Quoted: www.hunt101.com/img/460912-big.jpg

When did we get rid of the Kiowa?  I though we were still flying them.... or do you mean the unarmed (non Warrior) versions?


-K

Quoted: Quoted: The F-111 is still unmatchad as a long range strike aircraft, it had very long legs, a big punch and pretty much nothing could keep up with it at high or low level speed wise. ANdy Yup, it also was unmatched as a pain in the ass for maintenance, tied only by the beloved phantom.  Most of the guys I worked F-4Gs with worked F-111s at some time also, and they had much to say about the pain in the ass it was to work on.  When the maintenance man hours per flying hour are over 30-40 it's time to put them out to pasture, and the AF did.  Of course for the "spark vark" they retired them without replacement, stupid asses.

Common thread there.  The F/EF-111, F-4G, A-6 and others were all axed under Klinton (along with 40% of our Army and an equal portion of our Air Farce and a good part of our Navy).  


ETA:  To add more fuel to the fire, what advantages do the Strike Eagles offer over the F-111 - besides the ability to shoot down other aircraft.  Didn't the F-111 carry more bombs over a longer distance faster than the F-15?

-K

Quoted: Quoted: The supercruising F-16XL with the huge cranked arrow wing, with ridiculous bombload capacity. CJ never heard of it, so I googled FUCK YEAH upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg/600px-F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg high res upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16XL

Good point.  With all the benifits, I wonder why we're not producing them today.  Same with the thrust vectoring.



-K

For some odd reason, the T-38 Talon is my favorite.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think F-4s could still be quite useful as bomb trucks. Amen, brother. Now you're talking my language. F-4s were my first aircraft.  Anybody who hasn't worked them just cannot fathom what maintenance pigs they are.  We spent 50-70 million dollars a year in my one small (well not really) 24 aircraft unit on gas and parts.  Now taking those A and B model lawn darts out of the boneyard and putting a decent datalink in them so they could be flown in "knights and squires" formations with F-15Es (with the WSO operating the lawn dart bomb truck UCAVs) would be sweet.   Yes, the F-4G was the undisputed king of SEAD, and the HTS lawn dart and EA-6B suck at destructive SEAD (launching AGM-88s and actually hitting anything).  The EA-18G will be one hell of a standoff jammer and destructive SEAD platform.  I can't wait to see them in service, the AF should have bought the F-15D weasel that they were offered.

What kind of greater capabilities is the SuperBug going to have?  And when will we have it?  

Also, what's up with replacing a capable bird with a less capable bird?  What was it about the F-4G that made it so much better than the aircraft that replaced it?  What possesed them to do that and why couldn't they make the F-16 just as effective?  Why has it taken us 15 years or so to get back to where we were before taking such a step backwards?  

Also, I was under the impression that the Prowler was a capable aircraft.  I guess I was wrong.  Why would they have a hard time with destructive SEAD?  I thought the HARM was a good missile.


-K

Quoted: Quoted: I'm like to see this one in service. img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/copy_of_yf-23___b-2__0001.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf235.gif img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf236.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf231.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf239.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/YF-2320BLACK20WIDOW3.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf23_wp1024.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/YF-23_800x600.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/YF23_jpg.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/yf2320.jpg I agree!  I can't believe I forgot to mention that. Perhaps the coolest fighter aircraft we never produced.  I think the B-70 takes the cake for the coolest bomber though. -K

I keep hoping the YF-23 will find a role in the US mil.

I agree about the B-70, especially as I saw one in flight back in the 60s.

Quoted: On the F-111, I'd agree that the EW (EF-111A Raven) version would still be a viable tool today, its replacement the EA-6B Prowler is not as capable as the "Spark Vark" was. The Jamming suite on the Prowler doesnt have the jamming capability that the "Raven" did, that and coupled with its capability to fly low-level at high speeds with other attack aircraft made it a better tool IMO.

The latest upgrades to the Prowler make it far more effective as a jammer than the EF-111 was. ICAPII, USQ-113, and a few others that "can't be mentioned" plus the EA-6B can carry and fire the AGM-88 HARM missile.

Then there's the matter of almost 12 years of development on the EA-6B jammers vice the EF-111 program dropping dead in 1988.

The EF-111 was not capable of firing anti-radiation missiles in the lethal SEAD role, which was a tactical limitation. The aircraft's considerable speed and acceleration were its main means of self-defense.

Quoted: I think the A-6 still has a place, especially as a EW aircraft.

No, that's why the Navy developed the EA-6B

Quoted: and the HTS lawn dart and EA-6B suck at destructive SEAD (launching AGM-88s and actually hitting anything).

The EA-6B sucks at hitting anything with the AGM-88?
VAQ-138 fired off 88 HARMS during Kosavo, their sucsess rate was over 90%.

Send some FB-111's to the Izzies so they can take out Irans nuke production.   I'm sure the Aussies might trade some for F34s.  Everybody wins.

The Avro Arrow.

The F-5 and it's derivatives. It's the most beatiful aircraft to ever fly.

Quoted: what advantages -K

You've asked this a couple of times. In almost every case it is a matter of logistics. The newer aircraft take less time and money to keep in the air.

Don't believe everything you hear about the EA-6B, it's quite capable.

So ugly, but so capable.  The Buccaneer:




I still miss working on these:

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.hunt101.com/img/460912-big.jpg When did we get rid of the Kiowa?  I though we were still flying them.... or do you mean the unarmed (non Warrior) versions? -K I’m not sure of the exact date for the “A” or “C” models. When I ETS’d in 1993 we still had them, but I don’t think there are any more active duty units with the OH-58A or C. I think all the Scout pilots went to Deltas models or to other airframes. The CAV days of my time, the “Scout” / “Snake” teams, are long gone. Most CAV units as far as I know use strictly Delta models now. And as far as current Attack units go, I have no idea how their set up, Apaches and........?

You rotor jocks never ceased to amaze me.  When I was stationed in Schweinfurt (3 ID), I was at Ledward Barracks but most of the military bustle and muscle was at Conn Barracks - including the flight group.  I friendly-upped with an WO2, and--however he did it--he was allowed to take me directly on the flight line of the -64's and -58's on the tarmac.  Spent a good hour crawling around in some of the birds.

Nothing of any importance to this thread, but it was cool to me at the time at 19 and just a ground grunt.  

Quoted: Quoted: and the HTS lawn dart and EA-6B suck at destructive SEAD (launching AGM-88s and actually hitting anything).   The EA-6B sucks at hitting anything with the AGM-88? VAQ-138 fired off 88 HARMS during Kosavo, their sucsess rate was over 90%.

Bullshit, more than 700 HARMs were fired during the Kosovo campaign and there were still active SAM sites all over the place.  The F-16 HTS and F-18s flinging HARMs around in the general direction of a threat were a joke.  The EA-6B still can't fire the HARM in a range known mode, and relies on the missiles internal antenna and receiver to home it.  Newer blocks of HARMs allow a better capability now, since our performance in SEAD and DEAD was so dismal in Kosovo.  

Here is my source:
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html

A couple of excerpts:

The biggest problem with the EA-6B was its relatively slow flying speed, which prevented it from keeping up with ingressing strike aircraft and diminished its jamming effectiveness.

That en-abled the aircraft’s HARM Targeting System, which provided only a 180-degree field of view in the forward sector, to maintain 100 percent sensor coverage of a target area whenever allied strike aircraft attempted to bomb specific aiming points within it.

180 degrees is very optimistic for a sensor that is half blinded by the forward fuselage.  The HTS uses a single sensor, when the F-4G had four (forward, left and right beam, and aft) of the exact same item to provide 360 degree coverage.  

He added that Serb SAM operators would periodically emit with their radars for 20 seconds and then shut down the radars to avoid swallowing a HARM.

Sounds like it wasn't too terribly hard to counter our tactics.  The F-4G could lock up a target in less time than that since it wasn't radiating hundreds of thousands of watts of its own RF, and have two HARMs in the way in the range known mode, which means the kill would be made even if they shut down the transmitter.

Is the EA-6B a good jammer?  Yes, but those big self generating pods slow its already slow ass down even more.  A good jammer does no good if its 200 knots slower than the strike package it has to protect.  The EF-111 didn't suffer from that problem, it could keep up with anybody and anything down low.  The EA-18G will be the first SEAD/DEAD aircraft since they retired the EF-111 and F-4G to replace the capability that was lost.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think F-4s could still be quite useful as bomb trucks. Amen, brother. Now you're talking my language. F-4s were my first aircraft.  Anybody who hasn't worked them just cannot fathom what maintenance pigs they are.  We spent 50-70 million dollars a year in my one small (well not really) 24 aircraft unit on gas and parts.  Now taking those A and B model lawn darts out of the boneyard and putting a decent datalink in them so they could be flown in "knights and squires" formations with F-15Es (with the WSO operating the lawn dart bomb truck UCAVs) would be sweet.   Yes, the F-4G was the undisputed king of SEAD, and the HTS lawn dart and EA-6B suck at destructive SEAD (launching AGM-88s and actually hitting anything).  The EA-18G will be one hell of a standoff jammer and destructive SEAD platform.  I can't wait to see them in service, the AF should have bought the F-15D weasel that they were offered.   What kind of greater capabilities is the SuperBug going to have?  And when will we have it?   Also, what's up with replacing a capable bird with a less capable bird?  What was it about the F-4G that made it so much better than the aircraft that replaced it?  What possesed them to do that and why couldn't they make the F-16 just as effective?  Why has it taken us 15 years or so to get back to where we were before taking such a step backwards?   Also, I was under the impression that the Prowler was a capable aircraft.  I guess I was wrong.  Why would they have a hard time with destructive SEAD?  I thought the HARM was a good missile. -K

What kind of greater capabilities is the SuperBug Growler going to have?  And when will we have it?  

The EA-18G "Growler" will bring speed, flexibility, and dedicated ECM receivers and jammers that are state of the art to the table.  They are already being delivered to the Navy for test and eval.  

Here is the cut and paste from Boeing:
www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/ea18g/index.html

EA-18G Capabilities Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses: The EA-18G will counter enemy air defenses using both reactive and pre-emptive jamming techniques. Stand-off and Escort Jamming: The EA-18G will be highly effective in the traditional stand-off jamming mission, but with the speed and agility of a Super Hornet, it will also be effective in the escort role. Integrated Air/Ground AEA: Dramatically enhanced situational awareness and uninterrupted communications will enable the EA-18G to achieve a higher degree of integration with ground operations than has been previously achievable. Self-protect and Time-Critical Strike Support: With its Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, digital data links and air-to-air missiles, the EA-18G will have self-protection capability and will also be effective for target identification and prosecution. Growth: High commonality with the F/A-18E/F, nine available weapon stations and modern avionics enable cost-effective synergistic growth for both aircraft, setting the stage for continuous capability enhancement. Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Capabilities Full Spectrum: The EA-18G's ALQ-218 wideband receiver combined with the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System will be effective against any surface-to-air threat. Precision Airborne Electronic Attack: Selective-reactive technology enables the EA-18G to rapidly sense and locate threats with a significantly higher degree of accuracy than was previously possible. This improved accuracy enables greater concentration of energy against threats. Advanced Communication Countermeasures: Its modular Communication Countermeasure Set enables the EA-18G to counter a wide range of communication systems and is readily adaptable to an ever-changing threat spectrum. Interference Cancellation System (INCANS): INCANS dramatically enhances aircrew situational awareness by enabling uninterrupted communications during jamming operations.

Also, what's up with replacing a capable bird with a less capable bird?

The EF-111 and F-4G were simply too expensive to maintain, they would still be flying today but Clintoon's budget cutters defunded them.  The DoD made the hard choice to use what little money they had left to move to a single aircraft to support both naval and land based operations and since the EF-11 didn't fly off carriers they had no choice but to keep the Prowler.


What was it about the F-4G that made it so much better than the aircraft that replaced it?

APR-47.  The very best integrated RF direction finding and signal analyzing system around.  The capabilities of that system were very impressive and it had a dedicated crewmember to operate it (EWO).  The F-16HTS is a single seater, and the system itself is so limited that all it can do it point the HARM at the target and send it on the way.  The missile itself has to use its own receiver and antenna to home on the radar site.  This is called "range unknown" mode and it sucks.  The F-4G had a dedicated datalink to the missiles so the ARP-47 system could send accurate steering information to the missile before it was launched, even if the site shut down it would still die.  Plus it was fast, with only sparrows and HARMs it could outrun most any modern fighter at low level.  

Why has it taken us 15 years or so to get back to where we were before taking such a step backwards?  

Because the decrepit ass EA-6Bs are finally to the point that they are nearly unsustainable and they DoD finally had to pony up some cash for a replacement.  

Also, I was under the impression that the Prowler was a capable aircraft.  I guess I was wrong.  Why would they have a hard time with destructive SEAD?  I thought the HARM was a good missile.

It is a good aircraft, but the airframes and engine are about 20 years past their expiration date.  It is a very very good jammer when it can keep up with the strike package it is supposed to escort.  They do well at standoff jamming, but not so well at actively destroying radar sites (DEAD).  The HARM is a great missile, but it was desigend specifically to work on and with the F-4G.  Using it in a limited capability on other platforms is a waste of a fine weapon.  

I'd say the Tomcat - particularly in the form of the Tomcat 21 proposals put forward by Grumman.  It would have been a fully digital bird in much the same way that the F-15E evolved from the original F-15.  New airframes and electronics would have gone a long way in mitigating its maintenance issues (though not to the extent that it would be on par with the Bug).

The Super Bug is a mediocre performing aircraft in performance and range, but it possesses some outstanding systems/displays, etc. and is very maintenance friendly.  Also, its already lackluster performance is harmed by "fixes" such as grotesquely canted out pylons (due to separation issues) that serve to further add drag to an already draggy beast.  I'm actually surprised that the Navy has chosen to retain the canted pylons on the developing "Growler" variant considering the drag penalty and far lesser likelihood of dropping the expensive electronic bits hanging on the wings.

The Tomcat airframe still had(has) much to offer, it's a shame that that wasn't done.  That said, the Super Hornet is what we have got, let's hope its gets more powerful powerplants in the near future.

As for the A-6, that's another bird that still had a lot to offer in the cancelled A-6F version which would have featured, again, new powerplants (F404s from the F/A-18A-D) and all digital electronics.  

Looking back one wonders if the Navy would have been better off without the short-legged F/A-18 at all, and used all that cash to develop the Hornet to re-engine & improve the Tomcat (the "interim" TF30 powerplants that idiots like Les Aspin condemned the aircraft to for far too many years killed a lot of good men) and Intruder at least until the aborted A-12 came along?  Oh well, just thinking out loud here...

Quoted: www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061019-F-6911G-021.jpg

Holy Giant Pics Batman

I'd like to see a modernized Starfighter brought back into production. It would be a sweet interceptor with some modern advancements.

New alloys for the airframe + some improvements/tweaks to the design so it can handle newer weapon systems and weapon hardpoints.

New, efficient and powerful modern engine, radar and avionics. Fly-by-wire controls and computers so its not so unstable and hard to fly.

Quoted: I'd like to see a modernized Starfighter brought back into production. It would be a sweet interceptor with some modern advancements. New alloys for the airframe + some improvements/tweaks to the design so it can handle newer weapon systems and weapon hardpoints. New, efficient and powerful modern engine, radar and avionics. Fly-by-wire controls and computers so its not so unstable and hard to fly.

I thought the CL-1200 Lancer was Lockheed's attempt at this and it failed to the F-16?

Quoted: With modern engine and materials technology, this beauty could have been viable: (Then again, who knows what the USAF has under wraps...)

Though the XB-70 wins the all time award for coolness, the radar cross section on that fuselage would make it stick out like a strobe light in a darkened room.

Since it was intended to be able to outrun or out-ECM anything that could possibly have been thrown at it at the time,   it could have been covered in searchlights for all the designers cared!


CJ

The Tomcat.

Yes, in its day it was a beast to maintain, but it also brought to the table capability that had never been seen.

I think a modifed Tomcat ( slightly altered airframe ) with slightly extended glove vanes, powerplants similar to the F-14D/F-15E but upgraded for supercruise, completely digital avionics and a HOTAS system ( more freedom and capabiltiy given to the pilot, and this cuts a WHOLE lot of maintainence issues down ), and all retained capabilites of the F-14D.

1. Now you again have a fleet defense aircraft with the range, loiter time ( something no F/A-18 can do for very long without a huge amount of drop tanks ), cross sector agility ( to reposition incoming aircraft inside its LAR for a missile shot if necessary ), and now you can have the plane supercruise, make an interception at supersonic speeds without wasting fuel on afterburners of any zone selection. Heck, the pilot would be able to retain 500+ knots of airspeed at a really low throttle setting by manually sweeping the wings back and throttling BACK a bit.

2. Now you have a figher that can move. The original Tomcats, with an experienced pilot and RIO were a match for damn near anything when used to their full potential. For such a big plane it could bring its nose around and still maintain the majority of its airspeed. Unloaded ( 0G ), older model Tomcats will still accelerate faster than any known fighter. Put in those glove vanes, thats more wing area towards the front of the aircraft that can help it bring the nose around faster. Think F-16 or F/A-18C here. More power in the back, more retention of airspeed in a hard bank, greater thrust to weight ratio so it can outclimb an opponent even with a heavy loadout.

3. TARPS capability. This is huge, as BDA and real time images of the battlefield are always helpful to a commander on the ground. Yes, drones can do this job as well, but drones take a LONG time to get to their area of recon, or you'll have to insert a ground team very close to the front line. The Super Hornet can also do this, but at the sacrifice of losing its gun - the last ditch line of defense and a valuable close air support weapon ( yes, modern fighter aircraft have been doing this in Afganistan in support of pinned down Rangers and SOF forces )

4. The old Tomcats ( Ds ) still have the ability to drop JDAMs. An updated version should retain that capability. Its not like by carrying JDAMs or GBUs or what have you that they gave up their air to air capability. In Kosovo, F-14Ds were tasked ahead of F-15Es for this job - go figure?

5. The AMRAAM. This missle has been mounted and I believe tested on F-14Ds. Never fielded. It wouldn't be much of a stretch - Grumman probably could make a retrofit to existing pylons easily.

The Super Hornet is a good aircraft from what I can see, but it still is a jack of all trades, master of none. You can't just get rid of the weapons of conventional warfare and expect to never have to use them again.

It will happen one day. The same goes for all military equipment - one day we may find ourselves in a war in the open deserts rather than the cities of the Middle East, in the open fields of France and the barren plains and forests of Russia, and there will be a cry for more than an M-4, something with more power, reach, etc.

Same deal with aircraft. Somebody, someday, is going to have a bunch of very real and very deadly Sukhois and MiGs and Rafales, and take a swing at the Navy or USAF. No F-35s will be able to handle this threat, nor will a few F/A-22s.

Quoted: Not sure I agree with any of your picks, for various reasons, but here's an A-1E for you to chew on. skyraider.org/skyassn/skywarb/degroat/126959.jpg

++++1  

When you were a down pilot or a special op....This plane is a god send.  It can loiter above and give you cover more than any any any other plane in existence.  The A-10 came very close.  I love this plane.

great pix,,,,need more....hit it

Incidentally,  the big reason why the F-4 Wild Weasels were so damned good at the job, and why the F-16 Wild Weasels aren't as good at the same job,  is due to available space.  The Phantom fuselage was roomy enough to store a seriously effective electronics suite,  while
the F-16 doesn't have much surplus storage capacity.    It wasn't ever supposed to be a
jack-of-all-trades.   So the WW package for the F-16 is a less capable, more compact version.

However,  the dorsal spine of the Israeli version F-16s we've been delivering recently to Israel has plenty of room for all kinds of electronics.   And that's what the Israelis use that
space for.  But we're not exactly sure about the details as Lockmart sends the planes to
Israel with that compartment empty.  The Israelis stuff it with their own home-brewed
supersecret electronics, and you can be that those are some very capable electronics.


CJ

Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it

Great pics!


Another one not mentioned yet - The B-1 Bomber.  Not the B-1B that we have now, but rather the original B-1 that Carter axed.  Any thoughts on that?




-K

Quoted: The Avro Arrow. The F-5 and it's derivatives. It's the most beatiful aircraft to ever fly.

The F-5E is a sexy little bitch.

Quoted: Quoted: The Avro Arrow. The F-5 and it's derivatives. It's the most beatiful aircraft to ever fly. The F-5E is a sexy little bitch.

+100



Click thumbnails for HUGE pictures.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Avro Arrow. The F-5 and it's derivatives. It's the most beatiful aircraft to ever fly. The F-5E is a sexy little bitch. +100 img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/f5_hochformat.jpg Click thumbnails for HUGE pictures. img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/th_f5_start.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/th_f5_closeupbig.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/th_f5_vonvorn.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/th_f5_von_c130.jpg

Beautiful pics!

Thanks,
S.O.

Quoted: Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it

Is that Russian???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/XB-70plan2.jpg Is that Russian???

XB-70. American prototype.

S.O.

Quoted: Incidentally,  the big reason why the F-4 Wild Weasels were so damned good at the job, and why the F-16 Wild Weasels aren't as good at the same job,  is due to available space.  The Phantom fuselage was roomy enough to store a seriously effective electronics suite,  while the F-16 doesn't have much surplus storage capacity.    It wasn't ever supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades.   So the WW package for the F-16 is a less capable, more compact version. However,  the dorsal spine of the Israeli version F-16s we've been delivering recently to Israel has plenty of room for all kinds of electronics.   And that's what the Israelis use that space for.  But we're not exactly sure about the details as Lockmart sends the planes to Israel with that compartment empty.  The Israelis stuff it with their own home-brewed supersecret electronics, and you can be that those are some very capable electronics. CJ

Very true.  The G model F-4s used all the space that used to be taken up by the gun and ammo drum on the E model to house all the Weasel gear (the big parts anyway).  The F-16 has long been hampered by lack of space for upgrades, everything is tacked on as a pod, and that' just not as effective.  If you look at the last variants of the A-4 you see the same evolution that the F-16 is getting now with block 60, big dorsal hump to store more avionics.  The overwing CFTs on the block 60s make the most sense to me, I'd thing the AF would want those for some of our older blocks in a bad way.  It would free up those two pylons that are always hauling fuel in the stan and Iraq.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/XB-70plan2.jpg Is that Russian??? XB-70. American prototype. S.O.

I know the plane, but the writing is Cyrillic  

Your post addresses nothing of your original statement.

They fired off more than 700 HARMS and there were still active SAM sites all over the place.

Big fucking deal, that means that there were more than 700 transmitters, that's all.
How many of those targets were actually dummy/spoofed transmitter sites?
"Some" of them were.

One thing you did not mention (nor did I) is that a "shitload" of those HARMS fired off during Kosovo were older model HARMS.

You never mentioned anything about speed in your original post, of course the EA-6B is slower than dogshit in December. It's not a supersonic aircraft.

As for the rest of your post, it's mostly on the money, except that the EF-18G is not going to be anywhere as fast as the F-111 or the F-4 since the EF-18G is also going to be carrying the ALQ-99 pods and those also slow down the Hornet, not to mention that they also decrease ACM performance.

Quoted: <SNIP>

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/XB-70plan2.jpg Is that Russian??? XB-70. American prototype. S.O. I know the plane, but the writing is Cyrillic

Well, I'm no engineer but I have seen engineer shorthand/symbols before, it's my guess that's what it is.

S.O.

It's not impossible that someone chose to remark that diagram for the benefit of those who read and write in Cyrillic,   you know.


CJ

Quoted: It's not impossible that someone chose to remark that diagram for the benefit of those who read and write in Cyrillic,   you know. CJ

Uummmm...Yeah, of course it possible, didn't say it wasn't, just giving a possible explination because they kinda resembled other blueprints I've seen. But whada I know, I'm not a Russian nor and engineer.

Well,  I can assure you that the North American XB-70 Valkyrie is a purely American design.  Perhaps the Russians thought about copying it,  but clearly they didn't do so.

The Russians are eminently practical people and do not hesitate to follow a path that has
already been proven to get to where they want to go,  so they have copied a number of
successful US aircraft or at least arrived at similar design solutions.

It's probably not by accident that the Tu-22 Backfire bomber bears more than a passing
resemblance to the B-1B,  though they are clearly different designs in many ways.

The Russians have produced dead-nuts copies of the C-47 and the B-29,  to name just two.
It served their purposes and they didn't have to spend time and money on R&D.


If they'd though the XB-70 was just the right tool for their shed, they'd have produced a
close copy of it...if they were able to do so.

CJ

Quoted: Well,  I can assure you that the North American XB-70 Valkyrie is a purely American design.  Perhaps the Russians thought about copying it,  but clearly they didn't do so. The Russians are eminently practical people and do not hesitate to follow a path that has already been proven to get to where they want to go,  so they have copied a number of successful US aircraft or at least arrived at similar design solutions. It's probably not by accident that the Tu-22 Backfire bomber bears more than a passing resemblance to the B-1B,  though they are clearly different designs in many ways. The Russians have produced dead-nuts copies of the C-47 and the B-29,  to name just two. It served their purposes and they didn't have to spend time and money on R&D. If they'd though the XB-70 was just the right tool for their shed, they'd have produced a close copy of it...if they were able to do so. CJ

Correct on the Russians copying much of our gear.  IIRC the AT-4 Spigot ATGM is a near copy of the MILAN.  Their 5.45X39 mm round fired in the AK-74 and AN-94 were also imspired by our 5.56X45mm round.  I think the Blackjack was more like the B1 than the Tu-22 though.  

Also, IIRC, their B-29 copy was so exact that the foot pedals even said "Boeing" on them or whatever it was on the American planes.



-K

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: great pix,,,,need more....hit it img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/scott1959/XB-70plan2.jpg Is that Russian??? XB-70. American prototype. S.O. I know the plane, but the writing is Cyrillic

I found that picture on a Russian hobby/RC model website.

Alot of F5 and F20 love in this thread.  Me likey.

I'm still bummed over the fact that we don't deploy the F-4 Phantoms anymore.



I was in my glory during GWI in '91 when they got a huge amount of press for being Wild Weasels.

&D

Quoted: Quoted: Well,  I can assure you that the North American XB-70 Valkyrie is a purely American design.  Perhaps the Russians thought about copying it,  but clearly they didn't do so. The Russians are eminently practical people and do not hesitate to follow a path that has already been proven to get to where they want to go,  so they have copied a number of successful US aircraft or at least arrived at similar design solutions. It's probably not by accident that the Tu-22 Backfire bomber bears more than a passing resemblance to the B-1B,  though they are clearly different designs in many ways. The Russians have produced dead-nuts copies of the C-47 and the B-29,  to name just two. It served their purposes and they didn't have to spend time and money on R. If they'd though the XB-70 was just the right tool for their shed, they'd have produced a close copy of it...if they were able to do so. CJ Correct on the Russians copying much of our gear.  IIRC the AT-4 Spigot ATGM is a near copy of the MILAN.  Their 5.45X39 mm round fired in the AK-74 and AN-94 were also imspired by our 5.56X45mm round.  I think the Blackjack was more like the B1 than the Tu-22 though.   Also, IIRC, their B-29 copy was so exact that the foot pedals even said "Boeing" on them or whatever it was on the American planes. -K

The Ruskies did do a copy of the XB-70…



www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/Monino/Highlights/index.html

Darn it,  you're right.  I was looking for the TU-160 Blackjack but got the TU-22 instead.

Yeah,  the Blackjack is a pretty close copy of the B-1B.    Close enough to make you look twice.



Blackjack.





Lancer.  



I was not aware that the Soviets had copied the XB-70.  Clearly they took their
own direction, but it's obvious what inspired them.

Why is it that so many Russian aircraft have that distictive,  signature vertical stabilizer
and stabilizer fairing design?    It looks like they keep using the same design concept
over and over and over.


CJ

Quoted: Why is it that so many Russian aircraft have that distictive,  signature vertical stabilizer and stabilizer fairing design?    It looks like they keep using the same design concept over and over and over. CJ

It's the way their design system works…

All the basic aeronautical research was done centrally by TsAGI, the Soviet equivalent of NACA. The Design Bureaus all used the same research sourced from TsAGI. Add in that their designers were all taught at one central school of aeronautical design and you tend to get a very single minded design mindset across all the Bureaus.

Unlike the Western system, Design Bureaus only design the aircraft, MiG and Sukhoi for instance didn't actually build aircraft. A winning design would be selected by the Defence Committe and be sent out to .Gov aircraft manufacturering plants, you could be building both Sukhoi, Yakolev and MiG designs in the same factory. The system has some intrinsic advantages though, Russian designers always have to design for ease of manufacture as they don't know where the planes will be built.

ANdy