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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On 08 Aug 2004 09:04:19 GMT, B2431 wrote:
You never get away from SAC, they know where you are and they are watching you. SACumcised were you? -- -Jeff B. yeff at erols dot com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
ArtKramr wrote: Subject: Distribution of armor on a B-52 From: Andrew Chaplin Date: 8/7/2004 8:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote: Subject: Distribution of armor on a B-52 From: Bob Date: 8/7/2004 8:46 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: None.. You mean it had no protective armor? None? Yup, he means zilch, zippo, three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all. Sheesh ! I gather the A-10, the Su-25 and a few attack helicopters are the only a/c flying with armour these days. AC-130 may have some armour, but I'm not sure. Most tactical jets have some armor protecting at least the pilot, although nothing like the titanium bathtub the A-10 pilot sits in. For the BUFF and similar nuclear-tasked a/c of its era, armor was considered irrelevant and counterproductive to the mission. If it's only going to be used once 'for real', and even extremely high attrition rates still allow the mission to be accomplished (75% losses? Moscow's still a smoking hole in the ground), then armor just decreases the a/c's performance and takes up weight that can far more usefully be dedicated to defensive electronics or other features that provide greater protection. Of course, when we found ourselves fighting a drawn-out conventional war in Vietnam where the majority of losses were to AW, AAA and SAM warhead fragments (as opposed to nuclear blast and radiation), where it wasn't one strike and we hold the victory celebration (in the local deep mine where we've ensconced ourselves to while away the years repopulating the human race and listening to Vera Lynn, waiting for the radiation levels to die down), the balance changed. Many of the a/c used in Vietnam were modified to decrease their vulnerability to combat damage. Sometimes armor and self-sealing and/or flame-retardant foam lined fuel tanks were retrofitted; in many cases redundant, separated hydraulic systems were retrofitted to a/c like the F-105s (designed as nuclear strike a/c) that Ed flew. The F-105 had redundant hydraulic systems, but they weren't designed with combat damage in mind. The two lines ran side by side inside the dorsal fairing, so a hit that took out one usually took out the other, and once all the fluid had run out of the system the horizpntal stabilizer went to the max. nose up positions and it was time punch out. Understandably, pilots took a dim view of ejecting over North Vietnam because they had no control of their a/c, so Fairchild instituted a quick fix which, when the hydraulic system had taken a hit, allowed the pilot to lock the stabilizer in the position appropriate for 350KIAS (IIRR. Ed will probably remember) before the fluid ran out. They could control their height by increasing or decreasing the throttle. That at least gave them a shot at getting out of North Vietnam and over the Gulf of Tonkin or Laos, Cambodia or Thailand before ejecting, where the odds of being rescued were far higher, but there was no way they had enough control to attempt a landing. The final fix involved installing a separate standpipe for emergency use. IIRR this allowed some limited control of the ailerons/spoilers for lateral control using the trim switch, and I forget how much if any limited control was available for the stabilizer,also using the trim. In good conditions this might allow the pilot to make a landing at an airfield, and certainly gave him a lot more control of heading. Since Vietnam, far more effort has gone in to designing survivability right into the a/c, because for the first time someone (the USAF and USN, and beyond them the aircraft design companies, Fairchild (F-105) and McAir (F-4 and A-4) having the most data) had bothered to gather a good-sized statistical data base about the causes of a/c losses, and then quantified the features which were most cost-effective for the role and threat the particular a/c design is expected to meet. Everyone had always known that some a/c were more survivable than others, but no one had every really done a proper statistical analysis before of just how much certain features were worth, and the trade-offs, although there'd been some movement in this direction by Operational Research units of the US and British (at least) in WW2. Survivability requirements are now part of the design spec, and all the post-Vietnam generation of US combat a/c were designed with survivability taken into account. Guy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Distribution of armor on a B-52
From: Bob Date: 8/8/2004 12:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 08 Aug 2004 03:52:31 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Distribution of armor on a B-52 From: Bob Date: 8/7/2004 8:46 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 08 Aug 2004 00:54:10 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: I have been researching B-52 construction but can't find any source concerning the distribution of armor on a B-52; protection of crew and engines. fuel tanks etc. Anyone know? None.. You mean it had no protective armor? None? None... Never saw any and never heard of any on D or H up to 1982 when I escaped from SAC.. My old B-26 was sheathed in armor which which was part of the wing loading problem. Everyone was protected except the bombardier who had only plexi for protection. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 08 Aug 2004 11:56:29 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
