dark light

Pbar_b1bwso

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: South Korea – ROKAF. Photo Achieve #2474987
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    Ironically enough there is a video of our class trip to the US 2nd Infantry Division here at http://afnkorea.net/. Even though I was interviewed, I’m not in the video. Guess I didn’t look good.

    in reply to: South Korea – ROKAF. Photo Achieve #2475131
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    No, actually I’m an exchange student at the Korean Air Force Staff College (course for majors/lieutenant colonels). The Squadron Officer Course (captains) that she was attending is in the same building. I didn’t talk to her but I would assume she understands English as do most of the Korean officers here. Most can’t speak it well though (except when they want my help) but I can’t brag about my Korean either.

    In addition to me there is a Brazilian (C-99), Turk (F-16), Mongol, (air defense) and Japanese officer (F-15J) with me here.

    in reply to: South Korea – ROKAF. Photo Achieve #2475212
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/080703/45/12ied.html

    3 July 2008:
    ROKAF KF-16 female pilot HA Yoo Mi shakes hands with South Korean fashion designer Andre KIM, for the red scarf.

    I’ve seen her around the school (she was going to the Squadron Officer Course) but I didn’t put two and two together until my Taiwanese classmate mentioned it. She seemed to me to be on the quiet side but I didn’t talk her. Damn, I should have though…

    PBAR

    in reply to: Speculating about the B-3 #2503313
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant


    No, only 4. Same as the B-1B.
    B-52s got rid of the tail gunner (and guns) years ago.

    I think they still have five; aircraft commander, copilot, EWO, nav, and radar nav. Why the navs and EWOs aren’t dual-qualified like the B-1’s WSOs are, is another story…

    PBAR

    in reply to: How much life is left in the Bone…? #2503314
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    To re-engine the B-1 with F-119s would have cost over $4 billion for only 67 aircraft. We certainly don’t have cash like that laying around.

    I’d like to the USAF buy a couple of squadrons worth of P-8As and use them in Iraq/Afghanistan-like low threat areas to save airframe hours on the B-1/B-52. Maybe strip out the ASW gear and replace it with ELINT and IMINT gear so you could do ISR and strike. With the ISR capabilities and large crew, it would probably be more useful than a Bone or Buff in the current unpleasantness. Forget the 2018 bomber and start work on the hypersonic 2037 bomber.
    At any rate, the USAF has no intention of buying the 2018 bomber- it’s just trying to get Congress off its back with regard to its penchant for short-range fighters. Moreover, when the F-35 line ramps up, more B-1s and B-52s will probably be sacrificed to pay for it.

    PBAR

    in reply to: Decoy aircraft – pictures and facts #2540628
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    I was reading in some book (which one exactly I can remember) but it said during a test the USAF conducted they painted the shadow of an aircraft on the tarmac and then had pilots fly practice attacks against the airfield. The results were that the pilots attacked the shadow painting most of the time in preference to the real aircraft parked next to the shadow.

    The USAF used to have airfield decoys for the both the F-15 and F-16 but I don’t know if we still have them.

    PBAR

    in reply to: MAKS – 2007 #2510216
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    It is possible to turn Tu-160 also into strategic interceptor (as well B-1B) but who needs this. ( .

    I read in a book once that the Rockwell proposed a Bone version with Phoenix missiles to defend ships from the Backfire threat in the middle of the Atlantic. Also, wasn’t there a proposed Tu-160 variant with air-to-air missiles that was designed to intercept the air bridge (C-141s, C-5s, etc.) coming from the US to Europe?

    That would have been wild to see a B-1 vs Tu-160 “dogfight”…

    PBAR

    in reply to: South Korean F-4 Phantoms #2526466
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    I was talking to a Korean Air Force F-16 pilot friend today at church and he said that the ROKAF will operate the F-4D until the F-15Ks have all been delivered and become fully operational. He said that the ROKAF plans to keep the F-4E in service until 2015.

    in reply to: South Korea – ROKAF. Photo Achieve #2526903
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/new…&newssetid=746

    It says;
    A KF-16D with two pilots was doing a night training mission over the West Sea and then went missing. It is surmised by the fact that communication was lost for many hours of communication that the plane crashed.

    The missing KF-16D took off today from Sosan Airbase today at about 8:26 pm and was in the middle of a night interception training mission.

    After the plane was missing the Air Force dispatched two rescue helicopters ,1 transport airplane, and 4 high speed patrol boats to the accident sea area and rescue and search operations are combing the area. The [Korean] Air Force spokesman said, “It hasn’t been confirmed that the pilots have survived yet”.

    The KF-16 type, including the last February crash accident into sea in front of Ch’ungnam Boryong, etc. has had 4 crashes in the same area since 1990 but all of the pilots had succesful escapes [ejections].

    PBAR
    bonewso.net

    in reply to: South Korea – ROKAF. Photo Achieve #2527154
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    KF-16D down

    http://news.joins.com/article/2799740.html?ctg=1000
    A KF-16D is missing from night intercept training today over the West (Yellow) Sea. HH-60 and HH-47s are currently searching for the pilot.

    in reply to: australia long quest for a bomber (1958-1974) #2507796
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    As an aside, Boeing offered to Australia some of the B-1Bs that went into storage a few years ago but were obviously turned down.

    PBAR

    in reply to: B-1B Lancer facts and rumours?!! #2509299
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    IIRC we have 67 airframes that are paid for. As for the MX, it’s been hurting back at home station because priority for spares, obviously, is for the jets deployed. Also, I hear the B-1 maintenance units are going to lose a lot of people because of the manpower cutbacks and that is not going to be good.

    Last I heard the software upgrades are going well and the targeting pod, new INSes, radar, and integrated test computer, and defensive avionic upgrades are in the pipeline. Obviously I can’t give specifics, especially about the defensive avionics, due to operational security. I’ve been out of the jet for a couple of years on other assignments and so I’m not sure if the software to use the GBU-39 is fielded yet or not.

    As for deployments, the B-1 has had constant deployments to the Middle East or Guam since 9/11. There is/was recently a B-1 squadron deployed to the Middle East right now and their strikes often show up on http://www.af.mil (i.e http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123053264).

    As for pictures, I have some at http://bonewso.net.

    PBAR

    in reply to: Why have nearly identical aircraft? #2535055
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    I’ve always wondered why there is such a plethora of different business jet-type airframes in the US military, each of which requires it’s own training, logistics tail, etc.

    For example, C-12, C-20, C-21, T-39, UC-35, C-40, C-143, C-26, C-37, C-38, etc.

    One would think we could standardize on fewer types…

    And let’s not get started on the hardware that goes on similiar aircraft. For example the B-52s ALQ-172 and the B-1s ALQ-161 electronic attack systems were developed roughly around the same time. We should have bought one system. Also, there are cockpit upgrades going on for both jets, but are they buying the same equipment, no, of course not. Given how similiar the missions are, they ought to be somewhat like the 757/767 cockpit commonality.

    PBAR

    in reply to: Japan and the F-22 #2538336
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    Here’s an article about a possible Japanese F-22 buy from a Korean newspaper.
    http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704270012.html

    Also, an article from Strategypage about it. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20070426.aspx

    PBAR

    in reply to: Aircraft With Weird-Looking Modifications #2543408
    Pbar_b1bwso
    Participant

    Proposed OV-10A Charger floatplane; Blackburn B.20 retractable floatplane.

    I saw on TV several years ago a clip of the “Waterworld” action show at Universal Studios and as part of the show, they launched a Bronco that floats into the water. I guess it was a surplus plane modified for the show but it looked really strange…

    A couple of poor quality pictures can be seen here http://www.mouseplanet.com/usig/usig-ww-plane.jpg and here http://www.starlinetours.com/images/tour_images/WaterWorld.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)