REPORT: B-52 Bomb Racks being changed out.

[benburch]

A caller to one of the shows on my network, "Head On with Bob Kincaid", last night reported seeing B-52s being worked on and specifically seeing their bomb racks being changed out.

Any retired BUF armorers here who would care to comment on what this might portend?

Thanks.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Maybe they need new racks to hold differently shaped bombs? As in bigger,

badder, meaner bombs? :cry:

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. That's what it sounds like.

Insanity. :(

[alfredo]

2. It could be anything. Maybe the racks were for gravity bombs

and they want racks compatible with cruise missiles. Of course they could be setting them up for the new generation of tactical nukes.

[benburch]

6. I thought the BUFs that could handle cruise missiles were specialists?

It is my recollection that those B-52s which can launch cruise missiles are specially modified. I might be wrong, though.

[alfredo]

16. If they are being fitted with nuke compatible racks, we will find out

some day. I think the B1 was originally designed for nukes, that's why they weren't used in the first Gulf War.

[NaturalHigh]

4. I wouldn't read too much into it.

It could just be scheduled maintenance and replacement.

[MADem]

10. Or it could be an exercise.

I've been places where they do standard exercises every year, all wargaming a particular scenario.

[BrotherBuzz]

5. I was under the impression the 'racks' were universal....

and ordnances are designed to fit them. Same rack holds cruise missiles or conventional bombs, :shrug:

[benburch]

8. No, that much I know isn't the case.

Too many different sizes of ordinance.

For example the same rack could not possibly accommodate 250 lb iron bombs and 1000 lb iron bombs unless you wanted to carry very few 250 lb bombs when you do, and mount them in some sort of sabot.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. I think different carriages are loaded into the rack for different bombs..

that use universal loading points. Cruise missiles even have a revolving doohickey like a pistol. Drop one, revolve and drop another....

[rememberearth]

7. my humble two lincolns and my gut tells

me that it would be for a specific type of bunker buster or even the "n" word. allow me to expand on the bunker thing please;
they have lied to us so many times god knows what kind of technology they truly have but none of this sounds good.
i could be wrong and i pray that i am.

[benburch]

9. I hope you are wrong on that.

But I have a sense that things are about to get really ugly.

[jpak]

12. ding ding ding

To go after the underground facilities Natanz, they are going to need lotsa conventional (or nucular) bunker busters that may not be compatible with currently installed bomb racks.

At altitude, however, the B-52 would be more vulnerable to air defenses than a B-2 or an F-117.

But who knows what's really going on...

[acmejack]

11. I am not an expert on them but here is what I do know

They have a configuration for H bombs from the bad old days where they only carried 2, they have a revolving ring magazine for cruise missiles, and they have a rig that will carry a whole shit load of 500 lb bombs. In vietnam one B-52 could carry more 500 bombs than a squadron of B-17s they told us it was like 128 bombs if you counted all the ones they mounted on the wings too.

edited for mispelling, re-edited to add expert
snip>
The bomb bay of the B-52H occupies almost the entire center section of the fuselage and is 28 feet long and 6 feet wide. It is enclosed by double-pane doors. Three interconnected and hydraulically-activated sections on each side can be opened in flight to release the weapons. The B-52H can carry two four-bomb or up to three nine-bomb clips internally. Conventional internal B-52 loads include 27 each of SUU-30H/B (CBU-52, -58 and -71), Mk. 82 500-lb conventional or Snakeye bombs, Mk. 36 500-lb destructor bombs, Mk. 59 or 62 500-lb Quickstrike mines, or M117 750-pound bombs (conical fin, destructor, retarded or air inflatable retard); 18 each of MJU-1B countermeasures sets or M129 leaflet dispensers; 12 each of Mk. 52 2000-pound mines; six each of CBU-87 combined effects munitions or CBU-89 Gator. Alternatively, a clip of 8 Mk. 84 2000-lb bombs, Mk. 41 2000-lb destructors, Mk. 55 2000-lb bottom mines, Mk. 56 2000-lb moored magnetic mines, Mk. 60 2360-lb captive torpedoes (CapTor), Mk. 64 or 65 2000-lb Quickstrike mines, or AGM-86C cruise missiles can be carried inside the bomb bay. A pair of 9-megaton B53 thermonuclear weapons can also be carried inside the bomb bay.

The B-52H had originally been expected to carry four Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt air-to-surface missiles as the main offensive weapon. These were to be carried two each on an inverted Y pylon underneath each wing. The Skybolt was an air-launched ballistic missile that would have carried a W59 nuclear warhead inside a Mk. 7 re-entry vehicle. Development was initiated in the latter half of the 1950s. Decision to proceed with the Skybolt was reached in February of 1960, with initial deployment scheduled to begin in 1964. In June of 1960, the British government ordered 100 Skybolts to be carried by the Avro Vulcan. In December of 1962, President Kennedy cancelled the Skybolt missile for political and economical reasons. The cancellation of the Skybolt project forced the B-52H to rely on a combination of gravity thermonuclear bombs and underwing-mounted AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles, the same combination as carried by the B-52G

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b052-22.html

[Jose Diablo]

13. Based on recent reports about the 700 ton explosive test

currently scheduled in NV, I'd say the effects of a mini-nuke are being tested, without the nuke. Then the reports of retired Generals upset with Bu$h about including tactical nukes in a plan to invade Iran lead us further into what's getting ready to be done. Then the reports of Iran's Oil Bource in another international currency, other than the dollar is another key. Then all this talk about the threat to Israel by Iran, and talk of Iran pursuing their own nukes. Russia talking about the dollar being weak is another clue. Then there is Bu$h declaring a urinary presidency, beyond Legislative or even Judicial control, this also adds a key. Then there is Bu$h lagging support and millions marching in the streets over immigration issues/war, plus the FEMA camps and military getting instructions on how to incarcerate large numbers of people.

All in all, I'd say Bu$h is about to launch a 'preemptive' tactical nuke attack on Iran on his own say so, and if he hears any objections it's off to the camps with you.

That's my take on all this.

And the changing of B-52 bomb racks? It's to hold and deliver different types of armament, obviously.

Edit to add: I'd say Tehran is about to be turned into a glass parking lot.

[Sammy Pepys]

15. Lots of recent upgrades for B-52s and other bombers going on.

My guess this is only a continuation of that.

[benburch]

19. OK. thanks!

That likely explains it.

I was unaware that there was anything more than SLEP happening to BUFs.

[Shipwack]

17. Or it could be routine maintenance...

Like changing out worn tires, etc. Maybe the old racks had worn gaskets, or needed to be overhauled. Quite a few things are possible.

[Tesha]

18. "Target in sight -- Where the Hell is Major Kong?"

[Ryano42]

20. I doubt if 52's would do the the Nuke mission

Their AAD is too good for something with a radar signature of a BUFF, even with ECM. B-52's use standoff weapons (or laser guided from a distance) and need to essentially have Air Superiority to drop free fall gravity iron bombs. (read Carpet Bombing)

The mission would most certainly be B-2's from the US nonstop. 2-3 of them. refueling 3-4 times each way...

BOOM. GAME OVER.
:scared: :scared: :scared:

[benburch]

21. That was my impression too...

But I was wondering if perhaps there was some "son of MOAB" that did not need to be dropped from a cargo aircraft, for example.