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. "
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!
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.
A company I once developed software for was running their production systems on old Wang computers. It was kept in an air-conditioned room and employees were told to stay out of it. The box was about the size of a tall washing machine. It even looked like one, with dials in the front. I think they used telnet on their Windows machine to access it. As far as I know, the software has remained intact, with some slight updating to accomodate more products.
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.
It's a testament to the brilliant aviation engineers of the fifties that two of the most kickass planes from that era are still at the top of their game.
Actually, I believe that one group of engineers was responsible for both the U2 and the SR71: the 'skunkworks' of Lockheed, run by Kelly Johnson. Also produced the P38 Lightning, one of the faster and definitely the coolest-looking (IMNSHO) WWII fighter.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
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)
because the sr71 was an engineering nightmare,
it leaked fuel like mad when on the tarmac, it's design was such that there was NO payload space except for the camera, and it's engines are a maintaince and reliability nightmare.
be glad that the sr71 is no longer needed. it was a nightmare, a sexy nightmare.
Besides, sattelites do a ton better, a f117 can perform the same missions without having to fly at the edge of space. (the sr71 had to to keep away from missles and planes. that the only reason)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
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.
Accommodations: Six ejection seats
According to Greygent's post the Navigator and Bombardier sit on a lower deck behind the pilot. If that is the case how/where do those particular ejection seats eject out from? Up through the upper deck(s) in some way or out the side?
The reason the B-1Bs weren't used in the Persian Gulf war is that they did not have the attachments to carry conventional ordinance. The only way they would have been involved in the Gulf was if Bush ordered the use of nuclear weapons. They were still on nuclear strike standby.
The college I went to was only about 10 miles from a SAC base that had B-52s and then B-1Bs. During my college years, 1/3 of the planes were always on the flightline fully fueled, loaded with nukes, ready to go at a moments notice. The USAF invited several engineering majors out to the base to tour the B-1Bs and the Minuteman silos. The article is correct in that the B-1 is very crampt (I got to sit in one). The crews are very proud of their planes and have won USAF precision bombing competitions several times. They are currently in use dropping laser guided 2000 lb bombs over Afghanistan. Most of the problems with the B-1 were political in nature or were the result of politics.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
Travis AFB is pretty much between me in the East Bay and Davis, where I go to school, so I get to see the B-52s on my way to school ocassionally. Let me tell you, when you've got one just a couple hundred meters directly over your head, impressive is not the only word going through your mind. You're also inclined to pray that the laws of physics continue hold true today.
-"Zow"
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)
If you want to crawl around in the nose of a B-52 (and see the ejection seat rails for yourself), there is one at the Chanute Air Museum at the former Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois, 2 hours south of Chicago. They have a lot of neat stuff left over from Chanute's days as a training center.
sPh
It also hasn't stopped them from using the Global Hawk, which wasn't supposed to be operational until 2003; or Hellfire missiles on the Predator, which was only done 3 times prior as a proof of concept only.
Actually, the entire B-1 fleet was grounded during most of the gulf war for engine problems.
Let me guess, you went to UND, in sunny Grand Forks, ND? I've spent some time at Grand Forks AFB.
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.