Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Pavelania]

Also Pavelania officially launched the B-X Program, a program to study different designs for our nex-gen bomber to replace our ancient B-08T Mk.IIs, which will undergo the Mk.III upgrade which should keep them flying at least until 2030. Currently one design is officially submitted for study, which is in a B-1A/TU-160 configuration. Im not counting the B-1B, only the B-1A and TU-160 configuration. How good is this configuration as a bomber? Also what engines should be used?

[Pavelania]

OOC: In regards to forward-swept wings, the tech demonstrators I've seen all had relatively long and narrow wings at an extreme angle. I've been experimenting with a FSW design in KSP that has a shallower angle with wide, somewhat shorter wings akin to a conventional fighter. It's been pretty promising.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.c ... AED459ED5/

Nice design!

[The Akasha Colony]

Also Pavelania officially launched the B-X Program, a program to study different designs for our nex-gen bomber to replace our ancient B-08T Mk.IIs, which will undergo the Mk.III upgrade which should keep them flying at least until 2030. Currently one design is officially submitted for study, which is in a B-1A/TU-160 configuration. Im not counting the B-1B, only the B-1A and TU-160 configuration. How good is this configuration as a bomber? Also what engines should be used?

Rather poor. It's big, heavy, and requires lots of maintenance while not going fast enough to actually be survivable.

You more or less have three options for a bomber:

1. A cheap bomb truck whose primary justification is economics. Low maintenance, low cost of operation, high readiness, good payload, and good endurance. Like B-52, but B-52 is getting so old its costs are starting to rise again. This bomber will not be survivable in enemy airspace but it is the cheapest way to launch large numbers of stand-off weapons at a target and is economical to use in low-intensity conflicts or when near-total air superiority has been achieved. A modern design may be adapted from an existing commercial airliner or military airlifter to reduce costs.

2. A subsonic stealth bomber like B-2 that is able to slip through enemy air defenses due to a low signature. With advancements in stealth technology this is probably the cheapest and easiest option for a survivable bomber, which is unsurprisingly why it's the option most favored. With even basic stealth technology becoming more widely available, semi-stealth or even full-stealth bombers of this type are likely to replace the B-52/Tu-95-esque bomb trucks of old (with designs like B-21).

3. A Mach 3+ supersonic or even hypersonic bomber that is survivable because it flies so high and so fast that the enemy's interception window and range are hugely reduced, allowing it to slip through gaps in enemy defenses like a stealth bomber. No actual bomber of this type has ever been put into service although there were proposals to modify SR-71 to deliver ordnance and XB-70 was in this speed range. These designs are complicated because they require extremely powerful engines tuned to very specific performance regimes and generally have poor endurance but potentially very fast reaction times.

The B-1 does not fall into any of these categories. It is not sufficiently fast to be protected from interception, and this was the reason the B-1A was cancelled in the first place. It is not stealthy (even B-1B is not that stealthy). It is not cheap to operate either, with high-performance engines and a complicated and expensive wing-sweep mechanism.

[Pavelania]

Also Pavelania officially launched the B-X Program, a program to study different designs for our nex-gen bomber to replace our ancient B-08T Mk.IIs, which will undergo the Mk.III upgrade which should keep them flying at least until 2030. Currently one design is officially submitted for study, which is in a B-1A/TU-160 configuration. Im not counting the B-1B, only the B-1A and TU-160 configuration. How good is this configuration as a bomber? Also what engines should be used?

Rather poor. It's big, heavy, and requires lots of maintenance while not going fast enough to actually be survivable.

You more or less have three options for a bomber:

1. A cheap bomb truck whose primary justification is economics. Low maintenance, low cost of operation, high readiness, good payload, and good endurance. Like B-52, but B-52 is getting so old its costs are starting to rise again. This bomber will not be survivable in enemy airspace but it is the cheapest way to launch large numbers of stand-off weapons at a target and is economical to use in low-intensity conflicts or when near-total air superiority has been achieved. A modern design may be adapted from an existing commercial airliner or military airlifter to reduce costs.

2. A subsonic stealth bomber like B-2 that is able to slip through enemy air defenses due to a low signature. With advancements in stealth technology this is probably the cheapest and easiest option for a survivable bomber, which is unsurprisingly why it's the option most favored. With even basic stealth technology becoming more widely available, semi-stealth or even full-stealth bombers of this type are likely to replace the B-52/Tu-95-esque bomb trucks of old (with designs like B-21).

