M14 Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Wonder what went on at Prat, GE and the Pentagon so that RR got the deal?

Somehow reminds me of the on-going cluster effort surrounding the USAF's KC-46 tanker and Boing Vs Airbus. Boeing should have had a technological lock on that. . .and the inside track with USAF.

The B-52 has needed a power plant upgrade for forty years, so its about time. Back in the 1980s, author Dale Brown wrote several Tom Clancy-ish novels suggesting a total re-wing of the B-52 with Carbon Fiber and huge Turbo-Fan engines (well it is fiction . ..right?)
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
heck, Boeing should have had a tentative project already on the books for a tanker replacement for the current taker. Its not a whole new plane, just wings and plumbing right?

No, I am not n engineer or project manager . . . ., and yes, I am sure it is not quite that simple. Its just that smart people should have seen this need coming and been ready for it.
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Hijacj notice:

While we are off topic on the B-52, has anyone seen the renderings for a SOCOM requested C-130 sea plane?

Has two huge floats attached and hanging from the landing gear bulges ("sponsoons") Looks like it would only work on lake-smooth water.
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Why so much love for the B-52 and hatred of the A-10 by the Air Force bosses?

Doesn't that go back into the WW-II era? There was a lot of bickering back and forth over bombers for "strategic" bombing vs use for direct ground support. They missed most every target in the American sector on D-Day. The main agitators for the establishment of the Air Force as a separate entity were big bomber people.

To this day, there is Air Force antipathy for the ground attack role. In viet Nam, the Army was mounting 5 inch rockets on their spotter planes for a more immediate response in support of grunts on the ground. Even though there was some delay in getting a strike on target, they were told NOT to do that.

The Air Force is a fighter and bomber oriented force. They are not mud fighters and don't want to be.

So, today the so called Joint Strike/Fighter was supposed to completely replace the A-10 in ground attack missions. Mounting the 30mm gun pod eliminates the stealth features and I'm not sure it works that well. Then the plane is so expensive that who would risk it at low levels in a high risk environment?
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Thank you RM: No, nothing solid. Just what I heard from patients when I worked at a VA hospital in the 1990s. So it could be balderdash. Things change in the retelling over the years sometimes. It could be something like they wanted to do it but were told they couldn't.

While the Army does use fixed wing aircraft, I think there is a prohibition against Tac-Air from them. The were allowed to shoot rockets with WP or smoke to mark targets for fast movers, but couldn't shoot anything that would be tactically effective.

We good?
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
1,741 Posts
Thanks for that concise and specific information.

I enjoyed interacting with vets of all eras while at the VA. Anecdotes are fun, but they are , in the end, just recollections and stories.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top