StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Brovane wrote:Is the tooling and jigs still around for the B-1B bombers?

Approximately 57 percent of B-1B peak production tooling was retained in government storage and at Rockwell or suppliers; however, this retained tooling represents 80 percent of the total value (cost) of all B-1B tooling and includes all of the long lead time tooling. Additional tooling that may be required would only represent 20 percent of overall tooling value and this supplemental tooling required could also be made quickly and inexpensively (this category includes such items as work platform ramps around aircraft and large cargo containers for shipping major sub-assemblies). A total of 96,000 tools are currently available with 66,000 in Government storage; and 30,000 at Rockwell and suppliers.

It would take about 18 months to rebuild the production line with the first production aircraft rolling off the lines two years after that. That's assuming an all-hands-to-the-pumps exercise.

By the way, the USAF never throws tooling away if it can help it. There are 350,000 items of production tooling in storage at Davis Monthan including a complete F-84 and F-111 production line. The exceptions are where equipment was deliberately scrapped to prevent an aircraft being put back into production (SR-71, B-70 and F-14) and even then its rumored that some of the scrapped equipment was accidentally stored at Davis Monthan.

The new aircraft would be the B-1C and probably owe more to the B-1A than the B-1B

There are 350,000 items of production tooling in storage at Davis Monthan including a complete F-84 and F-111 production line.



Got any sources for this? Do they publish anything that lists whats in storage at AMARC?

Say, is there any chance of a B-70 clone making it's appearance in this story; or an F-108 as B-72 and F-118s?

Even though a lot of the specific tooling needed to make an exact clone of them was scrapped; the aircraft designs themselves (B-70/F-108) represent 1957/1958 state of the art frozen for mass production. We'd be able to make improvements on them, and many techniques developed for the B-70 are still around (the B-1's wing spar box is made using a technique developed for B-70, in which you put like 12 different machined titanum parts together and then expose them to heat and pressure for a period of time; at which point they actually fuse into a single part, for all intents structurally.)

Stuart wrote:

Brovane wrote:Is the tooling and jigs still around for the B-1B bombers?

Approximately 57 percent of B-1B peak production tooling was retained in government storage and at Rockwell or suppliers; however, this retained tooling represents 80 percent of the total value (cost) of all B-1B tooling and includes all of the long lead time tooling. Additional tooling that may be required would only represent 20 percent of overall tooling value and this supplemental tooling required could also be made quickly and inexpensively (this category includes such items as work platform ramps around aircraft and large cargo containers for shipping major sub-assemblies). A total of 96,000 tools are currently available with 66,000 in Government storage; and 30,000 at Rockwell and suppliers.

It would take about 18 months to rebuild the production line with the first production aircraft rolling off the lines two years after that. That's assuming an all-hands-to-the-pumps exercise.

By the way, the USAF never throws tooling away if it can help it. There are 350,000 items of production tooling in storage at Davis Monthan including a complete F-84 and F-111 production line. The exceptions are where equipment was deliberately scrapped to prevent an aircraft being put back into production (SR-71, B-70 and F-14) and even then its rumored that some of the scrapped equipment was accidentally stored at Davis Monthan.

The new aircraft would be the B-1C and probably owe more to the B-1A than the B-1B

I am always amazed at how you can find out this information. So basically it will take 3 1/2 years before B-1C bombers will start rolling off the production line. That would be interesting to think what a B-1C would be like. Do you know how long it would take to start the production line of the B-2 bomber again?

Stuart wrote:By the way, the speed issue is where the F-22 really gets to be useful - that supercruise is well worth it. The problem with the F-15 and F-16 is that they're being built in small numbers and cranking up the line is harder than it sounds. The F-22 is being built in relatively large numbers so its less of a problem. The F-35 is probably doomed; the world is mobilizing so future build projects get canned.

When does LRIP for the F-35A start? I've seen quotes floating on the web of last year. If that's the case, it may be close enough to full rate production that we might as well just put it into production, and back burner the B and C models.

MKSheppard wrote:There are 350,000 items of production tooling in storage at Davis Monthan including a complete F-84 and F-111 production line.

:shock:

Got any sources for this? Do they publish anything that lists whats in storage at AMARC?

So we're going to probably start F-84 production enmasse as soon as possible? They'd be more than capable against Harpies.

MKSheppard wrote: Got any sources for this? Do they publish anything that lists whats in storage at AMARC?

HERE

AMARG publish an on-line database that lists every aircraft that's been through their hands, what happened to it and where it went. You can find it HERE

I did it the easy way, I just phoned up one of my cronies there and asked.

When does LRIP for the F-35A start? I've seen quotes floating on the web of last year. If that's the case, it may be close enough to full rate production that we might as well just put it into production, and back burner the B and C models.

AFAIK next year so it might be worth keeping.

So we're going to probably start F-84 production enmasse as soon as possible? They'd be more than capable against Harpies.

Sadly, no. There's nowhere to get the engines from. The F-111 though is a distinct possibility.

Stuart wrote:Sadly, no. There's nowhere to get the engines from

Not even re-engining them with a modern small diameter turbofan? Of course, you'd have to recertify them, but it's cheaper than designing a whole new aircraft from the ground up.

What about the A-10's? Cause if you're going to provide CAS in a harpie heavy environment, I'd want something that can hit hard at that altitude, can probably survive a swipe or two from a harpie and is fast enough to get out of there. I know Boeing are building new A-10 wings to help keep them in service after the WONDERFUL attempt to retire them (again) fell through and the aircraft isn't really THAT high tech, even if its probably quite complex given the redundancy and so on built into it.

I mean I can't see them going in in a harpy heavy environment, but I can see them being the first wave of air to ground support after air superiority has been obtained, but before you can utterly guarantee that there are no harpies waiting to try and slice up choppers.

Any chance of a production line opening for them? And on the same note, how many Su-25's are flying these days in the Russian inventory? I know they've been continually upgrading and modernizing them over the years, albeit probably in smallish numbers.

Stuart wrote: Sadly, no. There's nowhere to get the engines from. The F-111 though is a distinct possibility.

What about the AS900 series? They have the right amount of thrust and don’t seem to have excessive diameter, and are in production for Bombardier businesses jets. I suppose though it might just be easier to work on expanding production of the numerous jet and turboprop armed trains the world already has.

Chris OFarrell wrote: And on the same note, how many Su-25's are flying these days in the Russian inventory? I know they've been continually upgrading and modernizing them over the years, albeit probably in smallish numbers.

The Russians have about 250 of the things in the Air Force and Navy. A handful have been modernized along the lines of the A-10C, except they also got radars, this program is ongoing but might well be abandon in this scenario, in favor of maximum availability of airframes for immediate combat. A glass cockpit and radar guided anti tank missiles are not very relevant for smashing huge masses of infantry.

IIRC Russia and Georgia each have a factory still capable of building the aircraft and I've read that enough parts are stockpiled at the Georgia plant to assemble as many as 75 planes should anyone feel like paying for it.

There should be some serious research done in fitting a new engine to the Thunderjet--that would be an enormously cheap bird we could get in reasonable numbers quickly, because it's so simple, comparatively. I'll do my best to try and research the diameter and mounting if you want me to, to try and see if it could be done.

Would it be too much to hope for in seeing Skyraiders with napalm and FFARs rolling out en masse too? If we're resurrecting dead planes, I want at least one badass turboprop (assuming you go the AD-3 route).

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Oh, christ, I was already assuming that the first people to be drafted would be individuals who'd gotten a rating to fly Mig-15s, Mig-17s and Mig-21s and so on. They already have the skills as private pilots to fly high performance jets, so grab them and throw them into combat training programmes immediately. This being distinct from the retired reserve of airline pilots back wearing sky blue. "Congratulations, you're being drafted straight in as a lieutenant," will be a fairly common thing to be heard among private airfields around the country. Yeah, a fair number of them will wash out, but they'll have a powerful motivation to make sure they don't--they'll get transferred to the infantry then, most likely.

I was referring mostly to his famous Minicon trick in the Nigerian civil war of sticking rockets and small stores on trainers then using them to devestating effect. Good enough preformance to avoid Harpies, but not expensive in the least. Though Valdemar's suggestion of bringing the Skyraider back blows that out of the water since we could bombard the Baldricks with toilets if we run out of bombs.

But that's also true.

If you want a cheap light fighter, massive expanding the F-16 line, perhaps building a slightly simplified version, would be the way to go. Its modern, widely in use with spare parts, proven and there are active production lines which are much easier to expand then restarting a whole new one.

Chris OFarrell wrote:If you want a cheap light fighter, massive expanding the F-16 line, perhaps building a slightly simplified version, would be the way to go. Its modern, widely in use with spare parts, proven and there are active production lines which are much easier to expand then restarting a whole new one.

You mean the F-5?

KlavoHunter wrote: You mean the F-5?

The F-5 is still in production?

Someone better let RAF Alconbury know then, because they stupidly put an F-5 up as their gateguard I routinely drive by.

KlavoHunter wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:If you want a cheap light fighter, massive expanding the F-16 line, perhaps building a slightly simplified version, would be the way to go. Its modern, widely in use with spare parts, proven and there are active production lines which are much easier to expand then restarting a whole new one.

You mean the F-5?

No. I meant the F-16 Fighting Falcon / Viper.

Chris OFarrell wrote:No. I meant the F-16 Fighting Falcon / Viper.

Yes, but the F-5 Tiger DOES fit the bill for a "Cheap light fighter".

Yes, the F-16 is not, and is not in sufficient quantities of production.

The F-84 Thunderstreak (I assume that's the version we have the toolings for), on the other hand, is perfect for killing harpies....

EDIT:

Stu, I've already found something useful.

The YF-84J was a modified version of the F-84 Thunderstreak fitted with a J73. Conversion was possible from originals, and it just required a slightly deepened fuselage and minor modifications to the intakes. It reached Mach 1.09 in level flight. It was rather costly, but in wartime that isn't so much of an issue, especially since the F-84 would use so very few of what are strategic resources now--i.e., electronics.

Now, here's where things get interesting. The J73 was of course the engine for the F-86. But the F-86 was compatible with the Avon--the Aussie Avon Sabres. And the Avon is still in production as a stationary power generation engine--the basic engine design isn't changed in that powerplant model.

I'm not sure if that line of reasoning is anything except a dead-end, but I'd love dearly to see the Thunderstreak back in the air with Avon engines. If not, I'll keep looking for another potentially useful engine.

I'd rather see the Sabre back in the air, though the Thunderstreak is definitely a better option given its higher payload.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Yes, the F-16 is not, and is not in sufficient quantities of production.

The F-84 Thunderstreak (I assume that's the version we have the toolings for), on the other hand, is perfect for killing harpies....

The F-16 is RUNNING and its still in MAJOR worldwide service, meaning there are people trained to fly it, plenty of spare parts stockpiled, production lines for those kinds of space parts running. It means it can run with modern ordinance and components rahter then having to start up a whole tree of production lines and you have factory workers already in the workplace who build F-16's for a living and probably a market of people who did it not THAT long ago.

Its going to be FAR easier to just order more F-16 factories, expand existing factories and so on then building F-84 factories, training people to make them, service them and fly them. I'm betting there are FAR more retried pilots qualified on the F-16 who will only need a quick refresher course, then pilots flying F-84's.

If you need lots of lightweight fighters fast, you just can't go past the lawndart, there have been be zillions of those things made.

Chris OFarrell wrote: If you need lots of lightweight fighters fast, you just can't go past the lawndart, there have been be zillions of those things made.

Evyer existing production line will be worked as hard as it can be, but the F-84 or other simple lightweight fighters would draw on a much lower level of technology and manufacturing expertise then anything like an F-16. You could probably make most of the airframes for somthing like the F-84 or Skyraider in a modern car plant.

I know I'm dragging up a topic that we seem to have moved away from, but as people were talking about the logistics of feeding the people in hell, I had to give the idea of "Wtf is going on to begin with" some thought. We humans are not born in hell. We die, our souls appear in hell, and we appear with fully formed bodies.

Quite honestly, it sounds like we humans actually don't need to eat in hell as we seem to be using the very energies of that hell dimension to not only sustain us, but also to shape our forms and heal/repair those forms. Granted, the people of hell most likely could take in food (semi-vestigial leftovers perhaps?), but it seems like the rules of mass and energy are slightly different in heaven and hell than on earth.

The demons in hell on the otherhand appear to need to eat, reproduce sexually (with a few reproducing asexually as well most likely), and they seem stuck (or more stuck than the humans in hell at least) in whatever form they are born in.

Quite honestly, it seems like we humans are more evolved when we ascend to hell, and in some ways, more powerful than the denizens of hell. The problem is that we appear with all this energy within hell, and the demons want that energy for themselves, and have set things up to terrorize and subdue humanity into submission so that the demons can take it from us.

This is all conjecture granted, but it would explain some of the funky things we're seeing. It would also by implication make the elysian fields something along the lines of slave based farming areas to feed the denizens of hell, and the circles of hell as just areas dedicated to torture and dispair to help harvest that energy from humanity for the demons to use in their own ascensions.

Sea Skimmer wrote:<F-84s>

And on the upside, you can rack just about any plane up with enough AIM-9s to blow an enormous hole in a cloud of Harpies.