60 years of dropping bombs on America's enemies with little effect
December 9, 2015 12:31 PM Subscribe
Ground crews scouring the aging frames for rust often find graffiti in hidden nooks by previous generations — a recent discovery, perhaps commenting on the age of the planes, featured primitive cave-style animal paintings.-- With at least one pilot whose father and grandfather also flew it, the B-52, Big Ugly Flying F...ellow is now in its sixtieth year of active service.
The B52 does one thing, really, really well, drop a shitload of bombs at global range. That's still a core tenet of American foreign and military policy, effective or not, and the B52 Just Works at it, especially because it's only really used in the modern era to drop bombs on targets that can't fight back against it. And replacing it is really, really expensive and subject to infighting and mission creep.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:01 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:01 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Given their track record, the LRSB will probably be unmanned*, and on unveiling day will take off, become self-aware and promptly slam itself into the ground when it realizes its monstrous purpose.
* Is there an ungendered version of this yet?
posted by indubitable at 1:04 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
* Is there an ungendered version of this yet?
posted by indubitable at 1:04 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Autonomous?
posted by Small Dollar at 1:12 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 1:12 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Uncrewed?
posted by nathan_teske at 1:13 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nathan_teske at 1:13 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
...and the B-52's retirement is pushed out to 2060 while the Air Force works on its next cutting edge boondoggle.
posted by indubitable at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2015
posted by indubitable at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2015
"We're ready, we're hungry, we're eager to be in the fight."
With the recent civilian casualties in Syria, that statement seems perverse. As Syrians describe life in Raqqa as like being in prison, I feel sick inside for my country and theirs, when I read vomitous, brainless prose like this.
posted by Oyéah at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
With the recent civilian casualties in Syria, that statement seems perverse. As Syrians describe life in Raqqa as like being in prison, I feel sick inside for my country and theirs, when I read vomitous, brainless prose like this.
posted by Oyéah at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
How is it that the wings aren't falling off these things from metal fatigue?
posted by leotrotsky at 1:34 PM on December 9, 2015
posted by leotrotsky at 1:34 PM on December 9, 2015
"Unwomanned." Actually, I go with "uncrewed" these days--NASA seems to be using it as well (for example).
posted by jjwiseman at 1:35 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jjwiseman at 1:35 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Autonomous works, as does uncrewed. I usually rework the sentence to avoid it.
Sagan had some thoughts on it:
Finding new language for space missions that fly without humans
posted by zamboni at 1:39 PM on December 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Sagan had some thoughts on it:
Since women astronauts and cosmonauts of several nations have flown in space,The Planetary Society's Lackdawalla on current usage:mannedis just flat-out incorrect. I've attempted to find an alternative to this widely used term, coined in a more unselfconsciously sexist age. I triedcrewedfor a while, but in spoken language it lends itself to misunderstanding.Piloteddoesn't work, because even commercial airplanes have robot pilots.Manned and womannedis just, but unwieldy. Perhaps the best compromise ishuman,which permits us to distinguish crisply between human and robotic missions. But every now and then, I findhumannot quite working, and to my dismay "manned" slips back in.
Finding new language for space missions that fly without humans
posted by zamboni at 1:39 PM on December 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
entitied?
posted by Confess, Fletch at 1:49 PM on December 9, 2015
posted by Confess, Fletch at 1:49 PM on December 9, 2015
meatsack-free
posted by indubitable at 1:51 PM on December 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:51 PM on December 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
Autonomous doesn't include the case where the aircraft is remotely operated. Uncrewed rolls off the tongue like a bag of rocks. The field is open for good suggestions.
posted by cardboard at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by cardboard at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
How is it that the wings aren't falling off these things from metal fatigue?
Phased depot maintenance. I don't know what the B-52's schedule looks like, but the plane I work on, every seven years or so they are sent to Tinker AFB, torn down to the studs, and built back up again. They're arguably not the same airplanes after that kind of work. There are significant, invasive inspections of all structural members, skin panels, anything that might carry a load. New parts are fabricated as needed.
Certain parts, like much of the wing box, can't really be removed. Very exacting inspections are performed here to check on the progress of fatigue. This data is fed in to a database that can provide updated information about whether the original service life predictions are still holding up. Considering the age of these planes, those calculations were incredibly conservative so it's been born out that the planes can fly longer than originally expected.
Keep in mind, "service life" isn't a hard-stop number. Strictly speaking, "end of life" is just when it gets more expensive to maintain the plane than it would be to buy a brand new one. And considering how giant defense acquisition programs are handled, is it any wonder that those service life numbers keep going up?
posted by backseatpilot at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
Phased depot maintenance. I don't know what the B-52's schedule looks like, but the plane I work on, every seven years or so they are sent to Tinker AFB, torn down to the studs, and built back up again. They're arguably not the same airplanes after that kind of work. There are significant, invasive inspections of all structural members, skin panels, anything that might carry a load. New parts are fabricated as needed.
Certain parts, like much of the wing box, can't really be removed. Very exacting inspections are performed here to check on the progress of fatigue. This data is fed in to a database that can provide updated information about whether the original service life predictions are still holding up. Considering the age of these planes, those calculations were incredibly conservative so it's been born out that the planes can fly longer than originally expected.
Keep in mind, "service life" isn't a hard-stop number. Strictly speaking, "end of life" is just when it gets more expensive to maintain the plane than it would be to buy a brand new one. And considering how giant defense acquisition programs are handled, is it any wonder that those service life numbers keep going up?
posted by backseatpilot at 1:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
Well, we'd probably have a B-52 replacement if they actually tried to design a replacement to do the things that we actually use the B-52 for, rather than trying to shoehorn a bomber into whatever the new hot technology is.
posted by ckape at 1:55 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 1:55 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
rather than trying to shoehorn a bomber into whatever the new hot technology is.
