Skip to comments.
Aircrews Refuel B-52s in Flight for the Fight
Defend America News ^
| Master Sgt. Scott King
Posted on 03/17/2006 3:12:00 PM PST by SandRat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: Knuckledragger
Well, actually ideally suited for it too, with JDAM precision munitions. Lots more efficient than having a number of fighters rotate around.
Guys up in that B-52 are probably buzzing around bored out of their mind, drinking coffee, and punch in a few numbers when the guys below request a drop.
21
posted on
03/17/2006 3:39:50 PM PST
by
farlander
(Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)
To: SandRat
Do you guys take American Express? lol
22
posted on
03/17/2006 3:42:54 PM PST
by
verity
(The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
To: Knuckledragger
Didn't know that! This is the last I heard the B-52's:
23
posted on
03/17/2006 3:44:06 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. - Thomas Koenig)
To: SandRat
I knew we were still flying the BUFF, but the KC-135, too? Makes me homesick for the Air Force. My first duty station was a SAC base for both.
To: SandRat
25
posted on
03/17/2006 3:45:57 PM PST
by
joesnuffy
(A camel once bit our sister..but we knew just what to do...we gathered rocks and squashed her!)
To: phantomworker
Maybe that BUFF is carrying one of THESE
To: SandRat
27
posted on
03/17/2006 4:03:40 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: HardStarboard
Early Spring weeding. Mostly loitering waiting for $hit to happen. There will be Toweliban movement soon I am told. They are just not sure when.
28
posted on
03/17/2006 4:05:14 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: HardStarboard
You don't need a B-52 strike to deal with a small rag-tag group of terrorists. True, but as the article says....
Whenever we, as B-52 aircrew members, have the opportunity to shape the battlefield with our armament....."
I would hate to be on the receiving end of such a shaped battlefield.
If I might comment, the Canadian forces have been getting their butts kicked hard recently in Afghanistan to the point that the Canadian news has been getting on their leaders case. I sense that some of this might be an attempt to cut our northern neighbors some ground battlefield slack. But that is just speculation on my part.
29
posted on
03/17/2006 4:07:47 PM PST
by
Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
To: SandRat
FANTASTIC PHOTO! EVER FILL ONE OF THESE UP?
30
posted on
03/17/2006 4:08:10 PM PST
by
oxcart
To: SandRat
hell ya now thats a nice photo! :)
To: taillightchaser
Wonder why they're not using the newer KC-10s over there??
There's a LOT more KC-135s than there are KC-10s. And the KC-10s, with their ability to refuel both boom/receptical aircraft of the USAF and the probe/drogue aircraft of the USN/USMC, the Brits and most of our allies, are more valuable deployed into an environment where there is greater diversity of assets ... like Iraq
(Although I should mention that some USMC, RAF and coalition aircraft are deployed to Afghanistan. While there are some -135s equipped with wingtip probe/drogue pods, my recollection is that the probe/drogue needs in Afghanistan are being handled by RAF tankers).
To: SandRat
This was my work view for three years from 1966-1970. Laying next to the boom operator flying the ruddervators and seeing places like Guam, Wake Island and Okinawa disappearing in the distance was my world. We lived in the KC-135 and carried a pair of spare engines along one for the tanker and one for the B-52's or what ever was needed.
As a Jet Engine Mechanic we not only was a flying Gas Tank but a fully equipped parts operation as well. That view is burned into my memory; the view is spectacular as you can imagine but it is deadly serious work to co-ordinate the aerial ballet required to successfully accomplish that task.
33
posted on
03/17/2006 4:53:46 PM PST
by
winker
Comment #34 Removed by Moderator
To: oxcart
How about this one?
35
posted on
03/17/2006 5:08:47 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. - Thomas Koenig)
To: SandRat
Yawn. Ho Hum. Been there. Seen that.
But dog gone it is still FASCINATING!
To: Knuckledragger
I guess I need to modify my idea of what close air support is. I thought it was when they zoom in at treetop level and strafe and bomb the bad guys threatening the good guys. I can't see B-52's pulling that off.
To: oxcart
We filled up a SR-71 once over the Pacific. I didn't get to watch as it was not allowed at that time. I later found that the boom operator would have let me watch. Too bad he didn't tell me till after it was done.
Refuled B-52s & F-104s.
To: winker
***This was my work view for three years from 1966-1970.***
Mine too. 1966-1969. Jet over 2 aircrarft mechanic.
Walker AFB, NM
Little Rock AFB.
Kadina AFB, Okinawa.
Guam.
Ban-UTapao, Thailand
Fairbanks, Ak.
And that paradise on earth, Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada. In winter.
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Yes, those Blackbirds were rather secretive critters.
40
posted on
03/17/2006 5:35:15 PM PST
by
oxcart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson