The youngest B-52s are 64 years old

4,005 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 14 hrs ago by K2-HMFIC
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Crocker91 said:

The B52 is, dollar for dollar, the most effective and efficient piece of military weaponry produced since the Revolution. They'd be replaced if we could find a way to replicate their impact. So far, we haven't come up with a better mousetrap. Maybe it is as perfect as can be done at this particular job?

As someone on a TV show I was watching about the B-52 said, "the only replacement for an old B-52 is a new B-52."

Not only does it just work, but it is a powerful psychological weapon. Of all the aircraft in the US inventory, the B-52, the A-10, and the AC-130 are the most feared by enemy ground troops.
USAFAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Crocker91 said:

The B52 is, dollar for dollar, the most effective and efficient piece of military weaponry produced since the Revolution. They'd be replaced if we could find a way to replicate their impact. So far, we haven't come up with a better mousetrap. Maybe it is as perfect as can be done at this particular job?


C-130 says " Hold on just a second....."
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mega Lops said:



As a mid range Gen X, I admit I am pretty disappointed in myself that it took me a couple takes to get this

BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A trash hauler is not a weapon.
Larry S Ross
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In the mid 70s I was on a construction project on Kelly AFB in SA where
They maintained B-52s and C-5As. Out job trailers were on about 250 yds from the engine blast protection walls. When they moved them in position and powered up it was absolutely crazy loud. In the trailer you couldn't hear anything or anybody much less on the phone. The trailers shook as well. It was crazy but cool to watch them. Especially landing.
Kaiser von Wilhelm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Highway6 said:

dmart90 said:

My '61 Impala is running just fine. And it doesn't have a dedicated crew of mechanics taking care of it. Just sayin'.

283 V8 or straight 6?


1.6L turbo 4
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Scuttle is they will be able to carry the new "rods of God" weapons system. It's obvious with the UFO release as a distraction this is still moving forward.

The tungsten rods were mothballed in Greenland, where Camp Century and Project Iceworm could work on this without Soviet satellites peaking in.

Expect these babies to be around and retrofitted when the weapon system is ready.









But seriously, awesome airplanes and insane how long they have flown and continue to fly well into the future.
sanangelo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i have around 4,000 hours in the B-52G and B-52H. Ask me anything!

One night when returning from the UTTR (in Utah) to KI Sawyer AFB, Michigan, there was a blizzard approaching the base. The ops group commander didn't want to divert us because billeting at (say) Wurtsmith AFB or Loring AFB was going to cost the wing too much money.

So, he sat in the Supervisor of Flying's Suburban and conducted Runway Condition Rating tests every 1000 feet of the runway right behind the snowplows. Once he got the number he needed, he cleared us to come in to land. We were #1 of about 7 or 8 bombers stacking up in holding above the base waiting for the runway RCR to be within limits. RCR measures traction on icy or wet runways.

The RCR had to be fairly high because there was a ~20 kt direct crosswind. So we needed like a 18 or 19 out of 23 on the RCR reading. We had 18, according to the colonel.

We set the crosswind crab (the wheels) 20 degrees left into the wind. When we landed, all fine and good, but you could tell we were basically on ice and our landing gear were the skates.

I deployed the drag chute because it didn't appear we were slowing fast enough. When the drag chute popped out, the B-52H weather vaned to the left fairly dramatically. I jettisoned the drag chute. Luckily the vertical stabilizer (the tail) was still effective and we were able to point the jet down the runway instead of running off the side. By the time we arrived at 6000 feet remaining, the jet had slowed to 60 knots. But it never slowed much after that. At 2000 remaining, we were still at 60 knots.

We crossed the threshold of the runway at the departure end and once both main gear were in the overrun, the jet abruptly stopped. We two pilots looked at each other and said the F word simultaneously. Sort of in shock, we reverted to our training and ran the normal engine shutdown checklist as the colonel ops group commander boarded our plane.

"What the hell did you guys do?," he asked, as if it was our fault.

The incident went down as a Class C mishap because 8 of the main tires had to be replaced -- around $30,000.