The new Uber Bomber's gonna knock your socks off. It's so disruptive!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 1:57 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
The new Uber Bomber's gonna knock your socks off. It's so disruptive!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 1:57 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, fun fact - the total depot maintenance process takes around 3-4 months if I remember correctly. If they left the planes on their landing gear, the tires would develop flat spots within a couple days. So, rather than rotating the wheels every couple days, they put the plane up on enormous jack stands and just remove the landing gear.
posted by backseatpilot at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by backseatpilot at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Time lapse of depot maintenance on a U2.
posted by kiltedtaco at 2:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kiltedtaco at 2:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Officially, the B-52 is called the Stratofortress
Why not just switch to a Telefortress?
posted by thelonius at 2:07 PM on December 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
Why not just switch to a Telefortress?
posted by thelonius at 2:07 PM on December 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
Autonomous doesn't include the case where the aircraft is remotely operated. Uncrewed rolls off the tongue like a bag of rocks. The field is open for good suggestions.
Robot.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:13 PM on December 9, 2015
Robot.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:13 PM on December 9, 2015
The new Uber Bomber
"Ah, this is your captain speaking. We're gonna be slightly delayed coming into Denver this morning. My Uber Air app has just informed me that we've been asked to make a detour to, ahh, neutralize some rebel elements in the Lawless Radioactive Zones of Wyoming. Flight attendants will be coming around to deliver ordnance to those of you in the emergency exit rows. Those doors will be opening juuust a crack momentarily, and we do apologize for any excess air movement about the cabin today. You folks by the door, if you can hold your device out the window, and when you see the green light, just let that tether fly. Once I get a confirmed five-star rating from the folks at Uber/USAF command, we'll be back on our way to Denver, where it is 130 degrees and sunny. We know you have no other choice for air travel, but in any case we do appreciate you choosing United Airlines. Fly the friendly skies."
posted by officer_fred at 2:16 PM on December 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Ah, this is your captain speaking. We're gonna be slightly delayed coming into Denver this morning. My Uber Air app has just informed me that we've been asked to make a detour to, ahh, neutralize some rebel elements in the Lawless Radioactive Zones of Wyoming. Flight attendants will be coming around to deliver ordnance to those of you in the emergency exit rows. Those doors will be opening juuust a crack momentarily, and we do apologize for any excess air movement about the cabin today. You folks by the door, if you can hold your device out the window, and when you see the green light, just let that tether fly. Once I get a confirmed five-star rating from the folks at Uber/USAF command, we'll be back on our way to Denver, where it is 130 degrees and sunny. We know you have no other choice for air travel, but in any case we do appreciate you choosing United Airlines. Fly the friendly skies."
posted by officer_fred at 2:16 PM on December 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
The last blocks of the B52 flying for 80 years is actually not that surprising. Plenty of commercial jet aircraft are living 40 years with many more take-offs and landings (cycles) per year and less maintenance.
The reason we don't see more 30, 40 and 50 year old civilian aircraft flying along side 55 year old B52s is because the noise levels, routine maintenance costs, fuel costs, and crew costs (older planes typically have 3-person cockpits) are all so much higher than those of newer civilian aircraft that it's usually cheaper to buy a new aircraft and scrap the old.
This was facilitated by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Airbus being devoted to an incremental improvement model for their core aircraft categories. The newest generation of 737s that will start to roll out of the factories in Seattle in a couple of years are simply just the last small step in an evolution that began with the 707 more than 60 years ago.
Unlike civil aviation, the Air Force was so fixated on step-change advances in bomber technology that never got around to budgeting for a "next generation" B-52 replacement, the 777-300ER for its 747, if you will. Instead, it focused on the B1 and then B2 for the strategic mission, and on multi-role fighters-bombers on the tactical role.
As a result, having to choose between having nothing, and having a massively expensive to operate and massively unstealthy B52 to fly, it flies the B52. This will work for as long as it has no combat opponents who can sustain sophisticated anti-aircraft defense or air-to-air interception, and then it will stop working very quickly indeed.
posted by MattD at 2:42 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
The reason we don't see more 30, 40 and 50 year old civilian aircraft flying along side 55 year old B52s is because the noise levels, routine maintenance costs, fuel costs, and crew costs (older planes typically have 3-person cockpits) are all so much higher than those of newer civilian aircraft that it's usually cheaper to buy a new aircraft and scrap the old.
This was facilitated by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Airbus being devoted to an incremental improvement model for their core aircraft categories. The newest generation of 737s that will start to roll out of the factories in Seattle in a couple of years are simply just the last small step in an evolution that began with the 707 more than 60 years ago.
Unlike civil aviation, the Air Force was so fixated on step-change advances in bomber technology that never got around to budgeting for a "next generation" B-52 replacement, the 777-300ER for its 747, if you will. Instead, it focused on the B1 and then B2 for the strategic mission, and on multi-role fighters-bombers on the tactical role.
As a result, having to choose between having nothing, and having a massively expensive to operate and massively unstealthy B52 to fly, it flies the B52. This will work for as long as it has no combat opponents who can sustain sophisticated anti-aircraft defense or air-to-air interception, and then it will stop working very quickly indeed.
posted by MattD at 2:42 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
How is it that the wings aren't falling off these things from metal fatigue?
Shorter Backseatpilot: Because even though they are now 37 times older that the universe itself, every part has been replaced at least 50 times, Ship of Theseus style.
That is, except for all the diodes down the port side.
