Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Planning For 80-Year Old B-52s 484

Posted by Hemos from the keep-'em-going dept.
Merry_B.Buck writes "The B-52 Stratofortress, famous for its carpet bombing (or, as the Pentagon prefers, "long sticking") was designed in the 1940s to carry boxcar-sized atomic bombs. This Fast Company analysis describes how the US plans to keep these planes -- the youngest of which was built in 1962 -- flying until 2040. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Planning For 80-Year Old B-52s More

Planning For 80-Year Old B-52s

Comments Filter:

  • And some whackos are using a 30+ year old OS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:27PM (#2711317)
    And they're thinking about CONTINUING to do so until Hell freezes over!

  • IIWDFI (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mesocyclone ( 80188 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:28PM (#2711320) Homepage Journal
    If it works, don't fix it!

    The major advances in aviation in the 1950's were sufficient to provide a number of platforms that are so cost effective as to not be worth replacing. B-52's and P-3's are examples.

    • Re:IIWDFI (Score:2, Informative)

      by maladroit ( 71511 )
      Also, one of the things that helps is that the 'modern' B-52s (the H models) are essentially version '2.1'.

      The A-F versions and the G-H versions are fundamentally two different airplanes - the fuselage changed from a round shape to its current squarish form, the wing design changed, even the landing gear ended up in different spots.

      Just like in software, when the engineers were given a chance to learn some lessons and create a partial rewrite, they produced an incredible product. Years later, the rewrite without the history produced junk like the B-1 (which didn't even make it to the Persian Gulf war).

      • Re:IIWDFI (Score:3, Informative)

        by zsazsa ( 141679 )
        Years later, the rewrite without the history produced junk like the B-1 (which didn't even make it to the Persian Gulf war).

        The B-1 was FINALLY used in operation Desert Fox in 1998 and Kosovo last year, and is performing round-the-clock duties in Afghanistan right now.

        The history of the B-1 is pretty ridiculous. The project was cancelled with just four prototypes of the B-1A in 1977, and then restarted under Reagan as the B-1B in 1981 with delivery in 1985. After this painful gestation period they don't figure out what to do with the darn things until 1998.

        I seriously think that we'll still have B-52s flying LONG after the B-1s get scrapped.

        (Anyone with a better knowledge of the B-1, feel free to correct me.)

        Ian

      • Re:IIWDFI (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ksheff ( 2406 )

        The reason the B-1Bs weren't used in the Persian Gulf war is that they did not have the attachments to carry conventional ordinance. The only way they would have been involved in the Gulf was if Bush ordered the use of nuclear weapons. They were still on nuclear strike standby.

        The college I went to was only about 10 miles from a SAC base that had B-52s and then B-1Bs. During my college years, 1/3 of the planes were always on the flightline fully fueled, loaded with nukes, ready to go at a moments notice. The USAF invited several engineering majors out to the base to tour the B-1Bs and the Minuteman silos. The article is correct in that the B-1 is very crampt (I got to sit in one). The crews are very proud of their planes and have won USAF precision bombing competitions several times. They are currently in use dropping laser guided 2000 lb bombs over Afghanistan. Most of the problems with the B-1 were political in nature or were the result of politics.

        • Re:IIWDFI (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nathanm ( 12287 )
          The reason the B-1Bs weren't used in the Persian Gulf war is that they did not have the attachments to carry conventional ordinance.
          Partly right, they had already been fitted with conventional weapons, they just weren't certified to use them operationally. That didn't stop them from using the E-8 JSTARS though, which was still in testing, not even in production yet. Most of the JSTARS crews were civilian contractors.

          It also hasn't stopped them from using the Global Hawk, which wasn't supposed to be operational until 2003; or Hellfire missiles on the Predator, which was only done 3 times prior as a proof of concept only.
          They were still on nuclear strike standby.
          Actually, the entire B-1 fleet was grounded during most of the gulf war for engine problems.
          The college I went to was only about 10 miles from a SAC base that had B-52s and then B-1Bs.

          The USAF invited several engineering majors out to the base to tour the B-1Bs and the Minuteman silos.

          Let me guess, you went to UND, in sunny Grand Forks, ND? I've spent some time at Grand Forks AFB.
    • They hit the "sound barrier". Most commercial aircraft haven't changed much since the 1950's either, because they are basically limited to flying just below sound speed.

      There seems to be an optimum way to design an airplane that flies at 1000 km/h, and that's it.

  • budget cutbacks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by havardi ( 122062 )
    Put the research money into fast deadly assault planes... and you can use hot air ballons to deliver your bombs.
    • Well that certainly makes air-defense cheaper. Just issue slingshots with pointy rocks to every 8 year old along the flight path. Or perhaps we can even do better and fill the balloons with hydrogen (ok -- before any gets in a snit about it, the last part was a joke. I know that it is generally recognized today that the Hindenburg did not go down because of specifically using Hydrogen -- although it did make it a bit more spectacular).

  • Re-engined B-52s (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mac Nazgul ( 196332 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:35PM (#2711343)
    I believe there was a plan at one point to extend their operational life by replacing their dual engine pods with the recently introduced engines used on the 777. As some of you may know, that engine is huge (it's intake diameter is the same as the diameter of a 737s fuselage!), so, I'm not quite sure how they planned to do that.
    But if you add up the total thrust that would be produced for 4 777 engines, it would be enough to acclerate the B-52 vertically!

