M14 Forum banner
21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Custom service rifle builder
Joined
·
8,668 Posts
Back when I was packing drag chutes for B52's and other aircraft at Biggs AFB in El Paso (1962 to 1965), it always amazed me how an airplane that sat wrinkled and dripping on the ramp could lumber into the air and everything would smooth out nicely. Damn 200 pound drag chutes were a pain... We never dreamed they would last this long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Much to discuss here.....
The airframes are still the airframes. Really, the only thing that has been changed in the H models over the years is the avionics. In fact, this re-engining will be one of the first major upgrades that is not on the electronics side of the house.
From simply the H model, this is true.
But from B thru G, this is not. Wing rake, incidence, and a little things like root fairings have all been changed along the way. Not to mention the huge tail rebuild early on. That's probably not what you were saying, though.
The thing is when the B52 was designed there was no such thing as stress modeling and stress optimization. So, some aircraft were massively over-designed and had fatigue lives well in excess of initially calculated (the B-52 and KC-135), and some had fatigue lives that were not extendable (C-141s an A-6).
The thing is, this is not entirely correct.
While FEM and the resultant FEA did not exist until the 60s, that has little to nothing to do with the design - which, BTW, has been well analyzed many times since.
The airframe was designed without quite so much oversight by government or shavetail kids as we have today. Please humor me.
Management looked for the most experienced Engineers, not the ones that would work Saturdays for free.
(Yes, I've been down this road many times before - having nearly this same discussion, though you don't sound quite as Junior as most.)
The newest and coolest tools have been found errant more than once on several big projects. 737 Tail comes to mind. There was a time we understood the difference. Thanks to corporate management structure - all planes are built by corporations - we no longer understand these differences.
As opposed to being calculated in NASTRAN et. al. in a virtual environment, the thousands of B-52 parts were analyzed by formula then pulled and stretched in a real environment with large met-lab machines. This work is being done to this day doing exactly those kinds of yank tests to B-52 structure continually since day one. It's possible we know more about B-52 fatigue than any other flying vehicle after testing it for over 50 straight years.
Computers are only JUST NOW bringing that kind of certainty to the table after many years of added uncertainly margins in the low-level code. Lawyers, you know. They're lurking around every corner.
The code we finally have in the last 5 years with the element resolutions available to be processed are pretty darned impressive. They're carrying enough data finally to put together really nice conclusions - after the users get enough training. So the corner has been turned, just not back when we thought we had.
....so more invasive and expensive repairs are required such as new wings and other rebuilds of aircraft structure. These are expensive, almost as expensive as building a new airframe.
As it isn't public knowledge, you may not be aware that the Boeing design crew in OKC adjacent to Tinker have been busily redesigning the entire wing box. This won't be just a re-engine with new controls like the journalists report.
What you may also have overlooked is that NO ONE ever cares if something is "too expensive" when it comes to a front line bomber. "Too expensive" is a common, pedestrian, acceptable excuse for "insufficient political clout" to rise above other companies more enthusiastic about winning available monies. No one likes the real explanation, so expense is tossed around.
This BUFF re-engine contract has been in the works since 1981 that I know of and likely before that.

There are other aircraft that are capable of performing the A-10's mission, in fact, there is nothing a A-10 can do that an F/A-18E, AV-8B, or an F-35 can't do as well...
The A-10 had comprehensive "austere environment" requirements that, to my knowledge, the F18,35, or ANY F-series, new or old, is completely incapable of.
"Austere" as in takeoff and land from a gravel road with potholes. Seen an F35 do that? And that's not including uphill, downhill, and tree obstruction operational requirements. I don't recall seeing an F18 take off from an uphill slanted dirt road.
The publicity people didn't just brag about the tough conditions, those were Pentagon requirements they turned into talking points. But hey, they met them, anyway.
They had req's like do a complete turnaround with only 3(?) ground crew. Seen an AV8 do that? They can't fuel these things without 5 people or more, let alone reload ordnance, service fluids, and feed the pilot. Full turnaround.
Now sure, in fairness, they usually don't, but they can if need be.


3) Survivability. The A-10 is more likely to become damaged due to enemy ground fire that other faster aircraft. Yes the design is very robust and can absorb hits without falling out of the sky, but honestly, what good is it if you have to spend three weeks repairing and airplane after every sortie?
This is a long-standing debate, you're right.
IMO, it's the difference between "survivability" and "operational spec" and it's twofold.
An A-10 pilot will fly into crap no fighter would ever consider. Not just speed, but because those jocks simply don't do such things and you can't make them. The "titanium bathtub" he knows will protect him so he takes on MORE fire than any sane human would willingly encounter and he loves it.
And he survives quite well. Survivability is way up there. In fact, shot-for-shot, projectile-for-projectile, it's far higher suvivability than any fighter which has a very low ballistic tolerance. The fighter is simply a harder target for kinetic weapons to hit.
BUT, bringing the aircraft back to full operational spec is a long chore, you're right. It could go out on a bunch more sorties as-is (and they sometimes do) and each one becomes survivable with no less trouble. But then when someone has to sign off on the next mission, they balk at all the flak damage and won't sign off until it's fixed. Yup. 3 weeks downtime. The plane could fly and do just fine, but nope, it's not up to spec. It's the 'unintended consequences' of the high survivability aspect of the design.