My old B-26 was sheathed in armor which which was part of the wing loading problem. Everyone was protected except the bombardier who had only plexi for protection. Originally the B-52 was a pretty basic, no frills, one time use if required, flying gas tank with a couple big bombs hanging around to scare the evil empire. Instead of a ton of armor they hauled around a ton of radar jamming equipment and "window"/chaff/tinfoil. This is basically a picture of the B-52 armor "T-4 Trainer (B-52 Electronic Warfare Officer Trainer)": http://tinyurl.com/5j5ay The modern day Norden Bombsight work station would be this area on a B-52 if you go down to "T-10 Navigation Trainer (B-52 Simulator)" on this page: http://tinyurl.com/46k73 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:03:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Most tactical jets have some armor protecting at least the pilot, although nothing like the titanium bathtub the A-10 pilot sits in. For the BUFF and similar nuclear-tasked a/c of its era, armor was considered irrelevant and counterproductive to the mission. If it's only going to be used once 'for real', and even extremely high attrition rates still allow the mission to be accomplished (75% losses? Moscow's still a smoking hole in the ground), then armor just decreases the a/c's performance and takes up weight that can far more usefully be dedicated to defensive electronics or other features that provide greater protection. I don't recall any armor in the F-105 or F-4. Of course, when we found ourselves fighting a drawn-out conventional war in Vietnam where the majority of losses were to AW, AAA and SAM warhead fragments (as opposed to nuclear blast and radiation), where it wasn't one strike and we hold the victory celebration (in the local deep mine where we've ensconced ourselves to while away the years repopulating the human race and listening to Vera Lynn, waiting for the radiation levels to die down), the balance changed. Many of the a/c used in Vietnam were modified to decrease their vulnerability to combat damage. Sometimes armor and self-sealing and/or flame-retardant foam lined fuel tanks were retrofitted; in many cases redundant, separated hydraulic systems were retrofitted to a/c like the F-105s (designed as nuclear strike a/c) that Ed flew. The F-105 was "dry wing" so no threat there, but the tanks were not foamed. The F-4 initially was not foamed, but after leading-edge slats were installed and during later production runs of E-models, the tanks were foam-filled. The F-4 was "wet wing". The F-105 had redundant hydraulic systems, but they weren't designed with combat damage in mind. The two lines ran side by side inside the dorsal fairing, so a hit that took out one usually took out the other, and once all the fluid had run out of the system the horizpntal stabilizer went to the max. nose up positions and it was time punch out. All the aircraft of the period (Century Series) had three hydraulic systems--two for flight controls and one for utility. They were usually inter-mingled so that one side of a control actuator was powered by one FC system and the other by utility. Gear, flaps, refueling door, gun drive, etc. were utility. As you state, the 105 piping was adjacent and often two hydraulic systems could be taken out by one hit. Understandably, pilots took a dim view of ejecting over North Vietnam because they had no control of their a/c, so Fairchild instituted a quick fix which, when the hydraulic system had taken a hit, allowed the pilot to lock the stabilizer in the position appropriate for 350KIAS (IIRR. Ed will probably remember) before the fluid ran out. They could control their height by increasing or decreasing the throttle. That at least gave them a shot at getting out of North Vietnam and over the Gulf of Tonkin or Laos, Cambodia or Thailand before ejecting, where the odds of being rescued were far higher, but there was no way they had enough control to attempt a landing. I never flew with that mod. But you essentially describe it correctly. When it was apparent you would lose hydraulics, you flipped switch which sealed the system at several points and locked the slab at 350 KIAS trim position. Nose control was through throttle maneuver--more gas, nose rises, pull power off, nose falls. TE flaps on the 105 were electric and with the slab-lock engaged a toggle switch was activated that let you control differential flaps for roll. Strictly a "get out of Indian country" system. Bailout was mandatory after engagement. First guy that I know of that tried it was a friend, Wayne Fullam who rode the airplane in. His last radio call was "how do you get the &^%$$ nose up?" Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:39:11 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Beats not having the option, and it did save some pilots. The final system came in afterwards, and IIRR had a separate reservoir that could be used for landing. The details on both systems are in Jenkins book on the F-105, certainly the most complete and informative book on the Thud I've ever read. Guy I got a mention in Dan Jenkins books as well as in Tony Thornborough's excellent "Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defenses", which may be the definitive work on Weaseling. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr ) writes: You mean it had no protective armor? None? Yup, he means zilch, zippo, three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all. Sheesh ! Why would you suppose otherwise? Armor may be of some use against 13mm rounds but of little use against SAMs and AAMs. And those were the principal weapons which concerned its designers. Cheers and all, -- "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Shatzer wrote:
ArtKramr ) writes: You mean it had no protective armor? None? Yup, he means zilch, zippo, three fifths of five eighths of f*ck all. Sheesh ! Why would you suppose otherwise? Armor may be of some use against 13mm rounds but of little use against SAMs and AAMs. And those were the principal weapons which concerned its designers. Armor can be of use against SAMs and AAMs as well, as they tend to use proximity-fused warheads which do their damage with fragments if the target is outside the radius of the blast zone. Most of them (especially in that generation) weren't going to score direct hits. Again, it was a question of the Buff's intended 'one combat sortie and "we'll meet again some sunny day"' mission, combined with the high, fast and far design flight profile that made armor not worth the weight. It's not as if the crews would be bringing a damaged a/c back to anything, even assuming they weren't already killed by blast or dying of radiation sickness. Guy |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|