The tanking picture isn't coming through for me for some reason... ???Try Here (https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fe8fyvjwtzo731.jpg)
The external link worked, thanks! :)
As for the other image, I only see a single vertical stabilizer, but a second COULD be behind it on all three fighter aircraft... ???
Wouldn't it be ultimately quicker to simply erect a tent over the damn things? Sure, you could kamikaze in on a tent, but I imagine the drones are likely point-engagement vice area-effect systems--and even a circus tent would be cheaper than an out-of-production heavy bomber. Just thinking covering strategic bombers in tires has to be time consuming, fraught with difficulties and potential for error, and just plain onerous for the ground crews that should arguably doing more important things.Tents wouldn't offer much protection. they'd provide visual concealment, but i'm fairly certain that the intent with the tires is armor. the light drones that have been used to strike at the bombers recently carry a payload little more than a couple grenades or a light mortar round. the drones being used have mostly been higher end small quad-copters you can buy on the open market, with some new fittings for carrying and dropping a payload. but their payload mass is pretty small. which means its mostly HE, and impact fused. so a thick layer of dense rubber like tired will help limit the damage the plane takes from the blast.. might even prevent the impact fuses from triggering, since if th bomb is dropped it has to be dropped from a very low altitude to ensure it hits, meaning it won't be moving very fast when it hits. and if the payload is rigged as a kamikazi drone, that layer of tires is going to make it hard to get a good strike on the skin of the aircraft, which is what is going to give you the best chance of destroying it.
But, as Daryk says, we should get some kind of hotwash about their efficacy sooner than later.
What could of been with the F-20 Tigershark.
Tents wouldn't offer much protection. they'd provide visual concealment, but i'm fairly certain that the intent with the tires is armor. the light drones that have been used to strike at the bombers recently carry a payload little more than a couple grenades or a light mortar round. the drones being used have mostly been higher end small quad-copters you can buy on the open market, with some new fittings for carrying and dropping a payload. but their payload mass is pretty small. which means its mostly HE, and impact fused. so a thick layer of dense rubber like tired will help limit the damage the plane takes from the blast.. might even prevent the impact fuses from triggering, since if th bomb is dropped it has to be dropped from a very low altitude to ensure it hits, meaning it won't be moving very fast when it hits. and if the payload is rigged as a kamikazi drone, that layer of tires is going to make it hard to get a good strike on the skin of the aircraft, which is what is going to give you the best chance of destroying it.
that said, i'm sure that ukraine will just find a way to send a heavier weapon that bomber's way instead. they've been fairly creative about that.
In a newspaper report, I did see a theory that it's meant to break up the shape of the plane from automated shape-sensing algorithms that may be being used for drone targetting. The same article mentioned at least one of the covered airframes was currently lacking propellors, so there may be some decoy use going on?
But also considering the "cardboard" drones - more like flat-pack, waterproofed foamcore, and made here in Australia - are operated, not autonomous, this may be intended against some other perceived threat.
It might just be a simple case of "taking what you have available". (Very) large pieces of canvas or loads of sandbags might be hard to find while there's a scrapyard with acres of used-up tires next door.
I had no idea he even HAD WWII vintage aircraft...
Yep. Because no algorithm looking for SU-34s (of Flanker-family friends) would possibly be looking for the shapes of the actual airframes, because the tires are really not doing anything to change that at all.
Loitering somewhere around zero, probably. But I could be wrong.
What are the odds of a replacement aircraft that packs the GAU-8 being built?
At this point, I'm surprised they aren't simply selling the Flankers. Make profit, not war, kind of thing. But I guess the SU-34 et als are doing better than the SU-25s (or even KA-52s).*
*Which is something the die-hard A-10 fanboys should be paying attention to, at least in broad strokes. And yes, I am ignoring counterarguments about the A-10's relative toughness because even their airframe can only take so much abuse before the aircraft quits being operational--regardless of if it got the pilot back to base or not. That last bit is very important for a variety of reasons (from moral to even strategic if taken in a long enough view), but it is not a compelling argument for a force with a restricted number of a given type, and that includes the mighty USAF/N/MC. This isn't WWII, where you just get another P- or F-Whatever shipped to you or taken out of stores.
The Air Force doesn't really LIKE or WANT the CAS role, they want the funding and manning, but they've never wanted the role.
so yeah, probably another boom-and-zoomie more designed to fight other fighters than a low-end tactical bomber meant to hang around below 30,000 feet.
After all, "Stealthy supersawnics" are sexier.
What are the odds of a replacement aircraft that packs the GAU-8 being built?My guess is near 0.. while I love the A10 and the upgrade, it is not designed to survive in airspace that is heavy contested. However the changing to a standoff weapon Truck, might allow it to stay in the fleet, but...
\
Why did the USAF stop using the A-1? The same reasons the USN did, one imagines.
By the time they stopped, the youngest airframes were nearing the twenty-year mark. There were other planes that could do the job of delivering ordnance to the ground. Those planes could get to the operational area faster and work synergistically with the rest of the strike package and the constraints of the friendly airfield (be they traditional ones or carriers on-station somewhere). And the USAF in particular already had a newer model of the A-1 coming on-line within a few years. It was called the A-10.
You know, for that CAS mission the zoomies don't want and never do.
Question about CAS....
Frames like the Super Tucano are supposed to do that, right? And be MUCH cheaper than the big things. Has the USAF ever considered less capable frame like these for CAS or similar? Dunno, the idea just occurred to me and as I have no idea at all about this I thought i better ask.
Or are they too vulnerable to man pads and other man portable AA systems?
Sequestration was (is) its very own beast.
First, love that B-26K image. Favorite aircraft ever. Glad to see it.
Second, umm, CS, the AH-56 program stopped in 1972 and the A-X program that begat the A-10 didn't even exist in its final form until 1970, and it started in 1966 (as a side note, it should be remembered that the A-10 flew off against the A-7D upgrade--itself the winner against the F-5--for the CAS role and won handily). The fight against the AH-56--whose program started in 1966 as well--started much later (officially in 1970-1 (https://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1972/ch05.htm#b6)), but even I cannot say the USAF was wrong in its assertions.