Roses are red
Violets are blue . . .
posted by Herodios at 3:16 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Shorter Backseatpilot: Because even though they are now 37 times older that the universe itself, every part has been replaced at least 50 times, Ship of Theseus style.
That is, except for all the diodes down the port side.
Roses are red
Violets are blue . . .
posted by Herodios at 3:16 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
You'd have to be crazy to field strategic bombers from the 50s in this day and age, much less expect to keep operating them for another 25 years, which is why no one else does that.
posted by ckape at 3:20 PM on December 9, 2015
posted by ckape at 3:20 PM on December 9, 2015
I can't believe what an unrepentant SJW Sagan was, now I'm disavowing the Big Bang and stuff
posted by aydeejones at 3:30 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by aydeejones at 3:30 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Even as the bombers were being assembled, defense officials were planning their replacement, but each plan was undone by its own complexity. First was a nuclear-powered bomber able to stay aloft for weeks (too radioactive), then the supersonic B-58 with dartlike wings (kept crashing), and then the even faster B-70 (spewed highly toxic exhaust).
oh, cold war~ :-3
posted by Sebmojo at 3:44 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
oh, cold war~ :-3
posted by Sebmojo at 3:44 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
backseatpilot: "Strictly speaking, "end of life" is just when it gets more expensive to maintain the plane than it would be to buy a brand new one."
While it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, it's worth nothing that small aircraft have an incredibly long lifespan when maintained correctly. At a certain point, the maintenance is just routine -- we've long since past the point where we know exactly what needs to be maintained/replaced/inspected on a B-52, and how often. It's nothing like maintaining a car.
I'm assuming that the B-52's fuselage isn't pressurized, which probably also helps with some of the metal fatigue.
Airlines don't generally retire old planes because they're unsafe, or even more expensive to maintain. Fuel economy tends to drive those decisions, and that's a much lower priority for the military, for better or for worse. (As a data point, new 737 claims to cut fuel consumption by something like 20%, which is ridiculously impressive, considering that we've already made a lot of substantial improvements. Boeing are going to sell a lot of them.)
Really, the B-52 is a pretty good lesson in "don't fix what isn't broken".
posted by schmod at 4:00 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
While it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, it's worth nothing that small aircraft have an incredibly long lifespan when maintained correctly. At a certain point, the maintenance is just routine -- we've long since past the point where we know exactly what needs to be maintained/replaced/inspected on a B-52, and how often. It's nothing like maintaining a car.
I'm assuming that the B-52's fuselage isn't pressurized, which probably also helps with some of the metal fatigue.
Airlines don't generally retire old planes because they're unsafe, or even more expensive to maintain. Fuel economy tends to drive those decisions, and that's a much lower priority for the military, for better or for worse. (As a data point, new 737 claims to cut fuel consumption by something like 20%, which is ridiculously impressive, considering that we've already made a lot of substantial improvements. Boeing are going to sell a lot of them.)
Really, the B-52 is a pretty good lesson in "don't fix what isn't broken".
posted by schmod at 4:00 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pretty amazing how effective high altitude air defense anti-proliferation measures have been.
posted by grubby at 4:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by grubby at 4:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
zamboni: "Autonomous works, as does uncrewed. I usually rework the sentence to avoid it.
Sagan had some thoughts on it"
It's funny, how I can pretty much visualize(?) any of Sagan's quotes in his voice, without really even making a conscious effort to do so...
posted by schmod at 4:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sagan had some thoughts on it"
It's funny, how I can pretty much visualize(?) any of Sagan's quotes in his voice, without really even making a conscious effort to do so...
posted by schmod at 4:02 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unpersoned
Unpeopled
Unhelmed
Uncrewed
Crewless
Crewfree
No-Crew
Oh-Crewed
Bloodless
Meatless
Brainless
No-Bodied
No-Souled
No-Minded
Distant-Minded
Far-Minded
Thoughtless
Witless
Fearless
Remote Directed
Remoted
Drone
posted by notyou at 4:08 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Unpeopled
Unhelmed
Uncrewed
Crewless
Crewfree
No-Crew
Oh-Crewed
Bloodless
Meatless
Brainless
No-Bodied
No-Souled
No-Minded
Distant-Minded
Far-Minded
Thoughtless
Witless
Fearless
Remote Directed
Remoted
Drone
posted by notyou at 4:08 PM on December 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
BUFF is Big Ugly Fat F...
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:22 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:22 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Time lapse of depot maintenance on a U2 .
I had no idea they were still flying U2s. That has to make it second only to the 52 in terms of longevity of military aircraft. The U2 entered service in 1957.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:23 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I had no idea they were still flying U2s. That has to make it second only to the 52 in terms of longevity of military aircraft. The U2 entered service in 1957.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:23 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It just makes me think of Warhammer 40k. Like they are always using their blessed inherited weapons/vehicles, passed down from the ages.
posted by Iax at 4:32 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Iax at 4:32 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The U-2 is an old design, having first entered service only 2 years after the B-52 was introduced, but the youngest B-52 entered service in 1962, while the youngest U-2 was built in 1989.
From wikipedia: "In 2014, Lockheed Martin determined that the U-2S fleet has used only one-fifth of its design service life and is one of the youngest fleets within the USAF." "Although the RQ-4 is planned to replace the U-2 by 2019, Lockheed claims it can remain viable until 2050."
posted by jjwiseman at 5:15 PM on December 9, 2015
From wikipedia: "In 2014, Lockheed Martin determined that the U-2S fleet has used only one-fifth of its design service life and is one of the youngest fleets within the USAF." "Although the RQ-4 is planned to replace the U-2 by 2019, Lockheed claims it can remain viable until 2050."
posted by jjwiseman at 5:15 PM on December 9, 2015
BFDrone.
