The Airplane Thread

[Llarry]

Most navy aircraft have folding wings to facilitate parking more aircraft on crowded flight decks and hangar decks. But sometimes errors happen and I know of several cases where an F-4 Phantom or F-8 Crusader took off without unfolding the wings. Embarrassing for the pilot!

Here's an F-4E flying with folded wings. I suspect he made it back to the ground but was shaken and maybe had to buy a round at the officer's club bar that evening.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Most navy aircraft have folding wings to facilitate parking more aircraft on crowded flight decks and hangar decks. But sometimes errors happen and I know of several cases where an F-4 Phantom or F-8 Crusader took off without unfolding the wings. Embarrassing for the pilot!

Here's an F-4E flying with folded wings. I suspect he made it back to the ground but was shaken and maybe had to buy a round at the officer's club bar that evening.

Makes you wonder what the deck/ground crews were doing at the time. Smoking weed behind the blast fences?

[Llarry]

The MiG-25 (NATO Foxbat) and its successor, the MiG-31 (NATO Foxhound) are the fastest serially-produced fighter aircraft ever built, with a max operational speed of Mach 2.83. Higher speeds are possible and have been observed but they result in damaging the aircraft engines.

The MiG-25 first flew in 1964 and entered service with the USSR in 1970. It was built in both interceptor and reconnaissance form, with a total of 1,186 aircraft built by 1984 when production ceased. The Foxbat served with a number of air forces but are now retired except for several possibly still active in the Syrian Air Force.

A Soviet pilot defected in 1976 in a nearly new example of the MiG-25 interceptor, landing in Japan. Japan invited the U.S. to examine the aircraft and the U.S. found some surprises. One was the crude standard of workmanship, and another was that the airframe was mostly steel; the U.S. had assumed that the MiG-25 was largely titanium. Electronic used a large number of vacuum tubes, which was another surprise. The opportunity to examine the MiG-25 was a major coup during the Cold War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

When the West got their hands on the MiG-25, an improved derivative was already flying. That derivative was the MiG-31 two-seat interceptor, with improved radar, greater range and aerial refueling capability. The -31 was also limited to Mach 2.83 by the engines. Other than Russia, only the Kazakh Air Force flies the MiG-31.

519 MiG-31s were built between 1975 and 1994.

The construction of the MiG-31 is similar to that of the MiG-25, using lots of steel. Russia has made several rounds of improvements to the MiG-31, and the fighter has seen action in the Ukraine-Russia war, shooting down several Ukrainian aircraft and proving difficult to counter. The Russians have also given the Foxhound some air to surface attack capability, including hypersonic air to surface missiles, and this capability has been used in the war as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The MiG-25 (NATO Foxbat) and its successor, the MiG-31 (NATO Foxhound) are the fastest serially-produced fighter aircraft ever built, with a max operational speed of Mach 2.83. Higher speeds are possible and have been observed but they result in damaging the aircraft engines.

The MiG-25 first flew in 1964 and entered service with the USSR in 1970. It was built in both interceptor and reconnaissance form, with a total of 1,186 aircraft built by 1984 when production ceased. The Foxbat served with a number of air forces but are now retired except for several possibly still active in the Syrian Air Force.

A Soviet pilot defected in 1976 in a nearly new example of the MiG-25 interceptor, landing in Japan. Japan invited the U.S. to examine the aircraft and the U.S. found some surprises. One was the crude standard of workmanship, and another was that the airframe was mostly steel; the U.S. had assumed that the MiG-25 was largely titanium. Electronic used a large number of vacuum tubes, which was another surprise. The opportunity to examine the MiG-25 was a major coup during the Cold War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

When the West got their hands on the MiG-25, an improved derivative was already flying. That derivative was the MiG-31 two-seat interceptor, with improved radar, greater range and aerial refueling capability. The -31 was also limited to Mach 2.83 by the engines. Other than Russia, only the Kazakh Air Force flies the MiG-31.

