from the can't-seem-to-make-a-better-mousetrap dept.
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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:11PM
They could have built something on the B-7xx airfame, but their wouldn't have been enough
pork for Boeing in just doing that, or enough sexy new tech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:19PM
That is the problem. Money and career advancement.
We have several of these sorts of planes. Ones that thru the course of history have show to be pretty good at the specific mission they were designed for (for example the A-10).
We keep trying to make these single purpose designed planes do multi roles. They fail at that then get relegated back to the particular role they were originally designed for.
We should look to the air frames that have served us well and build on those. Then look to the failures and figure out what not to do.
We have a survivor bias going on as well. So we need to be careful. However, it seems one of the big things needs to be 'its simple and sturdy'.
But we will get yet another jet that does nothing very well (f-35). But makes lots of money for a bunch of people who dont need it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:41PM
Sounds like it executed its mission role perfectly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:20PM
It's spelled THROUGH, you fucking moron. Learn the language or go away!
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:57PM
It's either way ADHD dude... http://grammarist.com/spelling/through-thru/ [grammarist.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:51AM
I am going to go thru the trouble of feeding you troll. Why do I care what you think about how I write?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:43AM
Can someone point out the offending piece of illiteracity? I am not seeing it. I trust grew, and I grammar nazis, but I don't see it.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:19PM
"Thru" is not a word. It's THROUGH. I expect that illiteracy on facebook, but not on a nerd site where I expect folks to at least have at least finished high school.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:27PM
> They could have built something on the B-7xx airfame, but their wouldn't have been enough
Well.. no.
Really really not.
Because of the way someone setup the universe's gravity drivers, heavy bombers need to have a belly that open wide around the plane's center of mass. Oddly, that's the exact same spot where the dumb commercial aircraft manufacturers decide to put those wing things.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:00PM
Because of the way someone setup the universe's gravity drivers
Oh you sound like you are still running Physics 7 or Physics 8.1 - the cloud is shoving Physics 10 down your throat like crazy for a reason.
In the early access program there's an update for Physics 10 that adjusts the vector of gravity from pointing at the center of the earth to pointing at Microsoft corporate headquarters. In a few days everyone will wake up and start being sucked into the MS vortex.
Progress!
Oh yeah you'll need all brand new planes for this. No problem though just rent a new one from your carrier.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:54PM
...adjusts the vector of gravity from pointing at the center of the earth to pointing at Microsoft corporate headquarters. In a few days everyone will wake up and start being sucked into the MS vortex.
And like usual they create a giant security hole. Now all we have to do is throw bombs really high into the air....
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:03PM
The scam is actually more sophisticated than that. It goes something like this:
1. One of the favorite air force contractors (e.g. Boeing) builds a really nice aircraft that is better than anything anybody else has.
2. After a while (typically a decade or two), we sell some of these aircraft, or at least some of the technology behind them, off to our allies. After all, they're on our side, and we want to make sure that our allies can beat the Russians and Chinese and such.
3. The air force goes to Congress and says "Everybody else has what we have. In order to remain in a leadership position, we need something better." Congress agrees, for reasons that include bribery, bringing home the bacon, and just plain being duped.
4. The air force goes to their favorite contractors and has them design and build an even nicer new aircraft, and the gravy train continues.
The classic result of this sort of stupidity is the F-35, a plane that has cost $400 billion and currently has flown precisely 0 combat missions.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:01PM
Cute story, but totally non-germane, and mostly wrong.
The B-52 was never flown by anybody other than the US. So your entire scenario fails at your second point.
Boeing has only been a favorite of the Pentagon for large bombers, and they have always had a difficult time wining fighter or small tactical bomber contracts, until they decided to BUY the companies that were winning those contracts. Far more combat aircraft types were built by Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics, Convair, and Lockheed. Boeing seems to have restricted itself to large tankers and bombers of yesteryear.
The Airforce has always been running to keep ahead of the Russians, not to keep ahead of allies we've sold planes to.
Multi-roll aircraft like the F35 and the FA-18 were never the Pentagon's idea. That nonsense was pushed on them by Congress.
So just about every claim you made was wrong or somehow twisted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:46AM
So your entire scenario fails at your second point.
Gawd, I hate it when that happens!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:14PM
Actually that is what they are doing for the KC-46 (new aerial tanker). It is based on the 767.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:37PM
They could have built something on the B-7xx airfame, but their wouldn't have been enough
pork for Boeing in just doing that, or enough sexy new tech.
Wrong. Utterly so.
The B-52 had already been designed, tested, and entered service 6 years before the first B-707 airframe entered testing.
