Slashdot Mirror
Planning For 80-Year Old B-52s
Merry_B.Buck writes "The B-52 Stratofortress, famous for its carpet bombing (or, as
the Pentagon prefers, "long sticking") was designed in the 1940s to carry boxcar-sized atomic bombs. This Fast Company analysis describes how the US plans to keep these planes -- the youngest of which was built in 1962 -- flying until 2040. "
And they're thinking about CONTINUING to do so until Hell freezes over!
If it works, don't fix it!
The major advances in aviation in the 1950's were sufficient to provide a number of platforms that are so cost effective as to not be worth replacing. B-52's and P-3's are examples.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Love Shack
If you see a faded sign by the side of the road that says
15 miles to the... Love Shack! Love Shack yeah
I'm headin' down the Atlanta highway, lookin' for the love getaway
Heading for the love getaway, love getaway,
I got me a car, it's as big as a whale and we're headin' on down
To the Love Shack
I got me a Chrysler, it seats about 20
So hurry up and bring your jukebox money
The Love Shack is a little old place where we can get together
Love Shack baby, Love Shack bay-bee.
Love baby, that's where it's at, Ooo love baby, that's where it's at
Sign says.. Woo... stay away fools, 'cause love rules at the Love Shack!
Well it's set way back in the middle of a field,
Just a funky old shack and I gotta get back
Glitter on the mattress
Glitter on the highway
Glitter on the front porch
Glitter on the hallway
The Love Shack is a little old place where we can get together
Love Shack baby! Love Shack, that's where it's at!
Huggin' and a kissin', dancin' and a lovin', wearin' next to nothing
Cause it's hot as an oven
The whole shack shimmies! The whole shack shimmies when everybody's
Movin' around and around and around!
Everybody's movin', everybody's groovin' baby!
Folks linin' up outside just to get down
Everybody's movin', everybody's groovin' baby
Funky little shack! Funky little shack!
Hop in my Chrysler, it's as big as a whale and it's about to set sail!
I got me a car, it seats about 20
So hurry up and bring your jukebox money.
Bang bang bang on the door baby! Knock a little louder baby!
Bang bang bang on the door baby! I can't hear you
Your what?.... Tin roof, rusted!
Love Shack, baby Love Shack!
Love baby, that's where it's at
Huggin' and a kissin', dancin' and a lovin' at the love shack
Put the research money into fast deadly assault planes... and you can use hot air ballons to deliver your bombs.
I believe there was a plan at one point to extend their operational life by replacing their dual engine pods with the recently introduced engines used on the 777. As some of you may know, that engine is huge (it's intake diameter is the same as the diameter of a 737s fuselage!), so, I'm not quite sure how they planned to do that.
But if you add up the total thrust that would be produced for 4 777 engines, it would be enough to acclerate the B-52 vertically!
the military had always been saying that B52 will be flying till ~2050.
Prime example of good engineering, you would wish that software could be like that.
And yeah, the B52 has been getting upgrades through out hte years so it's not exactly the same s those orginal birds.
kawai
The thing about the B52's is that, even though not many people would know the technical specs, it has been encultured to convey power. You can tell the average Joe Shmoe that we are sending B52's into ombat and, even though Joe can't tie his own shoes, he will know that we are sending in the big guns. Plus its a dang good plane.
Those guys truly were geniuses.. There were no CAD proggies, no computers (other than basic machines doing Army missle data).
They did everything by pencil, sliderule, and old fashioned brain-power.
They didn't even have Linux....which begs the question: How did this article ever get posted on Slashdot?
Ever take apart a full-tower? Or better yet, one of those IBM Netfinity boxes that covers about two square blocks? Much easier than working on, say, my Titanium Powerbook...
Who did what now?
NASA uses a B-52 for high altitude drops of prototype flight models.
It was actually tail number "008" making it the oldest operational B-52.
It is also the lowest flight time operational B-52.
The advanced technologies used in newer aircraft make the use of the subsonic B-52 possible. When the USAF owns the skys it's possible to bomb with a zeppelin. Still, the B52 and a few others (C-130, F4 Phantom, etc.) are marvels of elegant design.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
If you think about it, there really wouldn't be that much needed to make these planes more modern. Yes the computer upgrade would be necessary in my mind. Add the new navigation and targeting radar systems, if that hasn't been done already. I suppose the radar jammers, (if they have them?) would be good enough. The um....idea that they're working off of now is fighting third-world countries. They'll be using old radar. So the old jammers are what you need. If newer ones are needed, use the pod (forget the name off the top of my head).
And this thing is IMPRESSIVE. If you've seen one, its hard to imagine it flying, even more so with the amount of ordinance it can carry. And what's more demoralizing that being carpet-bombed by one of these old big planes? Well maybe beign hit by a bomb.......but thats besides the point.
So maybe what needs to be the area of concern is not the age, but the capacity and reliability of these planes.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
Hooyah!
I was a Bomb/Nav tech on the B-52's and can definitely attest to their resilience. While the airframe is old, they are running early 80's era technology throughout many areas.
The bombing systems run off of 3 computing units, each with as I remember four Z-80A processors. Data is loaded from harden (and sloooow) tape drives.
The Nav/bombardier compartment is on the first floor, but it does sit quite a ways back from the pilot. Underneath the pilot's is the main radar antenna.
The FLIR and STV systems were top. The FLIR was especially handy in the blizzard-ridden hellhole I was stationed at. We could use them to discern the sex of people from far away (different hotspots), and we could also located our boss driving the trick in a whiteout. He was a chain smoker, so we would just aim it out on the flightline, and wait for the telltale thin white heat line of a man driving a work truck with his cigarette hanging out the window....
Sgt. Barker if you're out there, give me a ring at:
greygent [at] absent [dot] org
I loved working on B-52's, they were excellent, quality planes...and I actually do miss the flightline life...
Working on B-1s...was another story. Nothing scares a pilot thats about to take off, more, than when an advanced avionics tech rushes up into the plane to fix a problem with a rubber mallet (sticky relays). when I was in the military, I read a report that stated as things stand, even though the B-1 is 20 years newer, the B-52 airframe will still far outlast the B-1.
I've read that the first U2 spy plane was able to fly around 3000 feet higher than those of today simply because a crapload of equipment has been tacked on the modern version.
With the B-52, it seems this might not have happened, and the plane might have gotten lighter. After all, a "dance hall" full of vacuum tubes that can be replaced with a few microchips must take off a few tonnes (which can then be added on in munitions. yippee).
Also, when Mike T. is one in a long string of people that I've heard crap on the B-1. Is there anything about that plane that doesn't suck? Or is there some truth in people who say that the modern American aerospace industry couldn't produce a cheap, reliable airplane?
Obviously there's the F-22 and the JSF, but at $150 million for a single F-22, is stealth and all the associated razmataz really worth it? The US already dominates the world.
What since when? I had the feeling the capital of serbia was named BELGRADE. I also use to thought that Kosovo was a REGION not a city. A region that wanted to separate from the rest of the country! Now if this guy got all his fact as straight as is understanding of a RECENT war, I'm sure we can trust him.
Trust me, I'm a reporter!
So it was designed to carry boxcar-sized atomic weapons, yet 5 years later, the first atomic weapons were inly 15 feet long.
We can only try to imagine what kind of payload these planes would deliver in 2040.
I wonder how many nanorounds one of these babies can pack.
Kevin Fox
lets see, B-52 took part in the bombing of Slobodan Milosovich's Yugoslavia(Serbia+montenegro), Kosovo, the region, was a part of jugolsavia(and still is, at least on the paper). Kosovo it's not Milosovichs capital, as the journalist says, its a part of the country.
And by the way: why did the US++ start to call Kosovo Albanians Kosovoar during the campaign?
Nemo
...we don't need them any more in 40 years.
I think the point of the article is the amazing work done by engineers in the 1940's with slide rules and log tables...not to promote war.
Just don't put windows on it when you upgrade the computers... it wouldn't be fun to have the navigator staring into a BSOD. ;)
Hmm, have the weapons control run by an XBOX tho, that might work
Is it just me or does anybody else find it amusing that this was posted by an anonymous coward?
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
It has to be said... you have a dramatic way of telling us you don't have any friends nor a family...
aka the blackbird. Titanium body, sustained speed and altitude specs that still (so far as I know) can't be beat. Mothballed a few years ago ... bet they'd come in handy for some surveillance jobs right about now.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
We've got literally thousands of old planes mothballed out in Arizona - not just B52s but B47s and B36s as well. A lot were destroyed under the SALT treaties of the 1970s and START treaties of the 1990s, but a lot are still there. So what if they are supposed to be destroyed, Dubya's getting us out of the ABM treaty, ain't he? Yeeha!!! Given that a SINGLE B-2 comes in at sizable fraction of a BILLION dollars, how many of these puppies could we get back in the air for the cost of a single "modern" bomber? Check out here and here...
Slashdotters pacifists? You're ptobably new..
Not that I'm in any way against a war-less world, how can you abolish something without force?
But irragardless, this was posted cause tech nerds think technology is neat, no matter where it is..
I would suppose there's something to be said for years of experience maintaining a system and dealing with its oddities.
someone else must be done with finals :) Congrats.
Even though the B-52 is a marval of engineering its not the only reason its going to stick around for so long, advances in munitions such as air-launched cruse missles and the like allow the B-52 to remain a viable combat platform well into this century. Even though we see B-52s flying arclight (carpet bombing) missions on TV all the time lately its really nothing more than a psychological warefare mission to put fear into the hearts of the enemy, the real benefit of a B-52 in the modern day and age that its basicly a fast, airborne, and heavily armed missle launching platform that can anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, somewhat like a missle cruser of the air.
When something is done right the first time, it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel...
And the humbling realization that something this big was done so long ago.
hey man they go to war on Star Trek all the time
All the armed forces keep weapons around for a long time. The Army has used the M113 armored personnel carrier since '60, and apart from engine swaps (which the B-52 gets, too), they're still running around. It's also been used as the basis for countless other vehicles, and it would suprise me greatly if it didn't hang around another 40 years.
.45, for an insanely long time. It was introduced in 1911, and saw action in horseback cavalry charges when Pershing was going after Pancho Villa in Mexico. It started to get replaced by the M-9 in 1986, but was still very much around during the Gulf war. 80 years of service life, unmodified. Not bad.
Along the same lines, the Army and Marines hung onto the M1911, the (in)famous Colt
And then there's the C-130 and all its variants. I know guys whose granddaddies jumped out of them. They're going to be around a long time, too.
mechanical engineers come up with a design that will pass the test of time with flying colors. the B-52 is just an example,but then there is the Morris Minor, the Porsche911 etc. One reason could be that there are no such dramatic technological advances in mechanical engineering, as there are in electronics (for example), so a few talented mechanical designers have the chance of making an outstanding, long-lasting product.
