grigolosi

As far as strafing runs go: they do them quite frequently against targets in Afghanistan. There are many cases where a bomb is overkill for the target or the friendlies are too close to use them. That is the draw back to the B-1 and all the technological wonders of bombing at distance.

I know all the statistics state that 80% of the CAS sorties are flown by other aircraft. Well of course they are. A-10's are only a small percentage of the airframes we have deployed but when it comes to any of these aircraft using their gun to strafe I would rather it be the A-10 do to accuracy reasons and the number of runs that can be done by the shear amount of ammo the drum holds. The days of strafing are far from over if the shear number of video footage alone is any indication. In this footage the tech wonder of the B-1 would have been useless. B-1 pilots would not have been able to spot the smoke color on the black and white targeting displays. This war is a down in the dirt, gritty war and we still need an aircraft that can operate effectively in the low level arena and spot targets the others are moving too fast to see at low level.

David is correct, at normal cruising altitude the average temp is -20 to -60. The only place they would be flying in temps higher than 35 would be flat on the deck at very low level. The actual engine combustion chamber/turbine/burner can on it is located aft of the main weapons bay. Do i believe the F-35 can replace the A-10...no but there have been some issues with the information released on the F-35 by the media (wow the media bending the truth...never). The F-35 that lost the dogfight was also restricted in its flight maneuvers due to it being a primary test bird. These restrictions were still in place with the frame even in low level production up until recently. The AF basically told the LM engineers to cut some of the apron strings.

MANPADS are a threat to any aircraft we are using currently. Hell in Korea one of the biggest threats to the USAF units there should a war break out are MANPADS used by infiltrator units. Most of the enemies we are fighting won't use the large S-300 systems since they are expensive and make excellent ground targets for the SEAD aircraft. Unless a shooting war between us and either the Chinese or Russians start the biggest threat to our aircraft are MANPADS. A-10's can sustain hits from MANPADS due to the survivability built into the frame. The plane can fly with almost half a wing shot off. Its heat signature is actually lower than the F-16 or F-15 (800-1000 degrees in burner). There have been several hit by MANPADS that made it back to base. Remember most air to air and ground to air missiles are designed to explode NEAR the frame and shower it with shrapnel. When General North shot down that MIG-25 over Iraq with the AMRAAM he watched it explode over the cockpit and the after affect is what blew it into 3 pieces. These new generals will say anything to get their shiny new toys. These are the same genius's that have put the USAF into one of the worst manning crunches in damn near 70 years.

I could have told you that the A-10 retirement was mainly based on manning.We were hearing about this in 2011-12( a year before I retired) that there weren't going to be enough maintainers for the F-35. They cut way to many maintainers from 2010 to 2013, I watched good people get put out only to be asked in the past 2 yrs if they would go back in. The whole retirement issue is an attempt to cover up a horrible mismanagement of the budget with no forward thinking.

That sucks Schizo, but I would be a little more burned up if it I missed it for something less serious than surgery. It is one of those things in life we have to miss out on for a loved one.

My wifes uncle saw quite a few Connies pass through when he was assigned to Tan Son Nhut during Vietnam. They had one that sheared the propeller shaft in flight and made an emergency landing there for engine problems. The aircrew didn't realize what had happened until her uncle spun the prop with one hand and they watched it spin like a fan blade. The the engine was running like it was supposed to but the prop was feathering in flight without the engine being shut down.

It could have been worse, it could have been one of these monsters......I n Iraq they would almost blow our vehicles off the road coming in low to land at the hospital.

Never seen a Draken up close or even in flight. I always liked them as a kid when I saw pics of them and when I would play with my toy diecast metal planes. The Gripen is the only one of the family I have seen up close and flying. They are a beautiful design. Just straight clean lines.

Nazareno from what I could tell looking a the A-9 its gear were no where near as narrow as the SU-25's is. It still had a a wider track than the Frogfoot. Several reasons were given for the selection of the A-10 over the A-9. One being the A-10's engine placement being able to hide its infrared signature better due to the twin tail arrangement. The twin tail also allowed greater survivablility due to the redundancy systems built into the design. If the one tail was lost the aircraft can still operate with only one. The long horizontal tail also aids in lift if part of the wing is destroyed.. These were the main reasons cited. But also the A-10's wheel can still roll even when the gear are retracted, this is another redundant system built into the design. This allows the aircraft to belly land with less damage to the frame. The A-9's gear were completely enclosed in the wells. Everything built into the A-10 was put there to ensure its survival in the CAS field. I think Republic just had a better design team then Northrop did.

Ok........I stand corrected.....WTF......

I read about that during the week. I was surprised at first to see they were pulling out like even with negotiations still in progress. It would make more sense to me if they stayed in place and put a hold on the bombing campaign. I can imagine it is eating up a nice chunk of change operating there though.

I see what you mean about the stability while taxing. Look at the narrow track gear it has. Not the best design for an aircraft designed to carry that much ordinance on wings like that. At least the U-2 has wing pogo's to stabilize while taxiing.

I don't think anything could be worse than that ....so far....but the way we humans are, someone out there is going to top it...

