KC-97 tanker --> B-52?
George Gonzalez
The cover story of a 1957 issue of "LIFE" magazine is about a group of
B-52's that went around the world non-stop. Refueling was done from
KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
B-52.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George R. Gonzalez g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu
Sr. Sys. Programmer University of Minnesota
Ed Rasimus
>
>The cover story of a 1957 issue of "LIFE" magazine is about a group of
>B-52's that went around the world non-stop. Refueling was done from
>KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
>
>Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
>refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
>to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
>B-52.
I've refueled in an F-4 behind a KC-97, so it is certainly within the
realm of possibility. The strato-tanker had to do a bit of "humpin" to
hold a controllable airspeed for the fighter, but it could be done.
Airspeed was in the 240-260 kt range at 12-14K msl.
west...@vegas.infi.net
props (looked like B-47 pylons) to increase their speed. The ones I
saw were KC-97G's based at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee (ANG). That
variant, at least, did refuel B-52's.
Tom Westdorp
Midrange Systems Consultants
Another Very Happy IBM OS/2 Warp Connect (a *REAL 32 bit OS) User
Mark Meltzer
the Round the World non stop B52s featured in the LIFE article. He is a
volunteer at the museum and is very friendly. If anyone wants first hand
info about the flight and the refueling logistics I am sure that you
could contact Chuck through the museum (located in Atwater CA near
Merced). He has some GREAT B52 stories including almost rolling one on
takeoff when he caught a wingtip vortex from a plane ahead of him. Full
ailerons wouldn't stop the roll and only chopping power to the engines on
the high wing saved the day. Chuck is a treasure trove of B52, General
Lemay and SAC info and loves to talk about his experiences with people
interested in aircraft history. He mentioned that Lemay often flew C 97s,
but that all preflight checks and engine warmups had to be completed
before he boarded. Lemay would climb aboard, take the left seat and taxi
out for takeoff.
Dean
says...
>
>
>The cover story of a 1957 issue of "LIFE" magazine is about a group of
>B-52's that went around the world non-stop. Refueling was done from
>KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
>
>Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
>refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
>to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
>B-52.
>
>
>George R. Gonzalez g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu
>Sr. Sys. Programmer University of Minnesota
>
KC-97's, It was a challenge, but yes they did it.
Kind of the same situation exists today with the A-10 and C-130, as well as
the SR-71.
Regards,
Dean
Olin Habegger, Editor
> >>B-52's that went around the world non-stop. Refueling was done from
> >>KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
> >>
> >>Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
> >>refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
> >>to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
> >>B-52.
I had posted a summary of an article from a SAC magazine about the B-52
round-the-world flight and they were refueled by KC-97's. Contact me if
you would like it e-mailed to you.
I have been in a B-52G from Beale AFB (1960) and was refueled by a KC-97.
It maintained airspeed by flying a shallow dive profile.
Dick.
am...@ix.netcom.com
Jennings Heilig
As with the B-47 and B-58, the KC-97 had to be on a downhill slide to be
going fast enough to refuel a BUFF. I"ve seen photos of it being done,
and it doesn't look like it would be much fun for either the KC-97 driver
or the BUFF driver...
Jennings Heilig
Phil Brandt
>KC-97's were also modified with jet engines in pylons outboard of the
>props (looked like B-47 pylons) to increase their speed. The ones I
>saw were KC-97G's based at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee (ANG). That
>variant, at least, did refuel B-52's.
>
>Tom Westdorp
>Midrange Systems Consultants
>Another Very Happy IBM OS/2 Warp Connect (a *REAL 32 bit OS) User
>
>KC-97's were also modified with jet engines in pylons outboard of the
>props (looked like B-47 pylons) to increase their speed. The ones I
>saw were KC-97G's based at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee (ANG). That
>variant, at least, did refuel B-52's.
>
>Tom Westdorp
>Midrange Systems Consultants
>Another Very Happy IBM OS/2 Warp Connect (a *REAL 32 bit OS) User
>
Think you'll find that the jet-augmented version was the KC-97L and, as
did Ed Rasimus (previous post), we Mt.Home recce pukes sometimes tanked
our Romeo Fox Fours (1970) using Guard and Reserve -97Ls. They would be
going downhill, passing through 14,000 MSL or so, with "four turning and
two burning" and we would be at fairly high AOA, carrying a lot of power.
Their boomers were usually highly experienced, though, and that helped a
lot. They didn't force you to wallow around, delicately seeking the
boom; they would be actively stabbing at the receptacle, SEA-style.
Phil
Harold Hutchison
they didn't wreck the KC-97.
No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
KC-10s?
--
Check out Harold's Hangout!
http://wwwacn.cornell-iowa.edu/~hhutchison
Albert Sykes
: The cover story of a 1957 issue of "LIFE" magazine is about a group of
: KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
: Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
: refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
: to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
: B-52.
: George R. Gonzalez g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu
: Sr. Sys. Programmer University of Minnesota
Practicable ? Yes ! But as you say, a bit of a strain on the KC-97. If
I recall correctly, the KC-97 could do about 280 KTAS in a slight dive
at 19oooft for the refueling. Dunno about the B-52, but the F-4 would
have about a 12 degree AOA holding that airspeed and control response
was a bit sluggish. I'd guess the B-52 had a less noticable change in
performance.
Does this sound about right to you, Ed ? Kirk ? Buffirn ?
Tallyho !