I thought the Stratofortress was the B-47, that thing with the glass underbelly for the gunner?
The U2? I"ll share this. Long ago, long ago I was on top of Mt. Lemmon outside of Tucson. I heard not a sound on this meadow. Suddenly a large shadow was crossing right at me, I looked up and a U2 was right overhead, not more than seven stories up. It had passed over a low ridge right in front of me. It was beautiful! I once drove on those runways at Davis Monthan where the graveyard is, in my little Triumph Spitfire. No one gave it a second thought back in the day.
posted by Oyéah at 5:18 PM on December 9, 2015
I thought the Stratofortress was the B-47, that thing with the glass underbelly for the gunner?
The U2? I"ll share this. Long ago, long ago I was on top of Mt. Lemmon outside of Tucson. I heard not a sound on this meadow. Suddenly a large shadow was crossing right at me, I looked up and a U2 was right overhead, not more than seven stories up. It had passed over a low ridge right in front of me. It was beautiful! I once drove on those runways at Davis Monthan where the graveyard is, in my little Triumph Spitfire. No one gave it a second thought back in the day.
posted by Oyéah at 5:18 PM on December 9, 2015
B-47 was the Stratojet.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:20 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:20 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Apparently one of the reasons the U2 is still flying is the new Globalhawks don't have all weather cameras that can penetrate cloud cover? What?
And because they're dirt cheap to operate opposed to the unmanned replacement.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:37 PM on December 9, 2015
And because they're dirt cheap to operate opposed to the unmanned replacement.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:37 PM on December 9, 2015
Given their track record, the LRSB will probably be unmanned*, and on unveiling day will take off, become self-aware and promptly slam itself into the ground when it realizes its monstrous purpose.
* Is there an ungendered version of this yet?
I think the word you're looking for is "Skynet", and its autodestructing would be the wildly optimistic outcome.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:56 PM on December 9, 2015
* Is there an ungendered version of this yet?
I think the word you're looking for is "Skynet", and its autodestructing would be the wildly optimistic outcome.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:56 PM on December 9, 2015
"Unoccupied"?
Or you could just say "autonomous" or "remotely piloted" as appropriate. Any unoccupied aircraft will be one or the other...
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:14 PM on December 9, 2015
Or you could just say "autonomous" or "remotely piloted" as appropriate. Any unoccupied aircraft will be one or the other...
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:14 PM on December 9, 2015
Slim Pickens
posted by clavdivs at 6:40 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 6:40 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pretty amazing how the US military is now totally unable to procure cheap, simple aircraft using existing technology and can only spend hundreds of billions of dollars on stupidly complicated planes that don't even work properly.
posted by miyabo at 6:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 6:53 PM on December 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Miyabo, that's because the top command is obsessed with "stealth" and "multi-mission".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:54 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:54 PM on December 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
My great-uncle was in the Air Force in the 50s and 60s, and was one of the original ground crews for the B-52 bombers. The story he tells is that one day he was approached by his sergeant and asked to do 8 pull-ups in quick succession. He did this easily, and soon afterwards was moved from somewhere near Pittsburgh to California. He said the pull-ups were because the ground crews had to jump up, grab hold of the engine, and pull themselves up to be able to visually inspect them for any problems before the engines were started. Since the plane had 8 engines, he needed to be able to do this eight times. He loved his time working on those planes, and according to him even worked on the B-52 shown to the left of this picture, at the Museum of Aviation in Warner Robins. He took us to the museum several times, and we went to several air shows at Robins Air Base next door.
Regarding the maintenance, he said that when a plane like that has depot maintenance it basically undergoes a frame-off restoration. Every nut and bolt is removed, tested, replaced, and tested again, and by the time the depot maintenance is over the plane has been taken apart and put back together. Then, the plane is taken out on the runway where it taxies out and then gets up to speed before the pilot slams on the brakes. Then plane is taken back to the hanger where all the nuts and bolts are tightened again. After that it finally does test flights before being returned back to service.
They're really huge planes to see up close. My dad was in the Army in Vietnam in the mid-60s, and recalls seeing them overhead on their way to do the thing they were designed for. I've only seen them fly a few times, and they look deceptively slow, almost like they're going to fall out of the sky.
posted by ralan at 7:10 PM on December 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Regarding the maintenance, he said that when a plane like that has depot maintenance it basically undergoes a frame-off restoration. Every nut and bolt is removed, tested, replaced, and tested again, and by the time the depot maintenance is over the plane has been taken apart and put back together. Then, the plane is taken out on the runway where it taxies out and then gets up to speed before the pilot slams on the brakes. Then plane is taken back to the hanger where all the nuts and bolts are tightened again. After that it finally does test flights before being returned back to service.
They're really huge planes to see up close. My dad was in the Army in Vietnam in the mid-60s, and recalls seeing them overhead on their way to do the thing they were designed for. I've only seen them fly a few times, and they look deceptively slow, almost like they're going to fall out of the sky.
posted by ralan at 7:10 PM on December 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Pretty amazing how the US military is now totally unable to procure cheap, simple aircraft using existing technology and can only spend hundreds of billions of dollars on stupidly complicated planes that don't even work properly.
If the military dudes stop buying technically-impressive-but-useless-white-elephants, the Military Industrial Complex will stop giving them cushy jobs when they retire
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:58 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
If the military dudes stop buying technically-impressive-but-useless-white-elephants, the Military Industrial Complex will stop giving them cushy jobs when they retire
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:58 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Pretty amazing how the US military is now totally unable to procure cheap, simple aircraft using existing technology and can only spend hundreds of billions of dollars on stupidly complicated planes that don't even work properly.
