this post was submitted on
1,397 points (65% like it)
2,972 up votes 1,575 down votes

pics

subscribe2,337,521 readers

9,639 users here now

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
/r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 213

[–]Killfile 70 points71 points ago

When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfucker on the planet; accept no substitutes

[–]BrewmasterSG 38 points39 points ago

Its a great tool for homogenizing and flattening a large area. Like a giant, flying tribute to the second law of thermodynamics, it disrupts all sense of order or pattern to an area. "Mess with us and we'll crank up your entropy to 11."

[–]original_locutus 20 points21 points ago

Allows living things in a large area to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the universe - all at approximately the same time...

[–]danhawkeye 23 points24 points ago

The US Air Force.

The most laid back and civilized of the armed forces.

And we can incinerate anything that has a GPS coordinate.

[–]CookieOfFortune 10 points11 points ago

And then we blow up the wrong target because the coordinates were wrong.

[–]yafeelzmeh 7 points8 points ago

thats the guys on the ground giving them the coordinates to hit.

[–]Funk_Munki 0 points1 point ago

Or in the air, but then we'd blame the AWACS.

[–]CookieOfFortune 0 points1 point ago

I'm pretty sure they can also use satellite imaging and maps.

[–]yafeelzmeh 4 points5 points ago

Oh they use tons of satellites and maps, but when a marine calls in an airstrike for support, the air force will send out any drones or use any satellites to help with the situation if they are near. If not then the air force(or whatever air division from any military branch) has to go off of what ground troops give them. They will give them coordinates or use laser markers to highlight target area.

[–]Finndizzle 6 points7 points ago

This is all 100% true. The most horrific thing that can happen has happened within the last few years. A bunch of our own ground troops got killed because they gave our pilots the wrong coordinates. The forward controller had an issue with his equipment. He swapped batteries. When you swap batteries the unit automatically shows the current coordinates, not the previously input data. The guy called in the coordinates...his coordinates. The bombs landed pretty much on top of his location. Took him and his guys out.

[–]nixon007 0 points1 point ago

no ! I am in painful disbelief!

[–]yafeelzmeh 0 points1 point ago

Damn....that sounds insane. I'm sorry for that loss man. Yeah i don't put blame on anyone, to do what those people do in that sort of pressure

[–]ShadowSuicide 1 point2 points ago

So, who the fuck designed that feature?

[–]Finndizzle 2 points3 points ago

The military buys its stuff from the lowest contract bidder. You get what you pay for and they paid for a pretty bad design flaw. Hopefully its been fixed.

[–]mattypatty88 -1 points0 points ago

The US Air Force. We are not the Army or Marines, you have to be smart to get in. AMIRITE?

[–]Finndizzle 1 point2 points ago

lol you should see some of the Airmen I have to put up with though...

[–]slabolis 1 point2 points ago

Nope.

[–]ddaybones 11 points12 points ago

Need to do it in the next 8 hours? No problem

[–]LittleBlarg 6 points7 points ago

Removes mountains and creates valleys!

[–]one-half 6 points7 points ago

of course, a B-1 carries more payload, goes faster, goes further, and can mount a mirror to target a 5 megawatt laser to pop corn with.

[–]Finndizzle 7 points8 points ago

yes its faster and has a slightly larger payload than the B52, however the external hardpoints on a B-1 will never be used and the b52 can use all of them all the time. It also has a higher Mission Capable rate vs. that of the B-1. (means its not broke-dick all the time like the B-1)

[–]ineedtopoop89 3 points4 points ago

The B-1 was originally planned as a replacement for the B-52, it just proved to expensive.

[–]Finndizzle 0 points1 point ago

Correct, and then they figured, 'hell, why not keep them both?' lol

[–]moderndayanachronism 1 point2 points ago

Citation? I thought that the B-1 had a slightly higher payload and nowhere near the range...

I have never seen any compelling evidence that the B-1 is more effective than a B-52. And that variable geometry wing is sooo 70's...

