May 10, 2007:
The U.S. Air Force leadership fears
that they will end of commanding a force of ancient, although very effective,
aircraft. Call it the "curse of the B-52." These half century old bombers are,
currently, the most cost effective aircraft for delivering bombs. This is somewhat
humiliating, given that two new generations of bombers (the B-1 and B-2) were
built during the last fifty years, but neither is as effective, or at least as
cost-effective, as the "BUFF" (Big, Ugly Fat F****r).
Currently, the average age of air force aircraft is
23.5 years. Six years ago, it was 22 years. The air force wants to get it down
to fifteen years, but this will cost nearly half a trillion dollars, spent over
the next two decades. Many legislators are reluctant to provide that kind of
money, when existing aircraft, while old, still prove themselves capable in
combat. The A-10, for example, is over three decades old, but is still the best
ground attack aircraft there is. Why get a new model, when the existing ones
perform so well? Many air force generals wish the B-52, A-10 and other elderly,
but still capable, aircraft would just disappear. That won't happen, and the
air force is being compelled to spend more money maintaining the older
aircraft. But, as Congressional bean counters point out, that's still a lot
cheaper than designing and building new aircraft. Fact is, much of the
improvements for warplanes are in the form of new electronics and weapons
(smart bombs, missiles and, real-soon-now, lasers), not new airframes and
engines.
The good old days of the 60s and 70s, when the
average age of warplanes was under ten years, will never return. That's because
current aircraft are so capable, and expensive. Back then, aircraft were a lot
cheaper, and new technology wasn't as expensive. It took a lot less time to
develop new designs. Those days will not return, and elderly aircraft will
remain the norm for a while. Get used to it.