B-52 Gets First Full IT Upgrade Since 1961 190
An anonymous reader writes in with good news for everyone who wants to hold a LAN party in a Stratofortress. "The US Air Force's 10th Flight Test Squadron recently took delivery of the first B-52H Stratofortress to complete a refit through the Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT) program. It's an effort to bring the Cold War era heavy bomber into the 21st century way of warfare—or at least up to the 1990s, technology-wise. While the aircraft received piecemeal upgrades over the past 50 years of flying, CONECT is the first major information technology overhaul for the Air Force's B-52H fleet since the airplanes started entering service in 1961."
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Counter rotating props are pretty neat. Shame about the racket they make, though. Never seen one flying, but they're supposed to be loud as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
A Korean comics artist name of Anyan does a web manga with anthropomorphic representations of military aircraft as high school girls. Tu-95 is very inquisitive, always sticking her nose in other people's business and always surprised that folks notice her doing it because of the racket she makes.
http://www.batoto.net/read/_/1... [batoto.net]
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of Tu-95 Bears flew down towards the north of Scotland a few weeks back, the RAF went up to welcome them outside the national limit and got some nice pictures. I grabbed them off the MoD website and bundled them up since most of my friends are Apple fans and don't do Flash.
https://www.mediafire.com/?fs5... [mediafire.com]
Runs to about 12MB or so as a zip download.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the ones that just got upgraded will probably keep flying for another 50 years - the Air Force plans to keep flying them at least until 2040, and I see no reason why they won't just keep using it.
It's the pickup truck of strategic warfare. It's cheap, it can carry a huge payload, and it's reliable. Sure, it's slower than the speed of sound and is about as stealthy as a jackhammer, but for some jobs that doesn't matter.
To this very day, the Air Force has more active B-52s than B-1 or B-2 bombers.
Re: (Score:2)
...Sure, it's slower than the speed of sound and is about as stealthy as a jackhammer, but for some jobs that doesn't matter.
But the electronics bays are about the size of a typical garage and as easy to get into and out of. The airframe may have the radar cross section of a battleship but stick enough jammers in the electronics bays and you'd be surprised how hard it is to hit one.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you don't want them to know you're coming: stealth.
When you don't care if they know you're coming but don't want to get shot down: jam.
All current (B-2 and F-22) and past (F-117) stealth aircraft become "unstealthy" for weapons release. If you have achieved surprise, that doesn't matter. When it's not a surprise, well, that's how the Serbs shot down an F-117.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
The BUF (Big Ugly F*cker) and the Warthog earned their nicknames honestly, but I bet if the person who nicknamed the A-10 had been from the southern USA, it would have been nicknamed the Armadillo for the bathtub, with the double bonus of being only slightly better in a beauty contest than a warthog. Although there is the wrong speed bump metaphor going on with the name Armadillo...
Both of those platforms have a niche which no other can compete with yet. Wikipedia has the following to say about the A-10,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?
I wonder if he'd be alive to ask. It went into service in 1955. A junior engineer just out of college getting in on the tail end of development would be 81 years old now. A "senior engineer" at Boeing -- let's say mid 30s -- in the 1946-52 timeframe from contract award to first flight would be pushing 100 now . . .
Re: (Score:3)
One of the primary designers of the B-52, George Schairer [wikipedia.org] died in 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the primary designers of the B-52, George Schairer [wikipedia.org] died in 2004.
Age 91.
If he were to tie with the oldest person ever (reliably) recorded he would have lived to 122 (in 2035) and still would have seen the B-52 flying in service.
Re: (Score:3)
If they thought about it at all, they probably were wondering if humanity itself would still be around in 50 years.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the number of cruise missiles it carries - yes it is. If you absolutly, positively need to fuck up someone's day, a B52 is still one of the ebst weapons to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of cruise missiles it carries - yes it is. If you absolutly, positively need to fuck up someone's day, a B52 is still one of the ebst weapons to do it.
