One of the talks at Oshkosh (EAA AirVenture) that we enjoyed was by Kenneth Katz, author of The Supersonic Bone: A Development and Operational History of the B-1 Bomber, John Chilstrom (B-1 pilot), and Fred Swan (B-1 Wizzo).
They reminded us that the B-52, which first flew in 1952, was considered a temporary aircraft that would hold us until we had a full fleet of supersonic bombers. The requirements that turned into the B-1 (“B-ONE” or “Bone”) were first set forth in 1955. The B-1 evolved so slowly, changing from a very fast high-altitude machine to a barely-supersonic low-altitude machine, that Jimmy Carter, running for office in 1976, was able to promise to strangle it in its crib. During the Carter administration, the USAF managed to continue some testing of the prototype B-1s against Russian radar systems that Israel had captured in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. (Oshkosh is pretty much the opposite of New York City; speakers referred to “our friends in Israel” when mentioning various forms of military cooperation, e.g., Israel providing the U.S. with MiG fighters to seed a secret training and testing squadron in Nevada. Nobody enthuses about river-to-the-sea liberation, Queers for Palestine, or anything else that is sacred in the Mamdani Caliphate.) The B-1s got through much better than the B-52s.
The machine that first flew in 1974 (more than 50 years ago) is still in use today, e.g., as part of our gradual surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran (maybe Jimmy Carter was right; he surrendered to Iran in 1979 and if our foreign policy is to surrender to anyone tougher than Grenada then why do we need the B-1 or, indeed, an air force?).
The WSO (“Wizzo”) talked about bombing Iraq in 1973. Bombs and missiles are loaded into a rotating carousel and if conditions change, e.g., someone thinks there is a chance to drop a particular bomb on Saddam’s head, it is necessary to jettison other items in order to get to the desired munition. Here’s how this is loaded up:
A couple of B-1s made low passes, but none stopped to visit this year (2018 was the last time?).
It was common in airshows and talks at Oshkosh for those who’ve served in our military to be praised. Of course, a percentage of these folks exhibited remarkable bravery and took significant risks. Guess who didn’t receive any praise, though? The taxpayers who made it possible for the machines on display to be designed, built, and operated! Eighty percent of federal income tax receipts come from roughly 20 million tax returns (Tax Foundation). Even assuming that over half of these are joint returns, that’s just 10 percent of the U.S. population that is dumb enough to work and pay significant tax. Would it be so difficult to say “If you paid tax on more than $150,000 in income last year, thank you for your service and for enabling us to have F-35s, F-22s, B-1s, aircraft carriers, and all of the other amazing stuff that we’ve been using as part of our surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran”? Speaking of the F-22, here’s one parked at the FBO:
Circling back, so to speak, to the B-1… what is a likely role for the aircraft in a world of ever-more-advanced drones?
How much do attendees at Oshkosh love bombers? Have a look at the simulated bombs that are an essential part of every airshow at EAA AirVenture:
Somewhat related,
“The destruction of Germany’s great war industries was accomplished almost entirely from the air. No one can stand among their ruins without a feeling of awe for the devastating power of such attacks. The courage and skill of our pilots and their crews in these operations is legendary. They deserve the highest tribute of our people.”
— The Honorable Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War
Found on the cover of a book about the B-24 at the Aeromart within EAA AirVenture:
(We seem to have chosen the opposite approach with the Islamic Republic of Iran, i.e., allow them to continue as an industrial power and ask them nicely not to use their industry to make weapons.)
Boeing now takes credit for the B-1B, which was entirely developed and built by North American Rockwell. Boeing lost the design competition circa 1970 and acquired Rockwell in 1996, 22 years after the B-1’s first flight. What else does Boeing take credit for? At the Boeing pavilion’s gift shop, the Black Americans who won World War II:
ChatGPT, regarding the Tuskegee Airmen:
- the display in your photograph is best understood as modern corporate and cultural messaging
- they did not fly Boeing aircraft operationally (the Stearman was used for primary training, though)
- No Tuskegee Airman officially qualified as an ace during World War II (vs. 1,279 non-Tuskegee pilots)
- The group encountered enemy aircraft on only 35 of its 179 Fifteenth Air Force bomber-escort missions, partly because it entered that campaign relatively late, as German fighter opposition was declining.
Elsewhere on the field, we are informed that the “fearless” pilots who fly the B-29, an actual Boeing plane, were not the men who plowed through 16 hours of thunderstorms round-trip to Japan, but rather “fearless women” who operated the B-29 over the Continental U.S.
ChatGPT:
Many male test pilots, instructors and crews were already flying the B-29. [Enola Gay pilot Paul] Tibbets himself trained the women, and a male instructor or aircraft commander was involved in their qualification. The aircraft could not have been developed, tested and fielded otherwise.
The reluctance concerned a troublesome new aircraft, not a universal refusal by men to undertake danger.
The women were selected partly because Tibbets expected the gender comparison to embarrass reluctant male crews. The stunt depended upon the period’s assumption that a man ought to be ashamed if a woman undertook a flying risk he avoided.
> encouraged the male pilots to “stop them and asked them a few questions about how to handle the equipment”
Whenever I get with some new strange-strange, I always ask her for a briefing on how to handle her equipment — variants abound.
Female B-1 pilots say “Give me the BONE.”
> Oshkosh is pretty much the opposite of New York City; speakers referred to “our friends in Israel”
Maybe it’s not a coincidence — many are the same people with the attitude that America should defend its own traditional identity. As an American, I have similar feelings towards Israel as to my own country. I disagree with some of their decisions on defense, but fighting for survival isn’t always a clear-cut process. I would count as a friend these days anyone who isn’t trying to actively in-country trying to dismantle what’s left of America, including Israel.
I find it really weird that so many people sitting on the fence (like myself) on the Israeli troubles sided with the Palestinians after 10/7. Personally I found the attack reprehensible and became more sympathetic with Israel, especially with the historical experience Jews have had with people trying to wipe them out. NYC? Pfff…their activists opposing the South African Apartheid wanted the strangle the economy of the whole country making everybody suffer. The real freedom fighters were in jail and underground, taking real risks, while the “activists” were living off trust funds and trying to prevent me from getting an education, calling me a “Nazi” when I crossed their wack-ass picket lines. And they have forgotten 9/11, apparently.
“muslim caliphate” -> “muslim celibate”
A plurality of Israelis come from families that were expelled from Arab-Muslim countries roughly 75 years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world ). They’re especially unsympathetic to the idea of surrendering to the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), UNRWA, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. I think their attitude can be summarized as “We’ve tried every other method of preserving our lives and having our own country with our military is the only one that has been proven to work.”
(It could get interesting once Europe is under full Islamic control. Will the outgoing non-Muslims governing France and the UK destroy their nuclear arsenals as the white South Africans did before handing things over to the ANC? If not, it is tough to predict what will happen.)
This is fear mongering. Islamic Pakistan already has a large nuclear arsenal, without any issues. When the UK finally becomes West Pakistan, it is going to be OK. France on the other hand … France does urgently need major Pakistani migration, to safely manage transition to Abode of Islam.
> “having our own country with our military is the only one that has been proven to work.”
Well, yeah, anyone that has played chess knows being a pawn ain’t where it’s at. (The woke tell us that would be the queen and not the king.)
Interestingly, Pakistan helped South Africa with the uranium enrichment process at a uni in the U.K. (the ZA “stockpile” really was just 6 or 7 low-yield fission bombs). Speaking of the global game of chess — the one that is for real.
Pakistan supposedly has about 170 nuclear warheads, but can it use these against the hated Jews? Doesn’t Pakistan need to keep them all in readiness for a potential fight with India (let’s say that Pakistan launches another jihad inside India, like the 2008 Mumbai attacks (166 people were killed, not all of them infidels); they need to be able to deter a counterattack from India’s military).
