😎

i was going to say that, lmao. even if it aint broke, you can upgrade it. which is what we do to get the most out of aircraft lifespan. why spend huge amounts of money on R&D and prototypes for a new aircraft when you can just upgrade the airframe on a tried and true platform for a fraction of the cost? sure, sometimes instances require an all new aircraft like fighter jets as time goes on but some of these old dogs get new tricks

But we have a military upper brass who is more concerned that the suppliers make big $$$, instead of supplying the proven capabilities of the A-10 in support of our ground troops.

@@richardpare3538 Hate to burst your bubble but the air defense environment the A-10 was designed to survive in no longer exists. I'm an old Cold War helo pilot so take my word on this. Back then the Soviets had SA-2 and SA-5 for long range air defense, and SA-6 for medium range. Down low all you had to worry about was SA-7 MANPADS that couldn't track you in ground clutter (hence our SOP to stay below 50 feet AGL) or ZSU-23/4, a tracked radar guided gun system with four 23mm cannon. The A-10 could survive hits by either system and operated low enough not to be tracked by SA-2/5/6. That was then. Then in the late 1980s ZSU-23/4 was replaced by SA-8 Gecko and things got dangerous at low altitude. Today SA-2/5/6 are all replaced by S-300 and S-400, missiles with twice the speed and ten times the effective range of what they replaced, guided by phased array radars that an track a hundred targets per radar panel down to tree top level. Their MANPADS no longer loose you in ground clutter and anything below 11,000 feet AGL is a meat grinder of highly effective air defense systems from a variety of unfriendly nations. Today, a gun run with an A-10 would be the same kind of one way ride to an early grave like those old TBD Devastator torpedo bombers at the Battle of Midway. In the modern battlefield, only aircraft with all aspect Low Observable tech are survivable until all those air defense systems are destroyed. Close support today is done from altitude using precision guided munitions, not gun runs. Gen. Mattis proved decisively when taking an Afghan airstrip called Rhino south of Kandahar in what remains the longest range amphibious assault ever conducted that aircraft using precision guided munitions can provide accurate and timely air support. Mattis left his armor and artillery on his ships, moved the entire assault force by helicopter from the North Arabian Se to Afghanistan, took the objective and they relied on air power (Harriers) using pgms for close support. Once the air defenses are down and L-O isn't necessary an F-35 with full internal and external stores including wing tanks carries more ordnance and has more range than the A-10. The A-10 is simply not survivable on the modern battlefield. Nor are the tactics I learned as a helo pilot, but that is for another post.

😎

Empty cargo and passenger planes have a thrust-to-weight ratio that makes them look like high-performance aircraft below 250 mph.

Keep in mind, it was made to use fields and or roads as its foreword air fields.. I think her are she needs to land/take off in like 150 yards..I do love her for her go just about anywhere and land, also fly into any kind of storms including hurricanes as she is the air craft they use to collect weather data..

Pontiac G8 at 9:45.

Was originally designed to be a fighter jet, they switched it to a prop transport at the last minute.

Thanks for sharing but you didn't need to SHOUT.

I was going to say the same thing lol

Well. Here's the thing. BOTH actors were in a movie called "Tears of The Sun". Willis was a SEAL and Skerrit Some Capt or something. AND, there is a scene on the deck of a carrier as Willis comes aboard from and op. Soooooo, it is quite likely they WERE in the plane and THAT is why the picture was chosen. I think so...

@@hanovergreen4091 well that's certainly a possibility then. But IMHO if you look closely at Willis's pic it certainly looks photoshopped. Doesn't seem to quite fit under the helmet

@@jim2lane Out of answers then but it is concidental :). Best Regards and Best Wishes!

I missed tom skerritt, good eye!

Designed perfectly for their jobs.

@@1badhaircut They were upgraded a few times - the probably biggest upgrade was more powerful engines and "scimitar" props to handle the additional power. They also gained some weight and cargo weight capacity in that change (I think it was the "S" model). Still not a big change from the "H" model I flew in once on a MAC flight from Travis to somewhere in Oklahoma around 1980.

It IS, and behind him is Tom Selleck. Wonder what movie would put Bruce and Tom on a carrier?

Yep

@@ShannonBrooklynTom Skerrit

100% it’s Bruce Willis!

