Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:01:35 PM EDT
on now, w00t!!!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:29:51 PM EDT
Thanks for the heads up. I spent several cold winters on the flightline there.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:34:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:36:25 PM EDT
That plane is one hell of an All-American workhorse.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:39:32 PM EDT
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:48:22 PM EDT
Nice little piece on LeMay.

We need him now more than ever--in the Middle East!!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:24:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...





Oddly enough, as long as the airframe is good you can just keep upgrading the rest.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:29:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:34:36 PM EDT
I find it amazing that they will still be flying them after 80-90 years. That is so cool that grandfathers, fathers and sons may be flying the same plane
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:37:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.




Uh... MORON ALERT!


Some designs are timeless. The B-52 REMAINS a very potent and very capable platform, now qualified to use over a THOUSAND different types of munitions. (Many obsolete, though.) If it was obsolete, the AF wouldn't be flying them anymore, but they've been used RECENTLY.


The C-130 has been in CONTINUOUS production for OVER FIFTY YEARS NOW. The KC-135 fleet (and other C-135 types) first entered service in 1957 and it's still our mainstay tanker. DC-3s are still in service WORLDWIDE.

Older designs are not necessarily bad ones even now. In fact, they often are so well suited to their purpose that they're retired only as they wear completely out.


CJ



Yes, the Buff still hauls bombs, so what, it isn't going to last forever. My point is that we could do much beter now. We aren't even doing significant upgrades to the 52, I'd give more credit to the upgrade argument if we were talking about overhauling it's avionics or re-engining it with 4 GEnx engines or something, but we aren't.

The C-130 is not a viable comparison, the C-130J is still in production, so new airframes are still being made. We maintain the 52' by salvaging parts of the carcasses of old planes, so we'll have a continuously shrinking force. Just like even thought we have 94 B-1Bs, we only fly 40 of them and use the remainder as parts warehouses.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:51:39 PM EDT
Stationed at Minot AFB, watched that while i was still at work. Pretty good episode. I kinda wish they had some footage from the middle of winter when it gets pretty nasty out. Good nonetheless!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:59:40 PM EDT
Did anyone else notice Gunny fucked up and called the B-36 the "Peacekeeper"?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:08:55 PM EDT
Why not Minot? Freezin's the reason.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:12:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Thekatar:
Did anyone else notice Gunny fucked up and called the B-36 the "Peacekeeper"?


he also called a ruger mkII a luger, oops. I'll give gunny a break cause I've done worse
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:13:39 PM EDT
re-run at 12pm eastern
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:45:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.




Uh... MORON ALERT!


Some designs are timeless. The B-52 REMAINS a very potent and very capable platform, now qualified to use over a THOUSAND different types of munitions. (Many obsolete, though.) If it was obsolete, the AF wouldn't be flying them anymore, but they've been used RECENTLY.


The C-130 has been in CONTINUOUS production for OVER FIFTY YEARS NOW. The KC-135 fleet (and other C-135 types) first entered service in 1957 and it's still our mainstay tanker. DC-3s are still in service WORLDWIDE.

Older designs are not necessarily bad ones even now. In fact, they often are so well suited to their purpose that they're retired only as they wear completely out.


CJ



Yes, the Buff still hauls bombs, so what, it isn't going to last forever. My point is that we could do much beter now. We aren't even doing significant upgrades to the 52, I'd give more credit to the upgrade argument if we were talking about overhauling it's avionics or re-engining it with 4 GEnx engines or something, but we aren't.

The C-130 is not a viable comparison, the C-130J is still in production, so new airframes are still being made. We maintain the 52' by salvaging parts of the carcasses of old planes, so we'll have a continuously shrinking force. Just like even thought we have 94 B-1Bs, we only fly 40 of them and use the remainder as parts warehouses.



