Bager1968If we are looking at combat records, then all 4 listed fighters (P-51D, P-47N, F4U-4, or F6F-5) have one year or less in which to be considered.
The vast majority of the Corsair air combat (and victories) were in the lower-performing F4U-1A & F4U-1D models (the F4U-4 squadrons were first deployed around April 1945).
Likewise were the Hellcat’s (the F6F-5 first flew April 1944, and entered squadron service a couple of months later), as F6F-3s continued in front-line service from late 1942 until the end of the war.
The Thunderbolts that saw most of the war in the PTO (June 1943 on) were also early models (P-47N first flew in July 1944, and entered the PTO at the end of 1944).
The P-51 had a much smaller combat record in the PTO, with only P-51B/C models, and only in Burma… until the P-51D finally arrived in late 1944, which were first flown from re-captured Philippine bases. By that stage of the war, Japanese fighter opposition was rare, and Philippine-based Mustangs mostly performed close-support work. The only consistent fighter work the P-51D saw was during the B-29 escort missions (which it shared with the P-47N).
On PTO Combat records, the P-38 is #1, F6F-3/5 #2, the F4U-1 #3, P-47D/N #4, F4F #5, and the P-51B/C/D rates a tie for #6… with the P-40 (which fought throughout the entire war).
At the moment of July/August 1945 however, I would have to rate the F4U-4 and P-47N as a clear tie for #1, with the P-51D just even with the F6F-5.
The Mustang fans must face the fact that even the USAF rated the P-47N above the P-51D… they had ordered a much-improved P-51H… which was working up in its first squadrons when the A-bombs were dropped, and this model was intended to fight beside the P-47Ns (replacing all the front-line PTO P-51Ds) in the invasion of the main Japanese islands.
Bager1968By the end of the Pacific War, P-38s were flying from bases on Ie Shima and in the Philippines on sorties ranging as far as Formosa, Korea, and the Ryukyus.
They are credited with the destruction of more Japanese aircraft than any other type of US fighter… and the #1 & #2 scoring US pilots of the war flew P-38s almost exclusively [Richard I. Bong (40 kills) & Thomas B. McGuire, Jr. (38 kills)]. C. H. MacDonald (27 kills) was also a P-38 driver… and the #3 US pilot in the PTO.
On August 25, 1945, a pair of P-38s piloted by Colonel Clay Tice and his wingman were the first American aircraft to land in Japan after the surrender on August 15. They later claimed that this unauthorized landing was due to “engine difficulties”, a somewhat suspect explanation. Nevertheless, this was a fitting recognition for an aircraft which had contributed so much to victory.
So, how does the P-38 compare to those other aircraft in the PTO?
The F4U and F6F (and F4F) all could do something the P-38 couldn’t… operate from carriers… but then, neither could the P-51, P-47, P-40, or P-39.
Bager1968For genuine Irish Linen we went to Belgium.
:p :p :p
Bager1968The NZAF Seasprites have basic, off-the-shelf flight control and weapons systems, are optimized for ASuW (anti-surface warfare), and had only one set of certification standards to meet.
The RAN Seasprites had a specialized, newly-developed “Australia only” combat electronics system optimized for BOTH ASW (anti-submarine warfare) & ASuW.
This system had (like the majority of modern complex computerized systems) significant software and software/hardware interface problems… which delayed the aircraft and raised its cost. These problems have now been fixed, and the combat system is working as designed.
The area it still has problems with is certification of its flight-control systems. These actually work, but they do not meet the current standards the Australian government demands they meet.
I say current, because those standards have been changed several times during the development of the RAN Seasprites. Having to revise the flight-control software (and probably the hardware) each time the standards changed has added more time and cost.
Kaman has informed the Australian government (near the end of last year) that the newest standards will be met by this summer at the latest.
It is this “ever-changing certification target” that will give Kaman a significant award when they challenge the cancellation in an International court… which they have declared they will do.
Basically, it looks like the Liberal (Howard) government had regretted ordering the aircraft, and were trying to use the certification issue to prevent ever having to accept the aircraft, and to get Kaman to either pull out (in which case the Aussies could claim “breach of contract” and maybe get back some money) or to agree to a “mutually acceptable termination” of the contract.
But now, it is the Labor government which will take the heat for the damage award Kaman will get.
And the Liberals will get to point out how close the aircraft came to being accepted, and try to blame “throwing away the money already spent” on Labor.
Politics at its finest.
Actually, the SH-2G (Super Seasprite) was a great aircraft when it was first offered to the USN… in 1986. Now, it is really past its “sell by date”… even though it has a while left on its “best if used by” date.
Bager1968my first thought was.. “there’s a new Indiana Jones film coming out” 🙂
Roger Smith.
Other than the late 1920s-early ’30s pickup, and the spatted monoplane to the right rear, the hangars, etc make it look rather early 1930s… and the new movie is set in the 1950s.
But then it could be part of a “background info/flashback” sequence.
Bager1968That is the really interesting question. They can either use large tankers and make a several thousand mile detour around South America, or they use rather small tankers that fit the Panama channel (which is USA controlled).
…
Cina must consider that in case of a major crisis with the USA, the oil shipments from Venezuela are the first to stop (cause they are so easy to interdict by the USN).
The Panama Canal has been under the full control and authority of the nation of Panama since noon, Dec. 31, 1999… and is run by the Panama Canal Authority.
The current administrator is Alberto Alemán Zubieta, who is in his second term.
The board of directors is made up as follows:
* Nine members are appointed by the president of Panama; these appointments require the approval of the Cabinet Council and a majority of the legislative branch.
* One director is appointed by the legislative branch, at its sole discretion.
* The chair of the board, who is also the Minister of State for Canal Affairs, is appointed directly by the president; the Minister is also a full member of the Cabinet Council.
The Panama Canal is defined by law to be an inalienable patrimony of the Republic of Panama; it may therefore not be sold, assigned, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered or transferred.
Before the handover, the government of Panama held an international bid to negotiate a 25-year contract for operation of the Canal’s container shipping ports (chiefly two facilities at the Atlantic and Pacific outlets), which was won by the firm Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based shipping concern whose owner Li Ka Shing is the wealthiest man in China.
All US military units have been withdrawn from the former Canal Zone (this occurred during the 1990s).
The Canal is required to be kept neutral, according to the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which transferred ownership of the canal and the canal zone.
The first treaty is officially titled The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal and is commonly known as the Neutrality Treaty. Under this treaty, the U.S. retained the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.
The second treaty is titled The Panama Canal Treaty, and provided that as from 12:00 on December 31, 1999, Panama would assume full control of canal operations and become primarily responsible for its defense.
Note that the US does NOT have the right to intervene to close the canal to anyone, no matter the reason.
Bager1968Besides, you don’t need to plumb the aircraft for the probe… the ARTS fixes this problem nicely— you just use your normal fuel-transfer system to fill all your tanks.
http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars.htm
Bager1968A few points and a question.
1. Boeing has enough commercial B-767 orders to keep the line open until 2012… so there is still time for another military variant or two.
2. Boeing said that “there will be no layoffs, the workers will transfer to other lines”… like the B-787 as production ramps up to full. There might be a slight job loss due to fewer replacements for retiring/transferring workers, but not many. The KC-767 was to ADD ~9,000 jobs.
3. As many have said, a Boeing win would have meant ~60% of ~200 KC-767s being “US-made”, while the NG/Ab win means ~40% of ~200 KC-45s AND ~200(+?) A-330 freighters being “US-made”… which is about 20% more work overall.
4. This contract is to replace KC-135s only. “KC-Y” will soon be opened for bids… that will be to replace the KC-10s from about 2020.
5. The two wing-mounted hose/drogue stations will be great for the USN/USMC… much better than the current “adapter on the boom” single-point refueling they get from the KC-135.
Q. In the late 1950s-early 1960s, the USAF fitted some of its fighters with removable refueling probes… will they possibly develop something similar again… maybe like the old “probe on a drop tank” system? It could be done fairly easily, and would greatly speed up refueling of USAF strike packages as a whole.
Bager1968Two points:
1. As ex-Gorshkov had no “ski-jump”, it also had to be new-build from the start.
2. They only need to be “environmentally cleaned” if they are to be sunk in water shallower than a certain depth (basically anywhere on a continental shelf).
The ex-USS America had not been “cleaned” before she was sunk, but she was sunk in the deep ocean, not on the shelf.
Bager1968* When you duck under a wing, look first for lowered flaps, etc. I still have scars from Meteor dive brakes because I didn’t!
Bri 😉
Oh, and if you’re ducking under wings, Cessna trailing edges can give a very distinctive ‘crinkle cut’ scar on the forehead!!
In port in Pusan, SK in Sept 1986, I was heading through the hangar deck of USS Ranger to get changed for a stint on Shore Patrol that eve.
Despite working on A-6 Intruders [VMA(AW)-121], I ducked under an F-14 Tomcat, without removing my hat (in-port regs require hats/caps on hangar & flight decks).
