[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by chassis

Why doesn't the next (or current RR) B-52 engine upgrade program use 4 larger engines vs 8 smaller units? The wing structure doesn't care if there are 2 engines per attachment point, or a single unit. What is the real reason?

Not sure why they didn't do this eons ago. Here is a TF-39 original variant of a B-52.



Probably the same reason why when the USAF asked for the C-5B and LM said we will re-engine it and give the jet better performance and better fuel savings the some one in USAF said No Thank You.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

No it will be retired soon I don't for see them in service beyond 2028.

The AF retired 17 of them, and is planning to retire the remaining 45 as the B-21 comes on line (good luck with that).

Assuming (and that's a BIG "assuming" the B-21 program stays on schedule, they're start replacing the Bones (B-1B, get it?) after 2025, with the plan to have them all fully retired by 2036.

Here's a reasonably good article if you read between the lines:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/la...-comes-online/

R.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Not sure why they didn't do this eons ago. Here is a TF-39 original variant of a B-52.



Probably the same reason why when the USAF asked for the C-5B and LM said we will re-engine it and give the jet better performance and better fuel savings the some one in USAF said No Thank You.

They eventually wised up. The C-5M Super Galaxy uses GE's CF-6's. They did avionics and a bunch of other things first under the AMP program and then re-engined (and re-APU'd) them under RERP. All of the B's are now M's. The two C's have been done as well. There was one A that was an AMP testbed, but I don't know if they re-engined it. There's a total of (I think?) 52 though, counting all airframes.

R.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

They eventually wised up. The C-5M Super Galaxy uses GE's CF-6's. They did avionics and a bunch of other things first under the AMP program and then re-engined (and re-APU'd) them under RERP. All of the B's are now M's. The two C's have been done as well. There was one A that was an AMP testbed, but I don't know if they re-engined it. There's a total of (I think?) 52 though, counting all airframes.

R.

How long do you think the C-5Ms will be in service?

[Llarry]

The U.S. Dept of Defense plans to get rid of all Boeing 707-based aircraft:
-- The Air Force E-3 AWACS to be replaced by the Boeing 737-based E-7 Wedgetail (see photo for Korean version.) The stated goal is procurement of 26 aircraft. Note that there is a NATO squadron of 14 E-3s; one might presume they will follow the US lead on this but perhaps not. Saudi Arabia also flies the E-3 and has KE-3 tankers.
-- The Navy E-6 Mercury to be replaced by C-130J-based aircraft; instead of being based in Oklahoma, the Navy plans two squadrons, one on each coast. (What is old is new again; a photo of the EC-130 was posted earlier.)

[Llarry]

[QUOTE=Llarry;29940076] -- The Air Force E-3 AWACS to be replaced by the Boeing 737-based E-7 Wedgetail (see photo for Korean version.) The stated goal is procurement of 26 aircraft. Note that there is a NATO squadron of 14 E-3s; one might presume they will follow the US lead on this but perhaps not. Saudi Arabia also flies the E-3 and has KE-3 tankers.

A recap of the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail:
-- The first orders came from the Royal Australian Air Force, which bought 7 E-7A Wedgetails and first took delivery in 2009.
-- South Korea bought 4 and took delivery in 2011-2012.
-- Turkey bought 4 and first took delivery in 2014.
-- The UK ordered 5 (but is now vacillating on cutting the order back to 3) and expects to take delivery starting in 2024.
-- The USAF wants 26 and hopes to take delivery starting in 2027.
-- NATO is considering various options, including the Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye, but the E-7 is probably the leading contender.
-- A number of other countries either have considered or are considering orders.

[Llarry]

[QUOTE=Llarry;29940142]

Originally Posted by Llarry

-- Saudi Arabia also flies the E-3 and has KE-3 tankers.

I looked into the Saudi situation a bit more and it turns out that the Royal Saudi Air Force has 5 E-3 AWACS and 7 KE-3 tankers plus -- I missed this one -- an RE-3A SIGINT recon aircraft, which likely is very similar to the USAF and REAF RC-135s, but using a Boeing 707 airframe.