Maybe is for the movie Tears Of The Sun... they appeared on a carrier flight deck in one of the scenes

This should be a pinned comment...

I speak French , I found it hard to understand when he says the year of production and the year of entering service , fifty and sixty sound almost alike

Don't NASA use a very old chase plane of some sort? Not sure but NASA also using a pretty old weather observation plane? I think it was an English build.

It's had some upgrades and SEVERAL models over those years, to make it keep up with changes in it's load and additional missions. I suspect it will possibly OUTLAST the B-52 in our Air Force.

Just like Trigger's broom...

@@nightwishlover8913 But is it still the same broom after all those years? I'm asking for Theseus who has issues with his bank about the loan 'his' ship.

@leondillon8723 The C-5A was accepted by the AF in 1970 but didn't begin operational flights till 71 . Before then, the C-133 was their heavy hauler - took a 133 MAC flight from NAS Pensacola to Travis AFB in late 1970 where I saw the C-5 for the first time and was told by the 133 crew chief that he was headed to the C-5 loadmaster school and would be stationed at Dover.

The Air Force HAS replaced it's C-130 (mostly H models) fleet - with C-130 S models (or possibly later).

don't understand how it was skipped 8251 4300 hours

Good catch!

The CP-140 Aurora has been in service in Canada since the early 1980's. Basically the same air frame as the P-3 Orion but mounting the electronics suite of the Lockheed S-3 Viking. Due to be replaced by the Boeing P-8A Poseidon between 2026-2033.

We called them airborne Harley Davidsons on the Nimitz back in the 80s lol

The C-2A(R)s were new production aircraft. All the original C-2As were disposed of by 1987. The C-2A(R) fleet would later go through a service life extension program. There was a study to replace them that my current team lead was part of. Lockheed Martin had a new design, Northrop-Grumman offered a version of the C-2 with all the changes incorporated into the E-2D and Bell-Boeing offered the V-22. When all was said and done, the V-22 made the most sense. The L-M and N-G proposals were new designs which meant they required a complete development and operational test regimen while the V-22 was in production and needed absolutely no changes to do the Navy mission. It also had a greater unrefueled range than the C-2, had the capability to be refueled in flight and the icing on the cake was it carries a higher payload than the Greyhound. Pretty much a slam dunk for the mission.

Tears In The Sun (2003)

It’s amazing - most of the planes still in service that were designed in the 50’s and 60’s are variants of those designs built much later but the newest B52 airframe in service is about 62 years old.

And the father of the last B-52 pilot probably hasn't been born yet.

@@philsalvatore3902 The father of that pilot is probably alive. The PILOT however probably had not been born.

looks like him ))

I noticed that too. Movie role?

Tom Skerritt sitting behind Willis.

@@samadams7224 He had a small bit-part in a KZfaq video entitled "Top 10 OLDEST Aircraft of the U.S. Military" put out by US Military News: he was supported by Tom Skerritt, amongst others.

Check the movie Tears of the Sun (2003)

Tears of the Sun.

@@greghardy9476 thx mate 🙂

The C-2 wasn't Miss Piggy. Miss Piggy was the nickname given the US-3A. During the 1980s the Navy needed a COD with a really long range, able to fly non-stop from Diego Garcia to the North Arabian Sea. The old Greyhound didn't have the legs and couldn't be refueled in flight so the Navy had Lockheed convert about a dozen S-3A Vikings into CODs removing all the ASW gear and weapons bay, removing the ejection seats and adding provisions for passengers and cargo in back. I knew some of their pilots when I was stationed out on "Dodge" circa 85-86. They would load up, fly to a carrier off Oman, unload, refuel, load up "retrograde" and fly back to Dodge. We used to kid them about all the flight hours they logged saying "Ten point oh or we won't go" when the rest of us were lucky to get two hours every other day. They had Miss Piggy patches on their flight suits. One of their pilots I remember vividly. He had three sets of wings, one from the US Navy, one from the USAF and one from the South Vietnam Air Force. He was originally South Vietnam Air Force, trained by the USAF to fly A-38 Dragonflies. When it was clear they were about to lose he flew his Dragonfly to Thailand and got asylum in the US. He eventually joined the US Navy, went through our flight school and earned Navy wings. Cool guy too. He was flying Miss Piggy when I met him on Dodge.

