Posted on 05/18/2012 8:14:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Turbofan Killer Bee: Rutan ARES “Mudfighter” for U.S. Army Close Air Support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg
http://www.scaled.com/projects/ares
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES
The A-10 went through my mind, of course. However, the WWII equivalent of the A-10 was the Republic P47 Thunderbolt, often called “The Jug”. Like the A-10, the Jug was a flying tank that could drop ordinance, blast the crap out of a target with its 8 airborne version M-2s and take a holy hell beating.
However, the P-51 was pure elegance, taken from idea to flyable prototype in 120 days! Pure beauty, inspiration and a viper’s bite rolled into one machine.
Yes, and probably also C-130s and KC-135s.
The British Canberra were in service for almost 60 years.
Missions that cannot be funded, will not continue. And that particular bit of Neo-Con grandiosity has simply run into a brick wall.
Defense is headed for a 50% haircut, just like the rest of the Federal budget - whether Welfare Statists and Neo-Cons like it or not. That's half the aircraft, half the ships, half the carrier battle groups, half the personnel, 2/3 of the bases, 3/4 of the land-based ICBMs and 100% of the nation-building administrative overhead. That leaves room for expanded funding of badly needed technologies that don't reward Congressional repsentatives, defense contractors, and generals with so many shiny new toys: drone technology, cyber-defense, ground and space-based anti-missile systems, and modernized intelligence-gathering capabilities.
You can kill a terrorist with a Craftsman screwdriver if you know who he is and what he is going to do. Government thinks it needs to use an F-22, instead. :)
Likewise, true to a point.
The head and handle changes apply to a lot of structures but not so much the high performance airframes... there are only so many of those.
Wings on t-38s have been changed like socks but we’re all out of socks.
Eventually the attachment points wear out as well and it is not just the 38s though they are probably the worst of the lot for having been around the longest. An airplane can only be banged into the ground so many times even though they are amazingly rugged.
Heck, this is nothing. Many of the guys flying BUFFs (B52 bombers) are younger than the planes they fly!
Mark
If the F-15 community started in the mid 1970s how about the bomber community? The B-52H’s still flying are 1960 and 1961 manufactures - that's a decade older than the F-15 story lead. Plus they are expected to remain in front line service until the 2040s.
Look at the HC-130, rescue aircraft. Most of them are mid 1960 builds - a few years older than the B-52.
The KC-135s are from that same era.
Most of the tactical airlift, C-130s, are from the same era.
Why do I bring this up? In 2009 I came across a young AF Captain, navigator, type whose name tag read “Savage”; I pronounced in the French manner and was immediately told I was the only one who had done so in years. Why did I know how - I flew with the man's father as student navigators in 1970/71. Capt Savage was going into the AC-130 community - the same community I transferred to in 1975. While not a father/son story it shows how old almost all of the Air Force's tactical platforms really are.
Again, another statement that is only true to a point.
The pilots flying the airplanes are younger than the B-52s they fly and so are most of their father’s now who flew the same aircraft.
The same point can be made for the T-38.
If you’ll look at the tail numbers on most USAF aircraft the first two large digits of the SN are the year the AC was accepted into inventory.
The radiators on liquid cooled fighters like the P-51s are too vulnerable.
And the best part, the eight .50s on a P-47 can chew up anything.
Should have read your post before I posted mine. Can’t beat those big P&W radials.
Put F-15 out to pasture?
We have a new fighter mentioned in the article, the F-22. It’s extremely costly, and a linked-to LA Times article states that the F-22 was designed to compete with a new Russian fighter that never came into existence.
The LA Times article says that the F-15’s problems can be fixed, and we know that their weaponry and electronics can be upgraded, so the question to be answered is whether the F-15 still plays a useful military role. Does the F-15 do certain jobs just as well as the F-22 but at a lower cost?
Furthermore, we may be moving toward pilotless aircaft and increasingly precise guided missiles. I’ll bet maintaining and upgrading old planes like the F-15 and B-52 makes sense.
The A26 was not worn out they put turbo-prop engines on it to increase the speed of it. Do not lie the reason for this mess is the fighter mafia alone with there billion dollar toys that they now refuse to fly......
The 26 is still flying in 8 countries . I know cause I was a 26 weapons mech an worked on Brazilian 26s at Opa Locka Airport in Miami.....Great planes like the 135 are still flying with new engines while our great fighters sit on the ground over engineering failures...The USAF Fighter Types refused to buy the F5 Tiger 2 an 6 years later had to buy them as agressor planes cause our F4s were getting shot out of the air over Nam....They buy the wrong a/c the 747 is as old as the c5 yet it flys triple the hours of the 5 an turn around as much as 4 times every 48 hours. It takes 72 hours to turn a 5 around....
The Army issued me with a musket that had “Down With The Redcoats!” carved into it.
Ping to article of interest.
And to you, you would be well advised to take much greater care whom you accuse of lying. If I were where you are there would be consequences.
It is a comfort to know there are geniuses like you around working for Brazil and other countries.
You are insignificant and will always be so.
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.