[–]MK_Ultrex 4 points5 points ago

You missed the real genius reference. Cult 80's film with a young Val Kilmer.

[–]moderndayanachronism 0 points1 point ago

ROFL, thought it was a real comment veiled with the RG reference.

[–]MK_Ultrex 1 point2 points ago

The B1 was the first of those modern American toys that offer solutions to non-existent problems followed by stuff like the B2 or the F22. They keep running a race but after the fall of the USSR they run alone. The American military-industrial complex keeps producing sci-fi tech for no other reason than perpetuating it's bloated existence. And I base my argument on the fact that when the US armed forces actually want shit done they use obsolete A-10s and B-52s and glorified RC planes, not the expensive bling. Sure the F22 grants a lot of bragging rights, but at 250 million a pop (or a fucking billion for a B2 shadow) I believe that Americans should start reconsidering their priorities.

[–]moderndayanachronism 0 points1 point ago

I think Ike said it best with the new car analogy.

[–]MK_Ultrex 0 points1 point ago

I remember reading a president's warning against the military-industrial complex (was it Ike?) but I don't remember the car analogy. Do you have a link?

[–]moderndayanachronism 0 points1 point ago

Nope. It was in the movie "Why We Fight" if I recall correctly. It was after they discussed another comment that Ike had made about feeling sorry for the country when the President didn't have the military knowledge he possessed. He then went on to talk about fighter planes being like cars and certain models not being more effective, just different looking.

[–]MK_Ultrex 1 point2 points ago

I found the speech I was talking about. It was Ike's farewell speech as president.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

This is the part I was referring to. Pretty prophetic and coming not from a hippie treehugger but from a president of the US, conservative and who fought the last war that made any sense fighting. How is it not more famous always baffles me. Everybody remembers Kennedys shenanigans and Monica Lewinsky, yet nobody references the farewell speech of one of the most important persons that helped win WW2.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Fast forward 53 years and 20 airplanes cost as much as the economies of half the African continent. That's what I call insight.

[–]BadBowtie1983 2 points3 points ago

Maybe but damn the B-1 is sexy.

[–]Finndizzle 0 points1 point ago

damn straight it is

[–]twocoolvk 0 points1 point ago

'you must get even with jerry hathaway...it's a moral imperative'

[–]ussbaney 1 point2 points ago

The B-52: Because we got really sick of your shit!

[–]britishimperialist -1 points0 points ago

When you absolutely, positively, got to kill random unarmed Indochinese peasants; accept no substitutes

FTFY, as you young people say.

[–]happywaffle 55 points56 points ago

[–]SolusLoqui 10 points11 points ago

Unit Cost: $53.4 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)

Edit: Supposedly this would equal $75 million in 2012 (says a couple of inflation calculators)

[–]DJ-Anakin 10 points11 points ago

Still cheaper than developing new airframes... which is why the B-52 is still around, and will be for another couple decades.

[–]Finndizzle 10 points11 points ago

They want to keep this thing in the air until 2040. I work on them...its getting harder to keep the bitch fixed with each year that goes by!

[–]SagebrushFire 0 points1 point ago

Why would they keep these in production for that long? Hasn't the technology evolved to make these things obsolete? I don't know anything about them so I'm curious.

[–]Finndizzle 4 points5 points ago

They keep them because the airframe works and they are able to upgrade them and use them for more than they were originally intended for. Right now there is no replacement bomber to assume the role that the B-52 fills.

[–]SagebrushFire 0 points1 point ago

But wouldn't todays missile systems and anti-aircraft defense make this bomber a relic? It was developed in the 1950s?

[–]Finndizzle 8 points9 points ago

Yes and no. The countermeasures and electronic warfare systems currently in place are capable of defending the aircraft from any threats. That's not to say that it would never get shot down but it just gives it a better chance of surviving. In a real war situation fighter aircraft would usually go and disable any ground threats to the B-52 before the bomber would be deployed to strike targets

[–]Toastar_888 1 point2 points ago

Nah the trick that made these things still useful is ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missiles)

[–]CookieOfFortune 0 points1 point ago

What's the advantage of an alcm compared to ground/sea launched? Longer range?

