I came across this old article about Beale Air Force Base's railroad. With the retirement of the U-2 likely in a few years this operation is probably on borrowed time.https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/858918/fueling-the-mission-saving-money/https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/05/02/air-force-prepares-to-retire-u-2-spy-planes-in-2026/https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf-retire-u-2-2026/
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Griffiss AFB's railroad became largely unnecessary when they stopped burning coal to heat the base.
A number of warehouses were set up to handle freight cars. That practice had ended before I was assigned there. The buildings were still referred to as "depots," in the supply sense.
GVT still uses the former USAF 44 tonner (still in USAF blue) at the former base to serve several industries there, and the ALCO S-1 is in the hands of the Adirondack RR (in ADKRR paint).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The Air Force did not mention that Beale Air Force Base was home to the SR-71 blackbird. It was the only domestic base to house the SR-71's.
caldreamer The Air Force did not mention that Beale Air Force Base was home to the SR-71 blackbird. It was the only domestic base to house the SR-71's.
C'mon man, OPSEC!!!
The SR-71's have been retired for some time now. I worked for the government for 38 years. I can still quote you the espionage laws (18 USC 591 thru 597) and the Internal Security Act of 1950 by heart. It was drummed into us.
FWIW, it was common knowledge that the SR-71's were based at Beale. The only time I saw an SR-71 in flight was in 1968 where it was passing over Carson City on the way to Beale AFB.
Erik_Mag FWIW, it was common knowledge that the SR-71's were based at Beale. The only time I saw an SR-71 in flight was in 1968 where it was passing over Carson City on the way to Beale AFB.
samfp1943 Also from the FWIW Dept: I'd offer the Boeing B-52 ... A bomber designed in the post WWII era, and flown in its first iteraton as a B-52 A; FLEW FIRST, IN 1954, makes it a 59 year old, front line Bomber in its current B-52- H model. See linked info @ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104465/b-52h-stratofortress/ Many were built here in the Former Boeing Plant.(now Spirit Aviation) which many here, are familiar with, as the origin for all those fuselages of the B-737's(of various types) being sent by BNSF rail to be finished in the Seattle area. nAnd as an honorable mention for our old USAF planes; how about the Boeing KC-135 which was originally the B-707's, in its civilian entity. Still flying high. It first flew in the 1950's.
CSSHEGEWISCH Another old-timer would be the C-130.
caldreamer The SR-71's have been retired for some time now. I worked for the government for 38 years. I can still quote you the espionage laws (18 USC 591 thru 597) and the Internal Security Act of 1950 by heart. It was drummed into us.
I put emoji's next to the comment, I was joking. Besides I can tell you as a former Monster dot com moderator the government has software and people to review social media posts using keywords to find the specific thread of interest. So they probabably already focused in on this thread and someone is probably reviewing it as I write this.
CMStPnP you are correct. The NSA swallows every piece of electronic data transmitted daily from around the world. They do have software to look for specific key words and/or names that could constitute a direct or indirect threat to the US or its interests. That is how we got Osama Bin Ladin. All of the rest is garbage and is dumped. NOTHING on this thread reveals classified data nor does any thing on thies thread constitute any kind of a threat to the US or its interests.
[quote user="CSSHEGEWISCH"]
[/quote] First time I flew, as a miltarty passenger:1958, in a Tn AG C-119. Next time in a similar status was, in a USMC GV-1 1963 ( USMC their version of a C-130 ).
Sort of amazing, that it is possible, USAF (currently flying aircraft) are approiaching the age where they might qualify for 'antique air show status' ?)
Starting with the B-52. Similarly, to Wichita's resident B-26 'Doc'; now housed in a hanger at the local Eisenhower Int'l Airport....
See article linked @https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/restoration-doc-flies-again-180960367/
"...For 42 years, Fifi was the only airworthy Superfortress. Now it has company..."
By Stephen Joiner October 2016 Smithsonian Magazine
The B-52 is far from old or obsolete. These aircraft have been and continue to be upgraded. Currently in the B-52H model. The Air Force has stated that they will remain on active duty untill AT LEAST 2060. Which means that any current or future versions will be over 100 years old. They are currently 67 years old and going strong. NO OTHER aircraft can beat that record.
There are sons flying their father's airplane. At this rate, there will be grandsons flying their grandfather's airplanes.
Attempts to update the power on the B52() have not been very successful, as the airframe can't seem to handle the extra thrust today's jet engines produce.
But they still fly.
The B52s' do not have to go any faster. With a flying range that can put it anywhere in the world and deliver conventional dumb or nuclear bombs, conventional laser guided or smart bombs, air launched cruise missles with a conventional or nucler warhead they are one of the deadliest bombers in the world.
tree68 There are sons flying their father's airplane. At this rate, there will be grandsons flying their grandfather's airplanes. Attempts to update the power on the B52() have not been very successful, as the airframe can't seem to handle the extra thrust today's jet engines produce. But they still fly.
Apply PSR standards to the B-52, fewer bigger engines of modern design, same aggregate power for the airframe to handle but better fuel economy and thus longer range between refuelings.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDApply PSR standards to the B-52, fewer bigger engines of modern design, same aggregate power for the airframe to handle but better fuel economy and thus longer range between refuelings.
I think that's the general idea.
caldreamer The B-52 is far from old or obsolete. These aircraft have been and continue to be upgraded. Currently in the B-52H model. The Air Force has stated that they will remain on active duty untill AT LEAST 2060. Which means that any current or future versions will be over 100 years old. They are currently 67 years old and going strong. NO OTHER aircraft can beat that record.
Not quite 67. First H model delivered in 1961, the last in 1962. The H models are the only ones in active inventory.
Still, pretty good longevity for a basic design.
Jeff
jeffhergert caldreamer The B-52 is far from old or obsolete. These aircraft have been and continue to be upgraded. Currently in the B-52H model. The Air Force has stated that they will remain on active duty untill AT LEAST 2060. Which means that any current or future versions will be over 100 years old. They are currently 67 years old and going strong. NO OTHER aircraft can beat that record. Not quite 67. First H model delivered in 1961, the last in 1962. The H models are the only ones in active inventory. Still, pretty good longevity for a basic design. Jeff
As the two posters mentioned: "BUFF", The B-52(H) , in its latest iteration, is apparently ready to march on for some time .
See the following linked story, with photos, found on a website, I follow called, "The War Zone" story by author/joseph-trevithick/Dec.27,2023
linked @ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b-52-needs-new-pylons-to-carry-max-load-of-hypersonic-missiles
It is finally going to happen.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/re-engined-b-52-b-52j/
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/rolls-royce-testing-b-52-engines-nacelles/
The issue with re-engining the B-52 is going from 8 engines to 4 would result in double the asymetric thrust from an engine-out. New engines would probably give a significant boost to weapons load for the longer range missions as less fuel wold be needed.
Erik_MagThe issue with re-engining the B-52 is going from 8 engines to 4 would result in double the asymetric thrust from an engine-out. New engines would probably give a significant boost to weapons load for the longer range missions as less fuel wold be needed.
That is why engineers exist - to modify things to work better.
Usually another attempt at FUBAR or Murphy's Law ...
Hopefully the E-tribe involved here has actually gotten dirty taking jet engines apart and re-assembling them, and has been outside his sterile little cubicle and functioned in the real world.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.