wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (10/04/84)
> ... don't knock the B-1 if you don't believe in the bomber program > (actually part of the triad). It's only one of many bombers. Even if one doesn't "believe in bombers" -- that is, even if you don't think the triad is such a great idea -- one can still recognize that not all bombers are identical. For instance, some are more destabilizing of the strategic situation, some are more expensive than others, some are less survivable, some are unproven "pigs-in-a-poke". The B-1B is all of these. > We are not talking of just nuclear delivery. If we were, I would say let > the B-52s be modern day Kamikaze mahines and forget the B-1. The B-1 > offers the ability to deliver more punch with a higher chance of survival. The B-1B is designed to penetrate Soviet airspace. The B-52 can stand off outside Soviet air defenses and release its cruise missiles. You tell me which crew has a better chance of surviving -- the crew that has to get through the flak in a large, slow (the B-1B is flown at subsonic speeds when at low alititude) plane, or the crew that never gets near the flak belts? Of course, the B-1B could just stand off and fire ALCMs, too, but then it just duplicates the B-52's mission, so there's no reason to build it. The Air Force wants a new toy, and too bad about the cost, or the crews that don't make it back. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/08/84)
Sigh....Doesnt anyone read the specs? The B-1B while intended to be used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic. Also, you'd be surprised to see what ECM can do these days. As for the Air Force wanting a new toy, all I can say is that I was raised near a place called Castle Air Force Base. Its the place where the 93rd SAC Bomb wing lives. They do all B-52G&H training there. They have lost several aircraft and crews in the past years. Thats because the things are literally falling apart. You ever been in a B-52 cockpit? There is no TERCOM in there, where you fly at treetop level, you do it not a computer. When you do this for 3 hrs, under constant attack, you tend to get a little frazzled. With the B-1, you push a button. The B-52 takes an eternity to come from alert status to go airborne, those planes would be destroyed by SLBM fire. The B-1 takes off in much less time. Go read the specs for yourself before spouting off malarchy like that. There are BIG differences between the B-1 and B-52. Some people get their defense information from AW&ST and trade journals. Other get theirs from the National Enquirer and Mondale Campaign flyers. Down deep I do believe information is valuable. But a little info is worse than none at all... Milo
wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (10/08/84)
> The B-1B while intended to be used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic. The B-1 was *ORIGINALLY* designed to be a supersonic bomber. Hence my comparisons with the B-58 and the B-70. However, as you agree, the "B" version is intended to be subsonic. So what if it *CAN* fly faster; obviously it can't do it very well or for very long. Lots of WWII fighters could fly around Mach 1 just before the wings came off; that doesn't make them supersonic planes. > ... Castle Air Force Base. Its the place where the 93rd > SAC Bomb wing lives. They do all B-52G&H training there. They have > lost several aircraft and crews in the past years. Thats because > the things are literally falling apart. Not according to the USAF, who plan to keep the B-52 around for quite a few more years. > With the B-1, you push a button. ...and it falls apart all by itself, like it did a couple of weeks ago. You're not listening, though, I wasn't proposing that the B-52 be used in nap-of-the-earth flying, I said it could perform the B-1's mission by standing off and launching cruise missiles, which have a *MUCH* better chance of successful penetration than the B-1 ever will, ECM or no. > The B-52 takes an eternity to come from alert status to go airborne, > those planes would be destroyed by SLBM fire. Seems to me that the SAC has been practicing scrambing B-52's for about 30 years now, and that they can usually get them off in about 10 minutes, or about 5 minutes before the first SLBMs will arrive. I also recall something about a certain number of them being on airborne patrol at all times, and about plans to disperse them in times of crisis. > There are BIG differences between the B-1 and B-52. > Some people get their defense information from AW&ST and trade journals. > Other get theirs from the National Enquirer and Mondale Campaign flyers. The BIGgest differences between the B-1 and the B-52 are those with dollar signs in front of them. I read AW&ST every week (even had a letter published last year). I used to subscribe, but realized I was funding the bad guys, so now I just read other people's. And I don't think much of Mondale -- he wants an even bigger War Department budget than the current Reagan one, and it was under Carter/Mondale that the MX fiasco got started in the first place. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (10/09/84)
If you really think the B-52 is such a good airplane, why don't all you would-
be B-1-busters take a test-ride in one?? After that you'll really change your
mind and understand why the B-1,Stealth,etc. are worth the trouble.
