User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 3:53:51 PM EDT
[#1]
The only problem is.... Who's going to fly and maintain them should they be brought back to life?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 3:57:18 PM EDT
[#2]
That's callled a Minimum Interval Take Off (MITO)--designed to get all the bombers off the ground in minimum time, for when, say, the ICBMs are coming over the poles RIGHT NOW. Lived in Grand Forks when the B1s did that once. I'd never felt the GROUND shake because of a sound before. Set off every car alarm within ten miles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:01:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Present. I'll read the posts and add info or correct as need be. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:27:10 PM EDT
[#4]
There are about 91 B-52 airframes left at AMARC, all are B-52G's that have been sitting out there for around 10-12 years now. Most have been chopped up or else are in the process of being "reclaimed" for spare parts for the B-52H fleet. It would cost way too much money and time to fix, repair and update the fleet of B-52's at Davis-Monthan, and besides, where would we get spares for the reworked B-52's that would be reactivated?    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:32:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Ya gotta love a girl that really makes the earth move when she comes!  Jim |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:34:44 PM EDT
[#6]
No. There are 4 types of "storage" at AMARC. Type 1000 Aircraft stored in near-flyaway condition. Can be stored without re-preservation for a period of 4 years. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 2000. Type 2000 Generally aircraft allocated for reclamation purposes. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 4000. Type 3000 Flyable hold for 90 days or more, pending transfer, sale or disposition. Type 4000 Minimal preservation. Generally aircraft stored in this category are awaiting disposal. It takes a minimum of 30 days to get an aircraft ready for flight after being removed from Type 1000 storage (which is the type of storage that 99.9 percent of the AMARC aircraft are in). The Navy was using large "baggies" to preserve a few of their F-4's and F-18's. These aircraft would be ready sooner since there would be no need to strip and clean the Spraylat from the aircraft. 6 months ago the Navy pulled almost all of the F-4's from baggie storage and they are getting ready to be recycled for the USAF's drone target program or to be sold for scrap. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:40:06 PM EDT
[#7]
We as Americans are upholding our end of the deal. the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). www.dtra.mil/ In the post-Cold War environment, a unified, consistent approach to deterring, reducing and countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is essential to maintaining our national security. On-Site Inspection Operations Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) www.dtra.mil/toolbox/directorates/osi/Programs/ops/start/index.cfm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 4:59:48 PM EDT
[#8]
The B-1 can out carry the B-52...period. B-52 carries 12 JDAM, B-1 carries 24. The B-1 carries more MK-82's, more CBU's and has the largest J-series payload (GPS guided) of any aircraft in the world. The hardpoints are covered but the internal bomb bays are much larger on the Bone. And the AF does adhere to the START treaties. The AF is experimenting with fitting the B-1 with Sniper targeting pods for target ID. IMNSHO there is no comparison between these two jets. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:05:09 PM EDT
[#9]
I don't know about the Air Force (there must be at least one airman), but a little epoxy never stopped a US Navy Aviation Structural Mechanic from doing anything. I am pretty certain that the epoxy could be removed, the pylons "found" and installed, the hard wiring reconnected, the control boxes reconfigured and the cads placed back into the ejector racks within a few days notice... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:06:40 PM EDT
[#10]
YES. The ones covered with what look like car covers can be fully operational in 24 hours. The ones covered with the white stick on stuff take longer, like 36 hours or more, depending if avionics or other sensitive gear has been removed and stored. I think the first B52 pic is old, as many were destroyed. I drive by this stuff every day. Last year a bunch of C141Bs were chopped up. FYI, bus tour only runs on weekdays. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 5:08:21 PM EDT
[#11]
A-7 Corsair II |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:05:05 PM EDT
[#12]
And the B-1 can't carry ANY AGM-158 JASSSMs, or ANY AGM-142 Popeyes, or ANY AGM-86C CALCMs, or ANY AGM-84 Harpoons, or ANYCBU-52s, or ANY CBU-58s, or ANY CBU-71s, or ANY M117s, or ANY Mk 36s, or ANY Mk 41s, or ANY Mk 52s, or ANY Mk 55s, or ANY Mk 56s, or ANY Mk 60s (yeah, the BUFF can launch fucking TORPEDOS but the Bone is more capable  ) or ANY Mk 65s. Not to mention the fact that the B-1 has been taken out of the Nuclear triad. And if you wanna get real technical, the Big Belly B-52Ds could carry 108 500-pound bombs.ETA: The BUFF carries 18 JDAMs, not 12. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:32:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Pretty much my opinion as well. As for A-G missile capability, is there any particular reason that the B-1B could NOT be modified to fire air-launched cruise missiles? I mean, we're talking about a B-52 that wasn't designed for that mission being modified to launch such missiles, why can't the B-1B? My comments were based on range and payload. Technical details can be ironed out in terms of weapons systems compatibility. There are people that the Air Force pays to figure that stuff out. Anyone want to chime in why that could NOT be done if that was the plan? ETA: I will say this, as a flying missile launcher, the B-52 is more than capable and does not necessarily need to be replaced. However, as a penetrating bomber that needs to go over its target, it cannot operate in defended airspace. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:33:48 PM EDT