[–]Toastar_888 1 point2 points ago

Well Ground launch is impractical, Mainly for political reasons.

Ideally you have a carrier in range for strike capability(which would also be carrying ALCM's), or a CG, or a DDG, or a SSGN.

Realistically, The range is about the same no matter where you launch it from. The AGM-158B Has about the same range as the ER version of the tomahawk. 925 vs 900 nautical miles respectively. i guess the big advantage is it can be deployed from just outside of Anti-air coverage rather then from the nearest body of water.

Look at Afghanistan, because it's land locked a Cruise missile would have to travel 300 mi over Pakistan before entering Afghanistan. Again this is assuming you don't have carrier near by that has the same capabilities.

In a situation like Libya, Most of the heavy lifting was done by cruisers and submarines.

[–]Finndizzle 0 points1 point ago

very true. It can carry a large dispenser (i dont know the real name for the launcher) inside the bomb bay. It carries about 8? i think. That doesnt count everything it can hold on the wings. After blowing its load all over whatever country we want it to, it can also hang out for a while and target stuff on the ground (w/ help from ground controllers) and then fighter/bombers like the F-15E etc can swoop in, pick up a target and hit it then head for home. It can sink ships too. Not bad for a dinosaur.

[–]Toastar_888 0 points1 point ago

After Quite a bit of reading wiki on the subject today. The B-1 is a much better candidate. It is cheaper to operate, and carries more missiles(24 vs 14)

[–]Myrv 0 points1 point ago

It was originally designed as a high altitude bomber but with the advent of SAMs and such they updated the avionics and changed its role to low level penetrations. It did surprisingly well given that it was never designed for such a role. I don't know if they still train for that though. I believe most of those missions have been taken over by the B1.

[–]lbmouse 2 points3 points ago

Not sure if you are old enough to remember the whole B1 fiasco. It was going to be the 52's replacement. Massive cost overruns and political bullshit kept shelving the plan. Then rumors of the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB eventually B2) project put the final nail in the coffin.

[–]snuf42 1 point2 points ago

The B1 was originally designed to be part of the US nuclear strike capability. That role was made more or less obsolete by advances in ICBM and submarine launch technology. We no longer needed to fly over to the USSR and dump bombs directly on them. Compare the top speed of the original B1A at mach 2.2 versus the B2's .95 mach. A lot has changed in bomber roles since the B1 was designed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "final nail in the coffin", 67 out of 100 built B1s are still operational and have flown missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may well still be in service into the 2030s.

[–]Finndizzle 2 points3 points ago

They are pushing to keep them until 2040. The actual airframe is becoming stressed though and undergoes extensive inspections each time it goes into maintenance. Some parts cannot be replaced, and they have to send it on a farewell flight to the 'Boneyard."

[–]lbmouse 0 points1 point ago

It never became a replacement for the B52. Both Carter and Reagen had knowledge of the ATB in development so the B1 never had much of a chance to be a B52 killer.

[–]RangerPL 1 point2 points ago

The B-52 was considered obsolete in the 1960s when supersonic bombers and ICBMs became operational but the invention of the cruise missile as well as their capability to drop truly massive conventional payloads is what changed the DoD's mind.

[–]cf18 1 point2 points ago

Boeing did a lot of wind tunnel tests and found the swept wing with pod engines design were the most efficient and safest from engine fire, and made B-47, B-52 and 707. All airliners still use similar design today.

[–]DJ-Anakin 2 points3 points ago

< former B-52 2W1

[–]Finndizzle 3 points4 points ago

<current b52h maintainer

[–]steve_b 0 points1 point ago

Why is it getting harder to fix them? I thought that the B-52 was one of the great examples of long-term engineering/maintenance projects. I read an article a few years ago talking about how the planes are probably the most reliable around, simply because every single failure has been documented and addressed, after decades of careful observation.

