Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-58 Retirement. The Real Reason.  
User currently offlineB741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9789 times:

I heard that the B-58 was retired early in its life because of its high attrition rate and the pilots admitted their fear in flying the complex machine. This word got out to the "big boys" at the Pentagon, thus deciding on its retirement. Does this sound factual or were there other reasons?


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRamprat74 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9760 times:

The B58 was first entered service in 1958. He was retired in 1970. I feel the air force didn't need a super sonic bomber anymore. The ICBM would do the better without two pilots.

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

I think that the fact the B-58 was a fuel hog had something to do with it as well. If Broke see this thread, I'm sure he can enlighten all of us further. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9615 times:

The B-58 was purpose built to take a nuclear bomb into the USSR. It wasn't a very good conventional bomb carrier. Hence, in Nam it was pretty much useless, unlike the B-52 which could carpet bomb. The B-58 was built to deliver a nuclear strike in a cold war enviroment. Fortunately, all our wars in the last 40 years have been conventional, and the B-58 doesn't fit that role at all. Beautiful airplane, but thankfully unneeded.


Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineIMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6338 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9526 times:

The B-58 had no useful range without the external tank and with the tank, it could not deliver its weapon. The fact is that the chance of it ever being able to penetrate Soviet defenses were zero doomed it.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9488 times:

The reasons given to me by an ex-B-58 pilot were twofold.
First, the B-58 had high maintenance costs; also known as a "Hangar Queen".
Second, the Air Force wanted FB-111's, which were more optimized for low level penetration. The budget people told the Air Force that they could have either B-58's or FB-111's, but not both.
Result, the B-58 was retired and the FB-111's were introduced.


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9113 times:

Good calls, Broke but I'll add from my readings that then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who strongarmed his "TFX" F-111 through development was also the biggest champion of the FB-111 bomber variant. The Air Force really wanted the AMSA (Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft), which became the B1-A but development and budgetary delays led to ordering the FB-111A as an interim medium bomber to augment the B-52 while the B1 was developed. The order was severely cutailed from about 250 airplanes to around 78 because the FB-111A was severely limited in ordinance by it's small size. A later proposed stretched FB-111H was also axed because it was still too small compared to the B-1A, though a lot cheaper to develop. You're dead on about the B-58, amazing as it was for its' time. The hot, nearly 200 mph landing speeds also helped make it a dangerous aircraft with a high attrition rate, as B741 said, though the FB-111A, like its' fighter breathren, was hardly much better.

User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9063 times:

I was in the Air Defense Command, on a radar site, from October 1961 to September 1964. Yes, I'm a flatulent senior citizen.
During that time, there never was a successful intercept of a B-58 by the ADC. In fact, the closest anyone ever got to a B-58 was a Texas ANG F-86 near Eagle Pass, Texas.
Ironic, our site handled 3 regular Air Force F-101B squadrons and one F-106A squadron, plus ANG units occasionally, and just about the slowest plane in the inventory, at that time, was the one to get the closest, but nowhere near close enough.


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9067 times:

Whoa! Then my hats off to you, Broke, you REALLY know what you're talking about! I doubt now the Soviets had anything, except perhaps the MIG-25 Foxbat (exactly when did that become operational, it was designed to chase the SR-71A) that could catch the B-58 during its' short service life. Your statement helps affirm that and you probably know better than anyone else, here. A lot of folks think, despite it's faults, that the B-58 was superior overall to the FB-111A, even considering that airplane's all-weather capability and terrain following radar. It certainly seemed to be ahead of its' time, especially coming on the heels of Convair's majestic but painfully slow B-36 Peacemaker.

P.S. - You're using the term 'flatulent' figuratively, I trust, right?  Big grin And don't feel too bad; I'm not exactly a spring chicken, myself. Thanks for the insight!  Smile


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 8992 times:

"it was designed to chase the SR-71A"

I thought the Foxbat was made for the XB-70, had it went into production. Is it known if the Soviets knew about the Oxcart program as a whole considering the CIA had to makeup a phantom materials company to buy the titianium from the largest supplier: mother Russia? I'm sure they were ready for it when they knew.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8978 times:

The MiG-25 was designed to counter the B-70 indeed.
Later it was attempted to use them agains the SR-71 but without success.