A lot of helos had gone down in Southeast Asia, and the USAF spent a lot of time looking for their own downed fliers in conjunction with helicopters, which is probably where a fair-few A-1s were lost in their role as SAR escorts (hence the reason some will hear Skyraiders being called "Sandies" after their callsigns). They had every reason to say to Congress in 1971 that rotary winged assets had problems against determined air-defenses (see here for an encapsulation of Operation LAM SON 719 (https://www.comanchero.org/LamSon719.html#:~:text=The%20objective%20%20of%20Lam%20Son%20719%20was,into%20and%20out%20of%20Laos%20during%20this%20operation.) which the USAF used to torpedo Army arguments for the AH-56 based on the extensive US helicopter losses).
and the Air Force was STILL trying to cancel the A-10 before the last one came off the production lines at Fairchild...in 1982, in part because the programs it was supposed to bury, got good and buried for a long time. (*AH-56 was still TECHNICALLY a program until the mid 70s, it was just a program going nowhere but the bin. AH-64 ended up filling the role, but by then USAF didn't care that much.).
So a 41 year old aircraft, which had its first combat debut nearly a decade after the last one (ever) rolled off Fairchild's line, which has persisted in the role for decades...is inferior? That's the gist of your position, am I mistaken?
It would be EXPECTED that a newer plane built for the same role will be better, if it isn't, someone needs their engineering degree yanked and someone else needs a budget audit.
thing being, newer aircraft to fill that role aren't being designed or built, because the role is only a role in terms of fighting over pieces of the Defense Pie (For the USAF)that being it isn't a role that's desired beyond securing funding and manning for it.
Kind of like how in the mid-sixties ballistic missiles were supposed to invalidate strategic bombers, so why finish the B-70?
Or, "it's too expensive and we have submarines" so cancel the B-1
I always liked the looks of the YA-9, and I wonder if they would have gone with the twin Oerlikon KCAs or adapted it to use the GAU-8. I wonder what the deciding factors were that the Northrop offering wasn't selected.
I've heard the original intent for the A-10 was less CAS and more designed around slaughtering masses of tanks in Europe with Mavericks, while the Su-25 was more of a CAS aircraft intended to support forces on the move.
The A-9 would have had the GAU-8 because that is what the amended proposal in 1972 called for. And yes, tank-killing was on their minds, in europe, and even seeing how things were going in SEA.
GlobalSecurity and all, but it talks succinctly about the A-9/10 flyoff for the A-X program: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-x-1966.htm (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-x-1966.htm)
Basically, the A-10 was cheaper, more capable, lighter, and simply better. As noted, you never hear about how Northrup fought losing the contract, and that means they knew they were beaten. It's a respectable quality, if rare.
It was a different, more civilized era.
I wish the YB-23 would have survived initial concepts...alas, the Black Widow II was too good for this foul world.
honestly i wouldn't be surprised if the YF-23 has a descendant cropping up in the 6th gen at some point. my understanding was that it was stealthier, faster, could carry more munitions, and was almost as agile as the F-22.. but the YF-22 had it beat by just enough in the dogfighting department with the thrust vectoring to please the USAF generals, and of course lockheed was claiming a lower per unit price. (which turned out to be massively over ambitious.)
It was a different, more civilized era.
Was that one of those insane downward ejection seats, or is it merely without one? ???from the looks of it, a downward ejecting *pod*. notice the pilot's seat is contained within a module. these were played around with a number of early high speed supersonic aircraft, due to the concern that ejecting into supersonic airflow would injure the pilot, if not kill them.
That F-16XL
Reminds me of Mack Maloney's story :Wingman Series Hawk Hunter's Cranked Arrow fighter.
Modified to carry double the normal Sidewinder amount... 12 IIRC.
TT
The USAF has released two new images of the B-21 Raider:
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/09/12/8018270A-scaled.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/09/12/B21-Raider-2-1-scaled.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
I see a test boom. Can the first flight be imminent?
Bell 207 Sioux Scout. The proof-of-concept for the first dedicated attack helicopter. Modified from a Bell 47 helicopter to test concepts before the AH-1 Cobra.
Mil-24 has'em.
SA 365 Dauphin 2 and it's American variant, MH-65 Dolphin.
TT
First image is the YAL-1 (scrapped and sent to the Boneyard since), quiaff ?
The USAF is now apparently testing fighter-scale lasers :
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/first-laser-weapon-for-a-fighter-delivered-to-the-air-force
second one is the YAL-1. the first one is the NKC-135 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_NC-135l), a flying observatory aircraft refit to carry an earlier laser device to test the feasibility of airborne laser use.Every picture I can find of the YAL-1 matches the first picture...
Are you thinking Fairchild Republic A-10e Thunderbolt III, Laser addition?
Just asking for a friend...
TT
Imaginations run rampant sometimes, and people come up with cool ideas that could never exist...
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/f6/52/25/f65225f5865e7e29177a73efa5d0d69e.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/83/33/86/83338673bf691c9ab28ec937b197aac8.jpg)
Well, being shot at wasn't exactly in NASA's mission profile... ;)Point taken! But airframe stress and parts availability are always a concern.
Make one in 1/300 and I'd buy a couple, just because Starfighter.
In other news, those [img=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tu-95-decoys-are-being-painted-on-russian-air-base-s-apron/ar-AA1hv05Q?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9c3ce11d19624d419457d1a4ffe06358&ei=31#image=1]http://crazy Russian groundcrews are at it again[/img]:
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1hv2dv.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1hvdox.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1huSkp.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
Aim for the ones covered in tires.
F19
(https://www.hdwallpaperspulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/08/Lockheed-F-19-Stealth-Fighter-Title.jpg)
you know Testors model (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/a-short-very-short-history-of-the-f-19-23036383/) of an aircraft that never existed or did it??
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/384105860_714858057339964_1369266075725930715_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=49d041&_nc_ohc=PaEQXCsyImgAX98EDgY&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBZiSkXeaW2fe4dQTuklQA4ypxfh6oDFaLpyZuJL2hreA&oe=6521538C)
October 3rd, 1967, Test pilot "Pete" Knight gave that Ol' Mach Demon the best chase it ever had! William John "Pete" Knight set a world absolute aircraft speed record for manned aircraft when he piloted the X-15A-2 to 4,520 miles per hour, or Mach 6.72, almost seven times the speed of sound. A speed record that still stands to this date. Knight also became one of only five pilots to earn their Astronaut Wings by flying an airplane to an altitude over 280,500 feet.
