Old news, too bad it never happened

From an old Jane’s aircraft:

BAe 146M

British Aerospace has proposed the development of a military version of the BAe.146 short-range transport. Utilising the same power plant as the civil transport, it is envisaged as a medium-lift aircraft suitable for a variety of missions, including the airlift of vehicles and palletised cargo; the delivery of heavy vehicles to forward airstrips, and casevac mission on the return flight; airdrop of paratroops and supplies, the latter by free-fall or parachute extraction technique; and troop or VIP transport, with mixed passenger/freight layouts optional.
Generally similar to the civil BAe 146, the proposed military version differs primarily in having a changed landing gear to simplify operation from unprepared surfaces at forward landing strips, and in redesign of the aft fuselage to provide rear ramp loading. All available details follow:

TYPE: Short-range multi-role military transport.

WINGS: Cantilever high-wing monoplane. British Aerospace high-lift aerofoil section. Thickness/chord ratio 15.3% adjacent to fuselage, 12.2% at tip. Anhedral 3° at trailing edge. Incidence 3° 6′ at fuselage side, 0°at tip. Sweepback 15° at quarter-chord. All-metal fail-safe structure of light alloy with machined skins, integrally machined spars and ribs. Single-section hydraulically actuated tabbed Fowler flaps of light alloy spanning 66% of each wing trailing-edge. Mechanically-actuated balanced ailerons, with hydraulically-operated power boost spoilers on upper surfaces. Trim and spring tab in each aileron. No leading-edge lift devices. Hot-air anti-icing of leading-edges.

FUSELAGE: All-metal fail-safe pressurised semi-monocoque structure, with a new aft fuselage which has a hydraulically-operated ramp, and doors which open outward and upwards, to permit straight-in loading of military vehicles and other cargo.
TAIL UNIT: Cantilever sweptback T-tail, of all-metal construction. Chemically-etched light alloy skins bonded to ‘top-hat’ section stringers. Fixed-incidence tailplane. Manually-operated balanced elevators, each with trim and spring tab. Powered rudder. Hot-air anti-icing of tailplane leading-edges.

LANDING GEAR: Hydraulically retractable tricycle type, especially designed for operation from unprepared surfaces. Nose unit, with twin wheels, retracts forward. Main landing gear has two large-diameter wheels with low-pressure tyres mounted in tandem on each side. Wheels are independently mounted on trailing arms, which operate a dual-piston shock-absorber. Main units retract into a long fairing on each side of the lower fuselage. Anti-skid brake units standard.

POWER PLANT: Four Avco Lycoming ALF 502R-3 turbo-fan engines, each rated at 29.8 kN (6,700 lb st), installed in pylon-mounted underwing pods. Fuel: standard fuel capacity 12,910 litres (2,840 Imp gallons), contained in integral wing tanks and wing root fillet tanks. Provision for 5,455 litres (1,200 Imp gallons) of optional fuel.

ACCOMMODATION: Crew of two on flight deck, with seat for supernumerary crew member and provision for optional navigator’s station. Constant-section cargo hold/cabin can accommodate a typical military load comprising a 105 mm light gun, a one ton truck and a half ton truck, plus their operating personnel. A Scorpion tank and its crew can be carried. A total of five 2.74 x 2.24 m (108 x 88 in) pallets can be loaded, using a side guidance system and rollers. A winch to simplify loading is available optionally. Accommodation is provided for up to 60 paratroops and two dispatchers, and two sticks of 30 men can be dispatched simultaneously through two rear paratroop exits. For supply drops the 146M can carry items ranging from two medium-stressed platforms, to 18 ‘one ton’ type containers. As a troop transport, up to 70 seats can be provided in a five-abreast layout, which includes also two toilets and 9.49 m3 (335 cu ft) of baggage space. A maximum of 84 passengers, seated six-abreast, can be accommodated in an all-passenger configuration, with two toilets and 9.63 m3 (340 cu ft) of luggage space.

