will we ever see a flyable B-52

[Wing]

12 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

Just because you can find documents on open servers, that don't appear to you to be "sensitive", doesn't mean the US Pentagon will agree with you.  ED people have stated in the past, that just because someone posted documents, doesn't guarantee ED or other devs can use that document without having rather severe consequences. One dev even spent time in jail recently over possession of a publication he thought was surely ok to have. I think it was over a manual covering something about the F-16 Viper. My point is that just because you and I found a manual at a site, doesn't guarantee it's useable by a dev team for a pay product.

 

I am very aware of what distribution statements mean, and what documents are able to be released. Appreciate the feedback tho! 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

13 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

Just because you can find documents on open servers, that don't appear to you to be "sensitive", doesn't mean the US Pentagon will agree with you.  ED people have stated in the past, that just because someone posted documents, doesn't guarantee ED or other devs can use that document without having rather severe consequences. One dev even spent time in jail recently over possession of a publication he thought was surely ok to have. I think it was over a manual covering something about the F-16 Viper. My point is that just because you and I found a manual at a site, doesn't guarantee it's useable by a dev team for a pay product.

Facts based on? The idea that sounds about right? Yes it does mean because if those documents were classified or restricted to the owner he'd be in Jail.

Just like the gentleman eho purchased an f22 and an f16a/b block 30 manual.

The reason were not allowed to post here is because for those who arent restricted that post it might be restricted for others.

Edited May 21, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Furtherexplination]

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195815/boeing-b-52d-stratofortress/

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195839/b-52d-battle-damage-report/

 

I just hope we get some sort of heavy bomber, I prefer to fly AtG and a B-52 would be my dream DCS aircraft.

Also, yeah, if there is some manual that is supposed to be classified the Pentagon would probably go after them pretty quickly. 

[Furtherexplination]

CALCM-86C cruise missiles fired from 4 B-52H bombers

[Tank50us]

4 hours ago, Furtherexplination said:

CALCM-86C cruise missiles fired from 4 B-52H bombers

 

Cue "Flight of the Valkyries".... followed by 1812 Overture when they reach their target

[Furtherexplination]

I'll have to record it!

[Furtherexplination]

B-52 Nose-art from the late 80s

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/579664/brute-force-b-52-nose-art-from-desert-storm/

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

2 hours ago, Furtherexplination said:

B-52 Nose-art from the late 80s

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/579664/brute-force-b-52-nose-art-from-desert-storm/

Why do you keep posting museum articles?

You do realise that pretty much all the documents for b52h from 98' have unlimited distribution right?

[Furtherexplination]

Yeah, but I'm not good at research and don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to participate somehow.

[kseremak]

B-52 may be too complicated to code and it had too numerous crew, too big radius, too monotonous mission, too toned performance.

 

But smaller, more maneuverable shorter range supersonic 3-crew B-58 or 2-crew F-111 absoutely yes!

Both were very work intensive for the crew and both were technological marvels of their respective eras, especially when it comes to their avionics, but both offered also absolutely exciting flight performance.

Edited May 27, 2021 by kseremak

[G.J.S]

On 3/9/2021 at 3:58 AM, mkellytx said:

Former B-52 flight test engineer (FTE) and B-1 maintenance officer here.  The Bone and the BUFF very much could conduct SEAD, or more realistically DEAD using AGM-69 SRAM's, but those were SIOP only and withdrawn in the 90's due to safety concerns.  The problem with both of the bombers are that the pilots are bus drivers, almost everything interesting having to do with a weapon is controlled by a Radar Nav/Nav/WSO.  The BUFF still has 6 ejection seats, but the Guns position is no longer active as the guns were removed in the 90's.  The seat is still there and maintained and available for augmented crews (extra pilot if you fly 24+ hrs for example).  That's also where the FTE's at Eddy's patch get to sit when they fly. Of course for non combat missions the crew size is ten: P, CP, RN, Nav, EWO, Guns, IP. IN, IEWO, +1 (hammock behind IP) .  The jets at Edwards never flew the +1 while I was there, and the bed was replaced with special instrumentation for the ED jets.  Recalling my weekly knowledge quiz the ejection order was for the Nav to go first, all of the guys in jump seats to get out through the Nav hatch with the RN acting as jumpmaster, then RN, EWO, Guns, CP and finally P.

 

Honestly, most folks don't understand how bad the BUFF's handling characteristics are, it's not an easy plane to fly.  Then almost all of the weapons actions happens down stairs with the nav's.  Finally, the EWO station is marked classified so good look finding a picture much less modeling it.  The Bone isn't much better, most all of the interesting stuff happens in back and that stuff is pretty hard to find open source. 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-3.html

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Virtual-Tour/Cockpit360/

 

Pretty good for having a look around a few types.