On a previous X-15 test flight, Pete suffered a total electrical failure and complete onboard systems shut down, that occurred while climbing through 107,000 feet at Mach 4.17 on June 29, 1967.
Calmly allowing the plane to continue to its apex altitude of 173,000 feet, he pushed the nose over and flew a purely visual approach to a non eventful landing at Mud Lake, Nevada. For his remarkable feat of airmanship that day, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross.
And now for something completely different - an F-51 with twin recoilless rifles undergoing testing in 1970:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/170hxb5/20_june_1974_a_us_army_f51_mustang_experimenting/
(https://i.redd.it/dxa5oefoxdsb1.jpg)
I'd love to know the context for that experiment since it's not like WW2 fighters hadn't been fitted with ground rockets before, and the Mustang in particular was well-known for its vulnerability to ground fire - although by 1974 maybe it was more of a case of what planes had the most flyable examples left after the big post-war demobilization
Very much not an expert, but AFAIK the P-51 was used as a testbed for supposed/proposed use of a recoilless rifle on the Bronco OV-10
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/legends-of-vietnam-broncos-tale-5802093/
They had in mind the 106-mm recoilless rifle.
During WW2, the Germans tested a 14-inch recoilless rifle (Sondergerät 104 "Münchhausen"). Never made it up in the air though..
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/mdvnw0/sonderger%C3%A4t_sg104_m%C3%BCnchhausen_this_massive_3556mm/
I can't think of any reason to use a 106mm recoilless rifle over unguided rockets is the thing. That's a lot of fixed weight and drag, especially if there's a reload mechanism. Not to mention the counterweight being blown backwards and the visual signature of the firing itself.Accuracy, presumably. Sometimes area effect weapons aren't your friend. azn
I can't think of any reason to use a 106mm recoilless rifle over unguided rockets is the thing. That's a lot of fixed weight and drag, especially if there's a reload mechanism. Not to mention the counterweight being blown backwards and the visual signature of the firing itself.
Have you ever watched the trail from an unguided rocket? since it's continuing to thrust, the path is not necessarily 'ballistic' so much as "good 'nuff'. To get precise shots with a rocket, you need a guidance package to keep it going at the target, esp. as propellant variations in the rocket itself can cause yaw and other problems an unpowered projectile doesn't really have.
CRV7 2.75" rockets have ~3 miliradians of dispersion or roughly 10MOA which is a fair bit tighter than the supposed dispersion for Vulcan or Avenger although I have to wonder how much the Vulcan's numbers vary by platform. In any case, unguided rockets are accurate or 'accurate' enough to be aimed via gunsight.
The real question is how much accuracy is expected from a pair of recoilless rifle rounds being fired from an aircraft. Recoilless rifles weren't particularly known for high muzzle velocities or long effective ranges even in their original ground role.
Love that smooth jazz. Swiss Mirage III with JATO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyVFFewIi24
https://www.americanheritagemuseum.org/aircrafts/piper-l4-grasshopper-rosie-the-rocketer/
he strapped an array of single shot bazookas onto his wings he was able to turn his spotter plane into an anti-vehicle unit, in the event he ran across tanks or light vehicles while scouting.
Now, that B-50 is something you just don't see enough of. Nice.
So, as in most things from that area, the KA-52's armor is shown to have...holes:
(https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1715388536495477197/photo/1)
Reportedly taken following the ATACMs strike by Ukranian forces on the airfield at Berdyansk.
I am till intrigued by the ejection system (see the squiggles on the top of the canopy? Those are the det-cords that blow the glass to allow egress.) on the KA-5# series. It doesn't seem to me to be helping save the aircrews to any noticeable degree, but I have yet to see an in-depth study on the matter.
Also with KA-50 ejection system, beside trust the det cord to blow the canopy safely, you also need to trust that those twin meat choppers above you are also blown away from the hub. I'm not sure how much trust I would have in this multiple explosive setup.
So the pilot would need near-instantaneous reactions to trigger the ejection in time to get out, and the delay may make it impossible for the second crew member to get out at all.
On the Ka-50/52 ejections - my guess is that it's actually quite difficult to initiate an ejection within safe parameters given the low flight altitude. Even zero-zero systems have limits for how much yaw/pitch angle and rate of descent they can compensate for and between the limits of human reaction time and the tendency for helos to start tumbling as a bad hit wrecks its control surfaces/rotors, I'm not sure most downed KA-50/52 pilots have time to realize they need to eject before it's too late to do so.
If you're looking for a bit more discussion on the holes in that KA-52, Denys Davydov had a bit of discussion in one of his latest videos.
Neat seeing the B47 and the B52 compared together.
Hell, half a second or less can be fatal for the second aircrew to egress. Look up Kara Hultgreen as an example.
Like I said, the ejection systems do not seem to be saving the aircrews, yes? :grin:
Indeed. And I never realized just how big the B-50 was, as compared to the -52, never having seen them together.
You sure that is a KC-97? I guess the tip-tanks would be the other two fuel booms (they had three so far as I know, but that was a bit into the grey area of my aircraft awareness/recognition skills)...
We have seen USN jets in retro/WWII colors, but not an S-3 methinks:
(https://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/11_22B.jpg)
Oh, and cheers on the KA-52 image save, chanman. :embarrassed: The one time I don't preview a post...
No, I'm not sure. Fuselage is too chunky and greenhouse doesn't look right. I checked again, and right role and family, but wrong family member. It's a KB-50J.
Love those pics! When did the USAF switch from drogues on the tankers to the boom system they use now, and what's the reason for the switch?
Good finds there of yet another aircraft seldom seen.This picture is of Navy Reserve squadrons from RCVW-20 and 30, which is why there's at least three squadron's aircraft of the same type present in a single hangar. It's from the 1980's, when they were transitioning to the Corsair from the Skyhawk. A few years later, they would switch to the Hornet, or be decommissioned.
Interesting photo of a gaggle of A-7s with all differently colored "Light Gull Gray":
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50021296676_5f6ba77843_b.jpg)
So, you really can paint your miniatures whatever you want!
