Page 84 – Key Publishing

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,246 through 1,260 (of 3,360 total)

← 1 2 3 … 83 84 85 … 222 223 224 →

Author

Posts
May 28, 2011 at 7:08 am in reply to: Sea operations off Libya… #2002825

Bager1968
Participant

49 years ? 😮 I don’t think even some of the active US B52’s are that old !

Were any B52s even built after 1961?

The last production version of the Stratofortress was the B-52H (Model 464-261), a total of 102 being built.

Today, the B-52H is the only version of the Stratofortress still in service, with all previous versions having either been consigned to storage or scrapped.

Delivery of the B-52H to operational units began on May 9, 1961 when the 379th Bombardment Wing at Wurtsmith AFB in Michigan received its first aircraft.

The last B-52H was delivered to the 4136th Strategic Wing at Minot AFB on October 26, 1962, bringing production of the Stratofortress to an end.

So yeah… some of the “active US B-52s” are 50 years old, and all of them are at least 48 years 7 months old!

May 28, 2011 at 6:50 am in reply to: Air Ops Over Libya (Part Deux) #2331208

Bager1968
Participant

This is a rather odd layout of an RAF Typhoon with 3x ‘Dumb Bombs’ & 3x Paveway IIs. I accidently came across it while I was looking for images of a Tornado GR4 with 5x Paveway IVs’, I couldn’t come across any but anyway.

I didn’t see them at first myself, but look closely at the starboard bombs, adjust for sun glare and check for green canards. 😉

Yep… 6x Paveway II and a centre-line pod.

Green tail, blue main body, green nose stripe, and a white front extension with green canard fins.

May 26, 2011 at 10:21 am in reply to: The End of Stealth? #2333819

Bager1968
Participant

yeah,

actually…

The CAEW is believed to be the first radar to use a technology known as “track before detect” (TBD). Discussed since the 1970s, TBD improves the ability of a radar to detect small targets. To eliminate false alarms, conventional radars have to set a clutter and noise threshold below which radar returns are ignored. In TBD, those returns are assembled into the equivalent of a God’s-eye picture and scanned for patterns that resemble target tracks.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/DTIAEW.xml&headLine=Low-Cost%20and%20Effective%20AEW%20Systems%20Find%20Buyers

this should give some insights.

In other words, looking for the moving spot where the background clutter is obscured by something in front of it.

May 26, 2011 at 10:16 am in reply to: The End of Stealth? #2333820

Bager1968
Participant

My understanding is that weather radars do not track the air, they track the water droplets being carried by the air.

Lets see… contrails:

Supersonic shock cones:

Low-altitude compression/vortex trails:

May 25, 2011 at 2:51 am in reply to: Australia to buy RFA Largs Bay #2003065

Bager1968
Participant

I still don’t see why Ft George wouldn’t offer considerable advantages over Durance, given there is already a demonstrated willingness on the part of the RAN to refit the older single hull AOR with double hull.

Australia already owns Durance… all they are paying for is the modifications.

They would have to first buy RFA Ft. George, and then do (and pay for) just as much modification (and most likely more, due to differing equipment fits) to it.

Ft. George would cost more than Durance… an important consideration.

May 25, 2011 at 2:41 am in reply to: The End of Stealth? #2334753

Bager1968
Participant

For decades now, ground-based radars used in weather study/forecasting have been able to not only detect the movement of masses of air (such as tornadoes that have yet to reach the ground) but to also measure the speed of moving air within those masses.

It is likely that one of the new features of air-defense radars would be to detect the disturbed air left in the wake of a speeding aircraft and to pinpoint the originating aircraft/missile/shell. This would allow active-guidance radars to steer missiles to the object creating the air vortex without needing to actually “see” the object itself.

After all, the USN’s Ohio-class SSBNs are so quiet that one of the commonly-used detection methods in exercises has been to listen for the “hole” in the water… the spot that radiates no noise of its own, but which also blocks sounds coming from further away as it passes between the sound’s point of origin and the “listening” equipment.

May 22, 2011 at 4:04 am in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2003652

Bager1968
Participant

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Saturday it wanted China to build it a naval base, in the latest sign of moves to strengthen ties with Beijing as relations with Washington falter.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/21/pakistan-says-wants-china-to-build-naval-base.html

China is to build a base for Pakistan to use, NOT for Chinese use!

“We would be … grateful to the Chinese government if a naval base is … constructed at the site of Gwadar for Pakistan,” Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar said in a statement, referring to a deep-water port in Pakistan’s southwest.

Bolding mine

May 21, 2011 at 5:58 am in reply to: PLAN News, Photos and Speculation #3 #2003711

Bager1968
Participant

After all, didn’t they promise that the hulk wouldn’t be turned into an operational warship?

No, the restriction was for “military use”.

I’m sure it’s entirely unintentional that in fitting her out to provide fully realistic training they’ve given her exactly the same abilities as an operational warship. :diablo:

Something I and my US military & ex-US military friends all agreed* WOULD happen!

*as soon as the initial sale to the “travel & casino company” with the retired PLAN officers on the board of directors was announced.

May 21, 2011 at 5:42 am in reply to: C-295 MPA #2003715

Bager1968
Participant

perhaps they felt the good old rotodome is less airframe-specific

Like the rotodome of the E-2 Hawkeye?

It was also fitted to P-3s (U.S. Customs Service CBR P-3 AEW) & a C-130 (U.S. Coast Guard EC-130V/USAF NH-130H).

It could be turned into a fixed radome with three AESA arrays.

Like the 3-panel Phalcon ESA in the Beriev A-50E/I Mainstay (Beriev-modified Il-76)?

May 21, 2011 at 5:22 am in reply to: 707 Tanker Down #2337426

Bager1968
Participant

The KC-135/C-135 series have a fuselage diameter of 132-inch (3.35 m). This is the same as the “-80” prototype.

The 707 & 720 have a fuselage diameter of 148 inches (3.76 m), as do the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8s built for the USAF and the NATO TC-49As.

The USAF C-18 are conversions of civil B707s.

May 17, 2011 at 6:52 am in reply to: Douglas Model 1875 Nuclear Transport & Vought V-358 Turboprop Fighter/Attacker #1040171

Bager1968
Participant

Next up is an article on the turboprop Vought V-358 Attack/Fighter Design Study of 1947:

Looks a lot like the Trent-powered Meteor (first flight 20 October 1945)!
Perhaps Vought was thinking of a license-build… like Martin and the Canberra?

May 10, 2011 at 10:30 pm in reply to: PLAN News, Photos and Speculation #3 #2004366

Bager1968
Participant

So the Chinese are taking their clue from USN pre-WW2 carriers, and installing a catapult across the beam of the ship?

And NOT fore/aft?

Look at the pics… the crane on deck and the supports on the dock in the second pic (that shows the cylinders clearly) are in the same positions as in the first photo… which is clearly taken from off the ship to port, looking across the ship to the dock on the starboard side.

No… these are the cylinders for the hydraulic pistons (or water-spray pistons if they are using something similar to the 1960s RN design) that slow the pull-out of the arresting wires. Some form of these are present in all arresting-gear-equipped carriers (but will soon be replaced with electromagnetically-braked flywheels in USN carriers).

Note the paired cylinders of the USN’s current Mk7 mod 3 system in the drawing on the second & sixth pages: MK 7 AIRCRAFT RECOVERY EQUIPMENT

Don’t they look a lot like those in the second pic?

May 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm in reply to: Osprey – Yes or No? #2346298

Bager1968
Participant

Well… its kind late for these kind of thoughts.

8 USMC MV-22 squadrons have been declared operational (including the training squadron), and 2 more were transitioning as of last month.

There are only 9 USMC CH-46 squadrons left (including the training squadron), so there are more MV-22 squadrons in the USMC than CH-46.

Yes, its Wiki… but it seems to have decent data (including when the squadrons transitioned, etc… follow the links to individual squadron entries for more info):
List of active United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

And funny… other than the USAF pranging one of its Ospreys on an combat SpecOps mission a short while ago during a botched landing, I haven’t heard of any of “this flawed aircraft” “dropping out of the sky” lately… have you?

With 8 USMC squadrons fully equipped and operational with them, shouldn’t there be a whole bunch of crashes… if it was anywhere near as flawed as its critics make it out to be?

Obviously, the USMC seems to find it a whole lot better aircraft than certain people are willing to admit.

May 10, 2011 at 8:32 am in reply to: First bomber? #1050741

Bager1968
Participant

The first pic is misleading… note that the caption of the biplane photo is labeled “Rome, 1910”, not “Libya 1911”.

If you go down the page, you find that he performed the bombing from another aircraft:

Gavotti dropped the bombs from a Taube (Dove) monoplane, designed by Austrian Igo Etrich

As for the “Harman”… perhaps it was a model name, not the manufacturer.

I found the following pic, sold on-line: “Vintage ’10s Aviation Curtiss Harman Post Biplane Photo”. http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-10s-aviation-curtiss-harman-73190653

Or perhaps it was indeed a Farman.

May 10, 2011 at 8:16 am in reply to: Flippin Doodlebugs! #1050756

Bager1968
Participant

Checking by that name only covers 1 of 2 possibilities… that of her father’s father. What about her mother’s father?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,246 through 1,260 (of 3,360 total)

← 1 2 3 … 83 84 85 … 222 223 224 →