:o)
Let me explain this point: as transistors appeared, nobody wanted or had any reason to make computers based on valves or relays. Once you could integrate many transistors on one chip, most of the computer logic moved from discrete to integrated electronics. This, on the other hand, brought about new and more sophisticated logic designs.
In mechanical engineering you can have new alloys, new kinds of bearings, sensors and microcontroller-regulated engines, but the basic concept is totally the same. Today you could (theoretically) employ a mechanical designer from the beginning of the century, and he would be up to speed with his colleagues in a matter of months. And his biggest challenge would be to learn CAD/CAM software usage
Software engineers are probably the most "disposable" of thebunch: advances in software engineering (ans I don't mean just programming, like moving from RPG, PL/1 to Pascal and then to C, C++, Java etc., but advances in project management techniques, requirements management, software quality control, risk management, all that sh*t...) are coming at an incredible speed, even during an alleged economical downturn, that it's not anymore important whether you know something, but how fast you are able to learn something new.
So, if I was to think of one software design from the 60' (not that long ago, even), I can't think of any.
Sigged!
You should take an historical look at what drives technology.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
I'm just trying to figure out how anyone could find this informative. Damn moderators on crack again.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
After that B1-B crashed in the Indian Ocean last Tuesday, due to "multiple malfunctions," it makes me wonder why we're even using B1-B's in the Afghanistan conflict, after having achieved extreme air superiority. As this article points out, the annual budget to maintain all 94 of our B-52's is about $250 million, while the cost of a new B1-B is $280 million. B1-Bs are faster, can fly lower, avoid radar better, and have better electronic counter-measures, but the biggest cause of loss to our bombers crashing isn't speed, altitude, radar detection, or anti-aircraft missiles, it's that they break! It's hard to say what the cost would be to build new B-52s, since the last active B-52 was built in 1962, but it would sure be cheaper than the $280 million each for B1-Bs.
Shashdot seems to be about technology, and like it or not, military uses have driven much of the technology that we all take for granted. The early computers were first used to calculate firing tables for artillery and naval guns.
Like others, I think the reason this article made it to Slahdot was the cool factor of engineers that could build a reliable product without all of the latest tools. It was good work, of the sort not often seen today.
Bother, said Pooh, as he called in an air strike.
Or a cargo plane. The U.S. drops its biggest non-nuclear bombs from C-130 cargo planes. They're shoved out the back off the loading ramp.
Sounds like you are a bitter ex-Marine that wishes that he/she could have had more toys while in the force. Grow up.
Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
they had nerds..and /. is "news for nerds" last time i recall.
However an argument can be made to update stuff regularly. Technology moves along at a rapid pace, and supporting old products can be a challenge. In this particular case support could mean spare parts, training etc. There might be certain elements which were standard when the plane was designed, but are hard to get today.
Let's say you had a computer still using tubes - difficult to get today, maybe there's only one company left which makes them, so you might end up with something which is more expensive today then when the computer was designed.
Similarly you'd find it hard to get people who still want to learn how to maintain or operate a tube-based computer, they'd know that they'd learn skills which would have little market value.
The aeroplane industry moves a lot slower now than it did, and certainly a lot slower than IT. So probably their decision was correct. I do think though that sometimes there are reasons to fix things, even if they aren't broken (yet). :)
Amen.
From what I recall, the SR71 offered a task that no satellite or U2 could perform - high-speed, on-demand surveillance overflights of not-yet-completely-controlled airspace. Sending a U2 into enemy territory without adequate SAM surpression is a very bad idea (ask Gary Powers, who probably still has burn scars on his ass... unless he's dead by now). The raw speed of the SR71 means that a) it can get there faster, so that action, before the party's over, and b) it is harder (altho not impossible) to shoot down. Wasn't there something about the US finding Bin Laden during the first few days of the campaign but not getting proper surveillance data soon enough?
I'm reminded of a scene in a Tom Clancy film (Clear and Present Danger?) where terrorists at a desert training camp hide all of their equipment during satellite overflight times, much like the white folk stopped their partying when the black man got on the bus in that oft-referenced SNL skit. Also, while one can argue that satellite imaging resolution is much more advanced than it was when the SR71 was conceived, and that such might reduce the utility of the SR71, would not the equipping of an SR71 with the same upgraded optics allow even *greater* imaging capabilities? I think to those satellite images shown during the press briefings during the early part of the Afghanistan campaign... "and this slide shows a runway... err, no wait, I think it's a... oh sorry folks, this is my son's biology experiment, let me just change that" - surely greater detail would help? (I'm sure the US military has better slides than it shows up, but the same "get the camera closer" logic applies in either case.
Anyone that is remotely interested in the SR71 or the U2 or surveillance / stealth planes in general owes it to themselves to read Skunk Works. There is also a decent SR-71 site that even has the flight manual (recently declassified) online! In case you ever find one left running unattended at the local 7-11, natch.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
This dude really makes me all other debian users proud!! Way to go!
Come on - this is funny! Mod up.
I am a rabid MS basher but have to acknowledge that Linux news dominates here.
The difference in power consumption alone is enough to justify rewriting the software and replacing those old minicomputers. Some time ago they pulled one out of the Cal State university I was attending, with its sodium cooling used 260 amps, not counting the meatlocker a/c room, replaced by four AMD powered servers using a total of 50 amps. To recompile onto linux took maybe a day. And the gold circuits were worth some bucks at the recyclers, as I recall.
My dick just gets bigger and bigger as I think about these weapons of war. Let's see the whole planet bombed to hell! Yeah, let's!
Yes, it's just an airplane but really... from a European point of view the US media is becoming more and more militaristic each day, with Great Britain blowing into the horn as much as they can. Hopefully the US and GB won't turn into the Nazi Germany and 1940's Japan.
Sounds like Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog
The B52 is still kicking around because it just works. It's carrying massive amounts of conventional weaponry and not costing a billion dollars each just to purchase. It's relatively low maintainance, easy to maintain, and incredibly durable.
The B2, and to a lesser extent, the B1-B, is built to fight a war that we probably won't see for a long, long time - high-altitude strategic attacks. Granted, the B-52 was as well, but which one has adapted better to the role that needs to be played in the current theater? The B1 and B2 were designed to avoid taking hits with their speed (B1) and stealth (B1 and B2) - if they got hit by moderate AA fire, they'd be on the ground. The B-52 takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.
"The Air Force remains so enthusiastic about its 40-year-old bombers that it has publicly declared that the B-52 will continue to be a crucial element of the nation's war-fighting ability for another 40 years -- until 2040. "
In 40 years, new technology may make the b-52 obsolete so in 2040, they'll probably be laughing at the statement above.
The only reason it is still in use is because the USA has fought countries with limited resources after WW2. Vietnam (technically this goes with the Cold War), Iraq, Afghanistan. If (when..) they go to war with China, both countries have the resources for an arms race, producing new Anti aircraft defences and possibly making the B-52 obsolete.
Another example of good engineering is the P3, which is based on the Lockheed Electra L-188. The Lockheed Electra had several well publicized crashes when introduced into passenger service. Those problems were fixed and the Electra and its offspring have been flying for the last 40 years. I see P3s flying by my home on a regular basis. Both the U.S. Navy and the RAF have attempted to replace the P3 with more "modern" aircraft, without success. The U.S. Navy aircraft that was recently clipped by a Chinese fighter was a special version of the P3. It may be slow and ugly, but it keeps on going and going.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I guess so long as the "tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin roof" isn't "rusted"....
:)
"In a world gripped by recession and war, it may be a symbol of the future."
"In 1946, the military's original request specified a plane that could carry enormous atomic bombs from the United States deep into Europe and then back."
So, a heavy bomber designed to carry nuclear weapons to Europe is a symbol of future? Now, how can you not love this great nation!
There's really no reason to get rid of any design as long as the U.S. is just bombing third-world countries.
It'll be 'no negotiations' for countries with no serious defences until some new Ho Chi Minh catches the U.S. off guard.
Amen. Wonderful book, hardware hacking in the old sense, I loved the sales technique for the stealth fighter - roll a 1/8th inch ballbearing over some generals desk and tell him "this is the radar profile of your aircraft"
Hardcode
More like they're perpetually stoned on it...
yes it is a great plane..
but think, it was designed to drop 2-4 Nukes. nukes are now the size of 500 pound TNT bombs. and a B52 can carry several hundred of them. Nuclear carpetbombing is possible with this plane and that makes that plane very scary.
It is still one of the most powerful weapons in our arsenal.
Although, didn't the USSR have a long range bomber like the B52 that was a turboprop? a propeller plane that could go stratospheric and insanely fast.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
60's aerospace has yet to be surpassed. We put a man on the moon with that technology, slide rules and a cpu with 1/8th the power of a z-80. And we haven't been back to the moon since 1972.
if the marines werent busy poking each other in the ass, maybe the air force wouldnt need the fancy planes.
I like the saying "If it works, fix it til it doesn't" a lot better. More fun in the end.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
Just look at old wines. People are paying $$$ for something that was bottled 120 years ago.
Or take paintings. An old Van Gogh is worth several million dollars, but my fresh painted pictures don't get sold even if they cost 10 cents.
Of course the old things must be well build and have had some class in it's time. Look there at mummies. The mummy of Rames is really priceless because he was a big powerful pharao, but nobody cares about the mummies of egyptian tax clerks. The same goes for dinosaurs, the stoned bones of a T-Rex are worth much bucks, but small old stoned sea shells aren't worth anything. this is obviously because the Rex is much bigger and did more damage and grandstand in it's time
The same really goes for the B52s. As a formidable conventional weapon for mass destruction in their time, they are still used by the pentagon for nostalgic reasons as remembrance to the times were still everything could be bombed to dust without consequences.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
-1 Flamebait Start laughing.
yes, it is sad that nukes seem to be the future. However, while there are many who really don't give a shit and would rather jump on the bandwagon of 'my team vs. your team', degrading themselves to heaps of smelly rhetoric and stereotypes, paying no heed whatsoever to reality but loving their theories. From here you often get the extremist and incorrect rhetoric about the problem being with the military. A true warrior lives and fights for peace. History has shown that it is most often the self labled open minded that causes more violence and oppression than anyone. Not to say open mindedness is bad, but that most people who claim to be so, are very much not. Nothing in the world is more closed minded than an open minded liberal. Cowards like Bill Clinton have caused more death and destruction and committed our military to more foreign zones than ANY president of the 20th century. I know of way too many pathetic loosers trying to sound pacifist, and always making sure everyone hears them... yet when a situation arises where they can put that enlightened view to the test, they become the most vindictive and irrationally violent psychopaths ever witnessed. While the ones they labled as war mongers calmly take control of the situation and try their best to avoid the confontation from escalating. History is a fine thing unless we rewrite it and/or ignore it. Thank you liberals for turning the world into shit
B-2s and B-52s serve entirly different strategic purposes, they are not exactly swappable, so you idea is moot.
