But Bring-it-on… in the 1980s-early 1990s India officially considered Australia as a military threat… now that OZ is getting modern AWDs, Amphibs, F-35s, & refuelers to go with its F-111s & F-18s, have they reinstated the Aussies on their threat list?
“the easiest way to dispose of the convoys would be to attack them as shortly as possible before off-loading. “
Plug the harbors with fully/half-sunken wrecks and you effectively stop all following convoys for a week or two… maybe longer.
from:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_24.html
[main site address: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html }
“Early wind-tunnel tests caried out in the summer of 1993 indicated that some weapons stores might collide with the side of the fuselage or with other stores when released. This problem was caused by an adverse airflow created by the airframe, and to cure this problem the underwing pylons were redesigned and canted outwards at three degrees.”
This means that the pylons are no longer aimed straight into the airflow… thus creating drag… which reduces the top speed and reduces the range.
Muslim nations operating F-86:
Pakistan (not ethnic Arabs)- 120 F-86F (additional transfered from West Germany)
Tunisia- 12 F-86F (some sources say 15 and a rumor of 12 more)
Iran- F-86F (unknown number)
Iraq- 5 F-86F (only deliveries of a “large order”… may have been passed to Pakistan)
Saudi Arabia- 16 F-86F (may have received 3 more from Norway)
source:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html
see “F-86Fs in foreign service” entry
According to:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
Wing: 23,980 gal, 160,666lb
Auxiliary: 4,800 gal, 32,160lb
Total: 28,780 gal, 192,826lb
Global Security has this to say:
The KC-767 will be the world’s newest and most advanced tanker. It can offload 20 percent more gas than the KC-135E and unlike the E-model, can itself be refueled in flight. It will also have the capability to refuel Air Force, Navy, Marine and allied aircraft on every mission. At maximum takeoff weight, the KC-767A requires 4,000 feet less runway than the KC-135E. Besides its role as a tanker, the KC-767A will be configured as a convertible freighter and can carry 200 passengers or 19 pallets of cargo.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-767.htm
KC-135E– 6 pallets, 57 passengers
I guess that the difference in fuel off-load comes mainly from the KC-767 using less fuel than the KC-135E to fly the same mission, leaving more to give out.
Remember, the KC-767 is considered a direct replacement for the KC-135E, with only moderate performance & capability improvements, not a major improvement.
The development of the MiG-25 began in the 1950s, paralleling American efforts to develop a Mach 3 bomber and interceptor aircraft, including the (ultimately abortive) XB-70 Valkyrie, the XF-103 Thunderwarrior, the Lockheed YF-12, and the XF-108 Rapier. With the first Mach 2 aircraft beginning to enter service, Mach 3 seemed like the next logical step. A variety of roles were considered, including cruise missile carriers, and even a small five- to seven-passenger supersonic transport, but the main impetus was a new high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and heavy interceptor. If a Mach 3 bomber were to enter American service, it would be nearly invulnerable to Soviet air defense.
The Mikoyan-Gurevich OKB accepted the assignment effective 10 March 1961. Although the XB-70 Valkyrie was cancelled before the new aircraft, which carried the bureau designation Ye-155 (Russian: Е-155), reached the prototype stage, it seemed that the Ye-155 would still be a useful addition to the PVO interceptor force against reconnaissance targets like the SR-71 Blackbird. It was widely believed that the MiG-25 was developed in response to the XB-70. However, A. Belyankov, head of the MiG design bureau confirmed that this was not in fact the case.
The first prototype, which was actually the reconnaissance variant designated Ye-155-R1 by the bureau, made its first flight on 6 March 1964. The prototype interceptor, Ye-155-P1, took to the air on 9 September 1964. Development, which represented a major step forward in Soviet aerodynamics engineering and metallurgy, took several more years to complete. In the meantime, several prototypes, under the cover designation Ye-266 (Russian: Е-266), made a series of record-setting flights in 1965, 1966, and 1967.