Yeah, you pretty much have no idea what you're talking about. There is no airframe in the US (or anyone elses for that matter) inventory than can deliever the number of different munitions as the B-52. The damn thing can launch Harpoon anti-ship missiles for christ's sake. It's flight systems have continually been upgraded since the plane was introduced. It's electronic countermeasures are updated so often they're still classified. Nothing is as capable as the BUFF, and nothing ever will be.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:12:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.




Uh... MORON ALERT!


Some designs are timeless. The B-52 REMAINS a very potent and very capable platform, now qualified to use over a THOUSAND different types of munitions. (Many obsolete, though.) If it was obsolete, the AF wouldn't be flying them anymore, but they've been used RECENTLY.


The C-130 has been in CONTINUOUS production for OVER FIFTY YEARS NOW. The KC-135 fleet (and other C-135 types) first entered service in 1957 and it's still our mainstay tanker. DC-3s are still in service WORLDWIDE.

Older designs are not necessarily bad ones even now. In fact, they often are so well suited to their purpose that they're retired only as they wear completely out.


CJ



Yes, the Buff still hauls bombs, so what, it isn't going to last forever. My point is that we could do much beter now. We aren't even doing significant upgrades to the 52, I'd give more credit to the upgrade argument if we were talking about overhauling it's avionics or re-engining it with 4 GEnx engines or something, but we aren't.

The C-130 is not a viable comparison, the C-130J is still in production, so new airframes are still being made. We maintain the 52' by salvaging parts of the carcasses of old planes, so we'll have a continuously shrinking force. Just like even thought we have 94 B-1Bs, we only fly 40 of them and use the remainder as parts warehouses.



Yeah, you pretty much have no idea what you're talking about. There is no airframe in the US (or anyone elses for that matter) inventory than can deliever the number of different munitions as the B-52. The damn thing can launch Harpoon anti-ship missiles for christ's sake. It's flight systems have continually been upgraded since the plane was introduced. It's electronic countermeasures are updated so often they're still classified. Nothing is as capable as the BUFF, and nothing in the near future (next 30 years).



Corrected for you, but the B-52 is the best thing that exist in its class. What other bomber can compair by any other country? The big plus is that they are paid for.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:15:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Why not Minot? Freezin's the reason.



Funny, five years in the Air Force and I manage to avoid SAC Northern Tier. I get out and then I move here. Go figure.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:24:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Why not Minot? Freezin's the reason.



My great uncle was a Mst Sgt in the USAF. After going through Tet at Da Nang the USAF gave him a senior NCO MP post at Minot. After less than 6 months he asked to go back to Vietnam.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:36:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
DC-3s are still in service WORLDWIDE.






In fact, the Great Overlord Xenu used them to transport his vassals to Earth for their fiery execution.


Except his had rocket engines.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:41:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 9:41:36 PM EDT by MiG-21]

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
We seriously need to get rid of the Buff, it's an antique, state of the art, for 1960...

Reopen the B-2 line, re-engine the B-1s with the new Pratt 40klbs thrust models, and hury your ass up on orbital strike.


When the last B-2 flies to the Boneyard, the crew will be picked up by a B-52.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 2:31:54 AM EDT
Ahhhhh......the memories of Minot.


<--------------------- Can you tell what I did there?

Nothing more fun than sitting in an uninsulated Peacekeeper out in the Missile Complex with no real heat, and out in temperatures down to -90 degrees windchill. Icebox on wheels!

They finally installed heaters on the rear wheel wells, but on the coldest days, it still didn't do a damn bit of good.

If you were in the M-203'ers position, you always made sure that you layered up, because there was NO heat making it to the back of the truck.

Damn, I miss the sound of BUFF engines winding up first thing in the morning.



Link Posted: 12/14/2005 2:54:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Thekatar:
Did anyone else notice Gunny fucked up and called the B-36 the "Peacekeeper"?



He called it that because that's what it's name was.

B-36 Peacekeeper
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:16:27 AM EDT
I am still in constant amazement at what this country used to be able to do.