*snip*I suspect Naval Aviator pride would keep them from admitting that though... ;)
*I bet some tired-ass Naval aviator who has made three bolters already on a stormy night in the middle of the Pacific would love to see his tanker fly a boom back to him or her, though...
Heck, I saw a video about a WWII Navy Squadron that had unauthorized nose art (right up until they had to switch carriers...).
What is that, a Dauntless?
That was VF-27, which had a "cat from hell" visage painted around their cowlings. They were embarked aboard USS Princeton (CVL-23) and was scuttled during the Battle for Leyte on 24 OCT 44 (two days from now, seventy-nine years removed!) after taking a bomb into the hanger from a lone-wolf Japanese Judy. The fires spread and went quickly out of control (which came to be expected on the CVLs) and the ship was abandoned relatively soon. Sadly, she collided with some of the rescue ships and a secondary explosion did heavy damage to the surrounding ships (particularly USS Birmingham [CL-62]).
(https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/g270000/g270357.jpg)
Watching the infamous video of a Hind being shot down early in the war, it hits the ground no more than 5 seconds after impact by MANPADS, and is in fact dangerously nose-down by 3 seconds. So the pilot would need near-instantaneous reactions to trigger the ejection in time to get out, and the delay may make it impossible for the second crew member to get out at all.It was a Hind, they don't fly great without power
The National Mesueum of the United States Air Force has added an Su-27UB.
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/10/26/Su27-USAF-Museum-2-scaled.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440)
One of the Saab Gripen E prototypes has been sporting a reprofiled wing courtesy of reshaped control surfaces giving it more of a trailing trapezoid
Before:
(https://imgur.com/Xx9pR5r.jpg)
After:
(https://imgur.com/w1iOpJL.jpg)
I imagine it may have required tweaking the flight control software and FBW system. Wing alterations are pretty rare (unlike fuselage stretches...). You can't just say... give the F-35A the wings from the F-35C due to all of the engineering (hydraulics lines, etc.) involved. See also the cost overruns of the Mitsubishi F-2, which has a redesigned wing and different flight-controls among other alterations.
Beyond weird experimental craft like NASA's B-57s, only a handful of other cases come to mind. The F-111B, F-111C and FB-111 all have longer-span wings. The F-86 Sabre got the revised 6-3 wing partway through its life, and the later versions of the J-7 got a cranked-delta wing of increased span for more fuel and hardpoints
Before:
(https://imgur.com/HpOQ50S.jpg)
After:
(https://imgur.com/JvMJxQ4.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/mi3rVrQ.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/0AYoY2O.jpg[/img
[img width=800]https://imgur.com/X8uya2X.jpg)
Saab Grippen is such a great looking airplane.
You forgot one...though it never made it to production, the prototypes WERE converted from other airframes;
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YU7-hpErGDU/maxresdefault.jpg)
Its too bad the F16XL couldnt come back like a Super Hornet from the Hornet.Very different purposes. The Super Hornet was to replace the aging A-6 and F-14 in a way that would get the Navy in as little trouble as possible with Congress during the Peace Dividend years.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1jagsy.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
"Excuse me, sir. But I'm going to have to ask you to pull over and shut off your engine. Your overheating radiator is creating an unsafe...flying...condition."
Bur, for sure, that image is mesmerizing.
And, sometimes, you make the road bumpy even if it wasn't to start with:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1720357317412327729 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1720357317412327729)
Say goodbye.
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/11/07/ROCAF-F-5E-TAKEOFF-scaled.jpg)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/taiwan-is-finally-saying-goodbye-to-its-f-5-tiger-ii-fighters
What was the major reason they were rejected?
Germans, mostly.
Das nitch koser...
Should be more sensitive chanman. :police:
It was more lack of war production and scarcity of materials and workforce.
Tends to happen when one is distracted by local bombings and the need to one's self preservations during a crisis when it happens every week repeatedly.
Not harshing you personal, but just blurting out it's this or that is somewhat inconsiderate to those that created beautiful flying craft. It's a testimony that pictures or even partial remains still survive, most were reclaimed for other purposes and/or never survived past occupation.
Especially in today's light...
TT
Das nitch koser...
Should be more sensitive chanman. :police:
It was more lack of war production and scarcity of materials and workforce.
Tends to happen when one is distracted by local bombings and the need to one's self preservations during a crisis when it happens every week repeatedly.
Not harshing you personal, but just blurting out it's this or that is somewhat inconsiderate to those that created beautiful flying craft. It's a testimony that pictures or even partial remains still survive, most were reclaimed for other purposes and/or never survived past occupation.
Especially in today's light...
TT
Looove that Skyrocket. Talk about a 1930s-serial posterchild!
(https://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/images/avion_militaire/Gxf5f-xp50-skyrocket-3.jpg)
You can check the project timelines. The programs were generally overtaken by events where events happened to be war with Germany, but also the lessons come out of the fighting that largely argued against dedicated twin-engine heavy fighters.there was a lot of interest before the war in big heavy fighters. with heavy guns and beefy high endurance engines, as a counter to bombers. it shared a lot of mental DNA with the various 'turret fighter' concepts, where they envisioned fighters as basically sub-scale bomber like craft equipped with turreted guns. "destroyers" to the bomber's "cruiser". two exampels of which that actualyl saw combat being the Boulton-Paul defiant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant) and the Blackburn Roc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Roc). both of which proved terrible and air superiority missions and quickly saw near-retirement. a lot of the twin engine 'heavy fighter' programs started in the concept stage as turret fighters, and saw the turrets deleted early on when testing of the few that did get to prototyping got shown to be dubious at best. but the heavy fighter airframe idea had some appeal for its endurance and supposed durability. not to mention the possibility of multi-role use as a light bomber. so even as light speedy aircraft derived from racing plane technologies started dominating air to air battles in stuff like the spanish civil war, a lot of big heavy dual engined fighter concepts were still being developed.
The Soviets and British did end up with the generally excellent Pe-2, Beaufighter, and Mosquito (and you can argue the A-20 on the US side), and the Ju-88 on the German side, but most of those are or were developed from high-performance bombers into more multi-role attack aircraft than designs meant to tangle in the air the way planes like the Me110 or Westland Whirlwind originally envisioned.
Spanish F/A-18 with 6x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 2x drop tanks, and a centerline sensor pod of some kinddo the F-16's even have the connectors for such racks?