Picked myself up, and my squadron’s corpsman (walking by as it happened) helped me to sick-bay. 18 stitches in a line from my forehead to the top of my head, courtesy of the blade antenna (apt name) sticking down from the under-nose camera.
Well, I got out of SP duty.
The next day I told the Avionics shop of VF-1 (Wolfpack) that they needed to give #002 a rabies shot. The antenna was bent, so it got replaced.
Jon, SGT USMC 1981-1989
Bager1968Since Japan has accepted the first of its KC-767s, and will accept delivery of the second in March, I guess the booms have been certified?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1218960&postcount=125
Bager1968Other reports credit Algerian sources as saying “they were supposed to be new production, but were refurbished used aircraft”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/20/wrussia120.xml
” Algeria to return Russia’s ‘sub-standard’ jets
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 3:11am GMT 20/02/2008
Russia’s ambitions to become the world’s pre-eminent arms exporter have suffered a setback after Algeria told the Kremlin it wanted to send back 15 fighter jets because they were sub-standard.
# Lilia Shevtsova: Russians should prepare for the unexpected
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the president of Algeria, met Vladimir Putin in Moscow yesterday to discuss the dispute, which has taken the gloss off a $3.7 billion (£1.9 billion) deal signed in 2006.
Algerian military chiefs have allegedly complained that the aircraft, the first of a consignment of 36 MiG29 jets, were second-hand rather than new and proved faulty during initial testing. Moscow denied the allegations.
Russia’s state-owned defence industries have denied that the agreement was close to collapse, but there have been private concessions that more sophisticated aircraft will have to be offered as part of a face-saving deal.
Mr Putin has personally backed plans to re-energise arms sales in an effort to demonstrate Russia’s growing international influence.
By expanding into markets that the West has ignored, Russia’s arms exports are growing by 25 per cent a year.
After lucrative deals with Syria, Iran, Burma and Sudan, Russia is the world’s second biggest arms dealer after America.
But as exports have grown, so too has criticism of its reputation as a quality arms merchant, with some saying that Moscow was overly dependent on an ageing stockpile of Soviet military “left-overs”.”
Which would be why Russia was thinking about replacing them.
Bager1968The three advantages the “Hotel-Sabre” had over the rest of the USAF versions were:
1. 4 x 20mm cannon replaced the 6 x .50cal MGs (after the first 60), but with only 150 rpg.
2. The GE J47 (5,970 lb.s.t.) was replaced by the GE J73 (8,920 lb.s.t.). In order to accommodate the additional power of the engine, the air intake had to be increased in area, which was accomplished by splitting the fuselage longitudinally and then splicing in an additional six inches of depth.
3.In addition, the fuselage was lengthened by over two feet and widened by a few inches. The additional space inside the fuselage made it possible to increase the internal fuel capacity from 435 to 562 gallons, and four underwing stations were added for bombs or drop tanks.
More info:
Development of a purely fighter-bomber version of the Sabre was initiated by North American Aviation on March 16, 1951 as the NA-187.
An F-86D-like clamshell cockpit canopy was fitted in place of the rearward-sliding canopy of the F-86F. The cockpit was more spacious than that of any previous Sabre variant, and had a new ejector seat originally developed for the F-86D.
While it was faster climbing, carried a heavier payload, and had better A-G gunnery than other USAF Sabres, its heavier weight meant it was less maneuverable than the -F model, which remained the best day fighter of them all.
My “wish-list” would see the last 1/3 of the CAC Sabre production run fitted with the radar of the F-86K (NATO gun-armed version of the USAF’s rocket-armed F-86D), and with the 9,500 lb.s.t. Avon RA.14 (200 series) instead of the 7,500 lb.s.t. Avon 20 (Aussie version of the 100 series RA.7) of the other CA-27 Sabres.
Extending the fuselage 11 inches rearward to accommodate the longer Avon 200 should neatly counter the added weight of the all-weather radar installed in the nose.
Bager1968You’re right, of course, and I wasn’t much serious (duh!) about it.
But I note that the USAF has more than “merely” F-16s or F-15s (or F-22s, or F-35s) to refuel. They will also have C-17 and B-2s to refuel, isn’t the KC-X a bit “too short” to refuel them ?
Ummm… KC-10? Which will be replaced by the third stage of the tanker competition (KC-Z I think someone tagged it as).
Bager1968Hmmm… FJ-4 has a dorsal spine, and a deeper belly (to hold the extra fuel), so she would look a bit “chunkier” from the side.
I still want to fit one with a J52-P-408 and push the throttles to the stops and hold…. 😀
Sign In
