US101 becomes H-71, but why?
US101 becomes H-71, but why?
Lockheed Martin’s US101, better known in Europe as the AgustaWestland EH101 and winner of the prestigious US Navy VXX presidential helicopter competition, has been officially designated the VH-71A. As the last helicopter to receive an official US military designation was AgustaWestland’s A109, operated by the US Coast Guard as the MH-68A Enforcer, that begs the question “what happened to the H-69 and H-70?”. An informative website, http://www.designation-systems.net, may have the answer. In its section on missing US Department of Defense designations, the website speculates that H-69 has not been assigned because of its sexual overtones, while H-70 may have been skipped to avoid confusion with Sikorsky’s S-70 – the export version of the H-60 family. The US101, meanwhile, is competing for the US Air Force’s CSAR-X combat search-and-rescue requirement. If it wins, it will presumably become the MH-71B.
Source: Flight International
H-69
According to information from USAF/XPPE, the number 69 in the H-series will not be assigned. No reason for this skipping has been provided, but it’s at least possible that the design number “69” is regarded as embarrassing, because that number is also known as a synonym for a certain sexual practice.H-70
The VH-71A designation for the Lockheed Martin US-101 (winner of the VXX (Presidential Helicopter) competition) is now officially confirmed. So far, H-70 is unassigned, but may still be allocated in the future (this wouldn’t be without precedence – the X-49 designator was also assigned after X-50). According to unofficial information from USAF/XPPE, the request for VH-71A was granted, because “VH-71” had already been used by the VXX Program Office before the MDS had been officially assigned. It remains to be seen, why “VH-71” was used prematurely and why the H-70 slot was not used instead. One possible reason for the latter could be, that the helicopter number “70” is already widely associated with the Sikorsky S-70 family (designated H-60 in the U.S. military).
Source: http://www.designation-systems.net,
There was no sequence of Top Gun, because Tony Scott, the director, said they used every foot of air video footage for the first movie.
I bet, you, myself and most members in this forum would love to see ACM between a Mig-17 and F-4 over Nam. For us all, the fighters would be the main characters, not the human actors. 😉
But would the normal filmgoers at age 15-25 years want to see such a movie??? I doubt about that!!! Like I wouldn’t want to see a remake or sequence of a western movie .
Young moviegoers, who want to see an aviation movie, they also want action, love scences, humor etc. We’ll see, how they like the movie ‘Stealth’ this summer!
A nice homepage about the the North American A-5/RA-5 “Vigilante” to read over the weekend 😉 :
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
Why did MD not built this aircraft 5 years earlier ?! 😡
Source: Boeing.com – MCDONNELL DOUGLAS UNVEILS NEW MD-XX TRIJET DESIGN
Barracuda
Good, that this Bunker buster doesn’t have a small nuclear bomb to detroy the target.
The german company Diehl BGT Defence is/was also working on high-speed torpedoes called Barracuda, that reduce friction by creating a gas bubble called a supercavity.


Sources in German: 06.01.2001 –
Weltweite Spitzenposition erhalten und ausbauen
Technologie superkavitierender Unterwasserraketen
http://www.prosieben.de/imperia/md/content/images/04_lifestyle_magazine/wunderwelt_wissen/WW_Torpedo_1.PDF
http://www.prosieben.de/imperia/md/content/images/04_lifestyle_magazine/wunderwelt_wissen/WW_Torpedo_2.PDF
http://www.prosieben.de/imperia/md/content/images/04_lifestyle_magazine/wunderwelt_wissen/WW_Torpedo_3.PDF
http://www.prosieben.de/imperia/md/content/images/04_lifestyle_magazine/wunderwelt_wissen/WW_Torpedo_4.PDF
From the lovemigs link:
The jets, which took off from Lemoore air station on the California coast earlier in the day, were on a routine training drill over the remote China Lake weapons testing ground when they flew into each other
F/A-18E pilot found dead
🙁
Missing Naval Aviator Died in Super Hornet Crash
Story Number: NNS050721-01
Release Date: 7/21/2005 9:30:00 AMFrom Commander, Strike Fighter Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs
NAVAL AIR STATION LEMOORE, Calif. (NNS) — Two Super Hornets based at Naval Air Station Lemoore experienced a mid-air collision while on a routine training mission July 18, killing one naval aviator and injuring two.
Lt. Bruce L. Clark of Orange Park, Fla., 31, died in the incident.
Lt. Noel Sawatzky and Lt. John Bonenfant were recovered by search and rescue crews July 18; they are currently in the Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, Calif., and were reported in fair condition.
The mishap occurred in a remote training area about 35 nautical miles northeast of Ridgecrest, Calif., over Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake.
The aircraft involved were an F/A-18E (single seat) and an F/A-18F (two seat) Super Hornet from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 122. No live ordnance was aboard.
The cause of the incident is under investigation.
For more news from around the fleet, visit http://www.navy.mil.
Two Hurt, One Missing In F/A-18 Collision
Tue, 19 Jul ’05Search Continues For Missing Aviator
Two aviators were hospitalized in serious condition at a California hospital Tuesday morning after their F/A-18F collided with an E-model over the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. The search continued Tuesday morning for the pilot of the E-model.As ANN reported in real-time Monday night, the two aircraft collided and crashed during a training mission at 1130 PDT Monday. Search teams from China Lake were immediately dispatched to the crash site and were able to rescue the two injured fliers from the F-model.
A spokeswoman for Ridgecrest Hospital said one crewmember suffered a broken leg and internal injuries. Both were stabilized before they were flown by air ambulance from the crash site, she said.
Neither aircraft carried live ordnance. Both were stationed at NAS Lemoore, according to a base spokesman.
Source: ANN.net – Two Hurt, One Missing In F/A-18 Collision
My thoughts and hopes to all families!
Hard to say, if Boeing had a monopoly, they would have built by now a 737 successor
Powered by the CFM International CFM56-7B turbofan engines, the new derivative will have substantial economic advantages over competing models including 9 percent lower operating costs per trip and 7 percent lower operating costs per seat than the A321, which is more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) heavier than the 737-900ER.
In March Boeing finished the first 1300 testing hours in wind tunnel.
The major change will be the wing extension from a blended winglet to a commercially proven raked or backswept wing tip. Such a wing tip weigh more than the blended winglet, but it is easier to de-ice. Deiceing is important, because the P-8A will be flying in around 5000m/16.000 feet as Edlaw wrote earlier.
Sources:
[INDENT]1. Flug-Revue 08/2005 – News – Page 25
2. Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums > Modern Military Aviation
Boeing Team Wins $3.89 Billion Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft Program See my post #42!
3.Boeing.com – Boeing Changes Wingtip Design on U.S. Navy’s P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft[/INDENT]
A good site:
http://thinkinrussian.org/
Posted yesterday, see thread: Top Cover
Top Cover on FB-22, not B-2
The article thinks the B-2 can carry two of these externally? That doesn’t seem right to me…
If fielded, the XR cruise missile would be carried by the USAF’s Northrop B-2 and Boeing B-52 bombers, which, respectively, could carry up to eight and four weapons internally and two and eight weapons externally.
I thought first, the author means only the B-52, but by second reading, it also doesn’t seem right.
The B-2 has now externall hardpoints and the fuselage is not even like on other aircraft.
Anyway in that case a B-2 would look awful!!! 😡
Externall it would suit more the FB-22.
That wing weapon bay looks like a Top Cover missile.
Here another pic of Top Cover from FI: