Old hitory of 8 to 4 there, they have tried some, proposed some but ended with the last proposal that we know today:
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
You said, "So it was possible to fit 4 low bypass bigger engine". It was not possible as I said without changing the wing. The choice of 4 high bypass engines which I presume you mean would definitely be a gain considering the advantages in range and reliability but it was not possible due to the low wing of the B-52.
They have tried-it with bigger turbojet j-75 and after that it was possible with 4 PW2000 or with 4 RB211-535, 757 engines without need to change the wings. RB211 were high bypass and fit but presently RB211 are out of production and any other engines ready on the list have a bigger diameter than it. So they hit the wall because of the wings.
The B-52 where clearly made with quite a structural margin to achive that. New plane made of composite and bigger milling and printed parts made repairs and patching a lot more difficult to salvage flying hours on airframes. It's not a time of letting a lot of margin anymore while B-52 was made with slide ruler calculation.. They where careful to not strech their numbers optimistically.
Dot Dot Dot
It is quite the dilemma for our air forces. The F-35 does need as much range as it can get, especially for any operations in the Pacific. However, a brand new engine will take years to finish development, not to mention producing and refitting F-35s in meaningful quantities. By the time all of that happens, we might've already lost a conflict in the Pacific.
So, a simple ECU upgrade does make sense even if it's a suboptimal solution. Past 2028-2030 we're really more concerned with NGAD and all the programs associated with it rather than the F-35. Still, I think it would've been better to authorize both. Especially since both parties have essentially given a blank check to the military to counter China.
Interesting article from the Atlantic.
Essentially argues for a US seapower-focused national-security strategy.
Setting aside the obvious fearmongering, I'm wondering how feasible would said posture change be, given the current trajectory and long term particulars (like shipbuilding capacity) at hand.
Essentially argues for a US seapower-focused national-security strategy.
Setting aside the obvious fearmongering, I'm wondering how feasible would said posture change be, given the current trajectory and long term particulars (like shipbuilding capacity) at hand.
The fearmongering was indeed fascinating.
Imagine if a belligerent United States declared the Taiwan Straits to be territorial wat... Oh whoops. Anyway, it is highly unlikely that any modern state would harass international shipping. If anything, owning the Arctic Ocean would give Russia greater incentive to make sure that there isn't any piracy.
I would like to sink the US Navy.
Jokes aside, I do think the article is largely correct, but I do have an issue with a couple points.
I mean, compared to China we are behind, but honestly... our industrial base is really not that bad. I don't know why people automatically think that, we need to put things into perspective. We still build lots of things, especially military ships and jets. What we need, is a much better approach to civilian-military industrial cooperation and simple project planning. The Zumwalt and LCS didn't fail because our shipyards were horrible.
Similarly, the article also talks about how mergers are apparently really bad. That's not really the case though. Mergers allowed for economies of scale on big projects. What we need to do, is to reduce barriers to entry and to focus more on rewarding innovators rather than those with cozy political connections.
dot dot dot
Imagine if a belligerent United States declared the Taiwan Straits to be territorial wat... Oh whoops. Anyway, it is highly unlikely that any modern state would harass international shipping. If anything, owning the Arctic Ocean would give Russia greater incentive to make sure that there isn't any piracy.
I would like to sink the US Navy.
Jokes aside, I do think the article is largely correct, but I do have an issue with a couple points.
I mean, compared to China we are behind, but honestly... our industrial base is really not that bad. I don't know why people automatically think that, we need to put things into perspective. We still build lots of things, especially military ships and jets. What we need, is a much better approach to civilian-military industrial cooperation and simple project planning. The Zumwalt and LCS didn't fail because our shipyards were horrible.
Similarly, the article also talks about how mergers are apparently really bad. That's not really the case though. Mergers allowed for economies of scale on big projects. What we need to do, is to reduce barriers to entry and to focus more on rewarding innovators rather than those with cozy political connections.
He also quotes someone else about expanding the US fleet by an additional 500 ships. Not to mention subsidizing the ship building industry. Where are they going to find that much money for such a task anyway? The idea is just unrealistic.
Speculating that the Darkstar in Top Gun: Maverick could be closer to reality (in some senses) then we think.
Personally, I would just attribute this to some PR person using the wrong wording in the tweet in question. On the other hand, the Darkstar was a great movie prop and it is totally awesome that Lockheed’s SkunkWorks built a full-size model for the move. Much better than any CGI crap.
Also, obligatory awesome photo of said Darkstar model.
Personally, I would just attribute this to some PR person using the wrong wording in the tweet in question. On the other hand, the Darkstar was a great movie prop and it is totally awesome that Lockheed’s SkunkWorks built a full-size model for the move. Much better than any CGI crap.
Also, obligatory awesome photo of said Darkstar model.