GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"
Mike
Business Case. GAO-04-391, March 15
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf
WaltBJ
SU27s, etc. I have dealt with those blinder-equipped savants before.
You can't discuss anything with them because their minds are already
made up. They've already 'modeled' the situation and they are never
wrong. They haven't a clue what it is like up at the sharp end. Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
Walt BJ
BUFDRVR
>it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Tarver Engineering
"BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040317170239...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> >Face
> >it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
>
> I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years
and
> years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
> aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.
An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.
WaltBJ
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT
Buzzer
In th 60s skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles while they were down
at 250 ft.?
Kevin Brooks
"Buzzer" <r....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:eegi505ha1dl9cqho...@4ax.com...
I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.
Brooks
monkey
A lot of people will be crying into their beer after an F-15 lifex -
that is just not an effective plan these days. We did that with our
Hornets, and even with centre barrel replacement there are TONS of
serviceability problems.
Tarver Engineering
"monkey" <dm...@cablerocket.com> wrote in message
news:f8696667.04031...@posting.google.com...
There aren't enough F-22s to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is sliding
further away. The options are to life extend the F-15, or have the USAF buy
F/A-18Es. If we wait until the F-15s start falling out of the sky, then
they will all be gounded.
Besides that, the F-18 life extension doubled the usable life of the
F/A-18As.
monkey
I agree with the fact that something has to be done...however in my
experience flying military jets "life extension" is a huge misnomer.
Yes, the life of the airframe is "extended." But the fact of the
matter is that our older "life extended" jets have a very low fatigue
tolerance and as such have a very low g limit, as well as severe store
carriage limitations. Yes, the jets are still flying, but you'll find
that a lot of them are useless for anything except ifr training and
cross countries. But hey, what can an air force do-until the new jets
come on line or they get more money, they will have to stick with
flying older aircraft less, and restricting the mission types.
Tarver Engineering
If only the F-22 had been cancelled in '98 ...
Guy Alcala
> "Buzzer" <r....@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:eegi505ha1dl9cqho...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > In th 60s skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles while they were down
> > at 250 ft.?
>
> I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
> sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
> were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.
SAC certainly would have been down in the weeds in the '60s when feet dry
over the FSU if executing the SIOP (or training for it), which is what Buzzer
was referring to. But I'm sure Walt was referring to ranges on them during
enroute high altitude cruise.
Guy
Kevin Brooks
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4059FBBC...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
Depends on when in the sixties, AFAIK. I ran across one former B-52 pilot's
comments that the transition to the lower level profile, at least in his
case, happened during the "early sixties"; FAS indicates it happened earlier
than that, but then again FAS folks were not flying them... :-) Of course a
lot of the B-52 force during the sixties were lugging Hound Dogs, which
would have been launched from altitude in most cases and did not require a
low-altitude penetration. The point was that Walt's comment about acquiring
the B-52's was valid.
Brooks
>
> Guy
>
BUFDRVR
Walt, if it were that easy to pop non-stealth aircraft, surely we would have
lost more than we have (by an order of magnitude) since '91. The grand champion
RCS of all time has suffered exactly zero losses and only 1 damaged in well
over 1,000 missions over Iraq x 2 and Yugoslavia. In fact, more stealth
aircraft have been downed than B-52s.
BUFDRVR
>sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
>were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.
The terrain avoidance radar was not installed until early 1970's (1973??). This
is not to say you couldn't fly low visually, but I don't believe low level was
a common practice until the 70s.
Henry J Cobb
> Walt, if it were that easy to pop non-stealth aircraft, surely we would have
> lost more than we have (by an order of magnitude) since '91. The grand champion
> RCS of all time has suffered exactly zero losses and only 1 damaged in well
> over 1,000 missions over Iraq x 2 and Yugoslavia. In fact, more stealth
> aircraft have been downed than B-52s.
SEAD has gotten a lot better since Vietnam?
-HJC
Buzzer
>>I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
>>sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
>>were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.
>
>The terrain avoidance radar was not installed until early 1970's (1973??). This
>is not to say you couldn't fly low visually, but I don't believe low level was
>a common practice until the 70s.
Bomb-nav maintainer might disagree with you about when the TA was
installed. (This is just the earliest date I could find..)
http://www.bombnav.org/guestbook.html
"Did infinite T/A alignment long first then 24hrs short method Dec
1962 Carswell AFB TX."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52_hist.htm
"Although the new low level requirement would apply to the other SAC
bombers, it would have its greatest impact upon the B-52. To fly the
new attack profile, the B-52C through H models were modified with a
new terrain avoidance radar, an improved radar altimeter, increased
cooling capacity for sustained low altitude operations, modified
equipment mounts, and a general strengthening of the aircraft's
secondary structures. The goal was to permit reliable, all-weather
operation at 500 feet, to avoid detection, and to minimize encounters
with enemy defenses. Low level training for SAC bomber crews began in
the late 1950's, with actual aircraft modification beginning in 1961."
Guy Alcala
What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look up "Advanced
Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first, but they were
backfit to the D, F and G.
Guy
Buzzer
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>The point was that Walt's comment about acquiring
>the B-52's was valid.
Only if he knew what their location would be within 125 miles before
he took off.<G>
Kevin Brooks
Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it. FAS as a source is not
infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models got it
and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A radars
in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the fleet,
which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time. Your list also does not
include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70 timeframe.
Another interesting item is the fact that throughout the sixties a large
number of B-52's retained the silver upper/anti-flash white lower finishes,
which was hardly a very good scheme for a low altitude penetrator. This all
leads me to suspect that the "everything went to low level at the beginning
of the sixties" bit may be another case similar to the old "all the B-29's
stripped their armament per LeMay's orders" story--only partly correct, in
other words.
Brooks
>
> Guy
>
Guy Alcala
Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or forgotten
them, or FAS may be wrong.
> FAS as a source is not
> infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models got it
> and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A radars
> in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the fleet,
> which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.
Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as our
ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just entering
service.
> Your list also does not
> include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70 timeframe.
And it should. Brain fart.
> Another interesting item is the fact that throughout the sixties a large
> number of B-52's retained the silver upper/anti-flash white lower finishes,
> which was hardly a very good scheme for a low altitude penetrator. This all
> leads me to suspect that the "everything went to low level at the beginning
> of the sixties" bit may be another case similar to the old "all the B-29's
> stripped their armament per LeMay's orders" story--only partly correct, in
> other words.
The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959 which is when
the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab) while in low
altitude flight. The ACR allowed them to go somewhat lower in worse conditions
in relative safety. Boyne shows the D (presumably with ACR) capable of going
down to 500 feet, the G/H (presumably with EVS) able to go down to 300 ft.
As an aside, RAF Vulcans went over to low-level from mid-63 on, according to the
only source I have handy, Robert Jackson's "V-Bombers," but didn't get their TA
(book says TF, but I'm sceptical) radars until a couple of years later (trials
in 1966, so after that). There were certainly RAF a/c which received the
low-altitude camo before they got the TA radar (I'm looking at pictures of two).
As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was considered, given
their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of Hound Dog
(which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed). I suspect repainting was done when
the next scheduled depot overhaul came around, while the radar could be added at
the base itself or during a short depot visit. Painting a BUFF strikes me as a
bit more of an endeavor than painting a fighter, and those usually had to go
through IRAN to get re-painted. I think the Big Belly Ds used in SEA were the
first to get black undersides, with the SIOP dedicated a/c retaining white
undersides but acquiring camo tops. Now you've got me curious as to when the
first camo BUFF appeared. Bob, any idea when you first saw/worked on one?
Guy
Buzzer
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it.
>
>Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or forgotten
>them, or FAS may be wrong.
I would think they were not moding the Cs since some were already in
the boneyard. I base that on Glasgow getting one in from the boneyard
around 64/65 for training flights only.
>> FAS as a source is not
>> infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models got it
>> and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A radars
>> in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the fleet,
>> which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.
>
>Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as our
>ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just entering
>service.
>
>> Your list also does not
>> include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70 timeframe.
>
>And it should. Brain fart.
E came out of the factory with TA according to one source on the
internet..
>> Another interesting item is the fact that throughout the sixties a large
>> number of B-52's retained the silver upper/anti-flash white lower finishes,
>> which was hardly a very good scheme for a low altitude penetrator. This all
>> leads me to suspect that the "everything went to low level at the beginning
>> of the sixties" bit may be another case similar to the old "all the B-29's
>> stripped their armament per LeMay's orders" story--only partly correct, in
>> other words.
>
>The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959 which is when
>the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab) while in low
>altitude flight. The ACR allowed them to go somewhat lower in worse conditions
>in relative safety. Boyne shows the D (presumably with ACR) capable of going
>down to 500 feet, the G/H (presumably with EVS) able to go down to 300 ft.
500 ft. was mentioned at the crash site of the B-52D in NE Montana in
1965. There was a B-52D off in the distance that was going to fly the
profile of the one that crashed (hopefully he was going to clear the
hill though!). I missed out on the thing roaring overhead because they
cancelled due to weather.
>As an aside, RAF Vulcans went over to low-level from mid-63 on, according to the
>only source I have handy, Robert Jackson's "V-Bombers," but didn't get their TA
>(book says TF, but I'm sceptical) radars until a couple of years later (trials
>in 1966, so after that). There were certainly RAF a/c which received the
>low-altitude camo before they got the TA radar (I'm looking at pictures of two).
>
>As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was considered, given
>their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of Hound Dog
>(which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed).
No camo Dogs or aircraft at Fairchild when we were TDY there from
Glasgow in 1964? Glasgow never carried Dogs. Just BIG bombs until Big
Belly.
>I suspect repainting was done when
>the next scheduled depot overhaul came around, while the radar could be added at
>the base itself or during a short depot visit. Painting a BUFF strikes me as a
>bit more of an endeavor than painting a fighter, and those usually had to go
>through IRAN to get re-painted. I think the Big Belly Ds used in SEA were the
>first to get black undersides, with the SIOP dedicated a/c retaining white
>undersides but acquiring camo tops.
>Now you've got me curious as to when the
>first camo BUFF appeared. Bob, any idea when you first saw/worked on one?
Ds at Glasgow came out of Big Belly black. Probably first one around
1965. Wing deployed to SEA around Sep 1966 so they must have done the
wing by then.
I think the upper camo on the H was in place when I went back to SAC
around 1976 at K.I.
Kevin Brooks
My point is that the sources all seem to differ, so making any concrete
assessment is a bit difficult as yet. From what I gather the C models were
still flying operationally (versus the training birds) as late as the
mid-sixties; their ability to perform down in the weeds has not been
conclusively established.
>
> > FAS as a source is not
> > infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models
got it
> > and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A
radars
> > in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the
fleet,
> > which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.
>
> Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as
our
> ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just entering
> service.
In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or four
years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size); doing
it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.
>
> > Your list also does not
> > include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70
timeframe.
>
> And it should. Brain fart.
>
> > Another interesting item is the fact that throughout the sixties a large
> > number of B-52's retained the silver upper/anti-flash white lower
finishes,
> > which was hardly a very good scheme for a low altitude penetrator. This
all
> > leads me to suspect that the "everything went to low level at the
beginning
> > of the sixties" bit may be another case similar to the old "all the
B-29's
> > stripped their armament per LeMay's orders" story--only partly correct,
in
> > other words.
>
> The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959 which is
when
> the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab) while
in low
> altitude flight.