Another reason I am happy I retired 2 yrs ago. The USAF got away from evaluating based on your work and on how schooling and volunteer work you did. Unfortunately we live in a world where everyone gets offended at the drop of the hat over stupid s@#$. Fortunately I work with ex military crew chiefs, you have to have a thick skin to survive in an aircraft maintenance hangar, especially a civilian one in a foreign country. The only thing we really have to watch is what we say to the customer or our supervision, short of that its old school flightline behavior here.

In other news, me and aircraft 3078 are no longer on speaking terms....due to her very b@!#$ like behavior tonight during our post phase engine run

Well they have to keep the idiots of the world safe now. In the USAF it is so bad that if our QA finds a paper cutter with the cutting arm left in the up position with no one using it they can write us up with a DSV (disallowable safety violation) When you get one of those you have to go explain to a Lt. Col. or higher to why you did what you did and then get your ass chewed for it. Doctrine pretty much dictates that someone along the way hurt or killed themselves or someone else for this stuff to be safety violations and needing warnings to prevent it.

Hell who needs ladders or stands.... I always figured the pilots would just jump out of or into the cockpits like they do in all the anime....no matter how high the cockpit is off the ground

I just read about it last week. But question was raised. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

While at the Cope T exercise in Alaska back in the 90's we worked along side the RAF with their Tornados. We got jealous because the RAF would get up on their aircraft by just climbing up the external wing tanks. The USAF in all its wisdom (I say that lightly) does not allow us to do that.....its a safety hazard you need to get a stand. ...They might as well have made us do the safety dance....

The Tornados just switch on the the terrain radar and let the computer fly them through the canyons and hills. The Tornado was designed with that in mind. It was intended to rain havoc on WarsawPac armour and convoys at low level. It is an impressive aircraft for its size when you look at them up close. They aren't huge aircraft but carry a massive stores load on them. That reverse thrust system works extremely well also and very distinguishable when you hear it on landing.

The cockpit is usually shielded to an extant and alot depends on the transmission pattern the pods use. I know just the fire control radars in use now can be felt at 200 yds when transmitting at full strength. But the actual transmission area is confined to a certain width area due to the way the fact the signal is focused for target acquisition. I imagine the jamming signals are broadcast the same way depending on the intended target and the number of of them.

Pretty much unless congress decides to start building the F-22 again, the A model will be the only one produced. But as you said they will just upgrade as they have with every other aircraft. i was just reading last week that the idea of restarting F-22 production has been brought up. Congress actually asked LM what it would cost to restart the production line in a meeting with the Joint services committee. They are realizing that the F-35 is not going to be ready soon enough and that the F-15's will eventually have to be replaced. They also said the limited production on them at the time was "hesitantly premature" due to scares about cost and its early issues.

I know from personal experience that the world of ECM in the USAF is kind of a shadowy world. Avionics specialists are the only ones who really see the working's of the countermeasure systems and their knowledge of the actual capabilities are limited. They store all required codes and equipment required for the maintenance of the systems in vaults and even then only a few of them per squadron have access to enter the vaults. This is for the fighter world. I can't imagine the system security requirements for the true dedicated large ECM birds like the EC-135's or EC-130's. For fighters flying with ECM pods the system is set for training use. Certain precautions are taken on the aircraft to keep the systems safe from real world activation. The term ECM though covers more than just jamming though. The systems in use now are used to pin point all kinds of emissions and target them prior to any engagement. Blacking out would definitely help in cutting clutter emissions so the true threat emissions and military broadcast freq's can be targeted quicker. The world of ECM and radar detection is a continuous game of tech advancement to get one up on the other. Since the capabilities are so hushed it is hard to say for sure what the newest systems in both arenas are truly capable of.

When i was assigned to Eglin back in 91 we had F-111's there (3 of them). I was told by the F-111 crew chiefs that there were actually 4 assigned to the wing but 1 EF-111 was kept out at Edwards for while until it was reassigned. They told me that during a night testing mission a few yrs prior when the EF was stationed at Eglin the aircrew flipped on their jammers as part of the test. At low power they blacked out the Florida Panhandle for about an hour or so. I also know from reading that an E-2 Hawkeye once blacked out a large area of the NY eastern seaboard by accident back in the 70's/80's. Considering how powerful the jammers were at that time I can only imagine what they could do at full power now.

Thom they still refer to the B-1 as the Bone. But it would have been cool to see that acronym in use. Hell I was hoping that F-22 production would have gone on long enough to see F-22C Raptor.....we could have called it the....Craptor..

I was reading about the OV-10 being used last week. From what I read they used 2 of them for evaluation purposes. The aircraft are back in North Carolina while the combat data is crunched and analyzed. They were attached to mostly Spec Ops operations so a whole lot is classified. Not much info on the actual missions they were flying other than the stated "CAS" mission.

The problem with the B-1 is its avionics package or actually more precisely its maintenance download system. After every flight the aircraft is downloaded and the system looks for any thing that is broken or what it calculates as getting ready to break. So After flight when the system download is performed they end up with a list of all sorts of maintenance issues. This ranges from system code 2's to codes 3's. That is why they are such manpower extensive aircraft and their operations cost are high. They are constantly replacing parts that may not necessarily be bad just because the computer "believes" a part is about to fail. I do like the idea of the B-1R but a literal flying missile platform based on a B-52 would be a sight to see considering its payload capability. Talk about missile massacres....

LOL actually F-zero ironically enough they do take Ipods and MP-3's with them on long flights, usually transoceanic crossings where they are flying 5-8 hrs. They also used to take Walkman style players also. The phase dock at Misawa found an Eagle's CD under the seat after it was removed for the inspection. The aircraft had taken part in a TDY to Australia several months before and the pilot dropped it and didn't say anything to anyone since they weren't supposed to have that stuff with them in the cockpit.

David you are correct on the Buff. it can climb and descend in some crazy looking positions due to the wing design. But from what I have seen they primarily use it for take off and landing. After they are fully airborne they fly it like any other aircraft.

No never saw the An-225, wish I had though. To answer your question Miles, there are so many mistakes made in the film that it is impossible for us F-16 crew chiefs to watch it. To start with there is no display in the cockpit that states "turbine failure" ( the closest thing is the MFD and that displays MFL's and PFL's by number). The first indication is 0 rpm's, oil pressure, hyd pressure, and a standby generator light and the loud sound of shrieking metal as the blades come apart due to either missile or bullet damage. The F-16's changed configurations in flight so often you can barely count them (one tank then 2 tanks then one tank etc...). The gun only carries 550 rnds total, the usual load is 510, that being said the gun will empty the gun drum in less than a minute. No one on the line wears baseball caps since the intake can ingest them very easily. The fuel load they were carrying was, well a pilots dream. B, D and F model F-16's carry 15% less fuel due to the F-1 fuel cell (a bladder style tank) being reduced in size to make room for the back seat. Plus the AF does not transfer any aircraft with live munitions loaded. Someone requesting a live load out for a "transfer" would have gotten the attention of the Production Super who would have called Ops to ask who requested this and if they were smoking something. This is in reference to the original Iron Eagle.

The idiots I was referring to were trying to compare the Ares to F-15's and F-16's loaded out with AMMRAAM's.......again idiots....

WTF did I just watch? Even kids that are victims of bully's would bully anyone involved in this monstrosity. It looks like someone with a furry fetish found a loop hole to make their own film. Now I have to go bleach my eyeballs.....

Gotta love big planes. They handle cross winds like they nothing at all. It is always a trip watching B-52's land in a cross wind. People not used to seeing it freak out and think the aircraft is going to crash since its gear are crabbed and the frame is pointing into the wind! I see quite a few 124's here delivering cargo. They are always parked out on the other side of the runways by the main base area.

I now remember seeing it in that Iron Eagle movie now (Iron Eagle is blasphemy in the F-16 maintainer world). I just assumed it was some plane built for that movie. This is a highly intelligent design for a cheap mud mover. Unfortunately I took some time to read the comments on youtube and had to turn it off. Idiots trying to compare it to F-15's and F-16's. I hate people at times....especially the youtube peanut gallery....

Found this tonight on Youtube.......I never heard of this bird until the other day. This is the first time I got to watch this.

Having flown on 747's, 777's and 787's, I prefer the 787's. The US airline industry though makes flying in any of the 3 a grueling experience. I flew back to the states on BA back in December. The 787's they operate are beautiful aircraft. I haven't had such a comfortable flight since I flew on Asiana back in 2000. Plenty of leg space and the seats are just plain more comfortable compared to the other 2 aircraft. Flew on a 777 from Seattle to Korea in 09'. Typical of anything operated by either the US government or an American air carrier it was a cattle car and the seats were pretty worn out. The US airline industry needs to learn from other countries airlines.

All but one flyable 190 are using a Shvetsov ASh-82FN engine. These are Chinese liscense built Russian engines. They have twin rows 14 cylinders and are only slightly smaller than the original BMW 801 (41.2 liters to 41.. Here is the FHC A-5 variant with the actual BMW engine doing an engine run during its restoration. There are a fair number of flyable 190's out there. A company actually reproduced 20 of them from the ground up using the Chinese made engines. These engines were the same ones used in the Soviet built La-5's and La-7's which explains the small oval bulges on the cowling of the one you photographed Dobber. The cowl on the 190 was fit so tightly it had to have fan mounted in front directly behind the propeller hub to ensure cool air flowed around the BMW's cylinders. The small ovals are to make room for the valve/push rod covers between the cylinder heads. By the way nice pics!

There are a couple of flyable Butcher Birds but as far as I know there is only one with an actual BMW 801 engine installed.

Love the Spitfire. it was one of the most graceful looking designs to ever take to the air. I know who Douglas Bader was, I read the book written by V.S. Tuck, Fly for your Life. He gave quite an impression of Bader in it. He even stated the Germans were intimidated by him even when he was a POW but had so much respect for him they actually allowed the RAF to fly over and drop a new set of artifical legs for him since his were wrecked in his Spitfire when he was shot down.

Here is a little something that would be a great fixer upper in a garage...oh wait a minute it is in a garage...or part of it....

This may have been almost as good as the other two if development had continued in the manned fighter arena....