Is that you, Joe? :-)
Posted on 09/06/2009 9:33:49 AM PDT by em2vn
For the third time in the last decade, the U.S. Air Force is looking at using commercial aircraft as bombers. This time around, it's mainly a matter of cost, with the next generation heavy bomber likely to cost over a billion dollars each, and only carry 30 tons of bombs or missiles. The idea of militarizing 747s first started gaining traction three decades ago, as cruise missiles showed up and many air force analysts did the math and realized that it would be a lot cheaper to launch these missiles from a militarized Boeing 747. The freighter version of the latest 747model, the 747-8F, can carry 140 tons of cargo. After militarizing the aircraft, you would still be able to carry about a hundred tons of missiles and bombs.
Right where my argument was heading.
Is that you, Joe? :-)
I’m calling BS here: we haven’t had B-52s with “tail gunner windows” since the retirement of the D/E/F models in 1982. In fact, the tail guns, and tail gunners, were removed in the early 1990s after the return from Operation DESERT STORM. . .
And low-level runs were not done in formations, which, in any case, are in cells of 3 bombers.
I was flying B-52s from 1984 to 1989, so I have some experience to back my statements up with 1200+ hours of jet time . . .
Additionally, how were you seeing the windows on an aircraft going by at 400+ knots, “maybe 200 feet off the trees”, considering all the windows on the aircraft are in the top front of the nose section. . .
Don’t think so. The MIG pilots fired their rockets after visual recognition.
I can barely remember that movie, but I thought he was a DC-8 guy.
Don’t need to build a new version. Just re-engine the existing B-52H’s. A re-engined G model would be good too, but weren’t they all scrapped?
“Does this make sense to those of you who are familiar with the issue?”
Some sane person in the USAF must hang out at FR quite a bit.
And remembers that “weaponized” photoshopped Boeing 747 image that
appeared on FR soon after 9-11-2001. The d-nged thing bristled with
105 mm cannons, cruise-missles and other sorts of “Mort Ab Alto”
(Death from on high) implements of the USAF.
It was “Puff The Magic Dragon” writ large and mean!!!
And enlarged about an order of magnitude!
I’ve probably got a copy of the image buried deep on my Dell’s
harddrive, but it could have been lost when the harddrive went down
earlier this year.
It was fine example of photoshopping...and a fond memory of when the
USA was a united, resolute country for a year (or less) after the
Twin Towers fell.
“Even a 747 cargo variant would need extensive modifications - hard points”
Yup. Worked on the 747 fuselage at Northrop back in the day. It’s all sheet metal.
I can barely remember that movie, but I thought he was a DC-8 guy.
*******************************************************
I believe that still was from the original “airport” ,, FWIW I checked airport 75 and 77 and those two were B747’s
*******************************************************
FROM WIKI (Movie AIRPORT 1970) Only one Boeing 707 was used in the filming: N324F, a 707-349C, was leased from Flying Tiger Line by Universal Studios and sported an El Al cheatline over its bare metal finish, with the fictional Trans Global Airlines (TGA) titles and tail. On March 21, 1989 that aircraft, flying for Transbrasil with registration PT-TCS, crashed while making a high speed approach at runway 09R of São Paulo’s Guarulhos International Airport after departure from Manaus Eduardo Gomes International Airport.[3]
Now you’re talkin’
Yea, I know. I have flown in both many times. As I said, on a visual the high tail and over fuselage wings give the 141 away and cannot be compared to the heavy.
You are full of feces.
No wing hardpoints. The idea was drop doors in the rear fuselage with a Common Rotary Weapons Carrier. As such it has the same immediate drop capacity as a B-52H or B-1B.
But add more carriers on a track system on the main cargo deck and the B-747 can drop and repeat the load of those bombers eight more times.
Airborne Lasers are a promising use for wide-bodies.
With all of the work that would be needed to completely refurbish a Buff it’s been estimated since the 80s that it would cost more to do per aircraft than building an entire new plane.
Not the USAF. The E-3 is based on the 707. The JASDF is the only operator of the E-767 of which they have four.
The US Navy is converting or already has fully converted to the EA-18 Growler.
In process. VAQ-129, the Navy's EA FRS, has yet to receive it's full complement of EA-18Gs and VAQ-132, the first fleet squadron that will transition to the Growler, has yet to achieve IOC with the type.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.