Originally posted by craigandrew
Query.

Were the H crew aware of how serious thier battle damage was?

Why recover to Andersen AFB, Guam when the B-52 forward base at Diago Garcia in the Indian Ocean was closer?

Was there some difficulty or limitation in making for the closer base.

I also recall that a B-1B Lancer was lost of the Afghanistan mission in 2002.
Not combat according to reports but a catastrophic systems failure.

They recovered to DG and ejected in a SAR zone offshore. Indicates they were worried about jamming up the runway with a pile up.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by craigandrew]

Sorry this took so long.
1. I highly doubt if the crew understood how bad their battle damage was.

2. The aircraft in question recovered at Diego Garcia, underwent aircraft battle damage repair, and was sent to a rear operating location (Guam) for further inspection, where it was determined that the internal structural damage would preclude the aircraft from operating again.

Wow, this thread was back in November, well better late then never I suppose.

Uhh, out of curiosity, if an aircraft is all metal and wires, and can be dismantaled and put back together due to universal parts, how can an aircraft be sent to repair bay, and determined to be terminally internally not repairable??

It's all metal and wires, can anyone shed some light on how an aircraft can be damaged beyond repair?(And I don't mean totaled aircraft, I mean aircraft that manage to fly to one base in disrepair, and then to another, and be declared virtually unrepairable?)

Shattered OUT...

Somebody correct me if Im wrong but as far as I know there still isnt another bomber anywhere that is as versatile and that can fly as high and carry so many bombs! There are bombers as big but they still dont have anywhere near the capability that BUFF does. These things are some of the biggest planes in the world. We have plenty of retired buffs rusting away in boneyards. They are more than big enough to build small apartments in. Why not? Weve got to be creative in order to hack away at Ws enormous debts!

Originally posted by SonofSpy
Somebody correct me if Im wrong but as far as I know there still isnt another bomber anywhere that is as versatile and that can fly as high and carry so many bombs! There are bombers as big but they still dont have anywhere near the capability that BUFF does. These things are some of the biggest planes in the world. We have plenty of retired buffs rusting away in boneyards. They are more than big enough to build small apartments in. Why not? Weve got to be creative in order to hack away at Ws enormous debts!

I think the pics your thinking of are for the Russians to confirm by their sats that we have put them down. its part of a treaty.

House idea: ahhhh...no, I wouldn't want to live in an old rusty plane, I wouldn't want to live in a new plane.

and they say this thing could still be flying in 30 years. But I doubt that. and yes, it can drop a lot of bombs, but with precision munitions, there isn't a very big need for that anymore. The B-2 can drop 80 (250 lb) bombs, one after another, and they can all be precision guided. I dont see a future for the old bird.

You don't suppose by 2044 these B-52s might get a "hover conversion," such as in the movies "Back to the Future?"

In that case one could think that may fly indefinitely, maybe to the moon with the right pressurized cabin. Yeeeeee haaaawwwww!!!!!

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
nip>
Uhh, out of curiosity, if an aircraft is all metal and wires, and can be dismantaled and put back together due to universal parts, how can an aircraft be sent to repair bay, and determined to be terminally internally not repairable??

It's all metal and wires, can anyone shed some light on how an aircraft can be damaged beyond repair?(And I don't mean totaled aircraft, I mean aircraft that manage to fly to one base in disrepair, and then to another, and be declared virtually unrepairable?)

Shattered OUT...

It's simple really. No aircraft is "unrepairable" per se, it's a matter of cost effectiveness. The B-52G that we're discussing suffered internal structural damage that wasn't apparent upon combat-style thru-flight inspections. It recovered at Diego Garcia, and was patched up enough for the flight to the inspection facilities at Guam. Upon further inspection at Guam, it was determined that it would cost more to repair that aircraft than it was worth, and therefore not cost effective. So, they cannibalized all the parts they could, and dismantled it. In the end, yes, it could have been repaired, but the cost was prohibitive. (Bummer, in my opinion.)

As far as B-52s having a future, I'd say it does, simply because of the vast range of munitions that it's capable of delivering. (Yes, B-52s are capable of delivering 'Smart Bombs'. As a matter of fact, the B-52 was a test bed for most of the smart munitions that are available to our combat forces today.) By dramatically increasing it's efficiency by replacing 8 engines with 4, I don't see a problem with a B-52 in combat service well into the future, even to 2044.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Uhh, out of curiosity, if an aircraft is all metal and wires, and can be dismantaled and put back together due to universal parts, how can an aircraft be sent to repair bay, and determined to be terminally internally not repairable??

Aircraft are rated in hours of flight not really years. so a plane that has low hours will last alot longer. Also differnt parts of the airframe will have longer or shorter fatigue life. Wing skins often require replacement as well as wing root structures. Also stress cracks and the like play a part. In commerical planes they look at flight hours as well as presurization cycles as that also has an impact on metal fatigue.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Uhh, out of curiosity, if an aircraft is all metal and wires, and can be dismantaled and put back together due to universal parts, how can an aircraft be sent to repair bay, and determined to be terminally internally not repairable??

Aircraft are rated in hours of flight not really years. so a plane that has low hours will last alot longer. Also differnt parts of the airframe will have longer or shorter fatigue life. Wing skins often require replacement as well as wing root structures. Also stress cracks and the like play a part. In commerical planes they look at flight hours as well as presurization cycles as that also has an impact on metal fatigue.

Doesn't really answer my question, justs gives fun facts. But still interesting facts nonetheless, Ouizel hit it straight on, I was thinking about the cost before, but then figured "But wait... if it costs a certain amount to build an aircraft from scratch, how can it cost more to repair internal damage?"

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
[Doesn't really answer my question, justs gives fun facts.

Im glad he could make more sence out of your question than I could

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Wow, this thread was back in November, well better late then never I suppose.

Uhh, out of curiosity, if an aircraft is all metal and wires, and can be dismantaled and put back together due to universal parts, how can an aircraft be sent to repair bay, and determined to be terminally internally not repairable??

Shattered OUT...

Metal has a fatiuge point at which it wears out. Things reach a point where they just can't be repaired, because they will break again. Also, After years, electronics begin to burn out as well. Also, cost is a factor! If fixing the plane would cost more then building a new one, it isn't worth the investment. Bottom line, nothing lasts forever!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Doesn't really answer my question, justs gives fun facts. But still interesting facts nonetheless, Ouizel hit it straight on, I was thinking about the cost before, but then figured "But wait... if it costs a certain amount to build an aircraft from scratch, how can it cost more to repair internal damage?"

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

You also generally dont replace parts of an airframe if they require maintenance, due to the fact that airframes are generally produced as an 'all in one' thing and you cant guarantee that the replacement part would be as structurally strong as the origional part. It costs more to do internal structural replacements because you also have to disassemble the aircraft to fit the new parts, which you dont have to do when you are constructing a new aircraft.

As it stands, neither the B-1 or B-2 meet the B-52 in terms of range and payload.

the B-52 will be around for some time. Probably even after 2044. The only replacement I have heard off was the B-3, hypersonic blah, blah, and thats mostly pipe dreams.

Originally posted by KyleChemist
As it stands, neither the B-1 or B-2 meet the B-52 in terms of range and payload.

the B-52 will be around for some time. Probably even after 2044. The only replacement I have heard off was the B-3, hypersonic blah, blah, and thats mostly pipe dreams.

B-1B:
Range: 7,500 Miles
Payload: 75,000 Lbs (internal) + 59,000 Lbs. (external) = 134,000 Lbs
Speed: 900+ mph
Ceiling: 49,200+ ft
(The B-1B holds several world records for speed, payload, range, and time of climb.)

B-2
Range: 7,600 Miles
Paypoad: 50,000 Lbs.
Speed: 475 mph
Ceiling: 50,000 ft
(Stealth)

B-52H
Range: 8,500 Miles
Payload: 86,500 Lbs.
Speed: 660 mph
Ceiling: 20,000 ft
(capable of carrying the most diverse range of weapons of any combat aircraft)

Each of them have their own advantages. (also, feel free to correct me if my information is wrong as I have compiled it from many sources)

I feel sure those figures are flawed;

for instance the ceilings given for all three types appears to be low, and that given for the B-52 ridiculoiusly so. The cieling for the Vulcan and Victor bombers of the 1950's was 60,000ft and I think its impossible for the B-52 to have a lower ceiling than a Spitfire!

Given that simple observation I don't think you can take any of those fugures seriously.

My fault about the ceiling for the B-52H. I misread what I had. It was talking about it's max speed and stated it's max speed was 660 mph at 20,000 ft. I took that to mean that 20,000 ft was it's ceiling where it later stated that it's ceiling is 50,000 ft (which does seem more reasonable).

(and appearently the Vulcan had a ceiling of 65,600 ft where the Victor, at least early versions, had a ceiling of 55,000 ft)


[edit on 3/14/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]

The B-52 will be in service until 2044 and beyond if for no other reason than to say that it has been the oldest combat capable aircraft.

The B-52 can carry more precision munitions than the others can and will be able to carry all of the newest weapons with continued upgrades. (All aircraft are being constantly upgraded.)

On a side note, my dad(a B-52 tailgunner from 72 to 81) saw his friends BUFF take a Sam to the open Bomb Bay. There were 17 B-52's lost in Vietnam, 15 to enemy action, two to a midair collision over Hanoi.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by ug87]

B-52 kicks ass, Nuff said

That Big Ugly Fat FUCer will be around untill such a time that upgrades can no longer keep up with the enemy at hand.

Just ask the Taliban about carpet bombing. If you dont die from the bomb you surely may die from fright.