[2008M36MT]

That there appears to be an E-2D upgraded with the NP2000 propeller system. Thumbs up for efficient operation.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 2008M36MT

That there appears to be an E-2D upgraded with the NP2000 propeller system. Thumbs up for efficient operation.

I believe the few remaining E-2Cs and all the E-2Ds are using the NP2000 props. I've not heard of any performance increases; the stated purpose is increased reliability.

[2008M36MT]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I believe the few remaining E-2Cs and all the E-2Ds are using the NP2000 props. I've not heard of any performance increases; the stated purpose is increased reliability.

It’s a host of things, more reliability, better performance (thrust), modular design, electronic components.

[Lady Jane]

Your guess is just as good as mine. (!)

[Jbrown7403]

Upper deck 747 Quantas 1971…

[Dang3r]

Full moon is going to leave...

[Dang3r]

The stealth plane

[Llarry]

Electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft are a somewhat murky subject; countries often don't advertise such capabilities.

The beginnings of ECM go back to relatively early in WW2, during the Battle of Britain that pitted the British against the German bombers of the Luftwaffe. It was sometimes called the "wizard war" as it used invisible radio/radar waves rather than traditional weapons. Well into the war the Royal Air Force's No 100 Group was organized with a variety of aircraft. Some were bombers that carried ECM equipment instead of bombs and accompanied bomber formations to jam German radars. Others, later in the war, were twin-engine Mosquitos that hunted German night fighters attempting to intercept RAF night bombers. Of course, every British move spurred a German countermove, so there was constant improvement on both sides.

Late in the war, the U.S. Navy also equipped the ubiquitous TBM Avenger torpedo bomber with minimal jamming gear to counter Japanese radars. A few ECM Avengers served post-war as the TBM-3Q. They were replaced late in the 1940s with the AD (later A-1) Skyraider ECM versions. The definitive model was the AD-5Q and this served until the 1970s.

Grumman developed a jet-powered ECM version of the A-6 Intruder carrier attack bomber and that was fielded in the early 1970s. The EA-6B Prowler was initially unarmed, carrying jamming pods on wing pylons; later in the Prowler's career, a radar-homing missile, the HARM, could also be carried. (Marine EA-6B pictured.)

The U.S. Air Force sought its own ECM aircraft and Grumman adapted the EA-6B systems to the General Dynamics F-111; the resulting EF-111A Raven did not need pods; the jamming equipment was internal. Budget cuts, however, resulted in retirement of the EF-111A, leaving the Air Force dependent on Navy ECM support.

Germany developed a capable ECM aircraft in the form of the Panavia Tornado ECR and these still serve today.

The Navy's EA-6B was replaced by the EA-18G Growler (derived from the F/A-18F Super Hornet) shortly after the turn of the century. While the Marines had operated the EA-6B, they elected to divest their ECM capability and retired their Prowlers without replacement. The pictured EA-18G has three jamming pods, two underwing fuel tanks and air-to-air missiles for self-protection.

The U.S. Air Force was not ECM-less after the retirement of the EF-111A; they had a small number of very capable jammers based on the C-130 Hercules: The EC-130H Compass Call. The EC-130H is presently on the verge of retirement and replacement by a new-generation Compass Call airplane: The EC-37B, which is substantially the same basic airplane as the Israeli Gulfstream G550-based AEW aircraft. The pictured EC-37B has not yet been painted.

Other nations also have ECM aircraft. The Russian Su-34 is a bit like the EA-18G, though larger. The Chinese have a number of transports modified for ECM duty, including both Y-8 and Y-9 (pictured) variants.

It's also worth mentioning that virtually all first-line combat aircraft have self-protective ECM equipment. These dedicated ECM aircraft provide extra protection in a threat environment.

[Lady Jane]

The Bristol Brabazon with eight engines buried in the wings.

https://www.historynet.com/bristol-brabazon/?f
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon

Rendering.

[Dino GT]

🛫

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Jbrown7403

Upper deck 747 Quantas 1971…

There are upper deckers and upper deckers.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft are a somewhat murky subject; countries often don't advertise such capabilities.

The beginnings of ECM go back to relatively early in WW2, during the Battle of Britain that pitted the British against the German bombers of the Luftwaffe. It was sometimes called the "wizard war" as it used invisible radio/radar waves rather than traditional weapons. Well into the war the Royal Air Force's No 100 Group was organized with a variety of aircraft. Some were bombers that carried ECM equipment instead of bombs and accompanied bomber formations to jam German radars. Others, later in the war, were twin-engine Mosquitos that hunted German night fighters attempting to intercept RAF night bombers. Of course, every British move spurred a German countermove, so there was constant improvement on both sides.