 

[bies]

9 hours ago, kseremak said:

B-52 may be too complicated to code and it had too numerous crew, too big radius, too monotonous mission, too toned performance.

 

But smaller, more maneuverable shorter range supersonic 3-crew B-58 or 2-crew F-111 absoutely yes!

Both were very work intensive for the crew and both were technological marvels of their respective eras, especially when it comes to their avionics, but both offered also absolutely exciting flight performance.

 

 

Supersonic B-58 Hustler would be a dream come true. It would be one of the best suited bombers for DCS map size and SP/MP environment. It would be simply very attractive to operate for virtual pilots. Flying this thing alone would be ton of fun and a real challenge, with flight characteristics different than any other existing module. I assume it's declassified.

 

(F-111 as well but this is already one of the most anticipated aircraft in the DCS community.)

 

(B-1b would be something in between, but many crucial systems are probably strictly classified - it's an active duty strategic bomber. And I doubt ED would be able to sacrifice resources needed to do just one module, Apache is nothing compared to B-1b when it comes to complexity.)

Edited May 28, 2021 by bies

[Rick50]

3 hours ago, bies said:

 

B-58 would be a dream come true. It would be one of the best suited bombers for DCS map size and SP/MP environment.

 

 

 

HUh?!?

 

Most DCS maps are roughly 500km by 500km. 

 

B-52 has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers).  

 

Soooo...  you take off... then fly circles. Around the very edges of the map. For 7 laps.  At some point you drop yer ordnance. And when you are truly bored to tears of just sitting there, looking out the window for another few hours of circling the map, you land.

 

Add 7 more laps if you do air tank refueling. How many very long hours is that?

 

It would be like using a main battle tank... on an indoor pistol range. Or starting up a Littlebird, in your barn. 

 

Edit: ok I just checked. During the Vietnam war, B-52's were stationed at Andersen AFB in Guam, in the Mariannas Islands. They flew bombing missions to Hanoi in North Vietnam. Unless they were battle damaged and leaking lots of fuel, air refuling was unessisary. They could (didn't but could) have flown direct to Hanoi, then south to Saigon, then to Darwin Australia and back to Guam without landing. Or, more realistically, they could have flown direct to Hanoi, (well, avoiding China's Hainan Island of course, don't wanna start another war by navigation accident!) and returned with 1/3 fuel remaining.

 

LEt's put this in context of DCS maps: you take off from Dover in the Channel map, fly to the furthest point in the Caucasus map, then fly down to Abu Dabi in the Persian Gulf map, and fly home, still have enough fuel for 4000 kilometers when you land. And that's if you count all the distance and fuel burn in between those maps. Or how about the other way around, you do a mission only on the Syria map with your B-52, take off from the furthest point to the furthest you can pick a target. And when you return, you need to dump a great many tons of fuel, because you only burned 18% of fuel capacity.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Rick50

[Svsmokey]

I initially made that mistake as well . Look closer at the post . He said B-58 .

Your points are valid for the B52 though .

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

HUh?!?

 

Most DCS maps are roughly 500km by 500km. 

 

B-52 has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers).  

 

Soooo...  you take off... then fly circles. Around the very edges of the map. For 7 laps.  At some point you drop yer ordnance. And when you are truly bored to tears of just sitting there, looking out the window for another few hours of circling the map, you land.

 

Add 7 more laps if you do air tank refueling. How many very long hours is that?

 

It would be like using a main battle tank... on an indoor pistol range. Or starting up a Littlebird, in your barn. 

 

Edit: ok I just checked. During the Vietnam war, B-52's were stationed at Andersen AFB in Guam, in the Mariannas Islands. They flew bombing missions to Hanoi in North Vietnam. Unless they were battle damaged and leaking lots of fuel, air refuling was unessisary. They could (didn't but could) have flown direct to Hanoi, then south to Saigon, then to Darwin Australia and back to Guam without landing. Or, more realistically, they could have flown direct to Hanoi, (well, avoiding China's Hainan Island of course, don't wanna start another war by navigation accident!) and returned with 1/3 fuel remaining.

 

LEt's put this in context of DCS maps: you take off from Dover in the Channel map, fly to the furthest point in the Caucasus map, then fly down to Abu Dabi in the Persian Gulf map, and fly home, still have enough fuel for 4000 kilometers when you land. And that's if you count all the distance and fuel burn in between those maps. Or how about the other way around, you do a mission only on the Syria map with your B-52, take off from the furthest point to the furthest you can pick a target. And when you return, you need to dump a great many tons of fuel, because you only burned 18% of fuel capacity.

 

 

[Rick50]

ok well not sure why he brought up the Hustler then, but anyway... Thing is, my post does highlight at least one reason why the B-52 is kinda silly with today's map sizes. I'm not saying such a plane couldn't be FUN though, for shorter missions even on these tiny maps, but it wouldn't be realistic if you can't overlook pure realism.

 

I do think I understand the appeal of the B-52, but I think the best route would be for a free mod, and aim for a single crewman to be able to do the mission alone, with some compromise between realism and "playability". Buy a large civilian throttle quadrant, a flight yoke, turn on the rear radar guided defensive gun, and fly some cool missions!

 

But to expect a business to put it's future in the prospects of a pure realism B-52 is to not understand the effort required, nor the market reaction. Not your reaction, but the reaction of "most players".

[bies]

13 hours ago, Rick50 said:

HUh?!?

 

Most DCS maps are roughly 500km by 500km. 

Exactly my opinion - B-58 Hustler would fit, B-52 no, maps are too small for the Buff.

 

Maps in DCS are all about tactical aviation, not strategic. To perform it's primary mission strategic bomber would need some room to actually penetrate enemy airspace.

 

And even then B-52 would be more exciting if modeled as late 1950s or at most early 1960s variant when it actually still had a chance to penetrate the defense. For sure not 1980s standoff long range cruise missile carrier.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by bies

[Tank50us]

7 minutes ago, bies said:

Exactly my opinion - B-58 Hustler would fit, B-52 no, maps are too small for the Buff.

 

 

The current maps might be too small, but remember we're about to get a huge map once South Atlantic is released, if it were any larger we'd be able to fully replicate Operation Black Buck!

[Furtherexplination]

15 hours ago, G.J.S said:

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-3.html

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Virtual-Tour/Cockpit360/

 

Pretty good for having a look around a few types.

 

I posted these links already, but thanks!

[Furtherexplination]

13 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

HUh?!?

 

Most DCS maps are roughly 500km by 500km. 

 

B-52 has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers).  

 

Soooo...  you take off... then fly circles. Around the very edges of the map. For 7 laps.  At some point you drop yer ordnance. And when you are truly bored to tears of just sitting there, looking out the window for another few hours of circling the map, you land.

 

Add 7 more laps if you do air tank refueling. How many very long hours is that?

 

It would be like using a main battle tank... on an indoor pistol range. Or starting up a Littlebird, in your barn. 

 

Edit: ok I just checked. During the Vietnam war, B-52's were stationed at Andersen AFB in Guam, in the Mariannas Islands. They flew bombing missions to Hanoi in North Vietnam. Unless they were battle damaged and leaking lots of fuel, air refuling was unessisary. They could (didn't but could) have flown direct to Hanoi, then south to Saigon, then to Darwin Australia and back to Guam without landing. Or, more realistically, they could have flown direct to Hanoi, (well, avoiding China's Hainan Island of course, don't wanna start another war by navigation accident!) and returned with 1/3 fuel remaining.

 

LEt's put this in context of DCS maps: you take off from Dover in the Channel map, fly to the furthest point in the Caucasus map, then fly down to Abu Dabi in the Persian Gulf map, and fly home, still have enough fuel for 4000 kilometers when you land. And that's if you count all the distance and fuel burn in between those maps. Or how about the other way around, you do a mission only on the Syria map with your B-52, take off from the furthest point to the furthest you can pick a target. And when you return, you need to dump a great many tons of fuel, because you only burned 18% of fuel capacity.

 

A B-52 has very long range, I won't argue that, but that doesn't mean it can't be utilized! You can put less fuel in it, or you can use its long loiter times to sit over a battlefield delivering lots of munitions. Furthermore, a flyable B-52 could conceivably fly in any era so we could fight against anything from the MiG-15 to the MiG-29

From Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/06/02/five-reasons-the-air-forces-b-52-bomber-will-be-the-first-jet-ever-to-stay-in-service-for-100-years/?sh=4113088f5ee6)

Long-range strike missions, nuclear or conventional, are just the beginning. B-52 crews demonstrated in Afghanistan that they could provide close air support to troops on the ground using a variety of precision-guided munitions. They also can accomplish maritime surveillance and sea control over vast areas, laying mines if necessary, with two bombers covering 140,000 square miles of ocean in two hours. And their ability to remain airborne for many hours makes them candidates for conducting reconnaissance or electronic jamming in support of other forces.

16 hours ago, bies said:

 

Supersonic B-58 Hustler would be a dream come true. It would be one of the best suited bombers for DCS map size and SP/MP environment. It would be simply very attractive to operate for virtual pilots. Flying this thing alone would be ton of fun and a real challenge, with flight characteristics different than any other existing module. I assume it's declassified.

 

(F-111 as well but this is already one of the most anticipated aircraft in the DCS community.)

 

(B-1b would be something in between, but many crucial systems are probably strictly classified - it's an active duty strategic bomber. And I doubt ED would be able to sacrifice resources needed to do just one module, Apache is nothing compared to B-1b when it comes to complexity.)