Alpha Kilo
Harold Hutchison
> to obtain "new" KC-10s. But many airlines are retiring their DC-10s
> (American and United come to mind, both had sizable DC-10 fleets), which
> can be converted to KC-10s. It will be cheaper than buying a military
> version of the MD-11, which is a bigger version of the DC-10.
In a somewhat related line, I'm going to ask another question:
Since the B-52s are getting old fast, and a number of people
do NOT want the B-2 to pass 40 (dumb, if you ask me), how hard would
it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44 aircraft?
Go with a total bomber force of 40 B-2As and 140 B-1Bs.
Thanks,
Harold Hutchison
Niraj Agarwalla
: The BUFFs had to lower their landing gear to be slow enough so
: they didn't wreck the KC-97.
: No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
: WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
: KC-10s?
Since they discontinued the DC-10 line awhile ago, it will be difficult
to obtain "new" KC-10s. But many airlines are retiring their DC-10s
(American and United come to mind, both had sizable DC-10 fleets), which
can be converted to KC-10s. It will be cheaper than buying a military
version of the MD-11, which is a bigger version of the DC-10.
--
Niraj Agarwalla -=- naga...@cs.uml.edu -=- http://www.eskimo.com/~niraj
Ed Rasimus
> , but hose birds are getting
>WAY too old to keep around,
The KC-97 wasn't a "hose" bird. It had a stiff flying boom. It was
actually pretty pleasant, despite the low speed, to come up behind a
-97 during the later years. They were all ANG/AFRES birds and the
boomers were crusty ol, ultra-experienced NCOs. Unlike the kids in the
135s, you didn't get poked repeatedly by a 97. If you ventured within
his reach, he came out and grabbed you.
Niraj Agarwalla
: In a somewhat related line, I'm going to ask another question:
: Since the B-52s are getting old fast, and a number of people
: do NOT want the B-2 to pass 40 (dumb, if you ask me), how hard would
: it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44 aircraft?
: Go with a total bomber force of 40 B-2As and 140 B-1Bs.
It could get very expensive. You have to re-open the assembly plant,
re-tool it (if they didn't save the old equipment), then get the sub-
contractors start supplying parts again-- avionics, engines, weapons, etc.
Possibly re-hire and re-train the necessary personnel to build it. Plus all
that overhead. Of course the Air Force would have to want the aircraft.
And, most importantly, Congress has to authorize funding for it. Since
the FY97 budget has already been signed into law, it will take at least a
year or two to get the budget, and another few years to roll-out the first
aircraft (hopefully they have corrected the technical bugs that have been
plaguing the plane). In my opinion, you're better off designing a new
bomber.
Stephen M. Ryan
: The BUFFs had to lower their landing gear to be slow enough so
: they didn't wreck the KC-97.
: No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
: WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
: KC-10s?
I guess you haven't heard of the re-engined (and completely overhauled)
KC-135R? Those tankers have another 30 years of useful life.
KC-10 is too expensive--otherwise the AF would have bought more. Too
late to buy more now because they're out of production.
Steve Ryan
Albert Sykes
: Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
: Niraj Agarwalla -=- naga...@cs.uml.edu -=- http://www.eskimo.com/~niraj
Recent business news I've read suggests that Rockwell is shedding it's
defence businesses. I doubt Rockwell would even want to build any more
aircraft of any type.
Tallyho !
Alpha Kilo
Brian Burke
>
>The KC-97 wasn't a "hose" bird. It had a stiff flying boom. It was
>actually pretty pleasant, despite the low speed, to come up behind a
>-97 during the later years. They were all ANG/AFRES birds and the
>boomers were crusty ol, ultra-experienced NCOs. Unlike the kids in the
>135s, you didn't get poked repeatedly by a 97. If you ventured within
>his reach, he came out and grabbed you.
>
>
As an F-105 pilot did you develop any preference in terms of refueling
via hose or boom? I suppose if you are thirsty it doesn't much matter
whether you drink through a straw or straight from the bottle. Is the
workload similar for the refuelee using either method?
BB
Mary Shafer
H> Since the B-52s are getting old fast, and a number of people
H> do NOT want the B-2 to pass 40 (dumb, if you ask me), how hard would
H> it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44 aircraft?
Insanely difficult. It's my understanding the the tooling has been
disposed of. I'm not even sure if the original composite materials
are still available, science and time having marched on. Also,
Rockwell is doing its best to get out of airframe manufacturing and
have been really downsizing that part of the company.
Actually, it would be easier (not necessarily better, but easier) to
build more BUFFs, I think. They're metal rather than composite, the
tooling's available because they have to make replacement panels and
structural elements, and the workforce is still around.
Sometimes the old-fashioned way is easier to keep going, mostly
because of necessity. Composite is so low maintainence and so
long-lived that the company doesn't have to be able to redo it a lot,
unlike delicate little aluminum panels and easily fatigued structural
elements. For a more down-to-earth example, consider the difference
in maintaining pre- and post-electronic cars; anybody can keep the old
ones going but only someone with lots of expensive test equipment can
keep the new ones going, even though the new ones are better and break
less often.
However, any delay in reactivating either line may prove fatal, so
move quickly.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Jennings Heilig
> No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
> WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
> KC-10s?
The KC-135 is far from "WAY too old to keep around". On the
contrary, it's the most cost effective platform ever designed for the job
it does. They've looked ad nauseum at replacements, and none, including
the KC-10, make economic sense. The Air Force has no plans to even start
retiring (that's *start* retiring) KC-135Rs from operational servcie
until at least 2018, by which time the *newest* airframe will be 53 years
old. With the CFM 56 engine upgrade, wing skin replacements, avionics
upgrades, etc, the airframes will continue to be viable for many many
years to come. Most KC-135s are still relatively young in airframe
hours, so with current utilization rates, they'll be around for their
75th birthdays, no sweat at all. Pretty amazing to think that a pilot
could check out in the same airplane his great-grandfather checked out in
75 years previously, isn't it? The '135 is likely the only airplane that
will ever allow that to be the case.
FWIW, the KC-10 was/is way too expensive to buy in quantity,
otherwise we would have lots more. It does lots of good things really
well, but we have over 600 KC-135s, and as good as they are, KC-10s can't
be in two places at one time. Besides, the DC-10 line closed down a long
time ago, so buying more is not an option nowdays.
Cheers,
Jennings Heilig
KC-135 Card Carrying Fanatic #1
Jim Herring
>
> On 3 Apr 1996, Harold Hutchison wrote:
>
> > No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
> > WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
> > KC-10s?
>
> The KC-135 is far from "WAY too old to keep around". On the
> contrary, it's the most cost effective platform ever designed for the job
> it does. They've looked ad nauseum at replacements, and none, including
> the KC-10, make economic sense. The Air Force has no plans to even start
> retiring (that's *start* retiring) KC-135Rs from operational servcie
> until at least 2018, by which time the *newest* airframe will be 53 years
> old. With the CFM 56 engine upgrade, wing skin replacements, avionics
> upgrades, etc, the airframes will continue to be viable for many many
> years to come. Most KC-135s are still relatively young in airframe
> hours, so with current utilization rates, they'll be around for their
> 75th birthdays, no sweat at all. Pretty amazing to think that a pilot
> could check out in the same airplane his great-grandfather checked out in
> 75 years previously, isn't it? The '135 is likely the only airplane that
> will ever allow that to be the case.
I have this recurring nightmare -
Stardate 2567.
Romulin weapons officer, "Captain, long range sensors show a formation of
B-52H's. Sensors indicate weapons are armed and locked."
Captain, "Navigator, get us out of here, now!"
And now, you've gone and added KC-135's! There won't be anyplace to hind.
;)
Jim
Andrew Muir
: No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
: WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
: KC-10s?
Funny, we just delivered the 400th re-engined KC-135R, and we got a bunch
more yet to go. The old bird ain't dead yet.
In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>On 4 Apr 96 08:13:23 -0500, hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison)
said:
>
>H> how hard would it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44
>H> aircraft?
>
>Insanely difficult. It's my understanding the the tooling has been
>disposed of. (SNIP)
>
>Actually, it would be easier (not necessarily better, but easier) to
>build more BUFFs, I think. They're metal rather than composite, the
>tooling's available because they have to make replacement panels and
>structural elements, and the workforce is still around.
I doubt that any tooling still exists to build major structural elements. I
strongly doubt if Boeing could build an entire wing. True there is some
spares support, but you couldn't build an entire aircraft. As for the work
force, if you want B-52 assembly experience, I don't think any of the original
assemblers are left. The last B-52 left Wichita over 30 years ago.
It would probably be easier to design a new bomb truck around the C-5 or C-17
wing than reopen the B-52 line.
How about it, What would we want to see in a bomb truck (assuming that the
B-2 is too expensive for the low tech mission)?
Bomb load, range, speed, engines, general configuration.
My first cut would have a C-17 wing/engine combination with a narrower
fuselage. Bombload comperable to the C-17's cargo load. ECM suite similar to
the B-52's. performance similar to the C-17.
I will have to think a little more on this, but I just wanted to get the ball
rolling.
Dean
jhe...@gate.net says...
>
>On 3 Apr 1996, Harold Hutchison wrote:
>
>> No wonder they went to the KC-135s, but hose birds are getting
>> WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
>> KC-10s?
>
>contrary, it's the most cost effective platform ever designed for the job
>it does. They've looked ad nauseum at replacements, and none, including
>the KC-10, make economic sense. The Air Force has no plans to even start
>retiring (that's *start* retiring) KC-135Rs from operational servcie
>until at least 2018, by which time the *newest* airframe will be 53 years
>old. With the CFM 56 engine upgrade, wing skin replacements, avionics
>upgrades, etc, the airframes will continue to be viable for many many
>years to come. Most KC-135s are still relatively young in airframe
>hours, so with current utilization rates, they'll be around for their
>75th birthdays, no sweat at all. Pretty amazing to think that a pilot
>could check out in the same airplane his great-grandfather checked out in
>75 years previously, isn't it? The '135 is likely the only airplane that
>will ever allow that to be the case.
>
>otherwise we would have lots more. It does lots of good things really
>well, but we have over 600 KC-135s, and as good as they are, KC-10s can't
>be in two places at one time. Besides, the DC-10 line closed down a long
>time ago, so buying more is not an option nowdays.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jennings Heilig
> KC-135 Card Carrying Fanatic #1
around the corner, the -135 will be around for along time. With the upgraded
avionics coming and the engine upgrade complete (CFM56), the -135R is just as
viable as any modern aircraft the AF could buy. Although many of the -135's
are getting up in years, remember most of those years were seen sitting on
alert pads during the Cold War. Airframe-wise, they are still fairly 'young'.