The cause of the crash was incorrect RCR reading. The colonel ops group commander who took that reading was a tanker pilot trying to save the wing money, so yeah. They computed the RCR to be a 3 or 4 with viscous hydroplaning due to urea being poured over the snow and ice when it was getting plowed. In chapter 7 of the B-52H Dash-11, there is a 3-page discussion about viscous hydroplaning that was added after the safety report on our mishap. They didn't mention any names (-;

The only thing we could have done better, in hindsight, was shut down engines 1,2,3 and 6,7,8 (the outboards) when we determined braking was nil. We were too task saturated on jettisoning drags chutes and steering the beast to remain on the runway.

Circa 1992.
San Angelo LIVE!
https://sanangelolive.com/
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cost $30K but you saved on the BOQs at Wurtscoda good job!
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good ol BUFF
USAFAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

A trash hauler is not a weapon.


Ask the AC130 that.

The original statement was "value for dollar"....I submit that the the while the Buff is a great bargain as a bomb truck and standoff weapon employer, the C130 is equal, if not better, for value per dollar for the various roles that is has played.

First flown in 1954, production version flew in 1955. 71 or more years of service.
Quote:

"The adage "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics" is a classic military aphorism emphasizing that while flashy battlefield maneuvers (tactics) are impressive, they are impossible without the complex systems that supply food, fuel, and ammunition (logistics).

It has been a logistical cargo hauler, a troop transport, a paratroop dropper, a command post, a close air support controller, a gunship, a massive bomb dropper, a chemical weapon deliverer, a medical evac bird, a CSAR rescue bird, and anything else you can imagine related to warfighting.

The BUFF has one role.....STRIKE.....the HERK has many and is nearly as old as the BUFF.

Now, I say this as the former Chief, Current Operations, 8th AF, 2008ish-2010ish.

For longevity POV, I have a good friend, a retired HERK Col. He's 10 years younger than me. He flew HERKs outta Pope AFB, NC...just like my Father who served from 1942-1973. C130E was the primary bird for both of them.

My friend probably flew some of the same birds my Father did. So, yeah, the HERK has been around A LONG TIME.

BTW...no, I'm not a HERK driver.

SO, just a perspective.


USAFAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sanangelo said:

i have around 4,000 hours in the B-52G and B-52H. Ask me anything!

One night when returning from the UTTR (in Utah) to KI Sawyer AFB, Michigan, there was a blizzard approaching the base. The ops group commander didn't want to divert us because billeting at (say) Wurtsmith AFB or Loring AFB was going to cost the wing too much money.

So, he sat in the Supervisor of Flying's Suburban and conducted Runway Condition Rating tests every 1000 feet of the runway right behind the snowplows. Once he got the number he needed, he cleared us to come in to land. We were #1 of about 7 or 8 bombers stacking up in holding above the base waiting for the runway RCR to be within limits. RCR measures traction on icy or wet runways.

The RCR had to be fairly high because there was a ~20 kt direct crosswind. So we needed like a 18 or 19 out of 23 on the RCR reading. We had 18, according to the colonel.

We set the crosswind crab (the wheels) 20 degrees left into the wind. When we landed, all fine and good, but you could tell we were basically on ice and our landing gear were the skates.

I deployed the drag chute because it didn't appear we were slowing fast enough. When the drag chute popped out, the B-52H weather vaned to the left fairly dramatically. I jettisoned the drag chute. Luckily the vertical stabilizer (the tail) was still effective and we were able to point the jet down the runway instead of running off the side. By the time we arrived at 6000 feet remaining, the jet had slowed to 60 knots. But it never slowed much after that. At 2000 remaining, we were still at 60 knots.

We crossed the threshold of the runway at the departure end and once both main gear were in the overrun, the jet abruptly stopped. We two pilots looked at each other and said the F word simultaneously. Sort of in shock, we reverted to our training and ran the normal engine shutdown checklist as the colonel ops group commander boarded our plane.

"What the hell did you guys do?," he asked, as if it was our fault.

The incident went down as a Class C mishap because 8 of the main tires had to be replaced -- around $30,000.

The cause of the crash was incorrect RCR reading. The colonel ops group commander who took that reading was a tanker pilot trying to save the wing money, so yeah. They computed the RCR to be a 3 or 4 with viscous hydroplaning due to urea being poured over the snow and ice when it was getting plowed. In chapter 7 of the B-52H Dash-11, there is a 3-page discussion about viscous hydroplaning that was added after the safety report on our mishap. They didn't mention any names (-;

The only thing we could have done better, in hindsight, was shut down engines 1,2,3 and 6,7,8 (the outboards) when we determined braking was nil. We were too task saturated on jettisoning drags chutes and steering the beast to remain on the runway.

