If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message news "Ed Majden" wrote in message news:dJLyb.535476$6C4.410916@pd7tw1no... Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's. You're not even trying to understand. I keep wondering why you, and everyone else, keep trying? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Chaplin" Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet Glove? The Velvet Glove was actually a CF-100 experimental missile. The CF-105 was going to use the Sparrow II missile. It would have been no big deal to adapt the Genie to the Arrow if they had wanted to. Canada was reluctant to adopt nukes but eventually did with the Bomarc, CF-101, and the CF-104 in Europe. We were asked to leave France when we took on the nuclear role. The U.S. always had control of the nukes. The U.S. would not hand over this control to France so we were asked to leave. The French then developed their own nuke program. 2(F)Wing in France closed with 1(F)Wing remaning open as a transport base. 3(F)Wing and 4(F)Wing in Germany took on the nuke strike recon role after converting from Sabres and CF-100s. This roll again changed down the road but I'm not sure when as I was back in Canada by then. Today Canada is non nuclear again after the Bomarc and CF-101s were phased out of service. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez" wrote: "Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem ... The successful failu the F-16. Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the F-20 Tigershark project ?? In brief : - F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries (F-16 weren't cleared for that) - F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep financial trouble) - F-20 program went down the drain Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and magazines? There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program). Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16 aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable market for an arguably competitive airplane. When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s. Carter did not just breach the dyke, he *created* it in the first place. It was * his * "no first tier exports" policy that was announced in 1977. Prior to that we had sold quite a few "first tier" aircraft to "developing nations", as long as they had the cash to buy them, or if they were considered critical allies (nations like Israel, Pakistan, Iran, the ROC, Australia, etc.), so I don't think your characterization of this policy as existing "pre-Carter" is entirely accurate. "In February of 1977, in a well-meaning but ultimately futile gesture, President Jimmy Carter announced a new arms transfer policy in an attempt to reduce arms proliferation throughout the world. Under this policy, American manufacturers could no longer sell to foreign air forces any combat aircraft that were the equal of those in the US inventory...To cater for the 'embargoed' air forces, the FX Export Fighter Program was proposed...In 1980, President Carter relaxed his policy and allowed the delivery of some export F-16A/Bs to proceed..." (www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html ) I believe the F-20 program originated pre-Carter, and was oriented more towards what Northrop perceived to be a lucrative market, namely those nations which did *not* have either the cash required or the clout needed to swing aircraft like the F-15/16 in their direction, and especially those many nations that had already bought into the F-5 program years before. Carter's policy did provide the impetus for the ill-begotten F-16/79 program, and his subsequent policy backpeddle in 1980 sounded the death knell for that program. All in all, the most that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of play for some fighter procurement deals. Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base. ISTR the ANG threw some support behind the idea of purchasing the F-20 to replace the A-7, etc., as well as the F-106's they owned at the time. Brooks Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models) during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to compete with the ergonomics of F-16. Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the ingredients of a failed program. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? I've often wondered about the Aircobra: What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What would it's hi alt performance have been then? Same for the P-40, I suppose. --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:37:02 GMT, "Ed Majden" wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to expend them on possible Bomarc sites. If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for security but to keep industries running. Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct one! Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty 'Mercans to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense industries. What a loon. Al Minyard |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote: ArtKramr wrote: : I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? I've often wondered about the Aircobra: What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What would it's hi alt performance have been then? The P-63 Kingcobra was pretty decent a high altitude, but other than its general shape, shared almost nothing with the Airacobra. It was pretty much the "bugfix" version of the P-39. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty 'Mercans to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense industries. What a loon. Perhaps you should take a course in English comprehension. The CF-105 was cancelled because Canada was in the middle of a recession, there was a government change, and Sputnik was launched making some to think that the manned bomber threat was no longer an issue. The Arrow was a Liberal project and the new Consevative government hated anything Liberal so they stupidly cancelled the program. The U.S. apparently offered to fund some CF-105's for the R.C.A.F. but it was too late. Even though the U.S. would not buy the Arrow for the USAF it was an Canadian decision! Do some research! |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote: ArtKramr wrote: : I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? I've often wondered about the Aircobra: Westland Whirlwind, maybe - went nowhere much (apart from France, repeatedly, at low level until they ran out of examples) because the Peregrine engine was an early orphan. Fairey Barracuda was a "nearly" - if only it had the Fairey P.24 Prince double-engine (same could be said for many mid-war designs - it might have been a better developmental bet than the awful Vulture, and possibly better than the Sabre) - for naval a/c, particularly, the option of shutting half the engine down for cruise was appealing. Any of the late WW1 designs left orphaned by the ABC Dragonfly debacle. -- Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/ "Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you, unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian border". Langley AFB, to be a bit more accurate. Other sites planned "near the Canadian border" but never completed were Charleston AFB, SC, and Vandenberg and Travis AFBs in CA. No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house). It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in). I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting (interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition with explosives to remove them. FYI, just up the road another mile or two was another Cold War relic--the Nike Hercules complex which was located at (what was then) Patrick Henry Airport (it later picked up an "I" in the designation after a couple of charter flights to Mexico flew out of it--sort of a joke at the time), now known as Newport News-Williamsburg Regional Airport IIRC. Pat Henry had another interesting historical sidenote affiliated with it--I can recall walking through old barracks buildings which were still standing in the early seventies that had housed German POW's during WWII. Brooks |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house). It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in). I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting (interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition with explosives to remove them. You were there and I was not so I'll take your word for it. Robert Mueller's "Air Force Bases" shows the 22nd Air Defense Missile Squadron as a unit assigned to Langley but no mention of any Missile Site as a detached installation, as one would expect if the launch facility was not on base. The entry for McGuire AFB, as an example, shows the 46th Air Defense Missile Squadron as a unit assigned to McGuire, but the McGuire AF Missile Site (later Air Defense Missile Site) is listed under Major Off-Base and Detached Installations along with it's location, 5 miles southeast of New Egypt, NJ. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |