Manston, while the Harrier (the original, now out of service with the UK) was an “all-British design… that was about 40 years ago.

The Harriers currently in service are the US (McDonnell-Douglas) re-design/upgrade of the Harrier (with the Brits as “major sub-contractor), and that is 28 years old!

I think the F118 is the only real candidate for B-52 re-engining.

There would be a small increase in thrust, since the TF33 in the B-52s is rated at 18,000 l.b.s.t., and the F118-100 (B-2A) and F118-101 (U-2S) are both rated at 19,000 l.b.s.t., but a decrease in engine weight, and little need for a pod/pylon re-design, as it is 2/3 as long, 6 inches smaller in diameter, and moves less air (but at faster velocities) while using less fuel!

TF33 length ~170″; diameter 53″; weight 4,000-4,600 lb; thrust 17,000-21,000*; SFC .52-.56; Airflow: ~400 lb/sec

F118 length ~110″; diameter 47″; weight 3,200 lb; thrust 19,000; SFC .375; Airflow: 287 lb/sec

This installation negates all the physics objections raised by any of the 4-engined proposals, and creates NO problems of its own (except cost).

The 6-engine plan proposed by Madrat is just silly… why on earth would you want to complicate operational, maintenance, and logistic concerns by having two different engine types on one aircraft?

*only the -7 in the C-141 produced over 18,000 l.b.s.t.

But, with thousands of used TF33s available and the type being still very reliable, the cost/benefit equation is poor for re-engining… other parts of the aircraft need attention more urgently.

Had it been done in the late 1980s, it would be another story… but at that time it was anticipated to retire the B-52 by ~2000.

Eagle had just finished a complete modernization from 1959-1964, with a complete refurbishment of her boilers & turbines, a rebuild/enlargement of her flight deck, and conversion of her aft lower hangar to workshops for the increasing amount of avionics on modern aircraft. This did technically reduce her max aircraft complement a little, but the increased maintenance capacity would have compensated… except in the eyes of ignorant political paper-shufflers.

In 1967 her angle-deck catapult was replaced with a longer one to “provisionally” equip her for Phantoms.

The only things needed to fully fit her for Phantom ops was to add water-cooled jet blast deflectors (the panels that raise up behind the catapult), upgrade the arresting gear, and add the support equipment for the Phantom’s equipment.

Ark needed far more work… basically everything that had just been done to Eagle and more, but I guess that when she went into the yards in 1967 that they were still hoping to be able to keep both, and to finish the relatively minor work on Eagle after Ark came out of her modernization. In the event, we all know what happened… it was just too much political meddling.

Had the politicos not been wanting to eliminate large carriers altogether, Vicky would have had her minor ward-room fire damage fixed, completed her refit, and stayed in service until Ark had finished a full modernization with the boiler/turbine work that was historically not done, and maybe even have covered Eagle’s minor Phantomization work, finally being retired in ~1973-74.

Hutton serious about JSF pull-out?

No,that’s just media-mangling (excuse me, interpreting) his statements in favor of their own agenda.

Read the full transcript of an interview with him here (note the comments about capable aircraft being the purpose for the aircraft carriers):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7680732.stm

JON SOPEL: Can I have a couple of specifics then, just to see where we are. The two new aircraft carriers. Are they going ahead to the same time schedule.

JOHN HUTTON: Yeah, well we, we, we want the carriers and we’ve, we’ve been clear about that for the last few years. They give the Royal Navy and therefore Britain a global reach. It gives us an important… (interjection)…

JON SOPEL: So is that a yes.

JOHN HUTTON: Yes, no, we, we will have the carriers yes.

JON SOPEL: And in the same time schedule.

JOHN HUTTON: Yeah, well we’re looking at every aspect of, of the carrier programme, looking at every aspect of the procurement programme, but we’re committed to the two carriers and we’re going to proceed with that, yes.

JON SOPEL: Joint strike… aircraft.

JOHN HUTTON: Well if you’re going to have carriers, you need aircraft to fly from them, otherwise there’s not a lot of point to it. So, we…

JON SOPEL: So that’s a yes as well, in the same time frame.

JOHN HUTTON: Well we, we need the aircraft carriers with capable aircraft on them and everything we’re going to do is designed to make sure that we get that twin capability, the carriers and the aircraft.

However, there is waffling about time-frames & schedules for both.

i.e. the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) / A-10 program was primarily designed, built and fielded due to U.S Army demands for a dedicated CAS/Anti-tank aircraft, or it threatened to field its own fixed wing aircraft (tested G.91, A-4 Skyhawk and Kestrel) and advanced rotary-wing attack aircraft (AH-56 Cheyenne)

Regards
Pioneer

Actually, you will find the A-4/G.91/N-156 (became F-5A) and Kestrel evaluations were from 1961-62*…
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa4_4.html

Two A4D-2Ns (BuNos 148490 and 148483) were modified in 1961 for evaluation by the US Army as a ground support aircraft. Each of these planes was fitted with a drag chute stored in a canister underneath the rear fuselage and was fitted with low-pressure twin-wheel main undercarriage members that retracted into enlarged fairings underneath the wings. The two A4D-2Ns were evaluated by the Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama in competition with the Northrop N-156 and the Fiat G.91R. However, it was decided that the Army would not be permitted to operate fixed-wing attack aircraft, leaving responsibility for close air support of ground troops to the Air Force, the Navy, or the Marine Corps. As a result, none of the competitors was ordered by the Army, and the two A4D-2Ns were then converted back to standard configuration and delivered to the Navy.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_1.html

While the Air Force still remained unconvinced of the usefulness of the N-156F, in early 1962, the first prototype was tested by the US Army as a possible candidate to meet an Army requirement for a fixed-wing close support aircraft. Other contenders for the Army contract were the Fiat G-91 and the Douglas A4D Skyhawk. The prototype was painted in Army markings for the tests. Although Army pilots were impressed with the N-156F, the Air Force was extremely jealous about the Army’s intrusion into what it perceived to be a strictly Air Force mission, and the Defense Department was pressured into not allowing the Army to acquire any fixed-wing close support aircraft, restricting that service to operating only helicopters for this role.

*the Kestrel evaluation was as part of a RAF/German AF/USAF/USN/US Army program, which started in 1961 but only received its first Kestrels in 1964… resulting in a 1965 decision by the US & Germany not to buy any. The USMC interest came later, after 6 Kestrels (redesignated XV-6A) were bought by the US as general test aircraft in 1966.

Thus, the US Army was forbidden in 1962-3 to “field its own fixed wing aircraft”, and had to turn to helicopters.

Its participation in the Kestrel program was in part an attempt to get it classified in the “helicopter” side and in part to influence the USAF to buy a dedicated CAS aircraft.

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/lok_cheyenne.php
The AH-56 Cheyenne was to fill a US Army Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS) competition initiated in 1963 (selected 1966, first flight 1968, cancelled 1972).

http://www.vectorsite.net/ava10_1.html

In mid-1966, the USAF began to put together an “Attack Experimental (AX)” program to develop a CAS aircraft that could do the job far better than the A-1 Skyraider. An initial request for proposals (RFP) was issued in March 1967.

After alteration of the specs from a COIN (counter-insurgency) mission to an “anti-armor” one, The Air Force issued a final RFP for the AX in May 1970.

While the two sets of AX prototypes were being built, the US Congress reviewed the program. The Army was also developing the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne heavy helicopter gunship — a program that would be eventually cancelled, though the modern Hughes AH-64 Apache would arise from its ashes — and the US Marines had acquired the British Harrier jump-jet as the McDonnell Douglas AV-8A for the close-support mission. Why, Congress asked with some good reason, did the military need a third close-support platform?

Much to their credit, despite their mixed feelings about the CAS mission, Air Force officials fought effectively for the AX, pointing out that the Cheyenne and the Harrier had their uses, but that neither machine was the close-up, long-endurance mudfighter that the ground-pounders demanded when they were under pressure from the black hats. Congress bought the argument, but stipulated that once a winner was selected from the AX competition, it would be put through an extended and rigorous evaluation of its combat value before being approved for production.

Thus, the only US Army competition was the AH-56, but the pressure was there.

As for the A-7D vs YA-10 “competition”, as was stated by others, it was Congress meddling one last time (again from the vectorsite article):

As per the instructions of Congress, the two YA-10As continued to perform trials through the rest of 1973 and into 1974, if at a less stressful pace than had taken place during the original competitive flyoff. Congress was still waffling on acquisition of the A-10, and the preproduction build was cut to six aircraft in mid-1973. Although some legislators wanted to axe the A-10 and concentrate on acquisition of the A-7D, the Air Force pushed back, and in September 1973 Congress gave provisional approval for the continuation of the A-10 program, as long as second fly-off competition was conducted between a YA-10A and an A-7D.

The contest duly took place at Fort Riley, Kansas, in April and May 1974, and proved what the Air Force basically already knew: the SLUF might be much better for strikes into the enemy’s rear, but the YA-10A was much better for getting down in the dirt with the grunts. In one particularly devastating test, the YA-10A flew to a remote field location and loitered on station for two hours; the A-7D was only able to hang around for seven minutes. In July 1974, the green light was given for construction of 52 more A-10s, including the four preproduction aircraft that had been dropped the a year before and the 48 options specified in the original contract.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p6.html

The P-6 Hawk series resulted from the installation of the new 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine in what were essentially P-1C airframes. The variant which is best remembered today is the P-6E, which IMHO was one of the best-looking biplane fighters ever manufactured.

The Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror engine was a evolutionary descendent of the Curtiss D-12 which powered the P-1 Hawk. The direct ancestor of the Conqueror was the unsuccessful Curtiss V-1400 engine which powered the P-2.

The first aircraft to carry the P-6 designation was the fourth P-2(Ser No 25-423), modified to race for the Army in the National Air Races of 1927. It was the first Hawk to be fitted with the new Curtiss V-1570 engine which later became known as Conqueror. Because of the use of the new Conqueror engine, the Army gave the airplane a new designation–XP-6. Stripped of military equipment, it placed second in the unlimited event of the 1927 National Air Races.

For its principal entry in the 1927 National Air Races, the Army ordered that extensive modifications be made to a stock P-1A (Ser No 26-295). It was fitted with a V-1570-1 Conqueror engine and was equipped with a set of PW-8A-type un-tapered wings complete with the skin-mounted radiators. It bore the company designation of Model 34Q. The Army redesignated this aircraft XP-6A No 1 because of its use of the Conqueror engine. It took first place in the 1927 race at a speed of 201 mph. However, the XP-6A crashed during preparations for the 1928 National Air Races.

The success of the Curtiss Conqueror engine in these two racing aircraft led to an Army contract for a service test quantity of 18 P- 6s placed on October 3, 1928. These aircraft were assigned the serial numbers 29-260/273 and 29-363/366. These aircraft were given the company designation Model 34P. The Y-for-service-test designation had just been adopted at this time, but it does not appear to have actually been applied to these planes, although they are sometimes recorded as YP-6s.

One of the innovative features of the new Conqueror-powered P-6 was in its cooling system. The water coolant of the earlier P-1 series was to be replaced by Prestone, a trade name for an ethylene glycol (HOCH2CH2OH) mixture. Prestone was a product of the Union Carbide corporation, and had an advantage of having a very high boiling point and a very low freezing point. By using Prestone instead of water, Curtiss was able to reduce the surface area of its radiators by one third. In addition, since less coolant was needed, the use of Prestone rather than water resulted in the savings of about 50 pounds of weight.

However, since the new Prestone-cooled Conqueror engines were not yet ready, aircraft 39-269/273 and 39-363/366 were delivered in October 1929 with water-cooled V-1570-17 engines as P-6s, so that they could be gotten into service as rapidly as possible. The rest of the aircraft in the order were completed later as P-6As once the Prestone-cooled V-1570-23 Conqueror engines were finally ready.

http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AnnalsofFlight/text/SAOF-0007.txt

pg 78:

Finally, at the end of the decade, a belated attempt was undertaken to challenge the air-cooled engine’s position by a new approach toward a still smaller frontal area, coupled to a much-reduced weight of both coolant and radiator by the introduction of high-temperature cooling.
Research on this “hot” cooling can be traced back to McCook Field as early as 1923. The coolant adopted was ethylene-glycol, in America known under the trade name Prestone*. Several Curtiss D-12 and Conqueror engines were converted to Prestone cooling during 1928 and 1929 and submitted to extensive tests, both at the Wright Field laboratory and, later, in the air.

One Curtiss P-1B Hawk was used with a radiator, the size of which had been reduced by 70 percent, and a P-1C Hawk was fitted with wing radiators. During the Cleveland aeronautical races of 1929, Lieutenant Doolittle put one of these fighters through its paces with an unforeseen result. The reduction in radiator size increased the diving speed to such an extent that the plane shed its wings when accelerating during an outside loop and Doolittle had to take to his parachute.

The engineering division at McCook Field had specified a coolant temperature in the radiator of 300° F. As a consequence, the cylinder-head temperature of the D-12 rose from 378° to 508° F and that of the barrel from 187° to 209° F. The aluminum block-cum-steel-barrel construction could not adapt to these temperature rises and the glycol began to seep into the crankcase at the lower joints between the barrel and the jacket.
This difficulty and other troubles that developed were impossible to remedy on the existing design. The result was a difference in opinion between Curtiss and the Army’s engineering division. The Curtiss engineers maintained that the tests showed clearly that the specification for 300° F was exaggerated, as the oil cooler was becoming bigger than the coolant radiator, which was true. To this, the engineering division retorted that the real trouble lay with the seven-year-old block design. This was true also, but the Army went further and expressed the conviction that all monoblock forms of construction were obsolete, and in this the Army would be proved wrong.

* Shortly after Prestone was introduced as an automobile antifreeze a rust inhibitor and a leak sealer were added to its ethylene-glycol base. It then became entirely unsuitable for use in aircraft engine cooling systems because the added chemicals would form a jelly-like substance if the solution became too hot—that is, at temperatures above 250° F. Some D-12 engines were ruined when an overzealous supply officer replaced glycol with Prestone in an emergency.
78

FIGURE 41 .-Curtiss Chieftain, 600 hp, 1927. (Smithsonian photo A-4666.)
Although the application of high-temperature cooling to the D-12 was not conclusive and did nothing to keep that engine in the forefront, the data gathered were to be of great consequence for the future of high-performance fighter engines. It was with glycol also that the term “liquid cooling” came into use; hitherto, all service engines had been cooled by plain water.
The Army would remain adamant for several years in its attitude toward a 300° coolant temperature, though later experience and research would show that much better results could be achieved with the ultimately used temperatures of 250-265° F.

Well, Art Nalls was a USMC Harrier pilot… so it’s not like he needs to fly a bunch of hours to learn it, now is it? And as a USMC test pilot he did a lot more.

http://www.nallsaviation.com/BIOGRAPHY.htm

His first operational aircraft was the AV-8A “Harrier” and he was assigned to VMA-231 at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. While stationed at Cherry Point, he carrier-qualified in the AV-8A “Harrier” aboard the USS Iwo Jima, LPH-2, and made several shipboard deployments, virtually over the world.
…
While on a training mission attached to VMA-231, Art’s “Harrier” suffered a catastrophic engine failure near Richmond, Virginia. With little time to react, he essentially landed the Harrier engine-out at a civilian airfield. This was an extremely precise and risky landing, not normally attempted. The emergency procedures recommend an ejection. Art is the only person to have made such a landing and he was consequently awarded an Air Medal, with gold numeral one for the act. With over 900 hours in the AV-8A and over 400 shipboard landings, Art was selected as the single Marine Corps Pilot to attend the USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards, AFB, CA for Test Pilot Course, 85A. One Marine, per year, is sent to Edwards, and for 1985, it was Art.
After graduation and as a newly-designated Test Pilot, Art was assigned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, to join three other Marine Corps test pilots flight testing the then-new AV-8B “Harrier II.” As part of a very small test team, he performed lots of test flying, in the “Harrier” and the A4-M “Skyhawk.” He was a project test pilot for several “Harrier” programs including the high angle-of-attack, departure resistance testing for the leading edge root extensions (LERX), asymmetric takeoff and landing tests, weapons carriage and delivery, and shipboard compatibility and launch bulletin testing. He performed the initial shipboard certification and flight test of Italian and Spanish “ski jump” ships, (ITS Garibaldi and Principe de Arsturias) performing the first ski-jump takeoffs in the AV-8B.
…
Art also had the good fortune to do engine airstart testing, which is very dangerous flight testing, especially in a single-engine jet. The airplane’s only engine is deliberately shut down in flight, cooled for several minutes, and re-started at a specific altitude and airspeed.
…
Art led the flight test efforts for several single-engine airstart projects and was an instructor to other pilots performing these same tests, in the A4-M and TA-4J “Skyhawk,” and the AV-8B and TAV-8B “Harrier II.”
…
Art retired from the Marine Corps and started a real estate development company, Nalls Development and Investment, specializing in restoring and developing the neglected areas of historic Washington, D.C., such as Anacostia and South West Washington, D.C. He returned to flying by joining the Commemorative Air Force and become a flying sponsor of two of their aircraft. He now regularly flies his L-39 “Albatross” Czechoslovakian Advanced Jet Trainer and a 1939 Piper Cub L-4 “Grasshopper” aircraft powered by an original Continental 65 HP, 4-cylinder engine. He has flight time in approximately 65 different type, model, series of military and civilian aircraft in addition to the “Harrier.” These include the B-52, C-141, C-130, A-7, A-37, T-38, F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16, and F-18. He was also NATOPS Qualified for a special flight test in the back seat of the F-14 “Tomcat.”

Here’s the rundown on the test flights:
http://www.nallsaviation.com/index.html