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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
...we don't need them any more in 40 years.
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!
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.
I thought the same thing weeks ago when they were talking about the Tomcats being used on bombing missions. The F-14 is there to protect the carrier battle group with long-range Phoenix missles. The cold-war mission this platform was designed for is to stop soviet antiship attacks from 200+ miles out.
You are correct that F15 Eagles (and/or F16 Falcons) are better suited to the task of air superiority, except we don't have any forward ground air bases from which we could operate in Afghanistan at the present.
I would expect Hornets (F/A-18) to be patrolling the skies over Afghanistan. CNN was reporting that F 14's were flying missions over Afghanistan a while back, though:
Footage on al-Jazeera shot during the day showed a U.S. F-14 Tomcat fighter slicing through the skies above Kabul, unchallenged.
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!
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
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.
Actually, we came very close to replacing the C-130 back in the 1970's.
We had a competition between the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell-Douglas YC-15 to replace the C-130, but budgetary considerations and the US Army's need for larger transports kiboshed that idea. That was the reason why there was a later competition to build a larger transport plane, and the result is the C-17A Globemaster III transport. The USAF has taken deliveries of around 80 planes (out of the original 120 plane order) and is planning for another follow-on order for possibly another 100 planes by 2010.
Anyway, the C-130 has been upgraded to the current C-130J version with a very advanced cockpit and much more fuel-efficient engines.