dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,191 through 2,205 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-102 Weaponry #1184512
    Bager1968
    Participant

    According to Wiki-waki,

    In 1958 Hughes introduced a slightly enlarged version of the Falcon, initially dubbed Super Falcon, with a more powerful, longer-burning rocket engine, increasing speed and range. It had a larger warhead (28.7 lb / 13 kg) and better guidance systems. The SARH versions were GAR-3 (AIM-4E) and the improved GAR-3A (AIM-4F). The infrared version was the GAR-4A (AIM-4G). About 2,700 SARH missiles and 3,400 IR Super Falcons were produced, replacing most earlier versions of the weapon in service.
    …..
    The AIM-4F/AIM-4G Super Falcon remained in USAF and ANG service, primarily with F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors, until the final retirement of the F-106 in 1988.

    Place what credence on that you will…

    Wiki-PNG labelled “AIM-4E”:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/AIM-4E_Falcon.png

    From JBaugher’s site:

    The MG-3 fire-control system was replaced in the field by the improved MG-10 in most F-102As. More sophisticated and less troublesome versions of the Falcon air-to-air missile were fitted as they became available. Conversions were later performed which made the F-102A capable of launching the GAR-11 (later redesignated AIM-26A) nuclear-tipped Falcon. Ensuing modifications eventually made it possible to interchangeably carry AIM-26 and AIM-4 (GAR-1 through GAR-4 in pre-1962 designation schemes) Falcons in the central weapons bay.

    …..

    By the end of 1958, 26 ADC squadrons were flying F-102As, and the F-102A had replaced the North American F-86D Sabre as the most numerous interceptor with the ADC. F-102As in service numbered 627, or about half of the total number of interceptors operated by the Air Defense Command. At the height of its service, 32 ADC units flew the F-102A. The last of 873 F-102As produced (serial number 57-909) was delivered in September of 1958.

    A subsequent in-service modification program added an infrared sighting system for target acquisition, lock-on and completion of run. The infrared scanner was mounted in a transparent dome immediately in front of the pilot’s windshield. The internal unguided rocket armament was deleted, and provisions were made for the carrying of later marks of the Falcon AAM such as the AIM-4E radar homer and the AIM-4F infrared homer.

    http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_1.html

    Note than Joe Baugher goofs, and labels the AIM-4F as an IR-homing missile, while it was actually the full production version of the radar-homing AIM-4E… the AIM-4G was the IR-homer.

    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

    In 1958, Hughes introduced an improved Falcon derivative, initially called the Super Falcon. The first Super Falcon to be developed was the SARH version, designated GAR-3. It had a longer-burning solid-fuel rocket motor for increased range and higher performance, and a slightly larger airframe with wing-root strakes. The HE warhead was also more powerful, but available sources provide widely differing weight data (between 3.9 kg (8.6 lb) and 13 kg (29 lb)). After only 300 GAR-3’s had been built, it was superseded in 1959 by the GAR-3A. The GAR-3A had a new dual-thrust (boost/sustain) M46 rocket motor, and improved SARH guidance with increased accuracy and higher ECM resistance. About 3400 GAR-3A’s were produced, and replaced the GAR-1D on most platforms.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world #2036130
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The Chinese have had decades to study the steam catapult and arresting gear from HMAS Melbourne and to design/test new, more powerful examples of both.

    They have had years to study the internal design of two classes of Russian/Soviet carriers and one British one, plus whatever they have been able to learn from intelligence operations in France/UK/USA/Brazil/India.

    I am quite sure they will be creating a new design based on their needs and expectations for use.

    in reply to: LEGO Battleship Yamato / CV-62 Independence #2036256
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Kev 99… don’t you think there is a difference between a Lego carrier with a big 75 on the flight deck and island (CVN-75 Harry Truman) and one with a 62 (CV-62 Independence) as the OP stated?

    A hint… CV-62 was one of the first class of USN supercarriers*… was an oil-burner, and had a different arrangement of the 4 aircraft elevators (and the island was further forward).
    CVN-75** is one of the nuclear-powered improved Nimitz-class carriers***.

    *CV-59 Forrestal, CV-60 Saratoga, and CV-61 Ranger are the others… CV-62 was commissioned in 1959 and decommissioned in 1998.

    ** commissioned 1998

    ***3 Nimitz sub-class, 5 Theodore Roosevelt sub-class (Harry T is the last of these), 2 Ronald Reagan sub-class

    I was specifically interested in the OP’s carrier, as I served aboard CV-61 Ranger.
    I’ve already seen the CVN-75 Lego.

    in reply to: LEGO Battleship Yamato / CV-62 Independence #2036367
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Ummm… there is no Independence link… just two identical Yamato links.

    in reply to: Special Tail Navy Hawk #2036418
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The T-45 wing (unique to the Goshawk) is designed for just 2 stations, total.

    No weapons capability (just fuel) so you would need to build another new wing for your “Combat Goshawks”.

    in reply to: How many A-4's are operational today? #1191547
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Does the Singapore AF still operate A-4s, I remember seeing a couple at Waddington about 7 or 8 years ago. Were they the ex-RNZAF aircraft?

    The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) purchased 47 refurbished Skyhawks (40 A-4B, 7 TA-4) from U.S. in 1972. The aircraft were re-designated A-4S/TA-4S. The “T” version of the RSAF Skyhawk was unique in that, rather than the single “clam shell” canopy common to other TA-4 models, each TA-4S cockpit had a separate canopy.

    From 1984 to 1989, the RSAF conducted a Skyhawk service life extension program. The 8,400-lb-thrust J65 engines were replaced with 11,000 lb. thrust F404-GE-100D turbofans. Other upgrades included modified engine air intakes; new structural mounts to accommodate the F404 engines; installation of new refrigeration, hydraulic pumps, air turbine starters, and oil coolers; new sensors, cockpit instrumentation, and state-of-the-art avionics; engine and environmental control systems; higher output electrical generators; and improved air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance carrying and control capability.

    Re-designated as A-4SU “Super Skyhawk,” the refurbished Skyhawks became operational in 1988, and Skyhawk pilot training was fully operational in March 1989. With the total RSAF inventory of about 60 aircraft, the three Singapore Skyhawk units (142, 143, and 145 Squadrons), operating from Tengah Air Base, made up a numerical majority of that country’s military aircraft.

    In late 1997, the RSAF Skyhawk training unit (143 squadron) was disbanded as part of a new advanced jet training effort. The former 143 Squadron A-4SUs were shipped to southwest France in September 1998 where, at Cazaux Air Base, 150 Squadron was established for advance training of RSAF pilots. The French site was selected because of available practice bombing ranges and airspace over the North Atlantic for ACM training, as well as opportunity for electronic warfare technique practice.

    In October 2003, the RSAF announced three survivors in the competition to replace the A-4SU Skyhawk: the Boeing F-15T Strike Eagle, the Dassault Rafale, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Dropped from consideration were the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, the Boeing FA-18E/F Super Hornet, and the Sukov Su-30/35 Flanker. A contract for as many as 24 replacement aircraft may be let in 2004, but, since the replacement for the A-4SUs is viewed as an interim solution, the final number ordered could be well below the projected 24 and the service life of the venerable old Skyhawk could be extended. The Lockheed-Martin F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) has entered the picture. Since Singapore is expected to be a player in the JSF project as a “Security Cooperation Participant,” if the F-35 is ordered the first deliveries could occur as early as 2012-2015.

    Singapore Update:
    “Mike” of the “Skyhawk Study Group” has reported that 142 Squadron, the last Singapore Air Force A-4 Skyhawk squadron, was disestablished on April 1, 2005.
    The SAF Advanced Jet Training Detachment (150 Squadron), consisting of four Skyhawks and currently operating from Cazaux, France, is scheduled for disestablishment in 2007.
    12 April 2005

    http://www.skyhawk.org/2e/singapore/singapore.htm

    in reply to: Fatal Neptune crash yesterday. #1192990
    Bager1968
    Participant

    A tragedy, and a set of brave men.