(https://imgur.com/D7EkCfA.jpg)
Notably, I don't think I've ever seen F-16s using twin-rails for AIM-120 or air-to-air missiles on either the inner-wing pylons (4, 6) or fuselage side pylons (5L, 5R)
do the F-16's even have the connectors for such racks?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon)
According to the tech, yeah. Depending on the mission.
"' Hardpoints: 2 × wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails, 6 × under-wing, and 3 × under-fuselage pylon (2 of 3 for sensors) stations with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of stores "
TT
Just at the end of WW2 the Germans found the ideal configuration for a twin piston engine fighter with the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Had it not also been the dawn of the jet age, we'd probably have seen lots of fighters with this configuration.What does the push/pull get you over a more normal configuration?
What does the push/pull get you over a more normal configuration?
Much less drag compared to a conventional twin engine setup.Ah, thanks!
What does the push/pull get you over a more normal configuration?
What's it towing?
Static cone.Thanks again!
Much less drag compared to a conventional twin engine setup.Also eliminates torque problems of single-engine setup, without the roll rate disadvantage of wing-mounted engines.
i'd guess the static cone is meant as a radar target, since the aircraft itself is so stealthy. fitting it with a bunch of reflectors would change the aerodynamics and flight profile more than a towed bit of plastic. and first flights are generally done to see what sort of tweaks need doing to the aerodynamics and flight performance.
That's what Fat Guy said, isn't it? ???
Makes me wonder how good the Mainstay is, with its combo AWACS and tanker capabilities.
I suppose if you put Skibinski's Salvage, Battle Magic, and Hell's Black Aces in a blender with a dash of Crimson Skies, you would get something like this (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/commercial-enterprise-begins-air-to-air-refuelling-for-us-air-force/ar-AA1jJeM4?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=ae6e62216f2b41c486bc8f4eae0d4291&ei=21):
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1jJjA3.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
B-21 and B-2 both in the same area. Ol' Jack has his day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWr6BC_A4w
The B-21 looks like a discount version of the B-2, but I guess it's what is needed for future needs.
All of our warfighting gear needs to be cheaper in a fiscal sense. War is disastrous for everything, but most assuredly for equipment, and aircraft absolutely so. There hasn't been a major war amongst peer adversaries yet where combat aircraft have not ultimately been fungible line items.
So what are you implying Failure?
That we Invade Mars or someone else?
TT
So what are you implying Failure?
That we Invade Mars or someone else?
TT
bordering on a rule 4 issue there, perhaps take it to PM's if you feel you have to hash it out?
(https://imgur.com/S249kvy.jpg)
"Is it just me, Sergeant, or is the cloud ceiling awfully...low...this morning?"
"You'll be fine, Lieutenant. Just a bit of fog. Just, ah, be careful when you open the canopy. And be careful when you light her up; it's been a challenge to check for FOD. Don't worry about the missing rudder, either. The -15s are tough birds."
"Umm. Okay...?"
"Oh, and please sign for the aircraft here, here, and here, sir. I'll see you i--when, you get back."
Niiice image, chanman, Wherever did you find it?
Might as well list all the incidents:
1) 2008 B-2 crash - moisture ingress in skin sensors caused a FBW malfunction at takeoff. This is the only total loss of a B-2 (but not the only instance of damage). Crew ejected and survived
2) Aftermath of Hurricane Michael in 2018 when it hit AFB Tyndall. All the airworthy F-22s were evacuated, but obviously, not every plane is able to fly at every moment and 17 were left behind
3) There are numerous documented instances of fire suppression systems going off (I just searched for that and USAF). This one supposedly happened at Elgin in 2012 and was set off by sparks from a welder. https://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/foam-system-discharges-accidentially-at-elgin-afb-hanger-oops/ There was another incident in 2014 that resulted in the death of a contractor
4) Belgian F-16 negligent discharge by mechanic and just so happened to hit another F-16 in 2018. https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/14/f-16-completely-destroyed-by-another-f-16-after-mechanic-accidentally-fires-cannon-on-the-ground-in-belgium/
5) 2016 at Guam. Crew claimed B-52H suffered numerous bird strikes at take off and aborted the takeoff. The drag chute malfunctioned resulting it overrunning the runway. 1 minor injury. The article linked says the investigation didn't turn up bird remnants, and the wings are about the most intact bits left, so who knows what spooked the crew into aborting the take off. https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/birds-b-52-bomber-crash-guam/
Only a quarter of a billion, Kamas? That's a BARGAIN these days... ;)
I'm just wondering how the pilot gets in and out!
There was a mention about that in the YouTube comments, but no links or anything...
Some of us (at least) are working to bring OPSEC back as more than a suggestion...
The YF-32 after several iterations of mission creep and performance changes.Seems legit! :cheesy:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-_ZMRoXEAAqAsy.jpg)
The YF-32 after several iterations of mission creep and performance changes.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-_ZMRoXEAAqAsy.jpg)
Also they were nowhere near a full load. 12 tons of cargo is about a fifth of the max load of a 787, and I can't imagine the low number of passengers added that much more. Plus, they were landing (and taking off) with only a half tank of gas...
So here's a mini-poll. Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jets, do you prefer the rounded French nose cone or the pointy German one?
French:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Alpha_Jet_-_RIAT_2007_%282544737153%29.jpg/640px-Alpha_Jet_-_RIAT_2007_%282544737153%29.jpg)
(https://aeropedia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Dassault-Dornier-Alpha_Aeropedia-The-Encyclopedia-of-Aircraft-1170x570.jpg)
German:
(https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/2/6755251.jpg?v=v476352deb31)
(https://solo-alphajet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/8.jpg)
Personally I'm more fond of the pointy nose, it just looks faster - even if it's a subsonic aircraft.
That's a pretty good reason.
And it's always the most expensive plate they break, too.
Some of us (at least) are working to bring OPSEC back as more than a suggestion...Good Luck... DC leadership doesn't care about.. my household can tell you of my rant on Abbottabad raid and then fact they said who did it before they got back stateside. And the Books and Movie afterward...
So here's a mini-poll. Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jets, do you prefer the rounded French nose cone or the pointy German one?Pointy Nose
Only 2.4 million apiece, that's pretty damn cheap for a modern fighter yeah.
Spooky? That doesn't look like a C-130, though... ???Spooky the AC47 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_AC-47_Spooky) model.. also know as Puff, the Magic Dragon in Vietnam.
You know, the F-16 reminds me of the MiG-21 where all of the additional conformal fuel tanks and avionics spines and external tanks makes it easy to overlook just how slick the original design is when flying clean.
This video is from the destroyer USS Cushing, on station in the Northern Arabian Gulf. Miraculously, all seven passengers onboard were recovered. Note how the tail rotor seems to seize or stop during the approach, causing the body of the helicopter to rotate out of control.
Any sailor or pilot who says they aren't afraid of the weather is a damn liarVery true! I lost count of the number of waterspouts I saw off the Virginia Capes.
Any sailor or pilot who says they aren't afraid of the weather is a damn liarWhat about the bubbleheads?
What about the bubbleheads?Unless you can feel it at patrol depth, weather didn't matter much in my experience.
It certainly puts all those 19th Century Northwest Passage explorers getting iced-in into perspective. A large mass of wood in even colder weather for months is almost certainly hellish!
No matter what, cold is cold. I feel for you guys. I wouldn't want to be on a boat or ship for a long period regardless of the weather. :wink:
Wood doesn't conduct cold as readily as metal does, but yeah. Especially since due to the flammability of wooden ships there were typical serious restrictions on fires.IIRC several of the later ones had steam engines aboard. not to run propulsion, but to generate hot water in the boiler, which would be circulated through pipes around the ship to keep things warm. and to help cook hot beverages and food.
is cobbling together intact chassis parts from damaged aircraft something normal for the airforce, or is this something they're doing because of the low number of F-35's they currently have in service?
(also.. did they ever find that missing F-35?)
Why is it a two-seater?the V's are upgrades of both the one seater F-16A's and the two seater F-16B's. they upgraded all of their old F-16's, and apparently are buying another 66 new build aircraft of the same specs.
The Pepsi dispenser is jammed again?(https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen_181008_194624-1.png)
The Pepsi dispenser is jammed again?(https://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif)
Have a freshly restored Corsair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6jh0-a2ju0
That was indeed awesome, but I'll say that engine definitely sounded 73 years old after landing...
(https://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif)
considering nobody has made one of those in a lifetime? (big radial engines like that)...
The flight demonstration teams will always be flamboyant... it's not like they see combat...You hope
Given the cost of stealth tech, I suspect that there will always be air forces that decide they still need to have at least some cheap planes in active duty.
I don’t think production volume is the only factor. RAMs - as far as I know - are quite finicky materials. So even if you get the material cost down making something out of it is still likely to cost a whole lot.
I don’t think production volume is the only factor. RAMs - as far as I know - are quite finicky materials. So even if you get the material cost down making something out of it is still likely to cost a whole lot.
Certainly.
However if material A needs 1mm tolerances and material B needs 0.1mm tolerances material A will always be cheaper than B (assuming everything else equal). The difference can be reduced, but it's extremely unlikely to disappear.
Ah, the YF-4E. One of so many intriguing Phantom developments that never were. At least the F-15 was a good successor.
And the Vought V-507?? Okay, the missiles look Tornado, but the plane screams Mirage Mirage F-1 to me.
Imgur's saying the first photo isn't available.
The F106 firing the Genie, is great because it might be the nuke armed one.did they ever do a live fire test with the nuclear version?
Syrian Gazelles equipped with ye olde AT-3 'Sagger' missiles gave the IDF a nasty surprise back in the early 80s.
Syrian Gazelles used HOT missiles. Malyutka missiles were used on Yugoslavian Gazelles, but there is no record of their use against armour in Yugoslav wars.
A very wierd (and expensive both cash and engineering time wise) combination of having Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM) which absorb radar energy (well certain wavelengths of radar) and having no flat angles to return a radar signal to its source. The angles deflect any radar waves away from the source so it reduces the detection signatureStealth is also a matter of perspective.
Of course, most of the time a stealth aircraft does not need to worry about hostile radar coming from directly above or directly below it.
The fact that it's canons had such a slow rate of fire complicated matters even further.
And my personal favorite, the design requiring the front landing gear to be jettisoned during takeoff and frequently causing them to bounce back up and strike the underside of the aircraft.
F-35 near Chicago with lake humidity in full swing
(https://imgur.com/9BnADBV.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/AbJVQlM.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/LVkTI0n.jpg)
That's one big engine for a single seater, dang. Great photo.
That looks like rebuilding an entire 'mech from a single point of CT internal structure... ;D
That looks like rebuilding an entire 'mech from a single point of CT internal structure... ;D
Australia’s young NH90 helicopters were such a nightmare that they are being stripped of parts and buried after nobody wanted them.
(https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2024/01/25/2-aussie-nh90-burial1.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
what's wrong with the NH90's?
Have to wonder what might have landed in Switzerland and was not returned . . .
If it had a catapult? Maybe... ;)
I'd say it would depend on how much headwind you got. 20 knots into a 20 knot headwind and I expect a P-51 wouldn't have too much trouble.
If it had a catapult? Maybe... ;)
Fighter/Bomber? ???
Turns out though there was only one factory in all of Germany that made special wood glue
Can Boeing do anything right anymore?
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/05/boeing-pushes-back-t-7-plans-due-to-faulty-parts/ (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/05/boeing-pushes-back-t-7-plans-due-to-faulty-parts/)
The Turkey 5th Gen looks like F22 with more angles.
The Turkey 5th Gen looks like F22 with more angles.
The difference being, the Turks can actually Build more of theirs.If they can afford it. Erdogan's not exactly been doing a brilliant job with his economy...
If the US really really wanted to, they could build more F-22s. The F-15E Eagle II is a good example of that.
F-35 seems to be the put all the eggs in one basket.
