jackehammondDon’t forget that the Tu-95 had the same fuselage diameter as the B-29 – it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.
Ken
Dear Ken,
I am not for sure if it is the TU-80 or TU-85 but one of them held the record for the largest wing-span in the world. And that is saying something considering the B-36.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondThe amount of resources that the Soviets poured into their PVO or air defence system for the defence of the whole of the Soviet Union made America’s and Canada’s comparable efforts for North America look positively amateurish. The Soviets had over 1200 intercepter aircraft, along with thousands of SAMs on force, waiting to repulse any SAC onslaught. If the Americans were somewhat scared about the BEAR, well then we would have to say that the Soviets must have been completely terrified of the BUFF.
Dear Member,
I don’t think it was the Buff so much as believe it or not the B-58 and the B-70. But either way Eisenhower was shocked when he learned that the Russians weren’t relying on a strategic bomber for its nuclear strike and that the US had wasted a lot of money for a threat that never — ie or was a lot smaller — existed. It was one of the best disinformation campagins every done in history that the Russians did. Shortly after that discovery a lot of the Nike Ajax/Hercules bases started going into storage and then the air defense squadrons being transfered to the Air National Guard.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondFolks,
In this whole debate everyone is forgetting that old saying: Amatures discuss weapons; experts logistics. Does anyone believe that the PLAN or the IN can substain a carrier task force at sea for long? Refuel and Re-Arm it and protect the tankers and supply ships from home port to the CV location? Many consider only two navy really capable of that over the long haul in blue oceans: ie the US Navy and the Japanese Navy. Remember when the Russians sent their one carrier into the Med during the Kosovo Crisis the US Navy had to help them with fixing their fresh water plant and teaching them carrier landing skills. It is a culture. India has some great warships, but does it have the culture to operate ships for long periods at long distances? No one today says that about China. At least as far as I know or have read.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondDear Members,
In the high altitude and medium altitude the B-52 is the king. But at low altitude the TU-95 has the advantage big time. The B-52 can’t equal the TU-95 in either range or speed at low altitude. It is actually far more payload/range efficent over the B-52 because of its engines.
TU-95s use to do reconn missions in the UK-Iceland Gap and were intercepted by RAF Lightenings and Phantoms. The TU-95s would just put the metal to the floor and the Lightenings and Phantoms had a hard time keeping up if at low altitude and to keep an eye on the TU-95s both RAF aircraft had to have tanker support if shadowing a TU-95 at low altitude.
Today, the TU-95 would by far be the more cost effective JDAM platform for use over Afghanistan on standing watch patrols. It is just far more efficent in fuel use.
Either way, the TU-95 forced the US to spend BILLIONS on air defense. It was one of the few weapons that the Russians developed that put the US into a spending spiral. Eisenhower was shocked when U-2 photos discovered that the TU-95 was the main strategic bomber and not the Bison.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondBut there are the propaganda values of the ignorace and unfamiliarity of the public.
Like for instance, you can make out big headlines here in finland by saying that North-Korea just lanched a cruise missile towards the direction of japan, and everybody who’s remembers the bad and nasty NATO cruise missiles from the 80’s automaticly drawns the image of nuclear holocaust and that North koreans needs to be stopped. And then the reporter even adds that it was a chinese silkworm type and the average watcher starts to swear about their heaten commie conspiracy.
…and nobody bothers to tell about the fact that the silkworm is a chinese made P-15, SS-N-2 Styx or MTO 68 as know in here finland, our first anti-ship missile, specially allowed in the Paris peace treaty update due its defensive nature…. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Dear Members,
Do you all remember during the Falklands Wars when the news media was claiming that the French Exocet had made expensive warships like aircraft carriers expensive because one cheap Exocet could sink a carrier or other large warship. Or the Mach 2 Styx and Silkworm missile threat. And so it goes.
Jack E. Hammond
BTW> Anyone want to take a guess as to which nation has the first ship launched anti-shipping missile operational?
jackehammondFB111s simply wouldnt have the ability to plough through heavy defences- in contrast B1 ECM is awesome (and theres lot more space to put it in). Werent a or some F111s even lost in the strike on Libya also?
Plus with ALCM – both Bones and B52s can carry them and blow up radars/ SAMs from distance for tactical a/c to go in, FB111 would be too small
Dear Member,
There is a question about the lost of that F-111A over Libya — ie some think it was not to enemy action. But the FB-111H is a totall different animal than the FB-111. It was a massive increase in ability — ie range, payload, crew comfort, EMC, etc. The Russians are the only ones to come close to an aircraft even near it with that SU-30 or SU-35 (?). In the end I have had some in the USAF say that from a total cost standpoint it would have been the better pick. But it came down to that old saying “Best is the enemy of good enough.” And while it is cold hearted the B-1B is just to expensive to put in harms way. It is a lot like the British pre-dreadnought battleships at the Med/Black Sea Straits in May 1915.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondAs other mentioned the B-1B fleet was only nuke tasked in the days of the early Gulf War. Would have been a bit overkill to use them in that war don’t you think?
Regarding the radar cross section I don’t think you realize just how much of a reduction they were able to achieve. The B-1B has an RCS 1/10th that of the B-52, and combined with its smaller size and higher speed means it can get closer to a target much quicker thus giving the enemy less time to react. It’s not stealth, but you can’t detect it as far away as a normal airplane that size.
Most of the bugs with its defensive systems have been worked out and I believe they are working the Block E or F upgrade at this point. The B-1B has proven to be incredibly flexible, and is now considered one of the most important weapons in the USAF arsenal. Due to its speed, large load carrying capability (three different bays that can carry multiple types of weapons all on the same mission), and good range, the Lancer is the most versatile bomber in the USAF’s inventory.
The B-1A’s Mach 2 capability isn’t necessary these days, and its larger RCS just puts it at more risk than necessary.
The B-1B is the right plane for today’s modern battlefield and with introduction of targeting pods and other new features (yes they are using one of the external hardpoints again to fit that pod……the Sniper I believe), the Lancer gets deadlier by the day.
Dear Member,
Yes it would have been over kill. But if it was as good as they claimed they would have used the B-1B. And if you talk about overkill using the B-2 over Afghanistan (ie or even the B-1B) is overkill supreme.
It is not the B-1A Mach 2 ability. It is the change in the engines they made that made it economic cruise/payload ability drastically changed. It was optimized for low-penetration only. That means it can not effective cruise (ie let us say over Afghanistan) at an economic subsonic speed and then sprint to were it is needed.
The radar cross section is reduced true. But it is the difference between a car head light and a hand held flash light. It doesn’t matter on a pitch black night. Both will be suddenly spotted by the human eye. To be effective the light source would have to be reduced to a match held in a cupped hand. To wit, the radar cross section although drastically reduced is still not enough. Most enemy radar will spot it. And soon enough to react to it. And that reduction came at a price of payload/range/speed effectiveness. It was the USAF basically gaming congress for the funds.
And yes, the B-1B will be effective. But the trade off for its reduced radar cross section had no effect against a modern enemy air defense network and is a total waste of money in the war on terror, etc. I fear it will be like the AH-64 Apache where the US Army has discovered that with modern air defense systems its touted and expensive deep strike role had to be abandoned after its one big tests.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondMiG-28s…funny, given that a fighter jet built by MiG would have an ODD number!
Dear Sean,
But even sometimes the experts-experts get taken in. Over on Military Forum back in the early 1990s I use to love to rib Sweetman about his “scoop” article in the 1960s on the Mig-23 (ie he had designated a twin engine concept version of the Mig-21 as the Mig-23). He said it was the biggest embarrassment of his career.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondMedia Watch in 1990-1991
Folks,
Back “when” I was a Sysop on Compuserve I use to have a message section on Jforum (ie at that time it was where all the reporters in the print and TV hanged out) called “Media Watch”. Every time I saw a mistake I would post a message on it. For example do you all remember when that CNN reporter was on top of that roof. Well they all jumped out of their skins when there was an explosion and a bright light going up in the air. The reporter stated it was an F-15 Eagle taking off, when in fact it was the first Patriot launch of that war against a SCUD. Then they reported a Saudi SHAHINE (ie the Super version of the CROTALE from France) as a US Army MLRS launcher. And it went on and on and on. The worst was when they reported the invasion of Kuwait and stated those French 155mm SPs as US supplied M-109 155mm SPs.
The worst problem I had with the reporters (CNN and ABC especially) was the SCUD. They kept hounding me for what the name SCUD stood for (ie they thought it was like TOW – Tube-Lauched, Optical Guided, Weapon). I had a hell of a time convincing them that it stood for nothing that it was just the NATO designation. They were coming up with all sorts of cr*p like Surface-Missile Cruise-Missile Urban Destroyer. And I am serious!!!! It was that bad.
And then there were those military experts they hired. JEEZ! The only good one was Anthony Cordesman. I had the email addresses of of Bill Sweetman and Steven Zaloga (ie they were members of Compuserves Military Forum) but they were so taken in by the BS of the people the hired they just could not see how bad they really were!
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondFolks,
Monch Groups THE WORLD DEFENSE ALMANAC 2005 usually is on the money for equipment of various nations. But it does not list the Pakistani MISTRALS even though they do have them.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammondFolks,
At the cost of the laser 2.75 inch rocket it makes no sense. The US Army Missile Command at one time developed a very cheap FOG-M missile with great accuracy out of off the shelf items that used the TOW warhead and had a range of about 7km. I have a video of it in action and you would not believe the accuracy — ie they don’t just hit the tank the operator hits the part of the tank he wants. But then the defense industry convinced the US Army it needed “improvement”. First they demanded that it have both day/night/all weather ability. That means no more off the shelf TV camera in the nose, but a fancy and very expensive FLIR type like on the Javelin today that drives its cost through the roof. Then they demanded a longer range. that means having to fit a small turbo-jet. And that means figuring out how to have a solid launch motor and a turbo exhaust which does not interfer with the trailing fiber optic cables spooling out.