    • Re:Re-engined B-52s (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have often wondered why the B-52s haven't had their engines upgraded. High bypass ratio engines are so much more efficient. An example of this kind of upgrading is the old DC-8 that had its life (as a freighter by this time) extended.

      I wouldn't think it was necessary to use go all the way to the 777 engine (Rolls Royce Trent??). There must be something more suitable, or at least a better fit, physically. And while 4 big ones are more cost effective than 8 samller ones, I could imagine 8 RB-211s (747 engines) doing a good job.

      You mention the 737. The version 400 has an interesting engine inlet shape that keeps it from dragging along the ground when taxiing. Maybe the Trent(?) engines can be made to fit.

      With repowering, and by uing some of the bomb bay space for additional fuel, the B-52s could probably have a range of 28,000 miles instead of only 8,800.

      Or maybe we could concentrate on making them unnecessary in the first place.
      • I have often wondered why the B-52s haven't had their engines upgraded.

        Partially because until the early 90's, the AF had quite a few extras in stock, partially because of the vast expense of upgrading. Some things that have to change during such an upgrade:
        • The airframe and electronics will have to be modified.
        • You lose the accumulated 'tribal knowledge' in the support crews.
        • A large (and expensive) flight test program will be required.
        • Hundreds of manuals and documents will have to be changed.
        • New schools, trainers, and support systems will have to changed
        And on, and on, and on...

        Sometimes it's cheaper to stay with the old than to change to something new, especially when the old already does the job quite well.

      • Re:Re-engined B-52s (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nathanm ( 12287 )
        I have often wondered why the B-52s haven't had their engines upgraded. High bypass ratio engines are so much more efficient.
        It would lower the B-52's max speed. It's max speed is 650 knots, which is much greater than any airliner. The 747's max speed is 550 knots, and the 777's only 575 knots.

        When the B-52 was introduced, it was faster than every fighter in the Air Force inventory.
    • The re-engineing was a good idea. The B-52's engines are inefficient compared to modern fan-jet engines, so an engine upgrade would provide more range or bomb load. And the maintenance load would go down.

      Quieter, too, not that it matters.

    • Re:Re-engined B-52s (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cathyy ( 120691 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @01:45PM (#2711526)
      God, I love the old B-52s. I worked on them. I think you are recalling the well-distributed photo of a B-52 with one BIG engine on a pod. That was done as a testing environment for the fanjet engine used on the C-5. It would have ripped the wing off the B-52 if taken to military/MRT. It was never considered to replace the old engine pairs with single fans. The JP57-43WP Pratt and Whitney used on the G models (1956-1957) is a regular jet, generates about 11,600 pounds of thrust each, 13,000 with the water injection.IIRC the H models do use pairs of small fanjets, but I don't know the specs as I never worked on the newer (1962!) models.

      • Re:Re-engined B-52s (Score:4, Informative)

        by mikefoley ( 51521 ) <mike&yelof,com> on Sunday December 16, 2001 @02:42PM (#2711714) Homepage
        The "newer" B-52's use the P&W TF-33 fanjet engines. Another old workhorse, the KC-135 Stratotanker is about as old as the B-52 and is predicted to fly until 2040 also. It originally came with J-57 engines and was known as the KC-135A. It was re-engined in the 80's with fans (similar to the TF-33's) from old Boeing 707 airliners. This resulted in the KC-135E model. Many have since been re-engined with CFM56 high bypass fans. These are KC-135R models. With the E and R models, the KC135 also got thrust reversers and did away with the water injection of the A models. I remember flying out of Hickam in Hawaii one afternoon. Water injection gave you an extra 2000lbs of thrust per engine for 2 minutes. After the 2 minutes when the water ran out, you lost 8000lbs of thrust. That was a fun moment in the back when we almost lost our lunches. :) I was a jet mechanic on A and E models in the Air Guard from 80 to 87.
    • Boeing submited an unsolicited proposal to the USAF to re-engine the remaining B52s. The proposal was to replace the eight TF-33 turbofans with four RB211-535 turbofans [194.128.225.11], the same engines that are used in most 757s. They produce 37,000lb - 43,000lb thrust which is an improvement over the 34,000lb produced by two TF-33s but nowhere near the output of the Trent 800s used in the 777. Details [boeing.com] are on the Boeing site.

    • Re:Re-engined B-52s (Score:2, Informative)

      by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 )
      The B-52 does require an engine upgrade - as when the plane is loaded to capaicity with ordinance, it cannot be fully fueled - otherwise it will not be able to take off. It then requires an in flight fill up after take off to do its mission.

      Another interesting note about that plane, is that it has wheels on the end of its wings, due to the fact that after very lengthy flights, the wings stretch so much that when it returns its wings are touching the ground.

  • Status symbol (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hatechall ( 541378 )
    The thing about the B52's is that, even though not many people would know the technical specs, it has been encultured to convey power. You can tell the average Joe Shmoe that we are sending B52's into ombat and, even though Joe can't tie his own shoes, he will know that we are sending in the big guns. Plus its a dang good plane.
  • Ever take apart a full-tower? Or better yet, one of those IBM Netfinity boxes that covers about two square blocks? Much easier than working on, say, my Titanium Powerbook...
    • I worked on F-4G Wild Weasels in Saudi Arabia. The F-4G aircraft (or at least, their origional F-4E airframe) were produced in 1969 (which makes them older than I am). Yet the F-4G squadron had better numbers meeting their sorties than squadrons equiped with later (F-16 and F-15) aircraft.