70,000 pound Bomb load of the B52 was in addition to the fuel load needed to carry that payload anywhere. The 707's payload is just 44,000.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:02PM
To take the wise guy approach: I'm somewhat glad they did not use a B-7xx airframe, because the B-52's maiden flight was in 1952, and the first 707 flew in 1957. The Cold War was developing over that timeframe, and the B-52 was a cornerstone to the American Air Force.
There is plenty of Pork in DoD contracts, but the B-52 is probably a decent example of a peacetime design that went correctly. The debate today would more accurately be modernize the B-52 or move to a new airframe around 2037 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2037_Bomber/ [wikipedia.org]).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:15PM
The B-52 is big, old, ugly, old, simple, old, big, old, yada yada yada yada yada. Think of it this way: you send in waves of fighter jets, attack choppers, and maybe even a clandestine operations team to first destroy or degrade the air warning and defense systems. To make things more modern you hack their air defense network and either remove your attacking planes, move them to a false location, or invent things that don't exist. The attackers go LOL while the enemy rips their hair out of their head in confusion. Install new portable air space monitoring equipment and make your presence known and defend what you just achieved with more of those jet fighters.
Once you accomplish that it doesn't mater if a flying garbage truck moves around at 2 mph in the sky: you drop weapons on what ever you feel like with little risk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:31PM
It's becoming clear it's good to have both stealth and non-stealth for different phases of conflicts or mission types. Non-stealth is often cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient. We shouldn't put all our eggs in the stealth basket.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:38PM
We shouldn't put all our eggs in the stealth basket.
Turns out stealth by radar energy absorption or scattering is being reduced in effectiveness. Non-cooperative radar systems use all the stray RF in the environment, like cell towers, FM stations, TV stations, etc and I believe a known map of the physical layout of the environment and the location of the non-cooperating RF sources. You can't absorb it all because there is too much and you can't scatter it because it comes from every angle.
As I recall it essentially carves a hole out in space you look for instead of an object that does exist. It might also use extremely sophisticated Doppler processing. At this point advanced countries may already be able to work around other's advanced stealth inside their land. If not now probably soon unless other stealth changes happen. And of course once a location is studied you have to disable all the civilian sources of RF to be able to hide your aircraft.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:40PM
The mighty B-52 will never retire until the Islamic scum are eradicated from the planet.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lgw on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:04PM
Sure, radar "daylight imaging" has potential, but it doesn't help much with high-altitude bombing. The B1 was invented in a time before practical stealth, and before smart weapons, and so it was (poorly) optimized to fly "under the radar" and do low-altitude precision bombing runs: none of which is relevant to the modern world. The B2 is fundamentally a strategic bomber: it's not invisible on radar, but it's hard to spot, harder to be sure what it is, and nearly impossible to get missile lock on. For dropping a few nukes before interceptors can reach it, it can't be beat, and passive radar approaches don't help at high altitude.
Modern fighters (if that's what we're calling the F35, plus the awesome F22) are "stealthy", but that's really about making missile lock difficult, because for all the reasons you highlight they're not strategically invisible. Don't underestimate the value of getting missile lock on an enemy fighter a few miles further out that it gets missile lock on you, however.
The B52 is, of course, simply a convenient way to drop a shitload of bombs on a target with no remaining air defenses (which is every conflict we've been in since Vietnam), much more cheaply than fighter-delivered bombs. With smart bombs (and other neat weapons dropped like bombs - the line between "drone" and "bomb" is blurry), simply getting tonnage of ordnance somewhere above the target is the main thing, and the B52 excels at that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:01PM
We discussed this previously WRT The F-35: A Gold-Plated Turkey [soylentnews.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:57PM
That is why the AC-130 won't be going anywhere, had a customer in desert storm and they loved the AC-130 because he said the fighter jocks could clear out the planes and choppers but were lousy at hitting holed up enemies on the ground while that big slow ass AC-130 would do a big slow wide circle and just lay hell on an area.
But if we have gotten to the point that bombers don't need defenses why bother making new ones?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:48AM
Once you accomplish that it doesn't mater
No mother! You heartless bastard!
(Score: 2) by tempest on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:20PM
The 2040s will be interesting seeing if either the B-52 or Tupolev Tu-95 is retired first.
It doesn't seem like Russia is in any rush to replace the bear though.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:22PM
They built over 500 of them, so they have a lot of spare parts, although they are seldom seen in groups of more than 2 at a time, and
wiki says that the last numbers reported indicate that as of 2012, 55 of them are flight-ready.
The entire fleet never saw any combat until November of this year (2015) when a Tu-95 fired some cruise missiles into Syria.
They have never made an actual bombing run with anything but training dummies.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:04PM
[The entire] Tu-95 [force] never made an actual bombing run with anything but training dummies.
Apparently, in the 1980s, the Soviets' mismanaged State Capitalist economy couldn't afford a gigaton of bombs to carpet bomb Afghanistan the way that USA did at Tora Bora. [wikipedia.org]
(...and, despite this, USA didn't get its primary target--Bin Laden.)
The current Russian plutocracy (friends of Putin) doesn't seem to do significantly better at generating large piles of public cash to squander.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:06AM
Apparently, in the 1980s, the Soviets' mismanaged State Capitalist economy couldn't afford a gigaton of bombs to carpet bomb Afghanistan the way that USA did at Tora Bora.
You really don't understand what carpet bombing is, do you gewg_ ?
Hint: it isn't something you would do in mountains.
Besides, Bin Laudin was log gone by that point, he had already skedaddled 6-8 miles south to Pakistan before the marines arrived to back up the special forces.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:54AM
Is it effective in mountains?
Unlikely. That was kinda my point.
Bin [Laden] was [long] gone by that point
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Again, USA military policy (as well as the rest of its foreign policy) is incredibly stupid.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday December 10 2015, @06:53AM
You really don't understand what carpet bombing is, do you gewg_ ?
Hint: it isn't something you would do in mountains.
You might, if you were the Bush administration, who had given its word to the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia to not actually harm their wayward son . . . Frojack, you are as off as both the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories on this one. Let it go, bro, let it go. The US carpet bombs mountains, even if that bombing does not turn the mountains into carpets.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:37PM
The military industrial complex is always selling us new weapons. Big and small, they claim that technology dictates that we "upgrade" everything.
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.
Sidearms. The Colt 1911 is the ultimate sidearm. The only legitimate complaint that I've ever heard about it is, it's large. People with smaller hands have problems handling it. That is the ONLY complaint I've ever heard that I even entertain as a complaint. All other "complaints" are complete and utter bullshit. The purpose of a sidearm is to put people on the ground, right now, and no other round performs that task as efficiently as the Colt .45. Old reliable has been replaced with a smaller, lighter, cheaper weapon, which often fails to knock men to the ground. NOTE: The objective isn't to kill, but to incapacitate an opponent. Death is often the result of instant incapacitation, but that is more or less a side effect.
Aircraft? Well, there's a hell of a lot more money in aircraft than there is in small arms. Yeah, they want to "upgrade" every few years. But, our grandfathers who designed the B-52 understood very well what they intended the craft for, and they designed it to perform that task very efficiently. Maybe the people who sold all those "replacements" should have made some small effort to stay true to the concept of a bomber, instead of designing their aircraft to make money. There are passages in the Bible, telling us that you can't serve two masters at the same time. Are we going to make a killing machine, or are we going to build a money maker? Choose one.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:48PM
Sidearms. The Colt 1911 is the ultimate sidearm......... All other "complaints" are complete and utter bullshit.
Maybe I'm just a pussy and there are more modern versions of the 1911 with pussy friendly features but personally I very much dislike the 1911 single-action only mode of operation. Sure I can pull a hammer back but I prefer double-action to start cycling. The part I dislike the most though is when the firearm is holstered, safety on, hammer back. I don't know if that was the intended case during combat but when I see people do it in person I cringe.
Maybe I'm hypersensitive since the hammer on a shotgun is cocked all the time you just can't see it. Still I thought on the 1911 this behavior was odd and made me pay much more attention than usual when someone else is holding a 1911 and I hear the slide moving or click of the hammer locking.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:20PM
. . . I very much dislike the 1911 single-action only mode of operation. Sure I can pull a hammer back but I prefer double-action to start cycling. The part I dislike the most though is when the firearm is holstered, safety on, hammer back. I don't know if that was the intended case during combat but when I see people do it in person I cringe.
It's not just you. The military manual for the 1911 [google.com] specifically says not to carry cocked and locked except in emergency situations, so at least the Army Doctrine folks agree that configuration is for imminent contact with the enemy only. They even point out that you need to be careful when unholstering to make sure you don't accidentally take it off safe (self-inflicted gunshot wounds are embarrassing at best). I think that is what would put me off most about the cocked-and-locked carry method.
There are a lot of 1911 fans who really think that's the best way to carry, though, and they've got an appeal to authority for it, too. [wikipedia.org] The funny thing is, I think they're doing it because they agree with you about the single-action-only nature of the firearm - when you pull the trigger the result should be "bang".
