AV-8 Harrier vs. Yak-38
Jam
Harrier is better, maybe, because of my research. first of all Harrier
is still in production but by various variants. While Yak is no match
for it's efficiency. The only good thing in Yak is its thrust vector
nozzle.
Gordon
Personal experience here -- the Yak 38 (or Yak 36 as we called it at
the time) was a flaming ball of shit in comparison to production
models of the Harrier. I have hundreds of hours in the company of
Forgers and they never once impressed me. Ok, I was a *little*
impressed when one dropped a bomb directly over our ship, and again
when they fired a brace of rockets into our path, but as far as
aircraft performance, never!
v/r Gordon
Flashnews
nozzle for the F-35B STOVL engine - was one hell of a machine that could
have been perhaps the best non-stealth STOVL except that the Russian
Navy went to ski-jumping Sukhoi's because they had the payload and
range - same reason why the F-14D sould have been improved and improved
instead of short-changing the BG's with short range F-18's and shorter
range F-35's
"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:1178303426.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Paul J. Adam
<ski...@flash.net> writes
>The Yak-141 - the aircraft that provided to Lockheed/PW the swivel
>nozzle for the F-35B STOVL engine - was one hell of a machine that could
>have been perhaps the best non-stealth STOVL except that the Russian
>Navy went to ski-jumping Sukhoi's because they had the payload and
>range - same reason why the F-14D sould have been improved and improved
>instead of short-changing the BG's with short range F-18's and shorter
>range F-35's
And if the UK had finished off the P1154 then maybe everyone would be
wondering why any sane designer still needed runways or catapults and
wires...
Much easier to axe a concept that still had promise, than to see it
through to successful squadron service: the aircraft that looked good
but didn't get put to the test, never have the gloss knocked off by
harsh reality.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
John Halliwell
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
>And if the UK had finished off the P1154 then maybe everyone would be
>wondering why any sane designer still needed runways or catapults and
>wires...
If the F-35B doesn't make it, maybe somebody should dust off the plans!
--
John
Jam
make the downward thrusters more efficient? Anyway theirs always the
good F35.
Rob Arndt
VTOL/VSTOL down to just the US-UK vs FSU designs while ignoring the
French and German designs- especially the Germans, who after being hit
with 1.3 MT of bombs during WW2, starting off their postwar aviation
industry in West Germany with these types almost exclusively after the
10 yr ban of (1945-55).
Where to start?
- EWP S?d VJ-101
- Dornier Do-31
- Dornier Do-231
- VFW Vak-191
- Focke-Wulf Fw-860
- Bolkow Bo P.110
- Heinkel He-231
- Messerschmitt X1 21
- Lippisch-Collins Aerodyne
- Dornier E.1 Aerodyne
- Dornier Do-29
- AVS Project
- Zell Zero-launch West German Starfighter
- plus all the civilain a/c German projects
- plus all the German VSTOL rotary projects
- plus the Josef Andreas Epp GDR Pirna Disc
That's probably 100+ a/c and projects
The French had projects and a/c by:
Dassault
SNECMA
Payen
Wibault
... to name a few
And had it not been for Michel Wibault and his Gyroter/Gyropter/
Gyroptere... then probably no Hawker P.1127 original design, no
Kestrel, no Harrier, and no AV-8 to compete with the Russian Yak(s).
Think about that.
Wibault maintained ties to the his French S.A. Wibault workers during
WW2 and aided them in developing a disc for the Nazis called the
Gyroter by 1944. Postwar in the 50s he patented his own Gyropter and
then proposed his VTOL Gyroptere which was passed over to Hawker which
started the early P.1127 which led to the Kestrel... which led to the
Harrier and AV-8 version.
The Harrier doesn't even have a British origin but a French one.
Rob
Rob Arndt
One might also what would have happened if the Mach 2.4 Vought TF-120
would have been developed?
http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/imag/VoughtTF120.jpg
Rob
Dan
operational use?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many of the purely US ones did either- zero.
