miller@loral.UUCP (David P. Miller) (08/08/86)
Reprint from the 8-4-86 issue of Design News:
"Nowadays the B-52G bombers can carry nuclear or conventional weapons. The
problem is that the aircraft's computer program limits its tactical or stra-
tegic mission to the type of weapons on board. The word is,all this will change.
The Air Force's Aeronautical Systems Div.(ASD) has developed a system that gives
the B52G dual-mission capability by letting the pilot send onboard instructions
to his smart weapons. The missile is fired outside the range of any defensive
system and finds its way to the target using an internal navigation system.
Called Integrated Conventional Stores Management, the computer interface system
takes the form of a `stores management overlay'. It suppresses, or rearranges,
weapons operations data stored in the aircraft's computer using a simple plug-in
preprogrammed software cassette.
The system implements the MIL-STD-1760 software and electrical interface for
weapons. With it the B-52G can carry the new Harpoon missiles and any future
weapons designed to the military specification.
As an added advantage,the system permits usage of many types of weapons without
the need for more black boxes in the aircraft. The overlay recaptures computer
territory already in use so that different conventional systems will operate
with the same black boxes.
Boeing Military Airplane Company, out of Wichita, KS, holds a $25 million
contract for the system's full scale development. It recently underwent a
successful flight test at McConnell AFB, KS. Operational capability is expected
in 1988".
Wait a minute, 1988 (and beyond) ??. All along I was under the
distinct impression that we where going to scrap these B-52s in
favor of the new B-1Bs. What happened ?. It couldn't possibly be
Grann-Rudman-Hollings !!.
BIG DAVE.
--
David P. Miller - Loral Instrumentation. / USUAL \
{sdcsvax,sdcc3} loral!miller \ DISCLAIMER /
********************************************************************************
"Uma vez Flamengo, sempre Flamengo ...." tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) (08/16/86)
In article <1212@loral.UUCP>, miller@loral.UUCP (David P. Miller) writes: > Reprint from the 8-4-86 issue of Design News: > [...reprint of article...] > > Wait a minute, 1988 (and beyond) ??. All along I was under the > distinct impression that we where going to scrap these B-52s in > favor of the new B-1Bs. What happened ?. It couldn't possibly be > Grann-Rudman-Hollings !!. > > BIG DAVE. Sorry, but the idea was never to scrap the B-52. The B-1 is supposed to take over missions which the B-52 no longer has any chance of completing successfully, such as penetration of a well defensed air-space, such as the Soviet Union. The B-1 also can carry more weapons and is of course better at avoiding detection by radar. The B-52, however, is still good for such things as bombing targets with relatively little anti-air defense, such as they did in Vietnam. Another reason why you won't find the B-52 being scrapped is that it is impossible for the Air Force to acquire sufficient numbers of B-1's to replace the entire B-52 fleet. It would have almost been possible if Jimmy Carter hadn't cancelled the program back in the 70's. Then the Air Force could have afforded almost *twice* as many B-1A's, had the entire fleet of them now, and be converting them to B-1B standard along with working the bugs out. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and B-1's cost twice as much now than they would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam happen, too). > > "Uma vez Flamengo, sempre Flamengo ...." Translation, please? Tad P.S.: Sorry if replying to this here if it annoys any net.general readers. I have a hard time not talking about military stuff when I get the chance, besides, it is kinda a general piece of information. If anybody wants to know more, e-mail to me. -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 If it's not nailed down, it's mine; If I can pick it up, it's not nailed down.
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (08/18/86)
In article <257@killer.UUCP> tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: > >It would have almost been possible if >Jimmy Carter hadn't cancelled the program back in the 70's. Then the >Air Force could have afforded almost *twice* as many B-1A's, had the >entire fleet of them now, and be converting them to B-1B standard along >with working the bugs out. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and B-1's >cost twice as much now than they would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's >what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam >happen, too). > >P.S.: ... I have a hard time not talking about military stuff > when I get the chance, ... Tad, do you really believe that the price of a "B-1A" 8 years ago would have been anywhere near the estimate then in effect? And do you believe that if the wretched things had been purchased, that the bugs would ever have been fixed? Do you know how much deception was used to "prove" that a B-52 with cruise missiles could not serve instead of a B-1? Shut the mouth and open the mind, Tad. You are being duped. If it's any comfort, you are probably in the majority. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (08/20/86)
In article <257@killer.UUCP>, tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: ... > with working the bugs out. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and B-1's > cost twice as much now than they would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's > what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam > happen, too). The system does have its problems but it's a lot better than to have the military run the government.
tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) (08/24/86)
In article <3668@hplabsb.UUCP>, bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes: > In article <257@killer.UUCP>, tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) writes: > ... > > with working the bugs out. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and B-1's > > cost twice as much now than they would have 8 years ago. Oh, well, that's > > what happens when the government runs the military (things like Vietnam > > happen, too). > > The system does have its problems but it's a lot better than to have the > military run the government. I agree totally, but if the government decides to have a war, let the military get it over with as fast as possible with as little life-loss as possible. Than cannot be done if rules are imposed by the government on the military about how to run the war. -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 flames to: /dev/your_ear