I'm bugged more by the change between actions on dual/single action platforms like the M9 currently in service. In my opinion the trigger pull should be the same every time you operate the mechanism, not different first time vs every other time. I kind of prefer having only one mode of operation, though I've never used a single-action-only (DAO for me so far). I can imagine getting used to the 1911 if I gave it a try, but I'm not really looking to add another caliber to my collection.
BTW, I'm also a huge hypocrite, so take my gun wisdom with a grain of salt. My latest purchase along these lines is a P-64 [p64resource.com] manufactured the year I was born, which features the dual/single transition I say I hate in a caliber that doesn't match anything else I own. And of course I'm in love with it. With a 25lbs trigger pull on dual action I treat it as a single action only in practice because, seriously, that's just ridiculous. I've proven that I can operate it dual action, but I'm not confident I can do so accurately. If the safety weren't also a de-cocker I might consider trying a cocked-and-locked carry with it; so, yeah, I'm a hypocrite who's letting his 1911-nut friends' opinions rub off on him :P
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:00PM
Colt .45 is the longer cartridge for six-shooters, .45 ACP is for the 1911.
(Score: 4, Informative) by gman003 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:44PM
You make a number of good points, but sadly much of your supporting evidence is factually wrong.
The M-14 is damn near uncontrollable at full-auto. The "big improvement" was not full-auto, but switching to box magazines instead of en-bloc clips, enabling a faster rate of aimed fire. The primary improvement of the M-16 over the M-14 is the reduced caliber, which allows it to be fired for more than three rounds of full-auto without becoming an anti-aircraft gun, and allows infantry to carry significantly more ammunition (about 50% more). It's also substantially lighter. I will note that the M-14 remains in service as a designated marksman rifle - equipped with a low-power magnification scope, and locked to semi-automatic, it gives a squad better ability to engage at range, while still being lethal in close-range combat. We have a very large army - we don't need "one-size-fits-all", particularly not when combined arms is more effective overall. A good mix of assault carbines, marksman rifles, grenade launchers and light machine guns is what we need - and, shockingly, is what we have. (No, really, I actually am a bit surprised the Army managed to get that right).
The M1911's current problem is lack of armor penetration - for which the best projectile is heavy (which .45 is), but with a narrow cross-section and a high velocity (which .45 lacks - it is the largest and slowest pistol round used by any modern army). This is not so much an issue for counter-insurgency, but would make it practically useless in a war versus an actual army. Like, say, Russia's. 9mm Parabellum is only marginally better at armor penetration, sadly - we would be better served by something like the 5.7mm FN, if they could sort out the overpenetration issues. Flechettes, maybe?
The B-52 solves a much different problem than the B-1 or B-2. The B-52 was designed before anti-aircraft missiles, and was designed to deal only with interceptors. The B-1 and B-2 are designed to deal with the SAM threat - the B-1 by speed, and the B-2 by stealth. Sending a flight of B-52s against Russia or China would be suicidal - hell, even sending them against Argentina would incur heavy losses, at least in the first wave. The B-52 remains useful for efficient operations under open-sky conditions, but even then, a new aircraft would be measurably better. The B-52's engines are a particular weak point - they're turbojets, which are far less efficient than modern turbofans, even in the high-subsonic the B-52 was designed for (the turbojet gains the lead around Mach 2 IIRC - but even modern supersonic fighters use low-bypass turbofans instead of turbojets). This could be accomplished with a less involved engine swap, but the long-term cost/benefit clearly favors a new design targeting the mission parameters the B-52 currently fills. The existing airframes are failing, and with the machinery long destroyed, it would cost as much to restart B-52 production as it would to produce a new bomber.
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:58PM
The major impetus behind the M-16 was the need for something smaller and lighter which our South Vietnamese allies could manage more easily. Increasing the number of rounds carried by weight / volume was a secondary consideration. Not that wild about the M-14 --- I'd rather have a 30-'06 than 7.62x51mm NATO.
For the Colt 1911, carrying it cocked and locked w/ safety on (Condition 1) troubles some people, and results in a fairly steady stream of negligent discharges (and attendant ammunition usage). It also creates a need to cycle ammunition out, of the chamber, which in at least one instance has resulted in a primer being loosened and dislodged and the round failing to fire (moral of the story, rotate and use and replace your carry ammunition --- story about that in _American Rifleman_ recently). Grip size is actually smaller than many double-stack 9mm pistols.
