It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A B-52 Mystery

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Does anyone know if the C/N of plane that went on fire was ever released.
My apologies if I have missed it somewhere




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Just the tail number as far as I've seen.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

In January 2014, “a fire … during maintenance caused significant damage to the upper forward crew compartment” of the previous aircraft


From here at least we know when the first B-52 was damaged. And now looking back at the pic i posted of 60-0049 with its nose inside the hangar and cordoned off on 26 april 2014 that would make sense.

BTW the B-52s accidents and mishaps report i had found and posted before has no value in this context. I didn't take into account that this is an aviation ground mishap, while that report was the flight mishap history...



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


The U.S. Air Force is reviewing industry studies of fitting its 50-year-old Boeing B-52 bombers with new commercial-derivative engines, according to Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, commander of the service’s Global Strike Command.

So far, Wilson said Oct. 9 at a Washington meeting, the Air Force assesses that the change would result in a net cost savings over the remaining life of the B-52s, which are expected to fly until 2040.

Wilson did not identify the contractor that made the proposal or whether more than one



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

those tails

...bad knee or something...

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 Plane Crash
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
If the last plane is 040 and theres a 049, maybe its a ruse to hide their actual numbers? I bet the Russians are wondering where the other eight Strato Fortresses are, too.



One thing the US won't mess around with is the b-52 tail numbers on the start treaty.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

it's OBVIOUSLY a secret air craft that burned up they are trying to cover up....OBVIOUSLY.....


but in all seriousness it is strange no question. Seeing as it seems like this was registered with START then maybe the tail number is real and was just registered to a B-52 but was always something else.

seems more probable then them messing up on treaty's and all that stuff



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

If the written off plane is 60-0049, which at this point i think it's really the case, then its cn is 464414.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135


One thing the US won't mess around with is the b-52 tail numbers on the start treaty.

Then why the gap, if there is one?

My other entry was the maintenance costs associated with ghost planes. Nice bit of change there hidden in exorbitant defense budget.

Remember 800 dollar toilet seats?
edit on 28-2-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So, Barksdale confirmed the tail as 61-0049, a number that so far doesn't match to a B-52, as far as we know.
But if they insist it was a B52, the question has to be, was it nuclear capable ?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

or here is a wacky scenario. What if 61-0049 never existed, and they are now bringing in Ghost Rider to fill that gap now that tail number is not needed now for some reason



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

and yet a Col keith Shultz quotes it as being 60-0049 that was lost

www.modelairplane.com...
www.thetowntalk.com...



edit on 28-2-2015 by nelloh62 because: different link

edit on 28-2-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Actually he said 0049. That could be 61 or 60.

He probably is using it as 60, but I've used three and four numbers for a tall number although three is more common.
edit on 2/28/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: nelloh62
a reply to: Zaphod58

So, Barksdale confirmed the tail as 61-0049, a number that so far doesn't match to a B-52, as far as we know.
But if they insist it was a B52, the question has to be, was it nuclear capable ?


I believe all b52s in the inventory are nuclear capable. It has something to do with the new start treaty and the difference between the g and h models. If I remember correctly the former way for Russian verification via satellite was something they could see on the top of the bombers which were nuclear capable. Now with only h models, they simply have to count the Jets themselves.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Back when they had the G models they split them up. Now, as you said they all are now.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep, sorry Zaph, I was assuming he was using last three numbers for 60-0049, as that is quite common, ie *0-*049.
So, who might be right then. The pilot or the PAO ? As you quite rightly stated, it is very unlikely the USAF would bungle a ground accident report



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Thanks for the info Boomer. So if the Barksdale PAO insists it is 61-0049, does that mean they have had an extra nuclear capable B-52 when they shouldn't have ?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join