What about the proposed carrier-based version of the Hun
Does anyone have any infomation on the carrier-based version of the F-100 Super Sabre proposed by North American to a US Navy Request for Proposal ??
Thanks Matej these pictures are great. They are the first designs I have seen that went up against the A-10 & A-9.
I love your web site!
Any chance of a larger or more clear picture of the 3-view drawings of the L-1400’s to see more detail ???
I will be visiting this in more detail. Keep up the good work!
Its great, but I can not read it, what language is it mate?
Archibaald I await your scaned picture with great anticipation my friend!
Thanks guys
Regards
Pioneer
Sorry this should have read
I am trying to find information (technical data / specifications) and drawings / pictures of the designs submitted to the USAF’s requirement SS-400L in 1951-52., that would be won by Lockheed with their famous Model 400 / YC-130 Hercules transport aircraft design.
The other aircraft / aerospace company’s that submitted proposals were General Dynamics (Convair), Boeing, Fairchild and Douglas
Does anyone know of these other design submissions ?
Regards
Pioneer
This would be great; as it will take away the stupid dependence of private freight company’s that the ADF have had to rely on all these years to move both heavy and outsized equipment or weapon systems. i.e. The ADF’s need to move a lot of its equipment required the leasing of An-124’s.
Long over due I say
Regards
Pioneer
Does anyone have any info and pictures (artist work / drawings or 3-view drawings) of the Lockheed proposed C-130 Hercules derivatives-
C-130 WBS (Wide-Body STOL) for the USAF’s AMST (Advanced Medium STOL Transport) program), which was to have featured the following-
Its fuselage enlarged in height from 9.1 ft to 11.3 ft; in width from 10ft to 11.7 ft and in length from 41.4 ft to 48.1 ft;
Strengthened wings and engine to accommodate T-56-A-15 engines, with 14 ft dia props;
Its floor and loading ramp strengthend;
Stronger landing gear;
A new larger chord rudder and dorsal fin
& The C-130 VLS (Improved Volume Loadability Speed), which was to have featured the following- Increased after cargo loading door in size
Drag reduction by the addition of a T-tail
Allison DDA 501-M-71 engines of 5,600 eshp, driving 14 ft
dia props
Fuel economy increased by 21 per cent,
Range increase of 33 per cent
Anything would be great
Regards
Pioneer
I find it very strange that the capability of the Su-24 ‘Fencer’ has not been utilised by the Indian Air Force.
I find this strange in a few ways because, the load/range capability of the ‘Fencer’ is much greater than what the likes of the Jaguar International that the Indian’s use.
The ‘Fencer’ is closer to a strategic strike platform than any aircraft that the West could offer i.e. Tornado IDS, with a true all-weather, terrain-following penetration capability, with precision strike capability, that would be needed to counter the likes of China better.
As with all Soviet/Russian aircraft that have been operated by India in the past, it would be appreciated for its toughness.
It would not be because of Soviet/Russian reluctance to export such a weapon system. After all they were more than willing to sell them to the likes of Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Why do you think that India has never taken on the powerful and effective Su-24 ‘Fencer’ ????
Regards
Pioneer
Are there any more photos from different angles of your modified A-5 model ?????
How about an upgraded A-5, with its original NAGPAW twin tail fins in place of the single tall fin (as envisaged by North American designers, but changed at the insistence of the US Navy), and with new solid-state avionic, defensive Electronic Warfare system, new radar, and the linear bomb bay replaced by a Martin rotary bomb bay system, like that used in the Martin B-57, Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, and proposed Martin XB-51. This would have allowed the A-5 the ability to carry more conventional or nuclear weapons load internally, without the adverse drag effect of a conventional bomb bay and door arrangement, while leaving the rear tunnel area of the linear bomb bay free for added fuel or more avionics, offensive or defensive systems.
Or what about a EA-5C, which could have been equipped like that of the USAF’s EF-111A, with the ALQ-99E tactical jamming EW system, to give the USN a effective supersonic replacement for the EA-6B Prowler. It could have like the RA-5B/C used a semi-protruding canoe system like that for its sensor (cameras and SLAR), in housing the ALQ-99 jamming radar system, while a fin-mounted aerial-receiver fairing. This would leave the wing pylons free for drop tanks, chaff dispensers or Anti-radiation missiles like HARM’s, to deal with threats
This like the Air Force’s EF-111A would have been able to accompany the carrier-based strike aircraft at much higher speeds, all the way to the target, as opposed to standing-off at a distance like that of the slower and more vulnerable Prowler (although I am not knocking the effectiveness of the Prowler!)
A model of this I would like to see!
Does anyone have any drawings or photos or specifications of the original North American NAGPAW design that the A-5A was developed from ?
Regards
Pioneer
Indian MiG-29K Vs Chinese Su-30 MKK2
The difference between the Indian’s new coming MiG-29K and the Chinese Su-30MKK2 is a hard one. This is especially so with so many contributing factors.
Firstly the Chinese have been operating the Su-30 for a couple of years now, to which it has gained much operational experience, whilst yes the Indian Air Force has had many years of operational experience with its MiG-29’s, the carrier-based MiG-29K is much heavier, which would reflect in this variants agility in close combat.
Secondly I am more inclined to think that the average Indian pilot, wether Air Force or Navy, would be better trained and have more flight hours than his Chinese counterparts. (In general that is, although again the Chinese would always have the couple of years of pre Su-30 service in its favour.)
Thirdly I would think that India’s more current combat experience against Pakistan. India has the advantage that I am sure that it is, or will utilise, in being able to fly both its Su-30 as aggressors against its own MiG-29’s, so as to find the advantageous and disadvantageous of its Fulcrum pilots to utilise and or avoid.
One would also think it logical, that the Indian Navy would already be introducing its carrier-based MiG-29K pilots to be in formularisation in Indian Air Force MiG-29’s even before the MiG-29K is delivered and put into service.
The disadvantage that the carrier-based MiG-29K is the fact to make it suitable to the operating from a aircraft carrier is that it has to be beefed up in its structural strength, wing folding and heavier and stronger landing-gear, (not to mention the added internal fuel load, so as to make up one of the MiG-29’s biggest disadvantageous – range.) which equals added weight. Which is something you do not want when going up against the agile Flanker?
One of the greatest advantageous of the Chinese Flanker over that of the Indian Fulcrum is that of the Su-30’s far superior staying power, in the form of both range and endurance, with its fantastic weapons / fuel carrying capability. Whilst the MiG-29K (or any Fulcrum for that) would have to sacrifice missile load for drop tanks.
Added to this known Flanker advantage is the equally well known superior performance of the Su-30MKK2’s radar performance over that of the MiG-29 Fulcrum’s.
The range and radar performance alone would stand to reason, that the Chinese Su-30MKK2 pilot would be able to chose the time and the place of doing combat, more so than the Indian piloted MiG-29K’s (although the Indian Navy has shown itself to be very effective in its use of carriers and their aircraft complement in offensive operations on their initiative.
So although I have not been able to answer this question, I hope that I have added some factors that would have to be considered in any Indian vs Chinese combat.
By the way that both China and India are striving to be dominant regional powers, with their eye and ambition fixed on becoming some sort of super power, in the near future. I think that we may well have our answer in the not to distant future.
Regards
Pioneer
A very over shadowed aircraft of the U-2 fame whould you not agree!
Yes this project would have been good for Australia shipbuilding and the RAN
But in Australia we have many good ideas, but no Government support for home grown.
I have a picture of a RAN official model of the DDL, but how do I put the Pic to this Thread ???????
Can anyone advice ?