Mon
29 Dec
2008
Can You Transport A B-52 Bomber On An Aircraft Carrier?
This photo says you can. It came in over the transom. I can’t vouch for its authenticity but here it is anyway.
While this may look like a gag shot, it is actually a “transport of a transport” necessity. The B-52 was in Beirut, Lebanon undergoing routine fuel tank cleaning. Workmen accidentally damaged the bladder system and had to install the bladders from smaller C-130s temporarily. The plane was flown to nearby McCollough Air Base where it was lifted upon a barge bound for Tyre on the Mediterranean. Once there it was off-loaded onto the carrier deck for transport to Crete where the appropriate tank bladders were installed. It was then flown back to Beirut. Military cooperation in action.
-
Leave a Reply
"Can You Transport A B-52 Bomber On An Aircraft Carrier?"
December 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
For starters what would a B-52 be doing in Beirut Lebanon? Routine fuel tank cleaning – when was the last time the fuel tanks in an airplane had to be cleaned? There isn’t an McCollough Air Base. Crete?? There aren’t any US military facilities in Crete. And, last, if a B-52 was on an aircraft carrier the planes wouldn’t all be in their normal spots, with some parked under the wing and nose of the B-52.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Ah! Photoshop at its’ best.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This was sent to be by a friend. I agree with the previous statements. A B-52 in Beirut?? Everything in the disclaimer causes you to say, “Yeah, right!” The only thing that would have made it more convincing is if they would have said they had to substitute Sopwith Camel engines due to the smaller bladders.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Yep. Fake. The wingtips on a B-52 are only about 5 feet off the ground, and here, they’re TOWERING over an F-14!! Further, no Navy Captain would EVER allow his deck to be completely fouled for ANY launches or landings! Wouldn’t happen! And, as stated, all aircraft forward of the B-52 are now trapped, and can’t even be sent below on an elevator!
Did I mention that, aside from the mentioned Beirut and McCoullough nonsense, that F-14s haven’t been on the Nimitz since Sept. 2006.
Danno
January 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
One more OOPS on this one. A flight deck of a Nimitz class carrier (and the on in the picture IS the Nimitz) is 252 feet wide. The wingspan of a B-52 is 185 feet. There would be 67 feet to spare on the deck and this picture shows it completely spanning the deck.
Nice try but no cigar.
Al in Florida
January 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I had the question of why they didn’t just fly the bladders to the aircraft – seemed the “ah ha!” solution.
The one comment about the wings towering over an F-14 when they are only about 5 feet off the ground is a good one, EXCEPT that the wingtips on a B-52 flex a total of 32 feet. When fully fueled the outrigger gear are on the ground and the tip is about 5′ off. When not fueled, the outriggers are off the ground and the tips are about 8′ off. When taking off, the wingtips on a B-52 flex upward and are higher than the wing root.
One other “comment on a comment” regarding a Navy Capt not allowing his deck to be fouled. Very true – always stay operational! I had also wondered how the ship could launch it’s CAP (Combat Air Patrol) with that thing on the deck. There IS one exception of course. Hands?? Doolittle’s raid in 1942. With the B-25 Mitchell bombers on deck, the Hornet could not do any other air operations. The Enterprise escorted the Hornet to provide the CAP.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Link to list of Aircraft Carriers – good history and photos.
here is the original photo of the Nimitz that was photoshopped to have the B-52 on it’s deck.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
hmmmm – links didn’t get posted. trying again (take out the spaces):
Link to list of Aircraft Carriers, good history and photos.
w w w. n a v s o u r c e.o r g / a r c h i v e s/0 2 i d x.h t m
here is the original photo of the Nimitz that was photoshopped to have the B-52 on it’s deck.
w w w.n a v s o u r c e.o r g/a r c h i v e s/0 2/0 2 6 8 1 3.j p g
January 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thanks Mike M.
I was already convinced from the compelling comments above but its still nice to see the photo. That seals the deal.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I was already convinced from the compelling comments above but its still nice to see the photo especially from an Air Force perspective.
January 10th, 2009 at 10:24 am
And this may be the B 52 photo used.
“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Aspect.ratio.b52.arp.jpg”
January 14th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Doesn’t the B`52 have a wet wing, with no bladders?
Is that not also true for the c-130?
January 15th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Yes to all the above, and the wet wing is true, but the most peculiar thing is that the B-52 went out of service in 1991 and the last on was delivered to storage in 1994 and were then all destroyed in accordance to the Strategic arms limitation treatty of 1991. Maybe they missed one?! jk
January 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Jim G. is not correct. We did destroy a certain number of B-52′s in conjunction with the SALT treaty of 1991, but not all of them. B-52′s remain in active service, providing air power support to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan along with missions from B-2′s. The B-52 is scheduled to be in the Air Force inventory for years to come, making it the longest active serving aircraft in military history. The current models, -H and -J, are fitted to deliver cruise missiles or JDAM guided munitions.
BTW: the middle east gets its B-52 support from the military base on Diego Garcia, in the Indian ocean.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Agree with all (yes, Buff still active) – especially technically obvious like size and having a carrier useless in the Mediterranean – right next to Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria. I don’t think so. A sitting duck. Also, there are no references anywhere on google or on Nimitz web site as all crews proud of their achievements. Very good job of photoshop work – makes you thing many times before believing a photo!
January 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
There is and was no J model B-52. The H was the last.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Either fly the replacement bladders to the disabled plane, or if it will fly at all w/
substitute bladders, arrange for sufficient in-flight refueling to fly the thing where
it needs to go for full repairs.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I was on that cruise. We had waffles for breakfast and BUFF-alo Wings for dinner.
One of the B52 crewdogs managed to impregnate a female sailor who later was awarded the Purple Heart Medal for her wounds. He was taken off of flight status for poor eyesight and bad judgment!
November 30th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
the plane would be unstable anyway because of the winds on the aircraft carrier……..
December 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As an experienced aircrew of the B52H, I must say, excellent observations. Despite the obvious fabrication of this picture, let me clear up a few things:
- The wing and main tanks on the B52 are, in fact, wet, meaning no bladders.
- All depot level maintenance on the B52 is done in Oklahoma.
- Tank cleaning is not required except during depot level overhaul.
- If 1 tank of 7 was damaged, repair the tank, or fly home with 5 or 6 tanks.
- Prior B52 measurement were accurate and plane is not to scale.
– B52 would not be unstable in deck winds. It is not tied off and would ‘lean’.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Also, on review…
The B52H wings ‘sag’ while on the ground. The shadow from this aircraft looks like the wing is the same height as the fusalage all of the way accross. If the wings were closer to the ground at the tips, the shadows would be less distance from the aircraft. This is an obvious drop shadow of the aircraft layer in a program like Photoshop.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:18 am
Is no one going to say anything about the obvious stupidity of the picture!!
I mean people note that it is a fabrication, but goddanm!
February 25th, 2010 at 11:50 am
SatanicFudge is right. The premise itself is absurd. Why divert a carrier and her thousands of crew on a mission best suited for a cargo ship.
When the USS Cole was attached in Yemen, we lifted the entire ship onto a cargo vessel and brought it home. By comparison, moving a B-52 would be easy.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:37 am
you for goto mention one thing. that catapult is by no means capable of launching a b-52 eriod but good phototshop work
March 19th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Um, maybe the self-styled expert who made the comment about F-14′s should have his eyesight checked; granted, the picture isn’t too clear, but having spent some years on a supercarrier WITH F-14′s, I’d have to call the planes clustered around the bomber F/A-18′s. Especially check the wing-fusalage angle at the leading edge.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I have been to Beirut several times….. google maps and you will see no airports near water…… I was Navy flight deck, most all aircraft would be parked ass over the side. How many other thingies do I see wrong with this pic. Many but then again Im an old salt. IYAOYAS
April 25th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Its true to me yes we can use a gantric crane to put a b-52 over a carrier but its should be almots in the middle of the carrier.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Hello, I really enjoyed reading your article. Will bookmark for later. Lots of interesting stuff.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
First as a former B-52G/H Crew Chief (maintainer) this photo is truly a fake. One a buff would just in-flight refuel it way home. would not be anywere in the Med for maintenance ever. also the tip gear do not case any shadow. the area where the main landing gear doors are at have been heavily pixeled so you can’t see that they are not open. this picture is of an aircraft flying. The wings on a Buff do sit rather close to the ground when full of fuel, but when empty they are higher off the ground. usual when a jeep co-pilot transfers fuel after landing they will have one wing higher than the other. also the F-14s are on the fantail of the carrier if u look hard enough or zoom in you can see them. they kind of stand out to any aircraft buff like me.
my name was my call sign and aircraft tail number.
August 4th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Um well like ex carrierman said those are F/A-18′s not F-14′s. F-14′s are whats in top gun. And also thats not how F-18′s are normaly on deck and I can say that since I’ve been flying them for 15 years in the RCAF! (Royal Canadian Air Force)
August 10th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Well looking at the bright side,,,, one should appreciate the effort made by this guy,, not for the Photoshop ! ! “”yes that is note worthy too !!
but its nothing compare to the story he put up together…..
transport of a transport, fuel tank cleaning in Beirut, Lebanon, coustom modified bladder system with C130 spares for bladderless B-52
awesome, , , ,
Sagar Karvande
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
This breaks a few U.S. Navy rules, and I don’t see how it would be authorized. Air Craft Carriers must unload ALL jets 50 miles before the carrier docks anywhere. How could jets take off with a huge B-52 bomber on the deck? So yeah, photoshop for the win.