      I would suppose there's something to be said for years of experience maintaining a system and dealing with its oddities.

  • NASA's B-52 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mac Nazgul ( 196332 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:41PM (#2711356)
    NASA uses a B-52 for high altitude drops of prototype flight models.
    It was actually tail number "008" making it the oldest operational B-52.
    It is also the lowest flight time operational B-52.
    • And they just traded it at the beginning of August for a B-52H, 61-0025. *shrug*

      • Re:NASA's B-52 (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nehemiah S. ( 69069 )
        Nah, not traded, supplemented. So many projects use the aircraft that NASA was having to delay projects (such as the X-43 flight) to do proper periodic maintenance. The fact that the current NASA aircraft uses J-57-19 engines and every other B-52 in existence has moved to TF33-P-3/103's has made it interesting to support. With 2 B-52's, NASA can alleviate some of the scheduling problems.

        In fact, Orbital Sciences originally planned to purchase a G or H model for use with their pegasus rockets because of this, but decided to buy an L-1011 instead because of support issues (i.e. only the USAF can fix B-52's).

        The original NASA aircraft is the only B model still flying, fyi. The rest were AMARC'd (and cut in half to prove to Russian inspectors that they couldn't be used again, per treaty).

        Anyway NASA will continue flying the original, and use the H when OC-ALC finishes demilitarizing it.

        Neh

    • Re:NASA's B-52 (Score:3, Informative)

      by DerekLyons ( 302214 )
      NASA uses a B-52 for high altitude drops of prototype flight models.

      It's been a busy aircraft used for a variety of tasks, some more information:
      • A press release [nasa.gov] from 008's 40th birthday in 1995.
      • A picture gallery [nasa.gov] from the Dryden Flight Research Center. (Scroll down to B-52 for several galleries showing 008 in her various guises.)
      • A fact sheet [nasa.gov] on the history of 008.
  • The advanced technologies used in newer aircraft make the use of the subsonic B-52 possible. When the USAF owns the skys it's possible to bomb with a zeppelin. Still, the B52 and a few others (C-130, F4 Phantom, etc.) are marvels of elegant design.

  • Good design (Score:5, Informative)

    by forsaken33 ( 468293 ) <forsaken33@[ ]tic.com ['ema' in gap]> on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:44PM (#2711365)
    Obviously, if this plane has been flying and usable for the past forty years, the designers must have done something right. For the role it plays, its perfect. I think the role of strategic bomber has been relegated to such planes as the B-2. So, for carpet bombing, you want a plane thats big and has a long range. Screw the air defense because by now you should have air control. I'd hate to see what designing and the contract for a new plane would be just because this is "too old"


    If you think about it, there really wouldn't be that much needed to make these planes more modern. Yes the computer upgrade would be necessary in my mind. Add the new navigation and targeting radar systems, if that hasn't been done already. I suppose the radar jammers, (if they have them?) would be good enough. The um....idea that they're working off of now is fighting third-world countries. They'll be using old radar. So the old jammers are what you need. If newer ones are needed, use the pod (forget the name off the top of my head).



    And this thing is IMPRESSIVE. If you've seen one, its hard to imagine it flying, even more so with the amount of ordinance it can carry. And what's more demoralizing that being carpet-bombed by one of these old big planes? Well maybe beign hit by a bomb.......but thats besides the point.



    So maybe what needs to be the area of concern is not the age, but the capacity and reliability of these planes.

    • yes it is a great plane..

      but think, it was designed to drop 2-4 Nukes. nukes are now the size of 500 pound TNT bombs. and a B52 can carry several hundred of them. Nuclear carpetbombing is possible with this plane and that makes that plane very scary.

      It is still one of the most powerful weapons in our arsenal.

      Although, didn't the USSR have a long range bomber like the B52 that was a turboprop? a propeller plane that could go stratospheric and insanely fast.
    • The um....idea that they're working off of now is fighting third-world countries.

      Nothing like a comment on the nature of the beast. Thanks. (Taliban originally supported by U.S., Saddam Hussein supported by U.S. [iran/iraq war], Iran's Shah supported by U.S. [overthrown in 1979], etc. And that's just in the middle east.)

    • Re:Good design (Score:3, Interesting)

      by "Zow" ( 6449 )
      And this thing is IMPRESSIVE. If you've seen one, its hard to imagine it flying

      Travis AFB is pretty much between me in the East Bay and Davis, where I go to school, so I get to see the B-52s on my way to school ocassionally. Let me tell you, when you've got one just a couple hundred meters directly over your head, impressive is not the only word going through your mind. You're also inclined to pray that the laws of physics continue hold true today.

      -"Zow"

  • Bomb/Nav (Score:5, Interesting)

    by greygent ( 523713 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:47PM (#2711370) Homepage
    Hooyah!

    I was a Bomb/Nav tech on the B-52's and can definitely attest to their resilience. While the airframe is old, they are running early 80's era technology throughout many areas.

    The bombing systems run off of 3 computing units, each with as I remember four Z-80A processors. Data is loaded from harden (and sloooow) tape drives.

    The Nav/bombardier compartment is on the first floor, but it does sit quite a ways back from the pilot. Underneath the pilot's is the main radar antenna.