Late in the war, the U.S. Navy also equipped the ubiquitous TBM Avenger torpedo bomber with minimal jamming gear to counter Japanese radars. A few ECM Avengers served post-war as the TBM-3Q. They were replaced late in the 1940s with the AD (later A-1) Skyraider ECM versions. The definitive model was the AD-5Q and this served until the 1970s.

Grumman developed a jet-powered ECM version of the A-6 Intruder carrier attack bomber and that was fielded in the early 1970s. The EA-6B Prowler was initially unarmed, carrying jamming pods on wing pylons; later in the Prowler's career, a radar-homing missile, the HARM, could also be carried. (Marine EA-6B pictured.)

The U.S. Air Force sought its own ECM aircraft and Grumman adapted the EA-6B systems to the General Dynamics F-111; the resulting EF-111A Raven did not need pods; the jamming equipment was internal. Budget cuts, however, resulted in retirement of the EF-111A, leaving the Air Force dependent on Navy ECM support.

Germany developed a capable ECM aircraft in the form of the Panavia Tornado ECR and these still serve today.

The Navy's EA-6B was replaced by the EA-18G Growler (derived from the F/A-18F Super Hornet) shortly after the turn of the century. While the Marines had operated the EA-6B, they elected to divest their ECM capability and retired their Prowlers without replacement. The pictured EA-18G has three jamming pods, two underwing fuel tanks and air-to-air missiles for self-protection.

The U.S. Air Force was not ECM-less after the retirement of the EF-111A; they had a small number of very capable jammers based on the C-130 Hercules: The EC-130H Compass Call. The EC-130H is presently on the verge of retirement and replacement by a new-generation Compass Call airplane: The EC-37B, which is substantially the same basic airplane as the Israeli Gulfstream G550-based AEW aircraft. The pictured EC-37B has not yet been painted.

Other nations also have ECM aircraft. The Russian Su-34 is a bit like the EA-18G, though larger. The Chinese have a number of transports modified for ECM duty, including both Y-8 and Y-9 (pictured) variants.

It's also worth mentioning that virtually all first-line combat aircraft have self-protective ECM equipment. These dedicated ECM aircraft provide extra protection in a threat environment.

I always wished I was old enough to train to fly the Wild Weasels in the Viet Nam conflict. I think that would be a gas! I know their life expectancy was probably in days, but what a rush.

[JJ 911SC]

Bye Bye 'Big Sexy'...

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

Bye Bye 'Big Sexy'...

Story here: https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ig-sexy-plane/

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

Bye Bye 'Big Sexy'...

The Gucci boys loved these birds and it was such a shame the USAF did not convert a few more airfames. The were a great way to get a lift. Space A or as an ACM trying to get somewhere. So much better than Barney or in my early days of taking the flying Lizard aka C141B.

[flybigjet]

re: the KC-10. It's being replaced by a terrible, terrible replacement. It's a long story, but the CINC of AMC was so appalled, she tried to get it killed. Basically, Boeing shoved an antiquated 767 down the AF's throat because they didn't want to lose slots on the Triple production line.

And the REAL insult? The KC-46 carries about half the payload of a KC-10 (gas or cargo) at well over double/triple the cost.

Here's a quote from a recent article: “The KC-10 can carry 170,000 pounds of cargo and 356,000 pounds of fuel with a maximum takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds, compared with 212,299 pounds of fuel and 65,000 pounds of cargo for the KC-46."

Got to love the Government in action.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air...g-9008591.html

R

[minn19]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

re: the KC-10. It's being replaced by a terrible, terrible replacement. It's a long story, but the CINC of AMC was so appalled, she tried to get it killed. Basically, Boeing shoved an antiquated 767 down the AF's throat because they didn't want to lose slots on the Triple production line.

And the REAL insult? The KC-46 carries about half the payload of a KC-10 (gas or cargo) at well over double/triple the cost.

Here's a quote from a recent article: “The KC-10 can carry 170,000 pounds of cargo and 356,000 pounds of fuel with a maximum takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds, compared with 212,299 pounds of fuel and 65,000 pounds of cargo for the KC-46."

Got to love the Government in action.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air...g-9008591.html

R

I use to follow this shady deal for an extremely sub par aircraft and had to force myself to stop reading about it. Textbook case of everything wrong with defense procurement in the US right now. Boeing was the national gem for decades and now it’s a shell of its former self.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

re: the KC-10. It's being replaced by a terrible, terrible replacement. It's a long story, but the CINC of AMC was so appalled, she tried to get it killed. Basically, Boeing shoved an antiquated 767 down the AF's throat because they didn't want to lose slots on the Triple production line.

And the REAL insult? The KC-46 carries about half the payload of a KC-10 (gas or cargo) at well over double/triple the cost.

Here's a quote from a recent article: “The KC-10 can carry 170,000 pounds of cargo and 356,000 pounds of fuel with a maximum takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds, compared with 212,299 pounds of fuel and 65,000 pounds of cargo for the KC-46."

Got to love the Government in action.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air...g-9008591.html

R

Didn't Boeing acquire MD? Is there any material support for the DC10? I really don't know, just asking.

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Didn't Boeing acquire MD? Is there any material support for the DC10? I really don't know, just asking.

The DC10 is expensive to use, like every older tanker and I'm not entirely sure about structural limits which can't be fixed at reaching. But I agree that the DC10 is by far one of the sexiest refueling stations midair.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Dang3r

The DC10 is expensive to use, like every older tanker and I'm not entirely sure about structural limits which can't be fixed at reaching. But I agree that the DC10 is by far one of the sexiest refueling stations midair.

The "Death Cruiser" (yes, that's what we *really* called DC-10's) is brand-spanking new compared to the KC-135's that are still flying.

And the KC-46? MASSIVE cost overruns, an aerial refueling system that doesn't work (no Boom Pod anymore-- the Boomer sits sideways and does it "virtually" from the front) and that Boeing says will take *years* to fix, unable to carry cargo (issues w/ the 463L pallet system), being delivered with junk like..... (wait for it) **ladders** in the fuel tanks, it having so many critical failures that the jet's been repeatedly grounded, and overall? It's a refueler that can't pass gas OR carry cargo-- it was even banned from carrying cargo for a while.

One of my FO's son's was assigned to it a few years ago-- all they were allowed to do was fly around the pattern.

Here's the dirty little secret: In 2006, Boeing and Airbus had a fly-off between a 767 tanker and an A-330 tanker. Airbus blew their doors off in pretty much every single capability-- mostly because they were proffering something the size of the 777 while Boeing was using an airframe literally no longer wanted by anyone in the civilian market. Boeing didn't use the 777 because at the time, all production slots were filled for years-- they were greedy and wanted to use a "dead" airframe to get income from both sides.

Boeing threw a temper tantrum and got Congress to "re-do" the fly-off..... by basically rewriting the competition rules so literally the only jet that could win was the KC-767/KC-46. In fact, a retired general (female one-button, iirc?) who went to work for Boeing after she retired actually went to jail over the whole thing.

Which is why we're stuck with this turd of a tanker.

Here's an article with a pretty good summary:

https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-vs-b...itary-tankers/

The graft and corruption are sickening.

R.

[garyfried]

Is it only me or do others think the Corsair is one of the better car names on the market.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

The "Death Cruiser" (yes, that's what we *really* called DC-10's) is brand-spanking new compared to the KC-135's that are still flying.

And the KC-46? MASSIVE cost overruns, an aerial refueling system that doesn't work (no Boom Pod anymore-- the Boomer sits sideways and does it "virtually" from the front) and that Boeing says will take *years* to fix, unable to carry cargo (issues w/ the 463L pallet system), being delivered with junk like..... (wait for it) **ladders** in the fuel tanks, it having so many critical failures that the jet's been repeatedly grounded, and overall? It's a refueler that can't pass pass OR carry cargo-- it was even banned from carrying cargo for a while.

One of my FO's son's was assigned to it a few years ago-- all they were allowed to do was fly around the pattern.

Here's the dirty little secret: In 2006, Boeing and Airbus had a fly-off between a 767 tanker and an A-330 tanker. Airbus blew their doors off in pretty much every single capability-- mostly because they were proffering something the size of the 777 while Boeing was using an airframe literally no longer wanted by anyone in the civilian market. Boeing didn't use the 777 because at the time, all production slots were filled for years-- they were greedy and wanted to use a "dead" airframe to get income from both sides.

Boeing threw a temper tantrum and got Congress to "re-do" the fly-off..... by basically rewriting the competition rules so literally the only jet that could win was the KC-767/KC-46. In fact, a retired general (female one-button, iirc?) who went to work for Boeing after she retired actually went to jail over the whole thing.

Which is why we're stuck with this turd of a tanker.

Here's an article with a pretty good summary:

https://mentourpilot.com/airbus-vs-b...itary-tankers/

The graft and corruption are sickening.

R.

This sounds reminiscent of the B-737 Max. I think Boeing went too far with this airframe to the point they had to use software tricks to make it
fly like the original 737. Event the undercarriage is looking inadequate for such a stretch.

Boeing should've designed a new replacement airframe instead.