Just think a simple FOG-M day missile with a range of 7km and the ability to disable the warhead (just the impact will do the job in a lot of cases in urban warfare) would have done the trick. And with FOG-M missiles you can put it through a window. I have seen it done in videos.
Last, the problem is the US Army’s hover and engage tactic. With Hellfires it works. But at a slant angle free flight rockets are not as accurate. During the Vietnam War when the USAF OV-10 Bronco FAC pilots were getting bored they would make bets with the US Army Cobra gunship pilots about hitting something like a bomb crater. The Bronco pilot always made easy beer money. Why, the Cobra pilots were firing their rockets at a slightly off level slant angle. The Bronco pilot was diving like the Russians learned with their attack helicopters. And today the Russians have dicovereed that an 8 inch free flight rocket with fixed fins (ie like the old 5 inch rocket of the Korean War) can be damn accurate if fired at a dive. Even at a longer range.
Jack E. Hammond
NOTE> I have to give the British engineers at BEA credit though. Their laser homing idea is a stupid simple solution that early British missile engineers developed for the Sea Dart only using laser illumination — ie with the Sea Dart their are four antennas around the nose and they just make sure each antenna is recieving the same amount of reflected energy off the target if one is weaker it steers in to center all four. It works folks and you eliminate that big dish in the nose.
jackehammondHiye,
I’ve asked this before I think,
anyway, out of interest, has their been any sort of R&D / Studies on say a missile that cruises above water and then goes under-water to hit the sea target.
It’s certainly a difficult thing to make and a high kill ratio cannot be guaranteed…
Just wanted to know…
Thank You.
Dear Member,
Yes. Various nations have developed anti-submarine weapons where a winged vehicle takes a torpedo near the submarine and parachutes a torpedo into the water to attack the submarine. The French with the Malafon (being replaced by the MILAS which is an OTOMAT antishipping missile fitted with a anti-submarine torpedo). Australia though developed the best wing ASW system called the Ikara which was adopted by not only Australia but also the UK and Brazil.
The Russians went a step further and designed ASW wing vehicle that has not only a primary anti-submarine role but a secondary anti-shipping role (ie this being because the torpedo carried is much larger than those carried by NATO wing ASW or even the rocket ASW weapons). The first was the SS-N-14 SILEX which armed the KRIVAK class and had everyone concerned. That has been replaced by the SS-N-16 Stallion which is extremely capable carrying a huge 21 inch torpedo that can use wake homing and has a range of 54 nm. When ever a warship is attacked by both a standard ASM (Exocet, Harpoon, OTOMAT) and an ASM that uses a torpedo the problems for the warship being attacked is serious. Like in WW2 when both dive-bombers and torpedo planes attacked at the same time.
Jack E. Hammond
NOTE. While the physics of it is hard to explain, the larger the diameter of a naval torpedo using rear propellers the higher its speed can be. Makes no sense but every naval weapons engineer will tell you the same thing. That is why the Russians opt for larger ASW torpedoes — ie not because they carry larger warheads, but because their great speeds drastically reduce the engagement time.
jackehammondThose hybrid cruisers were a very interesting idea, but I guess big guns and biplanes don’t mix very well 😀
I’d like to see a hybrid spin-off of the DD(X) :diablo:
Dear SteveO,
Actually in the contexts of the times they “sort of” made sense. But radar and vast improvements in aircraft made them “sort of” stupid. But for hunting down commercial raiders and destroyer squadrons on the high seas they made sense at that time. They were designed mainly to operate far from bases alone. For example if the RN had had one when it was hunting the Graf Spee it would have been of great help. But in the long run it made more sense to have a seperate escort or light carrier operating with the all guns warships.
Jack E. Hammond
jackehammond1930 Flight Deck Light Cruiser Plans of USN
Dear SteveO,
Sorry, but those were not it. The flight deck behind the two turrets (ie with three cannons each) had no island and no 5/38 caliber dual purpose cannons and the illustration showed it with the Boeing fighter-bombers.
Last, this is a shame. But I had almost all my old Warship Internationals along with other material in storage. It got broken in to and a few boxes were taken. Unfortunately my collection of older WI were taken.
Jack E. Hammond
Folks,
I know I am answering my own post, but it is the easiests way to do it. To wit, I have at last found those old Warship Internationals and the issue that covered the USN plans for a light cruiser mounting 6 inch naval cannons and a unit of fighter-bombers. I have scanned just three pages of that large article explaining the rational and a illustration of what it looked like and the purpose drawing that was almost funded for 1932. And I wish to thank those that found the plans made in the 1940s for about the same concept.
Jack E. Hammond
==============
==============
jackehammondDear Members,
How about us stick to the subject of this forum. PLEASE! This type of rancorous debating has already shut down one forum (ie depriving us members interested in the subject in a nonpolitical way) of some valuable information and photos that were posted. So please have some consideration and don’t cause the administrator to shut this forum down also. I just spent a lot of time scanning and posting information on the RBS-70 and I don’t want to see it also go into a cyperspace blackhole like the forum I mentioned which Key Publishing shut down over these types of debating.
Jack E. Hammond
Sign In
