Yes a great video - I have a freind formerly in the TAC when I asked him if he flew an F84 he said "hey Scotty I'm not THAT old!" First time I have ever seen a video of LABS - quite scary stuff with atomic weapons on board,
I believe that the test shown is Ivy-King, a boosted fission weapon in the near megaton range, that was intended to serve as a "consolation prize" in the event Ivy -Mike (the first H-Bomb) failed. Ivy-Mike was successful.
The B45 and B57 were capable of dropping a single Mark 7 Bomb. As a tactical bomb the MK7 had a "dial a yield" warhead so you could set it between 5 and ~60 Kilotons. The ability to dial it back was a great feature for a Tactical Weapon. If an enemy Armor Column was within a mile of "friendlies" you could dial it back to about 10KT so you kill the enemy but keep your troops safer and neighboring towns could also be protected. The little 30" MK7 was frightening because it was SO useable that the temptation for field commanders would be begging for it if a few hundred T55 Soviet Tanks were headed his way. Making these "useable" weapons was the biggest mistake the US and USSR made because it made Nuclear War seem practical. MAD (mutual assured destruction) was what kept us from having a Nuclear War and these little bombs went counter to MAD and almost made Nuclear War seem sensible in desperate times. These little bombs were scarier than the 9MT Titan ICBM's because they seemed practical. Very Dangerous to the health of our Planet.
The Mark 7 was not a "dial-a-yield" weapon, it require replacement of the weapon's core to change yields. It was not a simple process and took many hours work to achieve.
The Mark 7 was developed with an eye toward its use in the Korean War. The plan was to send it under an F-84 flying at low altitude deep into Manchuria. Had the war not ended when it did, an offensive had been planned using Mark 7s in this way. The Mark 6 was no good as a battlefield weapon, since it took to long to assemble and load it and situations (e.g., troop concentrations) changed too quickly. It also required a specially modified B-29, and those were considered strategic resources needed in Europe.
Dennis Hawn I've worked in the Aerospace Industry for 35 years (DoD employee) and have been to dozens of Air Shows from the mid 1970's until today. I've never seen the B52A with my own eyes, just pics. A friend of mine from High School who went to the USAF academy at Colorado Springs was a SAC pilot in the mid 80's. When I bumped into him in the late 1980's he joked that the B52 he was flying was built the same year we were born (1957). Imagine the kids NOW who fly the B52. Their plane was built the same year their FATHER was born! That old bird has seen a lot over the decades. In 1965 we were "retiring" B47's that were built in 1955, only ten years old. The B47 was a beautiful bird, but a deathtrap. 20% of the B47's were lost, killing over 450 crewmen and it never saw a minute of combat. You were safer flying a B52 IN COMBAT than you were flying a B47 between Omaha and Nevada on a clear, sunny day. Gotta love the old B52✈✈✈
+Dennis Hawn It never made it past the prototype stage (XB52). The tandem seating was replaced at the request of the USAF. BTW, the takeoff shown was at Boeing Field, Seattle, a few miles from here.
@@MrShobar There was the XB-52 and the YB-52 before the current cockpit design was introduced in the B-52A (Only three were built with the other 27 converted to B-52Bs on the production line).
Tandem landing gear with smaller tires would not have corrected that difficulty, if it even existed. Larger tires means larger contact area so less lb/ft**2 applied to the pavement, so less deformation. The weight of the aircraft is the controlling factor. The B-36 was an enormously heavy aircraft. It needed to carry the entire load of fuel for a mission because it could not be refueled in flight.
Nice Firing.Good capabilities can go England, India and can come back to USA.Very very nice footage.Very very important nice video.Two enemies name England & India.-Field Marshall Md. Mehdi Hasan.
From the B-47's Wikipedia: "Initial mission profiles included the loft bombing of nuclear weapons. As the training for this imposes repeated high stress on the aircraft, the airframe lifetime would have been severely limited by metal fatigue, and this maneuver was eliminated."
I don't think I've seen a B-45 on a static display, anywhere in the U.S. Is there one inside the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio? Love to see one. It must have had a short run as a active, deployed bomber in service. I'm guessing it was quickly bested by something better in every respect.
One would have to logically assume that if a nuclear strike was carried out today, it would be delivered using ICBMs and not air-dropped; however, I wonder if they were to air-drop it, would it be from a B-52 as it would have been during most of the cold war, or would they use the supersonic capable B-1, or the stealth and likely supersonic capable B-2?
The B52 and B1 are both capable of firing stand off nuclear armed cruise missiles. The bomber and submarine components of the Nuclear Triad were supposed to make it difficult to take out our retaliatory capability with a surprise first strike. Because of the length of time it takes to arm the bomb (bring a core to it, load it on the plane, and activate once you've got it up to a useful altitude), that now seems unlikely. The rationale was that, as with submarines, you can't hit what you can't see and it's incredibly difficult to hit a bomber in flight (unless you've got a satellite LASER weapon) until it gets within range of your AA Defenses. With Stand Off missiles, you never have to get that close.
@@WildBillCox13 The film is from the 1950's, and today weapons are far more sophisticated. Modern warheads on alert missiles and aircraft require no further attention or assembly prior to flight. Any delay diminishes their credibility as a deterrent, so we make sure that everyone knows that we can finish the targeting and launching sequence of Minuteman missiles in five minutes. Loading a B-52 with nuclear-armed cruise missiles takes hours, but not because fission cores can be loaded into fusion warheads - that procedure only takes place at the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas.
I have 2 bomb questions, On the videos of testing ground burst bombs what are the concurrent vertical fingers of contrails around the main blast? and exactly how small can a a-bomb blast be? Not the size of bomb but the blast.
The white trails are from smoke rockets, fired just before detonation, to allow measurement of shockwave propagation and, I think, to help in measuring cloud dimensions.
So capable there is still a bomb un-detonated off of the coast of Georgia to this day.STILL NOT RECOVERED... There is at least one more incidence Im aware of that occured off the coast of Spain. Hoorah Air Force!
Put on your thinking cap boys and tighten your jock straps. Looks like we're going to need you again, but your targets won't be uninhabited islands. Enemies of the state are growing in numbers!
The B57 was based on the RAF Canberra.
6 turnin', 4 burnin'-B 36.
Yes a great video - I have a freind formerly in the TAC when I asked him if he flew an F84 he said "hey Scotty I'm not THAT old!"
First time I have ever seen a video of LABS - quite scary stuff with atomic weapons on board,
I believe that the test shown is Ivy-King, a boosted fission weapon in the near megaton range, that was intended to serve as a "consolation prize" in the event Ivy -Mike (the first H-Bomb) failed. Ivy-Mike was successful.
Ivy King 9:50
The B45 and B57 were capable of dropping a single Mark 7 Bomb. As a tactical bomb the MK7 had a "dial a yield" warhead so you could set it between 5 and ~60 Kilotons. The ability to dial it back was a great feature for a Tactical Weapon. If an enemy Armor Column was within a mile of "friendlies" you could dial it back to about 10KT so you kill the enemy but keep your troops safer and neighboring towns could also be protected. The little 30" MK7 was frightening because it was SO useable that the temptation for field commanders would be begging for it if a few hundred T55 Soviet Tanks were headed his way. Making these "useable" weapons was the biggest mistake the US and USSR made because it made Nuclear War seem practical. MAD (mutual assured destruction) was what kept us from having a Nuclear War and these little bombs went counter to MAD and almost made Nuclear War seem sensible in desperate times. These little bombs were scarier than the 9MT Titan ICBM's because they seemed practical. Very Dangerous to the health of our Planet.
@Bob Loblaw Davy Crockett, although tiny for a nuclear weapon, wasn't hand-held. It required a tripod launcher.
The Mark 7 was not a "dial-a-yield" weapon, it require replacement of the weapon's core to change yields. It was not a simple process and took many hours work to achieve.
The Mark 7 was developed with an eye toward its use in the Korean War. The plan was to send it under an F-84 flying at low altitude deep into Manchuria. Had the war not ended when it did, an offensive had been planned using Mark 7s in this way.
The Mark 6 was no good as a battlefield weapon, since it took to long to assemble and load it and situations (e.g., troop concentrations) changed too quickly. It also required a specially modified B-29, and those were considered strategic resources needed in Europe.
Love the shots of the B 52 A prototype with the inline seating! Not many pictures of that beast.
Dennis Hawn I've worked in the Aerospace Industry for 35 years (DoD employee) and have been to dozens of Air Shows from the mid 1970's until today. I've never seen the B52A with my own eyes, just pics. A friend of mine from High School who went to the USAF academy at Colorado Springs was a SAC pilot in the mid 80's. When I bumped into him in the late 1980's he joked that the B52 he was flying was built the same year we were born (1957). Imagine the kids NOW who fly the B52. Their plane was built the same year their FATHER was born! That old bird has seen a lot over the decades. In 1965 we were "retiring" B47's that were built in 1955, only ten years old. The B47 was a beautiful bird, but a deathtrap. 20% of the B47's were lost, killing over 450 crewmen and it never saw a minute of combat. You were safer flying a B52 IN COMBAT than you were flying a B47 between Omaha and Nevada on a clear, sunny day. Gotta love the old B52✈✈✈
+Dennis Hawn It never made it past the prototype stage (XB52). The tandem seating was replaced at the request of the USAF. BTW, the takeoff shown was at Boeing Field, Seattle, a few miles from here.
@@MrShobar There was the XB-52 and the YB-52 before the current cockpit design was introduced in the B-52A (Only three were built with the other 27 converted to B-52Bs on the production line).
Tactical nuclear close air support! They sure were crazy in the 50s...
Knowledge of the battle at Kursk and the numbers of AFVs involved made P-47s and A-26s obviously inadequate.
The largest aircraft tire ever made was for the B-36. When the planes started sinking into tarmacs on hot days, tandem landing gear was invented.
Tandem landing gear with smaller tires would not have corrected that difficulty, if it even existed. Larger tires means larger contact area so less lb/ft**2 applied to the pavement, so less deformation. The weight of the aircraft is the controlling factor. The B-36 was an enormously heavy aircraft. It needed to carry the entire load of fuel for a mission because it could not be refueled in flight.
Nice Firing.Good capabilities can go England, India and can come back to USA.Very very nice footage.Very very important nice video.Two enemies name England & India.-Field Marshall Md. Mehdi Hasan.
From the B-47's Wikipedia:
"Initial mission profiles included the loft bombing of nuclear weapons. As the training for this imposes repeated high stress on the aircraft, the airframe lifetime would have been severely limited by metal fatigue, and this maneuver was eliminated."
I don't think I've seen a B-45 on a static display, anywhere in the U.S. Is there one inside the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio? Love to see one. It must have had a short run as a active, deployed bomber in service. I'm guessing it was quickly bested by something better in every respect.
Pretty sure I saw a B45 in the USAF museum at WPAFB in 1988.
Learn to love the BOMB
its so sad that they actually thought thy could use a- bombs tactically.
We did
@Kathleen Shaw yes like CCP PLA communist China party hq
Was that a prototype B52? Because it was a very different cockpit.
"providing close support to friendly troops" sounds....otherwise close, if you use a nuclear weapon for that :)
One would have to logically assume that if a nuclear strike was carried out today, it would be delivered using ICBMs and not air-dropped; however, I wonder if they were to air-drop it, would it be from a B-52 as it would have been during most of the cold war, or would they use the supersonic capable B-1, or the stealth and likely supersonic capable B-2?
The B52 and B1 are both capable of firing stand off nuclear armed cruise missiles. The bomber and submarine components of the Nuclear Triad were supposed to make it difficult to take out our retaliatory capability with a surprise first strike. Because of the length of time it takes to arm the bomb (bring a core to it, load it on the plane, and activate once you've got it up to a useful altitude), that now seems unlikely. The rationale was that, as with submarines, you can't hit what you can't see and it's incredibly difficult to hit a bomber in flight (unless you've got a satellite LASER weapon) until it gets within range of your AA Defenses. With Stand Off missiles, you never have to get that close.
@@WildBillCox13 The film is from the 1950's, and today weapons are far more sophisticated. Modern warheads on alert missiles and aircraft require no further attention or assembly prior to flight. Any delay diminishes their credibility as a deterrent, so we make sure that everyone knows that we can finish the targeting and launching sequence of Minuteman missiles in five minutes. Loading a B-52 with nuclear-armed cruise missiles takes hours, but not because fission cores can be loaded into fusion warheads - that procedure only takes place at the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas.
Never seen a B45 prior this film.
I have 2 bomb questions, On the videos of testing ground burst bombs what are the concurrent vertical fingers of contrails around the main blast? and exactly how small can a a-bomb blast be? Not the size of bomb but the blast.
The white trails are from smoke rockets, fired just before detonation, to allow measurement of shockwave propagation and, I think, to help in measuring cloud dimensions.
Tom Risar those are ground Rockets fired in order to allow video Imaging and pixelation another monitoring
lost in the archives.
8:10 - 8:19 pure excitement
Wish my grandfather talk about what he did during WW2
So capable there is still a bomb un-detonated off of the coast of Georgia to this day.STILL NOT RECOVERED... There is at least one more incidence Im aware of that occured off the coast of Spain.
Hoorah Air Force!
If someone finds the one off Georgia, can he keep it?
I sure hope foolish humans don’t destroy this planet and every living creature.
Do black curtains matter? This is probably a silly question.
These things have the cheesiest music...
How convenient for The Lord God Almighty to just follow the iniquitous MONEY TRAIL to begin throwing the damned souls in hell. Cyrus.
Put on your thinking cap boys and tighten your jock straps. Looks like we're going to need you again, but your targets won't be uninhabited islands. Enemies of the state are growing in numbers!