519 MiG-31s were built between 1975 and 1994.

The construction of the MiG-31 is similar to that of the MiG-25, using lots of steel. Russia has made several rounds of improvements to the MiG-31, and the fighter has seen action in the Ukraine-Russia war, shooting down several Ukrainian aircraft and proving difficult to counter. The Russians have also given the Foxhound some air to surface attack capability, including hypersonic air to surface missiles, and this capability has been used in the war as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

On the last day of Air Intercept Controller school we were showed a picture of an F14 in a similar position of the MiG in the 5th picture; a full belly shot. We were told one of our responsibilities was to NEVER put our interceptor in that position to a bogey.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

On the last day of Air Intercept Controller school we were showed a picture of an F14 in a similar position of the MiG in the 5th picture; a full belly shot. We were told one of our responsibilities was to NEVER put our interceptor in that position to a bogey.

I think that MiG-31 photo was taken right off the end of the runway as the aircraft was landing; note that the gear is down and the speedbrakes deployed.

[Llarry]

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (also known as the BUFF) is quite remarkable. The first flight was over 71 years ago and the B-52 is still going strong. In fact the current B-52H is on the brink of upgrade to an improved B-52J model with many more years of service ahead.

A total of 744 B-52s were built from 1952 to 1963. Early models had eight J57 turbojet engines with 10,000 lbs. of thrust each; as time went on the engines became more powerful. The final B-52Hs used more powerful and economical TF33 turbofans with over 17,000 lbs. of thrust each.

Early models had the traditional manned tail turret with four .50 machine guns, while the final production variant, the B-52H replaced those with a single rotating-barrel 20mm cannon. The B-52H, as well as the B-52G that preceded it, moved the gunner from the tail to the forward of the aircraft with the other crewmembers, since the gunner used radar to control the guns anyway.

The two YB-52 prototypes had the pilot and copilot seated in tandem, while production models had the pilots seated side-by-side.

The mission of the B-52s was strategic bombing using nuclear weapons -- both bombs and missiles. A turning point came in the mid-1960s when B-52s assumed a conventional bombing mission in the Vietnam war. The high tempo of operations during those years led to retirement of the early models, leaving the later B-52G and B-52H models in service. These later models had many improvements over the early B-52s; the most obvious was a smaller vertical tail.

Despite a heavy commitment to Vietnam, the B-52 maintained its strategic role throughout. It was mostly the B-52D model that was modified for the carriage of a huge load of conventional 500- and 750-lb. bombs that was used in Vietnam.

B-52s originally had natural metal finishes and white undersides to minimize damage from nuclear flash; the B-52Ds bombing Vietnam from bases in Guam and Thailand had black undersides and camouflage uppers.

The temp of operations in Vietnam took a heavy toll on the early models and resulted in the retirement of the earlier models in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Next up: Part II -- the modern B-52H and B-52J.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Next up: Part II -- the modern B-52H and B-52J.

Over the years, the increasing sophistication of Communist bloc air defenses led to a change in the mission profile of the B-52. In place of attacks from high altitude, low altitude penetration of enemy airspace became the norm. To assist that profile, low-light TV and forward-looking infrared sensors were installed in turrets below the cockpit of B-52Gs and Hs. Terrain-following radar and sophisticated electronic warfare systems were also standard.

Following Vietnam, the B-52s retained a dual capability for nuclear or conventional weapons. One interesting weapon capability came in the form of a rotary launcher with six large missiles or bombs in the bomb bay. Modern B-52s are extremely versatile, with a large variety of armament.

As time went on, the B-52Gs with their less powerful engines were retired, leaving almost 100 of the final B-52H in service. Those B-52Hs have been continually upgraded, including the deletion of the tail gun and gunner.

The current force consists of four active duty deploying B-52H squadrons and one Air Force Reserve squadron with a total of 76 B-52Hs active at Barksdale AFB LA and Minot AFB ND. Several years ago, nuclear weapons were withdrawn from use by the B-52Hs, leaving the B-2A as the sole bomber with nuclear capability. Of course, what is withdrawn can be reinstated if necessary.