I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Lehpron and Jwentling; you guys are right and I stand corrected; I should've remembered that. Unlike the B-70 which was publicly unveiled early on, the A-12/SR-71 program was a true 'black' program shrouded in secrecy for years. It's unlikely the Soviets even knew about it until after it was operational.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8951 times:

The Soviets had to know about it in 64, that was when then aircraft was announced.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8939 times:

A rule of thumb in the interceptor business is that the fighter has to have a 50% speed advantage over the target bomber. The YF-12A was to counter a Mach 2 bomber that the Soviets were developing. The program was cancelled and so was the YF-12A program.
I would imagine that the MiG-25 was built to counter the B-58, but from what I have read about the airplane, its top Mach is 2.7. I don't think the MiG-25 would have a prayer to catching a SR-71.
One interesting feature of the MiG-25 was precompression cooling (PCC). It was tested in the US on F-4's and there is speculation that the Israelis installed it on some RF-4C's to give them a Mach 2.5+ dash capability.
The basic idea of the system is to inject water into the airflow behind the inlet and in front of the engine. This would lower the inlet temperature at the compressor face allowing for higher fuel flows into the combustor without overtemping the turbine.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8610 times:

The existence of the B-58 is well justified if for one thing alone.

It is Holy Crap! Look at that mother! rock-you-back-on-your-heels sinister good looking in person.

But is that true? No century series interceptor pilot ever got to say "genie away" and launch a theoretical air-to-air nuke into its path? That is an achievement!



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6338 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8600 times:

"The existence of the B-58 is well justified if for one thing alone."

I agree on the looks because it, and the B-52, are what I remember flying low over the farm when I was a small child. Perhaps that's why I spend lots of time walking around each tot this day?

But the B-58 should be considered a success because it scared the crap out of the Soviet leadership. They did not know that after 1964, it was useless.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

It's amazing that an F-86 was the one to get the closest. Wow.

User currently offlineRg828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8506 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Could the B-58 go supersonic with that huge fuel tank under the belly? I read something regarding Convair's contender for a supersonic reconnaissance craft, which would be belly-mounted under the Hustler. The problem was that the B-58 could never go supersonic with that thing hanging underneath.
I once met a guy whose brother got killed flying a B-58. He was assigned to take one to the Paris Air show, and crashed on landing.



I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8467 times:

The B-58 would go to Mach 2 with the belly tank, or tanks. The B-58 at the Air Force Museum is the one that set 3 transcontinental speed records. West to East, East to West, and the round trip elapsed time. It did it with an external tank.
Now, it has one tank nested into another tank. The outer one contained fuel and a nuclear weapon, the inner one only carried fuel. Early in its career there was a problem with the tank (or tanks) leaving the airplane and there a relatively short period of time when they flew without an external tank.

On the day the records were set; there were 2 B-58's involved in a competition with each other. The first airplane had made its West to East run, refueled over the Atlantic and began the return run when the second airplane approached the east coast. The airplanes were on exactly reciprocal courses, each doing Mach 2. The second airplane had a mechanical and landed, it had made the West to East run 6 minutes slower than the first airplane.
Watching this on a radar scope with the targets closing on each other at about Mach 4, put chills up and down my spine, even though we knew they were at different altitudes.
The airplane also had pylons between the fuselage and the inboard engines where small nukes could be carried.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-58 Retirement. The Real Reason.
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...
Who Has Seen The Real Super Hornet Demo? posted Wed Mar 10 2004 19:18:57 by Maiznblu_757
Who Thought The F/A-37 Talon Was Real? posted Thu May 11 2006 19:48:15 by 747400sp
C-17 At SYD. Anyone Know The Reason? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 10:00:08 by Griffs0000
How Much Did Mitsubishi Pay For The F-15 License? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 04:48:59 by Garnetpalmetto
Transporting SpaceShuttle Across The Atlantic posted Sun Nov 26 2006 17:03:33 by HT
Becoming A Pilot For The US Navy posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:16:30 by Turpentyine
Uscg HH-60J Over The Hudson? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:11:43 by Cadet985
Can The MIG-29 Fly Backwards? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:07:54 by DIJKKIJK
Joining The US Airforce posted Sun Nov 12 2006 22:14:53 by Turpentyine
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format