Don't get me wrong I like the new things flying around. But like our cars which changed almost entirely every couple of years we designed new birds seemingly every year.

Ok, ok, it might have something to do with designing a really good frame and tweaking it to optimize it for different roles, than the costs of designing an optimized frame for each task, but it sure seemed more exiciting the old way.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:41:48 AM EDT
The B-52 is still a very viable option for us. Sure, the B-2 is a helluva plane, but we only built 21 of them and can't afford to have a large fleet of them. The B-52 fleet has long ago been paid for and are in service. That means something. The B-2 can handle the more dangerous targets while the B-52 can hit everything else using standoff weapons. And once SAM sites have been neutralized, it can come right over a target and carpet bomb the shit out of it if need be. The B-52 is still more than capable of handling a large percentage of the missions it's asked to complete. As such, the B-52's you have is worth much more than B-2's you can't afford.

BTW, the USAF has considered packing a number of B-52's full of ECM gear and using them as big-ass jammers. Considering the available space in those big airframes, it would likely be amazing what an EB-52 could do. The EF-111 was awesome. With advances in technology we have since the EF-111 was used plus much more space, that would be one helluva ECM platform.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:50:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Thekatar:
Did anyone else notice Gunny fucked up and called the B-36 the "Peacekeeper"?



He called it that because that's what it's name was.

B-36 Peacekeeper


for some reason I thoght it was the peacemaker
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:48:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twonami:

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Thekatar:
Did anyone else notice Gunny fucked up and called the B-36 the "Peacekeeper"?



He called it that because that's what it's name was.

B-36 Peacekeeper


for some reason I thoght it was the peacemaker



It is the Peacemaker.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:04:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
The B-52 is still a very viable option for us. Sure, the B-2 is a helluva plane, but we only built 21 of them and can't afford to have a large fleet of them. The B-52 fleet has long ago been paid for and are in service. That means something. The B-2 can handle the more dangerous targets while the B-52 can hit everything else using standoff weapons. And once SAM sites have been neutralized, it can come right over a target and carpet bomb the shit out of it if need be. The B-52 is still more than capable of handling a large percentage of the missions it's asked to complete. As such, the B-52's you have is worth much more than B-2's you can't afford.

BTW, the USAF has considered packing a number of B-52's full of ECM gear and using them as big-ass jammers. Considering the available space in those big airframes, it would likely be amazing what an EB-52 could do. The EF-111 was awesome. With advances in technology we have since the EF-111 was used plus much more space, that would be one helluva ECM platform.



+1

Although the B-52 is long overdue for some new motors it's still far from my dad's BUFF.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:02:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:27:37 PM EDT
B-52's are cheap and reliable ways to fly a crap load or ordance 3/4 of the way around the world, drop it on some assholes who need a good killin' and fly back. yes b1s are faster and better at dodging sams and fighters and the b-2 is the sneakiest bastard around.

the b-52 reminds me of an old worn out dodge van i had. piece of shit. always started always ran could hual alot of shit. didn't care if it got beat up. ate alot of gas but it was paid for and insurance was cheap.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:33:54 PM EDT
Just as bad, After four years at Grand Forks AFB I got orders to Kunsan Korea,
Kunsan is not the asshole of the world but you can see it on a clear day.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:39:43 PM EDT
I spent 3 years at the Not, June 83-86 as an LE. Loved that Base, and LOVE THE BUFF!!!!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:40:52 PM EDT
Barksdale Buff.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:45:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 91stsps
I spent 3 years at the Not, June 83-86 as an LE. Loved that Base, and LOVE THE BUFF!!!!


We might have crossed paths, 79-83 GFAFB, 83-84 Kunsan AB, 84-85 Kelly AFB
85-87 Osan AB, 87-88 Ellsworth AFB, AFSC 81170
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:56:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Barksdale Buff.

www.vaq34.com/barkbuff.jpg



This guy was @ Wings Over Pittsburgh a few years ago


This one was there this past summer, but I can't remember if it's from Minot or Barksdale.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:48:08 PM EDT
I would think that going to 4 engines could reduce maintnance costs and save fuel...

