Go to ground.news/droid to access data-driven information from around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access or try it for less than $1 this month
@@BostonDodgeGuythe scary thing is that fox isn’t even extreme far right anymore, the limits have been moved too much. this sponsor is better than a few of the previous ones, and after some research appears to be somewhat well regarded as a minimally biased source.
What’s mind blowing is the B-58 first flew just 14 years after the B-29 first flew. I don’t think anything has advanced as fast as aircraft did between 1945 and 1955.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 And the man who designed the P47 also designed the F105, it really was an era of incredible advancements in a very short period of time.
Firearms technology from 1865-1900 comes to mind. Similar to early cold war aircraft where something could be cutting edge and "high tech" and then a decade later be considered hopelessly obsolete.
@@ol_smokey9370I saw my first one there (and touched it and opened and closed something I probably shouldn’t have) and I presume a different one many years later at Dayton. Definitely the most beautiful aircraft I’ve ever seen. I assumed that like a very beautiful woman, it probably wasn’t as good as it looks.
In 1976, I spotted a model kit of a B-58 and I thought it was the coolest looking plane ever. It looked so modern that I was shocked to find out that it had already been retired from service!
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165 Who would they have sold them to? The only country where they would have even made sense would be Germany, and at that time Germany's economy was still in recovery, and it's military was still highly restricted. France and the UK had their own bombers, whatever you might think of them, and no other countries could afford them, or were deemed to be strategically close enough to have access to the technology.
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165who would want them. As conventional bombers they can’t hold enough munitions to be worth using. As nuclear bombers only nuclear powers would need them. So what country are you proposed by we sell them to in 1970.
From a former member of Strategic Air Command (SAC): It's pronounced "sack" not S-A-C. EVERYONE in US Air Force calls it SAC (aka sack). Keep up the excellent job. Godspeed.
Thanks for the video. One of my aviation mentors flew the B-58. Capt. Bill Hale. In april 1962 Bill was taking off at Bunker Hill and got an un-commanded roll he couldn't arrest. Bill called for an eject and sadly one of Bill's crew members didn't survive. Bill retired as a 747 Captain and enjoyed flying his Quicksilver ultra light. I was captivated when Bill was telling B-58 stories. Amazing aircraft and one of the first model airplanes I built as a young man.
My dad was a B-58 Hustler Command Pilot. He loved the aircraft. It was challenging to fly and pilots had to be on the top of their game at all times. Those Escape Pods made getting in and out quite challenging.
Elon Musk's Starship is going to need some of those escape pods if the Spacecraft is ever going to launch with humans aboard ( in seats located right above the huge second stage fuel tanks.)
A few things ... First off the main reason the B-58 was sidelined was it's range. It wasn't just that it needed more refueling connections - it's that it needed them closer to the target. The ultimate Long Range Bomber Strike was by the British Vulcan Bomber that bombed Port Stanley a couple of times. They had like a dozen aerial refueling aircraft flying along with it - refueling the bomber and the other tankers. As each tanker emptied itself into the other aircraft - it would go home and get more for the return flight. So - you can keep a bomber in the air indefinitely - if you can keep refueling it. The problem is - the Soviet Union was a big place - and the bomber had to fly into that space - and then back out - before it could refuel. Here - the B-58 was designed to be a High Altitude Bomber - but while it could fly low level - flying low level uses a lot more fuel AND the faster you fly the more fuel you used. So - when you have a very large target area to fly in and out of, the need to fly under radar - and - the use of high speed - you are looking at a real need for refueling aircraft and a real difficulty in refueling your aircraft from a safe distance. After all - if they can see your refueling aircraft they can send someone out there to shoot it down - and then what's the bomber going to do? That - and it just wasn't as useful as a conventional bomber. The B-52 was a stupendous conventional bomber. Now - one more thing - they could still fly in at high altitude - they just had to use ECM to defeat the enemy radars. That worked - but - if you used your ECM they could figure out how to fox it. This made it really good for nuclear strikes but not so good for conventional ones - where you had to keep going back again and again. This is the reason the Americans didn't want to use the full spectrum of their ECM against North Vietnam - as they were saving that to be used against the Soviet Union (which shit themselves when they realized how good our ECM was - and how useless the Air Defenses of Moscow would have been). The Soviet Union was scared shit less of the NATO technical edge. They were using stolen western computers to run their Air Defenses - because they couldn't build anything like that - this of course led to maintenance problems. They could hardly call up DEC and ask them to come fix their stolen computer. When Reagan came up with the Strategic Defense Initiative - the Americans knew they couldn't build it - but the Russians didn't know that. They sure knew that they couldn't build it though. Still though they had a shit load of weapons and a shit load of nukes. Yes - they couldn't stop us - but we could not be sure if we could stop all of them ... .
The Vulcans Black Buck missions were incredible, but they have actually been surpassed since. In the Gulf War B-52's struck targets in Iraq from Guam. I think since then B-2s may have struck targets in the Middle East flying from the US.
no you can no keep a bomber in the air indefinitely, even with in flight refueling you'll still hit the same limit as a nuclear submarine, the crew has to eat, also (but not an issue for a sub) you have to land to empty the toilets.
@@therocinante3443 - lovely little thing! the US dropped the ball not adopting it more - would have saved a lot of money and beaten nearly everything in a dogfight
the 58 was like the precursor to the XB-70, a delta wing bomber. The USAF should have been converted to an interceptor/ missile truck, and could have served in Vietnam. I could daydream about this for hours!
Hustler was a beautiful bird. It made a ton of revolutionary advancements, for example, it was the first aircraft to have a female voice for warnings, they called it “Sexy Sally” back then. It also had a very advanced terrain following navigation system
In terms of aesthetics alone, it might be #5 on my list of big planes. Personally I would put the XB-70, B1b, Tu-160 & Caproni Ca.60 higher. #4 if you combine the B1 and Tu-160 since they are so similar.
Another thoroughly well researched and presented video by Paul. Prime example of why quality is better than quantity. This channel deserves much more recognition and appreciation.
The B-58 was amazingly engineering and so beautiful, and as a kid seeing the wings up close, they seemed too thin to hold the engines and the body too small for a flight crew of three. We were stationed at Westover AFB during the 1960s when it operated as SAC. I remember seeing B-58s landing on rare occasions, but seeing how fast they accelerated and climbed during take off after rotation is what stuck in my memory, just incredibly to see. At the time, Westover was home to the 99th Bombardment Wing B-52C, 99th Air Refueling Squadron KC-135, as well as the 8th Reconnaissance Technical, and 18th Communications Squadrons.
The biggest problem with the B-58 Hustler was that all munitions had to hung off the airframe. It still holds speed and altitude records which remain intact 70 years after the flight.
@@SunriseLAWindeed, almost all records but the highest operational ceiling belong to Tu-160. But it is an unfair comparison as those are of two radically different weight/size classes and from different eras, though formally belonging to the strategic bomber class.
@@gwcrispi As all the photos I saw of it were with the initial single-stage tank for years before I saw it "naked", I have a different perspective. I think it looks normal with the tank underneath, and so a bit "wrong", too skinny, without the tank.
@@tatianaes3354 "Classification of aircraft" is the problem with aviation records (and many other records). Amazing to me that so many of the records were set so ago. Most amazing to me is the SR-71, which after 60 years still looks like science fiction.
As a young lad I had a plastic model of this beauty. Sadly, it was lost in action somewhere in the dense thicket behind our house on sunny day sometime in the sixties.
I feel like a lot of people look at these two aircraft and go "right, well, the B-58 was in service for a relatively short time and didn't really do much while the B-52 is still in service today, so it's obviously the superior plane." To me, I believe the B-52 was the peak of the ww2 heavy bomber mentality of fly high and carry a butt-ton of ordance. There's really no where further you can take the idea before the airframe starts to become impractical. Meanwhile the B-58 had an inglorious career, but it's logic was sound: get in, hit the enemy before they know you're there, and get out. This line of thinking would continue with planes like the XB-70, FB-111, and B-1 Lancer; then stealth entered the equation and that's where you get the F-117, B-2 Spirit, and B-21 Raider. I believe the reason we haven't replaced the B-52 in seventy years is because it's the zenith of it's mindset, while the B-58 opened the door to new career opportunities and that's the path US bomber development has been going down ever since.
Good points, but I see it a bit differently. To me the B-58 is the end point of the traditional medium bomber, and the B-70 was the end of the traditional heavy bomber. Faster and higher had been the goal since the beginning of bombers and the 52, 58 and 70 were no different. The 58 was forced to low level to avoid detection, but so was the 52. In my mind the F-111 and aborted TSR2 really represented the beginning of the "avoid detection" design approach.
@@soulsphere9242 While I agree with your analysis to a degree, I would place the start of the "avoid detection" approach *much* earlier. The use of night bombing in Europe was to that same end, and was begun in WW1 by the German Air Force with Zeppelins and later Gotha bombers. The use of colour to make seeing planes hard is also a WW1 effort, and it is still in use. Between the wars the USSR also saw experiments with reduced visibility - using transparent coverings over the wings and fuselage. So maybe modifying your proposal to be "avoid radar detection" gets a bit closer? But that is still an approach starting in WW2. The Mosquito gets a lot of attention for it's low-level, under-the-radar attacks, but it was not the first to avoid radar that way. Many of the lighter medium bombers were used that way, as were Beaufighters. I would suggest that all of the WW2 fighter-bombers were used in ways to reduce radar detection. Then there is the well-known case that the Operation Chastise Dams raid was flown at low level all the way there and back - with Lancasters. That were then classified as heavy bombers. During the Cold War, this approach brought the purpose-designed Blackburn Buccaneer, and the (misunderstood? and aborted) Martin XB-51. Both designed exclusively for low-level bombing operations, explicitly to avoid the radar, and both pre-dating the examples you referred to. In WW2 the USAAF was even seen as a bit "bloody minded" in claiming that they even _could_ fly daytime bombing missions. The RAF tried it during the early months of the war, and gave it up as both unproductive and unsustainable. Arguably the USAAF European experience was also "unproductive and unsustainable", albeit with many notable successes. And not a whole lot better at high altitudes over Japan.
I hate to be nit-picky but, as a veteran of the USAF and spending all of my time in Strategic Air Command we never referred to our beloved command as S-A-C it was SAC (sack) and them fighter jockey boys were TAC (tack). For what it's worth my father worked for Convair after he got out of the Air Force building the Hustler. Lots of great stories and family traditions.
I was in the Army when MAC used to give us rides where we needed to go. Ah yes, the good old days of the Cold War, when you could enlist and go overseas and chase all the local women around in a place you likely had ancestors come from, drink all their local beers eat all their good food and at the end of the day no one really got hurt, and since it's been over look at what's happening everywhere, if you ask me we were better off when the world was on the verge of nuclear armageddon, I don't think peace has turned out to be quite as peaceful as everyone thought it was going to be.
@@dukecraig2402 Well Said Brother! I was in 1-37 Armor from 4-85 through 11-87… Hard Work, Hard Partying, Great Beer, Good Food, Beautiful Women and Pay Checks to burn. I was 17 when I landed in Frankfurt via MAC 747. With the high Exchange Rate even a lowly E-2 could have Plenty Fun Times. Cheers! From Southeast Texas!
@@VehrecThere was an application for this during the Cold War. Enemy aircraft incoming to destroy air base (with fighters/interceptors with top cover and bomber hunting) and she needs to get off the ground and above the incoming planes with little warning…. then carry on to target and nuke it😱 Sure glad we never found out how effective it was in that role
The B-58 was an excellent aircraft for its timeframe. Virtually all these early jets were difficult to fly and had high accident rates. Part of the problem was they never really considered conventional-role missions for most of these early strategic bombers; once the strategic aspect was obsolete, they were just retired instead of properly adapting them.
Sometimes we forget that flying from the US to the USSR was and is not that far as it looks. Go north over the Arctic, look at the globe from above and you will see. We are used to looking at a map that makes things seem so much further away that our perspective is off. Man I miss having that physical world globe with all the topographic wrinkles. You do not see them at schools anymore.
Todays students would not be able to comprie such reality ..... yeah it's called goverment education of the society ...knowledge is dangerous to a goverment......
I've always loved the hustler. I was so happy to finally see one when I visited the National Museum of the USAF in Dayton back in January. What a beautiful old bird. Thanks for the video.
My Dad went into the US Navy during WWII and moved to the Air Force when it was created... He was part of SAC and MAC at various times through his career. (You don't spell it out S-A-C, just say "sack", same with "mack"). If you are interested in that era, "Sonny" Holt's book on the B-58 is an absolute must-read. Good Call, Paul! I was really glad you brought it up. It really shows President Kennedy's biggest "Blunder" was hiring MacNamera away from Ford as SecDef. That bean-counter ruined the Air Force's B-58 and SR-71 programs forever... including having the tooling destroyed so future Administrations couldn't revive them, even if they wanted to. Dick Cheney did the same thing to the Navy 20+ years later to line his own pockets with kick-backs from McDonnell Douglas. I'll dance on his grave, given the chance. Knowing my make-up, Dad knew I wasn't cut out to sit in a bomber for 10-20 hours at a time... So when I got appointments to both the Air Force and Naval Academies, he urged me to go Navy. It worked out well.
@@petesheppard1709 Hah!! When we were stationed at Wiesbaden/Rhein-Main (MAC/TAC?) in the early 70s, I remember hanging out in the hanger (favorite pastime) helping the guys with maintenance and parts/tools running. One of the guys smashed his finger... he was hopping around with his hands between his knees yelling "MacNamera, MacNamera, holy f'ing MacNamera"... I hadn't made THAT connection at the time. Thanks for the memory and making that connection! (50 years later).
@@petesheppard1709 Mac believed that the NVA could be stopped with high-tech fences. He also claimed years later that he made Ford vehicles "tune-up free". 🙄
The B-58 has long been one of my favorite bomber aircraft. BUT I think in the long run retiring it in favor of the B-52 ended up being the right move. You mentioned it was about the same cost per airframe as the B-52, but ignored that it had about 1/3rd the bomb load capacity - probably less useable since it's all external - so cost per pound of bomb is MUCH higher. AND the B-52 had that cost while some of the fleet was invovled in active combat operations, which will tend to drive up costs. The high speed, low altitude penetration bomber has just ended up not being as needed in conflicts during and since the cold war, especially as multirole fighters have expanded in capability. Even in the 1960s the F-4 could fill that role quite well - including nuclear. And when you're up against the BUFF in pure med-high altitude convetional bomb trucking...good luck. The B-1 is even losing that fight despite having a marginally *larger* bombload than the B-52 just because of its higher cost. So for deep penetration it loses to ICBMs and later cruise missiles just as much as every other bomber, other low-altitude missions are covered just fine by fighter-bombers. And for basic bomb-trucking it loses to the older bomber. So it gets left without a niche to fill.
Some years back I purchased "At the Klaxon's Call: What If We Actually Went To War In The 1960s" by Philip Rowe. It told the story of a B-58 crew that scrambled on what they thought was a readiness exercise only to realize that it was an actual Soviet attack. The crew prosecutes their mission and over the course of the book make their way across the Med and across the Atlantic and eventually back to the States. Absolutely amazing read as the author was a Radar Bombardier/Navigator on a B-58 for five years. Sadly, when Mr. Rowe passed away, Amazon locked his account and has (as of when I talked to his daughter) refused his family access to the files to repost. It is a wonderful story that I fear is lost to the technogods.
I found the text online on a website called aero-web with an org domain name. It's not navigable from the home page, I think their main page got hacked, but the old files are still around. I made sure Internet Archive has a copy.
I understand people still fly drugs back and forth to the islands with them here in South Florida lol but I'm pretty sure "front line service" was implied...
@@sidefx996 The video made the claim the B-52 is the longest serving of any type military or commercial. Nothing about "front line service." Even then, more DC-3s are in active commercial service (estimated 164 as of 2022) than B-52s (72 as of 2022). In addition, DC-3 variants fly for the militaries of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mali, Mauritania, and Thailand. Even the United States Forest Service still operates updated DC-3s
Oddly, even though I was trained on the B-52 in tech school as a weapons specialist, I never saw another one during my 7 years in the USAF. After tech school, I was sent to a SAC base at Little Rock, Arkansas, (LRAFB). I worked in the pod shop on the TCPs checking out the electronic circuitry of the warhead in the upper component. We would frequently get to work on the flight line and watch these beautiful birds as they took off in full AB. The sound they made was incredible and awe-inspiring. It was sad to see them later as I was in training for SEA at Davis-Monthon AFB, in Tucson. Many were lined up in the desert-like boneyard and I felt a big hole in my heart. I took several photographs of them there and still have them today. LeMay was a dinosaur and made a big mistake in not favoring the Hustler. Most of us in SAC didn't like him.
