Logan HartkeAnother thing, is it just me or are they going for aircraft with a carrier heritage, or in the case of Gripen NG, lends itself to conversion?
Maybe, but the Su-35 has more of a “carrier heritage” (Su-33) than the Gripen.
Anyone know whether it was the F-16 or the F-35 that LM put forward? I’ve seen both, but would imagine it was the F-16. If the F-16, anyone have any idea on Block?
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeBrazil shortlists Super Hornet, Rafale and Gripen.
Google Translated:
Air Force defines three projects for expansion of the fleet
The data from the participating companies were evaluated in a systematic way, considering aspects related to operational areas, logistics, technical, commercial Compensation (offset) and technology transfer to the Industry for National Defense. A partir de agora, na nova etapa do processo de seleção, as avaliações irão concentrar-se nas seguintes aeronaves componentes da short list (listadas aqui em ordem alfabética dos respectivos fabricantes): BOEING (F-18 E/F SUPER HORNET), DASSAULT (RAFALE) e SAAB (GRIPEN NG). From now on, the new stage of the selection process, the assessments will focus on the following aircraft components on the short list (listed here in alphabetical order of their respective manufacturers): BOEING (F-18 E / F Super Hornet), DASSAULT (RAFALE) and SAAB (Gripen NG).
As 36 aeronaves, que integrarão o 1º lote, deverão ser entregues a partir de 2014, com expectativa de vida útil de, no mínimo, 30 anos. The 36 aircraft, which would incorporate the 1st batch should be delivered from 2014, with life expectancy of at least 30 years. Assim, ao longo dos próximos anos, haverá a substituição, gradativamente, dos atuais caças Mirage 2000, F-5M e A-1M. Thus, over the next few years, will be replaced, gradually, the current Mirage 2000 fighters, F-5M and A-1M. O conjunto de conhecimentos e capacitação tecnológica adquiridos nesta aquisição irá contribuir para que o Brasil tenha condições de produzir ou participar da produção de caças de 5ª geração em um futuro de médio e longo prazo. The set of technological knowledge and skills acquired in this acquisition will help ensure that Brazil is able to produce or participate in the production of 5th generation fighter for a future in the medium and long term.
Eurofighter, F-16, and Su-35 didn’t make the cut.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThanks for the info Logan – most helpful.
To be fair, the captions are mine – they are not what the Russians are portraying them to be.
No problem, Ken, you had some fabulous pictures.
Yes, but they’re being deceptive, too. For example, the OT-810 was in WWII-ish German-ish camo with German markings and the Super Sherman was in Soviet markings, both of which are not correct depictions of those types. You were led to believe they were something they were not.
PS – Do you have info on the ‘Rubin’ tank ?? I was intrigued by it as I had never seen it before.
Well, Jedsite only has this line about it (among the English language sites out there).
“Ob’yekt 757 – Experimental rocket tank with original suspension and ‘Rubin rocket system.”
Interestingly, however, the best site on the vehicle that I’ve seen (aside from various forums with bits & pieces) is the museum’s site.
It was yet another effort to get a reliable, practical vehicle armed with the “Rubin” (ruby) anti-tank missile system. Like all the rest, it was unsuccessful. It’s sort of like the US frustrations with the infamous Shillelagh. It was a frankenstein of automotive components from other tanks combined with an unsuccessful gun/missile launcher. In a way, this was Russia’s equivalent to the XM803 but over a decade earlier. Apparently it ended up much like the XM803. Somebody slapped a coat of paint on it, stuck it on a concrete plinth and nestled it away under some trees behind some buildings.
It was just another part of the missile craze of the 1960s that gave us such things as the Shillelagh, the Phoenix, and killed a lot of aviation and heavy tank designs.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeWonderful pictures, Ken!
By the way, your three foreign armored vehicles here Vadim Zadorozhny Technical Museum are currently all not 100% correct. Your labels tell what the Russians are portraying them to be, but they are clearly not what they claim.
