B-52 load out

.

B-52 load out

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:18 pm

March 16th, 2012, 3:29 am #1

The question on the load out earlier in the forum got me looking for the 65 issue of Nat Geographic profiling the USAF. Found it and was curious on the load on the pylon in the following pic.

http://flic.kr/p/9P77H2

Any ideas? Early version of B-61 Nuke?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 19th, 2003, 6:58 pm

March 16th, 2012, 3:51 am #2

And just looking at all the picures.. God they were great!! I always thought they were nukes I gues either B-57's or 61's. Thanks for posting that picture, brings backa lot of memories!!

Craig Baumer
IPMS Baltimore
A-10C Crew Chief MD ANG
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2010, 4:16 pm

March 16th, 2012, 4:29 am #3

The question on the load out earlier in the forum got me looking for the 65 issue of Nat Geographic profiling the USAF. Found it and was curious on the load on the pylon in the following pic.

http://flic.kr/p/9P77H2

Any ideas? Early version of B-61 Nuke?
Why does that F-111B say USAF on the wing? Or is it a test FB-111A?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm

March 16th, 2012, 5:17 am #4

Remember, this magazine came out in 1965, before there was such a thing as an FB-111. At least one of the F-111A test birds had long span wings for part of its life.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 6th, 2005, 7:44 am

March 16th, 2012, 5:18 am #5

Why does that F-111B say USAF on the wing? Or is it a test FB-111A?
No issues...it's one of the early -A models. Notice the short wings.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 6th, 2005, 7:44 am

March 16th, 2012, 5:20 am #6

The question on the load out earlier in the forum got me looking for the 65 issue of Nat Geographic profiling the USAF. Found it and was curious on the load on the pylon in the following pic.

http://flic.kr/p/9P77H2

Any ideas? Early version of B-61 Nuke?
Last edited by 66018 on March 16th, 2012, 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 14th, 2008, 10:07 am

March 16th, 2012, 6:25 am #7

The question on the load out earlier in the forum got me looking for the 65 issue of Nat Geographic profiling the USAF. Found it and was curious on the load on the pylon in the following pic.

http://flic.kr/p/9P77H2

Any ideas? Early version of B-61 Nuke?
I don't think early SAC B-52s carry napalms.
They must be the Mk.43 nuclear bombs.
Check wiki for more detaile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B43_nuclear_bomb

Jun from Tokyo
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 4:16 am

March 16th, 2012, 2:02 pm #8

We carried a whole Shakey full of Mk 28s to Europe circa 1968, and I can tell ya they take care how they are packed!

Phil
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2008, 5:33 am

March 17th, 2012, 2:26 am #9

I don't think early SAC B-52s carry napalms.
They must be the Mk.43 nuclear bombs.
Check wiki for more detaile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B43_nuclear_bomb

Jun from Tokyo
SAC's mission was nuclear strike in '65 (in the midst of the Cold War).

Looks like the B-43 is correct:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Wea ... bombs.html

Am ready to be corrected, but even after the high altitude mission was eliminated due to the missile/interceptor threat, don't recall seeing napalm canisters loaded on the B52... Cruise missiles, iron bombs, JDAM, CBUs yes...

After decades of study, it has become obvious that Murphy was an optimist...
Last edited by jimmbbo on March 17th, 2012, 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 8:47 pm

March 18th, 2012, 6:52 pm #10

Looks like it.
Timing is right.
Those are napalm canisters and they are hung from an AGM-28 pylon/MER beam combination, which was not a nuclear launcher.
FWIW, napalm WAS listed (external only) in the MCM 3-1 Vol 19 (B-52) weapons matrix (which was 2-3 pages long)during the time I was the OPR (1992-1995).
FWIW, too, napalm was on a list of stuff we used to brief HQ ACC and various visiting firemen that just because we could carry it (and carry a lot of it) and release it, that didn't mean we could or should effectively/safely employ it.
Quote
Like
Share