I was at DM in 1979+. I saw a B-58 without the belly pod parked on the side of the road leading to a recycler south of the base. A few hundred feet away was the entrance to the fledgling Pima Air Museum. They had a tin shack for an office with an escape pod at the front door with a crayon hand written sign giving details. I didn't get the tail number off the airplane but it would be neat if that airplane was rescued from ths scrap and wound uo in the museum. I worked on the drone catching H-3's at the south end of the DM runway. Edit: Pima had a Ryan Firebee drone on display from(?) the 432 TDS (tactical drone squadron?). Those were dropped from the DM DC-130's. The 130 had 4 pylons (2L+2R) under the wings. Sometimes they would take off with 4 drones hanging. The CH-3 had a winch inside with a cable running under the belly where it terminated in 3 hooks that were lowered below the helicopter off of a rack on the rear loading ramp that would tilt the poles from horizontal (take off position) to vertical (catch position). The 3 prong center hook (flying hook) would hang the lowest, held at the bottom of a thick rope that hang like a "V" because of the weight of the flying hook. The upper ends of the V rope were tied into a hook that was at the end of the long poles, held on with a snap clip. The helicopter would approach the drone, which by that time had run out of fuel and was floating down with an upper pilot chute and a (lower) main chute. Helicopter would (try to)skim over the pilot chute. The pilots would brag over being able to snag the pilot chute with all 3 hooks simultaneously. The worst was catching the chute with only a side hook, sometimes bending or breaking the aluminum pole. Once snagged, the cable would play out and be gradually braked by electronic(?) controls in the winch...so the cable would not be snapped (5/16" diameter(?)). The cable then was manually reeled in until the drone was nested below the helicopter about 5ft(?). A drogue chute off the drone's tail kept it streamlined with the helicopter. There was an electrically fired explosive guillotine cable cutter in case of emergency with a backup axe carried next to the winch. There are a few videos on YT of an H-3 catching drones. There was also a unit in Hawaii that caught film canisters that were ejected from orbit from the Corona(?) CIA spy satellites. (Photos of Soviet targets/etc, Cold War stuff). I don't know if they used C-119 Boxcars or H-53'S. I saw a shoulder patch that said "Catch a falling star", perhaps from their unit. Current satellite capability made that tech obsolete.
Thanks for the interesting comment. In regards to your last sentence, could you elaborate on why a lot of people in SAC didn't like LeMay? I was under the impression that everyone under his command liked him and agreed with his policies and way of thinking. I say that as a mere civilian who has watched Strategic Air Command with James Stewart and Harry Morgan at least five times. So what do I know? Not much.
@chillinginthefrozennorth6958 LeMay demonstrated many times that he was dark and twisted within. It would come out explosively too. Good people have a natural dislike of such ones.
I have to disagree with you on LeMay making a big mistake in not favoring the Hustler. The Hustler most definitely would not still be in active service in 2024 while the BUFF still thunders on. The B52 has more than proven that it's versatility keeps it relevant as the decades fly by. LeMay, whatever his other faults, definitely made the right call.
Also the placement of the pods looks area-ruled. Soon after they found out that surface friction is the main problem at Mach 2. Valkyrie has its engines in the back like the starfighter. Concorde fused the pods together and under the wing.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt i am retired USAF, but when I was stationed at Beale AFB near Marysville, CA we gave a lot of tours, including the SR-71. My understanding is the hottest point was between the engines' nozzles. Also, the side glass would get quite warm, the crewmembers could heat up their 'lunch' by holding it against them. We gave a high-ranking Russian officer a tour od the Habu once. His comment was about how many times he tried to have one shot down, and now he could walk around one on static display, touch it and get his picture with it. Thanks for the reply.
I had the privilege to have worked (as a hydraulic mechanic) on both the B-52 (91st Bomb wing, Glasgow Montana, 1966-67) and the B-58 (43rd Bomb wing, Little Rock Arkansas, 1968-69). Both aircraft were amazing, but the B-58 was special. Witnessed the last B-58 to leave Little Rock in January 1970.
Grissom was my first Air Force assignment in the 1970s. We had a B-58 on static display and it was badass. The plane is still there, at the base air museum.
Okay, I gonna brag. My dad was a B-58 pilot too. This Air Force brat would sit near the flight line and watch the late evening takeoffs. It was the closest thing to watching a dragon spit blue flames and hearing it roar. Better than any fireworks. Dad went on to fly the F-111. B-52 pilots were amazed at the speed of the F-111, The B-58 pilots just rolled their eyes.
The B-52 won out because it could haul a metric fuckton of conventional weapons and sometimes that's what you want. In Vietnam and Desert Storm, it served it's purpose.
Sort of; though it needs a £#3& ton of protection in contested airspace 😅 . (in Vietnam for instance, smaller aircraft had to actively protect the BUFF's from missiles, often sacrificing themselves in the process)
As a teen, I volunteered at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Arizona. They have a B-58 in their collection. It has to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It just looks fast, even sitting still. Probably one of my favorites. I've also had the chance to see B-58 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH.
It could be the worst possible aircraft in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, and I'd still love it. The Hustler is to me, the single best looking airplane ever made. It's absolutely breathtakingly gorgeous.
When push came to shove, remind me again how it wouldn't have been effective? Efficiency? This thing was absolutely unmatched in performance in 1956. It wasn't a Prius.
@@sidefx996 In 1956 sure. But when it was retired in 1970 not even close. Deep strike it lost to ICBMs and cruise missiles (and the lack of range made *very* deep strikes difficult if not impossible anyway - can't aerial refuel over the USSR), low altitude but not deep strike it wasn't *much* better than the fighter-bombers that were coming on line, and for conventional bombing it loses *massively* to the B-52 in all respects despite - according to the video - being similar for per-airframe cost.
@@chrisc1140 Right. I mean technology was advancing so fast in that time period that 1956 to 1970 was an eternity. For a short time at least there was really was nothing else like it. Until there was lol...
I was there (bunker hill) I lived 8 mi. southwest away when it happened I was 8 yrs old and I can still remember seeing the thick black smoke from the fire, oddly we wasn't told the the plane was carrying 5 nukes until decades later, back then (1965) it wasn't uncommon to see thick black smoke coming from the base it was fairly normal.
Growing up I lived about an hour from Bunker Hill AFB. We used to go to their yearly open house, and I can still remember getting to sit in the front seat of a B58 at one of them. Pretty heady stuff for a 7 yr old.
One of my favourite planes of all time! I remember how I bought a very complex B-58 flight model for X-Plane 9, then spent hours reading the old manuals figuring out how to fly it. It was pretty hard. Then on my first trip to the US, I specifically went to Tucson air museum to see it in person! But then again, both of my trips to the US were road trips filled up to 3/4 by air and space museums 😄
When I was a boy in the early 1960s, I had a toy B-58 that was maybe more than a foot long. It had a tab at the top of the fuselage that caused the bomb to detach and fly out. It was made of pliable rubber. I also had a standard plastic model that I assembled and hung from the ceiling. I also had an ICBM launch toy that shot out plastic missiles that went two or three yards. It was air propelled.I also had a Nike toy, which went a longer range. That was spring propelled. That period of time was great for nuclear war toys.
Yup, those sure were the days. How about the little baking soda submarines (Nautilus & Polaris) from inside the Post cereal packages. The Polaris one even released a little spring-loaded rocket.
The B-58 was an immense technology and engineering project similar to Apollo or the Space Shuttle. I think people don’t really know the scale of innovation that it represented. It was towering.
Awesome video. You answered questions I have had for years. It’s astounding that the B58 set so many records and it’s wild how we went from prop aircraft to this in only 18 years. What an exciting time! I always thought that was a great looking aircraft.
My father was an ADA officer in the mid 60's working on the air defense for the continental US (from a SAGE building). He said that the Hustlers were so fast that NORAD had trouble tracking them and working engagements. He said they were remarkably fast and tough to engage.
Yes computers were used, it's a myth that aircraft like this and the A12/SR71 were designed without the aid of computers, they were in fact used to crunch number's that typically would have taken a room full of people a week to do but they could do overnight. First off contrary to what people believe who say "they didn't use computers it was all done with slide rules" the fact is a slide rule is a computer, like an abacus it's a mechanical computer, when it comes to electronic computers as pointed out they were indeed used to aid in the design of aircraft all through that era, it's just that they didn't have CAD to help design things with back then but CAD doesn't do what people think it does, the only thing it does do is enable the designer to look at what he's designing in 3 dimensions instead of being drawn in flat planes with multiple views of the same thing, but they do not innovate, no computers no matter how modern do that, engineer's today are just as smart as the engineer's who designed aircraft "back before they used computers", it's still the human who innovates, the F15 wasn't designed because there was a computer that someone entered "design a better fighter than the F4", and it spit out the blueprints for an F15, it's still humans who design the shape and everything else about an aircraft, it's still humans who do all the innovating, all computers do is aid them by speeding up the process.
@@dukecraig2402CAD also makes designs, that our taxpayer money fund, easy to be stolen by, yes, spies and, yes, sold by corporate decision and political kick backs.
The airplane was a minor player from the beginning since so few were built, compared to the B-52. Now those that were built were expensive to keep flying since there were so few of them. The video does not mention that they were sort-of replaced by the FB-111.
Great video! Any time the name McNamara is mentioned I bristle. The number of servicemen that were killed in action because of his policies is horrific.
You have a good sponsor as the main stream media is always spinning the news. As you can see from your research, military, and other politics affect almost everything the military does. Thank you for the video, Paul.
I saw Greased Lightning at the SAC museum in Wyoming last year. It's kitted out with the massive conformal fuel tank it used for that Tokyo to London flight.
A lot of museums like the SAC museum in Nebraska keep the Blackbirds out of reach, but they have the Greased Lightning bird sitting out, and my arm trembled at the raw energy that it still possesses.
We did finally get a replacement for the B-58, it just came 16 years later in the form of the B-1 Lancer. The delay was understandable though. The B-58 was originally going to be replaced by the B-70, but when that was cancelled due to it becoming obsolete while still in the design phase, they had nothing to replace it with. They could have kept using the B-58, but its low altitude penetration flights required too much refueling and sort of became unnecessary when the B-52's got ECM's. Even more trouble came when we started building cruise missiles in the 80's, which could do the same low level penetration missions and had much smaller RCS's and didn't risk the lives of pilots. These were capable of holding nuclear warheads, but much smaller ones than what the bombers could carry. But you don't need a very powerful nuclear bomb to take out an AA site.
There is a B-58 on display at Pima Air Museum in Tucson Arizona, along with a B-36, and a host of others, this is an excellent collection and facility which is being continuously upgraded.
Aerospase Varys dropped another video! I love these history ones -- the context and background bits are almost as interesting as the main subject. Every time.
11:48 The fact the B-1B's radar signature is so small is amazing in of itself. B-1B and B-58 have always been my favorite bombers. Basically a giant fighter jet on steroids.
My dad was a DSO on the B-58, and absolutely loved the bird. He was totally against it's retirement, especially after he did some mission planning with the performance specifications for the original B-1.
Only one small critique and I am kicking myself for even bringing it up...BUT>>>>>>>SAC while you are correct it stood for Strategic Air Command. It was lovingly called "sack". Like a sack of potatoes. No one used S. A. C. (Ess, Eyyyy, Seee). On a more than positive note. I love your content and I learn a lot from it. !!!
You know, that comparison with the B-52's RCS and that of a barn door, is actually pretty apt. If indeed it is 100 square meters. Here in New England I have seen barn doors that are literally around that size. Granted those were segmented sliding doors (think aircraft hangers, something like that), not monolithic ones. Still fits though.
But a barn door would likely have a lower RCS than it's total area as it is flat then it is likely to reflect radar away from the source. Also being wood it is likely to be somewhat transparent to radar.
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica Also, most of the barn doors I've seen are smaller. A lot smaller. btw, biggest doors I've seen were on a barn that had a house inside it. Literally, 2 floor single family home, inside a barn that was only a little larger (some feet in any one direction). In the warmer times of the year they open the barn up so that it is more of a pavilion than a barn. Then they close it up for the winter. Apparently having the barn and the air between the house and barn makes an insane difference in how much it takes to heat the house. Or so says the couple that lived there. Maybe those barn doors can claim a larger RCS.
A squadron of B-58s was "somewhat" featured in the 1964 movie "Failsafe." They were called something else, Vindicators, because in the movie the pilot and copilot were shown side by side, which of course wasn't the case with the B-58. Nevertheless, on NORAD's map they had the same delta wing shape.
Go to ground.news/droid to access data-driven information from around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access or try it for less than $1 this month
Why do you no longer give the source of the shirts that you are famous for ?
Haters going to hate@@steverpcb
That they have Fox listed as anything but hard right tells me everything I need to know about their own biases. No thank you.
@@BostonDodgeGuy Is CuriousDroid Trump supporter?
@@BostonDodgeGuythe scary thing is that fox isn’t even extreme far right anymore, the limits have been moved too much. this sponsor is better than a few of the previous ones, and after some research appears to be somewhat well regarded as a minimally biased source.
What’s mind blowing is the B-58 first flew just 14 years after the B-29 first flew.
I don’t think anything has advanced as fast as aircraft did between 1945 and 1955.
How about rockets/missiles between 1960 and 1970?
The man who designed the Avro Lancaster also designed the AVRO Vulcan. Ray Chadwick.
@@bob_the_bomb4508
And the man who designed the P47 also designed the F105, it really was an era of incredible advancements in a very short period of time.
Firearms technology from 1865-1900 comes to mind. Similar to early cold war aircraft where something could be cutting edge and "high tech" and then a decade later be considered hopelessly obsolete.
Warship design 1906-1914?
Seeing the B-58 and XB-70 in Dayton Air Force museum is something everyone needs to experience.
There is a B-58 at the Strategic Air Command Museum in Ashland, NE also. They have a B-36 too!
I'm going there this summer and can hardly wait!
I’ll be there next week when I see the solar eclipse
@@ol_smokey9370I saw my first one there (and touched it and opened and closed something I probably shouldn’t have) and I presume a different one many years later at Dayton. Definitely the most beautiful aircraft I’ve ever seen.
I assumed that like a very beautiful woman, it probably wasn’t as good as it looks.
There is a B-58 there also along with a B-36
In 1976, I spotted a model kit of a B-58 and I thought it was the coolest looking plane ever. It looked so modern that I was shocked to find out that it had already been retired from service!
Imagine if the U$ sold them off at a discount ... they still would've recoup their investments.
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165 Who would they have sold them to? The only country where they would have even made sense would be Germany, and at that time Germany's economy was still in recovery, and it's military was still highly restricted. France and the UK had their own bombers, whatever you might think of them, and no other countries could afford them, or were deemed to be strategically close enough to have access to the technology.
@@John.0z
Sell them to anyone that wasn't align with the Soviet .
Instead of the boneyard !
I had one of those models
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165who would want them. As conventional bombers they can’t hold enough munitions to be worth using. As nuclear bombers only nuclear powers would need them. So what country are you proposed by we sell them to in 1970.
From a former member of Strategic Air Command (SAC): It's pronounced "sack" not S-A-C. EVERYONE in US Air Force calls it SAC (aka sack). Keep up the excellent job. Godspeed.
It WAS 'sack', as verified by a dependent.
Thanks for the video. One of my aviation mentors flew the B-58. Capt. Bill Hale. In april 1962 Bill was taking off at Bunker Hill and got an un-commanded roll he couldn't arrest. Bill called for an eject and sadly one of Bill's crew members didn't survive. Bill retired as a 747 Captain and enjoyed flying his Quicksilver ultra light. I was captivated when Bill was telling B-58 stories. Amazing aircraft and one of the first model airplanes I built as a young man.
My father was an aircraft electrician with SAC with the 43rd bombardment wing and serviced the Hustler at Carswell and Little Rock in the early 1960s.
My father serviced a B-58 in Little Rock, AR as well.
These birds would have required a lot of maintenance. Hundreds or thousands of men must have been on the job.
My dad was a B-58 Hustler Command Pilot. He loved the aircraft. It was challenging to fly and pilots had to be on the top of their game at all times. Those Escape Pods made getting in and out quite challenging.
Me too!
Elon Musk's Starship is going to need some of those escape pods if the Spacecraft is ever going to launch with humans aboard ( in seats located right above the huge second stage fuel tanks.)
A few things ...
First off the main reason the B-58 was sidelined was it's range. It wasn't just that it needed more refueling connections - it's that it needed them closer to the target.
The ultimate Long Range Bomber Strike was by the British Vulcan Bomber that bombed Port Stanley a couple of times. They had like a dozen aerial refueling aircraft flying along with it - refueling the bomber and the other tankers. As each tanker emptied itself into the other aircraft - it would go home and get more for the return flight.
So - you can keep a bomber in the air indefinitely - if you can keep refueling it.
The problem is - the Soviet Union was a big place - and the bomber had to fly into that space - and then back out - before it could refuel.
Here - the B-58 was designed to be a High Altitude Bomber - but while it could fly low level - flying low level uses a lot more fuel AND the faster you fly the more fuel you used.
So - when you have a very large target area to fly in and out of, the need to fly under radar - and - the use of high speed - you are looking at a real need for refueling aircraft and a real difficulty in refueling your aircraft from a safe distance. After all - if they can see your refueling aircraft they can send someone out there to shoot it down - and then what's the bomber going to do?
That - and it just wasn't as useful as a conventional bomber. The B-52 was a stupendous conventional bomber.
Now - one more thing - they could still fly in at high altitude - they just had to use ECM to defeat the enemy radars. That worked - but - if you used your ECM they could figure out how to fox it. This made it really good for nuclear strikes but not so good for conventional ones - where you had to keep going back again and again. This is the reason the Americans didn't want to use the full spectrum of their ECM against North Vietnam - as they were saving that to be used against the Soviet Union (which shit themselves when they realized how good our ECM was - and how useless the Air Defenses of Moscow would have been).
The Soviet Union was scared shit less of the NATO technical edge. They were using stolen western computers to run their Air Defenses - because they couldn't build anything like that - this of course led to maintenance problems. They could hardly call up DEC and ask them to come fix their stolen computer.
When Reagan came up with the Strategic Defense Initiative - the Americans knew they couldn't build it - but the Russians didn't know that. They sure knew that they couldn't build it though.
Still though they had a shit load of weapons and a shit load of nukes. Yes - they couldn't stop us - but we could not be sure if we could stop all of them ...
.
The Vulcans Black Buck missions were incredible, but they have actually been surpassed since. In the Gulf War B-52's struck targets in Iraq from Guam. I think since then B-2s may have struck targets in the Middle East flying from the US.
no you can no keep a bomber in the air indefinitely, even with in flight refueling you'll still hit the same limit as a nuclear submarine, the crew has to eat, also (but not an issue for a sub) you have to land to empty the toilets.
The B-58 had an aesthetic that puts it, regardless of other considerations in its day, with the B-47, T-38, F-104 & F106 for pure sexy looks!
I always fly the F-5 in DCS world just because I love the look so much.
@@therocinante3443 - lovely little thing! the US dropped the ball not adopting it more - would have saved a lot of money and beaten nearly everything in a dogfight
the 58 was like the precursor to the XB-70, a delta wing bomber. The USAF should have been converted to an interceptor/ missile truck, and could have served in Vietnam. I could daydream about this for hours!
The SR-71 feels very left out of that list....
@@JohnnyWednesdayDogfight?😂
Hustler was a beautiful bird. It made a ton of revolutionary advancements, for example, it was the first aircraft to have a female voice for warnings, they called it “Sexy Sally” back then. It also had a very advanced terrain following navigation system
Hahaha she's "Bitchin' Betty's" grand mother
In terms of aesthetics alone, it might be #5 on my list of big planes. Personally I would put the XB-70, B1b, Tu-160 & Caproni Ca.60 higher. #4 if you combine the B1 and Tu-160 since they are so similar.
uuuh no, that thing looks idiotic. not as bad, but in the same sort of way as the tesla cybercar (no, it's not a truck).
@@Ass_of_Amalek - it's definitely a truck - just not one that'll get much commercial use
Gotta wonder how many times Sally nagged the crew before she became Bitching Betty.
Those four J79's pushed the Hustler to over 1300 mph too, in 1960! Wow..thanks so much for sharing Paul!
Another thoroughly well researched and presented video by Paul.
Prime example of why quality is better than quantity. This channel deserves much more recognition and appreciation.
The B-58 was amazingly engineering and so beautiful, and as a kid seeing the wings up close, they seemed too thin to hold the engines and the body too small for a flight crew of three. We were stationed at Westover AFB during the 1960s when it operated as SAC. I remember seeing B-58s landing on rare occasions, but seeing how fast they accelerated and climbed during take off after rotation is what stuck in my memory, just incredibly to see. At the time, Westover was home to the 99th Bombardment Wing B-52C, 99th Air Refueling Squadron KC-135, as well as the 8th Reconnaissance Technical, and 18th Communications Squadrons.
The biggest problem with the B-58 Hustler was that all munitions had to hung off the airframe.
It still holds speed and altitude records which remain intact 70 years after the flight.
The B-58 without that centerline fuel tank is beautiful. With it, it looks pregnant.
26 of the B-58 (almost 1/4 of them) met an untimely demise. From what I read, the TU-160 holds most of the heavy-bomber records.
@@SunriseLAWindeed, almost all records but the highest operational ceiling belong to Tu-160. But it is an unfair comparison as those are of two radically different weight/size classes and from different eras, though formally belonging to the strategic bomber class.
@@gwcrispi As all the photos I saw of it were with the initial single-stage tank for years before I saw it "naked", I have a different perspective. I think it looks normal with the tank underneath, and so a bit "wrong", too skinny, without the tank.
@@tatianaes3354 "Classification of aircraft" is the problem with aviation records (and many other records). Amazing to me that so many of the records were set so ago. Most amazing to me is the SR-71, which after 60 years still looks like science fiction.
As a young lad I had a plastic model of this beauty. Sadly, it was lost in action somewhere in the dense thicket behind our house on sunny day sometime in the sixties.
I feel like a lot of people look at these two aircraft and go "right, well, the B-58 was in service for a relatively short time and didn't really do much while the B-52 is still in service today, so it's obviously the superior plane."
To me, I believe the B-52 was the peak of the ww2 heavy bomber mentality of fly high and carry a butt-ton of ordance. There's really no where further you can take the idea before the airframe starts to become impractical. Meanwhile the B-58 had an inglorious career, but it's logic was sound: get in, hit the enemy before they know you're there, and get out. This line of thinking would continue with planes like the XB-70, FB-111, and B-1 Lancer; then stealth entered the equation and that's where you get the F-117, B-2 Spirit, and B-21 Raider.
I believe the reason we haven't replaced the B-52 in seventy years is because it's the zenith of it's mindset, while the B-58 opened the door to new career opportunities and that's the path US bomber development has been going down ever since.
Good points, but I see it a bit differently. To me the B-58 is the end point of the traditional medium bomber, and the B-70 was the end of the traditional heavy bomber. Faster and higher had been the goal since the beginning of bombers and the 52, 58 and 70 were no different. The 58 was forced to low level to avoid detection, but so was the 52.
In my mind the F-111 and aborted TSR2 really represented the beginning of the "avoid detection" design approach.
@@soulsphere9242 While I agree with your analysis to a degree, I would place the start of the "avoid detection" approach *much* earlier. The use of night bombing in Europe was to that same end, and was begun in WW1 by the German Air Force with Zeppelins and later Gotha bombers. The use of colour to make seeing planes hard is also a WW1 effort, and it is still in use.
Between the wars the USSR also saw experiments with reduced visibility - using transparent coverings over the wings and fuselage.
So maybe modifying your proposal to be "avoid radar detection" gets a bit closer? But that is still an approach starting in WW2.
The Mosquito gets a lot of attention for it's low-level, under-the-radar attacks, but it was not the first to avoid radar that way. Many of the lighter medium bombers were used that way, as were Beaufighters. I would suggest that all of the WW2 fighter-bombers were used in ways to reduce radar detection.
Then there is the well-known case that the Operation Chastise Dams raid was flown at low level all the way there and back - with Lancasters. That were then classified as heavy bombers.
During the Cold War, this approach brought the purpose-designed Blackburn Buccaneer, and the (misunderstood? and aborted) Martin XB-51. Both designed exclusively for low-level bombing operations, explicitly to avoid the radar, and both pre-dating the examples you referred to.
In WW2 the USAAF was even seen as a bit "bloody minded" in claiming that they even _could_ fly daytime bombing missions. The RAF tried it during the early months of the war, and gave it up as both unproductive and unsustainable. Arguably the USAAF European experience was also "unproductive and unsustainable", albeit with many notable successes. And not a whole lot better at high altitudes over Japan.
I hate to be nit-picky but, as a veteran of the USAF and spending all of my time in Strategic Air Command we never referred to our beloved command as S-A-C it was SAC (sack) and them fighter jockey boys were TAC (tack). For what it's worth my father worked for Convair after he got out of the Air Force building the Hustler. Lots of great stories and family traditions.
I was in the Army when MAC used to give us rides where we needed to go.
Ah yes, the good old days of the Cold War, when you could enlist and go overseas and chase all the local women around in a place you likely had ancestors come from, drink all their local beers eat all their good food and at the end of the day no one really got hurt, and since it's been over look at what's happening everywhere, if you ask me we were better off when the world was on the verge of nuclear armageddon, I don't think peace has turned out to be quite as peaceful as everyone thought it was going to be.
Even I, a lifelong civilian, have never heard it pronounced S-A-C, I've always heard it pronounced as "sack".
so your family is a proud part of the MIC that helped turn the USA into the evil empire it is today. congrats.
Yes! I cringe when they say "S-A-C" spelled out. BTW, I went from SAC straight to TAC (PACAF) in Japan and Korea and later 'Nam.
@@dukecraig2402 Well Said Brother!
I was in 1-37 Armor from 4-85 through 11-87… Hard Work, Hard Partying, Great Beer, Good Food, Beautiful Women and Pay Checks to burn. I was 17 when I landed in Frankfurt via MAC 747. With the high Exchange Rate even a lowly E-2 could have Plenty Fun Times.
Cheers! From Southeast Texas!
One of the records it still holds today was hauling a 5,000kg payload to 85,000 feet in a zoom climb.
because nobody needs to do that, realistically speaking, unless you want to be a rocket.
@@VehrecThere was an application for this during the Cold War. Enemy aircraft incoming to destroy air base (with fighters/interceptors with top cover and bomber hunting) and she needs to get off the ground and above the incoming planes with little warning…. then carry on to target and nuke it😱 Sure glad we never found out how effective it was in that role
@@Vehrec No, it's a measure of it's performance.
The B-58 was an excellent aircraft for its timeframe. Virtually all these early jets were difficult to fly and had high accident rates. Part of the problem was they never really considered conventional-role missions for most of these early strategic bombers; once the strategic aspect was obsolete, they were just retired instead of properly adapting them.
Sometimes we forget that flying from the US to the USSR was and is not that far as it looks. Go north over the Arctic, look at the globe from above and you will see. We are used to looking at a map that makes things seem so much further away that our perspective is off. Man I miss having that physical world globe with all the topographic wrinkles. You do not see them at schools anymore.
But the Earth is flat, so not so close after all… 😉
" You do not see them at schools anymore."
Sadly....
Todays students would not be able to comprie such reality ..... yeah it's called goverment education of the society ...knowledge is dangerous to a goverment......
Buy one 😊
@@BanterRanterr I was looking for one but the good ones are hard to find. I might 3D print one.
I've always loved the hustler. I was so happy to finally see one when I visited the National Museum of the USAF in Dayton back in January. What a beautiful old bird. Thanks for the video.
My Dad went into the US Navy during WWII and moved to the Air Force when it was created... He was part of SAC and MAC at various times through his career. (You don't spell it out S-A-C, just say "sack", same with "mack"). If you are interested in that era, "Sonny" Holt's book on the B-58 is an absolute must-read. Good Call, Paul! I was really glad you brought it up. It really shows President Kennedy's biggest "Blunder" was hiring MacNamera away from Ford as SecDef. That bean-counter ruined the Air Force's B-58 and SR-71 programs forever... including having the tooling destroyed so future Administrations couldn't revive them, even if they wanted to. Dick Cheney did the same thing to the Navy 20+ years later to line his own pockets with kick-backs from McDonnell Douglas. I'll dance on his grave, given the chance.
Knowing my make-up, Dad knew I wasn't cut out to sit in a bomber for 10-20 hours at a time... So when I got appointments to both the Air Force and Naval Academies, he urged me to go Navy. It worked out well.
'Macnamara' and 'Whiz Kids' were essentially cuss words in the 1960's US military...
@@petesheppard1709 Hah!! When we were stationed at Wiesbaden/Rhein-Main (MAC/TAC?) in the early 70s, I remember hanging out in the hanger (favorite pastime) helping the guys with maintenance and parts/tools running. One of the guys smashed his finger... he was hopping around with his hands between his knees yelling "MacNamera, MacNamera, holy f'ing MacNamera"... I hadn't made THAT connection at the time. Thanks for the memory and making that connection! (50 years later).
@@ramosel Oh, he was _hated_ ...many blame him for screwing up the Vietnam War. Then there were 'MacNamara's Morons'--Google it.
@@petesheppard1709 Mac believed that the NVA could be stopped with high-tech fences. He also claimed years later that he made Ford vehicles "tune-up free". 🙄
@@PantherBlitz Oh, he was a total piece of work...
The B-58 has long been one of my favorite bomber aircraft. BUT I think in the long run retiring it in favor of the B-52 ended up being the right move. You mentioned it was about the same cost per airframe as the B-52, but ignored that it had about 1/3rd the bomb load capacity - probably less useable since it's all external - so cost per pound of bomb is MUCH higher. AND the B-52 had that cost while some of the fleet was invovled in active combat operations, which will tend to drive up costs.
The high speed, low altitude penetration bomber has just ended up not being as needed in conflicts during and since the cold war, especially as multirole fighters have expanded in capability. Even in the 1960s the F-4 could fill that role quite well - including nuclear. And when you're up against the BUFF in pure med-high altitude convetional bomb trucking...good luck. The B-1 is even losing that fight despite having a marginally *larger* bombload than the B-52 just because of its higher cost.
So for deep penetration it loses to ICBMs and later cruise missiles just as much as every other bomber, other low-altitude missions are covered just fine by fighter-bombers. And for basic bomb-trucking it loses to the older bomber. So it gets left without a niche to fill.
Some years back I purchased "At the Klaxon's Call: What If We Actually Went To War In The 1960s" by Philip Rowe. It told the story of a B-58 crew that scrambled on what they thought was a readiness exercise only to realize that it was an actual Soviet attack. The crew prosecutes their mission and over the course of the book make their way across the Med and across the Atlantic and eventually back to the States. Absolutely amazing read as the author was a Radar Bombardier/Navigator on a B-58 for five years.
Sadly, when Mr. Rowe passed away, Amazon locked his account and has (as of when I talked to his daughter) refused his family access to the files to repost. It is a wonderful story that I fear is lost to the technogods.
That sounds like a really good book.
I found the text online on a website called aero-web with an org domain name. It's not navigable from the home page, I think their main page got hacked, but the old files are still around. I made sure Internet Archive has a copy.
I found it on the Internet Archive.
@@_ZaidFantastic!
The DC-3 takes exception to the assertion at 1:25 that the B-52 is the longest serving aircraft military or commercial.
I had the exact same thought
C-130 says hello, too.
@@robertlight2370 The B-52 entered service before the C-130.
I understand people still fly drugs back and forth to the islands with them here in South Florida lol but I'm pretty sure "front line service" was implied...
@@sidefx996 The video made the claim the B-52 is the longest serving of any type military or commercial. Nothing about "front line service." Even then, more DC-3s are in active commercial service (estimated 164 as of 2022) than B-52s (72 as of 2022). In addition, DC-3 variants fly for the militaries of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mali, Mauritania, and Thailand. Even the United States Forest Service still operates updated DC-3s
Oddly, even though I was trained on the B-52 in tech school as a weapons specialist, I never saw another one during my 7 years in the USAF. After tech school, I was sent to a SAC base at Little Rock, Arkansas, (LRAFB). I worked in the pod shop on the TCPs checking out the electronic circuitry of the warhead in the upper component. We would frequently get to work on the flight line and watch these beautiful birds as they took off in full AB. The sound they made was incredible and awe-inspiring. It was sad to see them later as I was in training for SEA at Davis-Monthon AFB, in Tucson. Many were lined up in the desert-like boneyard and I felt a big hole in my heart. I took several photographs of them there and still have them today. LeMay was a dinosaur and made a big mistake in not favoring the Hustler. Most of us in SAC didn't like him.
I was at DM in 1979+. I saw a B-58 without the belly pod parked on the side of the road leading to a recycler south of the base. A few hundred feet away was the entrance to the fledgling Pima Air Museum. They had a tin shack for an office with an escape pod at the front door with a crayon hand written sign giving details. I didn't get the tail number off the airplane but it would be neat if that airplane was rescued from ths scrap and wound uo in the museum. I worked on the drone catching H-3's at the south end of the DM runway.
Edit: Pima had a Ryan Firebee drone on display from(?) the 432 TDS (tactical drone squadron?). Those were dropped from the DM DC-130's. The 130 had 4 pylons (2L+2R) under the wings. Sometimes they would take off with 4 drones hanging. The CH-3 had a winch inside with a cable running under the belly where it terminated in 3 hooks that were lowered below the helicopter off of a rack on the rear loading ramp that would tilt the poles from horizontal (take off position) to vertical (catch position). The 3 prong center hook (flying hook) would hang the lowest, held at the bottom of a thick rope that hang like a "V" because of the weight of the flying hook. The upper ends of the V rope were tied into a hook that was at the end of the long poles, held on with a snap clip. The helicopter would approach the drone, which by that time had run out of fuel and was floating down with an upper pilot chute and a (lower) main chute. Helicopter would (try to)skim over the pilot chute. The pilots would brag over being able to snag the pilot chute with all 3 hooks simultaneously. The worst was catching the chute with only a side hook, sometimes bending or breaking the aluminum pole. Once snagged, the cable would play out and be gradually braked by electronic(?) controls in the winch...so the cable would not be snapped (5/16" diameter(?)). The cable then was manually reeled in until the drone was nested below the helicopter about 5ft(?). A drogue chute off the drone's tail kept it streamlined with the helicopter. There was an electrically fired explosive guillotine cable cutter in case of emergency with a backup axe carried next to the winch. There are a few videos on YT of an H-3 catching drones. There was also a unit in Hawaii that caught film canisters that were ejected from orbit from the Corona(?) CIA spy satellites. (Photos of Soviet targets/etc, Cold War stuff). I don't know if they used C-119 Boxcars or H-53'S. I saw a shoulder patch that said "Catch a falling star", perhaps from their unit. Current satellite capability made that tech obsolete.
You should send those photos to Rex for when he gets to the B-58!
Thanks for the interesting comment. In regards to your last sentence, could you elaborate on why a lot of people in SAC didn't like LeMay? I was under the impression that everyone under his command liked him and agreed with his policies and way of thinking. I say that as a mere civilian who has watched Strategic Air Command with James Stewart and Harry Morgan at least five times. So what do I know? Not much.
@chillinginthefrozennorth6958 LeMay demonstrated many times that he was dark and twisted within. It would come out explosively too. Good people have a natural dislike of such ones.
I have to disagree with you on LeMay making a big mistake in not favoring the Hustler. The Hustler most definitely would not still be in active service in 2024 while the BUFF still thunders on. The B52 has more than proven that it's versatility keeps it relevant as the decades fly by. LeMay, whatever his other faults, definitely made the right call.
Very gentle and nice Whitcomb area rule evident at 10:50.
Also the placement of the pods looks area-ruled. Soon after they found out that surface friction is the main problem at Mach 2. Valkyrie has its engines in the back like the starfighter. Concorde fused the pods together and under the wing.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt i am retired USAF, but when I was stationed at Beale AFB near Marysville, CA we gave a lot of tours, including the SR-71. My understanding is the hottest point was between the engines' nozzles. Also, the side glass would get quite warm, the crewmembers could heat up their 'lunch' by holding it against them. We gave a high-ranking Russian officer a tour od the Habu once. His comment was about how many times he tried to have one shot down, and now he could walk around one on static display, touch it and get his picture with it. Thanks for the reply.
I had the privilege to have worked (as a hydraulic mechanic) on both the B-52 (91st Bomb wing, Glasgow Montana, 1966-67) and the B-58 (43rd Bomb wing, Little Rock Arkansas, 1968-69). Both aircraft were amazing, but the B-58 was special. Witnessed the last B-58 to leave Little Rock in January 1970.
I know many people don't like the B-58.
But for me this plane is really sexy and shows what an extreme time it was.
1970 was about right for the B-58 to retire. As awesome as it was better platforms came online...the F-111 was a significant improvement.
It’s called solid fueled ICBMs.
Grissom was my first Air Force assignment in the 1970s. We had a B-58 on static display and it was badass. The plane is still there, at the base air museum.
yes, and it is a T model trainer
When was it bad? It broke so many records and everybody loved it.
It just became ineffective after all those SAMs happened.
Okay, I gonna brag. My dad was a B-58 pilot too. This Air Force brat would sit near the flight line and watch the late evening takeoffs. It was the closest thing to watching a dragon spit blue flames and hearing it roar. Better than any fireworks. Dad went on to fly the F-111. B-52 pilots were amazed at the speed of the F-111, The B-58 pilots just rolled their eyes.
The B-52 won out because it could haul a metric fuckton of conventional weapons and sometimes that's what you want. In Vietnam and Desert Storm, it served it's purpose.
Sort of; though it needs a £#3& ton of protection in contested airspace 😅 .
(in Vietnam for instance, smaller aircraft had to actively protect the BUFF's from missiles, often sacrificing themselves in the process)
The B-52 isn't setting foot near hostile airspace. But the payload and range/time on station allow it to fulfill a stand off role.
^ Not every mission for BUFF's [even these days] uses stand off ordinance. Your claim is comically over-generalized 🙄 .
As a teen, I volunteered at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Arizona. They have a B-58 in their collection. It has to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It just looks fast, even sitting still. Probably one of my favorites. I've also had the chance to see B-58 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH.
IMO The B-58 is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built
been waiting for a video for the b58 from anyone. Great video
Excellent video ! The Hustler has been a favorite aircraft of mine for a long time. Glad to see you make a video about it. Keep up the great work!
It could be the worst possible aircraft in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, and I'd still love it. The Hustler is to me, the single best looking airplane ever made. It's absolutely breathtakingly gorgeous.
When push came to shove, remind me again how it wouldn't have been effective? Efficiency? This thing was absolutely unmatched in performance in 1956. It wasn't a Prius.
@@sidefx996 In 1956 sure. But when it was retired in 1970 not even close. Deep strike it lost to ICBMs and cruise missiles (and the lack of range made *very* deep strikes difficult if not impossible anyway - can't aerial refuel over the USSR), low altitude but not deep strike it wasn't *much* better than the fighter-bombers that were coming on line, and for conventional bombing it loses *massively* to the B-52 in all respects despite - according to the video - being similar for per-airframe cost.
@@chrisc1140 Right. I mean technology was advancing so fast in that time period that 1956 to 1970 was an eternity. For a short time at least there was really was nothing else like it. Until there was lol...
I was there (bunker hill) I lived 8 mi. southwest away when it happened I was 8 yrs old and I can still remember seeing the thick black smoke from the fire, oddly we wasn't told the the plane was carrying 5 nukes until decades later, back then (1965) it wasn't uncommon to see thick black smoke coming from the base it was fairly normal.
Growing up I lived about an hour from Bunker Hill AFB. We used to go to their yearly open house, and I can still remember getting to sit in the front seat of a B58 at one of them. Pretty heady stuff for a 7 yr old.
One of my favourite planes of all time! I remember how I bought a very complex B-58 flight model for X-Plane 9, then spent hours reading the old manuals figuring out how to fly it. It was pretty hard. Then on my first trip to the US, I specifically went to Tucson air museum to see it in person! But then again, both of my trips to the US were road trips filled up to 3/4 by air and space museums 😄
I never realised the pod was in two parts. Clever!
Thanks Paul....From an Old F-4 Phantom 2 Shoe🇺🇸
When I was a boy in the early 1960s, I had a toy B-58 that was maybe more than a foot long. It had a tab at the top of the fuselage that caused the bomb to detach and fly out. It was made of pliable rubber. I also had a standard plastic model that I assembled and hung from the ceiling. I also had an ICBM launch toy that shot out plastic missiles that went two or three yards. It was air propelled.I also had a Nike toy, which went a longer range. That was spring propelled. That period of time was great for nuclear war toys.
Yup, those sure were the days. How about the little baking soda submarines (Nautilus & Polaris) from inside the Post cereal packages. The Polaris one even released a little spring-loaded rocket.
