Mirage IV for SAC, instead B-57 and B-58

Were it possible, I think a development of the Yak-141 for replacement of the USMC Harrier fleet would have allowed the JSF to be purely CTOL, allowing the design to be more capable, simpler, and possess a greater degree of standardization, so I find that to be an interesting suggestion, McColm.

I can't agree with the Hurricane at all, though. I love the Hurricane, personally, and think that it is severely underrated, but I think both the P-36 and P-40 were fine aircraft that were just as good for the US in most respects.

As for the V-bombers, the Valiant offered the US nothing it didn't already have with the B-47. The Vulcan and Victor were definitely better than the B-47, but the USAF couldn't afford to wait the extra 5+ years it would've taken for them to get into service. The B-47 production was ending by the time they were available. The B-52 was in a different class, really. I always thought that the Vulcan and Victor were Britain's equivalents, then I looked at the numbers. Range, bombload, endurance, etc. The B-52 really was (still is) extraordinary.

I do think that the Victor or Vulcan would have been more sensible B-47 replacement than the B-58, though, impressive as the Hustler was for raw speed. It was very expensive and dangerous to have that speed, and both V-bombers outlasted it. MiB's suggestion of the Mirage IV is also very practical instead of the B-58.

Cheers,

Logan

Thanks Logan.

A Victor, fully loaded, could carry the same weight in bombs as a Big Belly B-52 Logan ---  and it was supersonic (admittedly when empty)

Not to anywhere near the same distance, though. Also, the largest number of 1,000 lb bombs the RAF operationally used the Victor with was 35. The USAF had that capability with their own service B-52s and considered it insufficient, leading to the Big Belly that carried the 60,000 lbs. Eventually, that would lead to the current capability we see with the B-52H, which has a military load exceeding 100,000 lbs.

Quote from: Air VectorsSome sources state that the Victor had a heavier bombload than the much bigger Boeing B-52, but that was only true if the B-52's external bombload capability was ignored, and the B-52 also had a much longer unrefueled range. Sources also claim that the Victor could carry two of the World War II 5,440 kilogram (12,000 pound) Tallboy deep penetration bombs, or one of the Tallboy's "big brother", the 9,070 kilogram (20,000 pound) Grand Slam bomb. However, it is unclear if the Tallboy and Grand Slam were ever qualified on the Victor, and very uncertain that they were ever service weapons for the aircraft.

Air Vectors

The B-52H also had an unrefueled ferry range exceeding 10,000 miles, even setting the record with an over 11,000 mile flight on top of that. Trying to keep Victors aloft for the same missions that the B-52 flew would have placed an even greater strain on SAC's KC-135 fleet, kept the KC-135s closer to harm's way, and made some missions downright impossible.

The RAF knew all this. That's why Victors were assigned to Medium Bomber Force (MBF). Compared to the capabilities of the B-52, the Victor was a medium bomber.

Defensively, the B-52 had a tail gun position that came in handy in Vietnam, bagging it three kills, and the ECM suite wasn't nearly as good on the Victor, either.



I think the Victor is very underrated and does not get the credit that the Vulcan does due to the Vulcan's Black Buck fame and the fact that the Vulcan was just plain prettier. The Victor was definitely the best performer of the V-Bombers and one of the finest strategic bombers of the Cold War. I love it. I have numerous books on the Victor alone and I'm sure I'll still buy more. It was, however, no B-52. How could anyone expect it to be? The B-52 was huge.

I'm not saying there's no place in the USAF for the Victor, not by any means. Not every mission calls for a B-52H. I think you do the USAF harm by trying to replace B-52s with the Victor, however. SAC was operating B-52s at their limit for much of the Cold War.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 01:23:45 PM
Not to anywhere near the same distance, though. Also, the largest number of 1,000 lb bombs the RAF operationally used the Victor with was 35. The USAF had that capability with their own service B-52s and considered it insufficient, leading to the Big Belly that carried the 60,000 lbs. Eventually, that would lead to the current capability we see with the B-52H, which has a military load exceeding 100,000 lbs.

Cheers,

Logan

There was plans to do exactly what the B-52 has, wing pylons. In the Victors case they were actually pods which could carry ten 1000lb bombs in each, that works out to 55,000lbs of bombs.  True it didn't have USA to Europe range but then it wasn't designed to do that which is why I don't agree that the USA should have had it.



I've been trying to figure out your numbers Logan, the most bombs that could be packed into and onto the Big Belly was 108 500 lb bombs which works out to 54,000lbs, and what I've read is that the G & H only carried about 51,000lb

have seen mentioned replacing the A10 with frogfoot....I seriously don't believe the A10 will be replaced by anything as capable in its role.

could the scout have carried out the role of the OH6A Cayuse in Vietnam?

Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 03:07:15 PM
could the scout have carried out the role of the OH6A Cayuse in Vietnam?

Yeah, but it wouldn't have been any better and it's doubtful that they could have
beat Hughes on price. Just ask Hiller. 

Concorde,
Yes I know there was the noise debate. What if it was fitted with American engines or a hush kit.
Saro Princess- Convair did a few design studies and 1/24 models with six turboprop engines similar to the Lockheed P-3 Orion layout.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 11:19:05 AM
Were it possible, I think a development of the Yak-141 for replacement of the USMC Harrier fleet would have allowed the JSF to be purely CTOL, allowing the design to be more capable, simpler, and possess a greater degree of standardization, so I find that to be an interesting suggestion, McColm.

I can't agree with the Hurricane at all, though. I love the Hurricane, personally, and think that it is severely underrated, but I think both the P-36 and P-40 were fine aircraft that were just as good for the US in most respects.

As for the V-bombers, the Valiant offered the US nothing it didn't already have with the B-47. The Vulcan and Victor were definitely better than the B-47, but the USAF couldn't afford to wait the extra 5+ years it would've taken for them to get into service. The B-47 production was ending by the time they were available. The B-52 was in a different class, really. I always thought that the Vulcan and Victor were Britain's equivalents, then I looked at the numbers. Range, bombload, endurance, etc. The B-52 really was (still is) extraordinary.

I do think that the Victor or Vulcan would have been more sensible B-47 replacement than the B-58, though, impressive as the Hustler was for raw speed. It was very expensive and dangerous to have that speed, and both V-bombers outlasted it. MiB's suggestion of the Mirage IV is also very practical instead of the B-58.

Cheers,

Logan

Interesting analogy a development of the Yak-141 for replacement of the USMC Harrier fleet Logan!! Has merit in my opinion, as didn't the U.S collaborate with the Russian's re the deflective engine exhaust arrangement of the Yak-141 anyway?

Re the British V-bomber's and the USAF, I remember reading somewhere that Hap Arnold was influenced by the Valiant's (I think it was the Valiant  ) cockpit arrangement, which was supposed to have spurred the redesign of the original XB-52's B-47 style fighter-like cockpit arrangement, to that of how we know the B-52 in actual service!

M.A.D   

Quote from: MAD on July 26, 2014, 06:51:42 PM
Interesting analogy a development of the Yak-141 for replacement of the USMC Harrier fleet Logan!! Has merit in my opinion, as didn't the U.S collaborate with the Russian's re the deflective engine exhaust arrangement of the Yak-141 anyway?

Re the British V-bomber's and the USAF, I remember reading somewhere that Hap Arnold was influenced by the Valiant's (I think it was the Valiant  ) cockpit arrangement, which was supposed to have spurred the redesign of the original XB-52's B-47 style fighter-like cockpit arrangement, to that of how we know the B-52 in actual service!

M.A.D   

No, the three-bearing nozzle was originated in the US in the 1960s:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137

Hap Arnold retired in 1946 and died in 1950, perhaps you are thinking of Le May?

Lockheed was prepared to throw some money on the Yak-141 and move to the Yak-143.

Quote from: McColm on July 26, 2014, 06:23:29 PM
Concorde,
Yes I know there was the noise debate. What if it was fitted with American engines or a hush kit.

They'd have still been just as noisy. The requirement for supersonic speed defines the performance of the engine and very few engines, US built or otherwise, could match the Olympus anyway, and that performance meant it would be noisy for take-off. Hush-kitting a supersonic engine is a non-starter, if it could have been done practically without losing even more money Bristol/Rolls Royce/BAC/BA etc would have done it.

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 26, 2014, 07:35:53 PM

Hap Arnold retired in 1946 and died in 1950, perhaps you are thinking of Le May?

Ah thank you joncarrfarrelly, I stand corrected. Thanks

M.A.D