That is when a couple of sources indicate the *training* of B-52 crews in
low level operations began; those same two sources indicate that the
modification work to the aircraft did not start until 1961. A site i ran
across had a story posted by a former BUFF crewmember from that era, and all
he said was that they began to fly low-altitude work "in the early sixties";
unless he was in one of the last crews to make that transition, then it
appears the high altitude work was still ongoing. There was also an airframe
modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it could
absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen any
indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
addressed either the C or E models.
The ACR allowed them to go somewhat lower in worse conditions
> in relative safety. Boyne shows the D (presumably with ACR) capable of
going
> down to 500 feet, the G/H (presumably with EVS) able to go down to 300 ft.
>
> As an aside, RAF Vulcans went over to low-level from mid-63 on, according
to the
> only source I have handy, Robert Jackson's "V-Bombers," but didn't get
their TA
> (book says TF, but I'm sceptical) radars until a couple of years later
(trials
> in 1966, so after that). There were certainly RAF a/c which received the
> low-altitude camo before they got the TA radar (I'm looking at pictures of
two).
>
> As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was considered,
given
> their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of Hound
Dog
> (which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed).
I never knew SAC was restricting its operations to night/adverse weather :-)
. I have seen some photos of camo'd Hound Dog's, presumably from their later
years in service.
I suspect repainting was done when
> the next scheduled depot overhaul came around, while the radar could be
added at
> the base itself or during a short depot visit. Painting a BUFF strikes me
as a
> bit more of an endeavor than painting a fighter, and those usually had to
go
> through IRAN to get re-painted. I think the Big Belly Ds used in SEA were
the
> first to get black undersides, with the SIOP dedicated a/c retaining white
> undersides but acquiring camo tops. Now you've got me curious as to when
the
> first camo BUFF appeared. Bob, any idea when you first saw/worked on one?
Don't know when the first ones appeared, but IIRC there were still silver
birds in service until around 1970 or thereabouts--I doubt either the C's or
E's ever got the camo treatment.
Brooks
>
> Guy
>
>
Kevin Brooks
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:17:08 GMT, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it.
> >
> >Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or
forgotten
> >them, or FAS may be wrong.
>
> I would think they were not moding the Cs since some were already in
> the boneyard. I base that on Glasgow getting one in from the boneyard
> around 64/65 for training flights only.
Baugher seems to indicate the C's continued in operational service until as
late as 1966 with the 99th BW out of Westover in MA
(http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52_8.html ). IAPR (Spring 2003 issue)
indicates that "some" C models ended up receiving the TA radar, but it is
unclear as to when the last C gave up its SIOP mission. Baugher indicates
that the development and fielding of the TA radar was apparently
problematic, but goes into no detail on that subject.
>
> >> FAS as a source is not
> >> infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models
got it
> >> and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A
radars
> >> in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the
fleet,
> >> which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.
> >
> >Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as
our
> >ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just
entering
> >service.
> >
> >> Your list also does not
> >> include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70
timeframe.
> >
> >And it should. Brain fart.
>
> E came out of the factory with TA according to one source on the
> internet..
Baugher indicates the E's had the improved Doppler radar for use in low
level navigation, but not the terrain avoidance radar. It appears that
different sources are (again) providing somewhat different pictures of what
was included, with IAPR, in its Summer 2003 issue, including a list of low
level nav aids that were included in the original production (and apparently
were so unreliable the system had to be completely rebuilt, a task that took
until 1964 to complete) which does not include the TA radar. But IAPR also
says the E was the first model that was intended from the start to be a low
level operator, so the TA may have been included and the sources just failed
to mention it.
Brooks
Buzzer
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>Baugher seems to indicate the C's continued in operational service until as
>late as 1966 with the 99th BW out of Westover in MA
>(http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52_8.html ). IAPR (Spring 2003 issue)
>indicates that "some" C models ended up receiving the TA radar, but it is
>unclear as to when the last C gave up its SIOP mission. Baugher indicates
>that the development and fielding of the TA radar was apparently
>problematic, but goes into no detail on that subject.
>Baugher indicates the E's had the improved Doppler radar for use in low
>level navigation, but not the terrain avoidance radar. It appears that
>different sources are (again) providing somewhat different pictures of what
>was included, with IAPR, in its Summer 2003 issue, including a list of low
>level nav aids that were included in the original production (and apparently
>were so unreliable the system had to be completely rebuilt, a task that took
>until 1964 to complete) which does not include the TA radar. But IAPR also
>says the E was the first model that was intended from the start to be a low
>level operator, so the TA may have been included and the sources just failed
>to mention it.
Baugher had/has some problems with dates and such on B-52D ECM so
there might be some problems with other systems. I think the page has
been changed and the material deleted, but it went along something
like a piece of ECM equipment on the D wasn't installed until 1967
when in fact I had worked on that piece of equipment in 1963 and it
had been there long before I was there. Trying to keep track of just
ECM mods on B-52s from the 60s onward would probably take a book a
foot thick.
As far as my post to Walt it is the old ECM - defence game. Something
I never figured out how an EWO could get credit for getting the plane
through the defences and the defense/interceptors could get credit for
shooting the plane down,
Walt mentioned the Forbes RB47Es. I worked on something of the
equivalent EB-57s at Forbes, previously Holloman Det 1 4677th DSES, in
the mid 70s. The main interceptor jammer was basically "dumbed down"
for training. A toggle switch on the front of the transmitter safety
wired in what you might say was the safe for training mode.
I go back to the B-52H and here comes a new, fancy interceptor jammer
called the ALQ-117. It has an EWO controlled switch for training and
war. The EWOs complain that the training mode for our interceptors is
worse than the system it replaced. Almost like it had been
deliberately "dumbed down" for training purposes.
As far as using the interceptor IR mode to track a B-52? About all I
can say about that is first you have to know what part of the sky that
big old plane is in. Might not be easy "IF" ECM gets to use everything
they have available. The ten or so years I spent in SAC everything was
never used. One time I thought it was a go, but when the planes got to
the staging base for the excercise they went out and changed one thing
back to training. Oh, well...
Buzzer
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
>http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
>that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
>addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or four
>years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size); doing
>it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
>aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.
IF E forward came out with TA then the D is the only one that needed
the mod, and maybe the C...
>There was also an airframe
>modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it could
>absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen any
>indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
>addressed either the C or E models.
Some of our D models at Glasgow 64 or so had the stress gauges on them
for the study of the structure mod. Only reason I knew about them at
the time was they were obvious on the inside skin in the tail section
when we loaded chaff. I think the B-52 that crashed in 65 during low
level had them because the Boeing engineers were "reading the tapes"
from a recorder on the aircraft in our maintenance office. I always
figured the recorder was the one that monitored the stress gauges and
other aircraft data. Not positive but the structure mod was probably
during Big Belly. Or not done at all on the Vietnam birds since they
would only be flying high?
In a maintenance debriefing once there was a discussion about the 2000
hr design life of the B-52D and our planes were at something like
1500/1600 hrs. I'm about 19 years old and a flunky two striper
thinking what a waste of money designing an aircraft for only 2000
hrs. Click and the clock hits 2000 and off to the junkyard. And then
along comes Vietnam...
BUFDRVR
>
Without a doubt. Which has allowed non-stealth aircraft to hit targets covered
by surface defenses.
BUFDRVR
>the late 1950's, with actual aircraft modification beginning in 1961."
>
Wow....learn something new everyday. I could have picked up my B-52 book, but
thought I knew the TA stuff off the top of my cranium. I sit corrected.
BUFDRVR
>called the ALQ-117. It has an EWO controlled switch for training and
>war. The EWOs complain that the training mode for our interceptors is
>worse than the system it replaced. Almost like it had been
>deliberately "dumbed down"
Current software on some BUFF ECM gear has that same "train/war" mode. When the
training software is loaded, *some* "enemy" fighters simply get a "J-Code" on
their radar telling them they're being jammed. Newer fighter radars don't even
show the "J-Code", they simply see no ECM effect. I flew a NORAD exercise where
they specified they wanted realistic ECM, we loaded the real stuff and were
never engaged BVR.
Ron
>they specified they wanted realistic ECM, we loaded the real stuff and were
>never engaged BVR.
>
I had a B-52G crewmember tell me the same thing, about his time in Gs in the
80s. When they played the ewo tape, I believe it was called, F-15s had a very
hard time engaging.
Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Tank Fixer
on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
BUFDRVR buf...@aol.com attempted to say .....
> >Face
> >it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
>
> I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
> years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
> aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.
You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Buzzer
>>I go back to the B-52H and here comes a new, fancy interceptor jammer
>>called the ALQ-117. It has an EWO controlled switch for training and
>>war. The EWOs complain that the training mode for our interceptors is
>>worse than the system it replaced. Almost like it had been
>>deliberately "dumbed down"
>
>Current software on some BUFF ECM gear has that same "train/war" mode. When the
>training software is loaded, *some* "enemy" fighters simply get a "J-Code" on
>their radar telling them they're being jammed. Newer fighter radars don't even
>show the "J-Code", they simply see no ECM effect. I flew a NORAD exercise where
>they specified they wanted realistic ECM, we loaded the real stuff and were
>never engaged BVR.
Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
going to be replaced by something newer and faster.<G>
Yeff
> Of course everyone knew the plane was
> going to be replaced by something newer and faster.<G>
Any decade now...
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Buzzer
<paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote:
>In article <20040317170239...@mb-m27.aol.com>,
> on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
> BUFDRVR buf...@aol.com attempted to say .....
>
>> >Face
>> >it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
>>
>> I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
>> years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
>> aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.
>
>You might be on to something there.
>A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
>they know nothing that huge could fly.....
And just think if a B-52 could generate large numbers of those massive
radar signatures it would completely blank out the radar operators
scope!
Or instead of one massive flying barn coming at you it would look like
hundreds of flying barns were headed your way from all directions....
Kevin Brooks
OK. I'll definitely defer to your first-hand knowledge regarding this
subject, and thanks for the explanation. I guess in summary, what I am left
with are still a couple of unanswered questions (and which may not get
answered-- I'd imagine that given a B-52 fleet the size of the one that
existed in the mid-sixties (up to 600 plus), there was likely some variation
across the board as to who operated how and with what specific models and
what specific modifications, so there may very well not be any single
answers): a) Did all of the C's that remained active in a SIOP role until
retired in 1970 have the TA system; b) Were all B-52 penetrations throughout
the sixties to be at low altitude in the SIOP role, and when exactly did
that become "law" (ignoring the oft-reported 1959 date, because we know that
at least one B-52 crewmember has indicated that he did not transition to the
low altitude approach until "the early sixties"), or was it a gradual
process that was effected across the fleet and if so when was it effective
for the last implementers; and c) How did Hound Dog affect the penetration
plan (presuming that most Hound Dogs would have been launched from higher
altitude, as a low altitude launch ate rather significantly into the max
rang capability), or were the Dogs supposed to be launched pre-penetration,
followed by descent to a lower altitude for penetration to deliver the
free-fall weapons carried internally? ISTR there used to be another B-52
type pilot (predating Buffdrvr's experience) who has contributed here rather
recently who might be able to shed some light on some of those areas.
Brooks
>
>
Kevin Brooks
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:15:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
> >http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
> >that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
> >addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or
four
> >years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size);
doing
> >it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
> >aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.