Circa 1992.

Great story, Bro. So much silly ass minuscule money saving decisions creating deadly/catastrophic/ morale crushing situations.

Great piloting!!
SteveA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

My '61 Impala is running just fine. And it doesn't have a dedicated crew of mechanics taking care of it. Just sayin'.

Airframes are slightly different than that pos chevy dog legging sideways down the road at 45 mph.
Deerdude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag said:

dmart90 said:

My '61 Impala is running just fine. And it doesn't have a dedicated crew of mechanics taking care of it. Just sayin'.
Can it drop nukes?


I bought one for the 327 in it and dropped into a 79 truck with 350 heads and carb. It didn't drop nukes but that motor could stand a nuke strike, I'm certain.
Saltwater Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dmart90 said:

My '61 Impala is running just fine. And it doesn't have a dedicated crew of mechanics taking care of it. Just sayin'.


I bet it has at least one dedicated mechanic….
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ78 said:

A trash hauler is not a weapon.


Palletized Munitions say hi.

TX_COWDOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
B-58 Hustler… one of the coolest planes ever built!

Here's one from The SAC Museum outside of Omaha NE.



www.southpawprecision.com
Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT
Nightforce Optics Dealer
AGM Night Vision Dealer
TX_COWDOC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thank you for sharing. Great story.
www.southpawprecision.com
Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT
Nightforce Optics Dealer
AGM Night Vision Dealer
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
USAF is (yet again) looking at options for what will replace the final B-52J's. Redstate. The XB-70, B-1, B-2, and B-21 couldn't do it (nor concepts for an 'arsenal plane' based on a 747), but eventually something will.
Quote:

The USAF is apparently calling this the New Heavy Bomber project:
Quote:

The U.S. Air Force plans to launch an analysis of alternatives study next year for a New Heavy Bomber aircraft amid continued work on a classified proof-of-concept that is starting this year, budget documents show.

"A new heavy bomber analysis of alternatives will begin initial planning activities to develop key performance parameters, key system attributes, and additional performance attributes for a follow-on heavy bomber in the USAF," the Air Force's budget justification document shows.

Any new such aircraft will probably be faster and stealthier than the BUFF, but the primary goal should be the same: Delivering ordnance on target. What's less clear as to whether it would be more cost-efficient to design and build a new bomber or just ramp up the upgrades to the B-52J; but, these old airframes can't last forever.

Personally, I doubt it would be faster (supersonic), but I'd guess optionally manned variants will be considered. The vast array of ordinance the B-52 is certified to carry will take a long time to be certified on any replacement, imho. A combo bomber/tanker/cargo type (C-17's and C-5's aren't getting any younger either) has long been a holy grail but it is tough to make it happen.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

USAF is (yet again) looking at options for what will replace the final B-52J's. Redstate. The XB-70, B-1, B-2, and B-21 couldn't do it (nor concepts for an 'arsenal plane' based on a 747), but eventually something will.
Quote:

The USAF is apparently calling this the New Heavy Bomber project:
Quote:

The U.S. Air Force plans to launch an analysis of alternatives study next year for a New Heavy Bomber aircraft amid continued work on a classified proof-of-concept that is starting this year, budget documents show.

"A new heavy bomber analysis of alternatives will begin initial planning activities to develop key performance parameters, key system attributes, and additional performance attributes for a follow-on heavy bomber in the USAF," the Air Force's budget justification document shows.

Any new such aircraft will probably be faster and stealthier than the BUFF, but the primary goal should be the same: Delivering ordnance on target. What's less clear as to whether it would be more cost-efficient to design and build a new bomber or just ramp up the upgrades to the B-52J; but, these old airframes can't last forever.

Personally, I doubt it would be faster (supersonic), but I'd guess optionally manned variants will be considered. The vast array of ordinance the B-52 is certified to carry will take a long time to be certified on any replacement, imho. A combo bomber/tanker/cargo type (C-17's and C-5's aren't getting any younger either) has long been a holy grail but it is tough to make it happen.



The problem with the USAF today is that has some major ass bills we've been delaying and they are all coming due in the next two decades that are gonna break DoDs budget.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.