It's not unintentional. There's no realistic threat to American military power that would require numerous cheap and quickly produced airframes (or ships). A real confrontation with Russia or China would be over after 2 nuclear exchanges, and "regime change"/proxy wars don't require a 21st century military, and arguably can't even be "won" militarily anyway.
Most major military programs now are more about a battle between meeting the defense contractor's earnings calls than anything else, as military spending is the only politically acceptable form of government spending left.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:09 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's not unintentional. There's no realistic threat to American military power that would require numerous cheap and quickly produced airframes (or ships). A real confrontation with Russia or China would be over after 2 nuclear exchanges, and "regime change"/proxy wars don't require a 21st century military, and arguably can't even be "won" militarily anyway.
Most major military programs now are more about a battle between meeting the defense contractor's earnings calls than anything else, as military spending is the only politically acceptable form of government spending left.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:09 PM on December 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
From TFA:
"It was the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb, in the Bikini Islands in 1956, and laser-guided bombs in Afghanistan in 2006. It has outlived its replacement. And its replacement’s replacement. And its replacement’s replacement’s replacement."
What? The original Paveway laser guided bombs were used in Vietnam.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:43 PM on December 9, 2015
"It was the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb, in the Bikini Islands in 1956, and laser-guided bombs in Afghanistan in 2006. It has outlived its replacement. And its replacement’s replacement. And its replacement’s replacement’s replacement."
What? The original Paveway laser guided bombs were used in Vietnam.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:43 PM on December 9, 2015
I think if there were somehow a war that called for a B-52 but modern, and in large numbers, we'd see miracles performed and 747-based bomb truck prototypes within months. You can't build a vacation house on 747-but-with-bomb-bays revenue numbers and since MAD appears to permanently preclude such a war, it seems like going for that new house is something you can live with. The B-1 carries a heavier payload of weapons than the B-52, so it's not like the need for a heavy bomber isn't seen, but I really think there is an element that plays into it which is inspired by the notion that these weapons will never be used for their intended purpose and if they ever are, it won't matter because the Tridents will work or the Minutemen will work, etc. so why not just gold plate everything so everyone ends up fat and happy as part of the deal?
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:05 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:05 PM on December 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure that the "laser-guided bombs in Afghanistan in 2006" claim is not intended to be read as "it was the first to drop lgbs in Afghanistan" but rather "and also, it dropped LGBs in Afghanistan."
Come to think of it, it's not completely impossible that it was the first US airframe to drop laser-guided ordinance in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't know.
posted by Alterscape at 10:42 PM on December 9, 2015
Come to think of it, it's not completely impossible that it was the first US airframe to drop laser-guided ordinance in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't know.
posted by Alterscape at 10:42 PM on December 9, 2015
First was a nuclear-powered bomber able to stay aloft for weeks (too radioactive)
And if you think that sounds insufficiently insane, please read up on the details of the very Strossian Project Pluto: nuclear powered ramjet propelled cruise missiles supposed to fly around for months on end in a holding pattern spewing radioactive waste until the order comes to actually attack.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:38 PM on December 9, 2015
And if you think that sounds insufficiently insane, please read up on the details of the very Strossian Project Pluto: nuclear powered ramjet propelled cruise missiles supposed to fly around for months on end in a holding pattern spewing radioactive waste until the order comes to actually attack.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:38 PM on December 9, 2015
Uncrewed, unmanned, unwomaned. Whatever.
The latest over-used Orwellian word I'm hearing far too often is RADICALIZED.
George was so correct about the power of words. This word instills so much fear in the cowering Foxbots. And sickens many others.
posted by lometogo at 1:00 AM on December 10, 2015
The latest over-used Orwellian word I'm hearing far too often is RADICALIZED.
George was so correct about the power of words. This word instills so much fear in the cowering Foxbots. And sickens many others.
posted by lometogo at 1:00 AM on December 10, 2015
Come to think of it, it's not completely impossible that it was the first US airframe to drop laser-guided ordinance in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't know.
B-52s were part of the first wave of aircraft to hit targets in Afghanistan, at least, according to wiki.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:57 AM on December 10, 2015
B-52s were part of the first wave of aircraft to hit targets in Afghanistan, at least, according to wiki.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:57 AM on December 10, 2015
The reason we don't see more 30, 40 and 50 year old civilian aircraft flying along side 55 year old B52s is because the noise levels, routine maintenance costs, fuel costs, and crew costs (older planes typically have 3-person cockpits) are all so much higher than those of newer civilian aircraft that it's usually cheaper to buy a new aircraft and scrap the old.
And, as you alluded to, they see much fewer pressurization cycles. B52 don't take off and land multiple times a day every day they're not in maintenance. Intercontinetal airliners are averaging 2-3 takeoffs a day except for the longest routes, and local ones can hit 5-6 a day.
Indeed, the worst example was Aloha Airlines flight 243 which suffered a massive structural failure that killed one and injured 54. AHA 243 flew Honlulu to Hilo to Kauai and back, and this was the start of the 4th round trip. And, at FL240, the top of the front half of the cabin ripped off, killing a flight attendant who was standing in the aisle when she was ejected from the aircraft.
The aircraft did land successfully. It was clearly a failure from metal fatigue, but the A/C had be delivered new to Aloha and had over 35,000 flight hours, which at the time was acceptable, and it was 19 years old, which wasn't even remarkable.
What it also had was 89,680 flight cycles -- a takeoff, climb to altitude, and landing. That was way more than the plane could take, but maintenance didn't catch it because they were going to a D check at 40,000 hours, and not even watching cycles. It was also an early version of the 737-200, they changed the fuselage assembly a bit to include an extra member at each joint at A/C #291.