Anyway, unlike the days of when the BUFF was designed and deployed, there are countless new links in the chain with many more agendas than ever before. If the B-52 did not already exist, there's no way we could build it today. Oh, we have possibly the Engineering talent and fabrication processes, but it would NEVER make it through the countless meetings and committees these days. I know these things because I've sat in these meetings. And what would remain would look and act more like an obese 747 than a B-52.
We saw this happen in spades on the V-22 tiltrotor that weighs roughly twice what it could ever dream of weighing - until the Pentagon 'oversight' people got into it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
you left out the billion dollar bomber , and you are correct rewing and repower design and mission upgrade talk started in 70s was scuttled by carter , and revived under Reagan part of starwars program ,one was outfitted with a high energy laser
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
DELETED, ROE #1, There will be no use of the "F" word in any form; in titles or bodies or pictures in any threads on this Gun Board.
Back in the Early 80s I saw in the more than one of them with the wrinkles in the skin of the skin on the fuselage. These were SAC Birds on Alert.
Their was a project going on to place new wings on the BUFFs sometime during that time along with other upgrades and getting rid of the Tail Guns/ Gunner.
I never saw any mention of replacing the metal on the fuselage.
I know they went to the G Models to carry the ALCMs.

The USAF NEVER wanted the A-10. It was forced on them by Congress. The US Army cannot fly them because they are fixed wing jets. This goes back to a very old agreement when the USAF came to being or roughly around that time.

The US Navy and the Marine Corps cannot fly them because they will not fit on a carrier.

As for other aircraft replacing the HAWG... Currently the USAF is planning to use the F-35 to replace the role THE HAWG. This is clearly not going to work because the F-35 would lose it's Stealth capability because it would have to be in "BEAST MODE".

An A-10 Turn around THREE TIMES on a football field END ZONE TO END ZONE. The Hawg can survive up to 75% Battle Damage and still safely bring It's Driver home.
The price of ONE F-35 and It's Pilot Home being placed in such a Hostile Environment could never do!.

The USAF IS NOT about to get rid of the F-15! The older models of the F-15 I THINK the C Model is Metal Fatigue and G-Stress.
I know of one F-15 lost a complete wing in maneuvers and somehow the pilot managed to safely land the Bird. I don't know how many have lost
 

·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,829 Posts
Do you have a reference or photo on that? I've never seen 5" HVARs on any US Army "spotter plane" in Southeast Asia.
I think you maybe confusing the 2.75" Mk 66 FFAR (Hydra 70) for the 5" Zuni rocket.

The Air Force, Marines, and Army did use the O-1 Bird Dog with WP rockets for target marking. Use of more energetic warheads would have been possible, but the limited number carried (eight for an O-1 or 14 for an O-2) would have been pointless, better to just mark the target and let a fast mover drop a 750 pound can of napalm, or two, on the smoke and be done with it.

Putting a few Zunis on one of these little bird would have been a problem, they weigh 3 times as much as a 2.75" rocket.



OV-10s could carry the Zuni pods, but Navy and Marine OV-10s were actually assigned to Light Attack Squadrons during Vietnam. The USAF did use the OV-10 as a FACs.

The Army's only "big" observation aircraft was the OV-1 Mohawk, which did have a Caliber .50 external gun pod, and could carry the 19-tube 2.75" rocket pod. You should read up on Capt. Ken Lee, USA . . .


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?
A few things:

- On D-Day, level bombings missed all the intended targets because somebody on the ground side requested all level bombers (B-17s, B24s and B-26s) delay weapon release for 30 seconds, to ensure they did not drop bombs on friendly troops on the beach. They failed to realize that a B-17 lumbering along at just under 200 mph still goes 1-3/4 miles in 30 seconds, the B-26s with their higher cruise speed dropped their bombs about 4-1/2 miles inland.

- It's a 25mm gun pod, and it is only fitted to the Navy and Marine variants, the USAF has an internal 25mm cannon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
I think you maybe confusing the 2.75" Mk 66 FFAR (Hydra 70) for the 5" Zuni rocket.
I didn't confuse them, whoever posted the Army used 5" rockets on their aircraft did.

I've seen only two or three pics of 5" HVARs being using in Vietnam. One on a USAF A-1 and one or two on USN A-1s. Very rare weapon in that war, apparently.
 

·
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.
 
21 - 31 of 31 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