The next chapter of the B-52 story is yet to come but is taking shape. The plan is to modify the B-52Hs into new B-52J models. The B-52J will feature more modern F130 turbofan engines, a new radar and nose radome, elimination of the night vision turrets below the nose and upgrades to communications and navigation systems. The B-52J should enter service by the end of the decade and serve for quite a while; some have even predicted that it may end up in service for 90+ years.

[Llarry]

Having covered the B-52, let me now introduce the Northrop-Grumman B-2A Spirit stealth bomber.

While the B-2 is the newest bomber in service, it is not at all new. It first flew in 1989 and has been in service for over 25 years. Only 21 were built (at enormous cost) and about 16-18 B-2s are active with two squadrons of the 509th Bomb Wing in Missouri.

While the B-2 is the only U.S. nuclear-capable bomber, it can also be armed with a variety of conventional munitions. It has two bomb bays situated side-by-side between the landing gear wells and each bay can accommodate up to 8 large weapons on a rotary launcher. The total weight of armament can be up to 40,000 pounds; some sample loads include 80 500-lb. bombs or 16 2,000-lb. bombs or 16 B61 or B83 nuclear bombs. The B83 is being phased out in favor of the latest B61-12 bomb.

The B-2 has flown some extremely long range missions from its home base in Missouri. With aerial refueling, these missions can last well over 30 hours; the longest to date is 44 hours. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that the B-2 has only two crew members -- both pilots. Since the aircraft is ejection seat-equipped, long missions generally mean that one pilot at a time gets out of his ejection seat and rests behind the seats. It would seem to me to make more sense to allow for relief pilots.

The B-2A, like the conventionally-armed B-1B, is scheduled to be replaced in the future by the B-21 Raider, which has not yet flown.

[Llarry]

We've had some recent discussions about the third USAF heavy bomber, the B-1B (or B-ONE), so I'll keep this brief.

The B-1B is the heavy lifter of the current bombers, with three weapons bays. The forward two bays are actually one double-size bay, providing flexibility for oversize weapons with a moveable partition. The B-1B currently carries only conventional weapons. It can accommodate 84 500-pounders or 24 2,000-pounders, or the equivalent in missiles on one to three rotary launchers or regular bomb racks.

The B-1B force has recently been downsized to keep the 45 remaining active bombers in service until they can be replaced by the forthcoming B-21 Raider. The B-1B is flown by two squadrons at Dyess AFB, Texas, and one squadron plus a formal training unit at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota.

https://en.wikipedia/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

On to the photos...

[Llarry]

A little more clarity on Canada's forthcoming Airbus A330-based tanker/transports: The assigned designation and nickname will be the CC-330 Husky. Presumably those fitted as tankers will be CC-330Ts if they follow the pattern established by the current Polaris tanker/transports. And contrary to what I previously read and posted, one will be configured as a VIP aircraft and eight as tanker/transports. Unlike the present CC-150 Polaris, CC-330s will be stationed at two locations -- in both Eastern and Western Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_CC-330_Husky

Here's a CGI of what the tanker/transport will look like.

[Llarry]

U.S. Coast Guard aviation; The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Unlike the armed services of the Defense Department, the USCG can perform law enforcement duties.

The USCG has over 200 aircraft to perform their duties of rescue, law enforcement, etc. The majority (140+) are helicopters, but the service also had 32 medium fixed-wing aircraft of two types (HC-144A and HC-27J) and 27 large HC-130 aircraft. The Coast Guard is over halfway through the transition from the HC-130H (with its problematic props) to the new HC-130J.

Some helicopters can be armed for drug interdiction.

To some extent, the Coast Guard does not have the budgetary support that the DoD has and as a result has had to make do when times are lean.

Coast Guard aviators, like Marine Corps aviators, participate in the Navy's flight training program. The instructors come from all three services.

A note on the Coast Guard's HC-27J: I may have told part of the story before, but the C-27 started as a state-of-the-art mini-C-130J with two instead of four engines, etc. The goal was max commonality with the C-130J. The U.S. Army planned to procure a number of C-27Js that could operate further forward than the Air Force's larger airlifters. The Air Force, always jealous of Army fixed-wing aspirations, first proposed a joint program with both services operating the C-27J. Once that was approved, the second step in their diabolical scheme was to squeeze the Army out and own all the C-27Js in the USAF. Once that was approved, they suddenly decided that the C-27J was not a high priority and had to be cut out of the budget, despite the fact that quite a few had already been purchased. That left the U.S. government with 21 modern twin-engine transports without a home. The Coast Guard, looking for a bargain, volunteered to take some and thus got 14 HC-27Js. (The other 7 went to Army units of the Special Operations Command).

Here's the photos.

[Llarry]

Boeing E-6B Block II aircraft coming in for a landing. This is the Doomsday plane -- communicating with the Navy's ballistic missile submarines and with the Air Force ICBM force. Ready to order a nuclear attack and painted all white to minimize damage from nuclear flash.

The E-6B is scheduled to be replaced by a C-130J variant, but this recently upgraded Block II aircraft shows that older aircraft still need to be continuously kept up to date.

[Llarry]

Back in 2011, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of U.S. naval aviation, a number of aircraft were painted up in period Navy, Marine and Coast Guard schemes of earlier eras. Aircraft that would operationally deploy were excluded, so the paint schemes were used for training and test aircraft.

During much of World War II, Navy carrier aircraft wore three-color schemes of dark sea blue uppers, intermediate blue sides and white undersides. This is an EA-18G Growler of the training squadron at Whidbey Island, Washington, painted up as if in 1944.

That said, I'm not sure the darker blue upper portion was the correct shade; seems a tad lighter than the real thing to me.

[Llarry]

Tinker Air Force Base, near Oklahoma City, is home to a couple of important Boeing 707-based military aircraft units:
-- The Air Force's 552nd Air Control Wing, which is the sole USAF unit operating the Boeing E-3 Sentry. As is the case with other older aircraft, the Air Force is retiring some of the E-3 airframes in order to sustain the E-3 force until the new Boeing 737-based E-7 replaces it.
-- The Navy's Strategic Communications Wing One, which is the sole unit operating the Boeing E-6 Mercury. While I'm not aware of any drawdown of the E-6 force, a replacement based on the C-130J is in the offing.
Both of these wings have a large proportion of their aircraft deployed elsewhere at any particular time: The E-3 worldwide and the E-6 in the western hemisphere.

Tinker AFB is also home to a large aircraft overhaul and maintenance facility that is responsible for depot-level maintenance on the B-1, B-52, KC-135, E-3 and E-6. This work is performed by civilian employees.

There is an avid plane watcher and photographer who lives near Tinker and monitors ground & air communications to tip him off as to photo opportunities. I've already posted a number of his excellent Redhome photos. Here's an E-3 Sentry with a B-1 in the background.

[Llarry]

The Aero Spacelines B-377SGT (Super Guppy Turbine) is a unique aircraft owned by NASA and used to transport outsized cargo for the agency. Although several were built, only one remains.

The origins of the Super Guppy go back to the 1940s and the Boeing B-29 bomber. During the war, Boeing developed a cargo version of the B-29, grafting an enlarged upper fuselage onto the B-29's relatively slender body. The resulting C-97 or civil B-377 was built in large numbers, with most bought by the U.S. Air Force as KC-97 tankers. The KC-97 served into the 1970s before finally succumbing to old age and yielding its place to the jet-powered KC-135.

Around 1960 the concept of further enlarging the upper fuselage emerged and the resulting Pregnant Guppy first flew in 1962. It retained the original tail surfaces and was powered by R-4360 piston engines. It proved invaluable in transporting large rocket modules across the country for space programs.

The Pregnant Guppy was succeeded by the Super Guppy, powered by turboprop engines and with enlarged tail surfaces. The Super Guppy was used by NASA and others to transport space program-related cargo and Airbus built two to transport large components for aircraft manufacture. Ultimately, Airbus replaced their Super Guppies with five Airbus-manufactured A300-600ST Beluga aircraft which carry components between the various Airbus factories in Europe.

The Super Guppy was updated along the way -- now only one NASA-owned aircraft remains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_S...es_Super_Guppy

[Llarry]

Another U.S. military aircraft on its way out. This C-2A transport from VRC-40 in Norfolk, Virginia, is still active but I suspect doesn't have long to live. Note the improved 8-blade prop -- I wonder if they could remove all the retired E-2 and C-2 8-blade props and fit them to older C-130s that still have troublesome 4-blade props?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I wonder if they could remove all the retired E-2 and C-2 8-blade props and fit them to older C-130s that still have troublesome 4-blade props?

It certainly would be an economical band-aid solution for a few specialized H Models.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022...eller-barrels/

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

It certainly would be an economical band-aid solution for a few specialized H Models.

The active U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps are just about divested of H models. But the reserves have plenty of them and many other countries have lots. I don't know what the cost is, but here's a brochure on the new NP2000 props.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Ultimately, Airbus replaced their Super Guppies with five Airbus-manufactured A300-600ST Beluga aircraft which carry components between the various Airbus factories in Europe.

I was curious to know how the Super Guppy and Beluga compared. The Beluga, being Airbus A330-based is far more modern. The interior volume is fairly close: The Super Guppy has a cargo hold length of 111 feet and a width & height of 25 feet. The Beluga cargo hold length is 124 feet and it has a width and height of 23 feet.

One other major difference is the way that they load cargo. The Super Guppy system -- apparently one hinge on the left side, and then no doubt all sorts of fasteners of one kind or another to make sure the whole thing doesn't come apart -- would make me nervous. The Beluga has that slightly odd downward kink in the forward fuselage and then a visor type arrangement above the cockpit that lifts up for loading. Very clever. Unless you have a bulky cargo that is slightly too wide or tall for the Beluga, I'd think the Beluga would be the way to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

But the reserves have plenty of them.

The Guards are likely to get hand-me-down J models while the Air Force get the new model. The specialized H models, because of their missions, might get a lease on life. It is noteworthy that the difference between the H and the J, despite the family resemblance, are two different birds.

[Llarry]

A third cargo aircraft for outside cargo is the Boeing 747-400 Dreamlifter. It was originally conceived as a vehicle to get Boeing 787 wings manufactured in Japan to the U.S. in far faster time than by sea. Four were built. It has an internal volume of 65,000 cu ft (1,840 cu m) versus the Beluga's 53,000 cu ft (1,500 cu m). (The Super Guppy's internal volume is less: 49,750 cu ft).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter

[Llarry]

A few years ago, Boeing -- the current manufacturer of the F/A-18 Super Hornet -- was pushing some significant improvements to the aircraft to the U.S. Navy. For more money, of course. They were unsuccessful at their campaign, which they called the Advanced Super Hornet. Among the improvements:
- Conformal fuel tanks sitting atop the inner wing/wing glove area. These provide more fuel at almost no increase in drag. The extra weight does slightly slow acceleration at certain speeds, though.
-- An enclosed weapons pod to enhance stealth. The centerline pod could carry four AIM-120 air-to-air missiles or two 500-pound bombs, or one larger 1000-pound bomb or missile and would reduce radar return from external weapons carriage.
-- An increase from 22,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner each from the GE F414 engines to as much as 26,400 pounds of thrust. The increase in power would probably eliminate any loss of acceleration from the extra fuel, but would increase fuel consumption.

The U.S. Navy did not bite on the improvements -- and extra cost. I am not aware of any move by the other users of the Super Hornet (Australia and Kuwait) to buy these upgrades either.

Production of the F/A-18E single-seat and F/A-18F two-seat Super Hornets is ongoing but scheduled to end in 2025. The carrier air wing planned for the future includes:
- Two squadrons with 20 newer F-35C stealth strike fighters
- One squadron with 12 single-seat F/A-18Es
- One squadron with 12 dual-seat F/A-18Fs
The Super Hornet will be around for quite a few years to come and I suppose it's possible that upgrades will be further explored in future years.