 

The B-58 is ONLY nuclear, it never carried conventional weapons 1 in a central fuel/bomb pod under its fuselage and 4 more on its wings.

The B-1B isn't nuclear, only conventional, and could be fun to fly, but I would prefer the B-52

The F-111 would be fun, but it isn't as interesting to me. If we got a F-111 I would like either the Australian F-111C or the American F-111F

A-3 or B-66 (maybe some of the EW variants) would be extremely cool too.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Furtherexplination

[bies]

Even if there will be some big map, even if ED would decide to make 8 engines multicrew super complex aircraft for somewhat limited audience what variant we are talking about?

 

• 1950s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at high altitude to drop gravity bombs?

• 1960s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at low altitude with standoff Hound Dog missiles?

• 1970s when most variants were retired and other, already outdated, would try for the last time to penetrate Soviet air defense with SRAM missiles?

• 1980s when B-52 became heavily outdated, wouldn't even try to penetrate Soviet air defense, releasing very long range ALCM cruise missiles from outside of Soviet airspace instead?

 

For me only 1950s or early 1960s would make sense. Later B-58 then FB-111, B-1b would be much more exciting having far bigger chance to actually "get through".

But really all of them would need some gigantic North Pole / north Soviet Union map to have a real purpose - they were all made for one specific goal, more or less depending on nuclear weapons.

Edited May 28, 2021 by bies

[Hammer1-1]

7 minutes ago, bies said:

Even if there will be some big map, even if ED would decide to make 8 engines multicrew super complex aircraft for somewhat limited audience what variant we are talking about?

 

• 1950s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at high altitude to drop gravity bombs?

• 1960s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at low altitude with standoff Hound Dog missiles?

• 1970s when most variants were retired and other, already outdated, would try for the last time to penetrate Soviet air defense with SRAM missiles?

• 1980s when B-52 became heavily outdated, wouldn't even try to penetrate Soviet air defense, releasing very long range ALCM cruise missiles from outside of Soviet airspace instead?

 

For me only 1950s or early 1960s would make sense. Later B-58 then FB-111, B-1b would be much more exciting having far bigger chance to actually "get through".

But really all of them would need some gigantic north Soviet Union map to have areal purpose - they were all made for one specific goal. They were all more or less depending on nuclear weapons.

 

A big part of me agrees with you. A bigger part of me disagrees because it can absolutely do a good job in the precision strike job market first mission, carpet bomb the entire map the next mission, and be ready as a support standoff jammer in another type mission, and finally in the anti-tank role and/or CAS with SFWs, JDAMs and other weapons. It really is the do-all of the USAF.  And with that said, Id rather quite honestly have a B-1B: similar payloads, similar missions, BUT handles like an F-4 phantom.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[bies]

21 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

A big part of me agrees with you. A bigger part of me disagrees because it can absolutely do a good job in the precision strike job market first mission, carpet bomb the entire map the next mission, and be ready as a support standoff jammer in another type mission, and finally in the anti-tank role and/or CAS with SFWs, JDAMs and other weapons. It really is the do-all of the USAF.  And with that said, Id rather quite honestly have a B-1B: similar payloads, similar missions, BUT handles like an F-4 phantom.

 

 

It may be. But was that really their purpose? Or they were designed for one goal - to penetrate Soviet air defense and to drop nuclear weapons?

 

And after the enemy disappeared in 1991 they lost their purpose and SAC used them as a bomb truck/CAS in zero threat environment due to enemy being unable to do anything and they were free to operate wherever they wanted in some Afghanistan to bomb some completely helpless terrorists/insurgencies?

 

Their true designed nuclear mission excites me to be recreated in computer simulation, playing cat and mouse game with Soviet SAMs and GCI guided interceptors, long range patrols, forward stations on a huge cold area, but the second, bombing some helpless guys in zero threat environment... not so much.

 

So I'm both for and against strategic bombers, depending on concept.

Edited May 28, 2021 by bies

[Hammer1-1]

Well that depends on how you define "their purpose". Over the centuries, its purpose has changed many times; in its current role, it can no longer do the nuclear mission it was originally designed to do, as if Im not mistaken the START treaty kinda helped that mission out the door. That mission is no more. No, that mission is being handed to stealth fighters like the F-35 that are more than capable of penetrating air space undetected. Thats a resume you can pick and choose from honestly, but as it stands right now it no longer has a job for its original intended purpose anymore.

Edit: well I think I might be wrong about the whole nuclear deal, but as it stands its just ALCMs.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

On 5/26/2021 at 7:54 PM, Furtherexplination said:

Yeah, but I'm not good at research and don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to participate somehow.

Oh. Tought you thought thats the best available

[Furtherexplination]

I would prefer the modern H variant because I can mess around with Harpoons, bombs, and precision Guided munitions.