Those fat cheeks on the RE-3 (and RC-135) no doubt have a plethora of antennas in them.

[Llarry]

On the subject of AEW (or AWACS) and Boeing 707, the Israeli Air Force came up with their own solution (and sold one to the Chilean Air Force): the EL/M-2075 Phalcon, which may be in the running for the ugliest airplane ever...

The Israelis also have the EL/M-2085, which is based on the Gulfstream G550 and is also a bit, uh, beauty-challenged, but apparently very good: Being bought by the USA among others. (The photo is Singapore Air Force.)

We can conclude that the Israelis know how to build ugly aircraft and also have weird designation systems.

[Lady Jane]

Ball-Bartoe Jetwing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball-Bartoe_Jetwing

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Question of the hour... Is the Osprey classified as a rotor-wing (helicopter) or fixed-wing (airplane)?

The FAA calls it "Powered Lift."

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

The FAA calls it "Powered Lift."

I never worked one...

[Lady Jane]

Today's quiz: Name the commercial aircrafts with twin pods jet engines.

[Romo]

Vickers VC 10

Concorde

[3.0L]

JetStar.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Romo

Vickers VC 10

Concorde

I never thought of the Concord having "pods" but technically, yes.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Today's quiz: Name the commercial aircrafts with twin pods jet engines.


Attachment 3130816

Pics?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

Pics?

Pics? NO... You're supposed to research and provide the answer.

So far:

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Today's quiz: Name the commercial aircrafts with twin pods jet engines.


Attachment 3130816

Originally Posted by 3.0L

JetStar.

That plane makes one W-I-D-E departure turn! I had one depart SMO RWY 3 with a right turn to 270º. His turn was so wide he flew south of LAX, about 3 miles south. 'Twas a "hair on fire" moment!

[Llarry]

Military aircraft guns -- a short survey...

Aircraft gun armament began in World War I, initially with a single rifle-caliber 7.62mm or 0.30 inch diameter barrel machine gun and soon progressing to a pair of fixed forward-firing machine guns. That seemed to be the standard for a number of years. Larger aircraft with multiple crew members often had flexible machine guns for defense.

My cursory research indicates it was the 1930s when a larger caliber machine gun was first used; Boeing fighters of the 1930s used either twin .30s or one .30 and one .50. By the beginning of World War II, 20mm cannon were appearing but the armament was mixed -- twin 7-8mm and one or two 20mm. Into the war years, U.S. fighter armament stabilized at six .50 (12.7mm) machine guns, although the Republic P-47 upped the ante with eight guns. Later in the war, some U.S. fighters used 20mm cannon armament. The Northrop P-61 night fighter had four 20mm plus four .50 cal in a turret; most Grumman F6F-5N night fighters had twin 20mm plus four .50 cal machine guns. And some Marine Corps and Navy F4U Corsairs substituted four 20mm cannon for the normal six .50s. Flexible U.S. armament generally continued to be .50 cal. Late in the war, the Boeing B-29 tail gun installation was twin .50s plus a 20mm cannon.

Virtually all these U.S. guns were of older origin; the 20mm was derived from Hispano-Suiza origins and the .50 caliber machine gun was invented by John Browning in World War I, albeit in early water-cooled form.

By the late 1940s, the venerable .50 was still the gun of choice for flexible armament in bomber turrets and six .50s was the standard for Air Force fighters. The Navy was transitioning to four 20mm cannon.

The Korean war provided a wake-up call: The MiG-15 had two 23mm cannon and a giant 37mm bruiser (admittedly with a low rate of fire.) The Air Force converted a number of their North American F-86 Sabres from six .50s to four 20mm under a classified program and put them into action. Future USAF fighters would be 20mm-armed.

At about the same time, the flexible .50 cal machine gun was being replaced in some applications by the larger 20mm. The Air Force's B-36 heavy bomber had up to six twin 20mm gun positiions, although the planes went through a weight reduction program that removed most guns in later years.

Back in 1946, General Electric had begun design of a new gun with an extremely high rate of fire, using the principle of rotating barrels. Development took some years and the first guns, designated the 20mm M61 and nicknamed the Vulcan, were fitted to the Lockheed F-104C Starfighter. The M61 Vulcan quickly became the weapon of choice for new Air Force applications, adopted in the Republic F-105 and in the tail of the B-58 Hustler (and later the B-52H Stratofortress.) The Navy was more skeptical of the utility of aircraft gun armament and their1958 fighter competition winner, the F4H-1 (F-4) Phantom II did not have gun armament at all. The F-4 could carry a gun pod if desired but accuracy was not very good.

Then Vietnam happened; Navy fighter crews flying the F-4 were frustrated by a lack of air-to-air missile reliability. Other Navy fighter squadrons with the F-8 Crusader each had four of the older M3 20mm cannon and scored a number of gun kills. The F-8 pilots declared themselves the "Last of the Gunfighters" to the annoyance of the Phantom fliers. By the end of Vietnam the Navy had replaced the pair of conventional 20mm cannon in the Vought A-7 attack aircraft with an M61 Vulcan. The Navy had finally seen the light.
//To be continued//

[Llarry]

The 20mm GE M61 Vulcan aircraft cannon was a winner. It was not universally adopted, however. Both the USAF F-106 interceptor and the F-111 strike aircraft had no guns, though both could be fitted with an optional Vulcan if needed. The Air Force bought the Navy A-7 attack aircraft and, like the Navy, fitted its A-7D with a Vulcan. The Navy's A-6 Intruder medium attack aircraft also had no guns. The older A-1 Skyraider that was used so effectively in Vietnam had the older four M3 20mm cannon installation.

Vietnam brought a huge number of variations on the rotating-barrel aircraft gun. One of the earliest was the 7.62mm variant used by the AC-47 gunship. The U.S. Army also adapted the 7.62 aircraft gun to ground use.

Post-Vietnam brought other variants. The Marine Corps bought UK-built Harriers with cannon pods. The AC-47 and other gunships used so effectively in Vietnam were succeeded by the Air Force AC-130 with more sophisticated sensors and heavier armament, including a 105mm howitzer.

The Vulcan and its variants did not escape the notice of the Army and the Navy surface force, either. Both services adopted the 20mm as an air defense weapon; the Army mounted the Vulcan on an armored personnel carrier and the Navy gave a large variety of ships multiple guns to provide last-ditch defense against missile attacks.
//TO BE CONTINUED//

[Llarry]

The rotating-barrel machine gun found applications far beyond aircraft. In particular the 7.62mm variant is used on navy ships, by helicopter door gunners and by army ground forces.

The Vulcan also spawned variant calibers of similar guns. One I've previously discussed is the awesome GAU-8 30mm 7-barrel cannon of the A-10 Warthog. (The photo compares a 30mm GAU-8 round with a .30-06 round.) A variant of the GAU-8 was used by Signaal to develop a 30mm shipboard close-in defense system called Goalkeeper which is used by a number of navies.

A 25mm variant is used by the Marines' AV-8B Harrier as well as some versions of the USAF's AC-130. A lighter 4-barrel version of that designated the GAU-22 is used by the Air Force's F-35A fighter; the Marine and Navy F-35 versions use a gun pod with the same 25mm gun.

To sum up, it appears that the military aircraft gun is here to stay; perhaps only some future development of directed energy will replace it. That would seem to me to be far in the future.

[Llarry]

Aircraft gun post-script: All earlier versions of the AC-130 have now been retired and only the AC-130J is in service. But I can't resist posting this photo of the underside of an earlier AC-130U. I see three different sizes of guns: 105mm, probably 40mm and a 20mm or perhaps 7.62mm forward. All this firepower could ruin your whole day!