Dean
Kirk D. Ransom
>George Gonzalez (g...@boombox.micro.umn.edu) wrote:
>: The cover story of a 1957 issue of "LIFE" magazine is about a group of
>: B-52's that went around the world non-stop. Refueling was done from
>: KC-97 tankers, a (classified) number of times and places.
>
>: Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
>: refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
>: to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
>
> Tallyho !
> Alpha Kilo
>
I have even done it at 22,000. It was an easy refueling because you could walk
the stick all around the cockpit and not move the airplane much. I have a picture
here on the wall showing me refueling behind a 97L. The 97's nose is down
while the RF-4C's nose is up quite a bit.
During one Royal Flush recce competion in Europe about 1967, I needed gas to
keep going to get a late TOT. I called "Taxi Tanker" on the assigned freq and
one answered - he had just taken off from Rhein Main. I caught him in a climbing
turn at 13,000 feet over Frankfort and plugged in. Topped off and went on my way
before he had even gotten near the track. The ANG crews were great, but they
wanted me to sign a Form 15 (fuel charge slip you signed on the ground).
The RF-4C flew much better then the F-4C/D. We could refuel the RF-4C
behind a KC-135 at 32,000 without A/B. I think the C/D's liked 27-29,000
feet and at 32,000 they had to have one engine in one stage of A/B and
modulate the other to stay in position.
Kirk
Lee Norville
writes:
>Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
>
>: In a somewhat related line, I'm going to ask another question:
>: do NOT want the B-2 to pass 40 (dumb, if you ask me), how hard would
>: it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44 aircraft?
>: Go with a total bomber force of 40 B-2As and 140 B-1Bs.
>
>
Why don't they reengine the buffs???? We have been doing that very
thing here at McClellan with a lot of the older -135's...turning the
older ones into p/q config...They do a great job of totally rebuilding
the bird....strip it down to the bare airframe,gut the wiring system...
new bladders,avarything.... It is a better bird than when it was brand
new... So why couldn't they use 4 of the newer generation hi bypass
turbofans to power the BUFF's... be a hell of a lot quieter, and better
fuel economy than they get now....
Lee Norville
lnor...@ix.netcom.com
Harold Hutchison
some quick rechecking of some capabilities the KC-10 has as opposed to
the KC-135.
Mid-air refueling
Can deploy and refuel fighters it's deploying with
Better compatability in joint operations (can use boom or
drogue)
Even LESS airframe hours
And, one other question to ask is this: How hard is it to
reopen the production line?
Robert0926
money as opening it the first time. So the question has to be what are the
goals of the aircraft being produced and can something else already being
built with modification suit the purpose.
If everyone would look at the specs of the B-52H the numbers are about the
same as one of the commerial jets like the 747SP. There is a slight range
and speed differnce but the Take-0ff weight of the 747SP is higher so
additional fuel tanks could be installed. (B-52 = 221,350 kg and 747SP =
315,700 kg). If we are just talking about a cruise missle launcher then
that would fill the role.
Frengi Rule of Acquisition #44
" Never confuse wisdom with luck "
Maury Markowitz
(Andrew Muir) wrote:
> How about it, What would we want to see in a bomb truck (assuming that the
> B-2 is too expensive for the low tech mission)?
>
> Bomb load, range, speed, engines, general configuration.
I don't think the engine layout is all that important, nor is speed for
a dumb-truck sort (you want speed, but WHAT speed is not that important).
Range and load would seem to be the most important factors here.
The buff had some other good points about it, the high altitude
performance seemed to come in handy in the past, I don't know if this is
at all important today though. Load is also important, but let's go for
it and suggest a 100000lbs load over 5000 miles, able to actually carry
that bombload's worth of "low density" bombs internally. I would also say
external hardpoints would be pretty much required, for missile trucking
duties where target visibility is required (perhaps HARM/Tacit Rainbow
types).
Seems like a 777 or MD-11 version would be overkill. A 767-200ER might
do it (perhaps even a 757ER version), I don't know if the range of the
-300ER would be needed (over 10000km, although I'm unsure of what load
that's with).
Low wing aircraft would have the disadvantage of being somewhat harder to
load, but I don't know if that's all that important in this case, loading
systems (a pit in the ground the plane drives over, or an upward opening
cargo door that allows placement of the warload over the drop points in a
drive-in fashion) would seem to be a lower cost solution than building a
completely custom airframe.
I think a wide-body type would be the place to start because of the
large internal storage space, but perhaps this is not all that important.
Wide CoG would be handy for sure. It would also seem the 747SP would have
been an interesting match, it's got the increased performance that might
come in handy, along with a large load but decreased length.
Pax jet's don't have the alt performance, nor are they going to get down
in medium and low altitude missions like the buff can without mods
though. How important is this to the mission? We need mods for bomb
delivery anyway, is strengthing for low alt important too?
> My first cut would have a C-17 wing/engine combination with a narrower
> fuselage. Bombload comperable to the C-17's cargo load. ECM suite
similar to
> the B-52's. performance similar to the C-17.
Sounds right, but for a narrower body it would seem that the PAX jets
are basically in the same class. The C-17 would have at least one suberb
advantage over the buff though, runway performance. Seems you could base
them out of forward fields where none of the current heavy fleet could
operate, thus cutting the need for permanent overseas bases somewhat. It
would seem the support costs involved in either a pax jet or a C-17 would
be a lot less too.
In either case it seems a "fleet" of them would be possible.
Maury
--
(from NewsWatcher)
Andrew Toppan
> I do NOT think the KC-135 is a lemon. Far from it. But I did
> some quick rechecking of some capabilities the KC-10 has as opposed to
> the KC-135.
Why the heck would you want more KC-10s? They're high-maintainance
bird, and way too expensive to buy in large numbers.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Dean
says...
>
> I do NOT think the KC-135 is a lemon. Far from it. But I did
>some quick rechecking of some capabilities the KC-10 has as opposed to
>the KC-135.
> Can deploy and refuel fighters it's deploying with
> Better compatability in joint operations (can use boom or
>drogue)
> Even LESS airframe hours
>
> And, one other question to ask is this: How hard is it to
>reopen the production line?
>
>--
>Check out Harold's Hangout!
>http://wwwacn.cornell-iowa.edu/~hhutchison
Few items here:
1. Mid-air refueling - Some KC-135's have this capability as well. On the
otherhand, is it really neccesary? Most of the time, when a KC-10 is on the
receiving end, it is flying a cargo or training mission. All tankers can
complete the vast majority of their missions on internal fuel alone.
2. Deploy with fighters - Yes, This is the reason we have the KC-10.
3. The KC-135 can also be outfitted with a drogue.
4. Operational cost - I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I would venture a
guess, that the -135 is cheaper to maintain than the -10. You also have to
take into account the number of a/c needed. The US could never afford to
replace all of the -135's with -10's. The current mix of a/c is probably good.
regards,
Dean
kstone
>: WAY too old to keep around, just like the BUFFs. How hard to buy more
>: KC-10s?
>
>more yet to go. The old bird ain't dead yet.
>
>
>In article <SHAFER.96...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>>On 4 Apr 96 08:13:23 -0500, hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison)
>said:
>>
>>H> how hard would it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44
>>H> aircraft?
>>
>>Insanely difficult. It's my understanding the the tooling has been
>>disposed of. (SNIP)
>>
>>Actually, it would be easier (not necessarily better, but easier) to
>>build more BUFFs, I think. They're metal rather than composite, the
>>tooling's available because they have to make replacement panels and
>>structural elements, and the workforce is still around.
>
>I doubt that any tooling still exists to build major structural elements. I
>strongly doubt if Boeing could build an entire wing. True there is some
>spares support, but you couldn't build an entire aircraft. As for the work
>force, if you want B-52 assembly experience, I don't think any of the original
>assemblers are left. The last B-52 left Wichita over 30 years ago.
>
>It would probably be easier to design a new bomb truck around the C-5 or C-17
>B-2 is too expensive for the low tech mission)?
Ok, question. I missed the begining of this thread.
Why?
Please follow. No flames intended, just for discussion.
My understanding is that the buff was originally a nuclear bomber. I t
was modified for use with conventional bombs. The purpose of a
conventional bomber (heavy) is esentiall saturation bombing, ie one that
requires large area coverage. The main reason for saturation bombing is
when accuracy trouble does not allow for the hitting of the target with
the single weapon.
But, except for a real long attrition type of war, like WWII, we really
don't have anyone to bomb like this. We can hit with the first weapon,
given the lazer locators, etc, that were not around when the buff's were
built. And of course we have all kinds of munitions that were,'t
avialable then.
Isn't the main use of the B-52 now as a stand-off cruise missle platform?
So, why would we need new/replacement ones? Would a few bucks be better
spent to reprogram/ reconfigure the B-1b's to be adaptable to this job?
Please flame gently. I mean no offense. Just a serious question, and a
possible topic of discussion.
Kind of like (why don't we have any battleships anymore?)
Scott Stone
Harold Hutchison
> So, why would we need new/replacement ones? Would a few bucks be better
> spent to reprogram/ reconfigure the B-1b's to be adaptable to this job?
> Please flame gently. I mean no offense. Just a serious question, and a
> possible topic of discussion.
> Kind of like (why don't we have any battleships anymore?)
team up with the B-1 and B-2)
Low-observable
Ability to carry a large number of standoff weapons
Large number of conventional bombs (read at LEAST as many Mk
82s as a B-2)
Ability to use GBU-28
Ability for limited self-defense against fighters (read: Tail
guns)
et...@deltanet.com
lnor...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Norville) writes:
> Why don't they reengine the buffs????
Apparently that option has been considered. From Aerofax Datagraph 7,
"Boeing B-52G/H Stratofortress" (Dennis R. Jenkins and Brian Rogers):
Boeing has studied and proposed reengining the B-52G/H several
times over the years. The latest proposal calls for replacing the
existing two-engine nacelles with single high-bypass turbofan
engines in 757 style nacelles. The current candidate engine is the
Pratt & Whitney PW2037 (38,250 lbs. thrust) under the military
designation F177-PW-100. Although the proposal seems to make good
economic sense if the bombers are to be retained in service after
the turn of the century, no definitve decision has been made.
It sounds to me like these re-engining proposals were never pursued
because the feeling was that the B-52 fleet was going to be replaced by
B-1s and B2s in short order. Now that a formal decision seems to
have been made to keep the B-52s flying well into the next century,
perhaps a reengining decision makes a lot more sense.
On the other hand, hasn't the B-52 fleet shrunk quite a bit since the
late 80's? Haven't all of the G models been retired now? If that's the
case, leaving just the Hs, there may be a much smaller fleet to amortize
the development costs across.
