Obama says kill the new bomber and delay the tanker

[LR25]

The P-7 was a Lockheed super P-3 with engine and props like the C-130J; it was killed by then Sec of Def Dick Cheney. The 737 P-3 substitute is the P-8. Notice I said substitute, because nothing will ever replace the P-3.

I meant to say P-8.

And the kicker of the whole thing is that they could have jigged up the P-3 and were ready to go with it back in like 1999/2000.

I dont know about loitering with just one motor running.

Side note: The S-3 was just retired last month. The last 2 squadrons were at NAS JAX.

 

[pilotyip]

Low level not part of the mission

I meant to say P-8.

And the kicker of the whole thing is that they could have jigged up the P-3 and were ready to go with it back in like 1999/2000.

I dont know about loitering with just one motor running.

Side note: The S-3 was just retired last month. The last 2 squadrons were at NAS JAX.

From what I have read the P-8 will stay at altitude. If low level looks are needed it will command a RPV to go down and take a look.

 

[Singlecoil]

I like flyf15's idea. How much of the heavy lift the military needs is just freight and pax anyway? In the first Gulf war it took what, 9 months of airlift? 747-400F's can certainly complete that mission more efficiently than the C-141's did then or the C-17's would now. You would definitely need some C-17 to operate in hostile conditions and on unimproved strips, but the bulk of the way our military operates is just getting tons and tons of stuff to the theater. A couple hundred 747-400F's would do that quite nicely.
It seems like a 747 could loiter over a battlefield and drop JDAMS on request as well. If they can turn one into a Dreamlifter, they can put a bomb bay door on the thing.

 

[dtfl]

Yes but we can buy what, 300 AC-12's of the cost of 1 B-1? Think of all the rated billets that opens up.

AC-12? What sort of weapons system could you fit on a C-12. And I assume you mean King Air not Pilatus?

 

[pilotyip]

C-12

AC-12? What sort of weapons system could you fit on a C-12. And I assume you mean King Air not Pilatus?

Yes reffering to the KA-350, known as the C-12, I put the A there as a mission add-on. I think they are going to call it a MC-12. Supposed to hang GDAM;s on it and have loiter around the battlefield

 

[AirCobra]

Originally Posted by singlecoil

I like flyf15's idea. How much of the heavy lift the military needs is just freight and pax anyway? In the first Gulf war it took what, 9 months of airlift? 747-400F's can certainly complete that mission more efficiently than the C-141's did then or the C-17's would now. You would definitely need some C-17 to operate in hostile conditions and on unimproved strips, but the bulk of the way our military operates is just getting tons and tons of stuff to the theater. A couple hundred 747-400F's would do that quite nicely.
It seems like a 747 could loiter over a battlefield and drop JDAMS on request as well. If they can turn one into a Dreamlifter, they can put a bomb bay door on the thing.


One problem with your idea. The 747 or 767 has no vehicle drive in capability. You would need dozens more K-Loaders to get all those vehicles 15 feet up into the cargo opening of a 747 or 767. K-Loaders are also limited to 25,000 lbs, so for something as large as a Chinook you would need yet another another type of lift vehicle. To top it off you would need all those vehicles not only at home base to load, but in theatre to do the unloading.

 

[JungleJett]

Originally Posted by singlecoil

I like flyf15's idea. How much of the heavy lift the military needs is just freight and pax anyway? In the first Gulf war it took what, 9 months of airlift? 747-400F's can certainly complete that mission more efficiently than the C-141's did then or the C-17's would now. You would definitely need some C-17 to operate in hostile conditions and on unimproved strips, but the bulk of the way our military operates is just getting tons and tons of stuff to the theater. A couple hundred 747-400F's would do that quite nicely.
It seems like a 747 could loiter over a battlefield and drop JDAMS on request as well. If they can turn one into a Dreamlifter, they can put a bomb bay door on the thing.


