Dave Phillipps has an interesting article in The New York Times about B-52's and why the Air Force's largest bomber, now in its 60th year of active service and scheduled to fly until 2040, are not retiring anytime soon. "Many of our B-52 bombers are now older than the pilots who fly them," said Ronald Reagan in 1980. Today, there is a B-52 pilot whose father and grandfather flew the plane.
Originally slated for retirement generations ago, the B.U.F.F. — a colorful acronym that the Air Force euphemistically paraphrases as Big Ugly Fat Fellow - continues to be deployed in conflict after conflict. It dropped the first hydrogen bomb in the Bikini Islands in 1956, and laser-guided bombs in Afghanistan in 2006. It has outlived its replacement. And its replacement's replacement. And its replacement's replacement's replacement. The unexpectedly long career is due in part to a rugged design that has allowed the B-52 to go nearly anywhere and drop nearly anything the Pentagon desires, including both atomic bombs and leaflets. But it is also due to the decidedly underwhelming jets put forth to take its place. The $283 million B-1B Lancer first rolled off the assembly line in 1988 with a state-of-the-art radar-jamming system that jammed its own radar. The $2 billion B-2 Spirit, introduced a decade later, had stealth technology so delicate that it could not go into the rain. "There have been a series of attempts to build a better intercontinental bomber, and they have consistently failed," says Owen Coté. "Turns out whenever we try to improve on the B-52, we run into problems, so we still have the B-52."
The usefulness of the large bomber — and bombers in general — has come under question in the modern era of insurgent wars and stateless armies. In the Persian Gulf war, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Iraq war, the lumbering jets, well-established as a symbol of death and destruction, demoralized enemy ground troops by first dropping tons of leaflets with messages like "flee and live, or stay and die," then returning the next day with tons of explosives. In recent years, it has flown what the Air Force calls "assurance and deterrence" missions near North Korea and Russia. Two B-52 strategic bombers recently flew defiantly near artificial Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea and were contacted by Chinese ground controllers but continued their mission undeterred. "The B.U.F.F. is like the rook in a chess game," says Maj. Mark Burleys. "Just by how you position it on the board, it changes the posture of your adversary."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:01PM
The M-1 was damned good at killing people. The only real, major improvement on the M-1, was adding a selector switch for semi- and automatic firing. After some years of experimentation, they came out with the M-14. I could make an argument that the 14 was the "ultimate assault rifle". Not really going there, but the argument could be made. But, they had to have something smaller, lighter, "prettier", and along came the AR-15, then with slight modifications, the M-15.
As too many young American soldiers found out, the M-14 was far from ultimate when it started jamming on them if it wasn't squeaky clean. It was also more precise but less powerful than what the other guy had in his hands, making tree cover a very asymmetric asset.
The ultimate assault rifle? I've heard great things about the Famas and HK416, but this article is about durability for cost, which makes the AK-47 the all-time runaway winner.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:55PM
Granted - the AK-47 is more reliable and durable in dirty conditions - aka real life conditions. Let me just say that I never had an M-14 malfunction. But, then, I wasn't a Marine, and I didn't have to live in the mud with my piece for months on end. So - I don't exactly agree with your view, but millions of damned good soldiers do agree with you.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:06PM
Actually, I had a brain fart between the M-14 (7.62 NATO) and the M-16 (5.56 NATO). It's the latter that was famous for jamming when dirty.
The problem with the 7.62 in general is the stronger recoil preventing people from staying on target in full auto. The AK-47 being less precise, loss of accuracy isn't as big of a deal as long as you can keep spraying.
(Score: 3, Informative) by el_oscuro on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:19PM
I used to have an M-16 when I was in the Army. Biggest piece of shit in the world. If you don't keep it squeaky clean it jams ***all*** the time, and often even if you kept it clean.
On my lower receiver, a small aluminium part broke, rendering the weapon inoperable, not just field inoperable. It was manufactured into the receiver and non replaceable. The Army had to chuck the entire weapon and issue me a new one.
If I had to go to combat I would definitely want an AK-47, along with AC-130's and Wart Hogs for close air support.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:57AM
Let me just say that I never had an M-14 malfunction.
Amazing! Of course, Fobbits and Naval personnel on shipboard do not have the same problems as people actually in combat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:09PM
I thought the M-14 was chambered for .308 Winchester (a step down in power form the good-ole 30-06 of the M1, but still pretty powerful.) Also the M-16 was the one that had that bad reputation of jamming in the early Vietnam years (something about the soldiers not being issued cleaning kits due to it being so clean operating and then the ammo using a different type of powder that got them dirtier faster???)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:11PM
Are you thinking of the AR-15/M16 in 5.56? Because the M14 was chambered in 7.62 NATO, which is substantially more powerful than the 7.62x39 used by AK-47 and SKSes "the other guy" usually had. (The M14 also wasn't particularly known for jamming -- again, that sounds like the M16.)
My beef with calling the M14 "ultimate assault rifle" is that it's not an assault rifle -- it's chambered for a full-power rifle round, whereas assault rifles are by definition chambered in intermediate rounds, trading off range and terminal ballistics to improve the controllability, and thus usefulness, of full-auto fire.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:53PM
A pair of comedic political commentators pointed out that if someone assaults you with a .22 derringer, then it is an "assault weapon".
There are a lot of thoughts on the term "assault rifle", most of them just propaganda. In my own mind, any mass produced, military issue weapon used by troops during an attack, or "assault", qualifies as an "assault rifle".
The M-15 commonly sold in American gun shops is not an assault rifle, due to the fact that it cannot be set to full automatic fire. It meets all other criteria, depending on the options chosen, but that one critical feature is missing.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:35PM
Usual fallacy: how do you define a desk or a seat? Not by form, but by function.
I would define an assault weapon as a long-barrel rifle which includes features specifically designed to hit as many targets as possible while in an actual or potential fire-exchange situation. It includes magazines and easy reloading, as well as sights and auxiliary launchers, but semi-auto vs auto is not the most relevant feature.
It does not include any long gun designed primarily for use on unarmed live targets (whatever it is you hunt), or sniper/sporting rifles.
Note that the military-style weapons in vogue today are a fairly recent marketing push (80s). While the military had machineguns long before that, few citizens believed that the defense of their freedoms and the 2nd actually required trying to match assailant's raw firepower.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:52AM
An assault rifle is very clearly defined in military doctrine. It is a select fire long arm chambered in an intermediate power cartridge. Single shot or burst fire for aiming at the enemy, full auto for suppressive fire. The original assault rifle was the WWII Sturmgewehr, which literally translated means "assault rifle". That is why the term is assault rifle. Assault, as in assaulting an enemy position, not assault as in bashing someone over the head with a beer bottle. Why do assault troops not have machineguns with them for suppressive fire? Because machineguns are large, heavy, crew-served, usually belt-fed weapons. Machineguns are good for large scale battles, or defensive positions, but they are hell to drag with you up a hill, then hell to get set up, and useless while you're running. At least you can fire your assault rifle while you're charging, to try to persuade the foe to keep their heads down. Short of an assault rifle, the closest approximation is an LMG, but even then you'll rip through a 100 round box magazine much faster than you think. Assault rifles are compromises for a specific task.
Please note, that as crew served, suppressive fire (or anti-materiel) tools, machineguns are better classified as ordnance than as arms, a distinction which was very clearly understood at the time the framers wrote the US constitution, so it's not at all insane to draw the line at fully automatic fire as the distinguishing criterion. Whether or not US citizens should be entitled to ordnance is a separate and different question.
"Assault weapon" is a term invented by people who don't understand these things and are trying to serve a particular agenda.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:28PM
Umm, while I find your ideas interesting overall, I don't believe machineguns were in existence during the time of the framing of the US constitution, so I don't think they could have understood that they were better classified as ordinance.
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:12PM
If you showed up for a deer hunt with it, would everyone else point at you and your 30-round magazine and laugh?
Hunting: A rifle that is designed for accuracy and which can hold 3 rounds.
(If that doesn't cover it, you should go home.)
Home defense: Something you can deploy quickly (a pistol).
A desire to spray bullets to see what it is like: Rent a weapon of war at a shooting range for 10 minutes.
There is no logical purpose for an individual to own a weapon of war.
If you possess one, you are simply trying to compensate for a tiny penis.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:59AM
Not where I'm from. Might like to see what parts you used and what it's chambered in, but unlikely to laugh. If it's a varmint hunt and you don't have a large magazine (such as when hunting feral pig) you're likely to get some questions, or even disapproval. Pigs don't stick around while you reload.
Not for pigs. I'd want more than that for bear as well, just in case. In fact, extend that to anything really fast which might hunt me back.
I'll take a pistol, if it's all I have. For home defence I'll also take a carbine, or a shotgun. Across the room, a shotgun will spray a blast of 00 buck about as wide as the palm of my hand, and be highly effective.
Then I guess women can have all the sabres, lances, daggers and maces? Works for me. I think that's kind of hot. For myself, I wouldn't be unhappy to have a 1911 (or recent take on the same idea). That's a weapon of war. Designed for the military, and highly effective.