I also seem to recall an interesting comment regarding reengining
proposals, something to the effect that new high-bypass turbofans would
add so much thrust to the aircraft that it's performance would become
limited by airframe structural considerations, where today the B-52s
performance is limited by powerplant performance.
========================================================================
et...@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463
et...@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A
http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech
========================================================================
Joe Claffey Jr.
>> B-2 is too expensive for the low tech mission)?
>>
>>
>> fuselage. Bombload comperable to the C-17's cargo load. ECM suite
>> similar to
>> the B-52's. performance similar to the C-17.
Basing it off a military cargo aircraft is a good idea, but I think the
C-17 airframe isn't mature enough. On the other hand, a C-130 can carry
50,000 lbs of cargo for well over 2000 miles. It seems reasonable that you
could design a bomber fuselage for it, using existing engine, wing, nose,
and tail structures. Defensive systems can be adapted from the AC-130. I
think that a bombload of 40,000 lbs (less than a B-52, but more than an
F-15E) and a combat radius of 1200 miles are reasonable for a BC-130
variant.
Mind you, this isn't good for anything but carpet bombing, and it is
very vulnerable to modern air defenses. On the other hand, it seems fairly
cheap, and would work well in areas where air defenses have been
neutralized and against dispersed targets.
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
j...@nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Bruce J. Grayson
I thought that this same line of thought was what spurred on the adoption of
the B1.
Have things really changed that much that they haven't changed at all?
Steve Cagigas
Don't forget the cost of obsolete parts. Even if you could get all of the
original suppliers in bed with reopening their old product lines, the chances
of actually being able to procure virtually antique piece parts would be
virtually nil. Unless, of course, you are willing to pay through the nose for
custom piece parts or a new design. Then, why not just start with a new
system?
Steve Cagigas
wran...@dnaco.net
Paul Jonathan Adam
> In a somewhat related line, I'm going to ask another question:
> Since the B-52s are getting old fast, and a number of people
> it be to reopen the B-1B line and build another 44 aircraft?
> Go with a total bomber force of 40 B-2As and 140 B-1Bs.
Incredibly: I doubt the tooling even exists any more. Re-opening a line
that's been closed a few years is very difficult, even when plans were
laid to do so: so many minor components are unavailable, out of
production, or have been updated out of all recognition that you end up
doing a near-total redesign.
This is one hell of a bomber fleet - just what is it going to do? There
aren't many scenarios where the enemy will camp out in open desert miles
from any civilian targets and with inadequate air defences, letting you
cruise bomb-trucks over their heads. There are times you want a scalpel,
not a sledgehammer.
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Stephen Swartz
**** SNIP ****
> I do NOT think the KC-135 is a lemon. Far from it. But I did
>some quick rechecking of some capabilities the KC-10 has as opposed to
>the KC-135.
I'm assuming you are posting the following list as advantages the KC-10
has over the KC-135????
> Mid-air refueling
Do you mean *receiver* capability? Some 135's have it; it really isn't
an advantage except in very narrowly defined circumstances. Do all KC-
10's have receiver capability? Either way, a very narrow benefit.
> Can deploy and refuel fighters it's deploying with
What???? The -135 has been doing this since day 1!!!!
> Better compatability in joint operations (can use boom or
>drogue)
See above. Oh, you mean *at the same time.* Yes, this has been mentioned
as an operational advantage (increased flexibility in receiver type) for
the KC-10. We have been working around that for many years, however, by
mixing booms and drogues on the ramp. Yes, it's a pain to switch the
-135s back and forth (takes about 1.5 hours on the ground) but not
something we should pay $xxxx bazillion dollars to avoid . . .
> Even LESS airframe hours
Yep.
>
> And, one other question to ask is this: How hard is it to
>reopen the production line?
Good question, Harold. Even better, how hard would it be to buy DC-10s
(used) on the open market and modify them?????
*************************************************************************
* =8^) - "For the first time in history, we have formed a system *
* Steve based on the assumption that power rests in the people *
* Swartz and is only sparingly and grudgingly meted to the *
* state in order to secure limited objectives" *
* NRA Life - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the *
* AFA Life Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are *
* reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" *
* ^ the real AFA, not the anti-gun rights group . . . *
*************************************************************************
Stephen Swartz
**** SNIP ****
>2. Deploy with fighters - Yes, This is the reason we have the KC-10.
>
Dean:
I don't get it (surprise, surprise).
I've been working with/on KC-135s since 1978 and have "deployed with
fighters" (do F-16s, F-15s, F-111s, F-14s count?) since day one on the
ramp. Why do you & Harold claim that the KC-10 can do this only/better?
>3. The KC-135 can also be outfitted with a drogue.
>
>4. Operational cost - I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I would venture a
>guess, that the -135 is cheaper to maintain than the -10. You also have to
>take into account the number of a/c needed. The US could never afford to
>replace all of the -135's with -10's. The current mix of a/c is probably good.
>
True enough; but has already been noted many times in this newsgroup,
"there ain't no good way" to estimate/compare weapon system acquisition
or operating costs.
I'll go one step further: anyone who claims to be able to do so just
doesn't appreciate the nature of the problem (no this isn't a troll).
Maybe if we had a fleet of 600 KC-10s (instead of KC-135s) we would save
a ton of money . . . but who knows? Certainly not the DoD!!!
Stephen M. Ryan
: In <4k4ih9$h...@cloner3.netcom.com>,
: lnor...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Norville) writes:
: > Why don't they reengine the buffs????