The first is not an M3 halftrack, but the quad .50cal AA version of it, the M16 MGMC. It’s actually a later version with the cut-down sides. The Soviet Union received many of these along with the M17 (same thing, but with an M5 as a basis). It was also fairly useful in the anti-infantry role which led to its gruesome nickname, the “meat grinder”. They’re still in use in a few countries today, with the Maxson mounts being moved to whatever will carry them, from M8 Greyhounds (Colombia) to M113s (Turkey).
The second of the trio is actually a Cold War Czech OT-810 armored personnel carrier. This is a post-war Czech-built variant of the German SdKfz 251 Ausf D. Its outward similiarity to the SdKfz 251 and the fact that it’s far more common lends it to being a stand-in for the German vehicle. You can see one masquerading as an SdKfz 251 (along with a genuine example) in Saving Private Ryan, for example. The Czechs hated it so much they called it “Hitler’s Revenge”.
Your M4 Sherman is actually an Israeli M-50, likely using the M4A4 in this case as a base. Interestingly, this was the version that had a French CN 75-50 75mm gun, itself a version of the Panther’s 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70. These were known as the “Super Sherman” and did not exist until the mid-50s. This is either war booty from the Arab-Israeli wars (like the piece of Israeli Phantom) or a post-war trade with Israel (such as with Latrun for a Russian tank).
Great pictures and accounts, however. I’m a big fan of the Berievs, so really found those pictures interesting. I’d have LOVED to have been on that flight with you.
Thanks again!
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeREIGNMAN, where did you see this mystery chopper? Was it an actual picture, was it a movie, were there any national insignia?
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThere are a number of contentions which just don’t stand up. You claim the Stirling was no improvement or very little improvement to the Wellington, yet Stirlings generally replaced Wellingtons in Bomber Command.
Absolutely. It was the bigger airplane with one more defensive position. They were both under-equipped for the task at hand, but the Stirling was slightly less-so, so any advantage would be worth it. I do want to point out, however, that the RAF still was using Wellingtons to bomb targets in Europe (from Italy) right up until April of 1945, months after the last Stirling dropped bombs in anger. That’s to say nothing of the work the Wellingtons continued to do in the Pacific. If the Stirling was such a better bomber than the Wellington, then why didn’t they ferry them to Italy or the Pacific to continue the fight and get those RAF aircrews out of those nasty old obsolescent Wellingtons?
You say the Stirling was worse than the B-17 and B-24, and yet Bomber Command kept using Stirlings as frontline bombers while Fortresses were very quickly sent to Coastal Command and Liberators were never with Bomber Command.
That’s correct. There are three main reasons for that. The first is that Bomber Command had very bad experiences with the early, poorly-armed Fortress Mk. I over Europe; it was not up to the task of daylight bombing over heavily-defended targets in Europe. The second is that it was not much offered to the British after that. Relatively small numbers were offered later on, but Bomber Command had had enough of the Fortress already and wasn’t much interested anyway. The third, however, is a deal-breaker. The B-17 and B-24 were not equipped for night-bombing and so would have not been able to participate in the bombing missions Bomber Command had adopted. Coastal Command liked them and I’ve heard that the USAAF 8th Air Force used them occasionally–you know, here and there.
You say that Wellingtons outlived Stirlings in the bombing role and in production as a bomber – but those Wellingtons were all for the Middle East or Coastal Command, not the European theatre.
Since when did Italy become the Middle East?
You say the Stirling was designed to the same basic requirements as the B-17 – it was not, the B-17 was intended as a long range maritime bomber for the Pacific theatre. It emphaticially did not have a worse payload/range than the B-17, the figures just don’t bear that out – Stirling 14,000lb @ 740 miles, B-17 4,000lb @ 800 miles.
Now here’s where either you are…again…misreading your sources or your sources are just plain lying to you. Now, I can believe that a standard B-17 bombing mission was a 4,000 lb bombload to a target 800 miles away, the that’s a target range of 800 miles, not an aircraft range, whereas that Stirling figure is aircraft range (so a target range of less than half). Besides, that’s too close of a target to characterize the strategic bombing campaign in Europe. That’s like comparing how far each aircraft could tow a glider–it doesn’t demonstrate how useful the aircraft was as a long-range bomber.