If you have anybody to blame for the runaway trend in defense spending, put the
finger on the flaccid admirals and generals letting crooks at the "defense"
companies get away with murder.(For example, take the classified Stealth bomber
stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. 1/5 of the Stealths stationed there have
crashed in the time since testing began, with an unspecified number of casual-
ties.
I understand that this is neither net.politics nor net.flame but I feel this
info is appropriate to net.aviation, since there's more to aviation than just
planes....
My question is why the Stealth hasn't been shelved after all this, while a
plane superior to the B-1, the XB-70 Valkyrie(what a funky name! :-) )was
pulled after only one crash,which wasn't even caused by that plane or its
pilot, but by someone else...
Get your Flamethrowers out...
Anthony J. Rowleymedin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/13/84)
Come on now, SLBM's taking 15 minutes to hit? No way. If you fly them the usual way, we are talking 8-10 minutes. The closer to the coast you are, the shorter the flight time, and guess where most of our bomber bases are? Also, the Russians have been testing their SLBM's in something called 'depressed trajectory mode'. Now here, the missile doesnt go way up and fall down, but it 'bores' through the atmosphere. In case case, we are talking flight times in terms of 2-4 minutes, with sacrifices in range. Roger Speed, in his book, 'Strategic Weapons of the 80's' makes a good point about just how vulerable our bomber force is. Read it. Now, a B-52, which is part of the alert force (ie is armed) and the crew given a bit of warning, can be ready for takeoff in about 10 minutes. But, you have to get the whole wing airborne (another 3 minutes assuming ~15 second seperation and NO mechanical failures in getting to full thrust), but, and this is important, you have to get far enough away from the base so that you arent destroyed by the blast wave or thermal pulse. That probably takes about 3 minutes too. So you still lose. As for keeping some planes in the air continuously, (the airborne alert force), that program was cancelled during the Carter administration because it was putting too many hours on the airframe (maintainance was eating you alive) and it was using too much fuel. So today, we have no aircraft on airborne alert, and only 1/3 of the B-52 force (all of which are counted under SALT, but thats another story) are even armed at a given time. So it all goes back to what I said before, kiss the B-52's goodbye. Milo
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (10/15/84)
>> The B-1B while intended to be used in a subsonic mode can fly supersonic. > >The B-1 was *ORIGINALLY* designed to be a supersonic bomber. Hence my >comparisons with the B-58 and the B-70. However, as you agree, the >"B" version is intended to be subsonic. So what if it *CAN* fly >faster; obviously it can't do it very well or for very long. Lots of >WWII fighters could fly around Mach 1 just before the wings came off; >that doesn't make them supersonic planes. The B-1 was originally designed to fly up to Mach 2. Most of the structure is still the same. The difference is in the air intakes. To get the Mach 2 capability required movable intakes, which were more expensive and heavier. The intakes were made fixed to save money, after the Air Force decided (or admitted, or whatever) that Mach 2 was not essential. (It couldn't fly Mach 2 in the low level penetration phase, anyway.) Fixing the intakes also made it possible to considerably reduce the radar cross section. >> ... Castle Air Force Base. Its the place where the 93rd >> SAC Bomb wing lives. They do all B-52G&H training there. They have >> lost several aircraft and crews in the past years. Thats because >> the things are literally falling apart. > >Not according to the USAF, who plan to keep the B-52 around for quite >a few more years. About a year ago I read an article in the Pittsburgh Press about the B-52. It said the design lifetime of the B-52 airframe was 5000 hours (I think; it may have been 4000 or 6000). The low-time B-52 had over 14000 hours at the time the article was printed. The USAF does plan to keep the B-52 around for a while. The planes have been reskinned, refurbished, and reoutfitted several times, and why not a few more times? It is easier to get funding to rebuild the existing fleet than to replace it. If the B-52 is to soldier on for another 30 years, P&W has an interesting proposal to replace the eight engines with four 2037's. The new engines would be more reliable, produce much less infrared, and greatly increase range. David Smith Hewlett-Packard Labs
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (10/17/84)