As for the XB-70,
In December 1959, the entire program was cut back to a single prototype. This wasn’t the last word on the matter, though, since big weapons procurement efforts acquire a momentum of their own, and by mid-1960 funding for the B-70 program had been restored to a level adequate for as many as a dozen of the bombers.
On 1 March 1961, US President John F. Kennedy announced that the B-70 program was to be scaled back once more. Three aircraft would be completed, including two “XB-70” flight test prototypes and one “YB-70” operational prototype.
Therefore, the specification and request for proposal (or the Soviet equivilant) was issued while the XB-70 was still a viable production program!
And yes, the SR-71 (A-12 originally) was the result of a 1957 CIA request, with Lockheed recieving the order for the aerodynamic & prototype work in 1959 and the order for the first 12 on January 30, 1960… but as this project was a very secret one.
You really have to give me references proving that the USSR had learned of it before March 10, 1961 to convince me that the E-155 was originally ordered to counter the Blackbird!
Yes, there were more reasons than just the Valkyrie for the continued development of the E-155/Mig-25, but it was a major reason the project was started!
As of a few hours ago, Bush was “expressing disapproval” of the coup… further clarification, etc to follow.
As for how “a few tanks” can take power so easily… the ousted PM was not personally very popular anymore, and it appears most of the populace is taking a “wait & see” attitude as to whether this coup is aimed at replacing him & the old constitution with another or if it is to be another Junta-style government.
The Foxbat was NOT “designed to kill the SR-71″… it was designed to intercept the B-70 Valkyrie… which was also designed to cruise at mach 3… but which was far less agile than the Blackbird.
A question about the F-100.
They were used in Vietnam for ground attack for several years… did they ever engage in A-A combat? They were designed to be the US equivilant of the Mig 17/19… supersonic gun/close-range-missile fighter with secondary attack capability (in the early versions).
They had 4 single-barrel 20mm cannon and Sidewinders.
The Gannet (ASW) was also flown from HMAS Melbourne.
I only have info for the J85:
-4A; length 40.5″; diameter 17.7″; 404 lb; 2,450 lb [non-afterburning; in T-2C Buckeye]
-5: length 104.6″; diameter 21″; 584 lb; 2,680 lb (3,850 lb afterburning) [T-38 Talon]
-13: length 105.6″; diameter 21″; 597 lb; 2,720 lb (4,080 lb afterburning) [F-5A/B, G91Y]
-15: length 105.6″; diameter 21″; 615 lb; 2,720 lb (4,300 lb afterburning) [CF-5A/B]
-17: length 40.5″; diameter 17.7″; 398 lb; 2,950 lb [non-afterburning; Saab 1105G, Cessna A-37B, C-123]
-21: length 112.5″; diameter 21″; 675 lb; 3,500 lb (5,000 lb afterburning) [F-5E]
Air mass flow 44 lb/sec [52.5 lb/sec -21]
Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) {lb fuel/lb thrust/hour}:
-4A: .98
-5: 1.03 (2.20)
-13: 1.03 (2.22)
-15: 1.03 (2.18)
-17: .99
-21: 1.00 (2.13)
Two-for-one
F4D Skyray & F11F-1F Tiger (J79-powered “Super” version)
F4D Skyray (Douglas delta-wing carrier jet fighter) = F-6 after 1962
“An international effort with lots of input from experienced users of what a new generation C-130 should look like. Including full prototyping and proper testing before putting it into the field.”
If that was done it would have taken 6-8 years just to agree on the desired specs, and LM still be flying test & development flights with only 3-5 pre-production aircraft… and the program would have still cost just as much to reach that point as buying all those “so-called lemon” airframes that have been flying for years did.
Yes, I can see the same surface irregularities… they look like that is how they come from the factory, with the flat paddle on the end of the shaft the canard is attached to clearly visible.