Had to share this ... posted by hammerbolt on RGP.net:
(https://scontent.flis9-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/428017798_423333743540807_4529339152395786515_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=s4LVC3Z9jscAX-qBZkB&_nc_ht=scontent.flis9-1.fna&oh=00_AfBTnkmGzBv45hT7unJ8su0BohcrtQeGSkYMyXe9nXNIPQ&oe=65D5B735)
Had to share this ... posted by hammerbolt on RGP.net:
[ img]https://scontent.flis9-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/428017798_423333743540807_4529339152395786515_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=230a55&_nc_ohc=s4LVC3Z9jscAX-qBZkB&_nc_ht=scontent.flis9-1.fna&oh=00_AfBTnkmGzBv45hT7unJ8su0BohcrtQeGSkYMyXe9nXNIPQ&oe=65D5B735[/ img]
It's still showing for me... even in the quote... ???
It's still showing for me... even in the quote... ???
The humps we’re usually for additional electronics.
Always had a soft spot for the A-4, since one of my older second cousins flew one for the Marines back in the '70s.
Plus it's like the Volkswagen Beetle of warplanes!
This particular Warthog S/N 81-994 was seen at the 100th anniversary of the 107th Fighter Squadron (107FS) also known as the "RED Devils” of the Air National Guard 127th Wing assigned to Selfridge Air National Guard Base(ANGB), Michigan. According to unsubstantiated and vague internet sources, the story behind the cow marking starts with a CAS mission over Afghanistan by an unnamed pilot, whom was utilizing his GAU-8/A Avenger Cannon in an undisclosed location in the pursuit of establishing and maintaining international relations.
After the A-10 had completed its mission and cleared the area, the ground troops moved in, it is said that a solitary cajun cooked depleted uranium seasoned cow was discovered, that had most unfortunately suffered from a rapid kinetic disassembly unknowingly delivered by the A-10 Warthog as it provided its support. Thusly, explaining the appearance of a victory marking in the form of a cow adorning the side of a Warthog.
as well as having enormous power from 3 of the classic afterburning J-79ss, it promised the potential of loitering with two engines shut down. Try that, A-5, F-4, and F-14 pilots! :)
See also the NF-349 - a theoretical design which added a third engine to a Vigilante airframe. The third engine was above and between the other two, over the large linear bomb bay in the original design, which kept airflow and heating cleaner. There were additional air intakes above the usual two, these feeding into the central engine. It would have been an interesting design, assuming mechanical and heating problems could be solved; as well as having enormous power from 3 of the classic afterburning J-79ss, it promised the potential of loitering with two engines shut down. Try that, A-5, F-4, and F-14 pilots! :)The Tomcat did have a good loiter time, it's the Hornet in any version that has a horrible one.
The Tomcat did have a good loiter time, it's the Hornet in any version that has a horrible one.
Besides, the NR-349 was for the Air Force to replace interceptors. Like this TXANG Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
the B-52 would probably work brilliantly with four GEnx-1B engines (like the Dreamliner's)there have been a number of proposals to do just that sort of thing over the Buff's service life. different models every time of course.
Did the B-52 already get refitted with new wings, or is that upcoming?
Well, you can see how on top of things I am when it comes to keeping track of what's going on in the military.
Eh, now that I think about it it is more like 15-20 years. Only reason I really know is one of my section chiefs was a aviation engineer on the update to the B-52 around 2002 and talked about it some. He was a weird bird . . . former Marine rifleman, aviation engineer on a Air Force contract, and was in the National Guard as artillery to get his 20+ for retirement.
I'm not really sure it's fair to include the X-38 in there, though, as it comes upon its weirdness honestly, going back decades to the X-24.
I've got a feeling the 747-8 will end up flying for years after the A380 as was heavily ordered as a cargo aircraft.
The one and only An-225. I think it actually has less lifting weight than the An-124, and there isn't a tail ramp due to weight-saving measures to free up weight for its original job of lugging an orbiter
(https://imgur.com/U3T5wq6.jpg)
Not heavily enough-when the decision to pull the plug on the 747 program was decided, they wasted zero time dismantling the production line, and I mean all the way. They're using the building it was in as a hangar for repairing/refitting 787s now.Another victim of Boeing getting taken over by McDonnell Douglas management.
This may have cost Boeing the next Airforce One contract, seeing as we lost the RFP AFTER they dismantled the 747 line.
Another victim of Boeing getting taken over by McDonnell Douglas management.
I've heard several arguments that Boeing's problem is, basically, greedy owners. Boeing wasn't paying enough dividends so it was forced to cut down on expenses like R&D and quality control to increase payouts.this tracks with the accounts the Boeing employees were giving.
Suffering through this exact situation for the second time in my professional life I see no reason to question this analysis... :'(
Not supposed to speak out of schoooool on this, but...talking about that merger will head us straight into the "No Politics Rule" so let's leave it where it is, ayeh? The 747 Line was dismantled, the -8 discontinued, Boeing lost the next Airforce one contract in the pre-bidding. as in 'not even a consideration'. is it related? who knows?
I don't. what I do know, is that the only alternative to Boeing in the large, heavy lift, passenger capable long-haul market? is European. The merger in 1996 and the 'paring down' of Lockheed a decade earlier means that the next Air Force One will probably be built in Toulouse France.
The Airbus A380 is also not in production. Many government official aircraft are A350 or 777 which are both twins.
Hence my comment. The A340, A380, and now 747 are all OOP and Falcon is only exec-jet sized. Looks like except for the odd 747, most world leaders use twinjets, but Air Force One has some additional duties that other head of states transports don't.
The exact particulars differ of course, but that post definitely reminded me of all the joy and happiness that comes from working in an industry where mistakes kill people, Cannonshop.
Building a reputation for quality work is more expensive than squeezing that reputation for more profit.
and those duties will be done by something else, probably made in Europe or China, when they run out of spares to keep the current Airforce One functional.legally they can't. by the military regulations it has to be produced in the USA. so if airbus does end up with the contract, they'd have to build a factory for their A380 in the states.
IIRC there was talk about reopening the A380 line. Anyone who knows if there is anything to that?
The Su-27 is such a big plane.
Because I want to say, they made an Air Force One for G.I. Joe...Early Cobra stuff tended to be easy to tote around and hide, cause they werent a match in a stand up fight. Like you could fit two FANGs or a HISS in the trailer of a semi. But they had this thing in the cartoon.
Where's Cobra version?
You know its a bad day, when the Tug for the aircraft comes with 20mm guns.