--Not trying to be a smart ass, just pointing out the facts.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
hey, can I be hip and cool too, if I say I like things that are cool and hip? Hey, I have no life... please tell me what to like and think! I only buy things that are correctly marketed... substance is irellevant
I happen to live in one of the two towns that have air bases that have the B-52s. The added revenue the B-52s bring to our local enconomy is huge. These planes are the only big thing that keeps our base open. I hope the government keeps these planes flying for a very long time. Oh by the way, the base I live nearby is Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.
While the extreme does indeed work both ways, you really should open your eyes and examine the whole forest instead of chipping away at the same ol tree.
Yeah, and it is also still in use as well. The Bear.
The bear though is one noisy plane as the tips of the counter rotating propellers are designed to go supersonic (hence the high overall speed of the plane)
The Douglass DC-3 was rolled out in 1935 and is still flying today. It is widely used by "bush" airlines flying in third world countries. They've been crashing lately but I suspect that is more due to poor maintainence than bad design.
The marines traditionally have less than 1% of the funding spent on the DoD at large. There are those who believe it should never change (in the Marines) and believe that by learning to adapt from the start, it keeps your wits strong.
Grow up, indeed. I could retort and say that you sound like another sterling example of what the Farce produces today... another couch jockey who couldn't find his ass with both hands and tries to justify his uselessness at performing an adequate job of being a 'professional warrior'.
Put down your toys and start training your mind. Pay attention to history and start BEING a warrior, not trying to convince others you are. "Hey look at me" Does not win nor avoid wars.
jw if anyone can answer this...... wouldn't that be bad for the blades?
when they're right next to eachother..can't imagine that would be goood
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
The Skunk Works was a great book... wonder if they've had much more success on Hydrogen powered planes? Don't let the fire department know.
It will be a sad day if ever we truly go to war. The Chair Force will not know how to cope. The enemy will not be impressed by their paper credentials, the public will not be saved by self serving showboats only interested in furthering their careers. I am still not sure why the Air Force is referred to as Military. I have seen small groups of children with better fighting capabilities than the farce.
Look, I like the B-52's as much as the next guy, but seriously people! How well can they possibly belt out "Private Idaho" when they're on supplemental oxgen and tooling around the stage in Hoverounds?
Bush should have died, not Reagan -- Morrissey
Morrissey rides a cockhorse -- The Warlock Pinchers
The real issue is creating a fighting force of capable warriors able to adapt to change on a moments notice. These men and women would need to rise above petty self interests and always trying to focus the lime light on themselves. Instead of them trying to impress the world and play soldier they will instead always train and train and train to be better. Instead of worrying about their benefits and honoraries they will instead ensure they are ready at a moments notice to respond to any emergency. Instead of their officers falling over each other trying to get their name put on something merely to say, "I did this", they will act as a cohesive team that works with each other for the greater good. Self sacrifice would be more than just a phrase, but would realistically be practiced.
As it is, no enemy will be defeated with DD-Form 1234 or such, and no enemy movement will be halted by words and marching. If my children where in a room with a madman trying to kill them, I can tell you definitely that if it was an average Airmen in there to stop him, that I would soon be burying my kids. Stop ACTING like the military and BE the military
I would agree with you, especially since it has been recently demonstrated that civilian airplanes are capable of taking down the world's largest buildings. However, war planes kill less pilots doing the same job. No, let's keep using war planes, for humanitarian reasons.
You know, I think that, without taking any merit away from these planes, much of the "feeling" that people (including their "maintainers") have about them is that they're "vintage".
;-)) or motorcycles, or people that like old (60's, 70's) electric guitars. Vintage items have something that's just "cool", it seems.
:-)
It's much like people that love to customize old cars (like Jeff Beck
I think that this "coolness" is because the vintage items were "up-to-date" when you were younger, and you liked them very much those days. So, it's a mix between pure nostalgy and collectionism behaviour.
It's not exactly the same with B-52's, but I think there's a little of it
My weblog in spanish
Taliban fighters are brave enough to die for their cause, not because things turn badly, but because they planned it that way. They have no "fancy technological toys".
But are they winning? No? Well, then I suppose technology has its value in battle.
carpet bombing is generally used to refer to large formations of bombers dropping their entire bombload over a target.
a "long stick" delivery is used to refer to operations where the aircraft will deliver a portion of it's weapons load (possibly all of it in the case of a fighter/bomber) in a set line. the weapons are not all dropped at the same point, but are released at regular intervals as the aircraft flies over the target area.
Primary Function: Heavy bomber
Contractor: Boeing Military Airplane Co.
Power plant: Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan
Thrust: Each engine up to 17,000 pounds
Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters)
Speed: 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters)
Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)
Range: Unrefueled 8,800 miles (7,652 nautical miles)
Armament: Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles. (Modified to carry air-launched cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship and Have Nap missiles.)
Crew: Five (aircraft commander, pilot, radar navigator, navigator and electronic warfare officer)
Accommodations: Six ejection seats
Unit Cost: $74 million
Date Deployed: February 1955
Inventory: Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9
More facts and an imposing photo at AF.MIL
Oh btw, great post, Hemos / Merry / Greygent!
It was called the big bear - and it was really really ugly....
but functionally very simillar to the B-52. but I cant find anything about in in google...
My father used to work on the RAF V-Bombers, which is Britain's equivalent of the B52's, they've been using them in Afghanistan for in-flight refuelling of US F16's, keeping these planes running for another 40 years is quite an ambition.
There's no strategic importance for big carrier bombers anymore so the cost of designing new planes would be uneconomical, those nukes not reside on missiles these days, and in the case of the UK those missiles sit on submarines.
There's the B2 Stealth bombers of course, but they cost $500 million a piece and are quite a white elephant, there's the B2 Stealth bombers of course, which are extremely nice, but they cost $500 million a piece and are a white elephant in a sense, it's like a car you don't want to drive in fear of damaging, or worse, loosing it.
Yes. The have (had?) the Tu-95 /142, NATO codename Bear heavy bomber. They used to be intercepted over the northsea all the time by aircraft from the squadron where I served.
a propeller plane that could go stratospheric and insanely fast.
It also was insanely loud :-)
karma capped
They are definitely out of the running in 2040, because by then they (and other planes, cars and industry) will have used up the last bit of fossil fuels on this earth. So it couldn't even fly longer even it they wanted to.
in fact, the first "real" computers were used to crack German cryptography during WWII.
Oh, and you are refering to UBL, you maybe thinking of that incident where Mullah Omar was found by an "asset", but the chain of command was to complex to authorise a weapons release on the van he was in quickly enough. But I could be wrong.
karma capped
Montenegro and Serbia are still in Yugoslavia.
They call themselves Yugoslavians. Only Madeliene
Albright and Clinton administration called them "Serbs". By the way, their enemy was a bunch
of Islamic terrorists allied with Al Quaeda.
No wonder they fought like maniacs. Would
you surrender to Al Queda in a war fought to
deflect attention from Clinton's willie? A truly
sad moment in American foreign policy.
they get plenty, it is a matter of finding more efficient ways of spending what they have. Trimming the fat if you will. Its like medicine, if you keep having to treat the same symptoms, then perhaps it is time to find and treat the cause/disease. If they get more money (which they actually might believe it or not), but the same innefficient standard is there, then they will eventually have to get even more money to make up for what was caused by the innefficiency. Viscous cycle keeps on going and going.... hmmm, now that I look at that, it doesn't look spelled right, but you get the point I hope.
For lack of modpoints: ROTFLMAO
Yes, tubes are not susceptible to EMP damage like transistors are. However, the effect of EMP is greatly exaggerated. First EMP is an extremely near-field phenomena, a plane would have to be awefully close to a blast to be damaged by EMP. Second, EMP effects can be reduced or eliminated with proper EMP shielding techniques. This makes any suggestion that the Russians were "wise" in their use of tubes in aircraft a fallacy. The added weight, power consumption, heat generation and footprint of tubes makes them completely inappropriate for efficient aircraft avionics. When you weigh the advantages of EMP protection against the overall disadvantages it's quite clear the Russians would have chosen passive components had they had the technology.
Carpet bombing is not the same as a longstick.
The emotive term carpet bombing is used by the media to conjure up images of indescriminate widespread destruction. A single bomber cannot carpet bomb. The expression was coined during WWII when waves of bombers would beging to bomb a target area and over the course of many planes dropping bombs, perhaps over hours, the destructive wave would roll forward like a carpet. It was so predictable that ultimately the first bomber would drop it's bombs short of the target in anticipation that the carpet bombing would eventually roll over the target area guaranteeing it's destruction.
So, longstick is NOT carpet bombing. It is pretty accurate, and supplemented with JDAMS & paveway guided bombs, it is even precise.
So, when you think you're being sophisticated and circumventing US propaganda calling this carpet bombing, you are infact misrepresenting what it is, and propagating a lie.
I haven't been in any B-52's for any length of time, but I've climbed in a few at airshows and such, and I want to know what the Air Force intends to do about the SMELL. Any pilot who flies the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat F*cker) will tell you - the interior smells BAD - imagine a 50-year collection of stale sweat, spilled lunches, and toilet overflows. It truly is enough to make one gag.
---------------
Vpered na Mars!
NASA has satellites which they say can read the headline off a newspaper, and this is what's in more or less civilian hands and shown to the public...I've seen some images from this satellite, but not much, as they're too large for my video card to handle. I wish I had a link to post, but the resolution was incredible.
It is effective, but it is UGLY (and that's an understatement).
It is so ugly that words cannot convey the meaning: it is as ugly as the "bombing" of the world trade center..
Excuse me not to get so excited about a plane designed for carpet bombing..
Carpet bombing is IMPRECISE so there are many "colateral damages", an military term for innocent civilians ie also innocent children, women and men mutilated and killed..