Still being used purely for counterinsurgency operations.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Only true, today, because that's the only kind of wars the US is fighting at this time. But B-52s absolutely are used in other roles than counterinsurgency.
"B-52s also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom," long before the insurgency even began.
"B-52 strikes were an important part of Operation Desert Storm," in which the US did not face a notable insurgency.
"B-52 had the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF in 2001."
Re: (Score:2)
Counter insurgency is probably going to continue to be the major job for the US Military, well into the future, so the B-52 will have job security for quite a long time.
"I think you could say that there are two fundamental ways to fight the US Military: asymmetrically and stupid." -Major General Herbert Raymond McMaster (2014/05/24)
Re: (Score:2)
Only true, today, because that's the only kind of wars the US is fighting at this time. But B-52s absolutely are used in other roles than counterinsurgency.
"B-52s also played a role in Operation Iraqi Freedom," long before the insurgency even began.
"B-52 strikes were an important part of Operation Desert Storm," in which the US did not face a notable insurgency.
"B-52 had the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF in 2001."
Right, so when its not used *in* counterinsurgency operations its used to set up the conditions for a nice long running counterinsurgency operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
We only built a handful of modern fighters and B2s. If that handful gives us air supremacy, the B52s work just find for the heavy lifting. Since the military actually tries to save money these days, and budgets only shrink, a cost-effective bomber that's already built and flying certainly has its place.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone whose spouse works in government and I have friends in the government supplying parts to the Air Force, I have knowledge about budgets. They are NEVER cut. In fact, not getting an increase is getting a cut. Also they ALWAYS burn all the money appropriated, as not doing so will mean that the money will not be available the next budget cycle. The stupid corrupted government may take the money they have a use it stupidly but lets not even claim there is ever a cut.
In fact the government uses baseline budgeting which prevents the ability to ever even cut the total amount - its just moved around from one corrupt thing to another.
I do agree that between radar hunting missiles and missile systems and the ability to completely destroy any country's (beside China or Russia) radar and SAM and AAA capability before flying manned sorties over enemy airspace prevents the need for anything more than a B52 - a radar cross signature of the the empire state building and subsonic - perfectly usable in a modern theater. If the B52 cant fly at FL350 with impunity, you have a lot more work to do or your friends that need burning from the air got a fresh load of portable/hand held SAMs.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if you count "war spending" together with the rest of the military budget (and why wouldn't you?). The peak was in 2010. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Right you are. Could you imagine someone discussing military spending in the early 1940s and saying "but leave war spending aside"? For that matter, any of the other major post-WW-II conflicts: Korea, Vietnam?
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Which is why a few stealth fighters and bombers go in first, take out ALL the air defenses, THEN the B-52s go in there and carpet-bomb the hell out of the rest of the place. The B-52 is fairly slow, but that fills a role than the military badly NEEDS at times.
Circular logic. If they release all their weapons, then they won't have anymore. If they release one or a few at a time (which is what they do in Afghanistan), then they've got a long-long time in the air, able to fire a few more at any time, lingering over targets longer than just about any other aircraft.
Demonstrating that you know nothing about the subject. B-2s don't have the linger time, maneuverability, survivability, as much payload capacity, and operating costs are several times higher. If the B-52 is to be replaced with anything, it'll be the non-stealth B-1s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The two are largely equivalent, TODAY. The B-1 and B-52s are regularly in competition for each bombing run... In other words, the B-1 replaces the B-52 every time it takes off. They say it has lower operating costs, so it makes sense as a replacement.
The B-52 has long linger time over a target... A feature which is often used to support soldiers on the ground. A supersonic craft woul
Re: (Score:2)
From about 2008 onward, the sole aircraft providing theatre wide close air support in Afghanistan was the B-1B, as it has tremendous loiter time and can get on target very very quickly indeed - the coalition still used smaller aircraft to provide regional CAS, but there was always a B-1B in the air on patrol in-case it was needed.
