Gee, Peacemaker, how come your mom lets you have two engine types?
>>64225392
>>64225526WHERE IS HE?!?!?!
>>64225392https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUxnwD5xhY&pp=ygUQYWxleGFuZGVyIHRoZSBvaw%3D%3D>2 jammed>2 stuck>2 misalined>2 cooking off>2 uncrewed >And 6 spraying freedom seeds
>>64225392That thing must have been a nightmare to maintain
>>64225392Were these any less of a horse's ass to get in the air than the BUFF?
>>64225575It was. They had to deal with 6 temperamental 4-row piston engines, making a total of 336 spark plugs that would be shot pretty much every sortie because of the leaded avgas, mounted backwards for added unreliability, 4 early jets that weren't much better, and 8 pairs of wonky retracting unmanned turrets and electromechanical fire computers. All this while deployed in Alaska, outside in the weather because the damn thing wouldn't fit in any hangar, with crews suffering from debilitating manning shortages.
>>64225392So would this thing have actually performed well in combat or would it have been a total shitshow?
>>64225925Absolute kino. We can't have stuff like this anymore, even though we have the technology to make it actually work.
>>64225575>>64225715One of the greatest contraptions of the 20th century, as only the government could fund.
>>64225828combat?
why a mix of props and jets?
>>64226426the B-36 project was begun during early World War II. At the time only large piston engine technology was available. After the plane first flew in 1946 and the first couple of variants entered service in the late 1940s, early turbojet engines became available to boost its performance.This was the case for several late 1940s and 1950s military aircraft (for example the P2V Neptune naval patrol bomber)
>>64225531Some preliminary plans were made to have a revolving rack of Saddams in place of the nuke, but doctrine and the obsolescence of the airframe following the introduction of the MiG-15 meant that the designs never even made it to the drawing board.
>>64226534
>>64226534It wasn't obsolescent with the introduction of the mig 15, it flew so high that it could outturn the mig stuck in the coffin corner between stall speed and the critical mach speed limit.What made it obsolescent was the f100, since supersonic jets don't have this upper limit.
>>64226767The MiG-15 was also a strict day fighter. If the bombers came at night or in bad weather the fagot couldn't do much about it. It was the introduction of all weather supersonic interceptors that ended this.
>>64225526So...we had our own version of the Tsar?
>>64226476Had the war extended say as far as '50 (run with it ok) this would have liquidated Berlin or Moscow...probably both.
The B-36 is interesting in how it was an "ultimate weapon", being able to deliver the H-bomb deep inside the soviet union, and was the most important weapon of the most important branch of the US military, the SAC, in the post-war environment. Then the thing is retired after just 10 years in service being made obsolete by rapid advances in jet technology. Then again pre-ICBM SAC was completely insane to begin with.
>>64227121>rapid advancesIn aerial refueling. B-36 was designed from outset to fly intercontinental distances on its own internal fuel supply. >pre-ICBM SACYes it was crazy.
>>64227121The short service life of so many aircraft designs in the early jet age is insane. They threw so much shit at the wall in the mid 50s to 60s. I guess it worked because they ended up with designs so good they've been in service for 50+ years.
>>64227070Kind of. Sundial was designed on the principle that you don't need to worry about delivery or interception if you simply make a bomb large enough to kill everyone on the planet regardless of where it detonates.
>>64227142It was because of what the post (You) replied to stated: rapid advances in aeronautics overall and jet technology.The years 1946-1960 were the golden years of discovery in 20th century aeronautics along with transistor electronics, guidance systems, rocketry. Those 15 years will never be surpassed, in terms of the breadth of new ideas, engineering progress, designs, and research advancements. Also was spurred on by the Cold War and (tangentially) nuclear technology.
>>64227148Ah, the 10 Gig project. Well, Teller had some crazy ideas, but sorry anon. Thats just a VERY small fart compared to what humanity have had its hand delt with by momma nature with large stones from heaven or the occasional caldera popping.
>>64225566>posting the link with all of the MKULTRA codes at the end that turn you gay when you click on the videoshamefulhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUxnwD5xhYnice triple dubs though
>>64227121To be fair, the b-36 design could have soldiered on as a cargo or troop transport plane for many more years, as it arguably wasn't surpassed in that respect until the 747 and galaxy entered service; sac just didn't want to give their toys away (and maintenance would still be a bitch).
>>64228985
I really wish the B-36 had the opportunity to become the Piecemaker.
>>64228997>You vs the guy she tells you not to worry about
>>64227149>Those 15 years will never be surpassed, in terms of the breadth of new ideas, engineering progress, designs, and research advancements. Nah, we've had big-ass tech jumps since then as well. Just think what the most powerful desktop computer could do, in 1990, compared to the most powerful one in 2000. Think what the most powerful mobile device in 2005 looked like, and could do, compared to its 2015 equivalent. Also think what their prices were, at their respective timepoints (and adding inflation de/multipliers).
>>64229128Aeronautics, not electronics.
>>64227075>>64226476There is an alternate history novel where the British government gets couped by a pro-german faction in 1941 so the war drags on until 1947.the US then supercharges it's aircraft and navy development so the b-29 is scrapped in favour of the b-36.Curtis LeMay eventually turns Germany into a glowing nuclear crater in a single night
>>64229268How does the US get nukes then though? As it was the UK that convinced the US that nukes were possible before the end of the 40's so they would not have invested in a nuclear program. I legit see an Anglo-German cooperation ending with them having nukes first in such a reality?
>>64229288There is a British government in exile led by Churchill from Canada.And without Britain in the game the Germans turn their submarines onto the US and severely piss them off. The Americans start shitting out aircraft carriers like there's no tomorrow and exterminate the kriegsmarine and then lay siege to nazi occupied Europe.
>>64227121The whole 1950 to 1965 perod was absloutely glorious military madness>Hey John, we need to improve this weapon>I'm on it, Bill *slaps nuclear warhead on it* Done!>Not half bad, Johnny! But what about improving it further?>Well Billy, if we talking about that... *pulls thermonuclear warhead from the storage*...I might have a few ideas...
>>64225828It did actually see service as a reconnaissence plane because of it's extreme altitude, range and payload.https://youtu.be/0pYCtpWGIik?si=0lwwh1FtOE6Uuk2L
>>64225828>>64226379>>64229713>combatIn 1950 SAC kept its newest acquisitions, the R-4360-powered B-36 and B-50, out of the Korean conflict deliberately and put into war service re-furbished and unmothballed B-29s (<--which it had thousands of at the time). They didn't want to risk these newly-built dedicated long range nuclear bombers at loss in Korea.Yes RB-36 and RB-47 reconnaissance variants were mainstays of SAC's long range eyes and ears during the 1950s.
One of the few flying aircraft carriers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-dPTcY9tEkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLCjnK_cik
>>64225925"You can just do things" was the motto of engineers in the 50s and 60s
>>64231728And it wasn't just limited to carrying fighters below the main fuselage...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IikW5AZEmQ
>>64229457Stuff like the Genie was emblematic of that time.>Air-to-air unguided atomic rocket
>>64231847the 50s were truly unhinged
>>64231936>launch the nuke, then TURN AROUND
>>64225392Was watching some docs about this the other night. What an absolute beast. Imagine how comfy it would be to crew with the little kitchenette and bunks.
>>64231936>Detonating nukes at 2000ft AGL
>>64229457>>64231847>>64231936Don't forget Edward "We Should Nuke The Moon" Teller (PBUH) suggesting a continent-killing atomic weapon and well as being the primary advocate for the peaceful use of atomic devices, backing nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers as part of the SDI and being an undying opponent of any and all test bans. The mad lad loved his artificial sunrises, simple as.>At a meeting with the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954, following Operation Castle, Teller proposed the 10-gigaton Sundial device and the 1-gigaton Gnomon device. Others at the meeting were shocked by the proposal, and Isidor Isaac Rabi dismissed the idea as an "advertising stunt" rather than a serious proposal for a weapon.[4] If detonated at an altitude of 28 miles (45 km) the Sundial device could ignite fires across an area the size of France.[3] While neither device was ever built or tested, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory made plans to test a prototype Gnomon weapon during Operation Redwing in 1956.[3]
>>64231936>>64232686If you want some truly wild shit look into early tactical nukes.For some of the slower aircraft doing the toss bombing like the Skyraider (yes, the Skyraider) the pilots were even issued special nuclear flash goggles to put on as they got out of dodge as fast as possible and told to expect "extreme turbulence" with the very real possibility the you might just get unlucky and crash anyway from the shockwave.Helpful advice on this matter was "You should probably get as far away from the area as possible after you bail/emerge from your crashed aircraft because fallout is bad for you"
>>64233263Later a giant cartoon rocket called BOAR was introduced (at least in the navy) to make the process somewhat less horrifically dangerous.Still VERY dicey and it's telling when "huge unguided rocket" is how you make the process safer.The A-1 remains the slowest aircraft ever armed with nuclear weapons save helicopters dropping nuclear depth charges
If it was a strategic nuclear attack, or a tactical nuclear attack to destroy an enemy nuclear attack, even if it turned out to be a kamikaze attack, the balance sheet would have generated a huge profit.
>>64233292Some more images to give you an idea of how huge this giant acme rocket was
>>64233307Here's one with a banshee
>>64233244>10 gigaton bomb to turn France into a bonfirecool idea but how would they even test that, let alone weaponize it?
>>64233535>>10 gigaton bomb to turn France into a bonfireAn area the size of F*ance, not F*ance itself.>cool idea but how would they even test thatSmall-scale prototypes with similar operating principles.>let alone weaponize it?It's a fucking 10GT nuke, it's inherently weaponized.
>>64233535They figured out the principle, so scaling it up wouldn't be too hard.https://theaviationgeekclub.com/after-a-nuclear-weapon-test-a-b-36-was-so-radioactive-that-it-had-to-be-parked-away-from-other-peacemaker-bombers-at-carswell-afb-it-was-scrapped-a-year-later/ampAnd another note, did you know the b-36 could carry a whole b-58 beneath it?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGKGTceC40E