    The FLIR and STV systems were top. The FLIR was especially handy in the blizzard-ridden hellhole I was stationed at. We could use them to discern the sex of people from far away (different hotspots), and we could also located our boss driving the trick in a whiteout. He was a chain smoker, so we would just aim it out on the flightline, and wait for the telltale thin white heat line of a man driving a work truck with his cigarette hanging out the window....

    Sgt. Barker if you're out there, give me a ring at:
    greygent [at] absent [dot] org

    I loved working on B-52's, they were excellent, quality planes...and I actually do miss the flightline life...

    Working on B-1s...was another story. Nothing scares a pilot thats about to take off, more, than when an advanced avionics tech rushes up into the plane to fix a problem with a rubber mallet (sticky relays). when I was in the military, I read a report that stated as things stand, even though the B-1 is 20 years newer, the B-52 airframe will still far outlast the B-1.
    • Primary Function: Heavy bomber
      Contractor: Boeing Military Airplane Co.
      Power plant: Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan
      Thrust: Each engine up to 17,000 pounds
      Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
      Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
      Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters)
      Speed: 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
      Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters)
      Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)
      Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)
      Range: Unrefueled 8,800 miles (7,652 nautical miles)
      Armament: Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles. (Modified to carry air-launched cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship and Have Nap missiles.)
      Crew: Five (aircraft commander, pilot, radar navigator, navigator and electronic warfare officer)
      Accommodations: Six ejection seats
      Unit Cost: $74 million
      Date Deployed: February 1955
      Inventory: Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9

      More facts and an imposing photo at AF.MIL [af.mil]

      Oh btw, great post, Hemos / Merry / Greygent!
      • Accommodations: Six ejection seats

        According to Greygent's post the Navigator and Bombardier sit on a lower deck behind the pilot. If that is the case how/where do those particular ejection seats eject out from? Up through the upper deck(s) in some way or out the side?
        • According to Greygent's post the Navigator and Bombardier sit on a lower deck behind the pilot. If that is the case how/where do those particular ejection seats eject out from? Up through the upper deck(s) in some way or out the side?
          Downward. Although the survival rate is rumoured not to be very high...

          If you want to crawl around in the nose of a B-52 (and see the ejection seat rails for yourself), there is one at the Chanute Air Museum at the former Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois, 2 hours south of Chicago. They have a lot of neat stuff left over from Chanute's days as a training center.

          sPh

  • No longer a svelte youngster? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by S Nichol ( 230334 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:47PM (#2711373)
    I've read that the first U2 spy plane was able to fly around 3000 feet higher than those of today simply because a crapload of equipment has been tacked on the modern version.

    With the B-52, it seems this might not have happened, and the plane might have gotten lighter. After all, a "dance hall" full of vacuum tubes that can be replaced with a few microchips must take off a few tonnes (which can then be added on in munitions. yippee).

    Also, when Mike T. is one in a long string of people that I've heard crap on the B-1. Is there anything about that plane that doesn't suck? Or is there some truth in people who say that the modern American aerospace industry couldn't produce a cheap, reliable airplane?

    Obviously there's the F-22 and the JSF, but at $150 million for a single F-22, is stealth and all the associated razmataz really worth it? The US already dominates the world.

    • I do think that defense requires a somewhat paranoiac, Stalinist perspective--that is, making sure that you have something over everybody else--you _make_ other countries your allies or neutral by your own strength, and otherwise they go in the "threat" category, no matter what is said on TV. While this is somewhat Macchiavellian flamebait, I think it is also fairly true.

      I therefore think that the F-22 is worth it.

      Imagine if the Chinese started buying some of the new thrust-vectoring Sukhoi's from Russia, and then we got dragged into a war for Taiwan. I would prefer our boys be flying something hard to shoot at, as opposed to the venerable F-15.

      Really, the situation is comparable to the U.S's decision to replace its carrier-based light bomber (the A-6) with something multi-mission capable, (the F-18). While the predecessor had an honored record, it was out of date.

      The B-52, on the other hand, is used in wars where we already have Total Air Superiority. It is a bomb-bus with wings that can be maintained by a 17 year old with a ball-peen hammer. It serves in this capacity beautifully.

  • " Slobodan Milosevic's capital, Kosovo" ???? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:49PM (#2711381)
    What since when? I had the feeling the capital of serbia was named BELGRADE. I also use to thought that Kosovo was a REGION not a city. A region that wanted to separate from the rest of the country! Now if this guy got all his fact as straight as is understanding of a RECENT war, I'm sure we can trust him.

    Trust me, I'm a reporter!
  • So it was designed to carry boxcar-sized atomic weapons, yet 5 years later, the first atomic weapons were inly 15 feet long.

    We can only try to imagine what kind of payload these planes would deliver in 2040.

    I wonder how many nanorounds [amazon.com] one of these babies can pack.

  • dumb journalist (Score:2, Interesting)

    by C_nemo ( 520601 )
    lets see, B-52 took part in the bombing of Slobodan Milosovich's Yugoslavia(Serbia+montenegro), Kosovo, the region, was a part of jugolsavia(and still is, at least on the paper). Kosovo it's not Milosovichs capital, as the journalist says, its a part of the country.

    And by the way: why did the US++ start to call Kosovo Albanians Kosovoar during the campaign?

    Nemo

  • I hope... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:53PM (#2711391)
    ...we don't need them any more in 40 years.
    • Waxing Biblical, for a moment, there have been wars and rumours of wars for literally thousands of years.