Where's the 'motorised wench' ??This is also my question... ;D
For a terrorist organization waging a secret war against the world, subtlety apparently was not really their thingThey had their own island nation as time went on. When you're a military state/cult you're expected to have your logo everywhere. But yeah, the cartoon tended to go for spectacle over the comics version of Cobra, which was a lot less 'Saturday Morning Villain' in competency.
They had their own island nation as time went on. When you're a military state/cult you're expected to have your logo everywhere. But yeah, the cartoon tended to go for spectacle over the comics version of Cobra, which was a lot less 'Saturday Morning Villain' in competency.
I don't believe the cartoon ever dealt with issues of how Cobra got any of its stuff, aside from Destro being rich thanks to his businesses.
How very Tucano-like the new one looks... ;)
I love that really dark blue color. I wish i could find that in a good paint color....want to paint some mechs like that.
I love that really dark blue color. I wish i could find that in a good paint color....want to paint some mechs like that.
now for something weird...
(https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/body_large/public/images/editoral-stories/thumbnails/3996_640.jpg?itok=LTtv_38P)
The way the nose and cockpit droop down it looks like it'd have fantastic forward visibility.
biggest problem the cutlass had was the control system.. Hydraulics, with no alternate manual backup and no safety system built in to ensure hydraulics pressure in the event that the pump isn't working. the system also leaked badly, so even if the engine powered pumps were working, the control would lose responsiveness over time anyway.
combine that with the underpowered engines prone to flaming out... it's amazing that the USN didn't lose more of the aircraft to accidents than they did.
(also the fact that the ejection seat, which was a new feature at the time, was overly sensative and prone to accidental firing. so most pilots disabled it. in a plane that was prone to losing power and the controls going unresponsive.)
so basically your prototype that engages in New Toy Syndrome without much safety concern.
Ah, the nutless Cutlass ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/F7U_Cutlass.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbHlZ1GMsjnRp0AE8M1CuBwSpcHIGfVMACOYQPFoxuww&s)
Such a beautiful looking airframe, which wouldn't look out of place in the BattleTech universe. Cursed by poor Westinghouse engines, and the technical immaturity which forced the absurdly long (and fragile) nose gear to provide angle of attack for takeoff (and which caused no end of landing issues, both from viewpoint & pilot impalement perspectives.) One of the more intriguing "what might have been" cases.
Legion of issues, yes... design overall? Not so sure...
When did the Air Force stop using the Navy refueling method?
tey also built one on the Boeing 307 platform, and developed the big refueling probe everyone is familiar with concurrently...
During refueling, the B-47 flew just above stall speed while the KC-97 flew at full throttle
my understanding is that a flying boom equipped tanker can have a drogue hooked to the end of the boom to handle the other system.. but it has to be done on the ground before the mission, it can't be done mid-air. the USAF just makes sure that they have their tankers configured to handle whichever aircraft they've been routed to service before sending the orders out.Modern tankers are built with both systems (KC-10, KC-46), or are being retrofitted to have both (KC-135) through the use of wingtip tanks. Note this KC-135, from a seven year old video, refueling Australian F/A-18s. Currently unsure how many KC-135's were modified for this, but the adaptor option is still around.
Found online
Found online
What kind of nuke?
Seems pretty small...
AIR-2 Genie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie) unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kiloton W25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)) warhead on a timer. 6.2 mile (10km) range, 12 second flight time.
In theory, it's aimed and guided by ground control (SAGE) using a collision-course intercept.
In practice, it's a time-delay fuse with an estimated 300m lethal radius, which means uh... you'd need something like 2.25 MOA accuracy firing something with a 12 second flight time from a moving aircraft at another moving aircraft.
My only thought is that maybe the weapons designer was thinking of WW2-style mass bomber fleets and not widely-dispersed nuclear bombers spread out across the sky. I don't recall any reports of testing of the ground-intercept air-to-air rocket combination, but I'd bet any proof of ineffectiveness were quietly lost, other than this case:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160811-the-runaway-drone-that-caused-a-cold-war-air-battle
The Genie was a product of the early 1950s, with development beginning in 1951 and the missile operational by 1956. The original idea was to counter formations of Tu-4 Bulls (the reverse-engineered B-29s in Soviet service), and I'm sure bombers in tight formations were on their mind. But, even if they weren't, with guided missile technology in its infancy and not ready for deployment yet, machine guns inadaquate to shoot down more advanced bombers, and the unguided "Mighty Mouse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding-Fin_Aerial_Rocket) rocket clusters not offering much chance of really taking down a bomber either, the idea of using waves of Genie missiles against incoming bombers seemed the most viable method of shooting them down at the time.
Nuclear SAMs were also produced, including RIM-8 Talos, CIM-10 Bomarc and MIM-14 Nike Hercules. Notably, some were estimated to be lethal within a kilometer of the target.
It was a response to a problem solved by improved electronics.
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has released a new rendering of a stealthy aerial refueling tanker.
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/05/13/skunk-works-stealth-tanker-rendering.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
Gio: Vertical landing sure... but I don't think they can take off vertically... ;D
i prefer the Northrop design..
(https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/2023-04/northrop_grummanjetzero_tanker_jetzero.jpg?itok=k3UqIWax)
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has released a new rendering of a stealthy aerial refueling tanker.There's something weird about the perspective and scaling of that art, like the F-35 looks like it's flying closer to the viewer than the tanker instead of being in trail formation. It also makes the F-35 cockpit look huge compared to that of the tanker.
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/05/13/skunk-works-stealth-tanker-rendering.jpg?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=2018)
i prefer the Northrop design..
(https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/crop_freeform/public/2023-04/northrop_grummanjetzero_tanker_jetzero.jpg?itok=k3UqIWax)
Wasn't that in Godzilla: King of the Monsters?
Meanwhile, in the US Marine Corps...
(https://www.twz.com/uploads/2024/05/08/paraglider-marsoc-drone-hunters.jpg)
From the War Zone (https://www.twz.com/air/marine-special-operations-paragliding-capabilities-emerge-at-tampa-showcase).
So, those would be VTOL (Microlite) Infantry, right?
Meanwhile, in the US Marine Corps...Alow me this digression: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/05/07/speeding-toward-ukrainian-lines-on-two-wheels-russias-motorcycle-troops-got-beaten-in-the-teeth/?sh=5ccd724b5439
From [snip].
So, those would be VTOL (Microlite) Infantry, right?