It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Dale Brown's EB-52 Megafortress Becomes Reality

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by necro99
A solution for a useless bomber. Really. An SA-2 could Shoot it down. To say nothing of a S-300PMU1.

Thats why its called Standoff. THe SA-2's did not do that well during Linebacker. Also, your making an assumption tht the SEAD aircraft will be elsewere.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:58 PM
While I'm inclined to think that you may be right in this case I would appreciate that you explain more thoroughly what you mean by a "strait flush" radar. Remeber that offensive measures have always been ahead of the game, it would not suprise me at all if these measures prove completely ineffective against the newer offensive designs.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
While I'm inclined to think that you may be right in this case I would appreciate that you explain more thoroughly what you mean by a "strait flush" radar.

While I have not heard of that one, Amur, it usually means the NATO designation for a particular radar being used. For exapmle the Targeting radar on a SA-2 I believe is called by its code name "Fan Song" Its just a name system for classifing them. Alot like they do when NATO give a Russian Aircraft or Ship a name ie. Flanker or Alfa etc

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by jrod8900
such a weapon has extreme potential against a conventional opponent, but in a war against 'guerillas' founded in mulitple countries, this aircraft is more useful grounded.peace

Crusing at about 50,000 ft most guerilla forces can do little more then run and hide when one of these fly over head. Also thats when you bring out the old school B-52s. Look what the Afghan guerillas did when those flew over head they hide or they died.

I love the B-52 B.U.F.F it has been around long before I was born and it might very well be around long after im gone. Truly a masterpiece of aircraft design.

The USAF plans to keep the B52 going until 2050, at which point it will be 101 years old.
That is like looking out your window and watching the Wright brothers fly past.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:24 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by groingrinder
The USAF plans to keep the B52 going until 2050, at which point it will be 101 years old.

They plan on doing that cuz with the new technology there is not point in building a new heavy bomber. The B-2 and B-1 are not like the B-52 they are strategic bombers with more accuracy, so why should the airfare build another heavy bomber like the B-52. They are keeping it around as long as they can.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by WestPoint23]

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:50 AM
Having been a Crew Chief on B-52G/H models and on B-1Bs I can say that for one, the B-52 may be old, but it is by far a more effective aircraft than the B-1. It has a better maintenace/flight Record, and with the next generation weapon systems being deployed on her, she will continue to be an effective stand-off platform. The B-1Bs have trouble getting off the ground, neverless fly a conplete sortie...

As far a Captain Dale Brown is concern(USAF Retire) I have enjoyed all of his books except for few, and the reason his books have great technical info, is he has a degree in Aerospace Engineering, and flew a Radar Nav On BUFF In SAC. I served many Alert Tours with him while writing the OLD DOG.

And enless you have flown on a BUFF, You have no ideal of Its capabilities in the air. Whether at 50,000ft or 75ft off the deck. but with CALCMs and other stand-off weapons, the BUFF is truely Becoming a flying battleship.

Speaking of Ships, did you know that the Buff has been able to shoot harpoon anti-ship missles since the 80s starting with the B-52G from Lorning ARB Maine, and Now the B-52H has that Role.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Nerdling

I dont know, I found Dale to be much more knowledgable in his subject mater and dispite some of the vague imagry and charecter discription his plot line is far more realistic right down to the deaths of key charcters. The tech being one step above current tech [if that] ads to the efect. On that level I am happy to use his writing as inspiration, on the other hand somtimes realism can be to harsh such as the deaths in storming heaven, which of course turned out to be a little to acurate on 9/11 and gets in the way of the flow of plot and charector interelationship.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:18 PM
The Air Force has apparently decided that C-130's are capable of being the new jammers.
I haven't heard for sure, but I think they're going to keep flying USAF pilots with the E-18 Growlers, like they have been with the Prowlers, but the B-52 jamming platform is dead again. They are going to convert EC-130s and MC-130s into jamming platforms. They currently are communication jammers, but they're going to convert them into standard jamming platforms as well.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I think the C-130 issue is short sighted. At least the Buff would have the luxury of a decent standoff range. The C-130 like Compass Call et al are going to have to be in much closer with the proliferation of S-XXX systems thats going to be problematic.

I think the AF is putting way to much into the ability of AESA to selectivle jam narrow bands for mission specific needs and will rue the day they loose a B-2 because the mission did not have the adequate EW backup. We already lost an F-117 because the jammer aircraft was pulled off to support a B-2 op.

We need a combination of long range jamming ie the Buff (preferable equipped with CMF-56's (but thats a whole nother thread) and EF-UCAV's for close in jamming flying with SEAD UCAVS

[edit on 3/4/09 by FredT]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by FredT

The BUFF would be just as vulnerable to double digit SAM's as a C-130, probably more so. The technology and pilot skills are there to fly the C-130's very very low if one needs to get close. Besides, its mission will be to jam enemy systems, if it's illuminated then shooter Wild Weasels (or any VLO platform with ISR & ground attack capacity) will release their payload. And I believe we are almost at the point now where commandeering enemy systems (including in air missiles) via stand off wireless transmissions will become standard. The F-35 is rumored to have such capability, and even before the Israeli test run it was being discussed. The future, I think, will be a combination of systems and capability. Instead of having specific aircraft only, it will be a more generic ability to essentially pick an area and continuously run electronic attack missions with various rotating aircraft in and out of that operating area. We'll see how it all plays out.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by WestPoint23]

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by WestPoint23

The articles I saw on the BUFF were putting its jamming range at 150 to 200 miles which would put it on the fringe edge of S-300 / 400 SAMS sytems. As you well know low and slow in a C-130 is not ideal. Standoff range would give the BUFF alot of options for evasion. launching at such a long range object would also put the launcher itself at risk to SEAD esp. if its a stealthy platform like a JSF or better yet a stealthy UCAV.

To get in low It would need to be a fast mover like a Growler or a notational EB-1B (Kinf of like a huge EF-111 Raven) to have any chance against the closer in systems designed to protect S-300 sites etc.

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by FredT

That's some distance indeed, perhaps maximum range and not necessarily effective range. I'm firmly with you on the need for a more survivable jammer, ideally VLO. However using C-130's at standoff ranges with AESA fighters, Growers, as well as other systems (decoy drones) might be less than ideal but it should still provide capability.

I will say though, I do have sketches and hypothetical attributes written for an EA-23A if the USAF does not pursue an EA-35.

But the fact is, as you have pointed out, in the future we might see UCAV's take a more active role in jamming, SEAD/DEAD etc... especially since they can be commanded by F-22's and F-35's from within highly contested air space. Some swarm UCAV concepts look promising.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that lacking budget, time, and clear direction a C-130 based solution for the USAF as opposed to a BUFF one does not seem to me to be that much of a big difference, long term wise.

I also think the setting up of the new "nuclear command" which will take over the B-2's and B-52's might have had something to do with it.

posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 03:16 AM

originally posted by: Nerdling
I've read the majority of his books, I am not impressed by him.

His dialogue is wooden and lacks depth, the characters are way too perfect and free of flaws.

As for the technology... He takes concepts that are quite obvious and expands on them.

Nothing impressive about him, he's like Clancy but with a wilder imagination.

i think he is worse than Clancy , and that is saying something..

The megafortress was really really a disappointment considering the impossibility in creating stealth B-52 just by adding nose-cone and twin-tail. The last part about landing in russia and stealing fuel (refuelling) for B52 in russian airfield is even crazier..

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in