      For human society to so dramatically transform in 40 years for there to be "no more war" would make any of the changes of the 20th century appear tiny and irrelevant.

      It is interesting to observe that despite the technical progress, the 21st century has been marked by conflicts that would have been quite well recognized hundreds of years ago. In the late 1800s, there was fighting in South Africa in the Boer Wars; the last century has been marked by, if anything, more, and more vigorous wars than the 18th and 17th centuries.

      The notion that war will be no more in 2041 is foolishly wishful thinking.

  • aka the blackbird. Titanium body, sustained speed and altitude specs that still (so far as I know) can't be beat. Mothballed a few years ago ... bet they'd come in handy for some surveillance jobs right about now.
    • Titanium body, sustained speed and altitude specs that still (so far as I know) can't be beat.
      Or what about the XB-70a ("Valkyrie") [boeing.com]???

      (More links here [google.com].)

    • Amen.

      From what I recall, the SR71 offered a task that no satellite or U2 could perform - high-speed, on-demand surveillance overflights of not-yet-completely-controlled airspace. Sending a U2 into enemy territory without adequate SAM surpression is a very bad idea (ask Gary Powers, who probably still has burn scars on his ass... unless he's dead by now). The raw speed of the SR71 means that a) it can get there faster, so that action, before the party's over, and b) it is harder (altho not impossible) to shoot down. Wasn't there something about the US finding Bin Laden during the first few days of the campaign but not getting proper surveillance data soon enough?

      I'm reminded of a scene in a Tom Clancy film (Clear and Present Danger?) where terrorists at a desert training camp hide all of their equipment during satellite overflight times, much like the white folk stopped their partying when the black man got on the bus in that oft-referenced SNL skit. Also, while one can argue that satellite imaging resolution is much more advanced than it was when the SR71 was conceived, and that such might reduce the utility of the SR71, would not the equipping of an SR71 with the same upgraded optics allow even *greater* imaging capabilities? I think to those satellite images shown during the press briefings during the early part of the Afghanistan campaign... "and this slide shows a runway... err, no wait, I think it's a... oh sorry folks, this is my son's biology experiment, let me just change that" - surely greater detail would help? (I'm sure the US military has better slides than it shows up, but the same "get the camera closer" logic applies in either case.

      Anyone that is remotely interested in the SR71 or the U2 or surveillance / stealth planes in general owes it to themselves to read Skunk Works [amazon.com]. There is also a decent SR-71 site [sr-71.org] that even has the flight manual [sr-71.org] (recently declassified) online! In case you ever find one left running unattended at the local 7-11, natch.
      • Aaah... the blackbird. One of the sexiest aircraft ever built. Anyway, some people say the SR-71 would never have been decomissioned if there wasn't something new [google.com] to replace it... But maybe it was just a budgetcut that killed the blackbird.

        Oh, and you are refering to UBL, you maybe thinking of that incident where Mullah Omar was found by an "asset", but the chain of command was to complex to authorise a weapons release on the van he was in quickly enough. But I could be wrong.

      • Gary Powers, RIP (Score:3, Informative)

        by _N0EL ( 245472 )
        ask Gary Powers, who probably still has burn scars on his ass... unless he's dead by now


        Gary Powers has been dead almost 25 years - he crashed a L.A. television news helicopter he was flying. I was a kid when he died yet still remember seeing the morning newspaper headlines very well because it was the first time I'd heard of his U2 incident over the USSR.

    • Re:Too bad they didn't do this for the SR71.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @03:20PM (#2711812) Homepage
      because the sr71 was an engineering nightmare,
      it leaked fuel like mad when on the tarmac, it's design was such that there was NO payload space except for the camera, and it's engines are a maintaince and reliability nightmare.

      be glad that the sr71 is no longer needed. it was a nightmare, a sexy nightmare.

      Besides, sattelites do a ton better, a f117 can perform the same missions without having to fly at the edge of space. (the sr71 had to to keep away from missles and planes. that the only reason)

  • How Many Can Be DeMothballed For The Cost Of A B-2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @01:15PM (#2711443)
    We've got literally thousands of old planes mothballed out in Arizona - not just B52s but B47s and B36s as well. A lot were destroyed under the SALT treaties of the 1970s and START treaties of the 1990s, but a lot are still there. So what if they are supposed to be destroyed, Dubya's getting us out of the ABM treaty, ain't he? Yeeha!!! Given that a SINGLE B-2 comes in at sizable fraction of a BILLION dollars, how many of these puppies could we get back in the air for the cost of a single "modern" bomber? Check out here [cnn.com] and here [virtualtuc...gazine.com]...

  • Just like Unix... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@gmail ... m minus caffeine> on Sunday December 16, 2001 @01:24PM (#2711463) Journal
    When something is done right the first time, it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel...

  • Other long-lived weapons (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All the armed forces keep weapons around for a long time. The Army has used the M113 armored personnel carrier [fas.org] since '60, and apart from engine swaps (which the B-52 gets, too), they're still running around. It's also been used as the basis for countless other vehicles, and it would suprise me greatly if it didn't hang around another 40 years.

    Along the same lines, the Army and Marines hung onto the M1911 [fas.org], the (in)famous Colt .45, for an insanely long time. It was introduced in 1911, and saw action in horseback cavalry charges when Pershing was going after Pancho Villa in Mexico. It started to get replaced by the M-9 in 1986, but was still very much around during the Gulf war. 80 years of service life, unmodified. Not bad.