Nope, that's Lieutenant A.K. Waters. Just kidding: that's cast & crew from the movie "Tears In The Sun"-(2003)

LOL - edited for a PG audience???

It does MANY things and is versatile. Refueling fighters is not the same as acting as Air Ambulance is not the same as cargo transport is not the same as flying gun platform is not the same as launching paratroopers is not the same as....... get it ?

@@LanielPhoto well said! Based on, I believe the Boeing 707, which is certainly a versatile platform. I mainly think of it in its Stratotanker role

​@@marko11kram Nope. Little known fact but the KC-135 is built on the original Boeing 717 (derived from the Boeing 367-80). It is shorter and has a different wing than the 707. They fly differently too, differently enough that you can't use a KC-135 as a trainer for something built on a 707 airframe, like RIvet Joint or the E-3A. They don't behave the same in the pattern.

@@philsalvatore3902 Interesting! I did not know that. Thanks for the detailed info.

F-14 didn't last nearly as long as many current inventory planes. The F-4 Phantom lasted longer.

The commercial version is the DC-3, same plane different designation.

Haha...."fat fella".....well, maybe to some.

Funny seeing the funny siren man here

​@@stanfrymannThe version I heard was not suitable for polite company...!

@@stanfrymann Compared to a Bear (which has been around about as long) or to most US bombers that predated the B52, it's a lot fatter. Compared to something like a C5 or a 747, it's slender.

I was a Tanker C/C in the early 60's the first year of tankers was 1957. I was the Chief of A/c 136 at Castle Afb in 67 it was used to photograph the bimini atoll a bomb tests. The a frame is based on boeings -80 design.

There are still a half dozen air forces flying the old 1947-1961 vintage Antonov AN-2 biplane transport. Among NATO members the Latvian and Bulgarian air forces both operate them. Some SH-3s, Westland Wessex and early Westland Sea Kings are older than the B-52.

Soviet "Bears" are similar age and the maritime version is still in service.

@@philsalvatore3902 The AN-2 and other aircraft mentioned are not "combat" aircraft. Transports and airliners converted to transports tend to be used longer than combat aircraft.

Like me !

Not quite. The Marines wanted a gunfire support ship to replace the battleships. The Navy was never hot on the idea as the range, capabilities and proliferation of long range anti ship cruise missiles were rapidly making naval gunfire support a suicide mission. The Navy wanted as great a stand off range as possible and to do so the resulting gun and ammo combination ended up being ridiculously expensive. The Navy reduced the number of hulls it planned to buy, which made the amount of ammo to be procured even smaller so the price rose. Eventually it was the high cost of the ammo that killed the program. However all three are either in the yards now or soon will be to have one AGS removed and replaced by Conventional Prompt Strike, the Navy's new ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle on the nose. With three ships one can be kept on station in East Asia at all times. The ship is capable of firing all the rest of the Navy's air defense and cruise missiles so it makes for a potent package. Their seaworthiness has been proven. They don't roll as much as a Ticonderoga and they return to vertical much faster than a Tico, which seems to roll and stay rolled for what seems like an eternity before it rolls the other way. Zumwalts roll much less but the speed with with they return to center takes some getting used to. They have also demonstrated their stealth in tests at Atlantic Fleet test ranges. They will be around for a long time in the Pacific Fleet.

The trouble is, if they do that, it will be so expensive they only get funding for maybe 50 planes. Those 50 planes will not be able to replace 400 B52s AND all the B1s AND all the B2s. So, they'll spend some more money to upgrade the B52s to serve another 50 years...

Some of the B52s have been service 60+ years.

Shot from a movie.

That's true of VERY FEW aircraft. I know the C130 is still in production and being sold, does Beech still make the Bonanza?

Check "Tears In The Sun" (2003)

The large majority of Boeing issues are with inability to MAINTAIN the aircraft properly by the airline, not poor design or construction by the manufacturer

The CH-53K is for all intents and purposes a clean sheet design. It is also hideously expensive. Unit cost is greater than that of an F-35B and cost per flight hour is greater than the F-35. A Chinook has a unit cost under $40 million and has 90% of the performance of the K but the existential fear of the Marines, greater than the fear of any enemy, is to look too much like the US Army so I guess a navalized Chinook was out of the question.

It's not. Stuff like the Bear should be on this list.

Isn't broken.

Are you referring to the CRM-114?