>
> IF E forward came out with TA then the D is the only one that needed
> the mod, and maybe the C...
Most sources seem to indicate the C's, or some of them, did get them. As to
E. I don't know--neither source I checked (Baugher and IAPR) specifically
indicated they were in the aircrraft as they were delivered. Both of those
sources are hardly infallible (as you pointed out with Baugher earlier, and
I noted in IAPR that they mistakenly indicated that the Hound Dog brought
the first thermonuclear warhead to the B-52 warload, when in fact they had
already been carrying freefall TN devices). But I find Baugher's indication
that there were some development/integration problems with the TA radar at
least believable (that would have been sort of cutting edge stuff during
that period), so whether or not the E's had them on delivery is a valid
question.
>
> >There was also an airframe
> >modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it
could
> >absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen
any
> >indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
> >addressed either the C or E models.
>
> Some of our D models at Glasgow 64 or so had the stress gauges on them
> for the study of the structure mod. Only reason I knew about them at
> the time was they were obvious on the inside skin in the tail section
> when we loaded chaff. I think the B-52 that crashed in 65 during low
> level had them because the Boeing engineers were "reading the tapes"
> from a recorder on the aircraft in our maintenance office. I always
> figured the recorder was the one that monitored the stress gauges and
> other aircraft data. Not positive but the structure mod was probably
> during Big Belly. Or not done at all on the Vietnam birds since they
> would only be flying high?
I believe your last sentence is the correct one, from what I have been
reading. I am not sure that either the C's or D's ever got those mods; I
think the E's and F's already had them "factory installed", so to speak.
>
> In a maintenance debriefing once there was a discussion about the 2000
> hr design life of the B-52D and our planes were at something like
> 1500/1600 hrs. I'm about 19 years old and a flunky two striper
> thinking what a waste of money designing an aircraft for only 2000
> hrs. Click and the clock hits 2000 and off to the junkyard. And then
> along comes Vietnam...
I wish the Army had designed their trucks that way...in 1993, when I gave up
company command, we still had some of the old "multi-fuel" series five ton
trucks in hand, and they were still wheezing along five or six years later
when the Army announced they were no longer going to carry the repair parts
lines for them. They were not as old as the Buff's, but they were beat all
to hell. How many commercial operators plan to use the same trucks for
twenty-five years or so?
Brooks
Henry J Cobb
> Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
> SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
> jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
> captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
> slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
> retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
> going to be replaced by something newer and faster.<G>
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
Switch to FB-22s?
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm
-HJC
Buzzer
>Buzzer wrote:
>> Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
>> SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
>> jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
>> captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
>> slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
>> retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
>> going to be replaced by something newer and faster.<G>
>
>What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the
world will live in peace and harmony?
Henry J Cobb
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:22:19 -0800, Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote:
>>What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
>
> Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the
> world will live in peace and harmony?
I thought Peace was their Profession?
Will we ever see another big manned bomber in the Air Force?
If so will it be another big flying wing or will they go supercruise or
hypersonic?
-HJC
BUFDRVR
>A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
>they know nothing that huge could fly.....
I like to call it "anti-stealth"...I think I should patent that....
Thomas Schoene
> What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a new
bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for
various reasons.
But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the
2030s at least.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
Kevin Brooks
"Thomas Schoene" <tasc...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:t5_6c.49341$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
> > What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
>
> Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a
new
> bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for
> various reasons.
>
> But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the
> 2030s at least.
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.
Brooks
Henry J Cobb
> Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
> actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
> hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.
There are some hints out there.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-03-03bolkcom.pdf
> What characteristics should a next-generation bomber have?
> Among the factors to be considered are range, payload, speed, unit
> cost, stealth, and whether the aircraft will be manned or unmanned.
> Reportedly, Air Combat Command (ACC) is examining four options:
> • The B-3: an upgraded version of the B-2 that has greater payload and
> range along with better stealth and communications.
> • Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV): An aircraft that would operate in
> the upper atmosphere at “hypersonic” speeds (Mach 12). It would be
> virtually invulnerable to enemy defenses because of its speed and
> altitude and could reach east Asia from the continental United States
> in less than two hours.
> • A high-altitude, low-cost unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) with
> a range of 17,000 nautical miles and a payload of 4,000 lbs.
> • A lower-flying, stealthy UCAV.
-HJC
Henry J Cobb
I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that
compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers.
Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a
longer distance?
-HJC
Mike Williamson
>>> What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?
>>
>>
>> Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the
>> world will live in peace and harmony?
>
>
> I thought Peace was their Profession?
I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard
about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall
even just after hearing the story...
"Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace
is our product..."
Mike
Thomas Schoene
>>
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04
-03-03bolkcom.pdf
>
> I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that
> compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers.
>
> Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a
> longer distance?
Those numbers are pretty much non-comparable, I fear. The 633 mile figure
is the usual radius quoted for the F-35A, but that's with internal loads
only. The 14,600 pound payload for the F-35 is max external load, which
seriously changes combat radius. The F/A-22's combat radius figure is the
one usually quoted for air-to-air missions (despite the caption). For
air-to-air it apparently includes some significant but unspecified time on
station in the CAP mission. The max load cited is probably external, but
not terribly helpful as that plane that is not configured to carry heavy
external warloads. Etc.
In short, that table is basically worthless.
BUFDRVR
>actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
>hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.
Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress
is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038,
beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038
we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that
the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get
moving *now*.
BUFDRVR
>
> I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard
>about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall
>even just after hearing the story...
>
> "Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace
>is our product..."
I've seen and heard the more cynical (yet comical) "Peace is our profession,
war is our hobby"
Unknown
>>You might be on to something there.
>>A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
>>they know nothing that huge could fly.....
>
>I like to call it "anti-stealth"...I think I should patent that....