    And then there's the C-130 and all its variants [fas.org]. I know guys whose granddaddies jumped out of them. They're going to be around a long time, too.
    • Actually, we came very close to replacing the C-130 back in the 1970's.

      We had a competition between the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell-Douglas YC-15 to replace the C-130, but budgetary considerations and the US Army's need for larger transports kiboshed that idea. That was the reason why there was a later competition to build a larger transport plane, and the result is the C-17A Globemaster III transport. The USAF has taken deliveries of around 80 planes (out of the original 120 plane order) and is planning for another follow-on order for possibly another 100 planes by 2010.

      Anyway, the C-130 has been upgraded to the current C-130J version with a very advanced cockpit and much more fuel-efficient engines.

  • Every so often... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haggar ( 72771 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @01:35PM (#2711487) Homepage Journal
    mechanical engineers come up with a design that will pass the test of time with flying colors. the B-52 is just an example,but then there is the Morris Minor, the Porsche911 etc. One reason could be that there are no such dramatic technological advances in mechanical engineering, as there are in electronics (for example), so a few talented mechanical designers have the chance of making an outstanding, long-lasting product.

    Let me explain this point: as transistors appeared, nobody wanted or had any reason to make computers based on valves or relays. Once you could integrate many transistors on one chip, most of the computer logic moved from discrete to integrated electronics. This, on the other hand, brought about new and more sophisticated logic designs.

    In mechanical engineering you can have new alloys, new kinds of bearings, sensors and microcontroller-regulated engines, but the basic concept is totally the same. Today you could (theoretically) employ a mechanical designer from the beginning of the century, and he would be up to speed with his colleagues in a matter of months. And his biggest challenge would be to learn CAD/CAM software usage :o)

    Software engineers are probably the most "disposable" of thebunch: advances in software engineering (ans I don't mean just programming, like moving from RPG, PL/1 to Pascal and then to C, C++, Java etc., but advances in project management techniques, requirements management, software quality control, risk management, all that sh*t...) are coming at an incredible speed, even during an alleged economical downturn, that it's not anymore important whether you know something, but how fast you are able to learn something new.

    So, if I was to think of one software design from the 60' (not that long ago, even), I can't think of any.
    • SABRE. Rolled out on IBM mainframes in 1962 for the commercial air transport industry. Still very much in use today.
    • The Fast Fourier Transform. Some programmers may have reimplemented it in new languages, but that's equivalent to an old plane getting new engines.

      Also, three computer languages, COBOL, FORTRAN, and LISP, still in use today, date from the 1950's. Look inside many modern software packages, and you will find old libraries, such as Lapack, written in FORTRAN in the 1960's.
  • After that B1-B crashed in the Indian Ocean last Tuesday, due to "multiple malfunctions," it makes me wonder why we're even using B1-B's in the Afghanistan conflict, after having achieved extreme air superiority. As this article points out, the annual budget to maintain all 94 of our B-52's is about $250 million, while the cost of a new B1-B is $280 million [msnbc.com]. B1-Bs are faster, can fly lower, avoid radar better, and have better electronic counter-measures [fas.org], but the biggest cause of loss to our bombers crashing isn't speed, altitude, radar detection, or anti-aircraft missiles, it's that they break [fas.org]! It's hard to say what the cost would be to build new B-52s, since the last active B-52 was built in 1962, but it would sure be cheaper than the $280 million each for B1-Bs.
    • B1-Bs are faster, can fly lower, avoid radar better, and have better electronic counter-measures, but the biggest cause of loss to our bombers crashing isn't speed, altitude, radar detection, or anti-aircraft missiles, it's that they break!

      Well, that sort of follows, doesn't it? If you greatly reduce the number of losses due to problesm relating to speed, altitude, radar detection, and anti-aircraft missiles, of course the biggest cause of loss is going to be breakage. Process of elimination, and all that.

      Now, if we were losing more money (and people, that's important) invested B1-B bombers to breakage than we were money invested in B-52 bombers to all of those other factors, it could make more sense to scrap the B1-B and revert to B-52 production.

      But you also have to factor in the building cost of the B-52 and the maintenance cost of the B1-B, which you haven't. :)

    • we CANT build more. jsut like we cant build another Saturn V rocket. the men that know how and the abilities are gone, long gone. that 22mill B-52 will cost 900Billion to recreate today. Plus the engineers that understand concepts and designs from back then are gone, and the new ones cant do it, that is proved through what we have today.... BIG government that said we want THIS and we want it now or else is what gave us the masterpieces of engineering and sadly we'll never see anything as masterful in our lifetimes. and if anyone mentions a segway I'll puke all over this place.
  • Ok, there have been a lot of comments like "if it's not broken, don't fix it". There is something to be said for that, and maybe it's a good decision in this case.

    However an argument can be made to update stuff regularly. Technology moves along at a rapid pace, and supporting old products can be a challenge. In this particular case support could mean spare parts, training etc. There might be certain elements which were standard when the plane was designed, but are hard to get today.

    Let's say you had a computer still using tubes - difficult to get today, maybe there's only one company left which makes them, so you might end up with something which is more expensive today then when the computer was designed.