3. A Mach 3+ supersonic or even hypersonic bomber that is survivable because it flies so high and so fast that the enemy's interception window and range are hugely reduced, allowing it to slip through gaps in enemy defenses like a stealth bomber. No actual bomber of this type has ever been put into service although there were proposals to modify SR-71 to deliver ordnance and XB-70 was in this speed range. These designs are complicated because they require extremely powerful engines tuned to very specific performance regimes and generally have poor endurance but potentially very fast reaction times.

The B-1 does not fall into any of these categories. It is not sufficiently fast to be protected from interception, and this was the reason the B-1A was cancelled in the first place. It is not stealthy (even B-1B is not that stealthy). It is not cheap to operate either, with high-performance engines and a complicated and expensive wing-sweep mechanism.

Ok thanks for the feedback! Our B-07 was designed right before WWII started, while the B-08 is the bigger brother to the B-07, which the B-08 was designed right after WWII ended and to date is our heaviest bomber. In the 19070s both the B-07 and our B-08 underwent the Mk.II upgrade, which reconstructed the airframes, replaced the old radial engines for Allison T56s, newer avionics, refueling port, and removed some of the turrets on the bomber and only kept the tail turret. Currently as said, the Mk.III upgrade coming in 2018, will again, reconstruct the airframes of the two, replace the T56s with RR AE 2100 engines to increase commonality with our C-130Js and C-27Js on order, add a full glass cockpit, and add blended winglets as well.

So we'll kept the B-1 configuration in mind, but we'll put it at the "bottom" of the list of designs and configurations. So basically our B-07T Mk.IIs and B-08T Mk.IIs ARE our cheap bomb trucks, which are very reliable, and have excellent STOl, but are very very slow for a 21st century bomber, and the Mk.III upgrade will be it's last major upgrade to keep them flying further.

However, we may at least have 2 squadrons of B-07Ts or B-08Ts remaining after 2030 in attempt to be the first "century bomber" in history (being in service for 100 years).

Actually, I did forget to mention this in the list of B-X ideas, but actually we do have another bomber program, with ties to the B-X program, called the "Bomb Truck Conversion Program", and studies the ideas of turning some of our KC-135Rs to "B-135Rs". It doesn't seem that bad of an idea, and we are in the process of converting a KC-135R to a "B-135R" to test this concept.

This isn't the first time we had a conversion program like this. We converted Boeing 747-200F, 300Fs, and 400Fs as military transports. The 747-200Fs were the most converted, designated in our military as "C-742", and the 747-300F as "C-743", and our 747-400Fs as "C-744". The C-742, C-743, and C-744, all have refueling ports, radar, rear ramp installed for loading vehicles and to air drop packages and vehicles over a battlefield, and come with chaff/flare dispensers as well. The C-742s will retire in 2018 and 2020, being replaced by our new C-17s, which are currently in storage/reserve, and the C-743 and C-744s will be replaced by either the C-748 (747-8F) or a westernised An-124 (If the An-124 comes back into production).

So B-1 config. isn't really advised anymore, so we got 2 options: Use "B-135R"s as interim cheap bomb trucks, or develop a new subsonic (or supersonic) stealth bomber from scratch (not in a B-1 Config.). We are interested in hypersonic flight, but we still need more research and testing into that before we can come up with a hypersonic bomber for us, so a B-135R or clean-sheet non-B-1 config. bombers are on the table for the B-X study.

So what do you think or a B-135R bomb truck concept?

[New Chilokver]

Are there advantages to a swing wing bomber when it comes to anti shipping aircraft like the Tu-22M?

[Pavelania]

Are there advantages to a swing wing bomber when it comes to anti shipping aircraft like the Tu-22M?

By the looks of it swing wing aircraft are good for flying efficiently at different phases of flight thanks to the swing wing but it stops right there. Swing wings are really heavy, complex, maintenance nightmares, and less reliable then a fixed wing aircraft, and also more expensive. This is why I guess we'll drop the B-1 configuration for our
B-X Program study. I'm thinking of going the B-135R route, which will fly as interim aircraft if possible, and develop a clean sheet bomber design. We are also launching the FB-X Program study as well, to develop a nex-gen Fighter Bomber to replace our crappy FB-06A Lions due in 2025 for retirement.

[Pavelania]

Also I finally completed my C-742 repaint of Bagera3005's 747-200 AF1. This is typically how our C-742/C-743/C-744 would look like:
http://johnnyboythepilot.deviantart.com ... 1482973829

[The Akasha Colony]

So what do you think or a B-135R bomb truck concept?

It's probably not worth it in the manner you are proposing. You are recycling an already ancient aircraft for a role that will require substantial modification. It would be one thing if you were to take an existing in-production airliner or airlifter, modify it at the design level, and then place it into production for new-build aircraft. But you are taking aircraft that at their youngest are over 50 years old and heavily modifying them for a completely different role whose primary feature is supposed to be low cost operation.

Honestly those WWII bombers should have been retired too. It is not a coincidence that despite the thousands of bombers produced during and just after WWII, none lasted very long in service and they were rapidly replaced by more modern swept-wing designs using some kind of jet powerplant. A number of significant advancements became available post-WWII that rendered all pre-WWII and WWII-era aircraft obsolete at a rather fundamental level, the simplest and most obvious being payload and range. If you need strategic bombing capability badly enough to continue to operate strategic bombers, you can afford to buy newer aircraft (at least jet-era designs). If you do not need it then there is no reason to continue operating such obsolescent aircraft, it is a waste of money and manpower.

If you insist for some reason on retaining them, then your obvious priority should be to replace them as quickly as possible.

Are there advantages to a swing wing bomber when it comes to anti shipping aircraft like the Tu-22M?

None inherent to that particular role.

The existing advantages of being able to combine good takeoff and low-altitude cruise performance with good supersonic performance remain, but modern engines with greater power can deliver these advantages without the weight, complexity, and space needed for a swing-wing mechanism. Especially for land-based aircraft, which can be relatively large without any serious problems.

[Rich and Corporations]

Are there advantages to a swing wing bomber when it comes to anti shipping aircraft like the Tu-22M?

By the looks of it swing wing aircraft are good for flying efficiently at different phases of flight thanks to the swing wing but it stops right there. Swing wings are really heavy, complex, maintenance nightmares, and less reliable then a fixed wing aircraft, and also more expensive. This is why I guess we'll drop the B-1 configuration for our
B-X Program study. I'm thinking of going the B-135R route, which will fly as interim aircraft if possible, and develop a clean sheet bomber design. We are also launching the FB-X Program study as well, to develop a nex-gen Fighter Bomber to replace our crappy FB-06A Lions due in 2025 for retirement.

is a swing wing more complex than a tiltrotor aircraft?

[Pavelania]

By the looks of it swing wing aircraft are good for flying efficiently at different phases of flight thanks to the swing wing but it stops right there. Swing wings are really heavy, complex, maintenance nightmares, and less reliable then a fixed wing aircraft, and also more expensive. This is why I guess we'll drop the B-1 configuration for our
B-X Program study. I'm thinking of going the B-135R route, which will fly as interim aircraft if possible, and develop a clean sheet bomber design. We are also launching the FB-X Program study as well, to develop a nex-gen Fighter Bomber to replace our crappy FB-06A Lions due in 2025 for retirement.

is a swing wing more complex than a tiltrotor aircraft?

Their both pretty complex, but I think the tilt-rotor is more complex.

[Pavelania]

So what do you think or a B-135R bomb truck concept?

It's probably not worth it in the manner you are proposing. You are recycling an already ancient aircraft for a role that will require substantial modification. It would be one thing if you were to take an existing in-production airliner or airlifter, modify it at the design level, and then place it into production for new-build aircraft. But you are taking aircraft that at their youngest are over 50 years old and heavily modifying them for a completely different role whose primary feature is supposed to be low cost operation.

Honestly those WWII bombers should have been retired too. It is not a coincidence that despite the thousands of bombers produced during and just after WWII, none lasted very long in service and they were rapidly replaced by more modern swept-wing designs using some kind of jet powerplant. A number of significant advancements became available post-WWII that rendered all pre-WWII and WWII-era aircraft obsolete at a rather fundamental level, the simplest and most obvious being payload and range. If you need strategic bombing capability badly enough to continue to operate strategic bombers, you can afford to buy newer aircraft (at least jet-era designs). If you do not need it then there is no reason to continue operating such obsolescent aircraft, it is a waste of money and manpower.

If you insist for some reason on retaining them, then your obvious priority should be to replace them as quickly as possible.

Are there advantages to a swing wing bomber when it comes to anti shipping aircraft like the Tu-22M?

None inherent to that particular role.

The existing advantages of being able to combine good takeoff and low-altitude cruise performance with good supersonic performance remain, but modern engines with greater power can deliver these advantages without the weight, complexity, and space needed for a swing-wing mechanism. Especially for land-based aircraft, which can be relatively large without any serious problems.

Our B-07s, and B-08s continued production after WWII, and continued to support the war effort during the North Atlantic War. Bomber production ended in mid-1960, but production for the cargo variants (C-07 and C-08) continued until the late 1980s. Even after the P7 and P8 models went out of production PAC continued to provide excellent support for the P7 and P8 series of aircraft.

Our B-135R concept will continue, but may only pass 1 prototype, mainly as a proof-of-concept of turning airliners/airlifters into bomber aircraft. But if we were to convert an in-production airliner, it would be the 737, 767, 777, or the 747.

[Pavelania]

Our only jet bombers/fighter bombers are Canberras and FB-06A Lions, both being retired by 2025. We are currently interested in the Su-34 Fullback as a Canberra replacement while our F-15SEs on order will replace the FB-06s.

[The Forever Whatever People]

Question: how feasible is it to place an F-35 engine w/F-22 vector thrust into a F-16 painted with F-22 stealth paint?

Because I was think of building a new F-16 block aircraft with these features

[Laritaia]

Question: how feasible is it to place an F-35 engine w/F-22 vector thrust into a F-16 painted with F-22 stealth paint?

Because I was think of building a new F-16 block aircraft with these features

it's not, the F-135 will physically not fit in an F-16.

[Pavelania]

Question: how feasible is it to place an F-35 engine w/F-22 vector thrust into a F-16 painted with F-22 stealth paint?

Because I was think of building a new F-16 block aircraft with these features

it's not, the F-135 will physically not fit in an F-16.

Yea thats what I was thinking too. The F135 would be to big for the F-16. But if you are still adding the thrust vectoring, I advise using 3-D thrust vectoring like on an F-16 VISTA and to make it stealthy use a saw-tooth design on the trailing edges of the afterburner pedals.

[The Akasha Colony]

Our B-07s, and B-08s continued production after WWII, and continued to support the war effort during the North Atlantic War. Bomber production ended in mid-1960, but production for the cargo variants (C-07 and C-08) continued until the late 1980s. Even after the P7 and P8 models went out of production PAC continued to provide excellent support for the P7 and P8 series of aircraft.

This doesn't actually explain anything. The key question remains: why does a nation that clearly has the ability to domestically design and produce its own reasonably modern aircraft and clearly has no aversion to importing foreign aircraft to fill its needs continue to produce and operate terribly obsolete aircraft for what many nations consider a key role?

You have plenty of options in regards to either designing a new bomber or buying one abroad and few if any incentives to continue to operate such obsolescent aircraft. The capabilities of even 1950s-era early jet aircraft compared to WWII-era bombers is almost incomparable. It's not a matter of maintaining "excellent support," it's a matter of the fundamental limitations of an obsolete airframe and its aerodynamic design versus more modern designs.

Our only jet bombers/fighter bombers are Canberras and FB-06A Lions, both being retired by 2025. We are currently interested in the Su-34 Fullback as a Canberra replacement while our F-15SEs on order will replace the FB-06s.

There's no point in buying Su-34 if you're buying any variant of F-15E, which literally does the same thing but is better. Just buy more F-15s to replace both types and don't bother with Su-34. It helps alleviate the growing issue your air force seems to have with operating too many types for no benefit.

[The Northernmost Americas]

For a nation employing the minuteman III, what improvements would feature on a hypothetical minuteman IV? Better CEP? Decoys?

[The Akasha Colony]

For a nation employing the minuteman III, what improvements would feature on a hypothetical minuteman IV? Better CEP? Decoys?

Most of the incremental improvements to things like the guidance system and boosters have already been undertaken in the intervening decades since Minuteman III entered service, including some quite recently. Unless the strategic picture has changed, the biggest improvements would probably be limited to improving safety, reducing maintenance, and improving accuracy and survivability in flight. There wouldn't be a major need for longer range unless your target has changed. Broader improvements could be made to the basing system in order to improve protection against enemy attack compared to the existing silos, but this is not directly related to the missiles themselves.

A few potential areas for consideration:

A newer, lighter casing made from modern graphite epoxy like Trident II, maybe even something newer.

Possibly newer, higher-energy and more insensitive propellant, depending on range requirements. More energetic propellant could extend range without increasing size or weight but given Minuteman's role as a stationary weapon, it was presumably already designed with sufficient range to accomplish its expected objectives. More modern insensitive propellants would probably be attractive from a safety and longevity perspective, though.

A better CEP using guided reentry vehicles, likely similar to those tested by the US Navy for Trident II. These may also involve maneuverable reentry vehicles to increase resistance to interception and possibly increase cross-range capability, although this may be seen as a provocation depending on the political environment.

If no longer bound by treaties, possibly a return to a MIRV configuration from the current unitary warhead arrangement.

[Allanea]

Also possibly a conventional version, like Conventional Trident.

[Oultremer]

Symbols of Forces aériennes Oultremer (Oultremer Air Force) with the ensign, coat of arms, roundel regular and low visibility variants.

Not drawn or decided on any vehicles yet, leaning towards Bell UH-1 Iroquois and Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight as the helicopters in service.

[Pavelania]

(Image)
Symbols of Forces aériennes Oultremer (Oultremer Air Force) with the ensign, coat of arms, roundel regular and low visibility variants.

Not drawn or decided on any vehicles yet, leaning towards Bell UH-1 Iroquois and Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight as the helicopters in service.

Awesome! For our air force, we operate the Bell UH-1 Hueys, UH-1Ns, AH-1s, and our new UH-1Ys and AH-1Zs, OH-58s, Mi-24 Hind-Ds, and License-built CH-64 Skycranes as our heavy-lifter, which are still in production and heavily used by civilian operators.

[Pavelania]

There's no point in buying Su-34 if you're buying any variant of F-15E, which literally does the same thing but is better. Just buy more F-15s to replace both types and don't bother with Su-34. It helps alleviate the growing issue your air force seems to have with operating too many types for no benefit.

Only reason I want the SU-34 is the side-by-side seating, armor plating it has (I think the SU-34 is armor plated), very rugged and can take-off and land from unprepared airstrips, and it seems like it has a bigger bomb load than the F-15SE.

[United Earthlings]

It's definitely faster than 7 seconds. Here' the rotary launcher of a B-52 that carries eight ALCMs. It's like 1-2 seconds to rotate the next store in position.

It's still slower than a conventional rack but a rotary launcher has the advantage of being able to select what munition you want to drop, a useful feature for a B-1 or B-2 carrying say a mix of JASSMs, JSOWs, and GBU-32s.

From my calculations, somewhat faster than the B-1s, but around the same as the Tu-160s shown earlier. The video you linked to, doesn’t factor in the time for the weapon to be released, deployed and clear of the bay before the next missile is cleared for release, so about 2 or 3 additional seconds given an overall rate of fire of 4 to 5 seconds per missile.

Doesn’t really change anything from what I previous stated, but you did highlight another advantage of using a rotary launcher.

For a reconnaissance helicopter, is it better to...

• Build something in the vein of the Kiowa (side-by-side)
• Build something in the vein of the OH-1 (behind one another)
• Use a Reconnaissance version of my utility helicopter (not!Lynx Wildcat)?

I don't know the advantages/disadvantages of the first two in relation to eachother. I guess the main advantage of the latter is costs and commonality at the expense of not being quite as good at its job as a purpose-built frame.

In lieu of a manned recon heli, does anyone see any issues with instead employing UAVs in that role?* I would think the cost benefits would be greater using a drone even a VTOL one like the MQ-8 Firescout.

*Basically, are dedicated manned reconnaissance helicopters worth the cost of acquiring anymore or even effective on the modern battlefield? Seems to me a drone of some type would be a better utilization of resources.

Our B-07s, and B-08s continued production after WWII, and continued to support the war effort during the North Atlantic War. Bomber production ended in mid-1960, but production for the cargo variants (C-07 and C-08) continued until the late 1980s. Even after the P7 and P8 models went out of production PAC continued to provide excellent support for the P7 and P8 series of aircraft.

May be time to sit down and flush out the developmental timeline of your nation's various strategic bombers.

While they'll have their limitations and disadvantages which you should make clear and be fully aware of, newer prop driven aircraft designed/built after the war years could be developed by your nation if that is what your nation prioritizes for your nation's Air Force requirements.

That's the direction I took my nation since a jet bomber like the B-47/B-52 wasn't a pressing military requirement.

Starting in the late 40s, went from B-50 {operational till the early-60s} to B-36 {operational till the mid-80s}, complimented by the British Vulcan starting in the mid-50s {also operational to the mid-80s} only acquiring a large long range jet bomber in the 80s with the introduction of the B-1.

On the other side of the wall, the Soviets/Russians had the Tu-95 starting in 1956, which is still operational today in Russian service. The Soviets/Russians also converted the Tu-95 into an airliner.

In closing, just out of curiosity, what's the closest RL example of what the B-07s and B-08s would be?

[The Akasha Colony]

Only reason I want the SU-34 is the side-by-side seating, armor plating it has (I think the SU-34 is armor plated), very rugged and can take-off and land from unprepared airstrips, and it seems like it has a bigger bomb load than the F-15SE.

The Su-34's armor is less useful than the F-15's greater speed, agility, lower wing-loading, and especially the newer avionics and lower radar signature in the F-15SE. Modern ground attack and air support missions are rapidly moving away from A-10-style low-and-slow operations toward higher-altitude flight profiles relying on precision guidance and more advanced sensors for accuracy. This is because it's simply a much safer method and is less taxing on both the aircraft and the pilots. F-15SE is much better at these altitudes and in these roles than Su-34.

There are lots of short-range, low-altitude threats that exponentially increase the dangers to aircraft operating in these ranges, and it is more or less impossible to make an aircraft armored against them. The best way to avoid these is to simply fly a bit higher and operate out of their range. Su-34's armored tub makes it only marginally more survivable against modern SPAAGs or short-range SAMs but hampers its its capabilities in other flight regimes by significantly increasing its weight. The large cabin only makes this worse. The significant increase in weight (nearly 50% greater than the basic Su-27) without a commensurate increase in wing area and thrust means it has an unfavorable T:W ratio and poor maneuverability.

This in turn means that it will likely require a fighter escort if operating in contested airspace, unlike the F-15E derivatives which are designed not to need them and retain the F-15C's air combat performance. This is incidentally also what F-35 is also designed to do.

The rest of them aren't really notable advantages. F-15E has been used across the globe in all sorts of situations, it has worked well on runways of various quality from Europe to the Americas to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. Unprepared airstrip capability isn't a big deal given the widespread availability of existing facilities practically everywhere and the speed at which they can be repaired by a trained airfield crew. Su-34's advertised capabilities are a result of Russia's poor infrastructure, not some secret decisive advantage that NATO somehow totally missed (F-15 isn't helpless in a field either).

[Pavelania]

In closing, just out of curiosity, what's the closest RL example of what the B-07s and B-08s would be?

I'm not done with the drawings/blueprints, but the P7 and P8 (PAC model designation and name for the airliner variant) were at first a cargo plane, designated as C-07s and C-08s, and then developed into an airliner, which used the standard P7 and P8 civilian designations, and than the final variant, the bomber variant, B-07 and B-08.

The P7 and P8 in the real world look close to a C-130 Hercules.

The P7 was developed first, and the prototype first flew in 1938, which featured a straight wing, with a large roomy fuselage, a single large tire/wheel that retract in wheel pods on either side of the fuselage similar to a C-130, a standard tail design, and the cargo variant featured a rear folding ramp, again, like a C-130. The first 3-bladed prop variants had P&W R-985 Wasp Jr. radial engines, but the later variants featured P&W R-1340 Wasp radial engines.

The P8 was developed off of the P7, with a higher and longer fuselage, as well as wide tires/wheels with bigger wheel pods to fit the bigger tires/wheels. The wing was reinforced and strengthened which looks like a C-130 wing, and the x4 engines were P&W R-2800 Double Wasps. The cockpits of both the P7 and P8 were exactly the same to make pilot transition easier and increase commonality. The P8's first flight was in 1947.

Both the P7 and P8 after 1970 had the Allison T56 engine as the standard instead of the P&W engines. Some PT6 engine variants were also able to power P7s and P8s, but the military opted for T56s.

Both P7 and P8 production ended in 1987. B-07 and B-08 bomber production ended by 1965, and the cargo variant ended production like the P7 and P8 in 1987.