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.

 

Boeing B-52 evolves again with guided weapons launcher

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Boeing B-52 evolves again with guided weapons launcher

Looks like there is still some life in them B-52's yet.

It's pretty neat to see how they can add to the platform to keep her relevant to todays threats.

Interesting too is that rotary launcher they are using. Seems to be seeing alot of use in bombers.




Until now, the slightly newer 1960s H-model aircraft has been unable to drop conventional, precision-guided weapons from its belly. The new digital rotary launcher changes that, by allowing each B-52 to carry eight Boeing-made joint direct attack munitions internally, and eventual extended-range joint air-to-surface standoff missiles (JASSM-ERs) built by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon miniature air-launched decoys.

This means that the B-52 can now carry smart weapons on its wings, and internally – either increasing its destructive power or reducing fuel consumption on long flights by housing weapons internally to reduce drag.

That potent combination of MALD and JASSM-ERs makes the non-stealthy “Stratofortress” a flexible, fist-day-of-war combat aircraft that can destroy targets from hundreds of kilometres away and provide decoy support for flocks of front-line fighter jets. Those six launchers can be swapped between the B-52 fleet.





posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

The rotary launcher is the only way to get that much ordnance in the bays.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The American taxpayers sure did get their moneys worth out of the B-52.




edit on 15-1-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
The American taxpayers sure did get their moneys worth out of the B-52.





That's very true.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

The sad part is it had almost twice the mission capable rate of the B-1, and about a third again that of the B-2 in 2014.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Boeing couldn't have done it much better than they did with that big ol' beast.

If you've not seen one up close, it's really hard to understand just how utterly huge it truly is.

I saw so many of them as a child on SAC bases. Big. Noisy. What little boy wouldn't be impressed?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

You should try being 11 and sticking your head into the bomb bays to disconnect the closing arms when you have 15 of them drop on your head almost unannounced, because their base was about to get hammered by a typhoon. That's when you really start to think they're huge.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

When my Dad was stationed at Fairchild AFB just before he retired in '68, or maybe it was just after, we we're still living in Spokane, just down the highway a bit, that's where my parents did their grocery shopping, at the base commissary.

One morning I was with 'em when just that sort of thing happened. Suddenly the sky was full of big Strato-fortresses comin' in for a visit.

My Dad asked around, and it was a storm in conjunction with some form of rotation snafu, and suddenly Fairchild was playing host to the majority of SAC's B-52's. My Dad told me later that some serious heads rolled on that one, right up to the deputy commander of SAC.

Never got to be inside one though, or all that close... Saw the flight lines many, many times. ...and readiness drills. Wives, and older kids always got strange looks on their faces when those happened...for some strange reason that I didn't really understand 'til my brother went off to war...

edit on 1/15/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Fairchild may become relevant again. They're trying to get the KC-46 there. Either there or Lewis-McChord. We used to always get B-52s out of there, but after they consolidated them we barely saw aircraft from Fairchild. They had tankers but we'd see one every few years.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Where were you? I don't think you've ever said...at least not to me.

I hope that Fairchild gets those tankers. Spokane was always a good military town. Though just after WWII they had to be taught a sharp lesson about just what Fairchild meant to their economy...

Apparently there had been a movement afoot to make military folks unwelcome in certain businesses in town...

So...

The base commander arranged to have much of the payroll that month paid out in two dollar bills...

Spokane was flooded with two dollar bills...

Lesson learned. Movement died aborning.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

We were at Hickam for a lot of years. Part of SAC until 80, then 15th Airbase Wing when we got back in 83.

Right now, McConnell, Altus, and Pease have been selected as first active duty, training, and NG bases, in that order. They're looking at joint bases and active duty bases and have it narrowed down to 11 for the next round.
edit on 1/15/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join