Slashdot Mirror
Sixty Years On, B-52s Are Still Going Strong
Hugh Pickens writes "Those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s knew the B-52 Stratofortress as a central figure in the anxiety that flowed from the protracted staring match between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Now CNET reports that it was 60 years ago, on April 15, 1952, that a B-52 prototype built by Boeing took off on its maiden flight and although the 1950s-vintage B-52s are no longer in the US Air Force inventory, the 90 or so H models delivered between May 1961 and October 1962 still remain on active duty. 'The B-52 has been a wonderful flying box,' says retired Brig. Gen. Peyton Cole. 'It's persevered all these years because it's been able to adapt and still continues to fly. It started out as a high-level flying platform during the Cold War. Then as air defenses got better it became a low-level penetrator, and more than that was the first aircraft to fly low-level at night through FLIR (forward looking infrared) and night-vision TV.' The B-52's feat of longevity reflects both regular maintenance and timely upgrades — in the late 1980s, for instance, GPS capabilities were incorporated into the navigation system but it also speaks to the astronomical costs of the next-generation bombers that have followed the B-52 into service (a total of 744 were built, counting all models) with the Air Force. B-52s cost about $70 million apiece (in today's dollars), while the later, stealth-shaped B-2 Spirit bombers carried an 'eye-watering $3-billion-a-pop unit price.' The Air Force's 30-year forecast, published in March, envisions an enduring role for the B-52 and engineering studies, the Air Force says, suggest that the life span of the B-52 could extend beyond the year 2040. 'At that point, why not aim for the centennial mark?'"
This is exactly why 60 year old tech is still flying as a bomber. Air power is still king in conventional warfare, and once you've sent in your fleet of high-tech air-superiority and multirole/ground-attack fighters to clean out the AA threats, all you really require next is a very large flying tube that holds a lot of bombs. Hence, the B-52 is still around. You don't need a fancy stealth bomber because penetrating enemy airspace is better left to smaller stealthier craft - or you ignore the airplane altogether and use a cruise missile.
If you think about it, the B-2 is the real antique here. The B-52 is just practical.
How about 60 years of western freedom, which was guaranteed by things like this?
Western freedom:
Decades of defense by B-52's
Murdered one day by a quartet of 757/767's
Unless there is another piston-to-jet style sea change in airborne combat, I don't see why the B-52 wouldn't be used for its primary mission in the next 28 years.
After all, the C-130 is still being produced brand new, despite the basic design being only two years younger than the B-52!
Carrying X amount of bombs to target Y doesn't change much over the years - once suppression of the air defences is secured, it doesn't matter if you send in a Boeing 747 with a midget pushing Obama-For-2008! badges out a door, the risk is going to be the same.
Putting aside your politics for the moment -- let's just say that I disagree with you -- this is about a well-designed and enduring piece of technology. I can admire the technical excellence of a something without liking what it was used for, or who used it. I can, for example, still appreciate the robustness and shallow learning curve of the AK-47 without being a Marxist -- and by the way, that weapon has almost certainly killed more people over those 60 years than the B-52 has. The ideal nerd should be able to look at a high-tech device and have some part of his mind thinking "whoa, that's freakin' cool!" right up to the moment that it kills him.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
I doubt that, unless you add more constraints. Optimum in what sense ? Speed ? Durability ? Range ? Load-capacity ? Fuel-efficiency ? Price ?
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is *never* to be trusted as a source, along with all other encyclopaedias. You have to check the cited sources, as you did, so there's no need to cry foul of Wikipedia doing what's expected of it.
Except it would do worse, because there's over 60 years of collective knowledge centered around the construction, maintenance and flying of B-52s, whereas whatever new hotness comes out will have its own little quirks.
It's the same reason why big software re-writes never work; the old software is old and convoluted because it's had to solve problems you'd never think of the first time around.
Not sure where 20,000 feet higher is coming from. B-52 operates at 50,000 and the V-bombers seem to operate at 55,000. Cruise for B-52 seems to be about 90% to 95% of the V-bombers.
The thing is that even in 1940s, subsonic aerodynamics were pretty well understood, and could be well studied in wind tunnels. We have better engines now, but other than winglets the shape of subsonic jet aircraft has remained remarkably the same - probably because it is near optimal.
Low volume, certification and paperwork. Anything that goes in an airliner tends to be very low volume, and needs reams and reams of paperwork and certification to show it complies with aviation standards and won't do something dangerous. I should imagine the circuit breaker for the military is - instead of just what using Boeing use for a 747 - to some other spec for some reason and produced in perhaps only 2 digit volumes. Why it's a different spec to a functionally identical airliner part, I don't know without the facts.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Sliderule got us to the moon while "more powerful computational devices" turned Mars landers into Mars impactors.
Let me guess: you also complain about IT twiddling their thumbs when the network is running, right? Or about support staff taking a two hour break in the afternoon to play SC2 when things are just fine and dandy?
Here's a little secret: you can either staff optimally for when everything's fine, or you can staff optimally for when the shit hits the fan. If you choose option 1 though, don't complain to me though that nothing gets done when shit hits the fan, because everyone is completely overworked.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of libertarians (they seem to have a lot of mod points recently), I'm thinking you're either a tea partier, a MBAer or a libertarian. It's the main places where I see this sort of thinking come from.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.