The past can NOT be changed. You can't go and just pull the land out from under the Israelis now, or you would merely be performing the original evil over again. The issue is not that US and Russia say or do this or that. The issue is that these psychopaths over there are hypocrits. They are always willing to talk and kill under the guise of defense, wailing and crying that some innocent was killed. Yet their solution is to specifically target civilians (often children). The fools in the world swallow hook line and sinker the short sighted ideal that the counter attack will 'show them what it is like'. However, if this cycle has been repeated many times before (and by now, everyone has lost count) then there is no validity to it. Plus, pattern recognition (seen as the most basic form of intelligence required before even speech and tool usage and development) would tell us that if the tactic of terrorist counter attacks (to what was deemed terrorism) will only end up causing your own people more death. Which really leaves us with the conclusion that in the absence of a logical, tactical or strategic reason for the 'cause' then you are left with the reality that the 'cause' is actually only for hate and pride.
Neither the Palestinians nor the majority of Israelis are willing to coexist. They must always have it an 'all or nothing' situation where only THEIR religion and culture are allowed. Over here you see that but not to the same extreme obviously. You have many that claim outwardly to be for freedom and openness, but yet their method of enforcing these is by creating a draconian culture that enforces their 'openness' on others, and it is punishable to be anything but a minority... this is a fact that many see today, and is causing more of a rift than if they where to leave it alone. (Like for example, the fact that if you are a hard working black female you MUST ascribe to the militant, racist and sexist views of NOW and NAACP, if you don't you are labled as 'acting white' or some such crap) The solution is to act with logic and consistency. Hipocricy is neither of these.
Why do you want AirForce officers to be general purpose warriors? They aren't. They are pilots. What more do you want from them? Perfection in hand to hand combat? Thats not what their there for. If you need an on the ground warrior you go for a Marine or Infantry or whatever.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
(Like this isn't completely obvious) Commercial Aviation hasn't changed much either (since the late 50s).
I don't know if it is more reassuring that I'm flying in a 30+ year old plane that has a tried and true design. Or- is the plane old and ready to fall apart? I doubt many parts are even close to original these days anyway.
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
I've always wondered what "precision-guided" weapons are. Are they guided by "precision?"
Pacifism is great, but like with gun laws, it must be addressed within the whole scope of life, not just certain aspects we like. If someone is trying to kill you, what will you do? Better yet, what if they are killing your wife and kids, what will you do then?
The cool part was that you could use said fuel to put out a match. It would only burn when it was very highly pressurized.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
I wish they had kept a few B-36 Bombers
around. They are more interesting than the
B-52.
The Iowa, and other battleships of that class
.50 bullets...), or even
were kept in more or less active duty for almost
60 years...I do not really see the difference
here.
France uses 40 year old Crusaders and
SuperEtendards on carriers. Harriers, used
in UK and by the US Marines, are not that
young either, as the Hueys one still sees
in Afghanistan.
Everyone knows that especially the B1 was an
overengineered, underpowered political tool
to give work to every county in the USA excepted
maybe in Alaska, as opposed to the B52, designed
by patriots at a time when aerospace engineering
attracted the brightest people.
And against enemies without defense, even very
old technology can be lethal. Someone pointed
out the Colt 1911, but I would also be careful
of black powder enthousiasts playing Davy
Crockett (with
of a charging horsemen with a sabre !
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
Most important of any martial skills is not the technique or physical might, but is the mindset. If you had that mindset (which you can and should), then you would from that realize that you must make the warrior first and the equipment operator second.
actually, I should really knock the 5 down to 2 or 3. I know too many children who are killer at FPS and combat aircraft games. They just would need the G-fighting skills and such.
as for officers in general, officers do not have to be the best of the group of men they lead, but they should be knowledgable and capable in every aspect of the postions of the men they lead. Plus, once again, they must have the correct mindset to pick out the best people for the job. I have seen way to many who are more interested in making themselves look good and shit all over some noncom that should be in their position. Some shitty little officer starts telling a 20 year veteran how to do his job is just an accident waiting to happen unfortunately.
but rather that if you become dependant on it, you will fail when it fails. The taliban are not warriors, but are rather fanatics. They do not fight because they see it as the final solution of diplomacy, they fight because they do not have anything to live for in the first place.
What's interesting is that the Russians have a bomber that is still in service with their Air Force thanks to continual equipment upgrades and new weapon systems: the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber.
First flown a few years after the B-52's first flight, the Tu-95 has proven to be a very reliable platform with several different variants that can drop gravity bombs, various types of large cruise missiles, carry electronic warfare equipment and specially-made to carry the AS-15 Kent cruise missile. And the Russian Air Force today still has a good number of them in service.
Relatively speaking that is. A lot of the discussion going on seems to assume that the planes are still running all of their original systems. To quote the article: "...ribs, fuselage, wings -- is original equipment. It's the systems, from air-conditioning to weapons, that are new"
"A defensive-weapons officer, a navigator, or a bombardier from that era, [1960's] on the other hand, would very likely have no idea how to operate the equipment at his old station."
In other words, all those systems have been replaced, or at least upgraded.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Gary Powers has been dead almost 25 years - he crashed a L.A. television news helicopter he was flying. I was a kid when he died yet still remember seeing the morning newspaper headlines very well because it was the first time I'd heard of his U2 incident over the USSR.
"My mother works for Microsoft now. A whole other cult."
ACtually, it wasn't designed to carpet bomb, it was one of the first designs to carry multiple nuclear weapons. Even better eh?
Actually, you see it carpet bombing on TV a lotm, but that's not really what the Air Force uses it for much, it was first used in the method we see on TV in the gulf war, in open desert against iraqi Military, the B-52 isn't a penetration aircraft anymore, so you can't use it to bomb out cities much these day.
But it can carry a ton of cruise missiles, and shoot from a 120 miles away, at a city.
BTW, behind enemy lines portrays mines as they are, its a decent movie. Will almost make you cry at the children are playiong in the streets, carefully stepping over tripwires.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Yes, it leaked fuel. Like other have said, because the heat expanded the plane in flight, sealing it up.
Maintenace nightmare? Perhaps. Reliability? Maybe.
But I'd like to point out a few things.
The plane is thirty years old. There are still no production planes that can challenge it's speed or altitude records. Nothing on the horizon, either (That's been admitted to) It was engineered with slide rules, and it can't be shot down to this day- we've never lost one to enemy fire.
At MACH 3, (3000 ft/s!!!!) It's faster than bullets. It's faster than any other plane out there. It's faster than missiles. Oh yeah, it goes higher than all of them, too. Do you know of a plane that can engage at 80,000 to 100 000 feet in the sky?
Survelliance? It can survey a 35 mile wide strip of the USSR in two hours. And if it passes over a golf course, they can tell you what brand of balls they're playing with.
The engines? They're unlike any others, past or present. ramjets. Any other similar engines are on test aircraft.
I'm just saying, don't knock it.
It's an incredible marvel of engineering for it's time, and it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Any problems related to it stemmed from the fact that the entire design was uncharted territory.
Incidentally, the only russian plane out there to hit Mach 3 destroyed itself in the process- the pilot had to eject, the entire plane was wasted.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
He was a tech, dumbass. He stays at the base and fixes the planes.
> The plane has long had the nickname "Buff" -- the ... fellow."
> polite translation of which is, "big, ugly, fat
Just like Read The FINE Manual.
I spoke with an Air Force pilot last year about why they kept the U2 in favor of the SR-71...and it was because the U2 is lot more useful in today's strategic environment. It can put a lot more time near a target than an SR-71 can (think of the turn radius you have when you're zipping by at Mach 3+). Geopolitical realities dictate that we can't violate sovereign air space willy-nilly; the U2 let's you get a lot closer to the target for a lot longer, all while remaining in friendly space. Another benefit is that the U2 is equipped with near real time downloading of its imagery- so if the people back home see anything interesting, they can have the U2 circle back (again, not possible with the SR-71).
For more on the SR-71, I recommend finding the book Sled Driver by Brian Shul. It's got awesome photography taken by an SR-71 pilot and a marvelously expressive text that really brings home the marvel that was the Blackbird.
No if an AirForce pilot needs to fight in hand to hand combat then the mission is already lost. Something has gone horribly wrong and the best he would be trying to do is damage control or getting out of the situation alive but the mission is already lost. I don't count on AirForce staff to save my life from an axe murderer, stop bank robberies in progress or perform emergency medical services. I expect them to know how to fly an airplane with deadly preciscion to do the jobs they are trained how to do. We all have our roles in society. Even the military is compartmentalized. Its those jack of all trades, masters of none who think they need to know a little bit about everything and end up excelling at absolutely nothing.
Just how much flight instruction time should be subtracted from a pilots overall experience just so he can learn how to fight in hand-to-hand combat like a Marine? How does that make any kind of sense? Should Marines also learn how to fly planes? Why not just get rid of all military branches and just call them the overall "General Forces". Anyone can join, you'll just be trained in the most half-assed way possible to do a little bit of all things.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
For human society to so dramatically transform in 40 years for there to be "no more war" would make any of the changes of the 20th century appear tiny and irrelevant.
It is interesting to observe that despite the technical progress, the 21st century has been marked by conflicts that would have been quite well recognized hundreds of years ago. In the late 1800s, there was fighting in South Africa in the Boer Wars; the last century has been marked by, if anything, more, and more vigorous wars than the 18th and 17th centuries.
The notion that war will be no more in 2041 is foolishly wishful thinking.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
One interesting observation about the warrior spirit and the Air Force. I was intrigued at the footage of the special forces who were first on the ground and closely engaged with the enemy at the uprising in Mazar-i-sharif - those were not Marine Recon uniforms or Navy SEAL uniforms or Army Delta Force uniforms they were Air Force uniforms. Apparently the Forward Air Controllers at least have not gotten the word that they are part of a "chair" force.
b52 and lots of plains discussed here are very old. since 30 (and less) to 50 years havent we advanced? we must have..
why is there no new hightech state-of-the-art fighters/bombers developed. seems like everybody is using the old good ones.
About ten years ago Aviation Week and Space Technology (known to people in the black projects arena as "Aviation Leak") had several stories about an unknown aricraft that flew very high, very fast, and had a weird contrail. It was believed to be called "Aurora" and to be a replacement for the SR-71.
Best Slashdot Co
This entire story is something worth considering, in many industries.
Today there's some irrational urge to have something that's bigger or faster, thinking that somehow those things make it better.
Tinker with things, fix what needs to be fixed, and leave the rest alone
Just when they thought you were funny,
they mod you down 'cause your name sounds like
shit. I say though, that's funny shit! I almost crapped in my pants.
The term "carpet bombing" came about as a result of what it looks like on the ground.
