Jump to content


Photo

Trying To Identify Ordnance On A B-52


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Mr King

Mr King

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,907 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1332 PM

If anyone could tell me what kind of ordnance is hanging off this B-52., I would appreciate it.

Posted Image

#2 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1338 PM

MALD

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/ADM-160_MALD

Edited by Josh, 06 December 2012 - 1339 PM.


#3 Mr King

Mr King

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,907 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1342 PM

Thanks Josh, I appreciate it.

#4 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1351 PM

Glad to oblige...I was actually hoping for a challenge, but at least you got your answer. :)

Going by the goolge images, it looks like a B-52 can carry up to 16 of them in basically the same external arrangement as TMDs/CBU-87s. So you could put out a squadron plus of decoys and still have room for eight pieces of ordnance on the internal rotary, if they only would wire it up with the proper data bus to talk to PGMs.

#5 mnm

mnm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Military History

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1509 PM

Looks like they're hanging from girders left over from the Chrysler Building.

#6 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1740 PM

Forgot the name of it, but its basically the universal external hardpoint for BUFFs. I think it abbreviated to TAB or something. A dozen 2000lb stores, or else 16 1000 or less stores (I think MALD is like 300-400 pounds). For some reason the space between the centerline pair of items can't take another piece of ordnance, but the left and right attachment points can take three items in this class in a row. So for CBU and apparently MALD 16, vice 18 like I would expect. Probably has something to do with wiring or attachment lugs.

#7 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 1822 PM

Heavy Stores Adapter Beam (HSAB)?

#8 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 06 December 2012 - 2140 PM

Yep, thats it.

#9 Kenneth P. Katz

Kenneth P. Katz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longmeadow, MA, United States of America
  • Interests:Miltary history and technology, flying, wargaming

Posted 07 December 2012 - 1611 PM

You could see several images of the MALD on the B-52 in a recent and well-reviewed book.

http://www.squadron....t-p/ss10207.htm

:D

#10 TomasCTT

TomasCTT

    Of the I-use-a-flamethrower-to-solve-all-my-problems ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Metro Manila, Philippines
  • Interests:Strip mining operations and nuclear power plants.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 1938 PM

Reading up on the wiki link provided, it mentions a MALI which is a cruise missile interceptor. In service? Any more info?

#11 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 13 December 2012 - 0852 AM

Can't find anything after 2002 tests. Probably cancelled. That or it went black. Seems a little slow to be an effective cruise missile interceptor, but it would be a great anti-AWACs munition (or other high value, slow target). Supersonic, ranges in the hundreds of miles, relatively cheap.

#12 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 28 December 2012 - 1750 PM

If you're going to put all this effort into a decoy, why not give the user the option of having it fly into something valuable at the end of its mission? That's how ALCM started out after all.

#13 Jason L

Jason L

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,749 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal

Posted 29 December 2012 - 0126 AM

If you're going to put all this effort into a decoy, why not give the user the option of having it fly into something valuable at the end of its mission? That's how ALCM started out after all.


I understand that it's lack of multifunctionality due to limited endurance is one of the reasons it got canned.

#14 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Wessex Independence ilk.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gloucestershire,uk

Posted 29 December 2012 - 0716 AM

If you're going to put all this effort into a decoy, why not give the user the option of having it fly into something valuable at the end of its mission? That's how ALCM started out after all.


When you get down to it, thats pretty much what Tacit Rainbow was supposed to be, albeit for radar targets.
http://en.wikipedia....6_Tacit_Rainbow

BTW, love the pylon. Got a definate 'Black Buck' look to it. :)

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 29 December 2012 - 0717 AM.


#15 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camp Smith, HI
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 30 December 2012 - 0133 AM


If you're going to put all this effort into a decoy, why not give the user the option of having it fly into something valuable at the end of its mission? That's how ALCM started out after all.


I understand that it's lack of multifunctionality due to limited endurance is one of the reasons it got canned.

I worked with a colonel would was the program element monitor for the MALD and one of the things he said he had to fight against constantly was requirements creep. "Wouldn't it be cool if it could..." is one of the main reasons so many DoD programs' costs spiral out of control. He said he was approached numerous times with new requirements/features and kept squashing them so as to keep the costs down to something the AF could actually afford.

#16 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 30 December 2012 - 0926 AM

If only other project managers were able to do that.

OK, so you have a potentially versatile system. Get it working as originally thought, then think about adding fins and stripes.

#17 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Wessex Independence ilk.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gloucestershire,uk

Posted 30 December 2012 - 0940 AM

If only other project managers were able to do that.

OK, so you have a potentially versatile system. Get it working as originally thought, then think about adding fins and stripes.


Thats pretty much how F16 proved such a success. Its the main reason why I get very nervious when you see the contrary approach taken with F35.

#18 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 1054 AM

Northrop crapped out with two missile programs in a row: AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow and AGM-137 TSSAM.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users