>
>
>BUFDRVR
Sure, they think that you're a large CB cell
--
-Gord.
D. Strang
>
> Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress
> is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038,
> beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038
> we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that
> the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get
> moving *now*.
I'd like to see two future bombers. The first would be a long range bomber that
never crosses the FEBA (stand-off) and just drops cruise missiles from the Med,
Sea of China, etc. I picture a C-17 derivative.
The second bomber should be stealthy, and able to loiter. This bomber will do
what the B-1, B-2, and B-52 do now (at least those that cross the FEBA). It
should have a C-17 cockpit design, with the addition of a receive-only JTIDS
terminal. Probably a B-2 radar to do bombing under heavy ECM.
I don't think the B-2 is going to last another 10 years. It is already falling apart,
and Northrop-Grumman is basically re-manufacturing them on a monthly basis.
The USAF who is supposed to be maintaining it, are basically unable to keep-up
with the non-TO engineering changes.
"All I want to know, is why are the prisoners at Gitmo still alive?"--Dick Cheney
Kevin Brooks
"BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040320144850...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
> >actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
> >hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.
>
> Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear.
Congress
> is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to
2038,
> beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and
2038
> we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned
that
> the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't
get
> moving *now*.
OK. Sounds like the folks on the Hill are doing something smart for a change
(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons--Representative
Shmedlap, having a chunk of Big Aerospace, Inc. in his district, wants to
ensure some long range development money flows into his district, etc.).
It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
being in the "possible" box. Given the typical development timelines for
modern combat aircraft (witness the F/A-22, Typhoon, etc.), an early start
would seem to be smart.
Brooks
Guy Alcala
> "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:405A907B...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
<snip>
> > > > What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look up
> > > "Advanced
> > > > Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first, but
> > > they were
> > > > backfit to the D, F and G.
> > >
> > > Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it.
> >
> > Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or
> forgotten
> > them, or FAS may be wrong.
>
> My point is that the sources all seem to differ, so making any concrete
> assessment is a bit difficult as yet. From what I gather the C models were
> still flying operationally (versus the training birds) as late as the
> mid-sixties; their ability to perform down in the weeds has not been
> conclusively established.
Boyne's got a table compiled by the SAC historian, which shows C models still in
service (don't know if they were used operationally) as late as '71. There are
always D, E or F models also listed in the same wing covering at least the same
time frame as the Cs (post '50s), so they may well have been used for training.
The last Es seem to have toddled off to the Boneyard in 1978 (from Castle), if
the '78 isn't a typo for '68, with all the other wings withdrawing them no later
than 1970, and most being gone by 1968.
> > > FAS as a source is not
> > > infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models
> got it
> > > and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A
> radars
> > > in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the
> fleet,
> > > which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.
> >
> > Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as
> our
> > ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just entering
> > service.
>
> In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
> http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
> that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
> addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or four
> years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size); doing
> it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
> aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.
Elsewhere in Boyne he states that the Es "were the first to use the new low
altitude equipment which was then deemed necessary to elude the ever-expanding
Soviet missile and radar network." However, it appears you are correct about
the time it took to fit the fleet. See below.
<snip>
> > The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959 which is
> when
> > the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab) while
> in low
> > altitude flight.
>
> That is when a couple of sources indicate the *training* of B-52 crews in
> low level operations began; those same two sources indicate that the
> modification work to the aircraft did not start until 1961. A site i ran
> across had a story posted by a former BUFF crewmember from that era, and all
> he said was that they began to fly low-altitude work "in the early sixties";
> unless he was in one of the last crews to make that transition, then it
> appears the high altitude work was still ongoing. There was also an airframe
> modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it could
> absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen any
> indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
> addressed either the C or E models.
FWIW, Boyne provides a table of major ($50million+) mods to the BUFF. Mod 1000
is titled "Low Level Capability," cost $313.2 million over FY 59-69, applied to
C-H models, and was "to improve bomber penetration capability by flying at 500
feet altitude or below; Includes: Terrain Avoidance Radar (ACR), Improved Radar
Altimeter, Increased Cooling Capacity, Equipment Mounting Provisions, Secondary
Structural Improvements."
There was also Mod 951, High Stress I, II, II, "Strengthening of critical
structural areas," which applied to the B-G and cost $62.9 Mill over FY 62-64.
> > As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was considered,
> given
> > their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of Hound
> Dog
> > (which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed).
>
> I never knew SAC was restricting its operations to night/adverse weather :-)
> . I have seen some photos of camo'd Hound Dog's, presumably from their later
> years in service.
<snip>
I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd pretty
much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.
Guy
BUFDRVR
>(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons
I was cynical at first too, but it seems to be a general feeling, at least in
the Senate, that bombers have proven themselves extremely useful since 9/11 and
we need to ensure we have them in the future. I'm sure not every Senators
motives are that "pure", but many of the people speaking out won't gain any
thing for their constiuents with a new bomber program.
>It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
>many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
>being in the "possible" box.
Apparently the USAF position is; "hey, we were going to build a bomber that
could fly to anywhere on the globe from the mid-west of the U.S. in under 3
hours and drop hundreds of near precision munitions from 200,000 feet with
impunity....but the technology to do any of that is not available now, so if
you make us design a bomber now, you're going to get an improved B-2".
Buzzer
>Apparently the USAF position is; "hey, we were going to build a bomber that
>could fly to anywhere on the globe from the mid-west of the U.S. in under 3
>hours and drop hundreds of near precision munitions from 200,000 feet with
>impunity....but the technology to do any of that is not available now, so if
>you make us design a bomber now, you're going to get an improved B-2".
