Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombers Of The Strategic Air Command  
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

Hi folks...
Just curious as to when the Strategic Air Command of the USAF was formed, and which heavy bombers have served over the years since it creation. I think we can honestly say the B-29 was the first bomber to serve since it was the aircraft to dropped the first & only nuclear bombs. So if we could make a list here, we have...

B-29 Superfortress
B-36 Peacemaker
B-47 Stratojet
B-50 ???
B-52 Stratofortress
B-58 Hustler

If I've left out any significant bombers, please feel free to add to the list. All opinions & replies appreciated. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

Technically SAC owned the B-1 as well up to the ACC merge in 91-92 AF Reorg.

I think the B-50 would be there also?
Where are my old heads....  Wink/being sarcastic with the answers



Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS, Yankee Air Pirate


User currently offlineSkymaster From Denmark, joined Apr 2001, 228 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Yes, the B-50 was operational with the 43rd BW, Davis-Monthan AFB from February 22 1948 and was phased out in 1954.
Another lesser known SAC bomber was the FB-111A, which was operational in September 1971 with the 509th BW, Pease AFB, N.H. and the 380th BW, Plattsburgh AFB, N.Y.


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

How about a breakdown of the fighter a/c that were assigned to SAC as opposed to those in TAC? Were all the interceptor forces SAC? IF so I would assume the F-102/106, F-104? and what else?

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3477 times:

Flagship,

SAC was formed in March, 1946.

You have asked for heavy bombers, which would rule out the B-36, (Very heavy bomber) B-47 and B-58 (medium bombers) and I think SAC stretched the definition a bit and included the FB-111A in the medium bomber category. When the B-36 entered service, I believe the B-29s were classified downward as medium bombers.

How would SAC have classified the B-70 Valkyrie if it had entered service? Heavy and HOT! The YB-60 would have been a heavy, I suppose. Digressing a bit, but SAC operated many VB-25s. I remember seeing them all shined up, curtains in the waist gunner windows and general's stars on them.



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

The B-50 was the Tornado.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3446 times:

Are you sure? I thought the North American B/RB-45 was the Tornado.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3448 times:

Ahhh. crap!!!!


I guess I shouldn't have had those two beers before typing that in...my bad.

While on the subject.

Did SAC ever end up with the B-45?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3410 times:

All the resources that I came up with show that the B-50 was still called the Superfortress, even though only 25% of the parts were interchangable between it and the B-29. Just in case you were wondering.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6327 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

I might just suggest a book somewhat along the line of the topic. It is titled "Point of no return". Sorry but I do not remember the author and am just not inclined to search through all my books just now, (I really need to update my database), it deals indirectly with the formation of SAC.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3349 times:

Your right spacepope.


I just have to lay off the Mexican beer.


BTW: I belive the B-50 was originallly suposed to be called either the B-29C or the B-29D.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

None of the fighters you listed served with SAC, as they were all interceptors assigned to ADC.

SAC spent about 10 years looking for an escort fighter. The F-82 Twin Mustang was perhaps the best of their prop-driven fighters, though they had many F-51D/H Mustangs. The straight and swept wing versions of the F-84 served with SAC. Finally, with the advent of the McDonnel F-101A, they had a fighter with the legs necessary for the escort job. But, just as they were about to equip with the type, the SAC fighter program ended. I believe it was felt that ECM, decoys, and the Hound Dog missile would suppress enemy interception better than the fighters.


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

If you are interested in SAC fighters, you may find the following page of interest. I just posted it on my site. Enjoy.

http://www.vermontel.net/~tomh/82FG.html


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

You can't forget the bomber which held SAC toughter during the 1950's before the B-52 and B-47 was around.

Convair B-36


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Tom--Thanks for that link/page!!! Great photos of post war Mustangs!!!

I assume that ADC was its own command then? Totally seperate from SAC/TAC? Was it on a equal footing with them?

Tony


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Hi folks...
Thanks for all the replys. I should clarify that I'm looking for any & all bombers that served with SAC since 1946, not just 'heavy bombers' as I quoted before. I just assumed that only 'heavy bombers' would served with SAC. Again, many thanks.  Wink/being sarcastic Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Yes, ADC (Air Defence Command) was on the org chart at the same level as SAC/TAC. I believe if we looked at ADC manpower/aircraft figures, we would see that it peaked in the late 1950s, and declined until some point in the 1980s when the last active duty interceptor squadron inactivated. At that point, 100% of the interceptor forces were ANG.

I should point out that an earlier statement of mine needs clarifying. The F-104A served with ADC, while the F-104C served with TAC.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bombers Of The Strategic Air Command
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Holidays At The National Museum Of The US Air Forc posted Mon Nov 22 2004 16:51:30 by Broke
What Do You Think Of The Israeli Air Force? posted Mon Oct 1 2001 15:38:12 by LY772
First Shot Of The First French Air Force's A340 posted Fri Mar 31 2006 07:57:11 by LTU932
Misuse Of The Term "Air Force One" posted Mon May 16 2005 01:24:29 by AsstChiefMark
Websites About Air Forces Of The World? posted Mon May 17 2004 23:08:36 by PU151
Report - Rafale Out Of The Running In Norway posted Thu Aug 31 2006 22:46:33 by Lumberton
Panoramic Movies Of The Moon posted Sat Aug 5 2006 21:43:57 by NoUFO
Speed And Altitude Of The ICBM? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 00:25:03 by Wardialer
Last Public Appearance Of The F-14 posted Wed Jun 14 2006 19:48:12 by LONGisland89
F-14s In The Belgian Air Force posted Mon May 22 2006 02:16:21 by Flyf15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format