I have an unclassified report in my flies about the flying hours of the B-52H (the sole model remaining in service).

As of 1 July 1991 (yes, a long time ago, but the planes were then “just” 30 years old)..
The average flight time on a 52H was 12200 hours and 1400 cycles.

The same report said the limiting detail for H’s were the wing upper surfaces at 31,200 hours and they would have an economic life beyong 2030…or two-thirds of their life was remaing.
Remember, this was after thirty years of service.

So, using those figures (60 years past 1991), they should be good until 2050 (= -).

Did that report reflect their mission at the time (low altitude penetrator for SIOP missions) or their current usage (high altitude CAS platform)? One would think with the change in employment that the aging process would have slowed somewhat.

Also, with regards to the will to re-engine the B-52s, Schorsch is correct- it wasn’t a case of new airframe fever that kept them from going through with it, it was the technical aspects. There are serious issues with the flexible, high mounted wings, the outside engine pods so close to the ground and the interaction with exhaust and the flap assemblies.

If we’re talking everyday wear colors, I really dig the Chilean and Polish F-16 schemes. If you’re talking about special occasion schemes, then I’d have to go with one of the many tiger meet schemes.

and

Honorable mention to the F-2

I don`t think that engines are enough to keep the airplane laterally stable. The rest of the vertical tailplane saved the airplane, because the area was sufficient to retain a bit of lateral stability.

To work only with engines would require the flight crew to adjust the thrust continously to keep the aircraft in flight direction. This state cannot be called “stable” anymore.

Lowering the rear landing gear trucks also helped restore quite a bit of directional stability. You can’t see it in the above pic, but the front gear is still up.

As for the whole B-47 vs. B-52, I personally thing Boyle has it correct. If the B-52 wasn’t such a success, the need to replace the B-47 would have pressed at least one of the B-52s proposed replacements into production. The B-70 would have been the most likely and it’s success or failure would have determined if the AMSA (what eventually became the B-1) would have been pursued as originally envisioned (M2 capability, etc.) or allow it to evolve into the B-1B or if we would have gone straight to the B-2 once stealth was further developed.

There were several attempts to modernize the B-47 with technology and J57 engines being developed for the B-52, but General Lemay was having none of it.

Raptor’s thrust vectoring primarily benefits it when they’re that close.

While TV does help it’s low speed handling, the main benefit is allowing the F-22 to maneuver at high speeds and high altitudes where regular control surfaces (Even those as large as the F-22’s) are less effective.

PS When the Su-37 (and Su-30MKI) was doing those same awesome manouevres TEN years ago – they were dismissed by the western press – and some on this NG as just ‘airshow stunts’ amd they had no relevance in aerial combat.

How come all of a sudden they are a legitimate addition to a fighters arsenal now that the F-22 is doing them ??

Ken, they’re still being dismissed as stunts or less impressive than Su-35/37 10 years ago. What you’re seeing now is all the F-22 can display as it’s REALLY hard to demonstrate it’s real strengths (stealth, speed, sensor fusion, etc.) to an airshow crowd.

5 years ago it was “I don’t see the Raptor doing the stuff the Flanker has been doing for years now”; now it’s “So it can do those things, but what use is it?” Let’s face it…. the airshow routine was perfected by Russian Gen 4 fighters. Nothing on the drawing board today (that we know of) is going to bring anything new to an airshow with the exception of the F-35B (and even then, most of it’s abilities can be seen via the Harrier).

You see these?

By the time he enters office i think the USAF would be able to successfully play the “Its too late now , and going back will delay induction further” Card which is pretty accurate given the scheme of things. If GAO rules in NG’s favour , it is a done deal in my opinion no matter who is in the white house come 09 ..

It’s not the white house that will block funding if the GAO does rule in NG’s favor. It’s the congressmen and women who are all bought and paid for by Boeing and labor unions who will do everything possible to delay and block it until the costs spiral out of control giving them a reason to kill the whole thing. It’s a sad state of affairs that after the original Boeing lease fiasco, congress demanded an open competition and now that its turned out against what everyone and their mothers were expecting (even me) they’re going to do everything in their power to toss the whole thing out. If they wanted KC-767’s then they should have just said buy them instead of going through the whole farce of a competition. They never cared what was best for the warfighters anyway, only what was best for whoever put them in office.