|
|
Post by Disgusted-Daily on Jul 21, 2008 13:32:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Jul 21, 2008 19:17:13 GMT -5
Many people don't realize to get the fighting force we can be so proud of today has cost almost the same amount of lives training yearly through the 80's and 90's almost equal to the yearly loses we've seen in Iraq. The extreme sacrifice can happen anytime regardless of any shots being fired. May God look over the B-52 crew and their families and God Bless the United States Air Force and all others in the Armed Forces including th US Coast Guard. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 22, 2008 7:36:48 GMT -5
I would not be surprised if the aircraft that crashed was formerly assigned to Griffiss. Our B-52 H models went to Barksdale and to Minot.
I hope that the crew was able to "punch out" safely, but it doesn't look promising. The crewmembers in the lower level compartments on a B-52, eject through hatches in the bottom of the aircraft and are jettisoned downward. If they are not flying quite high, those going out the bottom don't stand a chance.
If they had ejected safely, it is my thought that they would have located them floating in their life rafts by now. I will pray for the crew and for their families. When I was a crash firefighter at Griffiss, I rode the rescue truck for several years. We became acquainted with most of the pilots and air crews through constant practice rescue drills (called egress drills). I always have had a lot of respect for the crews of the "Heavy's" They had to be of special fortitude to be able to endure the long flights possible with the huge airplane and it's long range.
They actually flew missions over the gulf during the 1991 gulf war, and took off and returned to Griffiss. THAT makes for a long day at work!
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jul 22, 2008 13:09:06 GMT -5
clip im surprised that any of em can still fly aren't they pushing 60 ? the effective life of a civilian air liner was about 30...you cant beat their effectiveness or fearsomeness but shouldnt some new ones be built or actually replaced by something new? i dont thin the b1 or 2s filled the shoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Jul 22, 2008 14:36:10 GMT -5
clip im surprised that any of em can still fly aren't they pushing 60 ? the effective life of a civilian air liner was about 30...you cant beat their effectiveness or fearsomeness but shouldnt some new ones be built or actually replaced by something new? i dont thin the b1 or 2s filled the shoes. The B-52H/G's were the last line build of the B-52 somewhere in the early 60's. So the airframes aren't 60 but they're still 40 and shows the engineering capability of the USA. |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jul 22, 2008 15:11:59 GMT -5
younger than i thought shows also the incredible maintenance capability of the mechanics
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jul 22, 2008 18:26:46 GMT -5
In the mid-9o's the "plan" for B-52 replacement was to fly them until they were 70. These are the same people who "planned" the space shuttle replacement program.
Considering when they were designed, the B-52 has to be the most amazing machine ever engineered.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 22, 2008 19:10:33 GMT -5
I remember being pretty impressed by what Stephen Budiansky had to say in "Air Power" about this mammoth machine. It was the 100,000 pound payload bomber Curtis LeMay fought so hard for. In fact, since the Russians knew they didn't have the money to match it, they kicked their ICBM program into higher gear. When they found they couldn't master the re-entry of an atomic warhead without sufficient heat shields, one of their scientists suggested testing the rocket (which was much more powerful than any the US had at the time) by simply letting the payload go into space and putting a satellite in orbit. Thus Sputnik was born. (Info from Matthew Brzezinski's "Red Moon Rising," 2007.
Nations realized that atomic bombs delivered by ICBM would be the cheapest way to win (totally) a war, and that if they tried to fight WW3 as they had WW2, the could never afford it.
Sorry I got off topic, but it's fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Jul 23, 2008 6:43:53 GMT -5
In the mid-9o's the "plan" for B-52 replacement was to fly them until they were 70. These are the same people who "planned" the space shuttle replacement program. Considering when they were designed, the B-52 has to be the most amazing machine ever engineered. You nailed it right on the head there- I wonder if they will ever replace them? |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 23, 2008 7:46:29 GMT -5
It should be noted that these aircraft have not simply flown for years and years with a tired old 1950's vintage airframe. The Air Force has what they call "depot overhaul" programs. The aircraft are taken out of service, torn down to "skin and bones", and rebuilt. Any part of the aircraft that is subjected to metal fatigue is replaced or reinforced, and all the latest updates in electronics, hydraulics, and weapon systems are installed. All the pumps, servos, hoses, cables, and such items are replaced. It then comes back into service, as "good as new", and with all the questionable wear items replaced. Wing roots, and tail sections and all attachments and fasteners are looked at and evaluated. They are x-rayed, and tested by every conceivable means to insure that the safety of the crew and the general public are protected from metal failure, and crashes.
Bottom line, the aircraft is only as old as it's last "depot overhaul."
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 23, 2008 15:11:16 GMT -5
Probably can't say that for many (if not all) passenger airliners.
|
|