According to Richard Rhodes in "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the term "carpet bombing" arose during the middle portion of the war in Europe in WWII. It came about as the conjunction of intense strategic and incendiary bombing. Here's how:
Earlier experience had shown the military that there was a problem with "creep", where pilots and bombardiers (coming in series attacking the same target) would creep backwards away from the target in an unconcscious desire to avoid anti-aircraft fire as quickly as possible after releasing their bombs. Each plane would release their bomb slightly earlier than the one they followed, and the actual bombing would creep backwards away from the target.
They solved this problem by taking this into account and compensating for it. Targeting was changed such that initial targeting was behind the target, and so the actual bombs would fall in a progressive line where the intended target fell roughly at the mid-point.
This, coupled with incendiaries, created a terrifying effect on the ground where the fiery devastation would "unroll" towards an unfortunate observer like a carpet.
The "virtues" of area bombing like this were discovered as a result and so bombing like this was and is done to produce these effects intentionally.
I think he was referring to the English Electric Lightning, which was in service with the RAF from 1960 to 1988, not the WWII-vintage P-38.
6 /i ndex.shtml
The Imperial War Museum site (Duxford is well worth a visit, if only to see a TSR-2) quotes the Lightning with a climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/brit17.htm
As for whether that's as fast as an F-16, I guess that's down to which variant of F-16 you're comparing it with. aerospaceweb.org claim the F-16C/D with 50,000 ft/min also.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f1
I cant beleive that nobody has mentioned Dale Brown's excellent book from a few years ago, "Flight of the Old Dog", about a re-worked and updated B-52, called the "Megafortress". Basically, they turned a B-52 into one HUGE *stealth bomber*, with updated electronics, weapons, carbon fiber wings, etc. A great book, and worth checking out, as well as the sequels.
Some people might remember that the UK actually recovered a scrapped Vulcan long range bomber from the junk heap back in the 1980's to bomb Argentine encampments during the Falklands war. Prior to the war they had decided these planes were obsolete. Obviously they were not.
Once air defenses are not an issue, the only things that matter are:
1. They should be able to fly far.
2. They should be able to carry serious payload.
3. They should be reliable.
Speed and fancy features become a liability as witnessed by the dismal reliability and usefulness of the B1 bomber. They hardly seem safe to fly. (But they are newer!)
http://msnbc.com/news/671543.asp?cp1=1
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/18/B1.crash.update/
http://www.texnews.com/1998/local/net0219.html
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Had this not been miraculously modded up into the realm of positive numbers, I would have continued to ignore it. However, given that the weirdos with spare points and an antiwar axe to grind deem, by their positive moderation, your comment somehow relevant to the original article, I will respond (nee bite).
(If the original AC post, entitled "Sick", has since been appropriately re-modded into oblivion, Slashdot folks can move right along to the next post, as there's nothing to see here.)
First, we're not all Americans on here, you know - I would hardly call Slashdot "US media" (Fastcompany, I'll acknowledge, is as US as it comes this side of Guns and Ammo). Second, if you were paying attention in history class you'd know that, by most interpretations, there wouldn't be an english-speaking Great Britain today if it weren't for the Americans and Canadians that rolled up onto the shores of Normandy. (Granted the Soviets also had a lot to do with it, but the history books most post-war Brits undoubtedly favoured the American influence over the Soviet influence on the matter. Save the debate for later.)
The reality of the matter is that there are certain times where force, and/or the threat of force, absolutely MUST be used in the name of peace and saving lives. Asking an advancing army nicely doesn't always work. I think that much is pretty obvious to anyone over three apples high.
As for the B52s in question, you (as a war hater) should be able to grasp that preserving B52s is GOOD for those with your mentality, for three simple reasons.
#1 - It's good for the environment to reduce, reuse and recycle, right? Better to use what we have already than build new bombers.
#2 - B52s are hardly high-tech. Keeping them around means less likelihood of an arms race based on either a) more of the planes that replace them (B1-B/B2 etc) or b)the search for alternative delivery mechanisms (ICBM / space laser / rail-gun / death ray).
YOU of all people should be THANKFUL that B52s are being kept instead of scrapped for newer, scarier war technologies - better the smoky, subsonic devil you know than the one you don't. Let me know if you're still having trouble with this concept.
#3 - Economics. Undoubtedly, you're not a big fan of your tax money going to defence. I know, I know, you're not an American, but from UN dues to NATO dues to peacekeeper participation, I'd guess your country foots some of the bill somewhere down the line. And besides, would you rather have the best scientists and engineers in the world working on a B52 replacement, or working on more peaceful things?
So yes, tell me again how you disapprove of this article and the news that B52s are going to be kept online for the next fourty years.
Last little bit, the US military is becoming MORE militaristic than it was in, say, the 1980s? Or in the 1960s, when Walt Disney submitted each of his films to the FBI for editing? Or during WWII, when major pro-war Hollywood films were made entirely with government grants? Where-ya-been? Now, more than ever (which admittedly isn't saying much), US media is quasi-objective about what its government and military are doing. If you're a Western European, you're shallow for not recognizing that your country's freedom is in no small way connected to Americans. If you're an Eastern European, you are a hypocrite for complaining about the actions of American media when your own (former soviet) media are so blind to what goes on in Chechnya and if you are neither Eastern European nor Western European, how in heck are you able to offer a "European point of view"?
Sheesh.
Enjoy your 16th birthday... and the freedom that surrounds it.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
Besides which, people who are shot down don't go around "taking out patrols". Those who do end up dead, quickly. Hiding works out much better.
Fine fine fine for the UNIX == B52 analogy and all the praises to the almighthy old flying legend. But one reason why the B52 is considered old is that no 3rd world nation can't miss it on radar. The thing is a virtual reflector illuminating the sky. So yup, if I had to worship an old bomber I'll go for the Tornado or the Mirage IV.
Now think about it....
Don't forget the most popular programming language in the world, BASIC! Developed in the 50's and still going strong today.
The T-38 Talon trainer was first introduced in the late 1950's and is still the premier jet trainer fro the USAF. If you can learn to fly a T-38 well, you can fly any of the other fighters.
An F4 Phantom an "elegant" design? Hardly. The old saying was the Phantom was proof that a brick will fly if you put a big enough engine on it. Now the WW-II era F4U Corsair, *that* was an elegant airplane.
Carpet bombing is IMPRECISE so there are many "colateral damages", an military term for innocent civilians ie also innocent children, women and men mutilated and killed.
It's called war! Where people get these ideas that war is nice and fluffy and the only injuries people get are broken nails and bruised egos. People die. You will die.
If you think for one second that innocent people are never killed in wars then you've lived a sheltered life. Is it good that people (innocent or otherwise) die in wars? No. Would I like to die in a war when I was just a bystander? No. Is war terrible? Yes.
But you need to crawl out from under your stupidity blanket. Yes, it's comfy, but the real world has a lot to offer.
And let me explain something to you, and hopefully you can pass this along to your other sheltered pals:
The industrialized world has done is best to prevent wars of all types and for good reason. Yes, they had interests in many cases which need protection, but at the same time, a country such as the United States can't sit idly by while a bully in one part of the world lays the smack down on his or her neighbor. That goes against everything we believe in and we will do our best to protect all peoples. Have you noticed that it is very difficult to get the United States, or any industrialized country, to suddenly go to war against you? That's because we want to make sure that if we go to war, we think that we can win and we can do something that will be worth people dying over. But remember that what you think is worthwhile is not what the government thinks is worthwile; their view of the world is a bit (just a tad) bigger than yours.
Ever heard of World War II? Go back and take a look and you tell me if you think it was worth a few civilian casualties to stop the war machines of the Germans and the Japanese. That's just one example of a "good" war; but do skip a few wars just because there's a few outspoken folks who think it will end up a "bad" war? You obviously don't understand the necessity of global peace, which, oddly enough, is obtained by war.
Well then what the fuck! Let's kill ourselves and save the time.
Nah. You'll notice that NATO doesn't say anything to us about non-standardization of aircraft and naval rounds, either. :)
The "bureaucrats", as you call them, are often right. Their "bean counter" mentality keeps around nifty stuff like the B-52, and gets us things like the JSF. And I'd trade a Sheridan for 4 Javelins and some armed HMMWV's any day of the week.
Logistics didn't have anything to do with the adoption of the M9. Pistol ammo is so freakin' far down on the logistics totem pole, it's nearly irrelevant. Very little is consumed in combat, compared to 5.56 and 7.62. I like the 1911 just fine (I owned one as my sidearm, and not an M9). However, there was a good reason to get rid of them. They are difficult to master, and getting up to speed with the 1911 is not anywhere near as much fun as with the M9. With the M9, soldiers don't cringe at recoil as much (in addition to liking the training better), so they can concentrate on their other fundamentals. It's not as injurious, true, but better to hit an enemy with a small round, than miss him with a big one.
"... during the bombing of Slobodan Milosevic's capital, Kosovo."
You yanks are amazing! Wonder why you hit the Chinese embassy? How bin Laden sneaks out? How come the Russkies ended up first at Pristina Airport? Why your Twin Towers collapsed?
Don't blame Canada, if one of these refurbished junks flies into Sears tower!
Sustaining the B-52 was not the military's first choice. Until very recently, the Air Force wanted to have enough B-1s and then enough B-2s produced to allow it to retire the B-52. When Congress wouldn't provide the money, the Air Force was left with little choice but to re-embrace the B-52. The B-52 may be good, but it's way too old. It's disturbing that the government won't spend a few extra dollars to protect us. They're too busy wasting money on other things. Before September 11th, congress also didn't care about the threat of terrorism, now they know we should be better prepared. What happens if we go to war with China or North Korea? We'll wish we had stealthier bombers as our huge chunks of metal are falling out of the sky.
You Know You've Been Reading /. Too Long When...
No, "Collateral Damage" refers to damaging or destroying things other than the target. If the shock wave knowcks over an outhouse 2 miles away, that's collateral damage.
And besides, would you rather have the best scientists and engineers in the world working on a B52 replacement, or working on more peaceful things?
I'd rather those scientists and engineers and their respective funding be directed into researching and developing things that save lives than take them. I'd rather see better methods of delivering food and medicine to desperate people than have one more other than the current million ways to kill people. I'd rather not use intimidation as a means of protection.
Enjoy your 16th birthday... and the freedom that surrounds it.
Sure, in some third-world countries, I'm allowed to violate the totalitarian DMCA, but in the US and allied countries, I'm not. Depends on what you think is free, no?
We have the plans for the B-52, just like we have the plans for the Saturn V. We could resume production of either, but it would cost millions to billions to set up the manufacturing lines, and for how many units produced?
With the B-52, we seem to have enough planes to do the job already.