[–]Finndizzle 6 points7 points ago

The supply line for parts is getting smaller and smaller because the aircraft is so old. One thing that the govt does when it figured up the initial cost of an aircraft is they figure in 'x' amount of years of replacement parts for the maintenance of the aircraft. The b52 is way beyond its lifetime. Some items on the jet are only procurable through means of cannibalizing it from a retired aircraft. Don't get me wrong, we are able to keep them in the air and they can still level a nation, but as they grow older the stresses of flying are taking a permanent toll on the airframe.

[–]MK_Ultrex 1 point2 points ago

Metal stress. Even if you could find or manufacture replacement parts the airframe will give sooner or later.

[–]Finndizzle 0 points1 point ago

Exactly. I was talking to one of the Boeing engineers a few months ago and he mentioned that one of the biggest reasons they have lasted so long was because during the Cold War they sat on the ground more than they flew. They were always on 'alert' status, and were never used in a real world situation as they were intended. Since they had fewer flying hours, the structure of the aircraft didnt become as stressed as quickly, and now the age is catching up to them. We launch them fully loaded for training missions. We land them fully loaded because there was no release of weapons (because they are dummy bombs). This is taking its toll on the wings and backbone of the aircraft where the wings attach to the center-wing area (which is also a fuel tank). When sitting on the ground the wings hang downward like youll see in any picture, but in flight the wings bend upward like the wings on a bird. You can see how this is bad over time.

[–]poon-is-food 5 points6 points ago

trying to pull f-16 move in a B-52 (from youtube)

yup pretty much.

That move would only be safe at a massive altitude.

[–]happywaffle 7 points8 points ago

It wouldn't be safe at ANY altitude. The only thing higher altitude would buy you is time to get out of the stall and regain control.

[–]JabbrWockey 1 point2 points ago

You can actually see the part that it lost lift and the weight of the craft begins to take over.

[–]poon-is-food 0 points1 point ago

I was watching going, "please dont bank any more than that, you're gonna lose lift, dont bank at 90 degrees you're gonna die, fuck fuck fuck what a fucking moron of a pilot."

[–]thedudeabides- 0 points1 point ago

massive

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]no_numbers_in_name 29 points30 points ago

That wasn't a competition. He wasn't even young, he was an experienced Major. He was a jackass pilot that was a known fuck up and danger to fly. Except in the early 90's it was an extreme good ol' boy culture so he was never punished. In that crash the pilot took with him his squadron commander and the wing commander because they were the only ones that would fly with him.

[–]LittleBlarg 3 points4 points ago

Wow, looks like McWatt showed up a half century late. People forget how real the danger of what they're doing is sometimes.

[–]R3luctant 1 point2 points ago

I actually jumped to that reference too as soon as I saw the video.

[–]Elcid93 0 points1 point ago

Every student going through USAF pilot training is shown this video and case study. Seriously a tragic event, but a great learning tool.

[–]JoshSN 4 points5 points ago

Way to not fucking read your own link:

The subsequent investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to three factors: Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' delayed or inadequate reactions to earlier incidents involving Holland, and the sequence of events during the aircraft's final flight.

Does the DoD pay you to smear dead airmen?

[–]Noticethewrongthing 3 points4 points ago

The chain of events leading up to the crash was attributable to the sequence of events during the flight?

I'd have never guessed.

[–]TexasTango 1 point2 points ago

I'm sure I read somewhere the pilot Bud Holland's kid was on the field and watched him crash.

[–]mrpeatie 3 points4 points ago

It was one of the other's crew members' last flight. His wife and two sons were watching. From the Wiki link:

The flight was also Wolff's "fini flight" – a common tradition in which a retiring USAF aircrew member is met shortly after landing on his or her final flight at the airfield by relatives, friends and coworkers, and doused with water. Thus, Wolff's wife and many of his close friends were at the airfield to watch the flight and participate in the post-flight ceremony. McGeehan's wife and two youngest sons watched the flight from the backyard of McGeehan's living quarters, located nearby.

[–]DJ-Anakin 2 points3 points ago

It was during rehersal for an airshow, so I don't know.