Together the Islamic Republics of France and the UK will have over 500 nuclear warheads and no obvious threat that they need to counter.
Think that UK has mostly American Tridents, these are probably depend on US maintenance. Also as of relatively recently UK submarines started experiencing critical personell failures, guess in modern UK the most experienced navigators are 3rd world enriches who bravely traverse the English Channel, which is probably known as La Mansh in the Islamic Respublic of France. France is more dangerous, believe it will depend on how French submarine captains and crews view chaliphate takeover of France and who they will hold responsible Hope they do not listen to woke podcasts.
The most dangerous nuclear arsenal to fall under radical Islamist rule are those of Russia and US.
In the mini-series Shaka Zulu, there is a scene where rival tribes fight a mock battle. They were apparently advanced enough to find a less destructive way to settle the disputes that arise due to the lingering traits of physical aggression in humans. Kind of like arena sports such as soccer and football. Of course Shaka came along and instilled a warrior mentality, including the iklwa (a short spear) which gave his people the advantage. This was enough to establish the Zulu Kingdom in the region of South Africa. European interference and influence didn’t help.
It would be better if people could use real their evolutionary advantage — the frontal lobe — instead of relying on their adrenal glands, to resolve conflict. Similar to me meeting little Gertrude in 5th grade, nuclear weapons were something humans just were not ready to deal with, and still aren’t. (I think Shaka could personally kick “current warlord of Packistan’s” ass, as a side note.)
Down with failed Democracy experiment, Shaka Zulu reincarnation would be perfect to rule SA and its colony UK!
@scraut, seems that glands removal is a new fixation, from failed hedge funds’ ceos to general public. Until recently glands were not problem to safely keep nuclear deterrent, including by sergants in form of nuclear charges for long range mortars, for a dozen years or so. Can not have a forelobe without glands. It is neither glands nor forelobe but spirit and kind believes, culture and religion.
We need our human neocortex to create and implement policy, it allows us to imagine “what if?”, which an animal is vastly inferior at doing. We need our gonads to make it stick. Open up the Bible, it’s right there in Genesis. Animals that live and die on the savanna use the heuristics of chemicals to survive. Humans have dominion over the world, and I think God expects us to put our brains to work responsibly. (“Return to Kings” does make the male brain wash over with endorphins. God is king, in my religion, not a bipedal hominid.) I could have it wrong though.
> Together the Islamic Republics of France and the UK will have over 500 nuclear warheads and no obvious threat that they need to counter.
There is zero chance of two strong Muslim countries getting along. Good luck everybody.
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/unending-muslim-civil-wars/
So wait, the muslims don’t get along with each other? (News to me, thanks.) And they don’t get along with Western “democracies”? Clearly the problem is Western democracy — I for one can change. Anybody know how to fast track becoming a fanatical religious maniac?
> I think Shaka could personally kick “current warlord of Packistan’s” ass, as a side note
Zulus captured a lot of European rifles. Zulus figured out that pulling the trigger = bang! But they could not aim well, because rifle sights had numeric markings.
Numeracy matters!
@Sauerkraut, all humans have cerebral cortex and gonads. It is not what makes them right. Some evil loosers had high IQ, in gifted territory. Ruling elite of nazi Germany comes to mind, all were tested for IQ at Nuremberg, most were gifted, the stupidest of them they could not talk too while incarcerated together had IQ of 100 or so. All of them were dumb loosers though. On the other hand, US Presidents and great humanitarians such as Albert Schweitzer had high IQ as well. For human, brain/chemistry hardware is a must and all healthy humans have it, but it is not what distinguishes them. Stupidity is a by-product of evilness and vice versa. Stupidity and evil are perpetuating and strengthen each other.
Drone shows still make my eyes water & it sounds like the audience wasn’t responding to that part of the show.
Wish I could get to Oshkosh one day, while it is still good.
I love your posts and your blog, but I find your use of ChatGPT … disturbing. Try Grok