With the Saturn V, we'd probably want to just start over with a new design and lighter materials. It would probably have been more cost-efficient to have kept the Saturn V in production than to have spent what we did in money and time on the Shuttle, though. The shuttle was supposed to have been cheaper to fly, but it ended up being much more expensive.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Sure, in some third-world countries, I'm allowed to violate the totalitarian DMCA, but in the US and allied countries
You know, there are much worse things than not being able to watch a DVD on Linux.
Fuck man, get a clue. Do you REALLY fucking think people live in shit infested villages because they lack technology or medicine? It's the fault of their corrupt leadership which spends loan money on their ragtag military force to defend their coup government. Food doesn't need to be delivered by high tech means, humans collectively have been doing the agriculture thing before the wheel was fucking invented. Corrupt governments have the military power to keep down normal citizens and are often only resisted by even more ragtag resistance forces. The groups spend all their time fighting and looking for more money. People uninterested for fighting on either side of the conflict end up screwed because both groups take their food and blow the fuck out of their land which leads to the starving masses Sally Struthers whines about on TV. Scientists and engineers coming up with more technical ways of getting stuff done just makes the problem worse because those technical things need technical infrastructures. Why suggest using a fusion powered hover craft when a horse and a decent wooden carrige would work fine?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
holy shit. that site is too funny
I'd rather see better methods of delivering food and medicine to desperate people than have one more other than the current million ways to kill people. I'd rather not use intimidation as a means of protection.
Um hello, the main problem with getting food and medicine to desperate people is making sure the goods get to where they are supposed to go instead of being stolen and sold to the highest bidder. The whole "Blackhawk Down" Somalia bit came about because of exactly that. As a Washington Post article from 1992 explains,
"[Former UN Sec-Gen] Boutros-Ghali...concluded that only 'a country-wide show of force' by outside troops can guarantee deliveries of food and humanitarian aid in the face of attacks by warring militias."
International Organizations including the UN are in a serious cash crunch, in no small part because of the US goverment's inabilities to pay their dues on time. Financial and technical resources are finite. You suggest spending money to develop, say, a revolutionary new delivery system for a vaccine, but you don't agree with the idea that an attempt should be made to ensure that such a device, once produced, actually makes it TO those in need? Without protection for such shipments, such a device would get stolen and sold on the black market to heroin addicts in no time.
Don't get me wrong. I work for the UN, but obviously my opinions are my own. That said, you say I'd rather not use intimidation as a means of protection well of course not, no one would. But you cannot eliminate the capabilities and devices for it and expect to remain protected. The B52 is such a device - it is, as another poster mentioned, a recognized symbol - a deterrent.
You think the DMCA is totalitarian, and that having to live under it means you're not free? Oh please. I'm in a developing (nee third-world) country. Trust me, you have no idea how good you've got it. I suggest you go see some of the world you're talking about.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
I am a news photographer, and one of my buddies asked the pilot the age of his C-130 that they were going to up in...
"Oh, its five I think."
"What?"
"Yeah, still make em. Have a factory line that they specially keep running at a snails pace so in case we get into major conflict, we can start cranking them out fast again with no opportunity cost downtime. You know, workhorse of the military. They just replace them very slowly."
That is what I would consider good management of resources.
Anyway, thought that was interesting, whether it was perfectly factually correct or not. I wonder if they still make some of the other oddball planes the same way... hmmmm.
Sure, there is something to be said for being nonmilitaristic, but this was sheer impotence and cowardice, and countless innocents lost their lives because the powers of the EU refused to engage the situation.
So the US rightly disregarded European input on defense matters from that point forward.
The EU could be a powerful force for Western values (values that originated in Europe) and moderation, but instead their inaction has forced the US to oversee its defense and shape its foreign policy for it.
You first.
Isn't OS/360 still around from the 1960s?
Also, there may be many FORTRAN codes written then that are still in production.
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY.... there are many in history that wisely said that it is indeed our own selves that can be the greatest enemy of all.
You do not rise to the level of your expectations... you fall to the level of your training
but instead of making excuses, perhaps it is better to look at history and see that it is the mindset that is most important. No one has said that there would need to be 'Jack of ALL trades' but if you cannot conduct yourself in the basics of military warfare then you are more of a danger behind some technological wonder than someone untrained. A trained monkey could surpass an untrained human, but a dedicated human that understands the role of the task required and applies his warrior ethic to it will very soon surpass the monkey in that task and anything layed before him. Sorry, but excuses don't win wars any more than very selective bits of facts and logic. If you would look at the whole picture then you would see the NEED to ensure that every fighting man and woman is a warrior. A warrior is not in the fighting skill alone, but in the mindset. Any true warrior behind the throttle of a jet would voluntarily commit himself to learn those things that focus the mind and spirit to becoming better at all aspects of warfare. Instead of justifiying to make yourself feel better why not crack open the Art of War and start a journey from there.
Well, once upon a time, F14's were purely a air defence aircraft
ok, first off, fighter technology is evolving much faster tahn bomber technology... But electronically and as well as aerodynamically. Research and modern cimputers have made it possible to build inherently unstable aircraft which can turn much faster than inherently stable ones
Second, something called limit load. Aircraft are designed to withstand limit load. For bombers and cargo planes (B52 & C5 for example) they almost NEVER see limit load during actual use. An aircraft may see limit load a half dozen times in their lifetimes. But for fighters, they ALWAYS see limit loads. They may see limit load a half dozen times in a single flight. If you were to build the structure up enough to take these kinds of loads forever, it would weight too much to be maneuverable still... and hence couldn't fight. And yes, I do work in the aerospace industry as a structural engineer.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm just trying to understand your antiquated view of modern warfare tactics. I don't expect pilots to hop out of their downed planes with samuri swords and win the war on their own from the ground.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
That seems to be the gist of much of the other available information on the attacks.
However, this guy thinks there may have been a cover-up, although he doesn't provide much evidence. He does provide a link to the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion who were the original "smoke jumpers".
"Let's say you had a computer still using tubes - difficult to get today, maybe there's only one
company left which makes them, so you might end up with something which is more expensive today then when the computer was designed. "
Doesn't the FAA & the weather service have this problem with their equipment.
First of all, I'm older than 16. Second of all, I have done my army service and I think it was a useless waste of my time. Third of all, Europe isn't West and East. There's also North and South.
So yes, tell me again how you disapprove of this article and the news that B52s are going to be kept online for the next fourty years.
I did not say I was against keeping the B52s online for the next fourty years as such. I was speaking against the fact that since they are kept, there is obviously much use for them in the next fourty years. This means more war. And war, as we're being told and shown more and more, is an exciting media event just like the airing of an episode of The Simpsons. Preparation for more killing, if you will.
Wasn't the Penatagon scrapping all the buffs a few years back? Last I heard, they were all supposed to be scrapped by 2005. I guess someone finally realized that a b52 can carry a shit load of ordnance, and that it's not as easy to replace them as they thought. A single B52 can carry as many tons of bombs as an entire squadron of B2s. And they were going to replace all of them with a much smaller number of B2s.
I'm really glad to see that someone finally pulled their head out of an ass long enough to make a good decision.
LOL... I would've linked to images.google.com if that were my intention, 'though.. :-)
karma capped
Both the B-52 and the Tu-95 are, actually, amazing aircraft, and both are highly demoralizing to look on in flight.
:-)
However, the Russians generally build the more aesthetic aircraft, top-of-the-line being the Mach 2 heavy strategic bomber Tupolev Tu-160. True aesthetics of death. Scares the hell out of me.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
The A10 was originally projected to be good for 8000 flight hours, now they're planning to keep them in service for up to three times that. There's a detailed description of the updates and overhauls they plan use to keep the A10 in service on FAS.org's A10 page.
Interesting - the inventory list at this web site is "temporarily unavailable". Wonder if it's been pulled because of 9/11?
Actually, Powers was downed by an *UNARMED* Sukhoi SU-9, *BECAUSE* it was unarmed. No air-to-air missiles or gun turrets mounted yet. The SU-9 was being flown from the factory to its first posting. See2 -96.html
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/10-96/ew10-1
The SU-9 had been ordered to ram the U2 if necessary. However, flying past the glorified glider (which the U2 really was) at mach 2 was sufficient to break the U2's wings, at which point it disintegrated. The weird part is that if it was weighed down with its regular complement of armament, plus the air drag from wing-mounted missiles, the SU-9 might never have gotten close enough to shoot down the U2. Russia claimed that it was a SAM that brought down the U2, and US intelligence never caught on.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Brilliant research! Plus accurate geography! I'm impressed!!!
(the capital of Yugoslavia is Belgrade and Kosovo is a region, not a city)
happened to a follow-on bomber: the Convair Hustler?
... what happened to the Hustler?
The ORIGINAL "Failsafe" story featured the Hustler and
since the earlier design B52 is still going....
its got me thinking
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
OTOH, the upstairs compartment seats are good for ejection from ground level, you need a minimum 90-knot slipstream to pull the upper hatches off (the ejection mechanism only releases them and lifts them an inch or so into the slipstream. . .)
The sixth ejection seat is in the upstairs rear, beside the Electronic Warfare Officer's seat (nowadays called a Defensive Systems Operator. . .). It used to belong to the Tailgunner, who remotely controlled either a quad 50mm machine gun turret (the G-model B-52 and earlier) or a 20mm Vulcan gatling cannon (the H-model B-52s) Gunners were finally taken out of the airplane, and tailguns removed, after the Gulf War. . . .
to drop manned combat aircraft about 30 year ago,
and rely solely on missles and UMAs!
At the time they had some brilliant designs and
they've never regained it!
-Bloody beaucrats-
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Actually, a B-52 cannot carry "several hundred". Max munitions stores of a G or H model is 51 weapons, using internal stores and wing-mounted weapons. The all-time-max was the "Big Belly" modified B-52D's (Vietnam era) that could carry 102 gravity weapons, and that was conventional only. . . .
But in the Firefox (book & movie), Firefox Down (book)
the USSR had the fastest interceptor!
What the YF-12A had been intended to be!!??
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Dont Try To Fix It If It Isn't Broken
get xited
because in Australia RS is slang for "Rat Shit",
which is a highly critical term!
I was in the QLD BMW MC Club when the R-100RS was
released and the insignature caused much humor!
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
because if ONE of the tremendously powerful engines
had a 'flame-out' the unballanced thrust could rip
the aircraft apart!
The solution was to have the other engine swiftly
shut-down, before re-lighting both togather!
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Corrupt governments have the military power to keep down normal citizens and are often only resisted by even more ragtag resistance forces.
The hand of the "West", both government and corporate can often be found supporting corrupt third world dictators. (A corrupt dictator can be easy to infuence. Especially if it's made quite clear that it's no big deal to replace them.) The US is a major player here, to the extent of toppling democratic governments in Iran and Central America.(On the basis that they wanted control of their own economy).
The groups spend all their time fighting and looking for more money.
Most of the worlds weapons come from a comparitivly small number of the richest nations.
These planes (and the Canberra, for that matter) have been flying for more than half the history of powered aircraft flight!
The Wright brothers first flew in 1903. Some of the Canberra airframes are 1950's vintage! They still do photo rec' at 70K feet.
I assume some of the B52 airframes are 1950's too.
PB.
For human society to so dramatically transform in 40 years for there to be "no more war" would make any of the changes of the 20th century appear tiny and irrelevant.
Since the only change that could occur in 40 years that would make war obsolete would be the complete destruction of the human race, I'd be very concerned about anybody that expresses the hope that it will no longer exist.
The only reason you hate Tenacious D, is because you fear them. You fear the fact that some day, in a strange bar, you will pick up a hot chick, take her back to her place, then suddenly from out of nowhere,
"Oh ho ho, who's this.... "... It Kyle G, crawling up yor leg, fixated on your junk. Then there's Black with his "Oils and perfumes", spilling over on to you... It's double-team supreme. Not what you'd expected.
In the Air Force, there has long been a group of dedicated people in two groups that have the needed fighting spirit... Pararescue and Combat Controllers. The worth of these individuals is not in question. Interestingly enough, for those that care to learn from history, both groups (and the SOWT at large in the Air Force) are a legacy from WW2 (in some cases, it could be argued from WW1). Back when there was the Army Air Corps/Force (depending on who you asked) you had (especially with D-Day) a group of bullet eating, aligator wrestling men who knew what it took to get the job done. Of course, back then most of the Air Corps had varying degrees of that. They where true heroes then. However, as the decades passed, the problem began to surface. Politicians where promoted to take the place of Warrior leaders, career mindedness took the place of Team mentality and dedication to the greater good, and show offs took the place of the quiet and dedicated folks who knew what duty and honor where.
Now, it is a typical (typical for pre-adolescents) tactic to try and boost your own image by pointing out a very tiny and different segment of the population as representing the whole. That is not only dishonest, but rather pathetic. Now lets see what the average warriors day is in the Air Force... after playing an early game of golf, I might surf the web for some new 'shades', when I put on my gnatty jump suit and apply the patches so as not to look like I am about to shovel shit in a sewer or stall (I would never get MY hands dirty with manual labor), I think I will play a couple of games of Hearts or Pinball on the network. Now it is time for a game of Racketball perhaps (or maybe another game of golf) right before I 'do' lunch. Back to my desk, I believe I will chat a while on ICQ until our staff meeting. Now it is time to order some more papers that will eventually be filled out that successfully order more paperwork. *whew* what a day... it is good the fridge is always stocked with the latest in snacks and drinks, because I have worked up a massive appetite.
I wonder what my stocks are doing, lets find out now... Now I think I will sagely nod at some POW victim missing his legs as if I actually fucking understand and can even begin to comprehend what he gave and what he did. Then I will take the sacrifice of people like him and cash in on it myself.
Again, the importance is in the mindset, if you practiced (and I encourage you to do so) any sort of martial art you will soon learn how your awareness is enhanced... that is the amazing thing about the human brain, it adapts and learns. While you may hopefully never need to throw a flurry of blocks and punches, you will still gain the benefit of a greater insight and greater observation skills to enhance whatever specific implimentation you utilize. You fly in a plane in combat missions, then the warrior mindset will greatly aid you. You are in a tank... same thing. Technology is always growing and changing, but through it all there are very consistent underlying lessons to be learned. If a thousand years from now, we are fighting in ways we can't imagine, then the basics will still persist. Unfortunately, man kind will always be mankind, regardless of the specific tools he uses. From that realization, you can approach tools and training as extensions of your basic mindset and approach to training, not as THE ways to do it. Guns jam, Bullets missfire, Missles fail to lock, computers fail to process, and radars fail to display... but the lessons from the past will still be in use no matter what you use.
It is frightening, that so many are refusing to heed history's lessons, and instead adopt an attitude much akin to a teenagers "it won't happen to me" attitude. The Air Force (and most others of the other branches) need to turn back the clock and not ignore the past.
And war, as we're being told and shown more and more, is an exciting media event just like the airing of an episode of The Simpsons.
The jig is up. You've figured it out - the war in Afghanistan was a ploy by the US Govt. to increase its ratings for sweeps week.
While the B-52's 40+ years of service is impressive it's about 40 years behind another weapon that is still in use in the US military. I'm talking about the Browning M2HB .50 caliber machine gun. It was introduced in 1918 and is still in widespread use today and to the best of my knowledge no-one has even suggested looking for a replacement. A marvel of design IMO. During it's lifetime almost every other small arm of the US has been replaced multiple times.
I thought it was based on "sharp edges" and planar surfaces, not curves. The reasoning is that curved s urfaces reflect in all directions, while flat planes only relfect when precisely aligned, a very rare occurence at distance.??? Am I wrong?
Interesting. Fast Company and Business 2.0 have stories of similar topics. B2.0's article is on where airplanes go when they're decommissioned.
I spoke to a Buff pilot at an airshow, and he told me that they regularly flew low-altitude approaches to Iraqui targets at 600 feet! I'd love to see that - from a quality foxhole, with earplugs on.
You can see the stealth fighter that lost out to the Lockheed F-22, the Northrop YF-23, at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, CA. (http://www.wmof.com/). The other YF-23 (there were only 2) is at the Edwards Air Force Base museum (www.edwards.af.mil).
If you are frustrated at not being able to visit Groom Lake, go to Hawthorne - The hand-made, $500 million YF-23 doesn't even have a rope around it, and you can take all the pictures you want. Lots of other good stuff there too, it's an underfunded museum deserving of support.
Collateral Damage is the direct result of an enemy colocating their troops with civilian population.
When Hussein parked his Republican Guard around the perimeter of Baghdad, he had troops lined up and camped out on residential streets. It's a wonder and a miracle that MANY more civilians weren't killed.
When a leader tries to hide his military equipment among his people, he's not trying to protect his people, he's trying to protect his military equipment, and thus, his own ass.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No kidding! That's amazing, I never knew that. Thanks for posting this.
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
Unfortunately, I think the story is bogus. It was only a few years ago that the US and Russia both announced what had happened. The official line is that Powers' U2 suffered an engine flameout at its cruising altitude and ended up losing in the neighborhood of 20k ft. of altitude before accomplishing a successful engine restart. He had only just started to regain altitude before being shot down by an ordinary SA-2 missile. Like most SAMs, the SA-2 warhead contains a radar fuse that is designed to explode in the vicinity of the target. FWIW, very few SAM kills actually involve a direct hit.
Anyway, U-2s had been routinely flying near the same SAM site, and the Soviets routinely launched missiles and scrambled fighters to try intercept them. If you know anything about old Soviet aircraft, you'll know that an Su-9 could never reach the operational altitude of a U-2. The Su-9 was basically a copy of the MiG-21 design, albeit heavier, and (like the MiG-21) had a ceiling of around 15km unloaded. And it didn't travel anywhere near Mach 2. The SA-5 was the first Soviet SAM that was capable of reaching a U-2, and the MiG-25 was their first aircraft that could intercept.
Gary Powers was not shot down by some secret Soviet SAM, nor by an over-eager Su-9 pilot. He was simply shot down because he suffered a flame out at an inopportune time. It's worth noting that flameouts were common on the U-2 because at very high altitude, with conventional inlets, the engine is running right on the ragged edge of stalling because the inlet pressure is so low.
There is a B-36 at the Castle Air Museum. It is at http://www.elite.net/castle-air/b36.htm
ac
The story might be bogus, but your facts are, too.
If you know anything about old Soviet aircraft, you'll know that an Su-9 could never reach the operational altitude of a U-2.
Err whut? The Su-9 is, as you say, quite similar to the MiG-21. The Ye-66A, an experimental version of the MiG-21, held the altitude record for a brief period in the early 1960s - 113,829 feet. The F-104s were hitting 90,000 feet even before they started strapping booster rockets onto them. Obviously this is not a sustainable altitude (ask Chuck Yeager - whoops) but the idea of an Su-9 blowing by a U2 at 75,000 feet is certainly not impossible. Don't confuse operational ceiling with maximum altitude.
Err whut? Mach 2.1 for the MiG-21, Mach 1.8 for the Su-9.
While I don't neccesarily buy the Su-9 story, realize that a properly piloted Su-9 will zoom climb much higher than a U2's cruise altitude. So the story's plausible.
The flameout theory's been pretty thoroughly debunked as far as I know, both by recently declassified documents and by NASA's records: "Powers...insists that he was shot down ata operational altitude"
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
However, the point (no matter how acidic it sounded) was that the modern Air Force is repeating the mistakes of the past and putting themselves (and therefore everyone) into great danger. The point is that a true warrior would realize this mistake immediately and try to make changes.
By the sound of it, you are someone who ascribes to the 'fighting fair' philosphy. (with the comments about arms and tactics like guerilla tactics) That too has never been a true warrior code. See that is the problem here. Our modern society gets all their information from fiction, fantasy and 'modern renditions', yet completely ignore true historical texts and tactics. This was never about 'hiding behind technology like cowards' as far as TACTICS are concerned, but rather the long term MENTALITY and STRATEGY of depending on that technology and not first making yourself a warrior, at least as I see it. There is nothing cowardly about firing from a foxhole or behind a tree. If you did your research you would find that with the advent of the bow, that tactic was used already. The straight formations where not due to any desire for honor or courage, but where a tactical decision to concentrate fire in the hopes of hitting your target. The only people that think of it is being done for honor have spent too much time letting television and movies tell them what to think. If you are going to watch TV, try looking at well researched non-fiction historical shows and documentaries.
Cowardice comes into play in how any tactic is applied. If I 'face off in mortal combat' with a weaker opponent, wouldn't I then by your standard be considered a true warrior?
And why would you attack the anonymity of posters that has no relevance to facts about the subject, unless you are more interested in eliciting emotional responses because your argument is weak?
What is "morally indefensible and cowardly" about gunpowder? Especially when compared to bows, or long weapons like pikes, or spears, or swords, or knives, or rocks, or sticks... and then we get into the whole matter that it is genetics, not our deeds, that grant someone greater size strength and speed (at least out of the box as it was)
I once knew a man who worked his rear off all the time. He sacrificed and contributed his all, always giving of himself and not often saving for himself... yet always with a smile. Constantly, there where others that would literally take credit for his work while claiming that it was for the 'team'... yet it was them who received bonuses, rewards and recognition (from which came promotions and raises). He would often make excuses for these people (the thieves as well as the ones who allowed it to happen) and say that in the end it was good to just perform good work. Then one time he got into an argument and said that just once, he would like to be recognized for his work. He was reprimanded and not taken seriously. The irony of course, was that there was no consistency in applying the reprimands much less listening to what he said and comparing that to his very long history of work for the team and self sacrifice.
so, if we where to make him a POW, and the usurpers of recognition the modern Airmen... would it trully be fair to judge the POW so harshly and claim that he was jealous and selfish for wanting recognition? Or could we perhaps step out of our selfish emotions long enough to see that it is not recognition for him, but rather that his sacrifice not be used to fuel a movement that rewards his antithesis (that of cowardice and complacency), and furthermore would lead only to pain and suffering for those that depend on the cowards in uniform?
If ever the Air Force (and the military at large) remembers its way, then good for them and good for us all. But let us not make excuses for them simply because the discussion makes us uncomfortable and squirmy in our seats.
remember this friends, no matter what your emotions may tell you (or what others tell you to think and feel), war is about murder. Period. If you are forced to kill and put your life on the line then it had damn better be for good reason. A warrior understands that his art is deadly and horrible. He is a victim of war more than enemy is, for he must live with it. (not convinced, then try talking to the legions of vets that have recuring nightmares) A warrior trains his mind, and then trains his body. All tactics flow from his resolve to make himself as good as possible, but his true desire is to never have to EVER employ his deadly art. He does not depend on his armour or his sword but on his wits. He can make anything a weapon and any battlefield a chance to win. But what about his comrades? If they are weak, then not only will they die, but he will too... and then all is lost because the people he was protecting are now open to being slaughtered or imprisoned.
MODERN is the key word here for the state of the military... MODERN. DO not go and bring up soldiers from the 40's to the 60's, they had what it took (for the most part). If you start with a warrior and THEN you train him to employ a particular weapon (like a jet) you will have a warrior pilot. If you take some regular person and teach them to fly combat missions in a jet, you will merely have someone who is a little more useful than anyone who plays video games. Take away his toy for whatever reason and he will not be able to adapt, he will be defeated. Plus, if he has the correct mindset to recognize the jet as an extention of himself, then he will have a much MUCH better chance of not loosing in the first place.
You are looking at things only at the surface as if you are one who has already made up his/her mind based on an emotional reaction and now seeks out only those things that will justify his/her conclusion. Dig deeper. For example, your example of peasants defeating well trained and armoured knights was already used by me earlier (not that exact example) as talking about how the mindset is the most important. While you contradict this in word by saying the peasants knew nothing of honor and such... well you are wrong. They knew everything there was to know about honor in battle. You would be correct in saying they did not know the dogma and 'indoctrination' [lets just be honest and call it brainwashing]. However, history has shown on and off the battlefield that true character as I am exemplifying here is not one of knowledge like a skill or trade craft is, nor is it a talent or instinct. Rather it is learned and developed on our own. Your example is more of the sort that I could validly use to say how important the core values are of a warrior... the code as it where. In teaching and enforcing it (by first of all setting the right example, and not creating a double standard) you will increase the chances of inspiring your men to live the same way. THEN you will train them in their specific devices and implementations. Those peasants and many others like them in history knew exactly what it took. Determination steered by courage and tempered by love. Granted in some cases, it is hate. BUt the love of a neighbor, buddy or homeland is what gives a defender such a 'homefield advantage'. It is from there, and after that is established, that the weapons and tactics (which are tools of tactics) come into play.
One other thing, while I do understand your point on how relative the definition of warrior is, especially in light of the 'I would be judged as I judge now the Air Force'. However, this is incorrect simply because I am actually basing my 'definition' of warrior on a very ancient and time proven concept. While others may move it left, right, up, or down... this one definition has stayed constant throughout all wars, tactics, weapons and leaders. It is not actually one of the braggart, but it is one that recognizes the importance of teamwork. I will trust someone who is flying a combat or support aircraft that has the warrior mindset (while I am on the ground or in the support craft) much much more than if they are just a Joe Nobody who knows how to fly combat craft.
Again my attack is not on the concept, technology or implementations behind a military air combat unit or branch, nor is it against the people who would use and support those implementations. Rather, my attack is on the complacent and naive outlook that it is the weapon and not the mind that makes a warrior. And no, that does not just mean "Well, lets train them better". To be the military, no matter what era or weaponry, you must adopt the military mindset. Many will mention that history is full of examples of how the military mindset has caused many attrocities. They are mistaken. Anyone can put on the hat of an organization and then bastardize it, but that organization should then police itself and solve the problem. Furthermore, if it is a cause, or even deeper a philisophical mindset instead of a organization... then it becomes vital that those making the decisions up top and those training the new backbone (the recruits) MUST POLICE THEMSELVES in order to keep themselve to the true path.
The Air Force is in need of brave men no matter what toys they have and no matter what the position of the airman is. Otherwise, they should forgoe the use of uniforms and disolve themselves. The warrior is NOT his weapon, the weapon of a warrior however becomes a part of the warrior. I don't know how to say this, but I am just sorry, you are wrong. This has been proven, and while you seem to scratch the surface and make reference to the past and how 'it has always been like this' as far as definitions go... you need to dig deeper. Look for the meaning, not just read the words. See the forest for the trees... okay, no more cliches.
BTW, in business, if you have ever noticed yourself, it is those who have the warrior spirit that consistently are the best workers and contributers. It is not just warfare that the warrior spirit encompases. Take politics. Some slimy lawyer politician that instead of doing what is right (based on logic and reason, not emotional foolishness or partisanship) he succumbs to greed and hateful quests, that is an example of someone who is in need of the warrior spirit (and some might say, also in need of a good kick in the arse).
So, I am not saying that some martial artist is a great candidate for a pilot, any more than I would say that it is martial skills that makes the warrior. If you do some good research you will find that in combat and other stressfull situations, the most important thing is your reactions and mindset, irrespective to your actual martial tactics and skill level. I have seen too many blackbelts get taken by a very humble and non-trained 'wimp'... that wimp had the balls usually to try to walk away and avoid the fight and when it came time to throw down and it could not be avoided, they fought like a force of nature. That is a warrior, although by your misinterpretation of what a warrior is, you would say that the martial artist was the only warrior there. In fact, the martial artist was NOT a warrior, he was coward with a toy (that toy being his skill).
If the Marines ever loose thier way I will say the same damn thing about them depending on their toys (their guns, armored vehicles, etc). Again (and again) it is NOT the weapon. It is the mindset that all else springs from. This is histories lessons from the Masters. Period. Agree with it or not, but it is the truth. Much like if you disagree with a bullet one inch from your heart... your disagreement will not alter the bullets trajectory, thinking it will is illogical.
Is because we are putting the "robots.txt" file on the server, comrade.
Also, just to restate the issue a bit. I fully agree that the warrior spirit should live in everyone (thus my businesmans comparison). And furthermore, I would add that the spirit of the warrior (if taken from what the Masters through history have taught) is just as needed with the nerdy engineer as it is the gruff, glass eating infantryman. However, they simply have different implementations our expressions of it. I consider martial skills a technical skill or toy. However, because it has been shown so many times to be something that taps into our inner predator/prey response, then it is useful for so many other things. Many use it for discipline, exercise and healing, and in fact modern physical therapy owes so much to the various cultures martial skills that it is fascinating. One thing though, I question the very force makeup that is often the military. While it may not be glorified and fun, I definitely (because of experience and history once again) see the great need for logistics and support. However, it seems sometimes that way too much is put into these than into the grunts. However with the Marines, it is "Every Marine a Rifleman". Special Operations have learned this creedo well, and apply it to all the other specialist tasks, so that any billet is filled by the most capable person, not the highest ranking or who happens to fit the at large force's SOP. Another aspect, is that each person in the team is trained to be proficient (more than the basic level of 'proficiency' of regular troops) in each specialty from medical to satellite network communications. That way, they don't get lost and marooned if the two specialists get killed for specialty 'A'
My biggest problem with the Air Force (and much of the Navy too, to be honest... as if I haven't already been blunt) is not that the warrior is the vast minority, but it is shrinking... specifically it is getting driven out. I know many in the Air Force that have noticed an all out attack on any Gung Ho attitude and not only allow, but encourage a very complacent and bureocratic attitude, believing that Powerpoint and Hearts are the weapons of choice. I do, however believe that if a serious war broke out, that their would be a serious recall of that warrior spirit. However, like with any risk mitigation effort, I am concerned with the cost in lives that would buy that change. In other words, what will it take?
There will always be shitbags... but like a rather famous quote says, "when all the insane become the norm... what will consist of sanity then?" When the warriors are forced out and ostracized, then it is time to clean house. There are regular untrained (militar wise) civilians that can do most of what the Air Force does... so why do we have them in uniform? Because they are more than their MOS. They are [supposed to be] warriors that perform their task with the same warrior spirit that an infantryman who is battle weary and frightened and alone would be expected to. In the past, the engineers, while great thinkers, where also great warriors. After all, it was this warrior drive that drove them to develop or create the war machines necessary to destroy the enemy. As far as 'stupid little distractions' Remember that many things in life, like many diseases, tyranies, and decay happen one small bit at a time. If I give up 1 dollar a month and then increase that by only another dollar (Hey, its only ONE DOLLAR MORE?!) then soon I will be broke no matter how much money I have coming in. If (and this is the case with demoralizing environments that the Air Force has now) it is compounded like interest in addition to the straight and regular increase, then the devestation happens even faster.
you know, in your computer there is that lovely little device known as the hard drive. In truth there are only two types of drives in the universe.... ones that have failed and ones that soon will fail. The airman lives in that one that hasn't failed. When it fails (as happens quite a bit in battle), he will need his REAL implements, being his mind and his training. If all he is trained for is technological toys and they aint working, then he is lost unless at least his mind is trained as a warrior's should be, in which he can adapt and overcome. As for time of training and taking that valuable time of training in their primary MOS (or is it AFSC... oops)... that is theory. Fact is there is a TON of unutilized time and money of the vast majority of airmen (regardless of rank) with the exception of Pararescue, Air Combat Controllers and the other SWOC forces. Instead of the air force basically sticking the special ops guys in a broom closet to be out of the way as if they are an embarrasment, perhaps they could learn from them? Just a thought, from someone who is very ashamed of the air force.