BUFF

[fliger747]

Ah the venerable B-52....

I picked an interesting book in the library dollar pile, "Postwar Bombers". Lots of interesting development tidbits and history.

The one that broke me up was the prediction that the long lived B-52 would possibly keep flying into the 80's.....

Cheers: T

[Allen]

You all should know by now there are some planes that the USAF can't replace.

B-52
T-38
U-2
A-10

[Railrunner130]

If they can get the budget figured out, the USAF is looking to replace the B-52 and T-38. The B-52 replacement will supposedly be essentially a twin engine B-2. The T-38 replacement sounds like another development of the Hawk. Boeing would be smart to simply submit the T-45, but that's just my opinion. It'd be cheaper than developing a whole new airplane.

I think they are planning on replacing the A-10 with the F-35, but that's not a smart move. As for the U-2, they are talking about replacing it with the Global Hawk, provided they can get the equipment from the U-2 on the Hawk. That's the one situation where I think a UAV is a good idea.

[Willy]

The F-35 won't come near to replacing the A-10. Maybe they'll let the Marines have the A-10s when the Air Force is done with them.

[Jagdflieger]

Don't forget the venerable C-130! It's been in the air almost as long as the BUFF with its first flight in 1954. Over 60 air forces worldwide fly them and there doesn't seem to be a replacement in sight for it.

[AndyG43]

The F-35 won't come near to replacing the A-10. Maybe they'll let the Marines have the A-10s when the Air Force is done with them.

The irony is, back in the late 80s, the USAF thought that they didn't want an aircraft like the A-10; it was too slow, not well equipped enough, of course what they needed were more nice shiny F-16s - some were switched to the FAC role and there was a lot of talk about them being phased out (we had the same thing here with the Jaguar). Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, and they found that it was exactly what they wanted, not too fast, maneuverable, could carry loads of armament (including that cannon!!) and could soak up punishment - I remember watching footage of them in action at Khafji, don't know about the Iraqis but they scared the bejaysus out of me! And I was living in the East of England at the time, so we used to get a lot of them flying out of Alconbury; they never got as low as the Harriers, but they were still impressive.


Now, like you said, it is pretty much irreplaceable! Not sure what the funding status was on the re-engining project, but I think it will have to happen as they are talking about keeping these beautiful brutes in service until 2028.

[CG_1976]

Replacement for the C130 don't think so, that old girl is one tough Aircraft with Kevlar nips. Same goes for the Buff, mean old man nasty carpet bomber.

[Allen]

I knew I left somthing off that list. The old C-130.

Evey time I here that the F-35 is going to replace the A-10 I have a bad case of lolz...

The T-38 is a supersonic trainer as the USAF wanted to replace the T-33. I some how don't thing the USAF wants to go back to a subsonic trainer. Last time I did any redding in to a replacement that USAF was thinking about a F-16 trainer but thats a little over kill if you ask me.

[Naki]

The replacement for the C-130 is more C-130s (the J model)..or perhaps A400 or KC-390s for non US forces.

In the running for the T-38 replacement is a new Boeing design (looks a bit like a mini F-22 or F-35), a Hawk derivative, the M-346 and the Lockheed/Martin T-50 (KAI T-50). The T-50 and Boeing are supersonic IIRC.

[Motormouse]

Now, like you said, it is pretty much irreplaceable! Not sure what the funding status was on the re-engining project, but I think it will have to happen as they are talking about keeping these beautiful brutes in service until 2028.

Familiar as I am with the 'civvie' variant of its ( the A-10) current powerplant; I don't see why anyone would want to change out a robust and proven powerplant for a new 'all electrickery' controlled one; especially in an application where low flying in harm's way is likely to result in damage.

just my 2 pence

ttfn

Pete

[Allen]

In the running for the T-38 replacement is a new Boeing design (looks a bit like a mini F-22 or F-35), a Hawk derivative, the M-346 and the Lockheed/Martin T-50 (KAI T-50). The T-50 and Boeing are supersonic IIRC.

I wouldn’t give Lockheed Martin a contract for a farking paper airplane let alone a real one.

Any fighter they made in the last 10 years is plague with bugs or is so far behind schedule that the chances are if Lockheed Martin made the trainer to replace the T-38 the only trainer aircraft we would have are paper airplanes made from the letters Lockheed Martin has sent to the USAF trying to explain why they can’t build the trainer on time or on budget.

[Naki]

The T-50 is already in service with the ROKAF so the bugs should of been ironed out..although if there are major mods required for USAF service then that would be another matter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

[Allen]

If the USAF wants the T-50, cut out the middle man and buy them from Korea already made. The Navy can pick them up. The House and Senate may red tape any thing not made by US manufacturer but... Well they do that on any day of the week.

[Blackbird686]

The replacement for the C-130 is more C-130s (the J model)..or perhaps A400 or KC-390s for non US forces.

They will always have the venerable ol' C-130 around. The Airbus A-400M, France's entry into the heavy air lifter market shows alot of potential, but IMHO, it'll never be able to accomplish what the C-130 Hercules has over the span of its lengthy service record.

BB686:USA-flag:

[Panther_99FS]

'BUFF Tail' by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr

[FlyingFinn]

Didn't Rutan or someone come up with a replacement for A-10 years ago? It was weird, asymmetrical thing..

oh yes, they did.

The ARES, Scaled Model 151, was designed initially in response to a U.S. Army request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). A design study was performed by Rutan Aircraft Factory in 1981 for such an aircraft. Its mission goals were low-altitude, close air support, with long endurance, and with adequate field performance to operate from roads.

Scaled followed up with the concept, and ultimately decided to build a demonstrator aircraft with internal funds. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990. ARES has flown more than 250 hours, and demonstrated all of its design performance and handling qualities goals, including departure-free handling at full aft stick. During November of 1991, tests of the GAU-12/U gun system installed in ARES were performed, with outstanding results.

Movie buffs may also remember the ARES in its role as the secret ME-263 jet in the screen classic Iron Eagle III.

ARES is currently available for use as a research test bed.

Attachment 49234

[SpitXIV]

If you want the flightsim version of the ARES you can get it here.

<center>FS2002 - FS2002 Aircraft</center><center>FS2002/FS2004 Scaled Composites ARES
</center><center>[ Download | View ]</center>
Name: m151ares.zip Size: 2,586,885 Date: 08-20-2007 Downloads: 1,668
FS2002/FS2004 Scaled Composites "ARES". This is the Scaled Composites Model 151 "ARES" (Agile Responsive Effective Support) designed as a "mud fighter" ground support aircraft in response to the US Army's request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). It is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney JT15D-1 turbojet engine. The original design was a pusher turboprop and evolved into the current design when Scaled Composites decided to build N151SC as a demonstrator. The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990 and is still available for use as a research testbed. Two kinds of models (prototype and virtual U.S. Army paint with weapon) are included. By Kazunori Ito.