: Apparently that option has been considered. From Aerofax Datagraph 7,
: "Boeing B-52G/H Stratofortress" (Dennis R. Jenkins and Brian Rogers):
***Snip***
: I also seem to recall an interesting comment regarding reengining
: proposals, something to the effect that new high-bypass turbofans would
: add so much thrust to the aircraft that it's performance would become
: limited by airframe structural considerations, where today the B-52s
: performance is limited by powerplant performance.
The H-model, with 8 TF-33s, is overpowered--it has a thrust gate on
the thottle quadrant to prevent inadvertently pushing the throttles up
too far on takeoff and causing a fatal pitch-up/stall scenario. The Air
Force says the increased thrust would not add anything to the performance
of the H-model (no increase in payload or GTOW) but the increased
efficiency would extend unrefueled range by 40%. Estimates of unrefueled
ferry range is 14,000 miles with the new engines, compared to >10,000
with the TF-33s.
The G-model, with 8 J-57s, OTOH, was always underpowered from any
perspective.
There are 95 H-models left (although some are assigned to new B-52
reserve units). I think about 60 are to remain with the active forces,
although the USAF varies its plans from 40-60 aircraft every few months,
it seems.
I think the increased fuel savings would pay for the conversion in the
first year.
Steve Ryan
David Lednicer
> guns)
> --
Not anymore! They are removing the tail guns from all B-52s left
in the fleet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
Brian Elliott
>Incredibly: I doubt the tooling even exists any more. Re-opening a line
>that's been closed a few years is very difficult, even when plans were
>laid to do so: so many minor components are unavailable, out of
>production, or have been updated out of all recognition that you end up
>doing a near-total redesign.
I think you will find that the tooling and jigs for most recent US
military aircraft can be found 'in storage' at Davis Monthan AFB. Quite
what this actually entails I am not sure but it is a favourite statement
made by the tour guides.
brian
Lee Green MD MPH
<kst...@mailhost.wyoming.com> wrote:
> The purpose of a
> conventional bomber (heavy) is esentiall saturation bombing, ie one that
> requires large area coverage. The main reason for saturation bombing is
> when accuracy trouble does not allow for the hitting of the target with
> the single weapon.
Not really. Heavy bombers with conventional munitions these days are
tasked with area bombardment (which is not necessarily "saturation" nor is
it "carpet bombing"). That's called for against targets like troop
concentrations, shipyards, building complexes, and other "non-point"
targets. Those aren't amenable to pinpoint plinking with PGMs.
Another potential mission for heavy bombers is long-range delivery of
PGMs. A heavy can carry more than a fighter-bomber, and carry it much
further, theoretically allowing "global reach" from the CONUS for Air
Force PGM strikes in these days of closing forward bases. (Personally, I
think this is more in the Air Force's institutional interest than in the
national interest; I'd give the job to the Navy.)
> Isn't the main use of the B-52 now as a stand-off cruise missle platform?
In theory, but in reality the majority of actual ordnance delivery has
been area bombardment with dumb iron.
> So, why would we need new/replacement ones? Would a few bucks be better
> spent to reprogram/ reconfigure the B-1b's to be adaptable to this job?
Well, all here know my opinion of the B-1B and whether it's worth spending
any more money on at all, so I won't reopen that one (yet - I still have
FOIA requests outstanding). But the question of whether we need (not the
Air Force wants) a fleet of big long-haul bomb trucks seems to me a good
one, as does the question of how best to accomplish that if we need it.
I personally tend to think we do need it, though a case can be made for
using many smaller aircraft. However, the notion of a low-tech
inexpensive solution such as one based on the C-17 rather than a sexy,
cutting-edge, top-dollar one like the B-2 is almost anathema to Air Force
thinking. I'm not sure that option would ever even be seriously explored,
though it might be the best solution in the post-Cold War era.
> Kind of like (why don't we have any battleships anymore?)
A lot like that, IMO. There's a great deal of similarity of outlook
between the "bomber generals" and the "battleship admirals", methinks.
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Magnus Redin
> However, the notion of a low-tech inexpensive solution such as one
> based on the C-17 rather than a sexy, cutting-edge, top-dollar one
> like the B-2 is almost anathema to Air Force thinking.
What is low tech with the C-17? It isent stealthy but apart from that
its structure, engines and electronics ought to be state of the art.
I doubt it would be cheap to build a B3 on it, cheaper then
something all new but not cheap. Something cheap would be to rebuild
the B52H:s and perhaps also B52G:s with new engines and a new cockpit.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 582 51 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Paul Jonathan Adam
The tooling, maybe, but try finding the microprocessors you specified
in 1982 and bought in 1984, twelve years on. Component obsolescence
becomes a large and expensive problem, and I speak from personal
experience :( There's more to restarting a line than just picking
up the press tools and bending metal, believe me.
Matt Clonfero
> The tooling, maybe, but try finding the microprocessors you specified
> in 1982 and bought in 1984, twelve years on. Component obsolescence
> becomes a large and expensive problem, and I speak from personal
> experience :( There's more to restarting a line than just picking
> up the press tools and bending metal, believe me.
That's alright, you can just plug'N'play with some pentiums. Faster too.
Hmm. My RHWR indicates I'm being illuminated by a Type 908.99973851 fire
control radar.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
MARK DONALDSON
really like to see production of more F-15Es. Personally, while I think that
the F-16 does a good job for a particular load, I think the F-15E is the best
aircraft for delivering a load more comparable to the now cancelled F-111. I
also see more flexibility with F-15Es over heavier bombers in that for a
rapidly escalating conflict, this plane can still perform various
air-superiority roles.
