B-58 Hustler

[TomcatViP]

A good link to understand the design evolution (structural) of the Hustler and understand why it regained most of its potential only after exiting active service:

B-58A 55-664 Accident Report

While the Hustler was still in service, two major changes to all B-58s were integrated as a result of ‘5664’s loss. The first was a fix to the flight control system resulting in reduced activity gain of the aileron control input in response to yaw heading. Additionally, small trim surfaces found inboard of the elevons of several early B-58s, were deactivated and replaced by fixed trailing edge fairings.

The second change was a physical strengthening of the vertical fin and associated fuselage structure just forward of the tail. New aircraft were built with these modifications integral to the flight control system and structure, respectfully.

A second B-58 was eventually pulled from the production line and modified to the new standard. Just short of a month after ‘5664 and its crew evaporated in the skies over Oklahoma, Beryl Erickson climbed into this modified aircraft, taxied to the end of the main Carswell AFB runway, and headed skyward to complete the test that Fitzgerald and Siedhof had died attempting. Once at altitude and speed, Erickson shut down the right outboard engine. The airplane yawed, quickly stabilized, and moments later, recovered without incident. No ancillary problems were encountered. Within a week of the test the B-58 was officially cleared for Mach 2.0 flight in a high-q, far aft c.g. condition [ending a M1.6 restriction]

 

[taildragger]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread and/or old news, and apologies too that I cannot currently (for the life of me) find my original online source for this. It's credited to the Roger Cripliver collection and I am pretty sure I found it on a 'Combat Reform' site on protecting aircraft against attack, but more specific I can't currently be. Anyway, here is a diagram of a proposed hardened shelter specially for a Convair B58.

As drawn, it looks to me like the external pod wouldn't clear the top of the ramp. I haven't checked the dimensions but the drawing seems to be to scale and there's a guide rail where a clearance trench would have to be. Go figure.

 

[TomcatViP]

June 26, 1962: The RS-70 crew escape capsule for the XB-70 was successfully ejected from a modified pod carried by a B-58 at 20,000 feet. This marked the first time an escape capsule was flight tested before the plane for which it was intended was flown. The rocket-powered capsule was ejected downward from an inverted position.

 

[TomcatViP]

Cost of B-58 Vs B-52 (Hijacked (without preliminary approval) from the B-21 thread) :

Didn't a B-58 cost three times as much as a B-52 to operate

No, not at all. A Hustler was slightly cheaper to operate, but some "creative accounting" made a powerful talking point that survives to this day.

I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but the talking point was created by saying the two Hustler wings were as expensive as six BUFF-equipped SAC wings. This ignored the fact that the Hustler wings had three times as many aircraft.
A BUFF wing was typically one bombardment squadron (BS) of 12-15 aircraft, frequently, but not always with an aerial refueling squadron. All 100+ Hustlers produced (minus operational losses) belonged to just two wings. The 63rd, 64th, 65th BS all belonged to one wing (43rd) in Little Rock, for example, as did the KC-135 squadron there.

Acquisition costs for the Hustler were roughly three times as much as a Buff, but that was sunk cost by the time the decision to retire them came about. SAC wanted to keep them, but the decision came down from on high.

Sorry for the delay on this and for a couple of other things I may post on this topic. I've got some numbers on the topic of B-52 vs. B-58.

Each B-52 wing had 15 "Unit Equipped" (Air Force jargon, I don't know what it means), while each B-58 wing had 39 UE aircraft. One time acquisition cost of a B-58 was 2.46 times that of a B-52 in constant dollars. If you threw in planned tanker support for both but didn't count the four GAM-72 decoys usually acquired with each B-52, the ratio was still 2.28 in the B-52's favor. However, the the Annual O&M and personnel costs for each B-52 was 17% higher than the B-58 and those were recurring costs. Put another way, for the cost of operating 66 B-52s you could operate 78 B-58s.

Regarding why the B-58 went away, originally Robert McNamara wanted it gone by mid 1970 (extended by him in 1966 to mid 1971) partly to crate a need to be filled by his beleoved F-111 (the FB-111 variant). Once, he was gone, though, for operational reasons in early 1969 the date moved out to at least 1974 by DoD. However, in the latter part of 1969 the head of SAC, apparently without input from B-58 experts, briefed the Air Force Chief of Staff that 78 B-58s should be phased out in order to preserve about 60 older B-52s. General Ryan took the recommendation of his SAC Chief to SECDEF. Having earlier in the year extended the B-58 in service per AF input, OSD was now being told it wasn't wanted after all. SECDEF Laird then directed that the B-58 was to be gone by Jan 31, 1970

 

[F-14D]

Preliminarily approved.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Cost of B-58 Vs B-52 (Hijacked (without preliminary approval) from the B-21 thread) :

Each B-52 wing had 15 "Unit Equipped" (Air Force jargon, I don't know what it means), while each B-58 wing had 39 UE aircraft. One time acquisition cost of a B-58 was 2.46 times that of a B-52 in constant dollars. If you threw in planned tanker support for both but didn't count the four GAM-72 decoys usually acquired with each B-52, the ratio was still 2.28 in the B-52's favor. However, the the Annual O&M and personnel costs for each B-52 was 17% higher than the B-58 and those were recurring costs. Put another way, for the cost of operating 66 B-52s you could operate 78 B-58s.

With a crew of three vs. four in the buff, the B-58 is more expensive on a per-person basis. That is interesting.

Regarding why the B-58 went away, originally Robert McNamara wanted it gone by mid 1970 (extended by him in 1966 to mid 1971) partly to crate a need to be filled by his beleoved F-111 (the FB-111 variant).

Oh, come on.

The B-58 was only supersonic at high altitude, which by the mid-1960s was already suicidal. That left it flying penetration missions at speeds only slightly faster than the buff and with much shorter range when doing so. McNamara didn't kill it because he "loved" the F-111, he killed it because it no longer had a credible mission - a buff blasting its way into the SU with SRAM at M0.85 was far more survivable than a B-58 with a pod doing so at M0.95.

The FB-111 had a significantly higher performance at low altitude, did so from a twin-jet airframe that cost much less to maintain and operate, and could be easily forward deployed. Of course, that is not a direct replacement for a US-based fleet, which is why the B-1 was developed - it was literally defined as an aircraft with the performance of the B-58 at high altitude, the F-111 at low altitude, and the same range as the B-52 at any altitude.

It's not that the mission didn't exist, it was that the B-58 couldn't credibly fulfill it.

 

[Archibald]

The FB-111A was also much, much less a crew-killer than the B-58.

It dawned on me the other day that the production run of FB-111A (76) was smaller than the Hustler itself (116) !

Both FB-111A and B-1A initial orders (263 and 240 respectively) were sized to replace all the B-52s "not -G" and "not -H" - that is around 400 C-D-E-F left by 1965 before Vietnam attrited them even further.
Yet the few FB-111A (76) and the none B-1A (0) procured finally left the old BUFFs not replaced by 1970 nor 1975 nor 1980.

How did SAC took that massive loss ? Was it really a major issue ?

I also wonder - did anybody tried to bring back a "min-mod" B-58B in 1962, with only the two basic modifications - stretched fuselage and different J79s found on F-104G or F-4J ?

 

[F-14D]

The FB-111A was also much, much less a crew-killer than the B-58.

It dawned on me the other day that the production run of FB-111A (76) was smaller than the Hustler itself (116) !

Both FB-111A and B-1A initial orders (263 and 240 respectively) were sized to replace all the B-52s

1st point: (stealing from myself elsewhere)

After the B-58 became operational, there were 17 lost over 10 years. One was destroyed in a taxiing incident and two were lost at Paris airshows. Of those, one was while it was performing aerobatic maneuvers at low altitudes and one was lost on approach when the pilot got behind the power curve at low altitude, something critical for all pure deltas. Even including those unique accidents, that works out to a loss rate of 1.7 per year over 10 years (1.4 if we don't count those three). The B-47, for comparison, had 28 fatal accidents in just one operational year.

2nd point: There was a reason for that. Once the decision was made to proceed with the B-1, there was no reason for the FB-111 to remain in production, the former could easily handle the latter's missions. It's no accident that the production program was curtailed the same year the decision to move out on B-1 was made.

No one, even McNamara, considered the FB-111 a B-52 replacement. He saw it serving alongside a fleet of upgraded B-52s as a medium range bomber. That was one of the reasons he wanted the B-58 killed, to create an additional need for the FB-111 to fill.

 

[F-14D]

Cost of B-58 Vs B-52 (Hijacked (without preliminary approval) from the B-21 thread) :

Each B-52 wing had 15 "Unit Equipped" (Air Force jargon, I don't know what it means), while each B-58 wing had 39 UE aircraft. One time acquisition cost of a B-58 was 2.46 times that of a B-52 in constant dollars. If you threw in planned tanker support for both but didn't count the four GAM-72 decoys usually acquired with each B-52, the ratio was still 2.28 in the B-52's favor. However, the the Annual O&M and personnel costs for each B-52 was 17% higher than the B-58 and those were recurring costs. Put another way, for the cost of operating 66 B-52s you could operate 78 B-58s.

With a crew of three vs. four in the buff, the B-58 is more expensive on a per-person basis. That is interesting.

Regarding why the B-58 went away, originally Robert McNamara wanted it gone by mid 1970 (extended by him in 1966 to mid 1971) partly to crate a need to be filled by his beleoved F-111 (the FB-111 variant).

Oh, come on.

The B-58 was only supersonic at high altitude, which by the mid-1960s was already suicidal. That left it flying penetration missions at speeds only slightly faster than the buff and with much shorter range when doing so. McNamara didn't kill it because he "loved" the F-111, he killed it because it no longer had a credible mission - a buff blasting its way into the SU with SRAM at M0.85 was far more survivable than a B-58 with a pod doing so at M0.95.

The FB-111 had a significantly higher performance at low altitude, did so from a twin-jet airframe that cost much less to maintain and operate, and could be easily forward deployed. Of course, that is not a direct replacement for a US-based fleet, which is why the B-1 was developed - it was literally defined as an aircraft with the performance of the B-58 at high altitude, the F-111 at low altitude, and the same range as the B-52 at any altitude.

It's not that the mission didn't exist, it was that the B-58 couldn't credibly fulfill it.

During the time period we're talking about, which is not today, the BUFF had a crew of six, not four. Even today I believe there are still five crew stations. Crew size wasn't the only determinant of the relative cost differential, however. Anyway, we don't pay for bombers on a per person basis, but on a per plane basis. If we stuffed five more people in a B-52 that wouldn't reduce its operational cost by half.

Granted the B-58 was supersonic at high altitudes, but an aircraft that can sustain M2 at altitude is going to less vulnerable than one that peaks @ M .84. The contract for the development of SRAM was not awarded until the year after McNamara announced he was killing the B-58.

But then everyone transitioned to low level operations for some missions. Although I can't find hard numbers for both, most of what I've read was that the B-58 was much faster at low altitude, not slightly. On one particular exercise, a B-58 flew a mission that included two hours of M .92 flight at or below 500 feet. Also, the B-58 handled low altitude turbulence better than the BUFF due to its lower drag and rigid rather than flexible wing. Did the FB-111 have better performance than the B-58 at low altitude? Probably, when just carrying weapons internally. But the question remains was that improvement enough for the nuclear mission to justify the costs of development and procurement relative to an asset in being? One thing learned over the years was that once you hit M .85-.9 on the deck increasing speed to M 1.2 doesn't buy that much more survivability, which is why later operations with the F-111 (and the B-1B for that matter) didn't normally do supersonic on the deck.

Regarding McNamara, he made no bones about wanting more F-111s (remember he even tried to get USAF to buy it as their F-106 replacement) and in 1965 he directed the B-58 be retired in the 2nd half of 1970, the need to fill that gap would be handled by the FB-111 he wanted developed. His vision of the bomber force was hundreds of FB-111s and updated B-52s. He limited AMSA work to studies and component development. He wasn't going to let AMSA (which would eliminate the need for the FB-111) come to fruition. One of his last acts as SECDEF was to block AMSA program funding in 1968. Once the B-1A was authorized, the orders for FB-111 were cut off as the B-1A could fill that role (B-1A would have also retired the B-58, had it remained in service).

 

[rooster]

Sec defs come and go and the usaf wanted the amsa and not the fb111. The usaf was able to keep amsa alive despite the sec def. Eventually the fb111 was bought as an interim until the b1 was ready... A paltry 76. But of course we all know Jimmy Carter. But the usaf still managed to keep the amsa now the b1 going with additional test flights. I find it interesting that to be an aviation enthusiast means also needing to be a political expert!

 

[yasotay]

I find it interesting that to be an aviation enthusiast means also needing to be a political expert!

Where there is money, there is politics.

 

[F-14D]

Sec defs come and go and the usaf wanted the amsa and not the fb111. The usaf was able to keep amsa alive despite the sec def. Eventually the fb111 was bought as an interim until the b1 was ready... A paltry 76. But of course we all know Jimmy Carter. But the usaf still managed to keep the amsa now the b1 going with additional test flights. I find it interesting that to be an aviation enthusiast means also needing to be a political expert!

Basically, once the B-1A program was a go, the need for the FB-111 evaporated. So orders beyond those that were already contacted for were canceled,; that's why the FB-111 total was so low. If Humphrey had won the election, I'd wager you'd see no B-1s, but possibly more FB-111s

 

[Cjc]

Regarding McNamara, he made no bones about wanting more F-111s (remember he even tried to get USAF to buy it as their F-106 replacement) and in 1965 he directed the B-58 be retired in the 2nd half of 1970, the need to fill that gap would be handled by the FB-111 he wanted developed. His vision of the bomber force was hundreds of FB-111s and updated B-52s. He limited AMSA work to studies and component development. He wasn't going to let AMSA (which would eliminate the need for the FB-111) come to fruition. One of his last acts as SECDEF was to block AMSA program funding in 1968. Once the B-1A was authorized, the orders for FB-111 were cut off as the B-1A could fill that role (B-1A would have also retired the B-58, had it remained in service).

Or one can make the argument that a mid rang supersonic is a lot more cost effective then a long range one.

 

[TomcatViP]

Seems there is something of an airframe that survived the times:

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/pIIr3Q-AxMc?si=Ow0l233IbglSKovz


Wonder where that was filmed

 

[Archibald]

This is the B-58 called "Snoopy" which made the transition between the canned F-108 Rapier and the YF-12. It tested the monster radar AN/ASG-18 and the AIM-47 Falcon missile.