Aviation Pictures Part Trois

[Easy]

That's pretty close to the firestorm to be stopping to take pictures, but what a shot.

[Sharpnel]

Both the photographer and the pilot have a set of large brass cojones if you ask me.

[I am Belch II]

Awesome photo of that Avro dropping stuff.

Here is the largest thing fighting the fires.

[Kidd]

de Havilland Mosquito loaded for bear

[Daryk]

Bear? Looks more like loaded for Tiger...

[glitterboy2098]

maybe it's a post WW2 image?

[DoctorMonkey]

I would love to see the RAF intercept the next Bear to test the air space with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - a Spitfire on each side mounting the interception

[Fat Guy]

I would love to see the RAF intercept the next Bear to test the air space with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - a Spitfire on each side mounting the interception

Well, there's no way in hell they could intercept it. The Bear is faster than either by nearly 200 mph.

[Feenix74]

There is more than one way to skin a cat Bear

[JadeHellbringer]

Well, there's no way in hell they could intercept it. The Bear is faster than either by nearly 200 mph.

That many prop blades spinning, it's a much faster bird than it looks for sure.



Meanwhile, here's one carrying the largest air-to-surface missile ever put in service, the AS-3 'Kangaroo' under a Bear. The caption is quite apt here. (Kangaroo, by the way, was an absolute lemon of a weapon in terms of accuracy, but had a warhead big enough to put a hole in whatever it hit. It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.)

[ANS Kamas P81]

Meanwhile, here's one carrying the largest air-to-surface missile ever put in service, the AS-3 'Kangaroo' under a Bear. The caption is quite apt here. (Kangaroo, by the way, was an absolute lemon of a weapon in terms of accuracy, but had a warhead big enough to put a hole in whatever it hit. It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.)

It's also monstrously loud.  Remember the Thunderscreech?  The Tu-95 is four of those things in close formation.

Also, the AS-3 was made in the era when "minute of city" was an acceptable measurement of accuracy...

[I am Belch II]

The Tu-95 Bear and it's off shoots family's have a very unquie design feature. It's the only prop planet in service that had swept back wings. All other props have straight wings. Which is kinda funny because some of the Selling points of the Q400 high speed turbo prop has a straight wing and a cruising speed about 150 mph less then the old Tu95 turboprop.

[worktroll]

It also is roughly the size of an American F-5 fighter.

Or, to be more accurate, pretty much the same size as a Su-7, on which it was based IIRC. It certainly shared an engine with the earlier Fitters.

Also, it took 24 hours to prepare an AS-3 for use, which handicapped it as a first-strike weapon.

[sadlerbw]

Can someone please explain to me why I like the Gripen so much? I mean, I'm American, and grew up with the F-16, which is similar in many ways, and probably the better plane in a number of key areas. Still, if you stuck me in a flight suit and said I could only pilot one of the two, I'd pick the Gripen. You can even keep your Rafales and Typhoons. They don't 'do it' for me like the Gripen. What the heck is wrong with me? Now, if it was a choice between an F-15 and  Gripen...well that is a different matter.

[glitterboy2098]

you recognize beauty when you see it?  ^-^

[Sabelkatten]

Because it's so cute! [neko]

Arguably the Gripen is also the cheaper plane to operate, but that wouldn't matter unless you had to pay for it yourself... ^-^ More importantly I think the Gripen outmaneuvers all versions of the Falcon.

[Kidd]

... You can even keep your Rafales and Typhoons...

...yes, yes you need help.

 :))

[Fat Guy]

You can all keep your deltas and canards. Especially your canards. Tailplanes belong on the back. Give me twin engines, twin tails, and tailplanes where they're supposed to be!

[DoctorMonkey]

You forgot one

[worktroll]

And another ...

[JadeHellbringer]

Nah, Gripen's a great little bird. Saab knows their stuff when it comes to designing top of the line warplanes, and after its early teething problems (the kind that would make V-22 pilots worry even) it's become one of the premier fighters out there.

It's also one of very few modern designs to have a single engine, which allows it to be smaller, and to be a sight less expensive than neighbors like Rafale, Flanker, Typhoon, etc.- no small consideration for smaller air forces. (I suspect any thoughts Saab may have had about dual-engines were met with flat 'no' replies from the Swedish Air Force, with their accountants holding rolling pins behind them menacingly)

If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.

[DoctorMonkey]

ah, the A-10 Warthog


a plane only a mother and some ground forces could love*


*The British Army are generally not such a huge fan I believe

[worktroll]

Canadians have had similar issues with the Plastic Bug. I do state I hated it long before that.

[Kidd]

If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.

Richer countries with the money (and connections) to buy F-35s know what's good about that jet - barring 1 vacillating exception, they're unlikely to back off especially now the program is actually delivering results.

Poorer countries are indeed quite attracted to the Gripen's price tag, but are leery of buying a single-engine jet - yes, its cheaper, but a 1-engine jet that develops midflight engine trouble is a written-off jet, and poor countries can't afford many such write-offs. For the same reason its hard to countenance sending the Gripen on sea missions*, and again, poor countries need multi-role combat aircraft capable of doing all kinds of ops everywhere.

*or over vast stretches of desert, or Arctic tundra, in the case of aforementioned vacillating exception

[sadlerbw]

If anything, thanks to its effectiveness vs. bang for the buck, it's surprising that it hasn't had a wider foreign sales opportunity. Particularly with the F-35's continued problems, one would think countries might start kicking the tires on alternatives at this point, Gripen being an excellent choice.

It has happened, to some extent. Brazil decided to buy a couple dozen Gripens a year or two ago, and Rafales and Typhoons have been sold in small numbers to Egypt and Quatar, if the internet is to be believed. However, I think the real winner is the F-16 and somewhat the F-18. A number of US allies are already invested in those planes, and are still interested in buying more. The F-15, sadly, doesn't seem very popular these days. Apparently, for not much more than F-15 money, you can get yourself an shiny, 5th gen F-35. Sure it has bugs right now, but you know that the US government is footing the bill to make sure it ends up working, so it is still a fairly 'safe' bet.

But still...dat Gripen! It even knows how to hide its stupid fuel probe when not in use!

[glitterboy2098]

early on the F-6 and F-18 could be offered cheaper than the Gripen, since the USAF and USN were retiring older models, which could be cheaply renovated for sale to another country. later there were political wranglings that gave some countries discounts on new build F-16's and F-18's and the support structure for them. (a few of the deals caused minor scandals when the details of how they got them came around)

generally though, it boils down to the fact that the F-16 and F-18 had an edge in getting sales early on, and then built up a good reputation. which the Gripen has been slow to do because so few countries so far have picked it up.

though a lot of the recent success it has had in sales has been when they pitch to people looking to replace old F-5's and similar planes.. in such cases the countries in question are usually looking for something cheaper than the high end stuff like the Falcons, Super Hornets, Rafales and Typhoons. and being mostly up against militarized trainers makes the Gripen a very attractive option when they want an actual combat plane in the deal.

[ColBosch]

*The British Army are generally not such a huge fan I believe

Yeah, sorry about that. I always made sure my guys knew the difference between a Chally 2 and a T-55, but not everyone is so careful.

[Charlie 6]

Yeah, sorry about that. I always made sure my guys knew the difference between a Chally 2 and a T-55, but not everyone is so careful.

Or know that AAVs and LAVs aren't threat vehicles.

[Cannonshop]

Richer countries with the money (and connections) to buy F-35s know what's good about that jet - barring 1 vacillating exception, they're unlikely to back off especially now the program is actually delivering results.

Poorer countries are indeed quite attracted to the Gripen's price tag, but are leery of buying a single-engine jet - yes, its cheaper, but a 1-engine jet that develops midflight engine trouble is a written-off jet, and poor countries can't afford many such write-offs. For the same reason its hard to countenance sending the Gripen on sea missions*, and again, poor countries need multi-role combat aircraft capable of doing all kinds of ops everywhere.

*or over vast stretches of desert, or Arctic tundra, in the case of aforementioned vacillating exception

big financial kickbacks for procurement officers, government officials, and politicians that the Swedes can't pay??

I mean, it's got the wing-loading of an F-104...

[Daryk]

More likely jobs in 47 states and 7 countries...