[–]nardsy13 1 point2 points ago

Every time I see a B52 I think of "Bud" Holland and his flying

[–]ZenMasterFlash 3 points4 points ago

I think of Major Kong.

[–]Aihwa 0 points1 point ago

I got that "oh shit, that ain't recoverable" feeling right in the gut at 1:45 when the nose started bleeding degrees. Planes are not magic, wings need to stay flat...

[–]forty2skates 0 points1 point ago

I remember that accident. I was living in Spokane at the time and my neighbor across the street was KC-135 pilot and knew that crew. My neighbor was later fired along with the rest of his crew for a nude flight. On my phone so I'm afraid I can't cite reference but I'm sure it can be easily found through the Spokesman-Review.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]happywaffle 8 points9 points ago

Interesting side note, it's extremely difficult to accidentally blow up a nuclear bomb. Conventional explosives, though, are more than happy to go boom if you jostle them around too much.

[–]lilrabbit129 2 points3 points ago

I had a picture of a bomb being very accommodating.

[–]ulber 2 points3 points ago

I've read a book about a bomb being very accommodating.

[–]lilrabbit129 2 points3 points ago

The movie didn't do it justice, cut out all the character development!

[–]DJ-Anakin 0 points1 point ago

Not that easy though. I saw at least 4 bombs dropped while I was a weapons loader on B-52's. There was even one that dropped nose first and broke the arming nose cone off an dthe flightline and nearby neighborhood had to be evac'd. I don't remember any of that though because I was unconscience for two days on good drugs after getting my ankle run over by our bomb lift truck. The crew that was called in is the one that dropped it. lol

[–]RangerPL 0 points1 point ago

It's not even that. The fire itself would just heat up the conventional explosives and set them off, like what happened on USS Forrestal.

[–]frutabega -2 points-1 points ago

just watching that makes me feel terrible...

[–]pacer_rulz 26 points27 points ago

Peace. The old fashioned way

[–]YNot1989 1 point2 points ago

Peace, means having a bigger stick than the other guys.

[–]rephtar 9 points10 points ago

I'm a crew chief on the Buff for about a year now. There is nothing like standing in front of them when it gets all eight engines going.

[–]LocustRex 5 points6 points ago

My dad flew these fat fuckers back in the 90's. I love that sound, nothing quite like sitting outside the fence and hearing that rumble.

[–]DJ-Anakin 2 points3 points ago

BAFB or MAFB?

96 BS, BAFB, 98-00.

[–]rephtar 5 points6 points ago

BAFB. 11th AMU.

[–]9Freeski 12 points13 points ago

This thing looks like it should never be able to leave the ground. What a fucking badass plane. Those engines look like they're gonna rip right off the wings.

[–]freecandy_van 0 points1 point ago

You should check out the C-5...

[–]tritonice 10 points11 points ago

50+ year old airframes that will last another 30+. Amazing aircraft, and probably one of the most feared on the planet.

[–]AceEightWins 14 points15 points ago

[–]Aihwa 0 points1 point ago

Make them out of steel with radioactive poop and that's a pretty good comparison.

[–]sEcKtUr8 9 points10 points ago

[–]wstd 0 points1 point ago

B-52 is my favorite airplane.

Dr. Strangelove opening is absolute beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJCL9yc-R1g

This is also great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joupmq4e2eM

[–]catsfive 0 points1 point ago

As you know (but for others who might not), Kubrik carefully chose each sequence in that first link to mimic sexual intercourse. Literally one of the greatest films ever made. And Peter Sellers plays three roles in it. Sheesh. Just awesome.

[–]tklibe 10 points11 points ago

[–]Aihwa 1 point2 points ago

We haven't had a third World War yet.

[–]catsfive 0 points1 point ago

Sit tight, America.

[–]Leafy_head 4 points5 points ago

My dad used to repair these when he was in the air force.

One day, we took a family trip to the Air Force Museum in Dayton, and he saw a B-52 in the hangar, looked at its serial(?) number, and remarked that this "artifact" in the museum was newer than the ones he used to work on. Makes a fella feel old.

And as a side note, if you like planes even remotely, go to that museum. It's stuffed full of awesome.

[–]Anonymous3891 3 points4 points ago

Also admission is free. :-)

(Well, it mostly runs off donations which mostly come from aerospace contractors which mostly come from our tax dollars...so that kinda free.)

[–]latticusnon 3 points4 points ago

I would have sex with that plane.

[–]mtheory007 0 points1 point ago

I think that is would be more of a case of it have sex with you.

[–]R_Jeeves 4 points5 points ago

My dad flew these things back in the first Gulf War, he said the seats were uncomfortable as hell by design to keep pilots awake for their week-long sorties. Also, he had one incident where all but one of those four engine pods failed and he had to land the bastard with only the right inner pod functioning, did it successfully though.

He went to fly AWACS at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma after that before he ended his service because they were going to promote him to a position where he would no longer be flying, now he flies for a major airline.

Those things were the absolute shit though, especially the earlier models that had the tail gunner seat. Apparently the entire inner portion of the craft was reserved for bomb/fuel storage so the tail gunner would have to crawl through a shaft about as big around as one of those white crackled ceiling panels you see in classrooms and offices all the way from the cockpit to the rear. His particular B52 had Bugs Bunny painted on the nose and IIRC now rests as a monument in front of Tinker.

Also yes, he did drop bombs, lots of them. He also carried nuclear bombs which, although disarmed, were still capable of being armed and had payloads capable of wiping out New York City completely.

[–]bobstay 0 points1 point ago

week-long sorties

They did that? Could the crew sleep? What was the endurance before they had to refuel? Why not send them up in shifts?

[–]R_Jeeves 6 points7 points ago

Yeah, the crew was given a pill called (I believe) Provigil which is primarily Modafinil, an anti-sleeping pill that basically takes over all the receptors in your brain that respond to hormones and chemical build-ups that cause drowsiness and prevents your brain from feeling tired. It's not healthy, really, but they did it. I believe he said they could go from somewhere in the Mid-West or Southern states where they have a giant airbase that primarily houses and repairs B-52s for the whole Air Force all the way to Saudi Arabia on one tank of fuel and would do a series of mid-air refuels in the area during the sortie before coming back home. And no, they weren't allowed to sleep, not even in shifts. He did land a couple times in a major Saudi airport when no air tankers were available or they needed to repair any damage (never from being shot at, but when you go up to the altitudes these things fly at it's like an SR-71 where the metal expands from the low pressure and shit just breaks now and then) and that's how I got my first "Rolex", which actually worked pretty well and was self-winding but completely fake despite looking identical to a popular model at the time.

Shifts would have been difficult to manage as the B-52 was designed as a long-range bomber and would take a week to go out and come back from missions, the main reason it was used was the dearth of friendly air force bases in the area, the ones which were available were being used by fighters and smaller recon jets and bombers and most couldn't accommodate the B-52's massive size even if they were empty because the runways weren't wide enough. If you're talking about the pilot/copilot taking shifts, that wasn't allowed or possible. The pilot would typically be the primary flier while the copilot would function as a navigator and bomb controller, sleeping would just make things difficult if the shit hit the fan and AA was locking on or the President called to authorize a nuclear strike.

Neat fact most people don't know about the B-52: it was one of the first bombers to include an ejection seat, and the ejection seat shoots downwards due to the fact that 90% of the time these jets are at altitudes which would kill a pilot very quickly if they were shot upwards into even thinner air. The gunner seat didn't have an ejector but they did have plans to include one that would basically turn the entire tail section into a glider, but this was never implemented successfully or even tested I think. The more you know!

[–]matth_yo 2 points3 points ago

Anything else you can tell us? Learning is awesome!!