SYSTEMS: Cabin air-conditioning and pressurisation from engine bleed air. Electro-pneumatic pressurisation control with discharge valves at fore and aft of cabin. Max differential 0.45 bars (6.5 lb/sq in). Hydraulic system, duplicated for essential services, for landing gear, flaps, rudder, roll and lift spoilers, airbrakes, nosewheel steering, brakes and auxiliary fuel pumps; pressure 207 bars (3,000 lb/sq in). Electrical system powered by two 40 kVA integrated-drive alternators to feed 115/200V 3-phase 400Hz primary systems. 28V DC power supplied by transformer-rectifier in each channel. Hydraulically-powered emergency electrical power unit. AiResearch GTCP 36-100 APU for ground air conditioning and electrical power generation optional in nose of starboard main landing gear fairing. High-pressure gaseous oxygen system, pressure 124 bars (1,800 lb/sq in).

AVIONICS: Basic installation would include passenger address and audio systems, flight deck voice recorder, dual ADI, marker beacon receiver, weather radar, radio altimeter, DME, ADF, dual VHF nav, flight data recorder, dual VHF/UHF com, dual compass systems, Doppler, IFF with civil mode, TANS, and HF com. Options could add a second ADF, DME, IFF, radio altimeter and HF, Selcal, Tacan, Omega, DF/homer and an inertial navigation system.

DIMENSIONS, EXTERNAL:
Wing span 26.34 m (86 ft 5 in)
Length overall 27.38 m (89 ft 10 in)
Height overall 8.94 m (29 ft 4 in)
Wheel track 4.19 m (13 ft 9 in)
Wheelbase 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)

DIMENSIONS, INTERNAL: (cabin/hold):
Length (excluding ramp) 12.50 m (41 ft 0 in)
Floor width 2.73 m (8 ft 11½ in)
Max width of doorway 2.82 m (9 ft 3 in)
Floor area (excluding ramp) 34.19 m2 (368 sq ft)
Volume 91.32 m3 (3,225 cu ft)

AREA:
Wings, gross 77.30 m2 (832 sq ft)

WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS (estimated):
Max T-O weight 39,916 kg (88,000 lb)
Max landing weight 38,555 kg (85,000 lb)
Max zero-fuel weight 31,071 kg (68,500 lb)
Max wing loading 516.4 kg/m2 (105.8 lb/sq ft)
Max power loading 335 kg/kN (3,28 lb/lb st)

PERFORMANCE (estimated, at max T-O weight except where indicated):
Max level speed above 6,100 m (20,000 ft) >400 knots (742 km/hr; 461 mph)
Max rate of climb at S/L at AUW of 36,287 kg (80,000 lb) 780 m (2,560 ft)/min
Max operating altitude 9,145 m (30,000 ft)
Service ceiling, one engine out, at AUW of 287 kg (80,000Ib) 6,920 m (22,000 ft)
T-O run, ISA + 20°C at S/L 1,317 m (4,320 ft)
T-O to 15 m (50 ft), ISA + 20°C at S/L 1,625 m (5,330 ft)
Landing from 15 m (50 ft) at max landing weight, ISA + 20°C at S/L 617 m (2,025 ft)
Landing run at max landing weight, ISA + 20°C at S/L 378 m (1,240 ft)
Range with max payload, standard fuel, 10% reserves 1,260 nm (2,335 km; 1,451 miles)

Focus to this Debate

Keep in mind that the Black Buck raids, and the SHAR ops, are actually two seperate things… with seperate intermediate goals.

The Black Buck raids were to deny the Argies the use of the runways before the task force got in range.

The SHAR raids were to support the landings.

If all you are wanting to do is “get bombs on the runway”, the Vulcan was the way to go.

Contrast the fuel spent to get the Vulcan bombs there with the fuel (and other supplies, etc) it took to get the SHARs there… how much fuel did the task force (just Hermes and her escorts) use getting down there from Britain? Many times what 607 used, eh?

However, much more than just “getting bombs on the runway” was desired… and that is where the SHARs & GR.3s came in… they helped get the “boots on the ground” that actually took back the place.