In recent weeks Boeing engineers with tape measures have been observed
going over the British Concord on display at the Seattle Museum of
Flight. When asked Boeing officials would not explain this activity or
why the seats of the aircraft have been removed and what look like
bomb bay doors have been installed. Rumors are also circulating that
Boeing has put out an RFP for one set of very large decals printed
with "USAF BS-1". (BS - Bomber Supersonic)
With the recent flap over the Boeing 767 tanker contract could this BS
lead to a contract for more Boeing BS?
D. Strang
>
> In recent weeks Boeing engineers with tape measures have been observed
> going over the British Concord on display at the Seattle Museum of
> Flight. When asked Boeing officials would not explain this activity or
> why the seats of the aircraft have been removed and what look like
> bomb bay doors have been installed. Rumors are also circulating that
> Boeing has put out an RFP for one set of very large decals printed
> with "USAF BS-1". (BS - Bomber Supersonic)
This is HIGHLY classified! I'm going to tell Homeland Security about
you! The stealing of French technology is a very high political secret,
right up there with where we are keeping UBL until November.
Buzzer
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>FWIW, Boyne provides a table of major ($50million+) mods to the BUFF. Mod 1000
>is titled "Low Level Capability," cost $313.2 million over FY 59-69, applied to
>C-H models, and was "to improve bomber penetration capability by flying at 500
>feet altitude or below; Includes: Terrain Avoidance Radar (ACR), Improved Radar
>Altimeter, Increased Cooling Capacity, Equipment Mounting Provisions, Secondary
>Structural Improvements."
http://www.bombnav.org/INFO/B-52/asq-38/b526.htm
"The B-52 completed its transformation, from 'high altitude bomber' to
'ground hugger', during the duration of my residency at Robins AFB.
That resident assignment - combination program office and technical
services - ended December 31, 1963."
I wonder if he is still alive? I think he has a website.
D. Strang
>
> Increased Cooling Capacity (B-52)
During summer in Saudi Arabia (where I flew for about 10 years),
We used to air refuel at 280 until TAC said it was too dangerous,
and forced us down to 210 where we had to start shutting down stuff
because it was too hot, or the inlet temperature was too high.
Then we had to get the pig back up to 290 again to watch the Iraqis
bomb the shit out of Iran, or blow up the U.S.S. Stark...
Kevin Brooks
Baugher seems to indicate that at least one unit (99th BW) kept them in a
SIOP role until around 1969-70; he (and IAPR) note that a number of them
were indeed used by other units throught the sixties in a training role. He
indicates the E models were all gone by 1970, including those at Castle,
save for a single "NB-52E" that served in a flight test role until at least
1973. IAPR confirms that, but reading the IAPR accounts of each variant
would lead one to believe that the author may very well have used baugher as
his primary source.
IAPR indicates that the tall tails did indeed carry the Hound Dog; the first
test firing from a B-52 was reportedly from the E model, and the same source
indicates some of the D models were even configured as Hound Dog carriers
late in their career. Another source indicates that, "By the end of 1959,
the Air Force had approved 29 B-52 squadrons to be equipped with Hound Dog
missiles." I doubt there were enough short-tail B-52's then in the works in
1959 to be designated (www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm ). Another
source states, "...by August 1963 29 SAC wings were operational with the
AGM-28" (www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Aircraft-Launched_Missiles/
agm-28_hound_dog_missile.htm ).
Brooks
>
> Guy
>
WaltBJ
advance so fast that with the advent of successful look-down radars
hiding in the weeds won't work any more. I foresee the employment of
orbital radars/IRs/passive microwave sensors so that any
energy-emitter will be detected and tracked. Coupled with enough
computing power, any object moving in relation to the earth will also
be detected and tracked. This is why I say the only way to go is
stealth - and the sooner the better. It's one hell of a force
multiplier.
Walt BJ
John Keeney
> I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd
pretty
> much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.
What do you mean by "didn't apply"?
Hound Dogs were carried at least as far back as the "E".
Only the "G" & "H" are short tailed.
Guy Alcala
> "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:405D6DE9...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
<snip>
> > I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd
> pretty
> > much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.
>
> IAPR indicates that the tall tails did indeed carry the Hound Dog; the first
> test firing from a B-52 was reportedly from the E model,
Agrees with the info I have, but I wasn't counting a test a/c.
> and the same source
> indicates some of the D models were even configured as Hound Dog carriers
> late in their career.
Going by Boyne, he indicates it was just the G/H, but I'm in no position to say
either way.
> Another source indicates that, "By the end of 1959,
> the Air Force had approved 29 B-52 squadrons to be equipped with Hound Dog
> missiles." I doubt there were enough short-tail B-52's then in the works in
> 1959 to be designated (www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm ). Another
> source states, "...by August 1963 29 SAC wings were operational with the
> AGM-28" (www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Aircraft-Launched_Missiles/
> agm-28_hound_dog_missile.htm ).
It does seem highly unlikely that there were 29 wings of G/Hs. Boyne says that
peak inventory of AGM-28 was 593 weapons. At two per a/c, that would seem a bit
excessive for just the G/H fleet of 295 a/c, assuming that a certain number
wouldn't be serviceable/available at any time. Anyone got a photo of an
operational tall-tail with Hound Dog?
Guy
Guy Alcala
See my rely to Kevin.
Guy
BUFDRVR
I've got a great book by Bob Dorr that actually lays out the disposition of the
BUFF fleet by various years. In 1970 there were 10 B-52G Wings (2nd, 97th,
42nd, 416th, 380th, 19th, 68th, 72nd, 320th & 456th) and 6 B-52H wings (379th,
410th, 449th, 17th, 319th & 5th). The rest of the forces were; 9.5 B-52D Wings
and half of an F Wing (seems one squadron at Castle still had B-52Fs in 1970).
As you can see from the numbers above, at least by 1970, there wasn't even 29
BUFF wings total.
