User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 8:38:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some chilling audio from a Linebacker II mission over Hanoi. The sound of the the distress beepers is haunting. Damn, that was a difficult video to listen to. I equate those boys to line warfare in the Civil war. The enemy knows where you are, you cannot hide, and you keep trucking through hoping you dont die. What's distressing is the USAF flew the same IPs mission after mission. After awhile, the NVA SAM crews used the equivalent of a grease pencil marking on the radar screen in order to more effectively "blind launch" their SAMs hoping for a hit when the B-52s intersected the grease pencil marking. It worked to some degree, apparently. This despite (or perhaps because of) having effective ECM that disrupted the SAMs tracking ability. This was related to me by an AF intel officer. Don't know if it's true or not, but makes sense. Oh I agree that the majority of the SA2 launches were ballistic. You heard the EWO says he had no uplink. And unless I am retarded, uplink= missile tracking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 8:56:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 8:59:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: How many aircraft were ever shot down with the tail gun the B-52 used to have? B52-D serial no. 55-083, "Diamond Lil” on display at the USAFA. The plaque at the aircraft states that that aircraft was one of two B52s to shoot down an enemy MIG during the Vietnam conflict. The date of the confirmed MiG 21 kill is recorded as December 24, 1972. Tailgunner Moore of the 307SW. A second B-52D got a confirmed kill: 56-676 got a MiG 21 kill 18 Dec 72. Tailgunner Turner of the 307SW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 9:27:14 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm not a fan of the B-52. I think that PGMs and the loss of the nuclear mission (and I think we should go to land and sea based ICBMs only) would allow us to retire the BUFF without replacement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 9:27:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I'm not a fan of the B-52. I think that PGMs and the loss of the nuclear mission (and I think we should go to land and sea based ICBMs only) would allow us to retire the BUFF without replacement. I was wondering when you were going to chime in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 9:34:58 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not a fan of the B-52. I think that PGMs and the loss of the nuclear mission (and I think we should go to land and sea based ICBMs only) would allow us to retire the BUFF without replacement. I was wondering when you were going to chime in. I was busy. Long story. Involves a 19 year old girl. Anyway, even if we keep the plane it needs a new engine. That's ben obvious for years. Same with the Abrams tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:47:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm curious as to what their expected survivability rate was if we were to go to war with Russia back in the day. We're they supposed to come in low or high. Surely we would have taken more than a few loses. Still a bad ass plane tho. My dad expected it to be a one way trip should he get the klakson. He was probably right. The BUFF is probably as survivable now as we can make it. Even with all the countermeasures and tactics employed It would be lucky to get to launch range of the ALCM against an enemy with a robust air defense network and a capable air force. If they did make it to launch, chances are that they would not have made it out again. That was the reason for the B-2 program. Even then it's just a matter of math. There weren't enough tankers to pick you up for the ride home. And even if you did, where the hell would you go? This is because most of the tankers would have crashed due to passing ALL of their gas into the outbound BUFFs. That's why we were called TOADs for the longest time. "Take Off And Die." And, after all the above, if you did manage to make it back to the states.......... Were were you going to land? Uncle Sam did have an plan for Round 2, but, we always wondered how many would actually make it back, and, would any of us be alive to see it, and more importantly, be there and able to turn it around and send it back.....gulp..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 11:34:50 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 11:53:48 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I was busy. Long story. Involves a 19 year old girl. Most people our age would smile. I cringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 11:55:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was busy. Long story. Involves a 19 year old girl. Most people our age would smile. I cringed. It's a good story. Of all the self destructive things I could do at this point in my life, dating a stripper is probably the most fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 12:41:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not a fan of the B-52. I think that PGMs and the loss of the nuclear mission (and I think we should go to land and sea based ICBMs only) would allow us to retire the BUFF without replacement. I was wondering when you were going to chime in. I was busy. Long story. Involves a 19 year old girl. Anyway, even if we keep the plane it needs a new engine. That's ben obvious for years. Same with the Abrams tank. The air force has looked several times over the years about hanging new motors. Every time they did it was essentially "wel, the jets going to get retired soon" and the decision was made against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 12:50:17 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The air force has looked several times over the years about hanging new motors. Every time they did it was essentially "wel, the jets going to get retired soon" and the decision was made against it. What they did was assume that the cost of fuel was the DESC price instead of the delivered price. When ~15% of your fueling is done in midair, your costs skyrocket. 1700% higher in 2001, to be exact. If the BUFF has been reengined the tanker buy could be smaller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 12:51:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 1:36:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Classic D-model, natural metal over Insignia White. Beautiful. Bonus points for four wing-mounted nukes. Look at the way the wings flex under a load while in flight (contrast this with one sitting on the tarmac). What I find amazing is that the wing spars don't crack with all that flexing over time. The engineers at Boeing were at the top of their form. Not bad for a strategic bomber designed over a weekend in a hotel room. In Dayton, Ohio. Boeing had proposed a prop driven aircraft to replace the B-36 - the Air Force said they wanted jets. (on Friday). Boeing presented the concept on the following Monday.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 1:59:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The air force has looked several times over the years about hanging new motors. Every time they did it was essentially "wel, the jets going to get retired soon" and the decision was made against it. What they did was assume that the cost of fuel was the DESC price instead of the delivered price. When ~15% of your fueling is done in midair, your costs skyrocket. 1700% higher in 2001, to be exact. If the BUFF has been reengined the tanker buy could be smaller. And let's not talk the trouble those old TF33s are to maintain compared to a modern motor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 2:03:41 PM EDT
[#16]
No shit.