[#14]
The majority of the weapons you listed are not used/obsolete. Mk36's were retired in 1962. All the CBUs you listed are old and outdated. How many torpedoes has a BUFF actually employed in combat? B-1's can carry MK62 and MK65. The B-1 carries 24 JASSM on 3 eight station internal rotary launchers. The BUFF carries 12 JDAM on external pylons with not internal JDAM capability. The B-1 sat on nuclear alert until 1994 and was removed due to START treaties. Ask any crew and they will tell you that the nuke mission is pain in the ass and you're better off without it. As far as sheer amount of weapons carried on any one sortie, the B-1 has no rival. Yes the BUFF carries more types of weapons, but as I stated before, most of the ones you listed are old and not used. The last time I checked there weren't any B-52D's flying around so the B-1 is still the champ at loading up MK-82's. Don't believe everything you read on FAS.org |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:34:13 PM EDT
[#15]
$ |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:34:31 PM EDT
[#16]
The CALCM's aren't being produced any more, and at more than $1 million a copy there isn't a need for more of them. Once the last one is pickled off by a BUFF, that's it, no more. The JASSM is going to augment/replace the CALCM. The JSOW was going to be an intermediate but the AF has decided to skip the JSOW and go straight to the JASSM. To my knowledge the hard points on the B-1 have never been used because the russians were scared sh*tless of the B-1 and limited thier use with START. There was a provision in the START treaty to use the hard points to mount targeting pods. Sniper pods should be on the entire fleet in the next 6-9 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:51:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Old Dog 01 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2006 6:57:17 PM EDT
[#18]
FYI, there are several B1 bombers stored at AMARC too. I will dig up some pics and post them when I get home. There are several Titan missiles there too, minus the warheads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:22:29 AM EDT
[#19]
KA3B I just realized what your avatar is....
 "I don't care who you are, that's funny!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:30:20 AM EDT
[#20]
Just one F4 please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:32:12 AM EDT
[#21]
We have F-15s there because with the drawdowns we had more airplanes than pilots.
************************************************************* "Hi there. I need a constant spped drive for a generator on a 1963 F-4D. Sure, I'll hold..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:36:45 AM EDT
[#22]
Yep. The first airplane I worked on was the C-141. I have about 8 years as a Crew Chief and 2 as a Flight Engineer on them. Oct '04 I was down that way and pulled off the road to look at some 141s through the fence. The wings were chopped off and they were waiting to be made into beer cans. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:36:58 AM EDT
[#23]
tahg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:41:26 AM EDT
[#24]
I have some time in a 46 that was pulled out of D-M and returned to flight status in the late 80s/early 90s. It was the lowest time bird in the squadron. Had only about 3500 hours on it in the mid-90s. Almost all of the other squadron birds were over 10K hours at that time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 8:44:18 AM EDT
[#25]
I'll give 'em this, they can park 'em in straight lines. Stare too long at all those A-7s and you will be hypnotized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 11:43:29 AM EDT
[#26]
I saw a documentary on I think the Discovery Channel where they scrap old ships and planes.
As for the B-52's, the remaining ones are left for replacement parts since they aren't made anymore. They won't be used for scrap metal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 11:44:25 AM EDT
[#27]
 Anyone care to guess where this B-52 is taking off from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:00:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Looks like the one I saw shooting touch and go's at the JRB last week. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:03:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Most of them would not be 'airworthy'. Most of the airframes are too old to manitain and fly. They are saved for parts for its brethen which are still ariworthy. This is not the case with all, but with most. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:09:36 PM EDT
[#30]
This one wasnt at JRB, but close. They were doing touch and goes, but something happened, and they had to actually land it. I saw it, and hauled ass home to get my digital camera, and it was lifting off when I got back, and I was only able to snag this one shot. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 1:59:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Yes. Fatal Terrain is an excellent read. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:42:25 PM EDT
[#32]
In case anyone gave/gives a shit, its taking off from Love Field in Dallas. I didnt think Love could handle a BUFF.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:29:35 PM EDT
[#33]
No shit? Love Field? I can't imagine one of them flying into Meacham Field. You know, over here on the decent side of the Trinity? Jim |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 7:31:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Those pictures gave me a boner
|
|
|
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.
and payed for gas!!!) While he was in seeing the doc, I used to just sit there outside the parking area and almost cry over all the planes. If you think the pics are depressing, try looking at it for real. It is truly sad to see all those aircraft wasting away.