Luckily, here are some sources that give comparable performance at a range of 2,000 miles. That is a mission well over Germany, what the Allies wanted.
Stirling: Range 2,010 miles with 3,500 lb bomb load.
–Source: The British Bomber Since 1914 by Francis K. Mason
B-17: Range 2,000 miles with 6,000 lb bomb load
–Source: B-17 Flying Fortress by Robert Freeman
The Stirling was a good aircraft in many ways. It was no lemon, that’s for sure. But with the Wellington already doing the bombing missions that the Stirling would cut its teeth on over a year later with a much greater level of success, I can’t see how it’s a great leap forward.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThis is a simplification. Bomber models of Stirling were in production well into 1943 and the Stirling continued as a front line bomber until 1944 – the last bombing raid by Stirlings was in September 1944. Stirlings replaced Wellingtons throughout the whole of 3 Group – the only reason more squadrons didn’t exchange their Wellingtons for Stirlings in early 1942 was that production was struggling to keep up with demand. Shorts suggested improved Stirling models twice during 1942, one of which received an official specification but was subsequently cancelled because of the need to keep up standard Stirling production.
Ah, yes, I’ve read of that raid. “The Stirling’s last bombing operation was flown by No 149 Squadron against Le Havre on 8 September 1944, characteristically a very short range raid that encountered no enemy fighter opposition and did not involve launching a bomber stream.”
I understand that it was in production throughout 1943, but that’s hardly the late war. Again, as soon as the British had enough Lancasters and Halifaxes, however, the Sterling joined the long line of such illustrious and glorious bomber types as the Whitley, Bombay, and Harrow in the role of transport.
The Wellington far exceeded its pre-war specifications, but was not well-suited to the high-intensity, high-altitude bomber combat over Germany later in the war. No twin-engined bomber was (even the Mosquito primarily served in the low-level strike, pathfinder, and night fighter roles). The Short Stirling was designed to the same basic requirements and in the same time frame as the B-17, but proved to be far less suitable than its American counterpart for the bomber war in Europe in a number of ways. It had worse payload/range performance, was slower, took more resources and time to build (therefore less-suited to mass production), was underpowered, and with its short, thick wing was very poor at altitude, unlike its American counterpart.
On January 1, 1944 there were six squadrons of Stirlings in RAF service, one non-operational. On the same date there were 11 squadrons of Wellingtons in service–seven operational bomber squadrons in Europe, alone.
By the way, bomber versions of the Wellington were in production past VE-day. It must have been a great bomber. I guess you might even say…sterling.
I don’t dispute that the Stirling wasn’t as good as the Lancaster and, to a lesser extent, the Halifax. What I do dispute is that it was no better than the Wellington.
I would, too, if I were you. I challenge you to point out where I said that it wasn’t as good as the Wellington. I did say that it didn’t do as much for Bomber Command and that it was less efficient, two statements that I’ll stand behind…with figures to support both.
Of course it made sense that Halifaxes and Lancasters would take on the majority of the longer range missions, but this meant that Stirlings could concentrate on targets in France, the Netherlands and western Germany – still important targets which Bomber Command needed to keep up the pressure on.
You make it sound like getting more Lancasters and Halifaxes “freed up” Stirlings for the shorter ranged missions. The Stirling was pulled out of the long-ranged missions as soon as something else was available because it carried such a pathetic payload on the long-range missions. It could only carry anything worthwhile on the shorter-ranged missions and even then it couldn’t carry any bombs bigger than 4000 lb, which is why the Mossie and Lancs soon replaced it in even that role. I mean, if you needed to tow a big glider or carry a lot of leaflets or mines, the Stirling was your plane. But if it was bombs you wanted to put in your long-range bomber–look elsewhere.
Please keep grammar out of it. The meaning of that sentence is equivocal. If it reads as you suggest then the word ‘typical’ is redundant.
You tried to discredit the information presented because of it. I was pointing out that if you had only read it as it was intended, it would have been totally fair.
