Bomber to be cut up at Ariz. base under arms pact

[Ptah]

Source: KVOA (Tucson TV)


{Full story}
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - The final B-52G bomber being eliminated under a weapons treaty
will meet its end at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson on Thursday.

Base officials say a rescue saw will be used to sever the bomber's tail section from the fuselage.

That'll make the plane the 39th B-52G eliminated under the New START Treaty and the
last such elimination required under the treaty.

The treaty between the United States and Russia limits the number of deployed strategic warheads.

The U.S. Air Force still flies B-52G's, and two of the bombers were in the news recently after they
flew a training mission across a newly declared Chinese maritime air defense zone.





Read more: http://www.kvoa.com/news/bomber-to-be-cut-up-at-ariz-base-under-arms-pact/

[Kaleva]

1. It's simply amazing that a plane that entered service in 1955...

is still on front line active service today. According to Wikipedia, it's expected to remain in service till sometime in the 2040s.

[Ptah]

3. My USAF time was spent doing Avionics maintenance on B-52s.

It's a marvel.

[albino65]

4. I also

I worked on the Bomb Nav System

[Ptah]

5. I was at Castle AFB, 1971-1974

93 AMS

[albino65]

11. I was SACumcised

K.I. Sawyer AFB, MI 1970-1972 and 1973-1977.

[OldRedneck]

2. The BUFF

Known to the crews why fly them, the B-52 is affectionately called a BUFF (Big Ugly Fat F####r).

First flown in 1952, the B-52's that are still flying are over twice as old as the crews operating them!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

[Ptah]

8. I've been told that the BUFF was like a fly-rod.

Graceful and accurate.

[tcbrola]

6. I performed Weapon System Security (WSS) for B-52Gs in Operation Desert Storm with the 1708th BW (P)

BTW...The last B-52Gs were phased out of service in 1994. The B-52H is still in service at Barksdale and Minot...

[Ptah]

7. I was impressed with the gearbox that was the -D

[Ptah]

9. In this accident four people died due to the misconduct of the pilot

In this accident four people died due to the misconduct of the pilot who was
known to have been a wreckless pilot with the B-52s for many years.

[grantcart]

13. I was on the highway outside of that runway the day before the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Holland

The B-52 then began the 360° left turn around the tower starting from about the midfield point of the runway. Located just behind the tower was an area of restricted airspace, reportedly because of a nuclear weapons storage facility.[5] Apparently to avoid flying through the restricted airspace, Holland flew the aircraft in an extremely tight, steeply banked turn while maintaining the low, 250-foot (75 m) AGL altitude. Approximately three-quarters of the way around the turn, at 14:16, the aircraft banked past 90°, descended rapidly, clipped power lines and hit the ground, exploding and killing the four crew members. McGeehan was seated in an ejection seat, but according to the medical statement, he had only "partially ejected at the time of impact"; it does not state whether or not he cleared the aircraft. Huston was also seated in an ejection seat and the medical statement indicated that he had not initiated the ejection sequence. Wolff's seat was not ejection-capable. No one on the ground was injured.[6]

[Plucketeer]

10. Does anyone know

The number of years that the C-47 (DC3) served in our armed forces? I think the first C-130s went into service in '54. Of course, those early A models are long gone.

[Lurks Often]

12. Off the top of my head maybe 30 years

The last B-52 left the production line in 1962 and one of the jokes I've heard is that everything on the aircraft has been replaced except the seat cushions.

[happyslug]

15. DC 3 are still flying, considered solid no matter how old

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 02:41 PM - Edit history (3)

My sister saw a C-47 on a naval air base in Corpus Christi TX in the late 1970s, still in its "Puff the Magic Dragon" format.

According to Wikipedia the US transferred some Puffs to El Salvador in 1984-1985 period: Columbia is still operating them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-47_Spooky

Australia operated two C-47s till 1999.

Greece is still operating three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-47_Skytrain_operators

North Korea is known to still fly the LI-2, a Soviet License production of the DC-3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2

There are several in private hands, mostly in Latin American, where they are still used for transport in areas without paved runways.

In 2008 there were still 1400 DC-3/C-47s still air worthy around the world:

http://www.dc3history.org/airworthysurvivors.html

The DC-3 is a much smaller aircraft then the C-130, Full loaded weight for a DC-3 is 25,199 pounds, while a C-130 fully loaded weight is 155,000 pounds (Useful max load 75,000 pounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

Only 2300 C-130s have been built, as oppose to the approximate 15,000 Dc-3/C-47/Li-2 built. A C-130 cost $14 million new. While a C-47 cost 1.4 million in 2013 dollars ($79,500 in 1935 dollars). Thus you can buy 10 C-47 new for the price of one C-130. Total Cargo, fuel and crew is under 9000 pounds for a DC-3. 822 gallons of fuel in a DC-3, weight of fuel about 3288 pounds, so usable cargo weight about 6000 pounds. Thus ten DC-3s can haul 60,000 pounds, almost the same as one C-130 (12 and 1/2 DC-3 would haul 75,000 pounds).

On the other hand, that 60,000 pounds has to be divided into ten loads, or how do you cut a M113 APC into ten loads? Thus the popularity of the C-130 AND the continued popuality of the DC-3.

[Plucketeer]

16. Yes, thanks...

My point was when was the LAST US military C-47 discharged from service. The first ones entered service with the USAAF in '41 and knowing when the LAST one "served" would give me the span of years that OUR military used them. My point was to see if their military lifespan maybe challenged that of the B-52s and C-130s.

[happyslug]

17. The problem you have involves the US Army

In 1948, the Army and Air Force meet to decides which part of the Army Air Force would become the US Air Force and what planes the Army could operate. It has been called the worse Arms Control Agreement entered into by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

The main reason was the US Army Air Force (pre-1948) and the US Air Force (post 1948) gave the most prestige to its Bomber wings (and since about 1970 its Fighter Wings) and then its Fighter escorts for those bombers. Support in the Air Force for ground support was minimal during WWII and that appears to be the case to this day.

Now the Russians are NOT perfect, but in regards to supporting their ground troops, the Soviet Air Forces deemed this to be their primary mission. Its Secondary mission is air transportation for those troops. Its Strategic mission was always considered secondary to BOTH of these other missions. This made it harder for the bomber and inceptor commands to shut out other air combat areas in the Soviet Army (and today's Russian Army).

The Russians made sure its Air Force never lost sight of its ground support mission by having FOUR Air Forces, all equal to each other. These four Air Forces were as follows:

1. Air Defense forces (PVO), including interceptors and anti-Aircraft guns and missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Defence_Forces

2. Russian Naval Aviation, to support the Fleet AND to provide air attacks on Naval Vessels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Naval_Aviation

3. Strategic forces (includes ICBMs and missile submarines). This was created in 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces

4. Soviet Air Forces (V V S):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Force

The V V S had three "Commands":

a. Long Range Aviation (DA). Long range missions, which can include interdiction mission ii.e. operations behind the lines of the enemy army to disrupt that army's supply lines. During WWII this was an independent arm, only merged with the rest of the Soviet Air Force (V V S) in December 1944. The Bear bomber was in this group, but so was the TU-22 Binder, whose mission was interdiction, i.e. to hit behind the enemy army and destroy any Command, Supply and Communication system of that army. The planes of this Air Force operated out of concrete Air fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Aviation

b. Frontal Aviation (FA), close ground support for the Army. This was the heart of the Soviet Air forces, its job is to protect the Soviet Army and destroy any attempt by air to attack those forces (and to attack any enemy ground force). Its planes tend to be capable of operating off grass fields. Soviet Doctrine seems to have been that planes were to take off from one open field, hit their targets or fly cover, and then fly to another open field where their support units had moved do while they were flying. i.e. NO set air fields. The Mig-23 and Mig-27 seem to have been created for this force. Both had massive wheel suspension to operate on unimproved open fields but short range compared to western fighters.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jan-feb/blurr.htm

c. Military Transport Aviation, (VTA) it provided transport planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Transport_Aviation

Now, this difference in treatment can be seen in the best WWII era US fighter below 12,000 feet, the P-39 (Which also holds the record of shooting down the highest number of enemy planes by any US Fighter). American B-17s and B-24 operated at 20,000 feet or higher. The P-39 started to lose power at 12,000 feet due to the drop in oxygen at that level. Most P-39 was shipped to Russia during WWII, who used them in the their Frontal Aviation (V V S) to provide fighter cover for ground operations, thus the 12,000 feet drop in performance was NOT a problem. Frontal Aviation also operated more then 2/3rd of the A-20s the US produced during WWII, for it was an attack plane NOT a Strategic bomber. The A-20 has been called the second best US Attack Plane of WWII. The A-20 used two R-2600 that produced 1750 horsepower each.

For more on the Engine on the A-20 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-2600

During WWII the US Air Force hated the P-39. Ground support was, at best, a secondary concern for the US Air Force and thus a plane that exceeded in that capacity was disliked. This is true to this day, the Air Force is once again looking to its primary ground support plane, the A-10, when it comes to planes it wants to cut (through part of this is the tradition of the Air Force, when it comes to budget cuts to cut the A-10 knowing the Army will lobby Congress to keep it in use).

The best close support plane, the A-26 was used exclusively by the US Air Force during WWII, only coming into use in 1944 (and appears to be the A-20 upgraded with a whole new design around 2800 Double Wasp Engine with 2000 hp each). From 1942 onward the US Army was complaining why the Germans had better air support then they did and that appears to be why the A-26 was developed and finally fielded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800

Side note: I am citing only US Army Air Force and US Air Force planes, the Navy and Marines did a much better job of close support then did the Army Air Force during WWII. The Douglas Dauntless was the best Dive Bomber of WWII (much better then its successor, a Joint Navy and Air Force dive bomber, the Curtis Hell-diver. US Navy Pilots reported this to the Truman Committee in 1944, but by then the Dauntless was out of production).

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/mdc/dauntless.page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SBD_Dauntless

Its successor the Hell-diver, which was so bad it ended dive bombing in the US Navy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SB2C_Helldiver

The Hell-diver's successor the A-1, the main competitor for close air support for US forces from the end of WWII through Vietnam: It uses a R-3350 Wasp that produced 2700 Horsepower but only had one engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

I bring this up, for the US Army has since 1947 sought to operate planes the Air Force did not want to operate AND then the Air Force objected to the Army itself operating those planes. The best known example is the A-10 attack planes, but there has been others. This included several planes that were popular during Vietnam by US Troops, but ended up being transferred to the Air Force, who then treated them like unwanted poor relatives.

One example is AC-1 Caribou, Purchased by the Army in 1961, transferred to the Air Force in 1966

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-1_Caribou

The Caribou haul 8000 pounds (just a little bit more then the C-47) but had two huge turboprop engines and a rear cargo door. Thus duplicated what the C-47 could do, but in a design that made it easier to get cargo in and out of the plane.

The Army was about to purchased the larger Buffalo, when the Air Force and the Army came to an agreement on such planes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-5_Buffalo

The Agreement that killed the use of C-47 size planes by the US Army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

I brought up the Soviet Air Force to show what is the problem with the US Air Force. The US Air Force has always put close air support secondary to its other missions. Today's Air Force is NOT as bad as the Army Air Force had been during WWII, but that tendency remains. In many ways close air support should be under the US Army so that the Army can combine them with its Attack Helicopters (and its Artillery) to provide a good mix of fire power. The A-10 operators do that at present, but how good can they do if the rest of the Air Force did NOT treat them as some poor relative (who the rest of the Air Force hope will go away).

The transportation part of the Air Force is treated almost as badly (Again not as bad as during WWII) but it should be under its own command along with the the long range supply operations of the US Army and US Navy (US Sea Life Command). The key to most wars today, is who can supply the most men, weapons and other supplies to the battlefield. The US lost Vietnam, not only because the North Vietnamese had the support of most of the people of South Vietnam (which gave them a huge advantage in terms of manpower AND food for their troops) but the US had to cut back its supplies to the Government of South VIetnam do to what the Israelis discovered about Soviet Equipment during the Yom Kipper war. The Soviet Union was noted for NOT sending to its client states its latest equipment (and when they did send the latest equipment it was with less capable internals). Thus the US was shocked to be told that the T-72 tanks supplied to Syria all had night vision equipment, something Israel did NOT have and most of the US Army in Germany had NOT been equipped with in 1973 (Most of the Night Vision systems had gone to Vietnam instead). The tanks were also designed to take a Chemical Attack, another fact we had missed, which meant the US Army in Germany had to have its Chemical Weapons protections systems upgraded. The Egyptian use of Soviet AA missiles forced the Israeli Air Force to fly low to avoid those systems, but made them targets to ground fire (Ground fire was the #1 cause of Israeli air loses during Yom Kipper). All of this meant the US had to upgrade its equipment. . Given the huge increase in inflation do to the oil embargo that followed the Yom Kipper War, an increase in taxes was out, thus the money for that upgrade had to be found some place and that turned out to be the budget to support South Vietnam

Thus the US lost Vietnam on the banks of the Suez Canal (or the Golan Heights). Vietnam was lost do to the US needed to spend money elsewhere and thus it was North Vietnam (with Support from Red China and the Soviet Union, even as those two nations almost went to war themselves) that was able to get the most supplies into South Vietnam and win the war. To get those supplies, it had to come down the Ho Chin Minh Trail thus even for North Vietnam Transportation was the key to victory.

How bad the US Air Force was when it came to Ground Support during Vietnam can be seen by the Air Force using A-1s from the Navy and bringing back the A-26 for use in Vietnam Where we using the same Bombers from WWII? No, were we using the same Fighters from WWII? NO, were we even using the same transport planes? NO. Were we using the same tanks from WWII in Vietnam (no), were we using the same rifles? (No, but some 1903 Springfield were used as sniper rifles, through NOT officially, and M1 sniper rifles were used). We were NOT even using the same helmet in Vietnam (the Steel shell was the same, but an improved helmet liner that provided better protection had been adopted in 1959). This is how the low priority the Air Force gave close air support affected ground support during Vietnam. The planes the Soldiers liked the most for it could hang around till they was something to hit, was the A-26 and the A-1, both WWII Veterans (Yes, the A-1 did not enter combat during WWII, but it did first fly during WWII).

That the US Air Force did all it could to get rid of its C-47, even when they were needed, is an example of the Air Force NOT having the best interest of the US in mind, but what is best for the US Air Force. This is common in any organization and thus the key to designing an organization is to make sure what is best for any group, is best for the organization as a whole. i.e. Reducing the Air Force to its Nuclear mission and Strategic bombing missions, will restrict its ability to reduce Close Air Support and Air Transportation Support in favor of that Strategic mission.

The C-47 and its rapid withdraw from the Air Force is an example of the Air Force favoring bombers over transportation. The Air Force treatment of the Caribou is another example of the Air Force favoring bombers and Fighters over transportation. This is NOT as bad as it was during WWII, but a redesign Air Force would reduce such situations in the future and in many ways it is needed. The Soviet System of having different Air Forces AND then emphasis the Air Forces (and parts of Air Forces) that supported its ground forces was its priority. The same should be the case with air support for any US ground forces, it should be set up so it can fight for what is best for it, for in my opinion such a system would be best for Us ground forces. The present system, permits the Air Force to short change Transportation and close air support for things the people in charge of the Air Force prefers. That has to change.

Yes, this ended up as a long paper, but the more I think about the Air Force, the more I think its needs to be broken up. The way the Air Force is set up, will hurt transportation and close air support and those two functions should be stripped from the Air Force and given to others who can give them higher priorities.






Side note: Wikipedia says that the Hell-diver was replaced by a decision of the US Navy to phase out dive bombing in favor of rocket attacks. That is only partially correct. Rockets in WWII were still NOT as accurate as a dive bomber diving and dropping its bomb load (Dive bombers could hit a pill box, and were the only bombers that could sink a Naval ship during WWII (Torpedo planes could also sink Naval ships). Fighters were known to attack shipping and to sink commercial shipping, but generally by hitting the ship with 50 caliber machine guns (P-51 and P-47s). The A-20s, A-26 and B-25s could also sink commercial shipping with their 50 caliber machine guns (and in the Case of the A-26 and some B-25s with a 75mm Cannon in the nose).

As to naval vessels, the armor was sufficient to defeat 50 caliber machine gun rounds AND they had enough AA weapons to keep the larger A-20s, A-26s and B-25s away from them (and the 75mm round was a low power round do to the need for its recoil be low so that the plane would not be stop in flight. This problem came up again with the A-10 attack plane in the 1970s, its engines had to be powerful enough AND its wings large enough so that it could stay flying as the plane was pushed backward by the recoil of its 30mm high velocity cannon).

Now, the stresses caused on pilots and planes during a dive bombing mission was severe, so severe that the pilots had to be selected to be able to handle high g forces AND the plane was reinforced to take the same forces. Training and Conditioning was strict. As to the planes they took a lot of beatings during dive bombing and thus had a short life, do to stresses put on its metal parts. As bigger engines came along, requiring bigger planes to carry the bigger engines, that meant larger over all body. Remember a plane is a tube, and physics behind a tube is it is stronger then the same material as a solid, but as the tube gets bigger it gets weaker. In the case of Dive Bombers, once the size of the Dauntless was achieved anything larger is actually weaker. The Germans found this out during WWII, they had their JU-87 Dive bomber, a very good dive bomber, but all through WWII the Germans tried to make a bigger dive bomber and kept failing. Dive bombers permitted the use of less bombs for they could drop a bomb where it was needed, as opposed to a level bomber that flew over the target and drop several bombs in the hope one would hit the target. The US Navy seems to have been aware of this German Researched based on captured review of various German bombers that had been built with dive bombing capacity. The US Navy had done its own research which seems to support the position the Dauntless was the largest you could make a successful dive bomber.

A further factor was the training needed to train a good dive bomber. That training took much longer then to train a torpedo plane pilot or even a fighter pilot. It took more time then it took to train a conventional bomber pilot.

These two problems, which seem insurmountable in WWII lead the Navy to drop dive bombing in favor of torpedo planes, rocket attacks and machine gun attacks. A further factor was the Germans use of the first anti-ship guided missile in 1943. That appeared to be the answer to replacing the dive bomber in the anti-shipping role (Through the accuracy of Dive Bombers was NOT achieved by such smart bombs and missiles till Vietnam).

Thus the Navy decided it could phase out the Dive Bomber in favor of a plane that could launch bombs AND torpedo, and that was the A-1. The A-1 was to late for WWII, but used in Korea and Vietnam.

[Plucketeer]

18. Wow.

All that and I still didn't see an answer. One point tho - my having served at Bien Hoa and Da Nang - this doesn't seem to jibe with what I recall seeing.... "The Caribou [snip] had two huge turboprop engines"

[HoosierCowboy]

14. So much had been replaced on the old BUFs

That it was equivalent of disconnecting the old 52 out from under the control column and hooking up a new airplane in its place. Keep'em flying with a vengeance!