Eurofighter will remain operational up to 2060

[+GKABS 8,343]

Airbus says Eurofighter will remain operational up to 2060

 

[+Crusader 2,052]

Its all about business

[+GKABS 8,343]

Yes indeed

[+Crusader 2,052]

Free adaption:

Typhoon is our business
And business is good

[+Menrva 4,001]

Not sure if 2060 is feasible (it's more of a marketing thing), but the Typhoon is a fantastic multirole aircraft and can definitely live some more. As much as I love the looks of the F-22A Raptor, it has very little use (born mainly for air superiority, just few GBUs for AG, no HMD support) and Uncle Sam is doing the right thing about eventually replacing it before 2040. The Typhoon, on the other hand, can cover more requirements for the air forces of the UK, Italy, Germany and Spain. The F-35 gets so much hate, but let's remind it's got some of the most advanced avionics and it was born to be multirole; I doubt the future of military aviation rests on having dozens of different aircraft each with a single role.

[+Gepard 10,266]

If a plane is older than the pilot, then something is wrong in development pipeline.

[Mike Dora 171]

Based on year of first flight, equates to Sopwith Camel remaining operational until 1982, or Spitfire until 2002..

[+yakarov79 10,531]

4 hours ago, Gepard said:

If a plane is older than the pilot, then something is wrong in development pipeline

It means it is a good plane perhaps. 

 

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

4 hours ago, Gepard said:

If a plane is older than the pilot, then something is wrong in development pipeline.

only if its the exact same plane

if its been maintained, upgraded and is still useful in some role, why not keep using it?

a B-52H is only about 50% the same aircraft that left the Boeing line in 1961.....

[+Gepard 10,266]

In the case of the B-52, you mentioned, a lot was wrong in the development pipeline. First it was intended to replace the B-52 by B-58 Hustler. A big fail. Then the B-70 Valkyrie, an even bigger fail. Then the B-1A which was a fail. Then the B-1B which was rather mediocre than good. Then the B-2 which is much to expensive to operate this bird in large numbers. So the B-52 is still operational, because there is no plane that fits better the needs of the USAF. Or as my old professor said: "It is not neccessary to have the high potentials, you must have the right potentials!"

Edited December 2, 2021 by Gepard

[+daddyairplanes 8,689]

well the BUFF does have the right potentials, in that they keep changing what it can do (from yesterdays high altitude gravity bomber to tomorrows hypersonic missile truck and everything in between)

the B-58 and B-70  fell victim to both the SAM threat (neither could operate at intended speed or range down low) and the politics of the time (Kennedy wanted to go to almost all ICBMs, and only considered bombers for the fact that they could be launched to send a message then recalled if things cooled down)

the B-1 fell to politics as well, though Carter knew the Advance Technology Bomber aka B-2A was in the pipeline which convinced him to keep a campaign promise. It was plagued by immature tech in the 20th century, awesome but constantly used the first two decades of the 21st, then the overusage began to tell on the fleet the last couple of years.

the B-2 would have been much cheaper had the full run of 132 or more been built. But in the early 90s, alot of politicians wanted to kill it period (not even the 21 that were built) and it was hard to justify as there was no more big bad Soviet Union threat that needed to be contained (yes using the American world view there). Same politicians were short sighted to think the world would be a big happy place and that we wouldnt get involved somewhere else far from home or that somebody else would think they should be top dog on the planet rather than the US.

When the B-52 was built the USAF had a practice of putting an "0-" in front of the tail number of any aircraft over 10 years old. SAC's fleet (B-52s, KC-135s), almost all of MACs fleet, and the Century series staying in service into the late 70s (F-105G, F-104C, F-00Ds, F-106s) eliminated that practice. but when most of those aircraft were first built the common practice was that an aircraft would serve its original role about a decade in active service then a few years in the reserve forces before retirement. it would be interesting to see what LeMay would say if he were told the B-52Hs would be in service 60 years after they came off the line

Edited December 5, 2021 by daddyairplanes

[jhostin 2]

Make the 4th Gen alive for the Air Force.