Re: (Score:2)
There will be a mach 10 bomber by 2025.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is why a few stealth fighters and bombers go in first, take out ALL the air defenses, THEN the B-52s go in there and carpet-bomb the hell out of the rest of the place. The B-52 is fairly slow, but that fills a role than the military badly NEEDS at times.
The heavy bomber's day has come and gone like the battleship. It's main role is demonstration, not waging war.
First off, lets ignore the fact carpet bombing has minimal effectiveness.
Most people have forgotten the last total war and only remember the wars where the enemy could not effectively fight back in the air.
The B52 has never been tested in the crucible of war, they've always been out of reach. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52. To imagin
Re:I wonder (Score:4)
Except B-52s were getting frequent and daily use in Afghanistan. They are still extremely useful.
Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world. They certainly had plenty of air defenses.
Many weapons are useful against certain enemies, and not viable against others. The later doesn't eliminate the former. Humvees and Strykers would be death-traps driving among enemy tanks... And yet soldiers in Afghanistan don't go down the street in M1 Abrams.
It's utterly idiotic to claim that we need ONE weapon that does everything for everyone, all the time.
Besides, there's very nearly zero chance we'd ever get into a land war against a major nuclear power. Either our air-power will decimate their capabilities in the first few hours, or theirs will do so to us, soon after.
And the drones you listed are faster and cheaper to build because they don't have the tiniest fraction the capabilities of a heavy bomber... Bullets are cheaper and faster to build than cruise missiles, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like you to ask the Iraqui army about that one...
Drones can't deliver the seriously special/heavy ordnance required to bust deep bunkers
Re:I wonder (Score:4)
The B52 has never been tested in the crucible of war, they've always been out of reach. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had limited to no abilities to counter or intercept B52.
Bullshit. Hanoi had some of the most sophisticated air defenses of the time. B52s were shot down by them just read about Operation Linebacker II.
The fact is the B52 has been 'obsoleted' by tons of planes which turn out to be retired while the B52 continues being used. They just do not have the payload or the loiter time to compete. And that is without replacing the utterly obsolete fuel guzzling engines it comes with. If you used currently available commercial turbofans in it it would have a lot more loiter time and range.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Drones as decoys (and eventually attack roles) in conjunction with stealth planes are used to disable radar stations and SAM launchers. in the beginning of an air campaign. Once they've done their mission they are pointless. They don't carry much of a payload in comparison to a B-52, and are very expensive. A current B52 can carry 72 - 750 lb. bombs. Vs. a B2 that can carry 36. Once the B52 gets this upgrade, they will use internal rotary launchers that will increase their payload capacity by 66%.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] The B-52 turned out the lights in Baghdad."[187] During Operation Desert Storm, B-52s flew about 1,620 sorties, and delivered 40% of the weapons dropped by coalition forces.
The conventional strikes were carried out by three bombers, which dropped up to 153 750-pound bombs over an area of 1.5 by 1 mi (2.4 by 1.6 km). The bombings demoralized the defending Iraqi troops, many of whom surrendered in the wake of the strikes.
Re: (Score:2)
One shot weapon?? It's a strategic nuclear bomber. It flies 500mph at 50,000 feet, launches potentially nuclear cruise missiles and guided bombs from hundreds of miles away from its target, and each one can carry enough ordnance to wipe out a small country in Europe.
A few might be shot down when used against a 1st world military, but first, calling strategic bombers one shot weapons is silly, and second, if they are ever used against militaries that would have any chance at shooting many of them down (ie.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it's more like 500 knots at 300 feet. Under the radar is what it excels at.
I think you're thinking of the B1B (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All modern bombers are designed to make low-level entry. The B-52 was originally designed for high altitude bombardment but later was given terrain following radar and other upgrades to enable low level attack. The B-1B has much more speed but really when you're down in the dirt it's all sub sonic anyway. We had a B-1 do a pass over the high school stadium here one year for Indepence Day celebration. He rolled across the north side of town on his way to the stadium which sits on the Southern side of the
Re: (Score:3)
It's big slow and ugly but it still fulfills it's mission perfectly. It's the ultimate bombing platform. Sure you can't use it at will unless you have air supremacy but once you do it's the single most economical way to destroy someone.