The next earlier year looked at by Dorr is 1963. There are 2 x B-52B wings, 1 x
B-52C wing, 9 x B-52D wings, 5 x B-52E wings, 4 x B-52F wings, 10 x B-52G
wings, 6 x B-52H wings and 1 wing (Castle) with a squadron each of B-52Bs and
B-52Fs.
Thats 38 total wings. Obviously this predates even my birth, but I did not
think Hound Dog was that prevalent. If 29 of 38 wings had Hound Dog I would be
very surprised because I've met only 1 ol' BUFF crew dog (nice guy I met at the
Battle Creek Air Show) who had any Hound Dog experience.
Kevin Brooks
I believe a typo may be involved here--note that the fist quote indicated 29
*squadrons* were to receive the Hound Dog, and the second quote indicates
that as of 1963 29 *wings* had them. Two possibilities--a typo replaced
"squadrons" with wings in the second quote, or (perhaps more likely), only
one squadron per wing was tasked with Hound Dog delivery.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
Don't forget the possibility that only one squadron per wing was designated
as Hound Dog capable. Interestingly, while your source indicates a "peak
inventory" of 593, another source says, "Almost 700 AGM-28s were built
before production ended in 1963" (www.boeing.com/history/ bna/hounddog.htm)
. I doubt that during such a short production run one hundred missiles were
test fired or fired during training operations.
As to photos, not sure how accurate this is, but here is a photo of a
tall-tail with Hound Dog mounted at Castle Air Museum:
www.shanaberger.com/ images/B-52.jpg
Better photos of tall-tails carrying operational Hound Dogs can be found at:
www.ammsalumni.com/ B52.html
Brooks
>
> Guy
>
Kevin Brooks
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NLednXP4R5q...@adelphia.com...
Add to that the following nice shot of a B-52F on the ramp at Barksdale,
complete with Hound Dog:
http://www.aviationimages.net/september_2003.htm
Brooks
>
> Brooks
> >
> > Guy
> >
>
>
Buzzer
<g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>It does seem highly unlikely that there were 29 wings of G/Hs. Boyne says that
>peak inventory of AGM-28 was 593 weapons. At two per a/c, that would seem a bit
>excessive for just the G/H fleet of 295 a/c, assuming that a certain number
>wouldn't be serviceable/available at any time. Anyone got a photo of an
>operational tall-tail with Hound Dog?
Fairchild had Hound Dogs when we were there TDY from Glasgow around
64/65. Everything I can find says Fairchild had Ds then. I don't
remember the model numbers though. Just a one time thing I remember
watching from a distance as they loaded what looked like a white 5
gallon can near the nose of the missile. Think it was during an ORI so
it was out on the flightline. I have no memory of going to the alert
area though and seeing a lot of planes loaded with missiles..
John Keeney
> It does seem highly unlikely that there were 29 wings of G/Hs. Boyne says
that
> peak inventory of AGM-28 was 593 weapons. At two per a/c, that would seem
a bit
> excessive for just the G/H fleet of 295 a/c, assuming that a certain
number
> wouldn't be serviceable/available at any time. Anyone got a photo of an
> operational tall-tail with Hound Dog?
Can't volch for operational, but the Air Force Museum web site
-in the "archives", bombers mid to late 40s, B-52E- has some smallish ones.
I think there was one in the F section as well, but I'm not real sure...
Just checked, yep they're there:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b4-68.htm
Is the page talking about the E and mentions Hound Dogs,
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b52e-4.jpg
Is a nice close up linked from the last page of a loaded Hound Dog,
And a picture of an F with'em here
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b52f-5.jpg
John Keeney
The BUFF BN I know locally has Hound Dog experince.
Come to think of it, he never flew a short tail eithier.
BUFDRVR
>Come to think of it, he never flew a short tail eithier.
Do yourself a favor, to his face, never refer to him as a "BN". He was a
*Radar* Navigator and he'll let you know that ;)
The guy I met at the Battle Creek Airshow did not retire, so he had less than
20 years, but he said he flew G models his whole career (how ever long that
was?).
WaltBJ
intercepted and shot down a Hound Dog using an AIM9B. And my
cross-the-street neighbor at Homestead was one of the test RNs on the
Hound Dog.
Walt BJ
John Keeney
> >The BUFF BN I know locally has Hound Dog experince.
> >Come to think of it, he never flew a short tail eithier.
>
> Do yourself a favor, to his face, never refer to him as a "BN". He was a
> *Radar* Navigator and he'll let you know that ;)
Nope, I have referred to his position that way with out any correction.
His more interesting tales are about the school that didn't exist anyway.
John Keeney
"WaltBJ" <walt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:66c861b7.04032...@posting.google.com...
Cool.
What was the nature of the event, Walt? Was this an example of
expending old munitions in a useful manner (gunnery practice)
and/or an active training launch for a B-52 crew?
Ron
>> *Radar* Navigator and he'll let you know that ;)
>
>Nope, I have referred to his position that way with out any correction.
>His more interesting tales are about the school that didn't exist anyway.
>
What sort of school?
Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
BUFDRVR
>> *Radar* Navigator and he'll let you know that ;)
>
>Nope, I have referred to his position that way with out any correction.
He must *really* like you ;)
John Keeney
"Ron" <ms...@aol.com362436> wrote in message
news:20040329014744...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Had to do with psychological warfare.
John Keeney
> >> Do yourself a favor, to his face, never refer to him as a "BN". He was
a
> >> *Radar* Navigator and he'll let you know that ;)
> >
> >Nope, I have referred to his position that way with out any correction.
>
> He must *really* like you ;)
He does, we ran joint psy-ops against the local huggy-feelly types
for years. Kindred spirits and all that ya' know. Even if not, I'm
sure the recanting the tails of the B-52N from RAM would have
won me some tolerance.