Now? A 737-200 #1-291 is limited to 34,000 hours *or* 34,000 cycles.
posted by eriko at 4:52 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, as you alluded to, they see much fewer pressurization cycles. B52 don't take off and land multiple times a day every day they're not in maintenance. Intercontinetal airliners are averaging 2-3 takeoffs a day except for the longest routes, and local ones can hit 5-6 a day.
Indeed, the worst example was Aloha Airlines flight 243 which suffered a massive structural failure that killed one and injured 54. AHA 243 flew Honlulu to Hilo to Kauai and back, and this was the start of the 4th round trip. And, at FL240, the top of the front half of the cabin ripped off, killing a flight attendant who was standing in the aisle when she was ejected from the aircraft.
The aircraft did land successfully. It was clearly a failure from metal fatigue, but the A/C had be delivered new to Aloha and had over 35,000 flight hours, which at the time was acceptable, and it was 19 years old, which wasn't even remarkable.
What it also had was 89,680 flight cycles -- a takeoff, climb to altitude, and landing. That was way more than the plane could take, but maintenance didn't catch it because they were going to a D check at 40,000 hours, and not even watching cycles. It was also an early version of the 737-200, they changed the fuselage assembly a bit to include an extra member at each joint at A/C #291.
Now? A 737-200 #1-291 is limited to 34,000 hours *or* 34,000 cycles.
posted by eriko at 4:52 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
The point of the B52 (and the B36 before it) was to deliver the truly enormous nuclear weapons of the day, by which I mean "physically larger and heavy." The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used much smaller bombs (in both size, mass and yield) but even those required significant changes to the B-29, mostly to get the weight of the A/C down. So, the B-52, built to carry Very Large Very Heavy Things Very Far Away.
As time passed, weapons became much smaller and the B-52 moved to the conventional weapons role. But what you had was an airplane that could carry very large very heavy things a very long way. When you replaced the Very Large Very Heavy Things with much smaller and lighter things, you could carry quite a lot of them.
The Soviet "spelling" of B-52 is the Tupolev Tu-95, which NATO calls the "Bear". It too was built to carry Very Large Very Heavy Things Very Far Away. It too can now carry lots of much smaller and lighter things. And, it too, like the B-52, is still flying after almost 60 years (the Bear first reached service a year after the B-52) and like the B-52, is planned to be flying until 2040.
Turns out building a plane that can carry a Very Large Very Heavy Things Very Far Away at .85 Mach is a very useful thing indeed, and it's not a surprise that both the Bear and Stratofortress are still flying. They're still useful -- and nothing since has been able to do what they do.
The obvious right answer is a new version of the aircraft. Alas, going for the shiny is something else that the US and Russian defense industries have in common.
posted by eriko at 5:02 AM on December 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
As time passed, weapons became much smaller and the B-52 moved to the conventional weapons role. But what you had was an airplane that could carry very large very heavy things a very long way. When you replaced the Very Large Very Heavy Things with much smaller and lighter things, you could carry quite a lot of them.
The Soviet "spelling" of B-52 is the Tupolev Tu-95, which NATO calls the "Bear". It too was built to carry Very Large Very Heavy Things Very Far Away. It too can now carry lots of much smaller and lighter things. And, it too, like the B-52, is still flying after almost 60 years (the Bear first reached service a year after the B-52) and like the B-52, is planned to be flying until 2040.
Turns out building a plane that can carry a Very Large Very Heavy Things Very Far Away at .85 Mach is a very useful thing indeed, and it's not a surprise that both the Bear and Stratofortress are still flying. They're still useful -- and nothing since has been able to do what they do.
The obvious right answer is a new version of the aircraft. Alas, going for the shiny is something else that the US and Russian defense industries have in common.
posted by eriko at 5:02 AM on December 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
They're really huge planes to see up close. My dad was in the Army in Vietnam in the mid-60s, and recalls seeing them overhead on their way to do the thing they were designed for.
My wife is from far northwestern Kansas (Billiard Table of the Gods!), and a couple of times we drove back there (from Indiana) to visit relatives. On one of those trips, we were just driving along somewhere on I-70 deep in the heart of flattest Kansas, and we noticed a dot in the sky just above the horizon. As we drove on, it got larger and larger...but not especially higher in the sky. As it got closer and closer, we suddenly realized the dot was a B-52, flying really freaking low. When it passed overhead, it felt like we could have grabbed onto it. Obviously, it wasn't that low, but the things are so big (and loud) that, when they get anywhere near treetop level (even if the "tree" is a sequoia), it's pretty overwhelming.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:08 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
My wife is from far northwestern Kansas (Billiard Table of the Gods!), and a couple of times we drove back there (from Indiana) to visit relatives. On one of those trips, we were just driving along somewhere on I-70 deep in the heart of flattest Kansas, and we noticed a dot in the sky just above the horizon. As we drove on, it got larger and larger...but not especially higher in the sky. As it got closer and closer, we suddenly realized the dot was a B-52, flying really freaking low. When it passed overhead, it felt like we could have grabbed onto it. Obviously, it wasn't that low, but the things are so big (and loud) that, when they get anywhere near treetop level (even if the "tree" is a sequoia), it's pretty overwhelming.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:08 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unlike civil aviation, the Air Force was so fixated on step-change advances in bomber technology that never got around to budgeting for a "next generation" B-52 replacement
For bombers, maybe, but the Air Force's whole acquisition strategy is based on the idea of incremental upgrades to existing aircraft - they're just not doing a ton of airframe modifications. Expansion of capabilities nowadays is accomplished by making computers smaller and more ubiquitous, mostly, as well as modifying existing systems to handle new capabilities. It's not like they're still flying these old planes with sextants and bomb sights.
