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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" escreveu na mensagem
om... 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. Example: Our Air Force, back in the beginning of the '70s, bought Mirage IIEBR's as the US wouldn't sell us the F-4's our AF had pointed out as the aircraft of choice. The American offer at the time was the F-5A, which was far below what was needed. OTOH, Brazil bought F-5E's later on ... Same for many other Latin American countries. Now our aging Mirage III's will be replaced (should have been a long time ago, BTW) and by Feb 10th 2004 our government will probably announce that its replacement will be the Mirage 2000BR (-5), mostly due to political reasons and to the strong relationship of our national aircraft industry and the French, which own 20% of EMBRAER. Unless something really unexpected happens, our AF's dreams come true and they get the Su-35's they are eager for. The US offered the F-18 and the F-16. The F-18 was discarded in the very beginning of the process due to its price. The F-16, though regarded by all as an excellent aircraft, is considered too short-legged. Also, there are restrictions to the sale of BVR missiles and AFAIK the missiles would be kept in storage in the US and sent to Brazil only in case of need. (!!!??!!!). We would receive only the "training missiles". The Russians have no kind of restriction in terms of weapons sales and technology transfer. Same for the French. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force, It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF, and never even made Navy service. The F-105 was supposed to be the fast nuke bomber of the 60's but became the workhorse of Viet Nam. I am not at all sure the F-104 was a success, the USAF sure didn't like it. NATO bought a bunch, but it's not clear that it would have done well in Europe had it been necessary. I guess its all in how you look at it. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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 It's interesting how times have changed. Unless you happen to live by a base you wouldn't even know the US *has* a military. Most of their exercises and training seems to be in the middle of BFE. I think I've seen tanks on trains twice in my life and military vehicles driving on the freeway maybe three or four times. I live in northern Utah and the place has it's share of bases but even still I moved fifteen miles from the airbase here and nadda. As far as old buildings go there's a failry large business park in what use to be a NAVAL base in WWII. All the buildings are made of wood because of the need for steel for the war effort. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote 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. A few of those now house small businesses. One is a lawyers office, and another I believe is a software consulting firm. 3 or 4 have been flattened in the last couple of years to accomodate new business construction. Pete |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
... It's interesting how times have changed. Unless you happen to live by a base you wouldn't even know the US *has* a military. Most of their exercises and training seems to be in the middle of BFE. I think I've seen tanks on trains twice in my life and military vehicles driving on the freeway maybe three or four times. I live in northern Utah and the place has it's share of bases but even still I moved fifteen miles from the airbase here and nadda. As you say, a function of where you live. I live 30 some miles from Fort Knox and will occasionally see the odd tank (as in "what is under that tarp") on a flat-bed on the interstate. It's not very unusual to see one to a half dozen military vehicles on the interstate on a weekend drive out of town: I assume Guard & Reserves for the most part. Though I know when the Strikers were working up at Knox they went on at least one road march making a big loop on some of the major highways in Kentucky. Back around Desert Shield I saw train loads of armor on the sidings but other than that, just the rare ones & twos on trains. If you fish the forest lakes on weekends, you'll see a low level fighter one a month or so. Helicopters about the same frequency following the Ohio River. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
If you fish the forest lakes on weekends, you'll see a low level fighter one a month or so. Helicopters about the same frequency following the Ohio River. I just remember during the first Desert Storm thinking "where the hell do they keep it all" ? Like I said, if you live within four or five miles of Hill AFB you see planes all the time, but move six or seven more and nothin'. I saw a few Apaches fly by down here several years ago and then there was the incident where a B-1 boomed the hell out of the Wastach Front. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
If you fly much in New Hampshire, especially at 2900 feet, you will meet ONE A-10 Warthog sooner or later. And you will remember the meeting, because Hogs always travel in pairs, and you really gave your neck a workout, looking for the other one. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:46:53 GMT, "Ed Majden" wrote:
"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! You will note that my post contained something called "sarcasm". Sorry that you are unable to comprehend this routine literary tool. Al Minyard |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Gregg Germain" wrote in message ... 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. The XP-39 did have a type B-5 turbocharger, but there just wasn't room in the P-39 or P-40 for a supercharger installation like the P-38's. One of the reasons the P-47 was as big as it was was to accommodate the turbocharger and intercooler and all the ductwork they required, and that was an aircraft that didn't also require a coolant radiator. The turbocharger was deleted from the P-39 primarily because the Army didn't think it needed a point-defense interceptor, so the plane was adapted for low-medium altitude work. That decision has been criticized since the war, but had they chosen to develop the installation the same way they did the P-38 they'd have had to get by with fewer and even lower performing airplanes in the early war years and have had a short-legged airplane that hauled little armament. The airframe was just too small. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article %TKyb.541322$9l5.366272@pd7tw2no,
"Ed Majden" writes: "Alan Minyard" 4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have huge holes in your coverage. 66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels. The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni as it had a large weapons bay. Actually, the CF-105 was intended to intercept bombers penetrating Canadian Airspace at Mach 2/50,000'+. The RCAF's and DND's own studies showed that conventional launch/control of teh CF-105s from their proposed bases resulted in intercepts occuring over Boston, Massachusetts, Albany New York, and Gary, Indiana. Not much good for protecting Canada. (ANd that was launching after they'd penetrated teh Contiguous Radar COverage of teh Mid-Canada Line. The Arrow did have decent supersonic endurace, for its day, and a good climb rate. That's only a factor though, if the bomber is coming in at more than Mach 1.5. For the Mach 0.85/40,000' targets that did turn out to be the threat, the Arrow had no advantages over the F-101 or F-106. The Arrow's weapon system (MX-1179 Radar/FCS, and Falcon Missiles) was exactly the same as the F-101's. ASTRA was an adject failure, and Sparrow II just wasn't going to work with 1950s technology. There's no point in developing a completely new and expensive platform to carry the same weapons with the same effectiveness. All that would have accomplished is the total bankrupcy of Canada. The Arrow's weapons bay wasn't particularly large, either. It was about as long as that of an F-106, a bit wider, and much shallower. IIRC, the maximum depth was about 20". There wouldn't have been enough space for internal carriage of a whopping big rocket like the Genie. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
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 |