A 60 year old bomber planned to fly another 30-40 years

[Skybird]

Iconic!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-57...-going-strong/

If the airframes are still robust and the military value is positive, then why not save plenty and plenty of money for new bombers with smaller payloads, and stay with this old proven horse?

But I wonder how the ratio of maintenance hours versus flying hours has shifted until today. Anyone knowing that?

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, I've been seeing them for as long as I can remember. I'm actually a couple of years older than the plane. I watched as it carried the X-15. I saw them bomb Vietnam. I saw them star in movies about the Cold War. Now it looks like they might outlive me.


One of my favorite BUFF stories involves a famous...no, legendary actor. Jimmy Stewart set his acting career aside and joined the Army Air Forces in World War 2, flying a full set of missions in B-17s. After the war he remained in the Air Force Reserve, and in the movie Strategic Air Command there's a scene in which he's being checked out in the B-36, which had a cockpit big enough to set up cameras in. In the scene the flight crew suddenly get up and go for coffee, leaving Stewart alone flying the plane. I watched that movie a couple of times before I found out the scene was real, and Stewart really was alone with the camera crew flying the huge bomber.

During the Vietnam War Brigadier General James Stewart went along for observation rides with the B-52 crews, and experienced at least one close call.
http://www.historynet.com/mr-stewart...to-vietnam.htm

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But I wonder how the ratio of maintenance hours versus flying hours has shifted until today. Anyone knowing that?

Always good to see something like this staying in the inventory, I still harbour a comeback for the UK's V-Force , well - give me any RAF aircraft from the Cold War over a Typhoon, anyday!

I don't know about the ratio you ask about, but I think it'll be more labour intensive than a newer aeroplane - therefore creating (or keeping) jobs, which can only be a good thing, right!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Always good to see something like this staying in the inventory, I still harbour a comeback for the UK's V-Force , well - give me any RAF aircraft from the Cold War over a Typhoon, anyday!

I love the Vulcan. It's as elegant as a jet bomber can get.

The Russians had a pretty cool first-generation heavy too.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

I still harbour a comeback for the UK's V-Force

The Vulcan has to be one of the most unique aircraft I have ever set eyes upon.

well - give me any RAF aircraft from the Cold War over a Typhoon, anyday!

Hunter and Buccaneer are two of my favorites in that respect.



@Steve - I never knew that Jimmy Stewart had been a military aviator, let alone that he knew his way around a Peacemaker. Wow! What a guy!

[Sailor Steve]

Have a look at Strategic Air Command. It's a '50s recruitment film but it has a lot of fun scenes with Stewart and Harry Morgan, plus B-47s and my favorite, a scene around a North American B-45 Tornado.

[MH]

With air superiority new avionics engines and weapons must be most economical platform for bombing just about anything into submission.

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by krashkart

@Steve - I never knew that Jimmy Stewart had been a military aviator, let alone that he knew his way around a Peacemaker. Wow! What a guy!

And was his navigator.

[Platapus]

To me, the B-52 is a fantastic design. Solid airframe and everything inside can be moded with new equipment.

That's the way military equipment needs to be designed -- so that it is easy to upgrade that which should be upgraded while keeping the stuff that works.

[Skybird]

German Wikipedia said the design delivered by Boeing was so solid and mature from beginning on that there were unbelievably few bugs and details that needed to be changed after initial introduction to the military. Maybe never again Boeing delivered such a great and starter.

Flight of the old dog, anyone?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Have a look at Strategic Air Command. It's a '50s recruitment film but it has a lot of fun scenes with Stewart and Harry Morgan, plus B-47s and my favorite, a scene around a North American B-47 Tornado.

They used to show that film on AFN Europe from time to time a really great film in deed quite well done.If I recall there was line where Jimmy Stewart comments on flying the B-36 and he says something to the effect of it being like sitting on your front porch and flying your house.That might have just been a sarcastic movie line as I have a great book on the B-36 called "Magnesium Over Cast" and said that B-36 pilots really loved the way the plane handled at high altitude thanks to the very thin air the larger the wing surface area the better you can fly.I read on some place that the film actually lead to huge increase in enlistments for the Air Force.Jimmy Stewart also actually flew on some Arc Light missions in B-52s during Vietnam he might have been an observer but still.

I agree with you on the B-47 what a sleek looking design not to mention a huge leap in aircraft design for its time I understand that pilots really liked the B-47 as well due to its nimble handling though the B-47 could bite you if you where not careful.Of course the success of the B-47 lead directly to the B-52 that really says something about the Boeing designers at the time it is no small feat to design to ground breaking aircraft in the span of fewer than 10 years.A little known fact on the B-52 is that the first prototype hand tandem seating just like the B-47 for the pilots but they got rid of it because Boeing learned that Air Force pilots preferred side by side seating because it allowed for better communication.

A good friend of mine his grandfather was a bombardier/navigator on B-52s (had also been in B-17s, B-29s and B-36s) he was one of the best in SAC and was awarded SAC bombardier/navigator of the month several times his crews also received SAC crew of the month several times(no small feat as SAC was very harsh in those days if you made a mistake you where out) as well we where looking through all of his old things after he passed away he kept almost everything form his military career there where certification papers for most all the training he had ever received he had some really good photos of his crew around their B-52D at the old McCoy AFB which is now Orlando International he would talk for hours telling anyone who wanted to hear his many adventures it is really impressive what a military pilot can experience in a long career the best one was about getting caught in a huge electrical storm flying back from a bombing mission against Japan in the B-29 I could do the story no justice.

[krashkart]

A tribute to the older powerplants...




God I love that howl.

[Bilge_Rat]

B-52s are obsolete as a front line bomber. Even during the Vietnam War, they were relegated to areas with few air defences. When B-52s were launched against North Vietnam in the Xmas bombings, they suffered heavy losses and air defence networks now are much more deadly than in 1972.

Now, if the USAF has a need for counter-insurgency or CAS work and B-52s can fill the need better than the current fleet of F-16/15/18, fine, but somehow I doubt it.

nice airplane though. My favorite B-52 film was Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick did not have USAF permission to film in a real B-52, but they did have access to public photos. His B-52 set was so accurate that the USAF launched an investigation to see if there had been a security leak.

[krashkart]

Slightly O/T...

I just checked Netflix for Strategic Air Command and it is available on instant streaming. BONUS!

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

B-52s are obsolete as a front line bomber. Even during the Vietnam War, they were relegated to areas with few air defences. When B-52s were launched against North Vietnam in the Xmas bombings, they suffered heavy losses and air defence networks now are much more deadly than in 1972.

Now, if the USAF has a need for counter-insurgency or CAS work and B-52s can fill the need better than the current fleet of F-16/15/18, fine, but somehow I doubt it.

nice airplane though. My favorite B-52 film was Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick did not have USAF permission to film in a real B-52, but they did have access to public photos. His B-52 set was so accurate that the USAF launched an investigation to see if there had been a security leak.

The B-52s suffered heavy losses because the higher ups where forcing them to fly the exact same flight paths mission after mission also they where flying an already obsolescent manner of attack partly because they where flying older B-52Ds and Fs which never had the NOE system installed that the B-52Gs and Hs had from around 1970 they did want to risk the latest models on a type of mission that insures large loses(they cant give away their NOE tactics) I also speculate that they used the older WWII style attacks in Vietnam because they knew that the Soviets would study the NV radar and had they flown NOE missions in Gs and Hs it would have been a windfall to the Soviets.You are correct that the B-52 is obsolete in the old type bomber role something that was never the primary mission of H and G model 52s I doubt you know for certain what you are talking about to be frankly honest a B-52H can do what several fighters can do and has a much better loiter ability as well.And Dr.Strange Love is accurate form the interior details but they did not show an important part of the early G and H models weapons systems the "Hound dog" cruise missile AGM-28 which was supposed to blow wholes into Soviet air defense networks(this weapon had a nuclear warhead also preventing its use in Vietnam just one would wiped out 90% of the radar grid up north I bet) The B-52 is the ultimate adapter even the B-2 can not make this claim nor the B-1B both are more costly and can carry and loiter for less time.

Even in 1972 SAC would not flown a strike on the USSR in the manner that the bombings where flown in 1972 you are taking into consideration an isolated incident of forced use of the B-52 in an exposed manner it is incorrect and you completely fail to take into account how the B-52 would have truly been flown against the Soviets.Since then the BUFF has been adapted to the differing role of what a bomber is.