it's worth nothing that small aircraft have an incredibly long lifespan when maintained correctly
The two planes in our club were built in 1968 and 1969. Still going strong!
posted by backseatpilot at 5:55 AM on December 10, 2015
For bombers, maybe, but the Air Force's whole acquisition strategy is based on the idea of incremental upgrades to existing aircraft - they're just not doing a ton of airframe modifications. Expansion of capabilities nowadays is accomplished by making computers smaller and more ubiquitous, mostly, as well as modifying existing systems to handle new capabilities. It's not like they're still flying these old planes with sextants and bomb sights.
it's worth nothing that small aircraft have an incredibly long lifespan when maintained correctly
The two planes in our club were built in 1968 and 1969. Still going strong!
posted by backseatpilot at 5:55 AM on December 10, 2015
→ The reason we don't see more 30, 40 and 50 year old civilian aircraft flying …
There are still DC-3s flying commercially in the north. Youngest of those would be 65. (Though I think that the airline featured in that show just lost its licence.)
→ the worst example was Aloha Airlines flight 243
Um, I think that the Comet might have been a tad worse. At least we got to understand about metal fatigue from it.
posted by scruss at 5:55 AM on December 10, 2015
There are still DC-3s flying commercially in the north. Youngest of those would be 65. (Though I think that the airline featured in that show just lost its licence.)
→ the worst example was Aloha Airlines flight 243
Um, I think that the Comet might have been a tad worse. At least we got to understand about metal fatigue from it.
posted by scruss at 5:55 AM on December 10, 2015
Um, I think that the Comet might have been a tad worse. At least we got to understand about metal fatigue from it.
Except we knew about metal fatigue when AHL 243 happened. The problem with that one is everyone had been counting on hours flying to measure fatigue cycles, which is wrong. When you fly a pressurized aircraft, whether for 20 minutes or 10 hours, you have one time when the cabin pressurizes (and puts an outside stress on the airframe) and one time when it it comes to ambient (so you relax that stress, or if the pressurization cycle is slow, you actually see an inward stress until it fully equalizes, then you get *two* cycles!)
AHL 243 had many hours on the airframe, but many other 737-200s had far more. But no 737 at the time had anywhere near 85K pressurization cycles.
The Comet accident? We simply didn't understand what metal fatigue was doing to the new pressurized airlines, because they dealt with the pressurization cycle far more than military craft did. Once we did, we started building A/C with (forex) rounded windows, and they stopped failing at less than 1000 takeoff cycles.
But they *will* still fail eventually. You can load steel a certain amount and it won't fatigue, but that's not true of aluminum or aluminum alloys. Every time they flex, they fatigue. The trick is making sure you watch how many times they flex and replace things close to failure, which is why airliners (and B-52s!) have the heavy maintenance D check, which is "take it apart and check EVERYTHING." More than one airliner has been parked because the operator decided it wasn't worth paying for a D check on that airframe.
posted by eriko at 6:42 AM on December 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Except we knew about metal fatigue when AHL 243 happened. The problem with that one is everyone had been counting on hours flying to measure fatigue cycles, which is wrong. When you fly a pressurized aircraft, whether for 20 minutes or 10 hours, you have one time when the cabin pressurizes (and puts an outside stress on the airframe) and one time when it it comes to ambient (so you relax that stress, or if the pressurization cycle is slow, you actually see an inward stress until it fully equalizes, then you get *two* cycles!)
AHL 243 had many hours on the airframe, but many other 737-200s had far more. But no 737 at the time had anywhere near 85K pressurization cycles.
The Comet accident? We simply didn't understand what metal fatigue was doing to the new pressurized airlines, because they dealt with the pressurization cycle far more than military craft did. Once we did, we started building A/C with (forex) rounded windows, and they stopped failing at less than 1000 takeoff cycles.
But they *will* still fail eventually. You can load steel a certain amount and it won't fatigue, but that's not true of aluminum or aluminum alloys. Every time they flex, they fatigue. The trick is making sure you watch how many times they flex and replace things close to failure, which is why airliners (and B-52s!) have the heavy maintenance D check, which is "take it apart and check EVERYTHING." More than one airliner has been parked because the operator decided it wasn't worth paying for a D check on that airframe.
posted by eriko at 6:42 AM on December 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ooh, one thing about the Bear I forgot to mention. Unlike the B-52, it's a turboprop, not a turbojet. However, the props are *huge* and counterrotating.
Between the rotation rate and the length of the prop blades, this means that the tips of the props are moving at over Mach 1. This makes the Bear really really REALLY loud. The only other aircraft with this "feature" was the Republic XF-84H, better known as the Thunderscreech.
Because, really, the moment it revved the engine, that was the only thing it could be called.
posted by eriko at 6:46 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Between the rotation rate and the length of the prop blades, this means that the tips of the props are moving at over Mach 1. This makes the Bear really really REALLY loud. The only other aircraft with this "feature" was the Republic XF-84H, better known as the Thunderscreech.
Because, really, the moment it revved the engine, that was the only thing it could be called.
posted by eriko at 6:46 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obviously, it wasn't that low, but the things are so big (and loud) that, when they get anywhere near treetop level (even if the "tree" is a sequoia), it's pretty overwhelming.
I used to work around the corner from Dobbins Air Base, and one morning as I was sitting at the top of the exit from I-75 to Windy Hill Road, my car started making a very loud shrieking noise... or so I thought. I turned off the radio, trying to see what the noise was, and then noticed that everyone around me was doing the same. At the same time a massive shadow passed over, and I looked up to see a C-17 Globemaster flying over. It was so loud that everyone thought there was a problem with their cars, and so huge that it blotted out the sun for a few seconds, and it looked to be moving so slow that I was afraid it was going to fall out of the sky.