[–]R_Jeeves 2 points3 points ago

Sure! The B-52 has the capability to not only drop bombs, but also fire cruise missiles guided by an infra-red emitter located on the bottom of the craft. The rudder alone is too tall to fit in a typical department store (more than 1.5 stories), and the wings would often have landing gear of their own out near the edges to keep them from snapping off during take-off and landing because of the weight from all the fuel. B-52 Pilots also wear pressure suits in the event of a breach in the fuselage, but the cockpit is also double-sealed so it doesn't lose pressure when the bomb bay doors open. Pilots would fly sorties every week and were required to pass basic physical evaluations every month with in-depth physicals performed every three months.

B-52 bombers were also some of the only planes tall people like my dad (6 feet 4 inches) could fit in and fly. He'd gone in wanting to fly jets like everyone else, and while he had the skills to fly and the intelligence they required, he was too tall.

I'm not sure what else I can talk about, running out of things to say I guess! If you ask questions I can probably answer them, and if I can't I'll see about asking my dad when I get a chance to get his answer. :)

[–]quotebear 8 points9 points ago

Still not big enough for your mother.

[–]cemdemo 3 points4 points ago

i guess this is the plane that your mother used for her skydiving adventures. http://www.lolroflmao.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sorry-to-hear.jpg

[–]vaio_s 0 points1 point ago

is that a fucking teletubby

[–]StoneColdPineapple 3 points4 points ago

The great thing about the B-52 is that generations of pilots can fly them, whole families telling stories about one aircraft, and it's super pretty to boot....

[–]immarried 6 points7 points ago

[–]rephtar -4 points-3 points ago

Flying*

[–]DJ-Anakin 7 points8 points ago

*Fat

/B-52 weapons loader, 1996-2000.

[–]rephtar 0 points1 point ago

Ah, I guess it is interchangeable according to wikipedia. I've always been told flying.

[–]WelcomeMachine 0 points1 point ago

*Flying

/ALCM and SRAM missile systems tech 1983-1994. Not some knuckle dragger.

[–]buck_satan 2 points3 points ago

I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

[–]Reichsfuhrer_Grammer 1 point2 points ago

Not really. Nuclear subs and ICBM overtook the role of nuclear delivery. The B-52 is only useful when you have complete air superiority and the enemy has minimal or zero SAMs. They are outmoded and outdated and wouldn't survive a modern battlefield. They, like aircraft carriers are only useful in "colonial" actions, i.e. against vastly inferior opponents. The US, dropped 7 million tons of bombs in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, a large part of it from B-52s, twice the amount of conventional bombs dropped in the entire WWII theatres, yet still lost the war.

[–]Firenfizz 0 points1 point ago

Fortunately, the majority of sovereign states on Earth are "vastly inferior" in terms of air power and the ability to take these things out.

It's old, obsolete, and ugly, but the B-52 still has plenty of work to do.

[–]SuperSaiyanNoob 2 points3 points ago

USAF brought one to our airshow at the airport I work at. It had wheels on the end of the wingtips and barely fit through our taxiways back to the runway. It was hilarious. After it took off it turned around and did a fly over nice and low and it is easily the coolest looking mid-air aircraft I've ever seen.

[–]korn91313 0 points1 point ago

B-52 (flightline) Crew Chief here, and these are pieces of shit, worst plane the air force has to offer. Almost anyone who works on them currently, absolutely hates their lives.

[–]L011erC0ast3r 0 points1 point ago

dat piece if shit, worst the air force has to offer, anyone who works on them hates their lives, bomber

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt 0 points1 point ago

Isn't there a rule that, outside of museums, airplanes aren't supposed to be older than the people working on them?

[–]Treybird 0 points1 point ago

So glad I don't have to worry about working on bombers any time soon. I'll stay Chuck 17s for a while.

[–]lilrabbit129 1 point2 points ago

Imagine a squadron of these coming at you, with their fighter escort. Shit-your-pants worthy.

[–]DeepFriedPanda 1 point2 points ago

It's as big as a whale, and it's about to set sail!

[–]cp1101 1 point2 points ago

Is it just me, or does the fuselage seem disproportionately skinny compared to those huge wings?

