Great photo – definitely not a Photoshop!. CCCP 75804 (c/n 182004305) was an SL-18I (also SP-T18I) used by Leninets as an avionics testbed. It had Berkut radar and Mech SLAR underneath, but can’t find any reference as to what was in the nose.
In 1993 it (and Leninets SL-18D CCCP-75713) were leased to Daallo after the experimental kit had been stripped out (but the fairings retained). I think it was used for cargo flights until returned to Leninets in October 1994. The aircraft went to leninets’s commercial division (NPP Mir) and used for various pax/cargo duties out of Pushkin. Repainted in Aeroflot style scheme with NPP MIR titles. Ventral radomes removed during overhaul although the nose and Berkut mounting were kept.
75804 and two other former SL-18s were still on NPP Mir’s books a couple of years ago. Anyone know if they are still in use?
Good advice, Steve.
Ken – contact the publishers and try and get it sorted quickly and amicably. In my experience most reputable publishers don’t intentionally rip off people’s copyright. It could be that the photos were supplied to the publisher by a third party, and the publisher has paid them thinking that they were correct to do so. It happens all the time.
OK, I was being super-thick. It’s a DC-3 minus wings and tail
Can anyone tell me what this is?
35°02’10.50″N 106°37’14.96″W
I’m probably being super-thick but I haven’t a clue!
(What’s that white a/c just above them?)
I think it’s the HIDEC F-15, parked next to the HARV F/A-18. Down on South Base there’s the Scaled Composites AT-3, among many, many others.
Bit difficult to make out but there’s a MiG-21 at 55°52′.67″N 12°51’34.40″E.
It’s an old Russian aircraft parked on some waste ground outside a DIY store at Landskrona.
There’s a bit in International Air Power Review Volume 14 about short landing in a Viggen – Steep approach, then the moment the mainwheel;s touch push stick forward to plant the nosehweel down. This activates the reverse thrust. Then pull stick back so that the aircraft doesn’t go too far forward on to nose. Pull up in 400 to 450 meteres even on snow. That must be quite a sight to see.
(as an aside, Tornado also has a pre-armed reverse thrust capability)
Thanks Entropy.
I wasn’t saying that the Swedes don’t have highway strips any more – just that in the last few years they have used them less and less (certainly nowhere near as much as they did in the good old days) simply because the threat doesn’t warrant it any more and the budget has been reduced.
My idea of Bas 90 is – as you say – there was an area with a number of OLs spread around. But in that area one of the OLs was a central base with a long runway, with a handful of other short (mostly highway) strips and back-up runways. There was/is a limited amount of infrastructure (command bunkers etc) already in place to accommodate the dispersed forces. Nowadays the accent is more on being fully deployable to any facility that has no existing infrastructure.
Don’t most of the exercise deployments now go to austere ‘long runway’ airfields like Jokkmokk or Farila?
(nice pics – I think a couple of them were taken actually on the base at F7 rather than fully ‘out in the field’)
Poland has an annual highway strip exercise called DOL. MiG-21s, 29s, Fitters etc all use it.
Sinagpore also has highway exercises.
In Cold War days many of the Warsaw Pact air bases on the Central front had nearby highway strips, often linked by road to the main ‘peacetime’ airfield. And of course the RAF’s Harriers would have deployed out into the country, using stretches of road for runways and bridges over roads for cover.
I’m not aware of Switzerland using actual highways for takeoff/landing although at sveral of the war bases the aircraft would have to taxi across the highway from the cavern shelters to get to the runway.
Sweden is the best known for highway ops, and in the old days even used frozen lakes in the winter as makeshift runways. AFAIK they praqctice road ops very rarely now. Their dispersal plans centre around ‘war bases’ that are disused or small civilian airports. Squadrons practice their deployments to these locations, rather than to highway strips. There are, however, a lot of highway strips thouigh which could still be used.
Judging by the wingtip fairings that Iraqi wreck looks like an Su-25 to me.
Some of the first and all of the second batch of PhilAF jets (0xx serials) were delivered with weapons capability whereas the the rest of the first batch (8xx serials) were unarmed at first, although they (all? most?) were later converted for attack
..on the other point
NATO aircraft are operated as a single force, crewed by personnel from the member states. Multinational crews are routine. Member states don’t have any aircraft allocated to them directly. The UK has its own fleet which is used for both NATO and ‘national’ tasks. They are flown generally by UK-only crews, just as the French fly mostly French-only.
The UK also provides some personnel for the NATO fleet (and I think the US does too? France as well???).
The E-3 community is pretty close knit with a fair bit of crossover between US/NATO/UK/Fr in terms of operational procedures, personnel etc. Also US/Saudi.
NATO – already been through RSIP and now going through another modernization plan with new screens, mission computer, comms etc. Some of this kit is not yet on US aircraft. Arguably the post-mod NATO aircraft are the best equipped.
Saudi – Five (not seven) E-3As. Generally similar to US/NATO aircraft but with some downgraded systems. Computer upgrade from 2001 (is this programme complete?)
UK – went through RSIP. Last one redelivered in 2000. RAF Sentries don’t have the AYR-1 ESM cheek fairings as they have Yellow Gate wingtip pods instead
France – fleet going through RSIP. First one flew again in early 2005. Fourth and last due for completion this year ( as gui says).
US – Last RSIP aircraft redelivered in 2004. All now Block 30 or 35 with AYR-1 fairings and updated comms.
Of course it’s speculation. That’s what the thead-starter asked for.
Based on what little we do know, which admittedly comes from biased UK test pilots, biased UK journalists of the day and biased BAC/RAF officials, the TSR2 would have been very good indeed. It is also true that it became something of a cause célèbre among the UK industry and the RAF, who saw its cancellation as the ‘beginning of the end’, and probably made it out to be even more impressive than it actually was/could have been. It certainly has gained a mythical status over the years.
However, we know that it was not cancelled on technical grounds (there were delays caused by exploding engines, granted, but the problems were identified and fixed). As it never got beyond basic prototype stage we cannot know whether it would have been an operational nightmare – let’s face it, that never stopped the less ambitious Mirage IV or F-111 becoming successful, and still in use today.
Modern seats have a self-righting system which senses which way the ejection is being made and adjusts the rocket thrust accordingly. The burn time of a seat rocket is very short, so I think if you eject fully inverted, the seat will at best be travelling sideways afterwards rather than up.
Most aircrew carry sidearms on operations but they are worn as part of the flying kit, rather than on the seat. Helicopter crews usually carry sidearms and a small machine-gun (MP5 or similar) for operations.