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. "
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.
Put the research money into fast deadly assault planes... and you can use hot air ballons to deliver your bombs.
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?
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.
...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.
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...
When something is done right the first time, it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel...
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!
"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.
"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.
in fact, the first "real" computers were used to crack German cryptography during WWII.
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.
Partially because until the early 90's, the AF had quite a few extras in stock, partially because of the vast expense of upgrading. Some things that have to change during such an upgrade:
- The airframe and electronics will have to be modified.
- You lose the accumulated 'tribal knowledge' in the support crews.
- A large (and expensive) flight test program will be required.
- Hundreds of manuals and documents will have to be changed.
- New schools, trainers, and support systems will have to changed
And on, and on, and on...Sometimes it's cheaper to stay with the old than to change to something new, especially when the old already does the job quite well.
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.