Of course, we are all aware of the B-52G that had a wing collapse while on the ramp several years ago. While working at Boeing Military Aircraft Company (Boeing Wichita), we were constantly bombarded (no pun) with B-52 improvement plans and ideas. These ranged from a B-52Q proposal which hung four engines from a 747 on the airframe, to reskinning jobs, to new offensive avionics. After all is said and done, the B-52 is still an OLD airplane. It may have a new radio, new paint, newer engines, and patched skin, but it still is getting quite old. There are cases of grandchildren of the original B-52 pilots now flying the same airplane as granddad did. Considering the mission of the machine, considering the problems in upkeep, and considering kludging on new systems on top of old, it is about time that this weapon system be honorably retired. Now, about the KC-135...as a less complicated airplane, and several generations removed from the B-52 as far as technology is concerned, this airplane can stand to be rebuilt and updated as in the KC-135E and KC-135R models. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
emks@uokvax.UUCP (10/17/84)
[*bug*] Referring to the B-52 "falling apart": /***** uokvax:net.aviation / rabbit!wolit / 7:56 am Oct 11, 1984 */ Not according to the USAF, who plan to keep the B-52 around for quite a few more years. /* ---------- */ I've worked with the B-52/Missile Section at Okla City ALC (USAF) for the past year or so. Don't be fooled. B-52's fall apart alot. The Air Force (Air Staff, et al.) would *love* to replace its inventory of B-52s with something easier to maintain. Currently, Boeing has a strongarm hold on the airframe and a lot of the electronics. (Wichita isn't even a nice place to *visit*!) Keeping the B-52 around for "quite a few more years" is only because there isn't much choice. Of course, you could unilaterally disarm... (Ha!) (Don't flame, it was a joke, okay??!) kurt
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/18/84)
All I can say is that another B-52 crashed this week. 6 of the 7 crewmembers ejected. People can talk about using them, but they are FALLING APART. Milo
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/19/84)
Just out of curiosity: Given the age of the B-52 fleet, but still having a continuing requirement for a number of aircraft to fill their role, and given the high cost of the B-1, would it be feasible and cost-effective to use an existing and proven commercial aircraft design (747, DC-10, L1011, or some standard cargo or passenger craft) and modify it to become a carrier of ALCM (or maybe even an actual bomber)? Couldn't such a modified standard aircraft be built at a cost close to that of a commercial airliner, using existing tooling and facilities, and have a very low development cost and short design time to boot? I would think a bunch of these could be churned out to replace the B-52's while the B-1 and stealth development continued; after all, the missions these aircraft would perform would be different. Maintenance on these new aircraft would be cheaper and easier; not only would they be so much newer, but they would use many industry-standard parts or subassemblies, which could be bought off-the-shelf the same as the airlines do. Am I completely off-base here? Are the airframe requirements for a military aircraft so different from the commercial airplanes that one of the latter designs is completely inappropriate? I was under the impression that the Soviet air fleet is all designed for a dual civil/military role, but does that mean simply that passenger-type aircraft would carry troops, not that an airliner becomes a bomber? Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
bloom@ucbvax.ARPA (Jim Bloom) (10/23/84)
The Air Force is using at least modified commercial plane. The McDonnell-Douglas KC-10 is basically a modified DC-10 used as an aerial tanker. The primary differences are a different midsection inthe fuselage and the refueling boom. Most of the production is done on the same line interspersed with production of the DC-10. (At least while the DC-10 was still in production). The KC-10's were the last planes rolling off an otherwise quiet DC-10 assembly line. Jim Bloom ucbvax!bloom
sms@odin.UUCP (10/23/84)
I may be mistaken but wouldn't there be a danger in
using commercial aircraft for military purposes in that
the silhouette would not be recognizably different and
we may run the risk of another KAL 007.
Then again maybe I'm talking out of my hat.
Shaul M. Smallcfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (10/23/84)
The military has always used modified commercial aircraft. The list is almost endless: KC-135, VC-137 = Boeing 707/720 C-9, VC-9 = Mac/Doug DC-9 T-41 = Cessna 172 T-43 = Boeing 737 C-54 = Douglas DC-4 C-47, C-117 = Douglas DC-3 C-118 = Douglas DC-6 C-45, AT-11, SNB= Beech 18 C-20 = Gulfstream G-III C-21 = Lear 35 C-12 = Beech King Air 200 The list goes on and on and on. As can be seen, most of these airplanes are trainers or cargo/transports. However, in WW2, Lockheed built the Hudson, which was nothing more than a modified Electra. (Come to think of it, the P-3 Orion is also a modified Electra L-188.) What prompted this list was an idea to use a modified airliner to carry cruise missiles. Several years ago there was a proposal to use the C-5, B-1, 747, and various 707 varients for this role. It was cheaper to modify the B-52 again. For the most part, the launcher in use for the cruise missile is the same rotary launcher used for the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM). The biggest mod for the B-52 is a fairing at the wing to fuselage joint for identification purposes. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime