Both aircraft were built during the Eisenhower administration, which makes them both fifty years old. USAF was talking about flying them another fifty years to justify the expense of the upgrades. For the KC135 tankers, they want to replace the entire cockpit instrument panel with a new liquid crystal display. Then they want to add defensive systems, jammers, flare dispensers, maybe even defensive air-to-air missile systems, to allow the KC-135's to enter defended enemy airspace, or at least get closer to it. Somehow this doesn't seem worthwhile. A great big four engine tanker makes a fine radar or IR target, and it is never going to outrun a missile or a fighter. I don't see how jammers or IR lures, or missiles are going to help much when SAM is closing on you at Mach 3. To say nothing of liquid crystal displays which are probably not sunlight readable.
For the B52s, USAF is still talking about new engines. They are thinking about staying with 8 engines, just to avoid the paperwork hassle of new pylons to hold just 4 engines. Pratt & Whitney, makers of the existing B52 engines, is talking up an upgrade to the existing engines. New hot section parts, made from higher temperature alloys, would allow the engines to run hotter, which improves both thrust and fuel burn. On the other hand, with the B52 fleet down to 76 aircraft, all of which are fifty years old, I think we ought to fly 'em as they are and replace them with something newer ASAP. B52 is a good airplane, but a fifty year service life is plenty.
No comments:
Post a Comment