That was where I also learned that the "stealth" in Stealth fighter/bomber had nothing to do with it being quiet. We had a few fly over our building not long after 9/11, and they were loud enough to set off some car alarms in the parking lot.
posted by ralan at 6:46 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I used to work around the corner from Dobbins Air Base, and one morning as I was sitting at the top of the exit from I-75 to Windy Hill Road, my car started making a very loud shrieking noise... or so I thought. I turned off the radio, trying to see what the noise was, and then noticed that everyone around me was doing the same. At the same time a massive shadow passed over, and I looked up to see a C-17 Globemaster flying over. It was so loud that everyone thought there was a problem with their cars, and so huge that it blotted out the sun for a few seconds, and it looked to be moving so slow that I was afraid it was going to fall out of the sky.
That was where I also learned that the "stealth" in Stealth fighter/bomber had nothing to do with it being quiet. We had a few fly over our building not long after 9/11, and they were loud enough to set off some car alarms in the parking lot.
posted by ralan at 6:46 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
My wife is from far northwestern Kansas (Billiard Table of the Gods!), and a couple of times we drove back there (from Indiana) to visit relatives. On one of those trips, we were just driving along somewhere on I-70 deep in the heart of flattest Kansas, and we noticed a dot in the sky just above the horizon. As we drove on, it got larger and larger...but not especially higher in the sky. As it got closer and closer, we suddenly realized the dot was a B-52, flying really freaking low. When it passed overhead, it felt like we could have grabbed onto it.
General "Buck" Turgidson: 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!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 7:36 AM on December 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
General "Buck" Turgidson: 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!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 7:36 AM on December 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
I believe that the First Air Lords would be delighted to create hyper expensive aircraft designed entirely to counter the threat of Japanese teenagers flying Gundam mobile suits if they could get away with it.
The Air Force is still desperately trying to ground its fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs," which are perhaps the most terrifying fighter bombers ever built. These are the aircraft flying ground attack missions against ISIS positions today, and there is no other aircraft in the Air Force inventory capable of effectively inflicting damage in the same way. But the A-10 is subsonic, "low and slow" like its WWII namesake of sainted memory, but not sufficiently techno-advanced for the procurement mavens.
The B-52 is the prime example of how an excellent design, properly maintained and renovated, can perform its missions long after the designers of it have perished. It is a lesson that appears lost on those who insist on new, ultra sophisticated and impractical aircraft designs dedicated only to "pushing the envelope" beyond the ability of human beings to fly them.
posted by rdone at 7:40 AM on December 10, 2015
The Air Force is still desperately trying to ground its fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs," which are perhaps the most terrifying fighter bombers ever built. These are the aircraft flying ground attack missions against ISIS positions today, and there is no other aircraft in the Air Force inventory capable of effectively inflicting damage in the same way. But the A-10 is subsonic, "low and slow" like its WWII namesake of sainted memory, but not sufficiently techno-advanced for the procurement mavens.
The B-52 is the prime example of how an excellent design, properly maintained and renovated, can perform its missions long after the designers of it have perished. It is a lesson that appears lost on those who insist on new, ultra sophisticated and impractical aircraft designs dedicated only to "pushing the envelope" beyond the ability of human beings to fly them.
posted by rdone at 7:40 AM on December 10, 2015
Why not just switch to a Telefortress?
That one's even older.
I'm a big fan of old tech. Nice to see a Lamp Test switch again.
But even though I'm a fan of the slide rule, I'm surprised they still use them.
I would think you could get the job done better with a TI-30x or something. (Probably cheaper, too.)
posted by MtDewd at 7:54 AM on December 10, 2015
That one's even older.
I'm a big fan of old tech. Nice to see a Lamp Test switch again.
But even though I'm a fan of the slide rule, I'm surprised they still use them.
I would think you could get the job done better with a TI-30x or something. (Probably cheaper, too.)
posted by MtDewd at 7:54 AM on December 10, 2015
I sent this to my 68-year-old father and he tells me that he crewed many times on the specific plane pictured at the top of the article and that it was "a good bird." Apparently so!
posted by gerstle at 10:37 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by gerstle at 10:37 AM on December 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a B-52 on display at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. More impressive than the size of the B-52 might be the hangar it's displayed in.
posted by pjern at 12:25 PM on December 10, 2015
posted by pjern at 12:25 PM on December 10, 2015
General "Buck" Turgidson: 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!
...and some pilots took that kind of hot-dogging attitude to heart, which led to shit like this. (warning: fiery crash, several people died. The 1994 WA one.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on December 10, 2015
...and some pilots took that kind of hot-dogging attitude to heart, which led to shit like this. (warning: fiery crash, several people died. The 1994 WA one.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on December 10, 2015
There's a B-52 on display at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. More impressive than the size of the B-52 might be the hangar it's displayed in.
The USAF museum in Dayton is completely awesome if you've never been there, it's easily on par with Udvay-Hazy in DC. Also in that same hanger is the only surviving XB-70 Valkyrie and a Lockheed YF-12 prototype of the SR-71.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2015
The USAF museum in Dayton is completely awesome if you've never been there, it's easily on par with Udvay-Hazy in DC. Also in that same hanger is the only surviving XB-70 Valkyrie and a Lockheed YF-12 prototype of the SR-71.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2015
« Older Shock and Awe | RIP, Doug Tompkins Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That is a fascinating context-maker . . . nice article, thanks!
posted by pt68 at 12:42 PM on December 9, 2015 [3 favorites]