Re: (Score:3)
Not correct. You could use a B-29 SuperFortress for this role these days. It could be anything. max speed could be 200 kts. The point is that modern air combat and ordinance delivery by first-world combatants is largely done after the total and complete destruction of SAM, Radar, AAA and a knowledge of about how many Stinger-style hand held SAMs exist in the theater. The B-52 is a cheap, existing heavy lift platform that has a good operational history and low incident rate and is reasonably efficient in ter
Re: (Score:2)
- maybe not the BLU-82
Wow, what a fascinating weapon [wikipedia.org]. Thank you, now I know what a Daisy Cutter is. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded flamebait? The post expresses an opinion quite politely and clearly. Correct or not, bringing arguments that need to be addressed in the discussion is a good thing.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
a single B52 can utterly destroy any country on this planet. Yes even china and russia. The number of heavy nukes one can carry is quite scary.
In the Bay it can carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear missiles. That is 20 cities obliterated.... But wait...
It can also carry12 AGM-86s, on underwing pylons.
So now not only can we nuke 20 cities out of existence, but it can also blow to hell 12 military bases or small towns just for giggles.
Now here is some fun, when they SCRAM they fly in 3-5 aircraft formations towards their targets. That is 60-100 Nukes and 52 Kaboom splatters each.
Still think they are just for dropping small bombs on goats?
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese, French and Germans or anyone that has paid some attention to the history of those places would disagree. Vast amounts of destruction in China and Russian just meant that defence material had to be supplied from a different few hundred little cities or towns that were not destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As to not being fond of them, well, that is why we need them. The last thing that we want to do is lower the count to say 1000 missiles, esp. since China is obviously building many more and trying to keep it quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first off, Houston will not be first. They do not have enough military right there.
Well, that's a crying shame for Houston then. I understand one either wants to be first (night-night, WWIII is now someone else's problem) or last (oooo-oooh, pretty, wonder when mine's going to arrive?).. on the whole I'd prefer the latter, myself, on the assumption that I don't make it through *all* the loud bits alive.
BUT, they will be in the second wave and yes, the chinese WILL use multiple waves.
You're quite right of course. When we're talking food it seems there's never enough, always a shortage somewhere in the world because of yield, or transport problems or local warlords etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, food and nukes are the same. On paper there is plenty to go around, and then some. In practice, logistics and politics and local resistance get in the way of the distribution. We have been fortunate not to see this demonstrated with nukes, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in Houston, and it would be an early strategic target due to the concentrated oil industry rather than the military. Perhaps not the Houston CBD itself, but places like Texas City, La Porte, Baytown etc. where all the oil terminals and a huge amount of refining capacity is, plus a great deal of oil engineering expertise is located there.
Re: (Score:2)
Refining oil is not a target of first strike priority. It is a capacity that permits fighting a protracted war. First strike targets are always of direct military value and are designed to eliminate the enemy's ability to wage war. Oil refineries occupy a place somewhere below factories producing equipment like tanks and planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be fine. The AGM-69 was decommissioned in the early 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there were AQ there in all cases, though many choose to ignore the fact that AQ warriors like to surround themselves with innocent ppl and goats so as to spread the death.
Re: (Score:2)
As General "Buck" Turgidson said (Score:3)
"If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust......frying chickens in the barnyard!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he wasn't that good after all.
Not nearly as good. That crash advertised itself in advance, repeatedly, and everybody else missed every opportunity to head it off.
Good! (Score:2)
So I get to play COD while on COD? (Score:2)
In all seriousness, Happy Memorial Day.
