😎

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.

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

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

I live adjacent to this closed Naval Air Station in Grand Prairie, Texas.The Texas national airguards have 10 CH-47 Chinooks in and out all the time. This base also trains foreign airforce pilots to fly Chinooks.

@@ronaldarif5290 I lived in South Irving across from a highschool, and I lived in Grand Prairie, Tx acroos from GP airport @Kirby Creek neighborhood. Im glad Pratt &Whitney relocated me to the OZARKS.

​@@emmgeevideo Stop being a punk! Don't you know that us old timers use "all caps" for lots of specific names, where they could use underline, and for emphasis.

@@stephencolley334 Hey old timer... Everyone can learn something new, even us old timers (I'm 71, how old are YOU?) All caps on the Internet means SHOUTING. It's just a fact.

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.

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!

😎

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.

😊

Wow that is something to see an actual plane you remember from your days in service. I was I strand repair in the Navy so all I saw was boxes, I never knew what exact plane they wound up going on. Sometimes the radio would go to depot sometimes it would go back to the squadron.

@@christianhoffman7407 We called this B52 " BALLS 2"

We had both the planes pictured at K.I. Sawyer when I was there from 82 - 86. One thing I'll never forget are the tail numbers.

@@tigertrap2269 What was your AFSC ?

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

But nobody pronounces a Huey's nickname as "Ira-i-kwa" In the U.S. Military, across all branches, it's I "IR-i-kwoi"

Correct. What is the point of a human narrator who, really, speaks English like its his third or forth language. That is what editors are for..... So:delete........

So you thought this was a human narrator? How droll.

Because they were insanely overengineered when they were first designed. That sort of thing tends to help keep them viable even in old age.

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

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.

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.

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)

don't understand how it was skipped 8251 4300 hours

The P-8 Poseidon is rapidly replacing the P-3.

​Was the P-3 actually a Lockheed L-188?

@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.

Damn! I did Basic at Dix too. B Co.4th Plt. 3rd Training Brigade. The C-5's used to make an approach that brought them in right at my barracks before turning to land at McGuire. It was cool to watch them turn into their final approach.

@@philfoggs5357 B-1-2 BCT and C-1-1 AIT.

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)

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.

IIRC, there is a story about 3 generations of air force pilots that not only flying 52's for a living, but the exact same one.

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.

Nope, version of the CH-46.

The new ones no longer whine like the original GE TF-39 turbofan engines.

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

Tears of the Sun.

@@greghardy9476 thx mate 🙂

crewed the old CH47A model in RVN 1966-67 loved that airplane

LOL - edited for a PG audience???

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.

I wish our military budget and management thereof had been 'vulgar' on Dec 7, 1941. I think that's when our Government FINALLY realized "we can NEVER let this happen again" and reluctantly realized it had no choice but to take on the task of being the world's police force. ("Maybe if we can keep 'em small, we won't have to fight any more big ones.") Never a shortage of egotists who want to run the world, are there.

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.

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.

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.

​@philsalvatore3902 what are you talking about? The Boeing 717 is a small regional airliner mostly used by Hawaiin Airlines with tail mounted engines, the KC-135 is absolutely based off of the Boeing 707, which is a large 4 engine commercial airliner and the first major jetliner to be used.