One problem with your idea. The 747 or 767 has no vehicle drive in capability. You would need dozens more K-Loaders to get all those vehicles 15 feet up into the cargo opening of a 747 or 767. K-Loaders are also limited to 25,000 lbs, so for something as large as a Chinook you would need yet another another type of lift vehicle. To top it off you would need all those vehicles not only at home base to load, but in theatre to do the unloading.

Not all K-loaders are limited to 25K.

 

[Mud Eagle]

K-Loaders are also limited to 25,000 lbs

Hmmm. I wonder why they call this thing a 60K loader then.

 

[AirCobra]

Hmmm. I wonder why they call this thing a 60K loader then.

The typical K-Loader is limited to 25,000 lbs. I said in my post that you would need a different vehicle. So okay you need more large K Loaders. You still have to get the cargo 10 or 15 feet up to get it into the nose of a 747 at both ends of your trip. C-17's C-5's, C-130's and Spartans all have drive on capability to reduce the amount of GSE needed to support operations. More K-Loaders would be more stuff you would have to ship and maintain.

What if the only 60,000 lbs K-Loader on base breaks with a Chinook waiting to be offloaded. Not only do you lose the Chinook, you lose the 747 until the K-Loader gets fixed.

 

[CrewDawg]

Heck the B-52 is a great plane, why don't we just reopen the assembly line and make more. While were at it, we can put a air refueling boom on and make it a refueler as well. We can also cut out one of the bomb bays and put in some pax seats. Finally, we'll put some guns out the side for some CAS. We will call it the AKCB-52UXRT!

I'm scared that one day I will wake up and find out one of our KC-135s crashed after a structural failure. Then there will be public outrage as to why we were allowing "our boys" to fly such an old aircraft.

Slight thread creep, I'm also afraid that it will take a U.S. soldier being killed by the enemy Air Force, for the Govt. to wake up and realize we need the F-22/F-35. There is a reason a U.S. soldier has not been killed by enemy airplanes in 50+ years....we plan for the next war, not the last.

Oh well, just keep doing more with less.

 

[SIG600]

Oh well, just keep doing more with less.

Until the minimum isn't good enough, then we'll raise it.

 

[AA717driver]

I think it's clear that the most imminent threat to this country is from our own politicians.

From the W.H. down to the mid-career, ladder-climbing denizens of the Pentagon (who only venture into the operational world long enough to punch their ticket...) to the halls of Boeing/LM/GD or whatever monolith the defense contractors have morphed into this week, this country is being ruined by 'special interested' politicians.

If the FB-111 works cheaply, pull it out of the desert. If the BUFF still works as a bomb truck or nuke cruise missile carrier, open up the line. Fu@k the suits at Boeing!

Too many people in the military-industrial complex (where have we heard THAT before?) have sucked billions out of our pockets on wasteful bureaucratic cluster-f#@ks with nothing to show for it.

I'm at the point where I'm going to discourage my son from entering the military because I'd go nuts if some politician got him killed for some bull$h!t reason.

Good luck to all you guys in the military out there!

TC

 

[dtfl]

Yes reffering to the KA-350, known as the C-12, I put the A there as a mission add-on. I think they are going to call it a MC-12. Supposed to hang GDAM;s on it and have loiter around the battlefield

AFAIK there are no plans to put weapons on a King Air. There are RC12s coming on the line...and there are Pilatus PC12s that have a mission designator.
The only smaller aircraft with weapons that AFSOC has announced (hence the M) are Preds and the C27s that I know of...if you don't count the gun pod on the CV22.

There is talk of an AT-6...just talk.

 

[Cobra17]

What about a C-12 outfitted with two Chuck Norris's? Would that be a violation of the Geneva convention?

 

[AA717driver]

What about a C-12 outfitted with two Chuck Norris's? Would that be a violation of the Geneva convention?

It wouldn't be a violation of the GC but, IMO, it just wouldn't be fair.


TC