I've watched you for years and have a great deal of admiration and respect for you and your shirts! I hope you're well!
Singer John Denver's father was a B-58 pilot.
B-58 was incredible for its time. I watched a 2 hour long podcast with a man who flew it.. It had systems on board that we'd recognize today!
The B-58 was an immense technology and engineering project similar to Apollo or the Space Shuttle. I think people don’t really know the scale of innovation that it represented. It was towering.
Awesome video. You answered questions I have had for years. It’s astounding that the B58 set so many records and it’s wild how we went from prop aircraft to this in only 18 years. What an exciting time! I always thought that was a great looking aircraft.
My father was an ADA officer in the mid 60's working on the air defense for the continental US (from a SAGE building). He said that the Hustlers were so fast that NORAD had trouble tracking them and working engagements. He said they were remarkably fast and tough to engage.
One of the most beautiful crafts to ever grace the sky
Excellent presentation, as always. It's a true pleasure to listen and learn from you.
“S A C” was commonly referred to as “Sack” as in sack of potatoes.
This was designed without computers, pure engineering prowess.
Yes computers were used, it's a myth that aircraft like this and the A12/SR71 were designed without the aid of computers, they were in fact used to crunch number's that typically would have taken a room full of people a week to do but they could do overnight.
First off contrary to what people believe who say "they didn't use computers it was all done with slide rules" the fact is a slide rule is a computer, like an abacus it's a mechanical computer, when it comes to electronic computers as pointed out they were indeed used to aid in the design of aircraft all through that era, it's just that they didn't have CAD to help design things with back then but CAD doesn't do what people think it does, the only thing it does do is enable the designer to look at what he's designing in 3 dimensions instead of being drawn in flat planes with multiple views of the same thing, but they do not innovate, no computers no matter how modern do that, engineer's today are just as smart as the engineer's who designed aircraft "back before they used computers", it's still the human who innovates, the F15 wasn't designed because there was a computer that someone entered "design a better fighter than the F4", and it spit out the blueprints for an F15, it's still humans who design the shape and everything else about an aircraft, it's still humans who do all the innovating, all computers do is aid them by speeding up the process.
@@dukecraig2402CAD also makes designs, that our taxpayer money fund, easy to be stolen by, yes, spies and, yes, sold by corporate decision and political kick backs.
The airplane was a minor player from the beginning since so few were built, compared to the B-52. Now those that were built were expensive to keep flying since there were so few of them. The video does not mention that they were sort-of replaced by the FB-111.
Great video!
Any time the name McNamara is mentioned I bristle. The number of servicemen that were killed in action because of his policies is horrific.
Great video, thanks for using US measurements and converting them to metric. Some of us ex-USAF mechanics don't do metric.
Looking at photos of an old aviation book as a kid, the hustler certainly wasn't forgettable . I'm glad I ran into this video.
Yet another excellent aviation related video. Superb stuff! Thank you Paul.😎👍🏻
You have a good sponsor as the main stream media is always spinning the news. As you can see from your research, military, and other politics affect almost everything the military does. Thank you for the video, Paul.
Thank you, Paul, for this balanced and informative video.
Very well presented, thanks.
I saw Greased Lightning at the SAC museum in Wyoming last year. It's kitted out with the massive conformal fuel tank it used for that Tokyo to London flight.
A lot of museums like the SAC museum in Nebraska keep the Blackbirds out of reach, but they have the Greased Lightning bird sitting out, and my arm trembled at the raw energy that it still possesses.
We did finally get a replacement for the B-58, it just came 16 years later in the form of the B-1 Lancer. The delay was understandable though. The B-58 was originally going to be replaced by the B-70, but when that was cancelled due to it becoming obsolete while still in the design phase, they had nothing to replace it with. They could have kept using the B-58, but its low altitude penetration flights required too much refueling and sort of became unnecessary when the B-52's got ECM's. Even more trouble came when we started building cruise missiles in the 80's, which could do the same low level penetration missions and had much smaller RCS's and didn't risk the lives of pilots. These were capable of holding nuclear warheads, but much smaller ones than what the bombers could carry. But you don't need a very powerful nuclear bomb to take out an AA site.
Grew up in Kokomo, just south of Bunker Hill, remember hearing and watching those beautiful birds flying over as a young man.
Watched them take off from LRAFB a few times in the early 60’s. The crackle of the exhaust was magnificent.
Great video, as always--thanks!
Absolutely gorgeous aircraft with one of the coolest names.
As a kid, I watched the movie 'Fail Safe'. I became an instant Hustler fan.
This and the English Electric Lightning would make such a good duo in an early Cold War movie or game
I always had a soft spot for the B58, but there is no denying the flexibility of the Buff!
There is a B-58 on display at Pima Air Museum in Tucson Arizona, along with a B-36, and a host of others, this is an excellent collection and facility which is being continuously upgraded.
Great video, Paul...👍
Never heard about the longest supersonic flight before, seeme there is a lot more to the B58 than most channels give it credit, great vid 🎉
Aerospase Varys dropped another video! I love these history ones -- the context and background bits are almost as interesting as the main subject. Every time.
11:48 The fact the B-1B's radar signature is so small is amazing in of itself. B-1B and B-58 have always been my favorite bombers. Basically a giant fighter jet on steroids.
My dad was a DSO on the B-58, and absolutely loved the bird. He was totally against it's retirement, especially after he did some mission planning with the performance specifications for the original B-1.
Those who flew it loved it, everyone else is a critic
When Captain James Stewart first saw the B-58 Hustler, he said it was the most beautiful machine he had ever seen.
Brilliant video as ever....thank you
The B-58 is one of the best looking bombers ever. There are a handful I think look better, but it is still pretty high on my list.
"Operation chrome dome"
I'm a little drunk and now I'm laughing my @ss off.
A great presentation of a truly great aircraft.
Only one small critique and I am kicking myself for even bringing it up...BUT>>>>>>>SAC while you are correct it stood for Strategic Air Command. It was lovingly called "sack". Like a sack of potatoes. No one used S. A. C. (Ess, Eyyyy, Seee). On a more than positive note. I love your content and I learn a lot from it. !!!
Imagine a world where the Hustler and the Valkyrie were working and operational, instead of stealth
The most B-52 and B-58 are the most gorgeous aircraft ever built with the coolest names ever
Thank you! What a beautiful video
Though and well researched. I am a life long fan and student of the B-58, and century series era,
Thank you for this, CD. She was a beautiful plane, and deserves a better reputation.
Outstanding engineering!
Yeah, That Was Pretty Good! My Dad Took A Picture Of Me Getting In One At BAFB In 1966. Thank You.
You know, that comparison with the B-52's RCS and that of a barn door, is actually pretty apt. If indeed it is 100 square meters. Here in New England I have seen barn doors that are literally around that size. Granted those were segmented sliding doors (think aircraft hangers, something like that), not monolithic ones. Still fits though.
But a barn door would likely have a lower RCS than it's total area as it is flat then it is likely to reflect radar away from the source. Also being wood it is likely to be somewhat transparent to radar.
@@JohnFrumFromAmerica Also, most of the barn doors I've seen are smaller. A lot smaller.
btw, biggest doors I've seen were on a barn that had a house inside it. Literally, 2 floor single family home, inside a barn that was only a little larger (some feet in any one direction). In the warmer times of the year they open the barn up so that it is more of a pavilion than a barn. Then they close it up for the winter. Apparently having the barn and the air between the house and barn makes an insane difference in how much it takes to heat the house. Or so says the couple that lived there. Maybe those barn doors can claim a larger RCS.
Of all the many Revell kits I built the B58 was my favorite. Just the overall looks caught my eye.
The area i live in is a Decommissioned Air Force base, and they had several planes sitting around the old airport, and one of them was a B-58.
Really looking forward to watching this! One of my favourite planes! 🎉
To see the B-58 in real life is breathtaking. What a beautiful aircraft! It looks like it's going Mach 2 standing still...
i'm a Hustler fan for life, yo! It sits comfy with the Me-262, Ar-234 and the flanker series as my all time fave airplanes
A squadron of B-58s was "somewhat" featured in the 1964 movie "Failsafe." They were called something else, Vindicators, because in the movie the pilot and copilot were shown side by side, which of course wasn't the case with the B-58. Nevertheless, on NORAD's map they had the same delta wing shape.