Bager1968Of course, this is such a “victory for the scrapyard workers” (according to Greenpeace)… now they can have nice, clean lungs as they and their families slowly starve to death because they now have no job!!!
Bager1968Looks like a spot of corrosion behind the canopy… are they sure about the airframe condition after 15 years of outside display?
Bager1968#1 is a tie between:
Harrier (see above post) and S-2 Tracker:
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
Netherlands
United States
(and many land-based)
#3 A-4 Skyhawk:
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
United States
(and 6 other nations land-based)
Other candidates?
Bager1968Here they are:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=71070
As listed on this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53426
Bager1968“how about the nose gear?”
The drawing indicates a “nose gear slot”… which is not shown in the concept photo composite. Apparently it would have an opening that would allow the nose gear to extend through the launcher body, and allow the gear to retract. A cover would be on the underside for aerodynamic reasons, and would close after the nose gear was retracted.
Bager1968“Flight Mechanic (E)” sounds much like an in-aircraft, in-flight rating… much like the US “Crew Chief” designation… which can be of any rank from E-3 (USN: Airman /USMC: Lance Corporal /USA: Private First Class /USAF: Airman 1st class) to E-7 (USN: Chief Petty Officer /USMC: Gunnery Sergeant /USA: Sergeant First Class /USAF: Master Sergeant), depending on the aircraft & other factors.
The (E) part does indeed seem like a “specialty designator”, unless it is to differentiate from an Officer type Flight Mechanic.
Bager1968Before WW 2 a considerable of USN, USMC, & USAAF (Army Air Force) pilots were enlisted, but the USN & USMC went to all-officer pilots during the war. The US Air Force never had enlisted pilots, but the US Army allowed enlisted helicopter pilots.
After the Korean war, the Army decided to only allow senior enlisted to become pilots, and required that they become Warrant Officers (a rank that gives officer privileges & responsibilities to deserving mid-senior rank enlisted, but does not allow them to enter the direct chain of command).
I don’t know about the “Bird Dogs” or other light fixed-wing USAF aircraft, but the Army certainly did allow them to be flown by WOs.
Bager1968True, the Intruder’s strongest point was always its avionics systems. The large fuselage, which did place limits on maneuverability and speed, was what gave it the ability to carry all of those systems.
As for the engines, I believe the USN made a big mistake when they did not include a more powerful engine in the A-6E model improvements. The A-6E still used the 2 – 9,300 lbst J52-P-8B engines of the A-6A & EA-6A models, while the EA-6B used the 11,200 lbst J52-P-408 (also used in the USMC’s A-4M Skyhawk II).
This engine was available in 1971, when the A-6E was being developed, and should have been installed. The resulting 20% thrust increase would have solved that Captain’s complaint nicely!
Bager1968Such “computer knows best” systems don’t take into account unusual emergency situations… which can lead to the computer causing an otherwise avoidable crash!
Needing to take action to prevent the computer from taking control away from the pilot is not a good feature… the computer often does not “know” all of the factors that the pilot is considering when he tries to do something… and it can only do what its programmers foresaw and programmed it to deal with!
The essence of pilot skill is to deal with situations that have no established procedures. A system that requires the pilot to activate a computer-controlled auto-flight system (rather than de-activate an “always-on” one) is, to many pilots, the only sensible path, as sometimes there is no time to take the extra steps needed to disable an automatic system, if the pilot even knows that the system will incorrectly assess the situation. If he doesn’t then the computer’s mis-reaction will come at the worst possible time.
The computer designers usually counter this with claims of “the pilot is wrong more often than the computer”, but a pilot has the ability to realize what he is doing is wrong, whereas a computer will continue with its programming, regardless of whether its action is correct or not!
The preference of Euro-engineers to trust the computer more than the pilot is something that is troubling, as it leads to an automatic assumption of pilot incompetance which can lead to over-looking or ignoring a costly hardware or software problem, in favor of a “pilot error” ruling.
This is evident in several incidents with Airbus aircraft, in which the US NTSB found that the prime cause was with the aircraft (some including the flight-control system), but Airbus refused to accept their equipment was at fault, insisting that the pilots were to blame, claiming that the pilots “didn’t understand how the system works”… despite their having passed all training and qualification programs!
If their system is so complex and counter-intuitive that experienced, fully trained pilots are incapable of correctly using it, then there is a problem with the system… one which Airbus refuses to admit exists!
That this philosophy has found its way into military equipment is worrying… as this inflexibility of programming to adapt to unforseen situations has always been the main block to developing fully autonomous UCAVs! The current USAF plans include always having a manned aircraft in the area that can remotely over-ride the UCAV computer if necessary, which shows the limited nature of current systems. To allow those systems priority over the pilot is questionable at best.
Bager1968During the 1980s, all garbage that was thrown overboard from the carrier Ranger (from personal experience… I was aboard) was required to be weighted, and a hole was punched in each bag to insure it filled with water & sank quickly.
This was important for security reasons, as Soviet ships would shadow the carrier, and frequently tried to retrieve our garbage to look for information.
It was also regarded as a way to control pollution, as only certain items could be thrown overboard, and the required “sink-ex” meant that nothing would be where birds or sea-shores would be at risk.
Apparently, with security no longer a concern, the USN has become lax in its policies, which is not good! Controlling the disposal of garbage has become an even greater concern world-wide than it was in my era, and to see the USN being so careless is a black eye on the US Armed forces.
My apologies to the Australian people from this ex-Marine.
As for the Hornet… apparently it hit the flight deck hard, before the arresting wires, and was too severely damaged to continue flight. The pilot ejected safely, and was rescued. Other aircraft in the air were landed at a nearby airfield while the debris was cleared from the deck, and equiment was inspected and adjusted. The diverted aircraft were later flown back to the ship.
Alepou, I am used to posts about US aircraft mishaps being used to denigrate the US military, and the US, in general… if that was not your intention, then I apologize.
Bager1968The Israeli F-15 pilot knew he had hit the other plane, but the mist cloud from the escaping fuel hid his view of the missing wing, so he asked another pilot for an assessment. The other pilot told him “see if you can make it back to base” (intending to get him to a better ejection location), but omitted the damage assessment.
When he was near base, he decided to try the landing (still uninformed about the damage. He slowed to the max allowable landing speed while he still had some altitude and found it controllable, so he made the landing.
It was only when he started to climb out that he finally saw the missing wing. He was reported to be annoyed with the pilot who let him fly it home that way, but happy with the manufacturer.
When the McDonnell-Douglas reps arrived to do a repair estimate, they refused to believe it was not damaged in a ground accident… until being shown the footage of it flying & landing that way.
Bager1968Well, this Marine says to compare the Bucc to my “Sky Pig”… the A-6E Intruder!!
It was the USN/USMC direct counterpart to the Bucc… entering service at nearly the same time [A-6A first flight Dec. 1960, Bucc first flight April 1958], upgraded to similar capabilities (my job was to repair the FLIR/Laser turret in the 1980s), both served in GW 1, and both were retired shortly afterward!!
In my opinion, either aircraft could do the same job to nearly identical success, in virtually identical ways.
I would have had no problem if the USN had bought the Bucc instead… and the Intruder would have served the RAF & FAA very well, I am sure!
Bager1968Here is the official site of the Flying Tigers Association:
http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/
There it says that the AVG’s P-40s were actually from the early British production… the RAF agreed to release them in return for improved models.
Here are a couple of other sites… I don’t claim to vouch for the accuracy of any of them…
http://www.acepilots.com/misc_tigers.html
http://www.warbirdforum.com/book.htm
Bager1968The AVG was a unique body, being established with the knowledge and cooperation of the US government.
The aircraft were diverted from USAAF deliverys, and the pilots recruited directly from their squadrons… a representative from Gen. Kai-Shek was allowed to give a recruiting speech to assemblies of pilots on AAF, USN, and USMC bases, and anyone who wished to join was given an immediate discharge… with a written guarantee of re-instatement to his prior service and rank from the War Dept, or Navy Dept, as applicable.
They were given passports as “tourists”, “sales representatives (of companies they had never worked for)”, “missionaries”, etc… and travelled to nearby countries before then continuing on to China or Burma, where they joined their squadrons.
As this was done with the cooperation of the US gov, no penalties were ever levied against participants.
Bager1968“(Source: ISN Security Watch; published Jan. 18, 2006)
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defense told ISN Security Watch that the government was still waiting to hear from the U.S. Department of Defense on the issue of the engine contract and the jump jet version.
“We’re working on the assumption of receiving 150 STOVAL JSF and we’ve no reason to believe that’s not on the way,” he said.
Technology transfers was a serious issue and could threaten Britain’s participation in the program, the spokesman continued.
At present, Britain was satisfied with what it had received up to this point, although ideally it would like to receive the transfers faster and perhaps all at once, rather than incrementally as the Americans were giving them. “It’s something we continue to discuss with them,” he said.”
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.17149687.1138025920.Q9TlwMOa9dUAAGu0HuQ&modele=jdc_34
“UK seeks JSF technology sovereignty guarantee
27-Jan-2006″
http://jdin.janes.com/public/jdin/index.shtml
It looks to me like the MOD wants all tech transfer at once, and unless the Brits use the word completely differently, sovereignty mean “freedom from external control, controlling interest, complete self-determination, unlimited in extent” according to Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary.
This means full ability to buy, sell, manufacture, and compete with… without restriction!
Whether this is just a negotiating tactic (strange tactic… increasing the scale of your demands) or really represents the desire of the UK… it appears that the US does have something to worry about.
Sign In
