HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Well at least black buck wasn't 100% fufile this time. Still going to be remembered as very much an army and navy show though.
When it comes out that HMS Eagle was out of action you can bet the RAF will claim flattening the airport was vital to help protect the fleet.

Not really true, but then the Army and RN will hardly be scrupulous about acknowledging the RAFs real contributions. Alls fair in War and PR.;)
 
Well done very very well do it proves that the U.K. can and will hit back no matter how or what with. I do hope that there are one or two Vulcan raids.

I have had the privilege of flying in Vulcan and Victor when attached to the RAF it was one hell of a beast a crying shame that we scraped then after all the B52 s keep plodding on.
 
A long time ago, I actually played around with a "what if" involving the Vulcan. Basically, the UK and France team up in the early 80s to build a new model of the Vulcan, to replace both the old one and the Mirage IV. Revamp the Olympus engine, new electronics, crew cut down to 3-4...
 
A long time ago, I actually played around with a "what if" involving the Vulcan. Basically, the UK and France team up in the early 80s to build a new model of the Vulcan, to replace both the old one and the Mirage IV. Revamp the Olympus engine, new electronics, crew cut down to 3-4...
Vulcan was obsolete in 1982 - the introduction of look down shoot down radar on then modern interceptors had repeatidly shown that a bomber of this size even when performing great feats of airmanship such as 'flying through the grand canyon' and increadible low level flying during red flag (and other) training exercises was routinely intercepted in a near peer environment.

Great plane and that primeval roar it makes is something else - but it was too large - only an aircraft like the B2 Spirit could replace it and each one of those cost about as much as a space shuttle!
 
A long time ago, I actually played around with a "what if" involving the Vulcan. Basically, the UK and France team up in the early 80s to build a new model of the Vulcan, to replace both the old one and the Mirage IV. Revamp the Olympus engine, new electronics, crew cut down to 3-4...
The only reason the B-52 is still around is because it's cheaper than dirt to operate. The newest airframe in the fleet is 57 years old. It's kept around as a missle and bomb truck for low threat environments. It's hours long loiter time is also useful. None of that would apply to a new build Vulcan. Or even to an original one (other than the age).
 
Vulcan was obsolete in 1982 - the introduction of look down shoot down radar on then modern interceptors had repeatidly shown that a bomber of this size even when performing great feats of airmanship such as 'flying through the grand canyon' and increadible low level flying during red flag (and other) training exercises was routinely intercepted in a near peer environment.

Great plane and that primeval roar it makes is something else - but it was too large - only an aircraft like the B2 Spirit could replace it and each one of those cost about as much as a space shuttle!
The only reason the B-52 is still around is because it's cheaper than dirt to operate. The newest airframe in the fleet is 57 years old. It's kept around as a missle and bomb truck for low threat environments. It's hours long loiter time is also useful. None of that would apply to a new build Vulcan. Or even to an original one (other than the age).
I know all that, but wth, a guy can dream... :)
 
The only reason the B-52 is still around is because it's cheaper than dirt to operate.
Just think how cheap they would be if they’d been re-engined back in the eighties. Or the nineties. Keeping the cutting edge of fifties turbofan technology running and fed with fuel has to cost a bit.
 
Just think how cheap they would be if they’d been re-engined back in the eighties. Or the nineties. Keeping the cutting edge of fifties turbofan technology running and fed with fuel has to cost a bit.
I still think they should reengine them. They could replace the TF-33s with four CFM-56 engines and get dramatically reduced fuel burn. Sadly, that won't happen. As of December 2017, the AF wants to stick with the eight engine configuration to reduce the amount of work required to fit the new engines.
 
They could replace the TF-33s with four CFM-56
If replacing the engines why not go for a truly modern design?
For example CFM's own LEAP engine or the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G

The CFM-56 is basically 1970's technology and though it was used in several military variants of the Boeing 707 from 1980 onwards, is that enough reason to go that retro?
 
If replacing the engines why not go for a truly modern design?
For example CFM's own LEAP engine or the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G

The CFM-56 is basically 1970's technology and though it was used in several military variants of the Boeing 707 from 1980 onwards, is that enough reason to go that retro?
Yes. The CFM-56 will be in service commercially for decades to come, the engine is still being built, it's cheap, and the Navy and Air Force operate a large number of engines making maintenance and spares realitively cheap. Even the Navy's new P-8 uses the -56 over the LEAP engine. Using the LEAP1A on the B-52 would make the engine an orphan in the Air Force's fleet. Plus it's more expensive than the CFM-56.
 
If replacing the engines why not go for a truly modern design?
For example CFM's own LEAP engine or the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G
They’d still be discussing it in 2030 with the BUFFS still leaving big black smoke trails. Just get anything in there designed in the computer age, even if that computer was a PDP-11.
 
I still think they should reengine them. They could replace the TF-33s with four CFM-56 engines and get dramatically reduced fuel burn. Sadly, that won't happen. As of December 2017, the AF wants to stick with the eight engine configuration to reduce the amount of work required to fit the new engines.
Probably they can't be bothered as the 52's stay in service because they still work and are cheap but as an utterly obsolete technology (the heavy bomber) there is no push to do more than the absolute minimum to keep the birds flying. They will have no direct replacement (both future bomber designs are meant to replace the b-2 not the 52) so why spend money when they will work till about 2040 anyway and you need your money for all that currently being built pork congress keeps demanding.
They’d still be discussing it in 2030 with the BUFFS still leaving big black smoke trails. Just get anything in there designed in the computer age, even if that computer was a PDP-11.
Since they don't hang around anyone able to shoot them down I doubt the US cares, if anything being able to see them coming might be seen as a plus since it makes the insurgent brown his pants before he gets blown up.
I'm pretty sure this will butterfly the F-35 as we know it.
Hard to say, the US may still move to something like the Wasp class that needs STVOL aircraft and if the UK does build a new fleet carrier there will be even less incentive to upgrade the Harrier's further. That said hopefully as a lower priority aircraft (as half the world isn't rushing for Harrier's after the Falklands) it might end up a bit cheaper and perhaps based on better tech. That said its US pork so even if the UK and other European powers have run a joint carrier project and are all flying F-18's and Rafale's it will probably still end up being built.
 
Probably they can't be bothered as the 52's stay in service because they still work and are cheap.
...
Since they don't hang around anyone able to shoot them down I doubt the US cares, if anything being able to see them coming might be seen as a plus since it makes the insurgent brown his pants before he gets blown up.
What part of this are you not getting? A major part of the cost of keeping the B-52 fleet online is the comical fuel consumption and the man-hours of servicing eight ancient engines per bird. Any effects on the platform itself are a side benefit.
 
Top