Cold Warriors

[Eric]

Just now, Dric902 said:

Mitten?

who the hell came up with that one, I thought the Frogfoot was silly

I guess they are saving Moonbat for something else. 

[tous]

3 minutes ago, Eric said:

There is another aircraft, called the M-346 Master (NATO designation), that was jointly developed between Yak and Alenia Aermacchi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_Aermacchi_M-346_Master

That one matches much better.

Italian, eh? 

 

Thanks.

Edited July 24, 2018 by tous

[Eric]

2 minutes ago, tous said:

I'm not convinced.

The underside doesn't have the same profile.

Might could be wrong.

It might be the M-346. The pic below has the same probe on the nose and same little winglets sticking up on top of the wings. It is one or the other though.

 

 

 

[Eric]

[Eric]

Just now, Eric said:

There are a few western nations using it, including Israel. 

[Eric]

What is that exhaust port below the vertical stabilizer? Is it an APU? Does anyone put those on fighter/trainers?

[tous]

The F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornets have APUs.

The AV-8B has one, but it is designed t use unimproved fields,

The F-16 has a slightly different system called a JFS: jet fuel starter.  basically, a compressor starts via onboard battery which starts a small jet engine rather than simply supply electricity to rotate the jet engines vai compressor to start velocity.  Starting a turbofan generally requires electric, pneumatic and hydraulic power.

Not common on most military fighter aircraft, but without one you need a battery cart and a huffer to get going.

If you land at an airfield that doesn't have such support, you don't go.

Edited July 24, 2018 by tous

[tous]

Sorry about the lecture.

I geek out on occasion.

[tous]

45 minutes ago, Eric said:

There are a few western nations using it, including Israel. 

You can tell that it's a trainer.

Big clue, no hard points for explody or shooty stuff.

A smaller clue, the flight control surfaces look oversized to me.  A big plus for students.

 

Sorry, geek  moment again.

[Cubdriver]

A hook for tous:

 

(F-4 at AF Armament Museum outside Eglin AFB)

-Pat

[Cubdriver]

F-86:

[Cubdriver]

F-101 Voodoo

[Cubdriver]

F-104 Starfighter:

[Cubdriver]

F-105 Thud, surrounded by (inert) 'splodie stuff:

[OldCop71]

I see your Wisconsin and raise you one Alabama.

[willie-pete]

B-52 surrounded by ert ( not inert ) stuff 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by willie-pete

[Taipei Personality]

8 hours ago, tous said:

The F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornets have APUs.

The AV-8B has one, but it is designed t use unimproved fields,

The F-16 has a slightly different system called a JFS: jet fuel starter.  basically, a compressor starts via onboard battery which starts a small jet engine rather than simply supply electricity to rotate the jet engines vai compressor to start velocity.  Starting a turbofan generally requires electric, pneumatic and hydraulic power.

Not common on most military fighter aircraft, but without one you need a battery cart and a huffer to get going.

If you land at an airfield that doesn't have such support, you don't go.

The F-15 has a JFS and the A-10 has an APU.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Taipei Personality

[willie-pete]

Greenbrier Bunker for Congress. There is even a crematory in it.   

 

 

 

 

Congress Critters would have been in bunk beds.  

 

Whose on top?

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by willie-pete

[tous]

Great thread, lads.

[Al Czervik]

[tous]

The MiG-25 was the reason for the F-15.

MACH 3+ ( 1800 knots ) at 60,000 feet in a line interceptor.

Remarkable aircraft.

Imagine the thermal problems they had to solve in the late 1960s with 1960s materials.

Edited July 25, 2018 by tous

[Al Czervik]

29 minutes ago, tous said:

The MiG-25 was the reason for the F-15.

MACH 3+ ( 1800 knots ) at 60,000 feet in a line interceptor.

Remarkable aircraft.

Imagine the thermal problems they had to solve in the late 1960s with 1960s materials.

Those big Tumanskys limited the combat radius to 186 miles, though.  And, as I understand, anything above 2.8 Mach, the pilot was lucky to survive, and the Tumanskys were dead.

Juiced up, she was limited to 2.2G, but she could kill small animals on the runway with her radar.

[Al Czervik]

[tous]

1 hour ago, Al Czervik said:

Those big Tumanskys limited the combat radius to 186 miles, though.  And, as I understand, anything above 2.8 Mach, the pilot was lucky to survive, and the Tumanskys were dead.

Juiced up, she was limited to 2.2G, but she could kill small animals on the runway with her radar.

But, that was the strategic role of the interceptor in the 1960s, no?

Intercept and destroy the other guy's bombers before they could turn your cities into huge, smoking holes.

Even the American aircraft of that era, mainly the entire century series,  were intended to be pure interceptors of Soviet bombers, thus the tactic was get there fast and high enough to destroy the big, lumbering targets.

Remember, this was the era of high-altitude strategic bombing.

It is fortunate that the American aircraft turned out to be more versatile and could adapt to other roles.

The MiG-25 satisfied the pure interceptor role.

Yes, it ran out of gas early, and was a slow pig at low altitude, but the PVO would have had them deployed not far from the expected bomber routes, so they didn't need fly 1,500 miles, but they did need to get to altitude and to the targets quickly.

The MiG-25 was also designed and deployed before cruise missiles.

NB the Soviets never really were very good at air-to-air refueling.

Edited July 25, 2018 by tous

[norton]

How about images from a movie?

Strategic Air Command, starring real life cold war  warrior Jimmy Stewart.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by norton