I do believe that heavy bombers still have a very important role but I think
that more F-15Es should be built. I think the only drawback for the F-15E is
the fact that it gets easily buffeted at low levels. I'd really like them to
see if applying small vanes to the nose (similar to the B1-B) would help in
that regard.
As far as a heavier bomb-truck goes, I'd really like to see them spend the
money (limited as it is) to get the Bone improved. I do believe that it has a
great deal of potential.
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
CAG of the "VF-84 Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
99 "Knights of the Air"
in super high-tech jet fighters
- "99 Red Balloons"
__________________________________________________________
Harold Hutchison
> in 1982 and bought in 1984, twelve years on. Component obsolescence
> becomes a large and expensive problem, and I speak from personal
> experience :( There's more to restarting a line than just picking
> up the press tools and bending metal, believe me.
Why not try to use the current microprocessors to upgrade our
avionics in a new letter designation?With a NEW look!
Maury Markowitz
Redin) wrote:
> something all new but not cheap. Something cheap would be to rebuild
> the B52H:s and perhaps also B52G:s with new engines and a new cockpit.
Yeah, except for payload I think it fills just about everyone's wish list.
Maury
--
(from NewsWatcher)
Paul Jonathan Adam
> > The tooling, maybe, but try finding the microprocessors you specified
> > in 1982 and bought in 1984, twelve years on. Component obsolescence
> > becomes a large and expensive problem, and I speak from personal
> > experience :( There's more to restarting a line than just picking
> > up the press tools and bending metal, believe me.
> Ouch!
> Why not try to use the current microprocessors to upgrade our
> avionics in a new letter designation?
That's exactly what we do, in effect, but you end up with new circuits,
new software (that's the bit that *really* gets you), different mass
distributions, et cetera...
Also, many suppliers no longer go through qualifying their products for
military use: finding components to the relevant DEF STAN is getting a lot
harder. So, you pick a civilian part and qualify it yourself. More costs
for all that temperature/climactic/vibration/shock testing you have to do.
It can be done, it is routinely done, and it's not usually too difficult -
after all, the trend is that stuff gets smaller and lighter - but it is
expensive and time-consuming.
Harold Hutchison
>> > in 1982 and bought in 1984, twelve years on. Component obsolescence
>> > becomes a large and expensive problem, and I speak from personal
>> > experience :( There's more to restarting a line than just picking
>> > up the press tools and bending metal, believe me.
>> Ouch!
>> Why not try to use the current microprocessors to upgrade our
>> avionics in a new letter designation?
> That's exactly what we do, in effect, but you end up with new circuits,
> new software (that's the bit that *really* gets you), different mass
> distributions, et cetera...
> Also, many suppliers no longer go through qualifying their products for
> military use: finding components to the relevant DEF STAN is getting a lot
> harder. So, you pick a civilian part and qualify it yourself. More costs
> for all that temperature/climactic/vibration/shock testing you have to do.
> It can be done, it is routinely done, and it's not usually too difficult -
> after all, the trend is that stuff gets smaller and lighter - but it is
> expensive and time-consuming.
and how the radar in the F-4 was similar to the Surveyor probes that
landed on the moon, in terms of the number of parts, and you had the
fact that the F-4s were landing and taking off from carreirs, in high
humidity, and pulling lots of Gs.
MARK DONALDSON
> Ability for limited self-defense against fighters (read: Tail
>guns)
I think if the fighter got that close the fight would already be over. By
then, the aircraft may have been able to use a heat-seaker. Perhaps some type
of "backwinder-esque" weapon would be more appropriate?
Clifford R Krieger
: In <4jvdo2$2...@guava.epix.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
: >: Did the KC-97 and B-52 have envelopes that overlapped enough to make
: >: refueling practical? A wild guess says they were both straining a bit
: >: to pull this off at all, and it took more than one tanker to fill up a
: > Does this sound about right to you, Ed ? Kirk ? Buffirn ?
: >
: > Tallyho !
: > Alpha Kilo
: >
: The RF-4C refueled behind the KC-97L at 17,000 to 19,000 feet and 230 kts.
: I have even done it at 22,000. It was an easy refueling because you could walk
: the stick all around the cockpit and not move the airplane much.
<snip>
: Kirk
I think Kirk has made a good point here. No tobaggan needed if one was
not heavy loaded. In fact, with the F-4D out of the Big 22 at Bitburg we
even did some refuelings at about 180-200 KCAS, flaps down, just to see if
it was better. Mox nix. On the other hand, when the slatted F-4Es showed
up in Thailand in 1973 they caused all the refueling levels to drop by
about 5,000 feet (and that was KC-135s).
: During one Royal Flush recce competion in Europe about 1967, I needed gas to
: keep going to get a late TOT. I called "Taxi Tanker" on the assigned freq and
: one answered - he had just taken off from Rhein Main.
Again out of Bit in the late 1960s, a two ship (clean) out of our squadron
was up doing ACM and hitting the tanker in the Baumholder refueling area.
Turns out they not only flew the aircraft through a scheduled turn (and
made people worry), but drained the tanker and some F-100s flying practice
CAS in Germany, from England, had to divert. The front seaters ended up
working in the Command Post for a while. On the other hand, they did have
a good time while it lasted.
Regards -- Cliff