    Similarly you'd find it hard to get people who still want to learn how to maintain or operate a tube-based computer, they'd know that they'd learn skills which would have little market value.

    The aeroplane industry moves a lot slower now than it did, and certainly a lot slower than IT. So probably their decision was correct. I do think though that sometimes there are reasons to fix things, even if they aren't broken (yet). :)

    • There's a very good reason for military aircraft to use tubes. When a Soviet pilot defected back in the 80s with his Mig-25 (May have been an Su-25, I forget exactly), the US Gov't pulled it apart and found it full of vacuum tubes.. They started to laugh at the archaic technology until one bright technician pointed out that tube systems aren't vulnerable to EMP.

    • Re:If it's not broke... (Score:2, Informative)

      by ZPO ( 465615 )
      Yes and no. The B-52s (probably G and H models) now flying are mostly the same airframe that entered service back in 1962. I would hazard a guess that from an avionics and weapons targetting perspective they are very different beasties.

      What was likely once an analog POI computer is now a digital unit. Inertial navigation has been augmented with GPS. The original HF/VHF/UHF radio suites have probably been updated to include a limited digital messaging capability over those means. You could relatively easily add UHF satellite capabilities, but I don't recall hearing of any such upgrades.

      The 70K lbs payload is today likely up to 100-1400 500lb GP or cluster munitions. When you start thinking about all that ordanance falling on your head it can get quite scary.

      It's a big ugly bomb truck. Where we own the skies and have adequately supressed SAMs it works great. The airframe may be the same, but as long as we keep upgrading the avionics and weapons delivery systems there is no reason it can't keep flying until 2050.

  • Sick (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward

    My dick just gets bigger and bigger as I think about these weapons of war. Let's see the whole planet bombed to hell! Yeah, let's!

    Yes, it's just an airplane but really... from a European point of view the US media is becoming more and more militaristic each day, with Great Britain blowing into the horn as much as they can. Hopefully the US and GB won't turn into the Nazi Germany and 1940's Japan.

    • Re:Thick (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nyquist_theorem ( 262542 )
      Had this not been miraculously modded up into the realm of positive numbers, I would have continued to ignore it. However, given that the weirdos with spare points and an antiwar axe to grind deem, by their positive moderation, your comment somehow relevant to the original article, I will respond (nee bite).

      (If the original AC post, entitled "Sick", has since been appropriately re-modded into oblivion, Slashdot folks can move right along to the next post, as there's nothing to see here.)

      First, we're not all Americans on here, you know - I would hardly call Slashdot "US media" (Fastcompany, I'll acknowledge, is as US as it comes this side of Guns and Ammo). Second, if you were paying attention in history class you'd know that, by most interpretations, there wouldn't be an english-speaking Great Britain today if it weren't for the Americans and Canadians that rolled up onto the shores of Normandy. (Granted the Soviets also had a lot to do with it, but the history books most post-war Brits undoubtedly favoured the American influence over the Soviet influence on the matter. Save the debate for later.)

      The reality of the matter is that there are certain times where force, and/or the threat of force, absolutely MUST be used in the name of peace and saving lives. Asking an advancing army nicely doesn't always work. [byu.edu] I think that much is pretty obvious to anyone over three apples high.

      As for the B52s in question, you (as a war hater) should be able to grasp that preserving B52s is GOOD for those with your mentality, for three simple reasons.

      #1 - It's good for the environment to reduce, reuse and recycle, right? Better to use what we have already than build new bombers.

      #2 - B52s are hardly high-tech. Keeping them around means less likelihood of an arms race based on either a) more of the planes that replace them (B1-B/B2 etc) or b)the search for alternative delivery mechanisms (ICBM / space laser / rail-gun / death ray).

      YOU of all people should be THANKFUL that B52s are being kept instead of scrapped for newer, scarier war technologies - better the smoky, subsonic devil you know than the one you don't. Let me know if you're still having trouble with this concept.

      #3 - Economics. Undoubtedly, you're not a big fan of your tax money going to defence. I know, I know, you're not an American, but from UN dues to NATO dues to peacekeeper participation, I'd guess your country foots some of the bill somewhere down the line. And besides, would you rather have the best scientists and engineers in the world working on a B52 replacement, or working on more peaceful things?

      So yes, tell me again how you disapprove of this article and the news that B52s are going to be kept online for the next fourty years.

      Last little bit, the US military is becoming MORE militaristic than it was in, say, the 1980s? Or in the 1960s, when Walt Disney submitted each of his films to the FBI for editing? [workopolis.com] Or during WWII, when major pro-war Hollywood films were made entirely with government grants? Where-ya-been? Now, more than ever (which admittedly isn't saying much), US media is quasi-objective about what its government and military are doing. If you're a Western European, you're shallow for not recognizing that your country's freedom is in no small way connected to Americans. If you're an Eastern European, you are a hypocrite for complaining about the actions of American media when your own (former soviet) media are so blind to what goes on in Chechnya [bbc.co.uk] and if you are neither Eastern European nor Western European, how in heck are you able to offer a "European point of view"?

      Sheesh.

      Enjoy your 16th birthday... and the freedom that surrounds it.
    • Case in point - the wars in Yugoslavia in the 90s. European powers stood by and watched as one of their neighbors ripped itself apart and committed a fair number of atrocities in the process.

      Sure, there is something to be said for being nonmilitaristic, but this was sheer impotence and cowardice, and countless innocents lost their lives because the powers of the EU refused to engage the situation.

