GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.

Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear.
Congress
is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to
2038,
beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and
2038
we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned
that
the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't
get
moving *now*.

OK. Sounds like the folks on the Hill are doing something smart for a change
(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons--Representative
Shmedlap, having a chunk of Big Aerospace, Inc. in his district, wants to
ensure some long range development money flows into his district, etc.).
It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
being in the "possible" box. Given the typical development timelines for
modern combat aircraft (witness the F/A-22, Typhoon, etc.), an early start
would seem to be smart.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look up
"Advanced
Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first, but
they were
backfit to the D, F and G.

Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it.

Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or
forgotten
them, or FAS may be wrong.

My point is that the sources all seem to differ, so making any concrete
assessment is a bit difficult as yet. From what I gather the C models were
still flying operationally (versus the training birds) as late as the
mid-sixties; their ability to perform down in the weeds has not been
conclusively established.

Boyne's got a table compiled by the SAC historian, which shows C models still in
service (don't know if they were used operationally) as late as '71. There are
always D, E or F models also listed in the same wing covering at least the same
time frame as the Cs (post '50s), so they may well have been used for training.
The last Es seem to have toddled off to the Boneyard in 1978 (from Castle), if
the '78 isn't a typo for '68, with all the other wings withdrawing them no later
than 1970, and most being gone by 1968.

FAS as a source is not
infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models
got it
and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A
radars
in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the
fleet,
which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.

Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long, as
our
ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just entering
service.

In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or four
years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size); doing
it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.

Elsewhere in Boyne he states that the Es "were the first to use the new low
altitude equipment which was then deemed necessary to elude the ever-expanding
Soviet missile and radar network." However, it appears you are correct about
the time it took to fit the fleet. See below.

snip

The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959 which is
when
the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab) while
in low
altitude flight.

That is when a couple of sources indicate the *training* of B-52 crews in
low level operations began; those same two sources indicate that the
modification work to the aircraft did not start until 1961. A site i ran
across had a story posted by a former BUFF crewmember from that era, and all
he said was that they began to fly low-altitude work "in the early sixties";
unless he was in one of the last crews to make that transition, then it
appears the high altitude work was still ongoing. There was also an airframe
modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it could
absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen any
indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
addressed either the C or E models.

FWIW, Boyne provides a table of major ($50million+) mods to the BUFF. Mod 1000
is titled "Low Level Capability," cost $313.2 million over FY 59-69, applied to
C-H models, and was "to improve bomber penetration capability by flying at 500
feet altitude or below; Includes: Terrain Avoidance Radar (ACR), Improved Radar
Altimeter, Increased Cooling Capacity, Equipment Mounting Provisions, Secondary
Structural Improvements."

There was also Mod 951, High Stress I, II, II, "Strengthening of critical
structural areas," which applied to the B-G and cost $62.9 Mill over FY 62-64.


As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was considered,
given
their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of Hound
Dog
(which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed).

I never knew SAC was restricting its operations to night/adverse weather :-)
. I have seen some photos of camo'd Hound Dog's, presumably from their later
years in service.

snip

I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd pretty
much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.

Guy

OK. Sounds like the folks on the Hill are doing something smart for a change
(though in all likelihood for all the wrong reasons

I was cynical at first too, but it seems to be a general feeling, at least in
the Senate, that bombers have proven themselves extremely useful since 9/11 and
we need to ensure we have them in the future. I'm sure not every Senators
motives are that "pure", but many of the people speaking out won't gain any
thing for their constiuents with a new bomber program.

It'll be interesting to see which way such a program ends up going, with so
many disparate optional approaches to putting munitions on-target/on-time
being in the "possible" box.

Apparently the USAF position is; "hey, we were going to build a bomber that
could fly to anywhere on the globe from the mid-west of the U.S. in under 3
hours and drop hundreds of near precision munitions from 200,000 feet with
impunity....but the technology to do any of that is not available now, so if
you make us design a bomber now, you're going to get an improved B-2".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Mar 2004 13:07:59 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Apparently the USAF position is; "hey, we were going to build a bomber that
could fly to anywhere on the globe from the mid-west of the U.S. in under 3
hours and drop hundreds of near precision munitions from 200,000 feet with
impunity....but the technology to do any of that is not available now, so if
you make us design a bomber now, you're going to get an improved B-2".

In recent weeks Boeing engineers with tape measures have been observed
going over the British Concord on display at the Seattle Museum of
Flight. When asked Boeing officials would not explain this activity or
why the seats of the aircraft have been removed and what look like
bomb bay doors have been installed. Rumors are also circulating that
Boeing has put out an RFP for one set of very large decals printed
with "USAF BS-1". (BS - Bomber Supersonic)

With the recent flap over the Boeing 767 tanker contract could this BS
lead to a contract for more Boeing BS?

"Buzzer" wrote

In recent weeks Boeing engineers with tape measures have been observed
going over the British Concord on display at the Seattle Museum of
Flight. When asked Boeing officials would not explain this activity or
why the seats of the aircraft have been removed and what look like
bomb bay doors have been installed. Rumors are also circulating that
Boeing has put out an RFP for one set of very large decals printed
with "USAF BS-1". (BS - Bomber Supersonic)

This is HIGHLY classified! I'm going to tell Homeland Security about
you! The stealing of French technology is a very high political secret,
right up there with where we are keeping UBL until November.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:26:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

FWIW, Boyne provides a table of major ($50million+) mods to the BUFF. Mod 1000
is titled "Low Level Capability," cost $313.2 million over FY 59-69, applied to
C-H models, and was "to improve bomber penetration capability by flying at 500
feet altitude or below; Includes: Terrain Avoidance Radar (ACR), Improved Radar
Altimeter, Increased Cooling Capacity, Equipment Mounting Provisions, Secondary
Structural Improvements."

http://www.bombnav.org/INFO/B-52/asq-38/b526.htm
"The B-52 completed its transformation, from 'high altitude bomber' to
'ground hugger', during the duration of my residency at Robins AFB.
That resident assignment - combination program office and technical
services - ended December 31, 1963."
I wonder if he is still alive? I think he has a website.