It is part of Sharkey’s biased view that he tries to equate the Vulcan’s mission with that of the SHAR. They were in no way actually the same mission, they just had the same physical target.

Illyushin still building aircraft, eh?

As was posted on another thread here,

“If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you.”

That is where F-22 is worth the extra money… at least from the point-of-view of the man in the cockpit.

Read the other thread, and the news articles, please.

The “parts to Iran” portion was simply because those aircraft had not been through the required “demilitarization”, and the DOD had no idea what was still in them.

The main reason they were siezed was that the original sale was illegally conducted! That means that, regardless of the belief of later re-purchasers that they were the legal owners, the aircraft were not legally allowed to be in the possession of those who had them! Legally, they were stolen DOD property.

The DOD will sieze any ex-military equipment that was illegally sold, and usually prosecute those involved. There have been quite a number of such cases over the years… very few of which involve classified (or export-controlled) items, or entire aircraft.

The only reason that this siezure is getting press is that the aircraft had sometimes been on display.

Try to apply some rationality to your opinions, please, and look at all of the circumstances, rather than jumping to immediate, emotionally-driven, “I don’t know what’s going on, but whatever it is I don’t like it” knee-jerk over-reactions.

And you could compare the UH-1Y & AH-1Z to the turboprop DC-3 conversions done in the 1980s and since… all-new avionics, airframes completely overhauled & “zero-timed”, new engines, and new props.

http://www.centercomp.com/cgi-bin/dc3/gallery?1902
“Through the decades, several enterprising companies have introduced successful programs for updating the DC-3 with advanced systems and new turboprop engines.
As the grand old lady” of the skies approaches her 60th anniversary, more than 1,000 remain in service, including some 300 in military use. The South African Air Force operates 40 C-47s, many now equipped with turboprop engines, in coastal patrols and other services.”

Likely the last upgrade anyone will ever do on the DC-3… or the Huey/Cobra.

“Besides you just cant beat the sound that the Huey makes!!!”

“That sound” is created by those 2 wide rotor blades, and the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z have a new, narrow, 4-blade rotor.

Michelf, I think you have something mixed up.
“(Remember that the envisaged Carrier Air Group by the mid -70s was only Grumman products, F-14s, A-6s and E-3s, with Sea Kings as the rotary wing component)”

The E-3 is a Boeing AWACS plane based on the 707 airliner. It could never operate from a carrier.

I think you meant either the E-2, which is a Grumman carrier-based AEW plane, and/or the Lockheed S-3 Viking… a carrier-based ASW plane which entered service in 1974.

Also, the Vought A-7E Corsair II was intended to see service throughout the 1970s, and into the early 1980s… as indeed it did.

The F-14 was NEVER intended to replace it, nor was the A-6, as it was designed and used for a different role than the A-7 (night/all-weather strike vs daylight CAS/light attack).

Thus, the carrier wing the USN planned to field in the last half of the 1970s, and the first half of the 1980s, while definitely dominated by Grumman designs, was certainly not a “only Grumman” air wing.

planned late 1970s air wing, by squadron:
2 Grumman F-14 (12 aircraft each) +3 TARPS-equipped F-14s [sometimes Vought RF-8G instead]
1 Grumman A-6E (10 aircraft + 4 KA-6D)
2 Vought A-7E (12 aircraft each)
1 Lockheed S-3A (10 aircraft)
1 Grumman EA-6B (4 aircraft)
1 Grumman E-2B/C (4 aircraft)
1 Douglas EA-3B (1 aircraft)
1 Sikorsky SH-3A/D (6 aircraft)

49-46 Grumman fixed-wing, 35-38 non-Grumman fixed-wing, 6 non-Grumman rotary-wing [Lockheed US-3A and Grumman C-2A COD aircraft were assigned to shore bases, not to the carrier air wing]

In reality, some ships had this, while others had 1 F-14 and 1 McD F-4 fighter squadron… while Coral Sea and Midway had 2 F-4 squadrons (too small to operate F-14s effectively).