- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: B-52 Stratofortress, how is it still in service?
Posted on 2/16/18 at 8:35 pm to DeafJam73
Posted on 2/16/18 at 8:35 pm to DeafJam73
quote:
A-10 Warthog. Flys in low and delivers a fury of bullets so fast it sounds like God’s fart.
From a distance, its sounds exactly like a tiger's roar that lasts about 3 seconds. Destin Florida has 2 ordinance test bases within earshot, Eglin AFB and Hurlburt Field. If you are in the area, keep your ears peeled.
0
Posted on 2/16/18 at 8:37 pm to 9001
I served in the Air Force from ‘69 to ‘73 as crew chief on KC 135 tanker. One of the most impressive sights I’ve ever seen was a B 52 coming up behind very slowly for an air to air refueling. That massive aircraft hooked to us by a boom and us fueling him up. Then disconnecting and just as slowly dropping away. Refueled several type of aircraft back then but none quite like the B 52.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 8:38 pm to 9001
quote:
Solid plane. Adaptable. Configurable. Replacement parts out the arse. Checks out.
This is a great story from 3 years ago, one of the B-52s at Barksdale had a cockpit fire, and the decision was made to replace it with one from those mothballed in Arizona. Because of the arms limitation treaty with the Soviets back in the 1980s we can only have 72 B-52s flyable so any single one not being able to fly is a big deal.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:25 pm to Emteein
Every Boeing engineer should be walking around with a perpetual hard-on because of this plane.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:34 pm to Emteein
Slam dunk engineering. Spent hours & hours watching docs on this beautiful, ugly m’fer.
Page full of docs
Page full of docs
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:38 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Simple plane. Relatively cheap to maintain. They have done some upgrades to it over the years but still very relevant as heavy bomber
I don't understand why they don't replace the B-52 with the B-1B. It's got the B-52 beat in everything but range.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:49 pm to Champagne
quote:
How can this be true if the last airframe for that aircraft rolled off of the factory assembly line in 1962 ?
I guess I should have said avionics. It’s the same air frame for the most part with spare parts being replaced but the entire fleet has had their airframes/avionics packages upgraded to include newer technologies mostly in the 70s with the addition of the TV/IR sensors under the nose which aren’t even used anymore.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:51 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I don't understand why they don't replace the B-52 with the B-1B. It's got the B-52 beat in everything but range.
Becauss the B-1 is a product of an outdated, pre-stealth doctrine. B-1s were supposed to fly at nap of earth levels at supersonic speeds to avoid Soviet high-altitude SAMs. That type of mission-specific aircraft isn’t as relevant as stealth and both the B-1 and B-52 both do the exact same thing essentially in today’s air combat environment with what they’re asked to do.
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:54 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Have you seen how fast those new ones depreciate?
I don't understand why they don't replace the B-52 with the B-1B
Posted on 2/16/18 at 9:57 pm to rmnldr
quote:Negative, like the KC-135 they are all pre 1964 models.
I talked to a B-52 pilot at the air show in NO last year from Barksdale and I think he said almost all or all the current B-52s flying are 1970s and later airframes. Still pretty old but it’s a lot better than 50s/60s lol.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:00 pm to Notro
That big bad boy in front is 8 nuclear tipped cruise missles. This is why we sleep so well at night fellas. Enjoy.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:08 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I don't understand why they don't replace the B-52 with the B-1B. It's got the B-52 beat in everything but range.
B-52 trounces the B-1 in availability (percentage of the fleet not in the hangar for maintenance). So, while the B-52 is slower, carries less payload, and costs more per hour to operate, the "cost per bomb-day" (cost for the fleet to drop one bomb per day) is comparable between the two since about half of the B-1 fleet is stuck on the ground for maintenance instead of dropping bombs at any given time compared to 25% or so for the 52. So, if you don't need the speed and response time of the B-1 and just need something bombed until it is dead sometime in the next 12-24 hours, the B-52 might be the more appropriate choice in many situations where you might find the need to drop steel and high explosives on people.
Plus, the higher availability means that at times of high demand, the B-52s may simply be the only fleet with a plane still available to take on new missions. There was one of the recent conflicts in the Middle East where this was important because all of the B-1s that could get off the ground were tasked, and the mission planners started tasking the 52s more and more because the B-1s availability was starting to bite into the planners' ability to get bombs on target when needed.
Also, nuclear fricking weapons. Oddly enough, though envisioned and designed to carry nuclear fricking weapons at sonic velocities in nap-of-earth flight, that capability has been rendered obsolete. This means that it's no longer a first-strike type of weapon system, putting it on par with the B-52 in terms of its role in the nuclear triad. When you consider both planes playing the same role, the B-52 is the better choice because of its range. So, the B-1 no longer carries nuclear fricking weapons. The BUFF still carries nuclear fricking weapons, though. That may even be partly due to treaties, but I'm not sure on that point.
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:26 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
Growing up in Bossier, it's like second nature to have them flying low and loud.
There was once a motel on what was known as the "Bossier Strip" across the street from the end of runway at Barksdale. I stayed at the motel a couple of times, and during one stay there was a SAC drill, the B-52s and KC135 tankers took of 15 seconds apart for what seemed like 2 hours. They were so low when they came over the motel that the landing gear was still down, the noise was incredible even on the bottom of the deep end of the swimming pool. A few years later the roof of that motel's lobby and restaurant collapsed. It was theorized that fatigue caused by the vibration from the planes taking off for decades caused the collapse.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:27 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Think there were over 550 built, not 100
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:29 pm to bigwheel
quote:
Think there were over 550 built, not 100
I'm not picking up what you're putting down. Did you maybe reply to the wrong person?
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:32 pm to Emteein
I always figured the military didn't really want to use it's best bombers until "shite got real".
The reason being is that intellectual property is very valuable in terms of power. The less usage the B-21 gets, the less opportunities for others to learn more about it.
The reason being is that intellectual property is very valuable in terms of power. The less usage the B-21 gets, the less opportunities for others to learn more about it.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:36 pm to EA6B
Was always fun to watch them take off. On roll out, the wing tips were supported with wheeled struts that leave the ground long before the main landing gear clears the runway.
I think I read somewhere that the wing tips rise up (the wings flex upward at the tip) maybe 6 feet before the landing gear ever leaves the ground.
As someone said, strong airframe.
I think I read somewhere that the wing tips rise up (the wings flex upward at the tip) maybe 6 feet before the landing gear ever leaves the ground.
As someone said, strong airframe.
This post was edited on 2/16/18 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:47 pm to bigwheel
quote:
Think there were over 550 built, not 100
Total production was 744, 72 are kept flyable today, only half a dozen or so are left in mothball storage. 365 were destroyed for scrap in 1992 alone.
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:54 pm to Emteein
quote:Design? It was designed over the course of a weekend in a motel room. Does that count as good, or bad? To me it's badass.
we have better technology, materials, or designs by now, right?
Posted on 2/16/18 at 10:58 pm to Emteein
quote:
Air Force baws, What makes the B-52 still viable as a military air craft? surely, we have better technology, materials, or designs by now, right?
I'm really blown away by this fact: The B-52 has been in service since 1955, 63 years. that is a longer period of time than from the first powered flight(1903) to the introduction of the B-52 to service, 52 years.
Greatest Generation vs Millennials
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News