dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,266 through 2,280 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Sikorsky exhumed. #1217033
    Bager1968
    Participant

    That was from earlier, where there was discussion about which was the most credible “conspiracy theory”. It was in that meaning that I re-posted it… but forgot to remind you guys of that context.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045068
    Bager1968
    Participant

    You seemed to have been making a huge point that the Ticonderogas were cruisers because of their size (same length/beam as the Spruance DDs), and that

    11,666 tons and 586 feet long is not a destroyer hull.

    … so yes, since the hull is the same, just sitting a little deeper in the water, it IS a “Destroyer hull!

    That is the point!

    Edit… just double-checked, and it seems you were not talking about the Ticos… but rather the Virginia CGs.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045098
    Bager1968
    Participant

    http://navysite.de/cg/cg47class.htm

    The Ticonderoga (CG 47) – Class

    The development of this class started in the 1970s. Initially designated as Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG), the TICONDEROGAs were redesignated as Guided Missile Cruisers (CG) on January 1, 1980.

    The hull and the propulsion system of the SPRUANCE class were the basis for this new class of guided missile ships but AEGIS and numerous other installations caused an increase of the displacement of almost 1,000 tons.

    The Spruance class were Destroyers, remember?

    in reply to: New Broncos? #2463751
    Bager1968
    Participant

    In 1983, NASSAU participated in the annual amphibious Exercise SOLID SHIELD. Marine Corps OV-10 “Bronco” aircraft landed for the first time on the flight deck of a ship from the Atlantic Fleet.

    From that 1983 operation with USS Nassau:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/OV-10_launch_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg/800px-OV-10_launch_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg

    The U.S. Marine Corps OV-10 Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) program modified four OV-10As to include a turreted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and turreted M197 20 mm gun slaved to the FLIR aimpoint. NOGS succeeded in Vietnam, but funds to convert more aircraft were not approved. NOGS evolved into the NOS OV-10D, which included a laser designator, but no added gun… just the 4 x 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the stub-wing-roots.

    Each of the Marine Corps’ two observation squadrons had 18 aircraft, nine OV-10As and nine OV-10Ds night observation aircraft.

    The OV-10 was finally phased out of the Marine Corps in 1995, and the decision to decommission the aircraft was in large part due to two USMC Broncos being shot down during Operation Desert Storm due to a lack of effective infrared countermeasures equipment.

    OV-10 NOGS:
    http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=10052

    USMC OV-10D aboard USS Saratoga CV-60 for trials 1985:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/OV-10D_CV-60_1985.jpeg/800px-OV-10D_CV-60_1985.jpeg

    in reply to: General Sikorsky exhumed. #1218129
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Which leaves:

    The most credible theory I have heard was simply that the plane was sabotaged.

    in reply to: V-tail or Standard Tail #1222726
    Bager1968
    Participant

    F-117, YF-23.

    in reply to: RAAF Wedgetails- #2467124
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The reference seems clear that it is the “90+% Wedgetail” that he is calling “Mark 2″… as opposed to the planned 100% Mark 1.

    in reply to: Auster shot down by Royal Navy pilot. #1229360
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Nice… the US had a similar incident, but with a drone F6F Hellcat:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/F6Falive.jpg

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/F6Falive2.jpg

    in reply to: Propeller Cuffs…P-51 & B-29 #1229364
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Airborne Early Warning-was the RAF blind to it's merits? #1229417
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The RAF certainly should have fitted a few Vanguards like this Electra (ok, P-3) (4 operated by the US Customs Service… radome from retired E-2C Hawkeyes):

    http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kopack/p3-3.jpg

    http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kopack/p3-2.jpg

    in reply to: A400M delay has RAF concerned #2479669
    Bager1968
    Participant

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/A400M012309.xml&headline=A400M%20Problems%20Range%20Far%20Beyond%20Engines&channel=defense

    A400M Problems Range Far Beyond Engines

    Jan 23, 2009
    By Jens Flottau

    PARIS – Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program, as the aircraft may need massive re-engineering work to achieve its performance targets.

    In turn, numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft for its customers, industry sources tell Aviation Week. They come in addition to the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program that are linked to the lagging engine full authority digital engine control (FADEC) development (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 25, 2008).

    One key area of concern appears to be the A400M being overweight, which would negatively affect the aircraft’s payload and range capabilities. Sources close to the program say the aircraft is significantly heavy in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.

    Airbus officials suggest the main performance criteria aren’t at any particular risk. Executive Vice President for Programs Tom Williams says the more he has reviewed the program, the more certain he has become “this is still going to be a bloody good airplane.” The aircraft is beating its short field performance and load targets, he says.

    Yet, industry sources say the weight problem could well turn out to be the primary issue with the aircraft, rather than engine software. One observer believes the A400M payload will end up 3-4 tons below the original target even after all possible design changes, which could include the introduction of carbon fiber in noncritical areas. The three-year time frame proposed by EADS between the first flight and first delivery at the end of 2012 at the earliest would suggest that modifications to some parts of the aircraft structure also are possible.

    Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

    Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

    Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

    An EASA official says the agency does not comment on ongoing certification processes.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2479693
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Eurocopter Tiger

    Such a nice little gunship… I remember when it started full-scale development… ~20 years ago.

    My, how time flies… 😀

    in reply to: USS Harry S Trumann CVN 75 #2047407
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Actually, they did a couple… one in the early 1990s focussing on life aboard an operational CVN and the one on the building of HT.

    in reply to: FAA Skyraider AEW1. #1232841
    Bager1968
    Participant

    One AEW.1 also exits in the USA aboard USS Medway.

    😀

    Medway is a river in Britain… and the associated town(s).

    Midway is the name of the US carrier CV-41 (commemorating the battle at the islands of the same name).

    in reply to: RN Fighters #2047666
    Bager1968
    Participant

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/AV-8BRemanufactureplan.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 2,266 through 2,280 (of 3,360 total)