The B-52 is a great airplane, but it would be nice to develop a new airframe which was at least a bit more fuel efficient.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:58PM
1) B-52 is bases of peace symbol. One such blob on the matter: http://piedtype.com/2008/04/04/peace-symbol-50-yrs-old-today-once-represented-b-52/ [piedtype.com]
2) read the "Flight of the old dog". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Old_Dog [wikipedia.org] Written by Dale Brown USAF Navigator.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:15PM
I tried reading that book once and finally gave up on it when the main character wouldn't stop swearing every third word. It was distracting and pointless.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by EQ on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:21AM
"Swearing every other word" seemed unrealistic? I take it you haven't served in the military.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:26AM
I didn't say it was unrealistic. I said it was pointless.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:26PM
The usefulness of the large bomber — and bombers in general — has come under question in the modern era...
The usefulness primarily is the funnelling of large amount of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:56PM
i'm not a military tactics expert, but the usefulness of heavy bombers might not be so questionable if you would stop warning them first! Hilarious as it may be...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:05PM
All these new and "improved" hipster languages come and go, and you can always rely on good old C.
(Score: 1) by Grayson on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:07PM
Big Ugly Fat Fellow... that 'fellow' just happens to rhyme with 'duck'
(Score: 4, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @09:55PM
A couple of errors there. First, grammar: it's not "B52's" when referring to more than one B52. "B52's" is a possessive, as in "The B52's engines are powerful, and a fleet of B52s will hold a lot of bombs."
Second, it isn't BUFF, it's BUF. Only one F. B52s aren't fat, they're long and lean and really scary looking machines. BUF stood for "Bug ugly fucker". BUFF would have fit that fatassed C5-A transport.
When I got to Utapao in August of 1973, a BUF took off every thirty seconds. I guessed they were dropping as many bombs as they could before the congressionally mandated end of bombing, but I met a man ten years later who was stationed at Utapao five years before I was, and he said one took off every thirty seconds the whole year he was there. I wonder how there's anything left of North Vietnam after all that.
The last several months I was stationed at Beale was the best job I ever had, and the scariest. Scary because if I actually had to perform that job, millions of people would die. My job was to gas up a pickup truck, make sure everything worked properly, and drive it to the flightline to wait for World War III, where there were more B52s than you could count. All I did all day was shoot pool, play pinball, and read. If an atomic war broke out, I was to drive the pilot to his nuclear-armed BUF.
I found out later that only two or three dozens of the bombers had nuclear arms, the rest had flown to Beale from Southeast Asia as the war died down. It had become a staging area.
B52s were also known as "stratobombers", which explains why they've stayed in service so long -- a plane that will hold as much ordinance as a B52 that can drop those bombs from the stratosphere where it's nearly impossible to shoot one down is pretty damned useful to a military.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:40PM
The term BUFF goes back to the C-97|KC-97, which was quite large for its time.
The term "aluminum overcast" was also applied to that early supersized aircraft.
...and those are rather ugly. [airplanesofthepast.com] Page [airplanesofthepast.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @03:16AM
Before you start lobbing stones about others grammar, perhaps, you should look up run on sentence.
The comma is not an excuse to run on and on.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:33AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Osamabobama on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:21PM
To clarify, these aren't usually dropped at the same time.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ese002 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:28PM
The Air Force has been trying to replace the B52 since the 60's. The argument has always been that that the B52 is vulnerable to Soviet/Russian air defenses therefore we need a new bomber that can get through.
1) B-58: Fast (Mach 2) but not enough range and a maintenance nightmare. Retired from service.
2) XB70. Fly higher and fast. It was quickly determined that this approach was not only very expensive but was also ineffective. Canceled before production.
3) B-1A. Really more of the same. Canceled for the same reason.
4) B-1B. Flying low and fastish was thought to be effective in the short term (1980's) and B-2 was not going to be ready or a while.
5) B-2 Very very expensive. Still thought to be at least somewhat effective against the Russians/Soviets
All these were designed for the primary mission of delivering nukes to the Russians/Soviets. No attention given to secondary mission of asymmetrical warfare pounding using conventional bombs. For that role, none can do it as economically as the B-52.
It is now 2015. The B-52 is still vulnerable to Russian air defense missiles. But then, so the B-1B and, arguably, even the B-2.
So it not the case the B-52 is good at it's job. It fails at its primary mission but none of the attempts to replace it have panned out either. It is cheap and reliable for the secondary mission so the Air Force keeps flying it.
The B-52's longevity is largely an accident of history. It was the last effective heavy bomber that did not have any serious operational faults (unlike the B-58).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Frost on Thursday December 10 2015, @01:26AM
Shouldn't this story be "from the rock lobster forever dept."?