    Condolences to their families and associates.

    2 corrections:

    1. the crash was in western Utah, not in Colorado. The Co connection is that one of the crew was from a suburb of Denver.

    2. They were not engaged in firefighting, but were on a transfer flight from Montana to New Mexico.

    TOOELE, Utah — A plane crash on Saturday morning in western Utah killed all three on board, including a Littleton man.

    Tom Risk, 66, of Littleton, was piloting the P2V Neptune aircraft when it went down near Stockton Pass, said a representative of the Tooele County Sheriff’s Office.

    The firefighting plane was flying from Missoula, Mont., to Alamogordo, N.M., when it went down in the Oquirrh Mountains, located to the southwest of Salt Lake City, deputies said.

    In fog, insufficient altitude.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIwdFlR12aHzHCcZuGgMKRl3eaLwD97PST280

    just to the east of Stockton, Utah:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Stockton,+Utah&sll=40.557635,-112.226715&sspn=0.709484,1.220856&ie=UTF8&ll=40.453217,-111.994629&spn=1.421172,2.441711&t=p&z=9

    in reply to: The terrorism of the piracy #2036731
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The timeline of that anti-Obama blather is so screwed up you wonder if the person who posted it knew which century we are in.

    Gortney, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said the White House had given “very clear guidance and authority” to take action if Phillips’ life was in danger.

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/us_world/NATLSomali-Pirates-Americans.html

    It was early Wednesday when the pirates boarded Maersk Alabama.

    On Wednesday, the Navy sent a destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, chugging toward the Maersk Alabama. By Thursday, its crew, coached by FBI hostage negotiators, was talking to the pirates.

    It was about midnight on the ocean, Thursday turning to Friday, when Phillips made a break for it.
    He jumped out of the lifeboat and began to swim for his life. One of the captors fired an automatic weapon — perhaps at Phillips, perhaps only as a warning, either way enough to show that the pirates meant business. Phillips swam back to the lifeboat.

    The USS Bainbridge was still several hundred yards away from the lifeboat — not nearly close enough to save him on his escape attempt.

    It was early Friday night in Washington, Saturday morning over the Indian Ocean, when President Barack Obama authorized the Defense Department to use military force to rescue the sea captain, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    And as the standoff entered its fourth day, the president broadened the order so that it encompassed more military personnel and other equipment that had arrived in the Indian Ocean.

    Then, at about noon Eastern time on Sunday, early evening on the water, they saw something else: One of the pirates was aiming at Phillips’ back. The commander of the Bainbridge gave the order for Navy snipers to fire.

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/NATLHow-Five-Days-of-High-Seas-Drama-Unfolded.html

    Phillips’ escape attempt was just a few hours after the Bainbridge arrived… the ship was still too far away to try anything… even if the SEALs had been aboard at that time!

    They weren’t there until Saturday evening… nearly two full days later!!

    In Washington that Friday evening, Obama received two national security briefings on the situation. Based on those reports, the White House said, the president gave “the Department of Defense policy guidance and certain authorities to allow U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions.”

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that the Defense Department twice requested the authority to use deadly force because two groups of Special Operations Forces were involved in the operation. Each required its own sanction. He said that “the approval was given virtually immediately in both cases.”

    Mr Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. (0000 GMT) Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. (1320 GMT) Saturday.

    A senior administration official said that the president did not deny any operational request made to him and that he knew the broad outlines of the operation that the Navy had planned. The official said that “our people tried a variety of ways to resolve the situation peacefully, and the guidance all along was that the overriding interest was the captain’s life.”

    ….

    On Saturday evening dozens of Navy SEALs parachuted from C-17 transport aircraft into the sea, making their way with inflatable Zodiacs to the Bainbridge.

    http://wap.twp.mlogic3g.com/detail.jsp?key=374008&rc=to&p=1&all=1

    The ship was hijacked Wednesday, April 8th. Bainbridge arrived Thursday, April 9th.

    Captain Phillip’s sole escape attempt occurred as Thursday the 9th turned to Friday the 10th.

    Note this from the “debunker” himself:

    What I know is on the eleventh of April, 2009 at 1600 two C17 cargo planes flew over Boxer and out of the back four parachutes emerged.

    Then came the boats! Four very fast 1300 hp SWCC boats with radar and guns! After those were safely extracted the personnel and Seals jumped. About 95 people in all arrived in the water near Boxer, swam to the ship and entered the well-deck.

    Until the arrival of the SEALs on the afternoon of Saturday, April 11th, there were no specialized “Navy shooters” aboard Bainbridge!

    Thus, his “straight from the SEALs’ mouths” statement of

    3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

    cannot possibly be true… just like virtually all of the post!!!

    As for the delay between the arrival of the Bainbridge and the arrival of the SEALs… it takes a little time to get a team of 95 men ready, acquire and examine blueprints of the lifeboat their subjects are in, develop an action plan (this part can be done in the air), load them and their gear (including boats) into planes, and fly them from the US to the other side of the world!

    No one would authorize them to deploy before a USN ship even got there, as there would be no idea what the situation was, nor which gear they would need… for all they knew, the lifeboat was rendezvousing with another “pirate mother ship” at any time… which would completely invalidate any plans made before Bainbridge could arrive and stabilize the situation!

    Thus, there is about 24 hours between the arrival of Bainbridge to assess the situation and provide clear intelligence to Washington and the Pentagon, and the approval for the operation.
    And about 48 hours between the first time any responsible commander would authorize deployment and their arrival.

    in reply to: European made onboard, fixed wing AEW. #2037020
    Bager1968
    Participant

    It was only a proposal… the only part that existed was a nice illustration:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/AEW%20aircraft/ES-3c-001.jpg

    It would have required a redesign of the wings at the fold-point… from an overhead fold to a Grumman-style fold.

    in reply to: Tempest vs F4U-5 vs MB5 vs P-51H vs CA-15 #1202206
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Grumman F7F Tigercat
    4x20mm cannon and 4x.50 mg. 460mph (400 knots)
    Carrier-based, single or two-seat, torpedo or 2×1,000 lb bombs + rockets… radar-equipped night fighter version… its got it all.

    http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Tigercat-smoke.jpg

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2849263589_ef886960a4_o.jpg

    http://www.kbvp.com/extreme-videos/f7f-tigercat-airshow-video-clay-lacy

    in reply to: Perry Class #2037354
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Part of the reactivation is an end-to-end overhaul of all systems so that the ship can operate for several years without major repairs, and includes re-labeling everything in the ship to the language of the recipient navy.

    in reply to: Technical Drawings #1206126
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What, and open yourself up to a lawsuit if the drawing/tech info you share contains errors and contributes to or causes property damage/injury/death?

    in reply to: [Q] Battlefield 1943 #1208190
    Bager1968
    Participant

    That number is not the aircraft serial #, but a squadron/ship number denoting which aircraft it is…

    Note in the pic below, there is the aircraft # (on nose or fuselage), a ship code (the letters on the vertical stabilizer), the squadron designation (below the word “Navy”. and the actual serial # (the numbers just above the retracted tailwheel and aft of the squadron designation).

    http://www.zap16.com/ILA2006/ILA06-F4U-4-Corsair-97364.jpg

    Another, duplicating WW2 wartime markings of a specific aircraft:

    http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/corsairturning.jpg

    2 USMC Corsairs (note the number just visible above the wingtip on the further one)

    http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/f4_corsair_gr_2.jpg

    So in answer… there were probably a number with “23” on them.

    in reply to: Perry Class #2037798
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Wanshan, thanks for interesting info.

    I assume the 6.7m is the “height” of the ship? How is this measured? (Apologies for asking such naive questions)…

    The 6.7m is the depth… how far below the surface of the ocean the bottom of the hull is when fully loaded.

    http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/15363/wm/pd2240071.jpg

    in reply to: Ark Royal and Invincible #2037801
    Bager1968
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 2,191 through 2,205 (of 3,360 total)