Skip to comments.
Sixty years on, the B-52 is still going strong
CNET ^
| April 15, 2012
| by Jonathan E. Skillings
Posted on 04/15/2012 6:32:45 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Good ol’ American know how!
2
posted on
04/15/2012 6:37:07 PM PDT
by
rfreedom4u
(Just because someone thinks it's a good idea doesn't make it legal.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Always loved watching them take off from Carswell AFB in Ft Worth. Two B-52s, followed by a KC-135. Their saggy wings would gradually lift as they reached take off speed. Hard to see much after that, though. Buffers were pretty smoky.
3
posted on
04/15/2012 6:38:22 PM PDT
by
edpc
(Wilby 2012)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I’m sure she was a fine bird in her time, but I’m also pretty sure she should have been retired L-O-N-G ago.
4
posted on
04/15/2012 6:40:37 PM PDT
by
The Duke
To: Oldeconomybuyer
To: Oldeconomybuyer
6
posted on
04/15/2012 6:42:28 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
>>Along with the ICBM, it was one of the defining pieces of military technology during the Cold War: the B-52 bomber.
Hey, what about the SSBN, which is the only leg of the strategic deterrent triad still viable?!?
41 for Freedom!
7
posted on
04/15/2012 6:45:02 PM PDT
by
Bryanw92
(Sic semper tyrannis)
To: The Duke
Why? To be replaced by what? The B52 is essentially only the second generation of metal clad bombers after the B17/B24/25 WWII era generation. Yeah, we had the B36 and B47, impressive craft in their own right, but they never made the impact the B52 did.
Like the battleship, the B52 represents the apex of evolution of a system. It would take a saltatory leap to render it obsolete. The B1 and B2 are out there, but when we needed a craft to loiter around the Afghan plain, only one airplane filled the bill.
To: edpc
I'm a mile from the threshold of the former Carswell AFB. It's now a Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base.
Born and grew up here, and now I'm back. Saw/heard Hustlers crack a bedroom window going supersonic.
Saw the MITO take-offs. One BUFF after another, water injection on, roaring. I was probably 6, standing in my back yard, fingers in my ears, spring in the air, and feeling my chest cavity viberate from the sound.
And they were smokey, back in the day.
I did wind up in the AF eventually. TAC, not SAC, first time around.
/johnny
To: The Duke
Why get rid of a winner that's cost effective?
/johnny
To: EGPWS
Think about this: That awesome craft was designed by guys with slide rules intead of computers.
God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
To: EGPWS
Think about this: That awesome craft was designed by guys with slide rules instead of computers.
God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.
To: JRandomFreeper
13
posted on
04/15/2012 6:55:16 PM PDT
by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: hinckley buzzard
There’s something else about the Buff, as evidenced from EGPWS’ pic above:
The B-52 isn’t subtle. There’s no stealth. There’s no “environmental impact assessment.” From the moment the throttles go forward, the outward message of a B-52 rolling off the runway is:
“We are coming to kill you. We don’t care who knows. We’re not going to be crafty, stealthy, quiet or nuanced. When the bomb bay doors open, you will see a seemingly limitless succession of bombs drop out of this beast upon your head. Enjoy your last moments.”
Look back at what happened when Nixon finally bombed North Vietnam with B-52’s instead of attack or fighter aircraft. The Commies came back to the table right damn quick...
If we practiced a foreign policy of “speak softly and carry a big stick,” the B-52 is the biggest, ugliest piece of wood one could carry around.
14
posted on
04/15/2012 6:56:06 PM PDT
by
NVDave
To: Oldeconomybuyer
15
posted on
04/15/2012 6:56:35 PM PDT
by
the invisib1e hand
(I think in about 5 - no, 4 - years I'll have had enough.)
To: hinckley buzzard
That awesome craft was designed by guys with slide rules instead of computers.That's not possible, according to the bean-counters.
I once worked out an engineering solution on a quadrille pad with a pencil at a meeting, and it included some greek characters! Oh, my! Basic algebra. No integration or anything.
I presented the solution and got told by the bean counters that I would have to explain some of it, and they wouldn't sign off until they understood it.
3 weeks later....it was the same answer down to 4 decimal places.
/johnny
To: Oldeconomybuyer
That feat of longevity reflects both regular maintenance and timely upgrades
There are other factors as well ... the "H" BUFF, or "Cadillac" was the penultimate penetration version of the type. It was optimized for low-level operations from the start, with a stronger wing and fuselage structure than it's older sisters.
Additionally, it entered service after the bomber-leg of the triad had switched from airborne alert (many planes in the air, loaded with nukes, at all times) to ground-based alert - so most of the "H" fleet spent the first 2/3rds of their careers mostly on the ground being pampered, rather than racking up flight hours. Besides missing airborne alert (which saw the wings flown off the earlier marks up to the "G", as well as the B-47 fleet) the "H" also didn't see service in Vietnam or Desert Storm (aside: whenever Libs used to gloat that the B-1B didn't see service in Desert Storm, the quick/easy response was that it was sitting nuke alert just like all the "H" model BUFFs -- it was the "G" that went to war).
So when the "H"s switched to the conventional mission with the retirement of the "G"s in the 1990s, there was this near-perfect convergence of chronologically "old" but very low-flight-time, exceptionally strong airframes that were generally flying missions (combat or training) at a much higher altitude (since the low-level penetration mission is long-gone) then they were designed for - which further served to limit airframe fatigue.
The same thing is true of both the B-1B and the B-2A fleet btw. Those aircraft were optimized for low-level performance as well and their current operational usage means that we'll get a heck of a lot more flight hours out of them than originally projected.
To: edpc
Likewise and more. The Buffs used to fly almost directly overhead on their landing pattern for Carswell. I lived just west (1/4 mile or so)of the primary runway and just north of the West Freeway. I could almost count rivets as they flew overhead. Always a treat to see them as well as comforting to know they were always on the job.
To: rfreedom4u
19
posted on
04/15/2012 7:08:57 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: JRandomFreeper
Most amazing thing I ever saw there was a British Vulcan bomber in the ‘83 airshow. It performed maneuvers I never believed possible in an aircraft of its class.
20
posted on
04/15/2012 7:10:36 PM PDT
by
edpc
(Wilby 2012)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson