This is coolbert:
From a comment to the blog by Steiner:
"The only American supersonic bomber that was ever actually deployed for the 'one-way' mission profile over Soviet airspace was the superb Convair B-58 Hustler."
The "Hustler"! Bomber B-58.
"hustler - - noun 1. an enterprising person determined to succeed; a go-getter."
The B-58 delta wing supersonic high-flying bomber aircraft as flown by the American Strategic Air Command [SAC] during the 1960's.
"The Convair B-58 Hustler was the first operational supersonic jet bomber capable of Mach 2 flight [and was] developed for the United States Air Force for service in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) during the 1960s."
Has the appearance of a fuselage and wings strapped to four engines. That those wings were able to handle the forces and support the flight of the warplane during supersonic flight is indeed amazing.
A plane designed for the global thermonuclear war. Penetrate Soviet airspace, fly high and fast, reach the target, drop bombs, be gone.
I do remember these planes very well from that period of the early 1960's. Flying out of what was at the time called Bunker Hill AFB, going supersonic over the Chicago area at night, causing a sonic boom that woke the entire city from slumber, persons taking to the streets to see what exactly had occurred. That boom was ubiquitous, seeming to come from all directions and was very loud and pervasive, frightening even during that era of nuclear confrontation with the Soviet.
"The B-58 received a great deal of notoriety due to its sonic boom, which was often heard by the public as it passed overhead in supersonic flight"
Such sonic booms were part of a test? To see how the American public would react to some aspects of military operations that might occur either prior to or during that global thermonuclear war? So was the thought and the rumor at the time.
The "Hustler" had advantages and DRAWBACKS. Those drawbacks to include:
* "It was a complex aircraft that required considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment and ground personnel. The B-58 cost three times as much to operate as the B-52."
* "It had an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 B-58 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production."
* "The B-58 was difficult to fly and its three-man crews were constantly busy, but its performance was exceptional"
Exceptional performance BUT costly to fly and maintain and COULD BE deadly to the aircrews. The operational envelope was being pushed to the limit and beyond?
That Soviet PVO becoming strong with regard to surface-air-missiles [SAM], the threat to those high-flying B-58 becoming such that low-level flight became an imperative. NEGATING the advantages of the supersonic high-altitude approach to a target.
That combination of SAM threat, lessened performance and cost doomed the "Hustler" to the scrap heap. Regrettably so!!
coolbert.
Posts
4 comments:
Happy is the nation whose sleep is disturbed only by its mighty engines of war!
All the first generation supersonic military planes seem kind of crazy-heroic in retrospect: F104, B58, SR71, what was the plane George W. Bush flew?
My father spent years trying to keep F104s flying for NATO air forces that had bought them not as they were designed -- interceptors for one way missions in case of Soviet nuclear bomber attack -- but as more general purpose planes.
He recently told me that he once asked an Italian air force officer why the West Germans were always complaining about their pilots getting killed in F104s but you never heard about Italian pilots dying. What were the Italians doing right? "Oh, our pilots die." He was told. "Unlike the Germans, however, we just don't complain about it."
Steve, W flew a Convair F-102, the first supersonic delta-wing fighter to enter regular service. It was indeed a wild ride, as were all of the combat jets designed and deployed in the 40s and 50s. Losses were high, much higher than today, and Bush never got the credit he was due for his physical courage. I attribute this to the mainstream media's total ignorance of all matters pertaining to combat aviation, plus default hostility to a Republican.
The F-104 was famously unsuited for its multirole deployment with the various NATO air forces and Japan. They must have wondered if they would have been better off with MiGs, rather than having to suffer with the "Starfighter"! I've never understood how the USA got away with foisting off on its allies an aircraft that the USAF itself didn't like. Perhaps your father has some insight on this point?
I am an ex USAF pilot (1980s) so I have a pretty good idea about how things worked there. The idea that Bush should get credit for his physical courage for flying a Guard F-102 is an insult to all the pilots who flew in Vietnam at that time. During the period in which Bush was in the Texas guard there was essentially no way in which a Guard pilot would be assigned to Vietnam. Bush, and every other pilot in the Guard at that time, knew that they were at zero risk of going to Vietnam. Even in the 80s, when I served in the USAF, there was still virtually zero chance of being assigned to combat as guard pilot. In fact, at that time, many Guard pilots referred to the ANG as the greatest flying club in the world.
Sure, Century series fighters were dangerous, but every pilot at that time flew these planes. What was way more dangerous than flying a Guard F-102 was flying any fighter or bomber, or even many transports, in Vietnam. This was something the privileged Bush Jr. made sure he did not have to do. Beyond the fact that Bush avoided any combat duty is the fairly clear inference in his military record that he didn't do very much at all in the Guard.
Today Guard duty is very different. Often the ANG is nearly the first to go when there are hostilities, but when Bush was a Guard pilot it was very well known that the Guard was a great way to avoid any combat.
Post a Comment