[–]Anonymous3891 2 points3 points ago

It's not just you. Ordinance is not particularly voluminous, but it is very heavy. The payload capacity of a B-52 is 70,000lbs, so it need large wings to maintain lift. Also, there are 2 weapons pylons on the actual wings near the fuselage.

[–]willymo 0 points1 point ago

70,000lbs of explosives... mmmm

[–]SuperSaiyanNoob 0 points1 point ago

I've seen some massive planes and the B-52 wingspan takes the cake.

[–]DJ-Anakin 0 points1 point ago

Wish I could see the tail color.

[–]parrotforpresident 0 points1 point ago

Johnny i hardly knew ya.

[–]TheCrazedCow 0 points1 point ago

Over a half-century later and that thing's still a badass!

[–]machzel08 0 points1 point ago

Good lord that is a lot of engines.

[–]tmotom 0 points1 point ago

This is my favorite plane. You can even check my comments, I've said this before. This is one bad ass vehicle!

[–]IronSloth 0 points1 point ago

This might my second fav plane, B-17 being the first. Both lovely planes.

[–]SailorMitch 0 points1 point ago

As a person who works on jets, fuck working on that. As a terrorist fuck that shBOOM!

[–]majinjohnny 1 point2 points ago

love shack.

[–]Sk3l3tr0n 0 points1 point ago

gangster ass plane! USA! USA! USA!

[–]MrCavallis 0 points1 point ago

this thing is just MASSIVE really nice

[–]spike1167 0 points1 point ago

I recently got to see one of these up close and personal at an airshow. It was a static display but still functioning air craft. What an amazing piece of machinery.

Oh and standing inside the bomb bay is a little un-nerving and eerie!

[–]Ulysses_Goodfellow -1 points0 points ago

Cross post from r/gaming? 1942 Boss level right?

[–]nixon007 0 points1 point ago

that is a huge anti human device

[–]mtheory007 0 points1 point ago

I grew up near Barksdale AFB where they house a large portion of the US B-52 fleet. Watching them fly formation maneuvers is pretty impressive. It always made me think about how terrifying it would be to be in the receiving end of that.

[–]J_G_B 0 points1 point ago

We're gonna free the fuck outta you...

[–]GrundleOuch -1 points0 points ago

tits.

[–]Korgul 0 points1 point ago

dat wingspan

[–]andylevalley 0 points1 point ago

Death from above on a massive scale

[–]supereri 1 point2 points ago

I really like the B-1, but let's see it do this. B-52 in action

[–]GeneralAgrippa 0 points1 point ago

Did someone say they needed their shit fucked over here?

[–]Auzzy11 0 points1 point ago

larger size?

[–]YNot1989 0 points1 point ago

Harbinger of the Apocalypse.

[–]Personsen 0 points1 point ago

Why does it have so many testicles...?

[–]dmakan 0 points1 point ago

With a bit of luck, I hope one day I will be able to work with one of these

[–]pretty_jimmy 0 points1 point ago

I don't. Normally like to fly, but I would give up an awful lot to fly In one of those babies. Oh fuck ya.

[–]Jubeii 0 points1 point ago

My dad was in the Soviet radio intelligence forces, and would track the US air forces over Vietnam. Says they were pretty formidable planes. That is, until USSR supplied the Vietnamese with some state-of-the-art SAMs, and B-52s started dropping like flies.

[–]pwill49 0 points1 point ago

This is what that kid was drawing

[–]ZenMasterFlash 1 point2 points ago

BUFF

[–]psitheta 0 points1 point ago

Gods its a beautiful thing.

[–]reputably26 -2 points-1 points ago

C-130, c-5 and c-17 are cargo aircraft that are used to send relief supplies to areas in need. The b52 and it's technology were never considered for anything other than ass-kicking. Right technology, right priorities.

[–]IronSloth -2 points-1 points ago

In deep gangster Compton voice* " I drop bombs on Hiroshima!"

[–]SuperToad 0 points1 point ago

Wrong plane dumbass.

[–]dubdubdubdot -2 points-1 points ago

The US airforce bombing peasants and UN vehicles for shits and giggles.