I'm just afraid that as these frames get older you will see wings falling off and other issues due to the stresses of flying over a LONG period of time. The B-52J was delivered in the 1960's correct?

Would it be the end of the world to produce new airframes and spare parts? Of course The costs may be huge as well...
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:40:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:54:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darth_pavoris:
B-52's are cheap and reliable ways to fly a crap load or ordance 3/4 of the way around the world, drop it on some assholes who need a good killin' and fly back. yes b1s are faster and better at dodging sams and fighters and the b-2 is the sneakiest bastard around.

the b-52 reminds me of an old worn out dodge van i had. piece of shit. always started always ran could hual alot of shit. didn't care if it got beat up. ate alot of gas but it was paid for and insurance was cheap.



You know all this talk of fast B-1s and sneaky B-2s gets me thinking. Name one capitol that the B-52 didn't just fly over. It flew over Baghdad when they still shot back. It flew over Belgrade when the B-1s wouldn't go there. It flew over Baghdad in the last war along with the other two bombers. Here is a question. What is the fastest bomber at 40,000 feet? You got it, the sleek and mighty B-52.

The earlier talk about buying new B-2s got me thinking about something else. I heard a theory in a class long ago about the cycle of technology. The theory says that a technology has about a 75 year run before its just about played out. Think about cars. They don't really change much do they. They are the same thing they have been for years. Airplanes are about the same. It is all about the electronics and weapons now. The B-52 has electronics and weapons out the wazoo.

Oh, and Minot. Three years, three months, three days. But who was counting?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:05:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NAM:
Stationed at Minot AFB, watched that while i was still at work. Pretty good episode. I kinda wish they had some footage from the middle of winter when it gets pretty nasty out. Good nonetheless!



They have the best facilities for indoor activities in the entire Air Force. If they didn't, you folks would go insane come January with -20 outside, windchill -50. Why anyone would want to live up there (unless you are in the service), I'll never know.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:41:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 91stsps:
I spent 3 years at the Not, June 83-86 as an LE. Loved that Base, and LOVE THE BUFF!!!!



85-89 here. 92nd MSS, 91st SPG Worked Mobile Fire Teams for a bit, and then spent the rest of my time there in the armory.

Weather might have been a challenge at times, but most of the folks stationed there were great. A lot of good memories from Minot.

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:10:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
The wing boxes were replaced in the 80s in a major structural refit program. Made them good to go for a LONG time to come. Plus, as so many earlier model B-52s have been scrapped due to those goddamned treaties we never should have signed with the Russians, and a lot of high value parts and assemblies were salvaged for future use, it'll be a very long time before we run out of what's needed to
keep the B-52s flying. They should be retired due to airframe hours before we run out of out-of-production parts.

As only a relatively small part of the B-52 is pressurized, (the cockpit and crew spaces, all in the front)
even those could be overhauled and the planes allowed to continue in service. Airframe fatigue is
mostly a matter of pressurization cycles, and that's why airliners are retired, mostly. Non-pressurized
aircraft don't have that limiting factor. That's why DC-3s are still flying...because they're non-pressurized.

There's still a hard limit on safe airframe life, but it's a long way from being reached by the B-52 fleet.


CJ



Taken from FAS.org

The limiting factor of the B-52’s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:18:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bombardier:

You know all this talk of fast B-1s and sneaky B-2s gets me thinking. Name one capitol that the B-52 didn't just fly over. It flew over Baghdad when they still shot back. It flew over Belgrade when the B-1s wouldn't go there. It flew over Baghdad in the last war along with the other two bombers. Here is a question. What is the fastest bomber at 40,000 feet? You got it, the sleek and mighty B-52.