Re: (Score:2)
Admiral Adama wouldn't allow this. (Score:5, Funny)
IT upgrade for a machine that predates IT (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. But certainly if you proposed having a computer onboard in 1961, the first reaction would be: The B52 is big but it's not that big!
Second would be "What would you do with one?"
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be the first reaction of anyone with a clue - by 1961 there were already small computers in production. (For use in missile guidance systems if nothing else. This picture [navsource.org] shows the Polaris A-1 (1960) guidance on the right, the unit includes both the inertial assembly *and* the guidance computer.)
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised, but there were computers onboard at the time. Not digital ones though - analog ones. And most likely only partially electronic - usually just a collection of gears and gyros.
The computer is for aiding the bombardier with targeting the weapons - it gets as inputs the plane's direction, airspee
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the large cargo Antanov has control systems made up of racks of gear with valves. A retired electrical transmission engineer I know (who did plenty of design work with valves in his career) was shown around inside one, and he suspected it was to deal with an EMP pulse. There's probably American stuff that is EMP hardened as well but there are solid state ways of doing it that were used by NASA before they sent the first probe near Jupiter.
When you say valves, do you mean what in the US are referred to as vacuum tubes, or are you referring to a mechanical device such as might be used in pneumatic or hydraulic control systems?
Forgotten the name two steps away (Score:2)
Sorry, I'd forgotten that thermionic valves in English is thermionic tubes in American and vacuum tubes on wikipedia presumably because that was more commonly used.
Either way I haven't seen inside one of those planes myself and should probably try to talk my way aboard one to have a look while there are still some flying. Being unpressurised they may have a few more decades yet but the surviving ones are certainly running up th
Oh Damn... (Score:2)
Woot (Score:2)
LAN party in a Stratofortress? (Score:2)
Doctor Strangelove lives! (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting that the aircraft has outlived all of the actors and the director of that fantastic movie.
Scary to think about on 2 fronts (Score:2)
1. These planes are older than the flight crews and maintenance staffs upkeeping them and flying them. Last ones entered service in the early 60's. Pushing 90 years old by the time of retirement! That's simply insane.
2. There are good and bad to upgrades like this. Yes, it makes you more efficient, but you lose the skills of being able to do it by hand. Also, old systems are damn near impossible to hack, unlike newer, shiny s
Still fit for purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
As with the B52 the modes of failure are very well known now so maintainance is going over a checklist and the nasty surprises happened decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
However, the thing I find interesting is the advance in turbofan engines since the B52 came out. A single Rolls-Royce Trent engine can put out almost as much thrust as all eight B-52 engines put together (the 8 B-52 engines combined produce 136000 lbs thrust static, and a Trent has been tested up to 115000 lbs thrust). They could replace those 8 old school and very thirsty engines with 2 RR Trent 772 engines (70,000 lb thrust each) and have better performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such an upgrade would give the B52 more thrust, better range, and a much more robust supply chain for spares.
As far as I know it has never gotten out of the proposal stage.
Re: (Score:2)
There actually has been talk of replacing the 8 50's era engines of the B52 with 4 modern engines (the same that Boeing puts on the 767) Such an upgrade would give the B52 more thrust, better range, and a much more robust supply chain for spares. As far as I know it has never gotten out of the proposal stage.
It would likely require changes to the wing/nacelle interface. It could very well be that the existing engine mounting points can't take the weight/thrust load so a more radical change to the wing might be required. If you're going that far, you might as well redesign the whole plane. Sometimes upgrades just aren't worth the cost, despite radical advancements in technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Its as simple a problem as engine diameter and ground clearance. The only way to fix ground clearance is to install longer landing gear. Which means bigger gear bays and now you might as well throw the whole structure out and start with a fresh design.
Looking at what today's mission for a B-52 is, I wonder why they don't just put a bomb rack in a cargo plane or a 747.
What about Col. Jack Ripper? (Score:2)
Will they be replacing those CRM-114 discriminators in order to prevent nuclear disaster?
90s eh? (Score:2)
Please don't tell me they are running Windows NT 4.0 in the cockpit...
B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintaince (Score:5, Interesting)
If missiles are called for, you'll need something to get the missiles within range. A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles 5,000 miles. Since the US has B-52s stationed around the world, they can put missiles anywhere on the planet.
You COULD use ICBMs, but maintaining appreviously purchased aircraft is a lot less expensive than building a bunch of ICBMs.
A former co-worker of mine worked on designing a drone that can be dropped from the B-52. The earlier comment was pretty accurate - the B-52 is the pickup truck of the air, very versatile and conservatively inexpensive.
Re: (Score:2)
A B52 can put a nuke on target faster than an ICBM can.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you elaborate?
Re:B-52 can carry 20 missiles 5,000 miles, maintai (Score:5, Insightful)
ICBMs are a no-no. Too quick from launch to impact, and too difficult to quickly tell where they are going to land. The Russians would be having heart attacks at record-setting levels if the US switched to all-ICBMs all-the-time, since the middle-east isn't far from Russia (not far for an ICBM, that is).
Not quite so true in the reverse case, as since Russia doesn't ever get into skirmishes with any American countries, so we've got a big ocean buffer.
Besides, I think the GP was just assuming that a new model of aircraft would be more cost-effective than B-52s... Not realizing that the engines have been replaced/upgraded, aerospace materials haven't changed yet, and the aerodynamics of the old sky truck are still good.
And bombers are easier to recall, (Score:2)
Dr. Strangelove references aside, long range bombers, standing off, in holding patterns, might be less likely to escalate tensions than a missile launch would.
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan on the other hand managed to restart the cold war to an extent and couldn't resist poking the dying empire of the USSR - I wonder if he knew how dangerous that was with the USSR on a vast build
Re: (Score:2)
> A former co-worker of mine worked on designing a drone that can be dropped from the B-52. The earlier comment was pretty accurate - the B-52 is the pickup truck of the air, very versatile and conservatively inexpensive.
The B-52 has a track record with drones already. One of them was modified to carry and launch the Lockheed D-21 after a fatal accident with an M-21 (The M-12 was a Blackbird/Oxcart platform). The D-21 was horrendously expensive for what in practice was a disposable drone (ballistic recov
interesting. 2,000 MPH drone in 1963 (Score:2)
That's interesting. I see the D-21 had a lot in common with the SR-71, including its mach 3 speed. That was 50 years ago. I wonder what kind of aircraft we have today that we'll find out about in 20 years.
Re:Missles and drones have to be cheaper than a B- (Score:4, Insightful)
Bombs, even precision GPS or laser guided ones, are much cheaper than missiles. And a B-52 can carry a lot of them.
As a platform for loitering around an area and dropping precision weapons as requested, it should be the most cost effective platform USAF has.
And the option of carpet bombing is occasionally useful too.
Re: (Score:2)
...And the option of carpet bombing is occasionally useful too.
The politically correct term in today's environment is "long stick." I understand that the 750 lb. bombs typically dropped by B-52s for this kind of mission are extremely effective.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
They do have plans in effect to deal with air defenses. A portion of any attack will be targeted on the anti-air assets. Of course in a full scale nuclear assault ICBM's from both land bases and subs plus sub launched cruise missiles will be utilized as well. A lot to deal with. MAD makes a mess.
Re: (Score:3)
When you figure out how to recall a missile without loss of the airframe and other important explodey-bits, get back to us. Not to mention freaking out a couple of other countries with their own ICBMs when they can't tell if the missile you say is headed over the pole to a given -stan is going to fall short and hit Russia or go wide and hit China, so they have to order their own launches before the descent half of the arc (bonus points for MIRVs).
As for drones, there is a reason why you always try to take
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they'll replace it with an autonomous aircraft around then. Manned warcraft will most likely be well on the way out by then.
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe they've upgraded to Vista!
Re: (Score:2)