      So the US rightly disregarded European input on defense matters from that point forward.

      The EU could be a powerful force for Western values (values that originated in Europe) and moderation, but instead their inaction has forced the US to oversee its defense and shape its foreign policy for it.

  • Sounds like Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog [amazon.com]

    The B52 is still kicking around because it just works. It's carrying massive amounts of conventional weaponry and not costing a billion dollars each just to purchase. It's relatively low maintainance, easy to maintain, and incredibly durable.

    The B2, and to a lesser extent, the B1-B, is built to fight a war that we probably won't see for a long, long time - high-altitude strategic attacks. Granted, the B-52 was as well, but which one has adapted better to the role that needs to be played in the current theater? The B1 and B2 were designed to avoid taking hits with their speed (B1) and stealth (B1 and B2) - if they got hit by moderate AA fire, they'd be on the ground. The B-52 takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

  • Funny (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cyclone66 ( 217347 )
    "The Air Force remains so enthusiastic about its 40-year-old bombers that it has publicly declared that the B-52 will continue to be a crucial element of the nation's war-fighting ability for another 40 years -- until 2040. "

    In 40 years, new technology may make the b-52 obsolete so in 2040, they'll probably be laughing at the statement above.

    The only reason it is still in use is because the USA has fought countries with limited resources after WW2. Vietnam (technically this goes with the Cold War), Iraq, Afghanistan. If (when..) they go to war with China, both countries have the resources for an arms race, producing new Anti aircraft defences and possibly making the B-52 obsolete.
  • Another example of good engineering is the P3 [geocities.com], which is based on the Lockheed Electra L-188. The Lockheed Electra had several well publicized crashes when introduced into passenger service. Those problems were fixed and the Electra and its offspring have been flying for the last 40 years. I see P3s flying by my home on a regular basis. Both the U.S. Navy and the RAF have attempted to replace the P3 with more "modern" aircraft, without success. The U.S. Navy aircraft that was recently clipped by a Chinese fighter was a special version of the P3. It may be slow and ugly, but it keeps on going and going.
    • The C-130 is another example, although those are still in production, so there are new ones still rolling off the assembly lines. (The C-130 is about the same age as the BUFF, and is known as the L100 in civilian circles)

      Trivia point - the engines on the C-130 and the P-3 are identical, but are mounted upside down on one of them. Which one is upside down depends on which maintenance crew you ask... a P3 crew will tell you they're upside down on the Herc. a C-130 crew will tell you the Orion has them upside down.
  • The Douglass DC-3 was rolled out [centercomp.com] in 1935 and is still flying today. It is widely used by "bush" airlines flying in third world countries. They've been crashing lately but I suspect that is more due to poor maintainence than bad design.
    • the DC-3, however, is not in military service anymore. It's a pretty rugged plane, though. I have seen some of them retrofitted with turboprop engines, too.

      Top-notch maintenance is the reason the BUFF still flies. It's the one area the USAF has been consistently good at. Now, if only Congress would give them enough money for spare parts.
  • They are definitely out of the running in 2040, because by then they (and other planes, cars and industry) will have used up the last bit of fossil fuels on this earth. So it couldn't even fly longer even it they wanted to.

  • carpet bombing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @05:27PM (#2712222)
    Carpet bombing is not the same as a longstick.

    The emotive term carpet bombing is used by the media to conjure up images of indescriminate widespread destruction. A single bomber cannot carpet bomb. The expression was coined during WWII when waves of bombers would beging to bomb a target area and over the course of many planes dropping bombs, perhaps over hours, the destructive wave would roll forward like a carpet. It was so predictable that ultimately the first bomber would drop it's bombs short of the target in anticipation that the carpet bombing would eventually roll over the target area guaranteeing it's destruction.

    So, longstick is NOT carpet bombing. It is pretty accurate, and supplemented with JDAMS & paveway guided bombs, it is even precise.

    So, when you think you're being sophisticated and circumventing US propaganda calling this carpet bombing, you are infact misrepresenting what it is, and propagating a lie.
  • It is effective, but it is UGLY (and that's an understatement).

    It is so ugly that words cannot convey the meaning: it is as ugly as the "bombing" of the world trade center..
    Excuse me not to get so excited about a plane designed for carpet bombing..

    Carpet bombing is IMPRECISE so there are many "colateral damages", an military term for innocent civilians ie also innocent children, women and men mutilated and killed..

  • Russians have something similar: Tu-95 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @06:05PM (#2712352)
    What's interesting is that the Russians have a bomber that is still in service with their Air Force thanks to continual equipment upgrades and new weapon systems: the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber.

    First flown a few years after the B-52's first flight, the Tu-95 has proven to be a very reliable platform with several different variants that can drop gravity bombs, various types of large cruise missiles, carry electronic warfare equipment and specially-made to carry the AS-15 Kent cruise missile. And the Russian Air Force today still has a good number of them in service.
  • Relatively speaking that is. A lot of the discussion going on seems to assume that the planes are still running all of their original systems. To quote the article: "...ribs, fuselage, wings -- is original equipment. It's the systems, from air-conditioning to weapons, that are new"

    "A defensive-weapons officer, a navigator, or a bombardier from that era, [1960's] on the other hand, would very likely have no idea how to operate the equipment at his old station."

    In other words, all those systems have been replaced, or at least upgraded.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.

Close