I’m no expert, however, so I’ll just quote from Francis K. Mason’s British Bomber Since 1914. He seems to have written a thing or two about British planes.
Anyway, on the Short Stirling…
The big bomber never attracted much popularity among its crews, being regarded as the most vulnerable of Bomber Command’s four-engine wartime bomber trio. It represented something of an operational millstone for Sir Arthur Harris when he inherited the Command’s leadership in 1942, being the product–in many respects imaginative and far-sighted–of tactical thought more than half a decade before the great air assault on Germany began.
The Wellington got a slightly different closing paragraph in its section.
The Wellington was certainly one of aviation’s classic designs; moreover, as with any truly great aeroplane, it was available when it was needed. Perhaps more important, by reason of its radical geodetic construction, it advanced aviation technology by demonstrating the practicality of a relatively sophisticated structure, and one that–in spite of predictions by the pundits to the contrary–proved capable of assembly by semi-skilled labour forces. The geodetic system was, of course, rendered obsolescent by metal monocoque almost before the Wellington entered service, yet the fact that more Wellingtons were built than any other multi-engine British bomber is surely ample testimony to the correct interpretation of Britain’s needs in the mid-1930s.
Hmm. “Unpopular millstone” or “truly great aeroplane”? Which of the two do you think was the greater success story?
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThe RAF did not switch to the Lancaster and Halifax, the three ‘heavies’ operated concurrently throughout 1942-3.
For the long-range missions (what we were talking about), they most certainly did. Once enough Lancs and Halifaxes were available, the Stirling was sidelined to other roles, such as glider-towing and transport. It was a good plane, and I think that it’s the best-looking of the three, but that doesn’t take away from that fact that it just wasn’t as good.
The Stirling could carry up to 18,000lb of bombs up to 2,000lb while the Wellington could carry 4,500lb and the Whitley 7,000lb. The Stirling was 20mph faster than the Wellington and 25mph faster than the Whitley. Its range was nearly 1,000 miles greater than the Wellington’s. It was the first bomber that could take significant weight of bombs to Germany.
Not true, the Vickers Wellington could carry 4,000 lb of bombs up to 1,540 miles. The Short Stirling’s 18,000 lb was only good to 590 miles, less than a “useful distance” for a WWII strategic bomber. At distances for targets in Germany, the Wellington could carry almost the same bombload on two engines! Also, the Wellington was the backbone of Bomber Command over Germany up through 1942, not the Short Stirling. Nearly 60% of the bombers over Cologne for the “1000-plane raid” were Vickers Wellingtons.
This quote is not really fair – a mission to Berlin, while common later in the war, could not be described as ‘typical’. The Stirling could carry a much larger bomb load as far as the Ruhr and a smaller bomb load far further than the early war mediums (or any of the American ‘heavies’ come to that). It was also a big improvement in protection, a significant improvement in speed and later introduced H2S radar to Bomber Command.
It’s only unfair because you’re misreading the sentence. It’s not saying that missions to Berlin were typical, it’s saying “on typical missions deep into Germany or Italy”. There would be a comma after “Italy” if it meant what you’re acting like it does. Regardless, those deep missions may not have been typical, but that’s because the Short Stirling was so disappointing at those ranges.
It was better than the mediums, I’ll agree, but not as much as it should have been. It was far more expensive and larger but didn’t do as much for Bomber Command as the smaller, older Wellington. It wasn’t as good as the B-24, the B-17, the Lancaster, or the Halifax and does not rank with those later war bombers.
It was, however, as good as its contemporaries in the early war, gave reliable service throughout the war in the various roles asked of it, gave Bomber Command a great deal of experience in many areas, and was a good aircraft all-around. I like the Stirling, but it had a great many faults and didn’t really live up to the expectations for its great size. It reminds me of the Consolidated Coronado. It wasn’t a bad airplane, but it was too much airplane for what it offered. Just as the earlier Catalina was more efficient in its roles than the Coronado was, so to was the Wellington to the Stirling. Even compared to the big aircraft in the role, the Coronado was no Sunderland or Mariner, just as the Stirling was no B-17 or Lancaster.
Good airplane, just not that good.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeBasic mathematical skills, a piece of paper, knowledge of the earth’ radius and the Pythagorean theorem will get you to the same conclusion.
…only if you have knowledge of the actual power of the system, which you don’t. There’s considerably more involved. So, your answer is “no” and thus it cannot be assumed. You don’t know at what altitude those range figures for the aircraft are (there is none stated there), nor is there given an angle from the horizontal at which the engagement would be expected for those ranges. Armed with that information, you could then employ those calculations, agreed, but without, you’re just working on assumptions. Assumptions that run contrary to the artists impressions out there.
Not by any means a reliable means of determining performance since such things as scale are going to be distorted for the benefit of the viewer (missiles, planes, bright red beams, and explosions are more appealing than specks). Still, a lot of artists impressions such as this show engagements occurring right around the horizontal. In this one, the ABL in the background has just destroyed a missile below the horizontal and is now engaging one slightly above while the one in the foreground is engaging one above and is tracking one below, preparing to engage it after the destruction of the current target.
Regardless, in this topic, we’re all on the same side. The YAL-1 is still likely the long-ranged air-to-air weapon out there at the moment, whether its range is 450km or 600km (short of the proton torpedoes or rail gun or whatever it is that the MiG-31X Buran is carrying at this point in the discussion). I agree that using the YAL-1 (or equivalent) as an AWACS killer is inefficient, expensive, and very risky. If you can see him, he can probably see you, and–while I wouldn’t want to be in a Flanker making the 500km attack run on the YAL-1, I wouldn’t want to be in YAL-1 within a few hundred km of the battlespace with a squadron of Sukhois bearing down on me. That sounds like a good way to end up like KAL 007, even if you take a couple with you.
Again, I’m not up for an ABL debate, at least not on this thread.
As far as the AWACS value in an air war goes, I think that it’s kind of like a navy in an all-out war. It takes a lot of money, a lot of planning and experience, is very vulnerable when mismanaged or hit by a preemptive strike, and there is no prize for second place. That being said, the haves and have nots are typically also the winners and the losers, respectively. It’s a game changer, a force multiplier, the eyes and ears, the head, the brain, and any other cliché that you want to apply to it.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeShort Stirling. First RAF bomber that could carry a useful bomb load a useful distance, and a massive improvement over Wellingtons and Whitleys.
Really? That’s not what I’d read. In fact, I’d read that that’s exactly why they switched to the Lancaster & Halifax.
The Stirling’s maximum bomb load was only able to be carried for relatively short distances of around 590 miles. On typical missions deep into Germany or Italy a smaller 3,500 lb (1,590 kg) load was carried, consisting of seven 500 lb (227 kg) bombs. This was the sort of load being carried by the RAF’s medium bombers such as the Vickers Wellington and, by 1944, by the de Havilland Mosquito.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeCould the airborne laser get a line of sight shot at that range, against a target that was only at 35,000 feet though? The laser may be powerful enough at that range, but you still have to deal with the horizon at those ranges.
I doubt the ABL could scan the skies and detect an enemy Hawkeye (for example) at 600 km. I also doubt, however, that the YAL-1 would be out and about in Indian country alone. Like all large-scale US air operations anymore, it would be in the company of an E-3 Sentry. The Sentry would find the enemy aircraft, tell the YAL-1 where to look, then the ABL would acquire and engage the enemy aircraft.
I don’t think that is valid.
First, an ICBM is basically a flying (chemical) bomb with (nuclear) bombs attached to it. That is, the solid fuel is basically able to self-react given enough start up energy. When painted with MWs of thermal power this may happen pretty quick. Painting the same energy on an airliner will not burn a hole in the frame. And even if, that doesn’t destroy the aircraft immediately. The only option would be to hit precisely a safety critical and heat sensitive system.
Not true. Part of the point I made was that it’s a very slow moving target (relatively). To kill an ICBM, you have to put a lot of energy on target in a very short span of time, otherwise the ICBM is quickly too fast, too high, and/or too far away to engage. An AWACS aircraft cruising at 200-400 knots would not have the ability to get away like that. It could engage it for longer, putting considerably more energy on the target in still a very short period of time, enough for a kill, certainly.
I don’t think that is valid.
Second, the range is for objects that are higher than the aircraft. Hence the laser travels most distance in thin or no atmosphere (beyond 30km you hardly call it atmosphere any more). When traveling from an emitter at 40000ft to a target at 40000ft over a distance of 600km, the laser beam would travel exclusively through dense atmosphere. The lowest point is 4900m over ground. Atmospheric damping would consequently dramatically decrease the thermal power.
I’ve not seen anywhere that the range figure is qualified by a target altitude. Do you have a link to that information?
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeAre you sure it achieves a 600km range with some remaining firepower?
I thought the maximum range is something like 200km, but I might be outdated on this.
Yes, when operational, it is supposed to be effective against liquid-fueled ICBMs at 600km (but not solid-fueled). I figure that a hit against a much slower-moving converted airliner filled with sensitive electronics, liquid jet fuel, and people is likely to do enough damage to at least destroy mission equipment and/or kill operators. My guess is that the aircraft would be totally destroyed, however, even at that range.
Logan Hartke
Logan HartkeThere is no reason not to believe 600 to 700 Km for MIG-31BM. and than there is project 810 (2 to 2.5 times range vs R-37 for PAK-FA). Ruaf officials have themselves said export things are inferior in both platform and strike weopons ability. Only Russia has correct low cost approach to fighting wars.
There is most certainly a reason not to believe it and it’s what many here have been trying to get across to you, but you won’t listen. It’s the same reason that there is no reason to believe that a T-rex evolved with gills and flippers and lives at the bottom of the ocean…there’s no evidence to support it. It doesn’t matter how little we no about it, how much the deep ocean (or Russian aerospace) remains a mystery to us, we can’t just come up with an idea about gremlins living on the dark side of the moon and assume it to be true unless someone can disprove it. The burden is on you to prove it exists, not on the sensible minds of the world to prove that it doesn’t.
The only 600km air-to-air weapon that exists (to my knowledge) is American. That’s the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser. Right now, I honestly believe that the F-22 Raptor and the ABL represent the two surest ways to quickly and decisively engage and destroy an airborne AWACS platform operating at altitude.
The other methods involve either swarming (with the associated losses), very low (undetected) flying by fighter aircraft equipped with long-range AAMs, or being lucky enough to have the AWACS come in range of your ground-based air defenses. As it is, however, no ground-based platform could chase down an AWACS, so you have to hope it will come to you.
The easiest way to take out an AWACS remains a commando or mortar attack on the base it’s operating from or–the most likely–a successful MANPAD launch against the aircraft on takeoff or landing.
Being that none of those are easy to accomplish and many of them are just as easy (or easier) against ground-based radars with much smaller radar range, I think that AWACS is–at the moment–the most survivable way of getting a major radar and command and control asset that close to the battlefield, regardless of terrain.
Logan Hartke
Logan Hartkethe greatest advance over its immediate predecessor? In the role of replacing RN to support soldiers on foreign shores, C-130K. If you were clinging on under incoming would you be happy to wait for Argosy (neither load nor range), Hastings (inflexible), Beverley (ludicrous). Designed 1953, about to be rebuilt (again) for another decade or so. Load+range+reliability. Quantum leap in all-arms effectiveness.
Good call. Not a bad nominee at all.
Logan Hartke
Logan Hartke-DSCA notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to India of 20 AGM-84L HARPOON Block II missiles and 4 ATM-84L HARPOON Block II Exercise missiles.
intends to use the HARPOON missiles to modernize its Air Force Anti-Surface Warfare mission capabilities and improve its naval operational flexibility.
The estimated cost is $170 million.
Are these for the Jaguar IMs?
Apparently I wasn’t the only one intrigued by this.
India Requests Harpoon II Missiles
Logan Hartke
Sign In
