Cold War Aviation Porn
- Thread starter JuanTwoThree
- Start date
Lancman
Well-Known Member
Or Das Erste depending on which way you're travelling.It’s the vierte bridge.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
This just popped up on Facebook.
Delivering the Avro Blue Steel stand-off nuclear bomb from storage to the awaiting Avro Vulcan B.2A. A tractor pulls alongside preparing a 'dolly' to take the bomb to the aircraft. This image was taken at RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire, home of No 617 Squadron. As was procedure an RAF Police dog handler and his 'Air Dog' guard the aircraft and ordnance.
Delivering the Avro Blue Steel stand-off nuclear bomb from storage to the awaiting Avro Vulcan B.2A. A tractor pulls alongside preparing a 'dolly' to take the bomb to the aircraft. This image was taken at RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire, home of No 617 Squadron. As was procedure an RAF Police dog handler and his 'Air Dog' guard the aircraft and ordnance.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
[Updated] That time a USAF B-52 Strategic Bomber did a fly-by below the flight deck of USS Ranger Aircraft Carrier - The Aviation Geek Club
That time a USAF B-52 Strategic Bomber did a fly-by below the flight deck of USS Ranger Aircraft Carrier
theaviationgeekclub.com
B-52 Pilot: “Ranger, we’re 5 miles out.”
USS Ranger: “We do not have visual…”
B-52 Pilot: “Look down”
Taken in the spring of 1990 in the Persian Gulf, the impressive pictures in this post feature U.S. Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers buzzing USS Ranger (CV-61) aircraft carrier.
The story went as follows.
Two B-52s called the USS Ranger and asked if they could do a fly-by, and the carrier air controller said yes.
When the B-52s reported they were 9 kilometers out, the carrier controller said he didn’t see them. The B-52s told the carrier folks to look down.
B-52 Pilot: “Ranger, we’re 5 miles out.”
USS Ranger: “We do not have visual…”
B-52 Pilot: “Look down”
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I get the immense cost of the B2/ B21 constraints the number of frames the USAF feel can have in their fleet. But given how extremely accurate bombs have become since the days of the B52, whenever the US is conducting missions in theatres where they have achieved air superiority and stealth is not a requirement, what kind of indispensable job does this bird do that a B1 couldn’t take care of even if might take additional sorties?
I am sure the 52 has a larger payload capacity, but it still feels to me a platform best suited for the days of unguided carpet bombing. Even if it has been modified to carry precision ordnance and can carry a few more than the Lancer, I struggle to imagine how it is not substantially more expensive to maintain a fleet of 60-year old oversized mammoths to deliver smart bombs than sticking to a single non-stealth bomber type.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Probably maintenance providers in marginal constituencies?
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Wiki says
Although the USAF previously planned to operate the B-2 until 2058, the FY 2019 budget moved up its retirement to "no later than 2032". It also moved the retirement of the B-1 to 2036 while extending the B-52's service life into the 2050s, because the B-52 has lower maintenance costs, versatile conventional payload, and the ability to carry nuclear cruise missiles (which the B-1 is treaty-prohibited from doing). The decision to retire the B-2 early was made because the small fleet of 20 is considered too expensive per plane to retain, with its position as a stealth bomber being taken over with the introduction of the B-21 Raider starting in the mid-2020s.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
The B-52 has a very large amount of fatigue life remaining compared to the B-1. It was designed in the 1940s when there were simply no computational techniques, finite element analysis, etc. so they couldn't build it "just" strong enough to meet the anticipated lifespan. It was, probably inadvertently and particularly the wings, massively overbuilt having orders of magnitude more fatigue life than the design called for. The B-1 is running out of wing spar fatigue and the tooling to build them no longer exists even if it were financially viable to replace them, which it probably isn't.
So the B-52 is versatile with a ton of room in the fuselage making it easy to add upgrades and has tens of thousands of hours of fatigue life left making it worth it to re-engine them. There are also a lot of them meaning the fleet has economies of scale.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
Sadist perverts
ska invita
back on the other side
Are you 8 years old?
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Forgot to say... the B-1B has a massive payload that outstrips the B-52. 34 tons internal and 22 tons external! This will be improved with the re-engined B-52J.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Best support act Ruddy Yurts ever had.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Weird. A Victor with all of its engines on fire and a tandem cockpit.
