Russia still trying to play Super Powers, when it can not afford it!
Or has it waken up to the fact that all that latest and advanced weaponry and technology it has been selling to the likes of the PRC may well come back at them.
Russia – look after your internal problems first, stabilize your economy, fix your coruption and dispose of your dilapidated nuclear stockpiles of weapons and reactors (Ships and subs, which are dangerously rooting in harbors) safely and then think about playing world power once again.

Regards
Pioneer

Here’s to US Navy – Nuclear-powered ships – Take 2

Hopefully if the US Navy goes back to building nuclear-powered ships, it gets over its problem of these ships growing in size, displacement and hence financial blow outs in costs – hence the potential of good numbers are always effected.
For example – the Long Beach (CGN-9) was originally intended to be 7,800 ton standard,
but it grossed out at 14,200 ton standard. (note- granted it was the first
nuclear ship of its kind – an experiment / prototype)

With today’s technology, in nuclear reactors (power, core life and size), vertical-launch weapon/missile magazines (that do away with the heavy, slow and cumbersome missile launchers and magazines of old) and smaller, lighter and more powerful electronics, the US Navy should be able to build a true nuclear-powered Destroyer sized escort, that will minimize the need of larger, heavier and more costly Cruisers.
Who knows, the US Navies attempts at a nuclear-powered Frigate, of old, may be no larger than a true frigate!

Regards
Pioneer

Hi gents

I am still looking for that photo that someone must have when the USAF and Lockheed tested the capability of the F-104 both carrying and launching a AIR-2 Genie nuclear -tipped air to air rocket?
The USAF put this requirement to Lockheed in an attempt to terminate its commitment to the F-104 program.
Lockheed, went on to meet this demand, with a centre-line (fuselage) mounted trapez type launcher that worked.
But I have not been able to find a pic of it yet
Can anyone help???????????????????????????????????????????

Regards
Pioneer

Hi Super Nimrod

I hear what you are saying about cutting back on the Concordes speed to save fuel!

I take it your name is due to your like of the Nimrod MP aircraft yes?

Well why not like the Nimrod, shut down (put into minimal thrust) one or two of its engines while in transit to Eastern Europe. Then when in range of predicted enemy intercrptor range, light all four engines up and go supersonic into the target!

Or what about what the French did to max their Mirage IV bombers range!
Use another Mirage IV (or in this case another Concorde) as a refuelling aircraft on the way to its target (extrem and costly I know, but so is nuclear war!)

What would the Concordes low-altitude, high speed handling have been like?
For like the American’s the Bomber Concorde would still have had to have gone high-speed, low-altitude to survive modern Soviet Air Defences.

My idea of a bomber version of the Concorde would have a min of two internal weapons bays each armed with 4-round rotary launchers for a total of 8 x AGM-69A SRAM’s, and with the forward fuselage and rear fuselage equiped with built in fuel tanks.
Added to this a comprehensive defensive and offensive Electronic Warfare systems.

Well thats what I think would have made the ‘Bombcorde’

Regards
Pioneer

The Want Of An Infantryman

It really never ceases to amaze me the American / USAF mentality of easily forgetting important combat lessons!

In WWII the USAAF learnt the importance of close-air support from the Germans.
It utilised the ruggedness and firepower of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt in the role of close-air support and tank-busting to great effect, near the end of the war to prove this fact.

But come the Korean War, it had just about forgotten this valuable lesson of close-air support.
It was infatuated with the fast-mover jet aircraft, like the F-80 and F-84, to do the job, thinking that speed was everything. They learned the hard way that the fast-moving jets did not have the staying power and endurance to keep in contact with the enemy, when giving CAS. Again it had to put back into front-line service, the likes of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, A-26 Invader and the Vought Crusader to great effect.

At the end of the Korean War the USAF again put its faith and dreams into the ‘Fast-mover’ mentality. Every thing had to be supersonic!

But then came the Vietnam War.
It once again at the cost of its ground forces, had to relearn the importance of CAS.
The USAF put their faith of this important role, as a secondary task, that they thought any aircraft could perform by strapping bombs and rockets to their ‘Fast movers’, like the F-100 and the F-4.
But once it became clear that the pilot providing CAS had to be able to clearly ID the target, loiter and continuously attack.
Out of desperation the USAF had to employ (and at great cost) the trusty Douglas A-1 Skyraider, the Martin Canberra, Douglas A-26 Invader and North American T-28 Trojan.

During the Vietnam War, the US Army was so discussed and mistrustful of the USAF commitment and seriousness in its effort to take the role of CAS as a priority, that the US Army itself considered and actually tested aircraft specifically to give its ground forces dedicated CAS aircraft (the Fiat G.91, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter and the Cessna T-37), and seriously tried to establish its own fixed-wing CAS units (This was blocked by strong protest by the USAF to both the Pentagon and Congress.).
The US Army then tried curtailing this blocking move by the USAF to deny the Army their guarantee of CAS by putting out its ‘Advanced Aerial Fire Support System’ (AAFSS) competition in 1964.
This lead to the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne combat helicopter, at its own cost.

So concern was the USAF, that it would loss a role it thought belong to them to the Army (as apposed to the well being of its fellow American’s in the Army), that they submitted to Army & Congress pressure to take the CAS role seriously.
Hence was born the ‘Attack-Experimental’ (A-X) aircraft program, and hence one of the most purposely designed and protected close-air support aircraft in history – the ‘Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II’

But yet again with the end of the Vietnam War, and after it had re-learnt all over again, the USAF was not long considering how to get rid of the A-10.

It would use the surface-to-air missile (SAM) as its primary excuse – stating because of its low speed, the A-10 would not be able to survive, and a faster (supersonic) aircraft was needed.

The USAF would try to kill off the A-10 with a souped up LTV YA-7F Corsair derivative, and its pet love the General Dynamics A-16 (F-16 derivative – remember the fighter the USAF never wanted, and tried so many times to kill off!).

Then came the 1st Gulf War against Iraq.
Everyone wanted the A-10 in theatre ASAP!
The A-10 did everything that was asked of it and much more, during that war.
The A-10 Warthog became one of the most feared weapon of the war by Iraqi ground (and Scud) forces.

Yet immediately the Gulf War had finished, the USAF was out to ouster the A-10 once again from service.

Then came the conflict in the former Yugoslavia!
Again the A-10 was there taking out ground targets, and became feared!

Then came the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!
And what is the aircraft that has proven to be wanted by all theatre commanders and troops alike?
You guessed it the mighty A-10!

And what has the USAF learned about CAS and its importance?
It still wishes to replace this excellent, purposely designed and armed Close-Air Support weapon system, with yet again high-tech, supersonic, maintenance intense ‘Fast Mover’, that has never had the role of CAS / Battlefield Interdiction taken into consideration of its design

CRAZZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards
Pioneer

Well if India & China are going to enter into a Naval aviation / carrier arms race of sorts, then it will only be a matter of (short) time before either or both are introducing the Tupolev ‘Backfire’ into their order of battle.

Which will be very bad for this area of the world!

Regards
Pioneer

I found the YSH-61 pic at last!It is here:

Precious “whatiff” computer art and a scan of the real design from Boeing

Hi Pometablava

Under what sub heading do I find this picture of the Boeing-Vertol YSH-61?

Regards
Pioneer