I'd have to double check my copy of the Gulf War air power survey, but I'm pretty sure that during Desert Storm downtown Baghdad was restricted to Nighthawks and cruise missiles..
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 12:32:24 PM EDT
I grew up 90 miles northeast of Minot. B-52's remind me of home.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:06:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 2:21:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MissileCop:
Ahhhhh......the memories of Minot.


<--------------------- Can you tell what I did there?

Nothing more fun than sitting in an uninsulated Peacekeeper out in the Missile Complex with no real heat, and out in temperatures down to -90 degrees windchill. Icebox on wheels!

They finally installed heaters on the rear wheel wells, but on the coldest days, it still didn't do a damn bit of good.

If you were in the M-203'ers position, you always made sure that you layered up, because there was NO heat making it to the back of the truck.

Damn, I miss the sound of BUFF engines winding up first thing in the morning.






We had a guy get out to tinkle one winter and turned on a/c while he was out, then watched him trying to warm up!!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:46:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By bombardier:

You know all this talk of fast B-1s and sneaky B-2s gets me thinking. Name one capitol that the B-52 didn't just fly over. It flew over Baghdad when they still shot back. It flew over Belgrade when the B-1s wouldn't go there. It flew over Baghdad in the last war along with the other two bombers. Here is a question. What is the fastest bomber at 40,000 feet? You got it, the sleek and mighty B-52.




I'd have to double check my copy of the Gulf War air power survey, but I'm pretty sure that during Desert Storm downtown Baghdad was restricted to Nighthawks and cruise missiles..



Nope. We took huge formations over Baghdad. Sometimes 24 bombers at a time (6 from each deployment location). I went there twice and once to Tikrit which was a pretty nasty place too.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:08:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 8:15:53 PM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By bombardier:
Nope. We took huge formations over Baghdad. Sometimes 24 bombers at a time (6 from each deployment location). I went there twice and once to Tikrit which was a pretty nasty place too.



Woah, wait, during Gulf War 1, Desert Storm, 1991, you flew B-52's directly over downtown Baghdad and hit targets?

Note: I am not accusing you of not telling the truth, it's just that everything I have read has always said that Baghdad was considered too hot to have conventional bombers over it. Mind if I email you? I'm getting my MA in history (might go on for my PhD in military history) and I'm always looking for paper topics to publish.

If you can confirm all this, and hopefully point towards other sources it would be cool. Especially since my copy of the Air Power Survey says "With the combination of stealth and accuracy possessed by the F-117 and cruise missiles, these two platforms carried out all attacks against downtown Baghdad" [Cohen, Eliot (director) Gulf War Air Power Survey, (United States Air Force, GPO, Washington, DC: 1993), p 225]

So yeah, if you want to help out, I'm willing to write a paper on this.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:30:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 8:31:14 PM EDT by NAM]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
They have the best facilities for indoor activities in the entire Air Force. If they didn't, you folks would go insane come January with -20 outside, windchill -50. Why anyone would want to live up there (unless you are in the service), I'll never know.



I volunteered to come to minot. I had been in illinois 4 years, and got sick of the anti gun BS.

You can regularly find me at the 800 yard outdoor range on the southwest side of town, even when it's well below -20. The cold just makes my .50 Incendiary rounds less liekly to start a fire.

here's me, heading to the range. -20, -40 with winds.


The north ain't for wussies
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:34:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 8:36:49 PM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By MissileCop:
Ahhhhh......the memories of Minot.


<--------------------- Can you tell what I did there?





When were you there?

Long shot, as my Uncle was there a long time ago during 'nam.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:55:23 PM EDT
Spent 2 years at Minot from 95-97 with the short lived 72nd Bomb Squadron in Weapons... Any other Weapon trroops?? Would have liked to catch the show, but don't have cable right now...
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 9:07:28 PM EDT
What does BUFF stand for? The uncensored version.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top