Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/21/2006 8:26:49 AM EDT
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:27:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.



Its all Bush's fault!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:30:23 AM EDT
The flying truckload of doom continues on..
Why replace it? Al it needs to do is fly a long ways with a lot of bombs, why spend the money for development when there are specialized aircraft for certain missions.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:31:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:36:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:36:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...



It would've been tits if we did, though.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:38:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:39:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 8:40:16 AM EDT by badhand1]
Iam glad that is one beautiful bird!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:41:06 AM EDT
Can't blame the Govt for not getting it's money's worth. I once peaked into the bomb bay of a B52 during an open house at Edwards AFB(Palmdale Calif 100 miles N. of Los Angeles), and those aircraft are carrying at least 1,000 pounds of wires and carbling for obsolete weapons systems that date back to the Hounddog(this was the SotA cruise missle of its day) missle systems of the late-1950s and early-1960s. The crew chief said that they don't remove them because it may screw up something else.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:49:15 AM EDT
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:49:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.



No you heard right.

What they said was the B-52 was bomber is planned to be in service PAST 2045... 100 years.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:51:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.




It ain’t going to amuse you much if you are the target.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:56:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.




Maybe back during the 50's, but not any more. They do not put out that much black smoke anymore and radar capabilities are much better also.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:02:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



I noted that to my wife too! Uhh, guys, they weren't using the BUFF in Korea you know...
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:04:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



They said 100 years. I think they must have added to the development time in their time frame.

But still, that's a long time.



No you heard right.

What they said was the B-52 was bomber is planned to be in service PAST 2045... 100 years.



mmmm, I think we heard different. I thought hey said "In the year 2045..." which makes it sound like the B 52 was in service in '45.

oh well. Even if it's 90 years... that's NINETY YEARS, which is insanely good longevity!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:10:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.



You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:32:08 AM EDT
The 52' isn't going to be flying much past 2020, when that documentary was made the Air Forces 'bomber roadmap' was still the baseline for bomber aquisition. That went out the window two or three years ago, no doubt the BUFF was a formidable weapon, it's past it's prime, and having issues with generating stress cracks in it's wing roots and fusalage. Also lets not forget the sheer amount of JP-1 that thing burns, it's running on 8 archaic engines. If you just want a giant subsonic bomb truck their is a proposal for a BC-17 that would not only carry more but be significantly more efficent.

I think in the next five to ten years (or whenever it is we have to actually use it) you'll see a heavy hypersonic/suborbital bomber come out of the woodwork. the FALCON concept is going to change the way we fight wars. (Force Application Launched from the CONtinental US)
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:37:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.




Maybe back during the 50's, but not any more. They do not put out that much black smoke anymore and radar capabilities are much better also.



I recall seeing this as late as the early 90's.

As far as radar capabilities, they are entirely about countermeasures once they detect they've been detected. There's no way they can get that shaped airframe to compete with modern low cross section designs. They have to deal with being a big target rather than trying to remain undetected.


Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:38:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 9:40:47 AM EDT by stickfigure]
I guess they haven't seen the AF's plan to cut half the B-52 fleet in the next 10 years.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:41:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The 52' isn't going to be flying much past 2020, when that documentary was made the Air Forces 'bomber roadmap' was still the baseline for bomber aquisition. That went out the window two or three years ago, no doubt the BUFF was a formidable weapon, it's past it's prime, and having issues with generating stress cracks in it's wing roots and fusalage. Also lets not forget the sheer amount of JP-1 that thing burns, it's running on 8 archaic engines. If you just want a giant subsonic bomb truck their is a proposal for a BC-17 that would not only carry more but be significantly more efficent.

I think in the next five to ten years (or whenever it is we have to actually use it) you'll see a heavy hypersonic/suborbital bomber come out of the woodwork. the FALCON concept is going to change the way we fight wars. (Force Application Launched from the CONtinental US)



We use JP-8 these days. Origionally it was JP-4.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:43:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.



You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.



It is a large cross section, but flying down at lowest altitudes any radar is going to have a tough time picking even something that big out.

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:48:30 AM EDT
I heard somewhere that they were thinking about replacing the 8 engines with 4 more up to date engines. Can't remember where I heard that, but sounds like a plausible move to me.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:58:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 10:35:55 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:19:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 10:22:01 AM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
B-52's amuse me because on a clear day, you can see one coming by the black smoke plume growing on the horizon, well before even a well tuned piece of radar equipment can see them.



You're using some shitty radar equipment then. The damn thing lights up untuned radar screens like a Surefire light in pitch black.



It is a large cross section, but flying down at lowest altitudes any radar is going to have a tough time picking even something that big out.



First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:20:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
The B-52's 8 fan faces help give it just about the biggest radar signature in th sky... an AW Officers wet dream.

Why they are keeping them flying defies logic when they are paying off much more combat worthy and survivable B1-B's that carry far more weapons, and could operate in a defended airspace.


home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/b1b.jpg

B1-B.... a FAR better combat aircraft


Come on man, you can do better than that. It's B-1B not B1-B.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:39:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 11:10:19 AM EDT
I don't know where the 2045 estimate came from, but I wonder if whoever made that number up factored in the fact B-52s were relatively low hour aircraft, spending so much time pulling alerts, up until the early 90s. So simple extrapolation wouldn't work.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:17:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.



Dude, you're not the only one who may have some background with radar, so be prepared to read differing experiences from others who may be less, or more experienced than you.



Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:22:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Originally Posted By dport:

First of all, learn about something called radar horizon. If you can see it, it ain't that low.

Yeah right, because radars aren't designed to detect low cross section threats at low altitudes. I'll refer you to any radar designed since the 50s and a technology called MTI.



Dude, you're not the only one who may have some background with radar, so be prepared to read differing experiences from others who may be less, or more experienced than you.





The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:27:31 PM EDT
Considering the ECM package on the BUFF is still classified, I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum has any idea what one would look like on enemy rader.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:29:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Considering the ECM package on the BUFF is still classified, I'd be willing to bet that nobody on this forum has any idea what one would look like on enemy rader.


There's a differnence between what a -52 looks like on radar and what its ECM does to radar.

However, considering I've seen what national assets designed to jam radars can do, I'd be willing to bet a paycheck the -52's ECM package isn't as capable.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:34:25 PM EDT
Does the B-52 really have ejection seats?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:39:41 PM EDT
I thought they died in the early 90's

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:42:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:44:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.



I don't want this to turn into a pissing match, but as I've said, I've experienced the black plume as late as the early '90's.


Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:48:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:

Originally Posted By dport:

The -52 ain't exactlly stealthy. and like I said if you can see only the exhaust then it ain't flying that damn low. And, like others have said, since the black exhaust thing has been sorted out long ago, my guess is your experience is with ground based air defense radars, possiblly ancient systems like the Hawk. Just a guess, since you claim to have background and aren't disclosing what that background is.



I don't want this to turn into a pissing match, but as I've said, I've experienced the black plume as late as the early '90's.




In other words, you don't want to share your background.

You see to be a pissing contest, one would have to claim they have more experience than someone else, I've never claimed that and you've never claimed that. I'd love to know, however, under what circumstances you had such an experience. I find it so difficult to believe that I personally think it is borderline impossible based on the circumstances you described.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 1:41:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
..over 100 years for this bomber. Wow.





2045 minus 1954 equals 91 years



+1

We didn't have no B-52's in WW2...



It would've been tits if we did, though.



only if they were manned by nuclear mutants
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 2:22:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 2:24:46 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 2:26:19 PM EDT
Top Top