Would a B-52 on a stretegic mission pass between Washington and Alaska?

[DAnconiaLead]

Greetings,

I'm currently constructing an S-scale (1:64th scale) model of the B-52D/KC-135 mobile simulator which was built inside railcars and which is currently on display at Fairchild AFB (see pictures below).

Once I complete the model of the simulator, I was planning to build a B-52 to be placed, in-flight, above the layout which is set in the early 1980's and follows the Alaska Marine Lines railbarge route from Seattle, WA to Whittier, AK and also includes elements of Valdez, (AK), Skagway (AK), Wasilla, (AK), and Carcross, Yukon.  On the Washington end, the tracks are owned by the Burlington Northern (BN) and Seattle North Coast Transportation (SNCT) and at the Alaska end, he tracks are owned by The Alaska Railroad (ARR) and there's a While Pass & Yukon (WPY) narrow-gauge (3ft. gauge) line as well in this portion.

In addition to the B-52, I was also thinking about adding a news building (likely the EIB Network) with an LED news-ticker that would allow me to illustrate the general purpose of the B-52's mission.  Specifically, I was thinking of having the news-ticker show a headline stating that, after SDI blocked a nuclear attack on the US, President Reagan had authorized a retaliatory strategic strike against the perpetrator.

I wanted to make this as accurate as possible and had several questions;

A.)  While the simulator was specifically designed for the B-52D, it was also used to train operators of the G and H models (it's not difficult to deduce that the operators of the lone E and F models were also trained in this simulator).  Since the simulator was designed for the D model, I was thinking about building a B-52D, but I cannot establish whether or not the 'D' would still be preforming strategic missions of this type by the early 1980's.  If the 'D' is not the model most likely to be preforming this mission at this time, would the mission more likely have fallen to a 'G' or an 'H'?

B.) Would the B-52 carry any ordinance or extra fuel on its external hard-points for such a strategic mission or would everything be carried internally?

C.) Which 1:72 scale model best represents the B-52 that would be carrying out this mission and using this model as a starting point, are then any additional modifications that would be necessary?

D.) Are there any additional changes that should be made in the model's configuration?

E.) Considering that the aircraft would be passing between Seattle (WA) and Whittier (AK), would Pyongyang (DPRK) be a likely target or would Vladivostok (USSR) be more likely?

F.) Which squadron would this aircraft most likely belong to?

G.) What other US aircraft would likely be in the air in this area with a strategic strike underway?  Please feel free to include mildly fictional aircrafts, such as operational B-70's or an SR-75 (I actually have an unbuilt model of one of these).  If I can find an appropriate model, I may include a YAL-1

H.) For this and other strategic missions, would B-52's fly in formation or receive a fighter-escort while over US airspace?

Thank you in advance for any help.

[PR19_Kit]

That's a tall order........... but quite normal for here.  

Being a Brit I can only answer some of your queries, but here goes.

In the 80s the only operational B-52s were Gs and Hs, the tall fin ones all having been retired by then. AFAIK there's only been one 1/72 scale kit of the H released and that's the AMT/ERTL one, which is OK, but has some questionable aspects to its wing dihedral. They've been re-issued by Italeri and are still around on ebay.

For a YAL-1 you'll need a 1/72 scale 747, which are only available as vacforms AFAIK, and they're BIG!

[kerick]

The San Francisco or Chicago routes to Shanghai pass over Korea and cross each other over the southern tip of the Aleutian Islands. Neither come very close to the Northwest coast of North America. Now that's assuming this map is accurate.



Now a route from the west coast, say from McChord AFB outside Seattle, to Russia might pass up the Coast to Alaska.

To guesstamante routes just take a globe and stretch a string from point to point. Don't bother on a flat map, it won't be accurate.

Edit
The more I look at these so called maps, the better the globe method looks. If you don't have one try the library.

[jcf]

That's a tall order........... but quite normal for here. 

Being a Brit I can only answer some of your queries, but here goes.

In the 80s the only operational B-52s were Gs and Hs, the short fin ones all having been retired by then. AFAIK there's only been one 1/72 scale kit of the H released and that's the AMT/ERTL one, which is OK, but has some questionable aspects to its wing dihedral. They've been re-issued by Italeri and are still around on ebay.

For a YAL-1 you'll need a 1/72 scale 747, which are only available as vacforms AFAIK, and they're BIG!

The D were tall vertical fin, G/H had the shortened vertical fin.

[jcf]

The biggest problem with your scenario is that while SDI was a Reagan era proposal (March 23, 1983), no service
usable hardware was built during his time in office, certainly nothing usable in an 'early '80s' scenario.

The Airborne laser wasn't built until the first decade of the 21st century, the base 747-400F airframe didn't roll off the
assembly line until 2002, and the basic pre-production wire design/installation engineering mods were done in 1998.
I know because I was working at Boeing in 747 Wire Design at the time.

Great Circle route from Seattle to Vladivostok

[sandiego89]

A few D's were still around until about 1982/83.  If a major war had broken out it is plausible to have D's involved, but G and H is more realistic.  

Kericks United airlines map is not for navigational purposes, and does not show great circle routes.  

Joncarrfarrelys great circle route is more useful, and easier to envision how a take off from a B-53 base in the north central US (where many bases were) would go over the location you desire.   Many strike missions, especially against Russia/Soviet Union would have been "over the top" over the Polar regions, over Alaska and Canada.  Also need to figure take off points from the B-52 bases.  Many B-52 bases were in the northern part of the US, Minot-North Dakota, Ellsworth- South Dakota,  Grand Forks-North Dakota, KI Sawyer & Kincheloe- Michigan, Griffis- New York, Fairchild- Washington, etc.  Some southern bases would have also gone over the top.  So routing over your location is feasible for your diorama.

A whole host of squadrons is feasible.  If you want a Washington State aircraft, a 92nd bomb wing H out of Fairchild fits the bill.    

D's would have had the single big external 3,000 gallon fuel tank on each wing, near the outrigger wheel.  G & H would have had the "small" tanks in the same position.

As for strategic mission, I assume you mean nuclear strike.  Weapons fit for nuclear strike would be both external and internal.  For the G and H in that time of the early 1980s' a load of SRAM's would be realistic.  8 on the rotary launcher in the bomb bay, 6 on each wing.  Inboard pylon.  Or a mix of SRAMs on the wings and free fall nukes internally.

You could also have a training mission without external weapons. 

Major surgery required to get the old Revell 1/72 D into a G or H.  Main external differences are nose, tail gunner deletion, shorter tail and different engines.  More changes with the H, especially the engines. Numerous other changes to antennas etc if you are striving for maximum realism.  I have no experience with the AMT/ERTL H.

Might I suggest a "forced perspective" diorama?  Use a 1/144 B-52.  Yes it would look totally silly parked next to your train (way too small), but if placed in a flying position above and behind the train (further from the viewer), it tricks the eye into thinking the aircraft is flying overhead further away. a 1/72 B-52 is HUGE.  Many more options for good 1/144 B-52 models.  Try a 144 first perhaps.  

KC-135's would very much be part of the strike package.

Fighter escort over the US?  Not so much. Can not envision much of a threat in CONUS.  Over Alaska, more likely.  F-15's.  

Hope this helps            

[PR19_Kit]

 I have no experience with the AMT/ERTL H.

It's sort of OK (-ish)..........

Like many of the AMT/ERTL kits it's a tad clunky, heavy sprue gates, really thick plastic etc. but most of the bits you need are supplied and are the right shape.

The big problem with their B-52 is that the wing-fuselage joint is moulded in the flying position, with the wings bent upwards taking the flight loads! That's great if you're going to hang it from the ceiling with string but useless of you want it on the ground with the wheels down.

It needs some major surgery in the wing root area to correct this and I only got half way doing mine before I thought 'the hell with this!' and parked it in the far reaches of The Loft.

Another one I really should get back to......

[famvburg]

After having built the old OK Models B-52G/H conversion for Monogram's D and then a few years later building AMT's G and H models, I would prefer to go with a conversion of the old Monogram kit for the most part. There are several G/H conversions out there, the only one that comes to mind is I think, LoneStar Models resin conversion, but I may be thinking wrong. If I were going to make a B-52G/H in flight, I would probably use an AMT/Italeri kit. The one I did build years ago I was making a re-engine version and since a lightly fueled B-52's wings don't droop to the outriggers, it is built that way assuming it just isn't heavily fueled. ISTR there is or was a wing root correction kit available for the AMT/Italeri kit, tho I have never used it.

[DAnconiaLead]

A few D's were still around until about 1982/83.  If a major war had broken out it is plausible to have D's involved, but G and H is more realistic.  

Major surgery required to get the old Revell 1/72 D into a G or H.  Main external differences are nose, tail gunner deletion, shorter tail and different engines.  More changes with the H, especially the engines. Numerous other changes to antennas etc if you are striving for maximum realism.  I have no experience with the AMT/ERTL H.

Hope this helps            

sandiego89,

Since a 'G'  or an 'H' would be more realistic, wouldn't I be better off starting with one of the following models?

I was only asking about the 'D' because the trainer was originally built to instruct aircrews in the operation of the 'D'...

[PR19_Kit]

Those two Italeri kits are the ex-AMT/ERTL mouldings, with the same inherant wing dihedral issues.

That may suit your display of course, but you need to know this in case you're planning an 'on the ground' display.

[DAnconiaLead]

That may suit your display of course, but you need to know this in case you're planning an 'on the ground' display.

Thank you.

Fortunately the only aircraft I currently have on the "ground" is a DHC-3 which is sitting on it's floats at the end of a small dock.

Even when I upgrade to a decent size house, I WILL NOT have the 150ft. necessary to accurately depict a runway capable of handling B-52 and, even if I did, I'd fill that space with model trains...

I MAY be tempted to add an operational USN P6M latter on, but this aircraft would not require a runway...

[PR19_Kit]

I MAY be tempted to add an operational USN P6M latter on, but this aircraft would not require a runway...

Just a big pool.......