"Buzzer" wrote

Increased Cooling Capacity (B-52)

During summer in Saudi Arabia (where I flew for about 10 years),
We used to air refuel at 280 until TAC said it was too dangerous,
and forced us down to 210 where we had to start shutting down stuff
because it was too hot, or the inlet temperature was too high.

Then we had to get the pig back up to 290 again to watch the Iraqis
bomb the **** out of Iran, or blow up the U.S.S. Stark...

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look
up
"Advanced
Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first,
but
they were
backfit to the D, F and G.

Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it.

Boyne doesn't, which was the source I used. He may have missed or
forgotten
them, or FAS may be wrong.

My point is that the sources all seem to differ, so making any concrete
assessment is a bit difficult as yet. From what I gather the C models
were
still flying operationally (versus the training birds) as late as the
mid-sixties; their ability to perform down in the weeds has not been
conclusively established.

Boyne's got a table compiled by the SAC historian, which shows C models
still in
service (don't know if they were used operationally) as late as '71.
There are
always D, E or F models also listed in the same wing covering at least the
same
time frame as the Cs (post '50s), so they may well have been used for
training.
The last Es seem to have toddled off to the Boneyard in 1978 (from
Castle), if
the '78 isn't a typo for '68, with all the other wings withdrawing them no
later
than 1970, and most being gone by 1968.

Baugher seems to indicate that at least one unit (99th BW) kept them in a
SIOP role until around 1969-70; he (and IAPR) note that a number of them
were indeed used by other units throught the sixties in a training role. He
indicates the E models were all gone by 1970, including those at Castle,
save for a single "NB-52E" that served in a flight test role until at least
1973. IAPR confirms that, but reading the IAPR accounts of each variant
would lead one to believe that the author may very well have used baugher as
his primary source.


FAS as a source is not
infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which
models
got it
and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A
radars
in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of
the
fleet,
which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time.

Given SAC's priority at the time, I doubt it would take all that long,
as
our
ICBM force was still mostly Atlas and Titan, and Polaris was just
entering
service.

In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or
four
years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size);
doing
it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.

Elsewhere in Boyne he states that the Es "were the first to use the new
low
altitude equipment which was then deemed necessary to elude the
ever-expanding
Soviet missile and radar network." However, it appears you are correct
about
the time it took to fit the fleet. See below.

snip

The low level seems to have started even earlier, perhaps by 1959
which is
when
the first BUFF crashed due to structural failure (horizontal stab)
while
in low
altitude flight.

That is when a couple of sources indicate the *training* of B-52 crews
in
low level operations began; those same two sources indicate that the
modification work to the aircraft did not start until 1961. A site i ran
across had a story posted by a former BUFF crewmember from that era, and
all
he said was that they began to fly low-altitude work "in the early
sixties";
unless he was in one of the last crews to make that transition, then it
appears the high altitude work was still ongoing. There was also an
airframe
modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it
could
absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen
any
indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
addressed either the C or E models.

FWIW, Boyne provides a table of major ($50million+) mods to the BUFF. Mod
1000
is titled "Low Level Capability," cost $313.2 million over FY 59-69,
applied to
C-H models, and was "to improve bomber penetration capability by flying at
500
feet altitude or below; Includes: Terrain Avoidance Radar (ACR), Improved
Radar
Altimeter, Increased Cooling Capacity, Equipment Mounting Provisions,
Secondary
Structural Improvements."

There was also Mod 951, High Stress I, II, II, "Strengthening of critical
structural areas," which applied to the B-G and cost $62.9 Mill over FY
62-64.


As to repainting the SAC BUFFs, I wonder how critical it was
considered,
given
their (presumed) night/bad-weather mission and the availability of
Hound
Dog
(which doesn't seem to have been camo'ed).

I never knew SAC was restricting its operations to night/adverse weather
:-)
. I have seen some photos of camo'd Hound Dog's, presumably from their
later
years in service.

snip

I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd
pretty
much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.

IAPR indicates that the tall tails did indeed carry the Hound Dog; the first
test firing from a B-52 was reportedly from the E model, and the same source
indicates some of the D models were even configured as Hound Dog carriers
late in their career. Another source indicates that, "By the end of 1959,
the Air Force had approved 29 B-52 squadrons to be equipped with Hound Dog
missiles." I doubt there were enough short-tail B-52's then in the works in
1959 to be designated (www.boeing.com/history/bna/hounddog.htm ). Another
source states, "...by August 1963 29 SAC wings were operational with the
AGM-28" (http://www.strategic-air-command.com...ched_Missiles/
agm-28_hound_dog_missile.htm ).

Brooks


Guy

Problem is that measures and counter-measures are developed and
advance so fast that with the advent of successful look-down radars
hiding in the weeds won't work any more. I foresee the employment of
orbital radars/IRs/passive microwave sensors so that any
energy-emitter will be detected and tracked. Coupled with enough
computing power, any object moving in relation to the earth will also
be detected and tracked. This is why I say the only way to go is
stealth - and the sooner the better. It's one hell of a force
multiplier.
Walt BJ

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
I was forgetting that Hound Dog didn't apply to the tall tails, so they'd
pretty
much have to be on the deck, or else come in late to bounce the rubble.

What do you mean by "didn't apply"?
Hound Dogs were carried at least as far back as the "E".
Only the "G" & "H" are short tailed.