We (Army) are up to the same shenanigans with the Abrams engine. They last 750-1,000 hours. The replacement was supposed to last 3,000 hours and burn 33% less fuel (50% at idle, 25% underway, 50:50 mix). Guess what we didn't do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 2:48:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. I just had this nightmare vision of a B52 with engines installed on top of the wings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:35:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. Fan diameter difference is huge. The RB211-535 (what they looked at for a B-52 reengine) has a fan diameter approx 74". The smallest Trent fan is 97 inches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 4:40:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Growing up here in Fort Worth I remember, and miss, the BUFFs at Carswell AFB.
When they would launch all of them a few minutes apart and I was anywhere close I would pull over, stop and watch. They were awesome. Around here we loved "The sound of freedom". Not long ago I saw a B-1 fly into the Fort Worth NAS Joint Reserve base. It ain't the same- and neither is the name. For me it will always be Carswell AFB. Thank you and God bless to all of the crews who stood alert and kept the wolves from my family's door. Jim |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 5:03:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. I just had this nightmare vision of a B52 with engines installed on top of the wings. Worked for Honda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2011 5:25:30 PM EDT
[#21]
I have never seen a B-52 up close but I have seen them drop their pay load in the Nam. Awesome SOB. I do NOT ever want to see one coming my way with the bomb bay doors open.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 5:20:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm curious as to what their expected survivability rate was if we were to go to war with Russia back in the day. We're they supposed to come in low or high. Surely we would have taken more than a few loses. Still a bad ass plane tho. My dad expected it to be a one way trip should he get the klakson. He was probably right. The BUFF is probably as survivable now as we can make it. Even with all the countermeasures and tactics employed It would be lucky to get to launch range of the ALCM against an enemy with a robust air defense network and a capable air force. If they did make it to launch, chances are that they would not have made it out again. That was the reason for the B-2 program. Even then it's just a matter of math. There weren't enough tankers to pick you up for the ride home. And even if you did, where the hell would you go? This is because most of the tankers would have crashed due to passing ALL of their gas into the outbound BUFFs. That's why we were called TOADs for the longest time. "Take Off And Die." And, after all the above, if you did manage to make it back to the states.......... Were were you going to land? Uncle Sam did have an plan for Round 2, but, we always wondered how many would actually make it back, and, would any of us be alive to see it, and more importantly, be there and able to turn it around and send it back.....gulp..... Imagine being able to say you did two tours in WWIII   |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 5:44:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Lovely aircraft, but will probably need to be reengined or replaced soon. Really theres no reason why we couldn't use a 777 derivitave as a bomb truck. shut your whore mouth!  BUZZ KILLER! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 12:04:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. I just had this nightmare vision of a B52 with engines installed on top of the wings. Worked for Honda. Please do not compare a B-52 with Honda. It's bad enough the engines are going to have to be mounted on top of the wing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 2:39:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. I just had this nightmare vision of a B52 with engines installed on top of the wings. Worked for Honda. Please do not compare a B-52 with Honda. It's bad enough the engines are going to have to be mounted on top of the wing. It was the only jet I could think of other than the NASA STOL demonstrator with engines on top the wing. And how can you hate their jet? It's so cute.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#26]
towed four of them this weekend actually, the one I'm the DCC of is broke right now, stupid elevator trim binding
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 2:46:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
It was the only jet I could think of other than the NASA STOL demonstrator with engines on top the wing. And how can you hate their jet? It's so cute.
Boeing YC-14 ... It never went into production, but the Russians stole the design and built the AN-72 YC-14 
AN-72 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 3:36:05 PM EDT
[#28]
One thing I miss about the Airforce was morning launch. Usually had 10 getting ready to taxi off the SAC ramp all engines running. It caused an immediate rise in the testosterone level.
The other thing is a hispeed low level flyby. You will never forget that sight and sound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 3:49:24 PM EDT
[#29]
I lost count how many times I got posted to the flight line to augment the security specialists at Minot when the BUFF maintenance crews would do engine tests. All 8 engines cranked up and the fillings would vibrate out of your mouth!!!
In 2005 I got to meet retired SgtMaj Bill Waugh, who went boots on the ground in A-Stan with the CIA SAD boys. When I told him I was a former SAC SP and the BUFFS that bailed them out in A-Stan came from my first Base, Minot, he shook the hell out of my hand and thanked me for keeping them safe! Got the same reply from retired Gen John Singlaub, nice to have two old war horses thank me for keeping the BUFF's safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2011 4:02:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: The BUFF needs to have the ugly and the ominous. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would cause the entire strength community to update their resume's. The 777 wing failed at about 153% Design Limit Load, and that was real close to too strong. In that day, predicting failure was more difficult do to the tools available, but the flexibility you describe is not possible, the internal loads are simply too high. [/div] AeroE let me ask you because you might know. A while back they were thinking of hanging 777 engines on the buff. I heard that they decided against it because the engines were so powerful that there was fear that they would curl the wings forward in flight and twist them like a pretzel. Any truth to that? There's not enough room to install those engines, they'll be draggin' the ground. Engines that could wind up a wing would have more fundamental problems, such as installing mounts with enough strength. I found an Av Week article about re-engining with Rolls RB211 engines. I would have to do a fair big of research to find out the differences in external dimensions with the Trent engine. I just had this nightmare vision of a B52 with engines installed on top of the wings. Worked for Honda. Please do not compare a B-52 with Honda. It's bad enough the engines are going to have to be mounted on top of the wing. It was the only jet I could think of other than the NASA STOL demonstrator with engines on top the wing. And how can you hate their jet? It's so cute. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
