yefragetuwrabrumuy, and I am sold.

Update it to the P & W GTF's and it would take a redesign so it has a weapons bay underneath, not out the back. It is STOL, can go into rough fields, and probably more amenable to Weapons Platform / Cockpit upgrades given it is from the screen era, not steam gages.

That is if the dingbats didn't already destroy the tooling.

How is this not a Win-Win...

“Supplant the C17 for the B-52 ... [replace engines] ... redesign so it has a weapons bay underneath, not out the back. ...”

Assuming that with the word “supplant,” taildragger means “replace B-52s with C-17s”:

Modifying airlifters to launch weapons has been proposed over and over. The projects are dropped when someone figures out the costs of modification usually end up higher than what a new aircraft would cost.

Redesigning airframes from the cargo-carrying role to the bomb-cropping role isn’t trivial. Actually modifying them might cost more than buying a new fleet - a constraint often encountered in the aviation world, even if we’re not talking about warplanes.

Uprated engines may not work: as utahb52 pointed out in post 26, added thrust might be welcome, but the pylons and wing structural components might not be able to stand the additional stresses and torque moments. If we’re thinking of the high-bypass-ratio turbofans that have graced many airliners in recent years, they may not even fit under a B-52’s wings ... current TF-33 powerplants are easy to access from the ground. And airframe manufacturing is a bit more complex that hot rods or monster trucks: one doesn’t just “beef up” an airplane.

Even if newer, bigger engines can be mounted without breaking anything, the control surfaces may not be large enough to assure the aircraft can be safely taken off, operated inflight, and landed.

Launching munitions from an aircraft in flight is somewhat more complex than kicking oil drums off the bed of a moving pickup truck. Not only does each separate munition have to be compatible in dimension and weight and connectivity to the airframe’s electrical/ hydraulic/ air systems, it must be capable of safe separation. Tests must be performed in flight over a properly safed and controlled range. And the testing must go beyond individual munitions, to explore every possible combination and loadout configuration. The B-52H already has its “book of approved munitions” partially written; any envisioned C-17 arsenal plane would necessarily start from zero.

A bomber requires different sensors and avionics, compared to an airlifter. Refitting them to a C-17 is a little more complicated than simply pulling out the airlifter’s black boxes and plugging in those from a bomber. Entirely different antennas would be needed, and most of the cabling (waveguides, for radar signals) would have to be replaced.

Uprated engines may not work: as utahb52 pointed out in post 26, added thrust might be welcome, but the pylons and wing structural components might not be able to stand the additional stresses and torque moments. If we’re thinking of the high-bypass-ratio turbofans that have graced many airliners in recent years, they may not even fit under a B-52’s wings ... current TF-33 powerplants are easy to access from the ground. And airframe manufacturing is a bit more complex that hot rods or monster trucks: one doesn’t just “beef up” an airplane.

The current thinking is to replace the TF33 with eight CF34s, a civilian airliner version of the the TF34 engine used on the A-10, and on the long retired S-3 Viking.

With a 30% fuel savings, the B-52 would get an instant 30% increase in range.