The US had to adopt the UK Harrier in an upgraded form...
Rob
Vaughn Simon
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178329593.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> This thread is ridiculous IMO b/c it narrows down postwar VTO/STOL/
> VTOL/VSTOL down to just the US-UK vs FSU designs while ignoring the
There you go again, attempting to equate real hardware to wet dreams on
paper, and then making things even worse by somehow managing to mix in flying
saucers.
The thread correctly compares two VSTOL jet fighters that actually exist and
are actually deployed in the world's military. I don't have time to Google your
entire list, but most (or all) seem to be either paper airplanes or prototypes
that never made it to actual production or actual military deployment in any
significant numbers.
Are there any other VTOL jet fighters that are actually deployed that the OP
should have considered?
Dan
As usual you missed the point entirely. You said "This thread is
ridiculous IMO b/c it narrows down postwar VTO/STOL/VTOL/VSTOL down to
just the US-UK vs FSU designs while ignoring the French and German
designs- especially the Germans.." As usual you had to flog German
projects with a few French ones thrown in for a change.
The difference is the Yak and Harriet made it to operational service
which is why the discussion is being held. Besides, look at the title of
the thread.
Rob Arndt
> >> operational use?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > How many of the purely US ones did either- zero.
>
> > The US had to adopt the UK Harrier in an upgraded form...
>
> > Rob
>
> As usual you missed the point entirely. You said "This thread is
> ridiculous IMO b/c it narrows down postwar VTO/STOL/VTOL/VSTOL down to
> just the US-UK vs FSU designs while ignoring the French and German
> designs- especially the Germans.." As usual you had to flog German
> projects with a few French ones thrown in for a change.
>
> The difference is the Yak and Harriet made it to operational service
> which is why the discussion is being held. Besides, look at the title of
> the thread.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee, the Yak-38 became operational in what... 1976 as opposed to the
first test flight in 1978 for the AV-8B? And the Soviet testbed for
the Forger , the Yak-36 Freehand originated in 1967...
Although not a very good strike a/c nor not a threat to land-based
fighters, the Forger was more than a match against enemy bombers and
ASW a/c- part of Fleet Air Defense, the job it was assigned.
What real comparisons do you have with a carrier-based Fleet Air
Defense a/c vs a Marine ground support strike a/c?
Stupid comparison, VTOL just being used as an excuse to brag about the
AV-8 which originates from the British Harrier which originated from a
Frenchman- Michel Wibault and his Gyroptere concept.
Rob
Dean A. Markley
the ship. That points to severe range issues. Also, the Indian Navy
evaluated both planes and selected the Sea Harrier.
Dean
Dan
Rob Arndt
> >> ridiculous IMO b/c it narrows down postwar VTO/STOL/VTOL/VSTOL down to
> >> just the US-UK vs FSU designs while ignoring the French and German
> >> designs- especially the Germans.." As usual you had to flog German
> >> projects with a few French ones thrown in for a change.
>
> >> which is why the discussion is being held. Besides, look at the title of
> >> the thread.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Gee, the Yak-38 became operational in what... 1976 as opposed to the
> > first test flight in 1978 for the AV-8B? And the Soviet testbed for
> > the Forger , the Yak-36 Freehand originated in 1967...
>
> > Although not a very good strike a/c nor not a threat to land-based
> > fighters, the Forger was more than a match against enemy bombers and
> > ASW a/c- part of Fleet Air Defense, the job it was assigned.
>
> > What real comparisons do you have with a carrier-based Fleet Air
> > Defense a/c vs a Marine ground support strike a/c?
>
> > Stupid comparison, VTOL just being used as an excuse to brag about the
> > AV-8 which originates from the British Harrier which originated from a
> > Frenchman- Michel Wibault and his Gyroptere concept.
>
> > Rob
>
> Just can't admit you made a mistake, can you?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Translation?
"I can't find any real military value in comparing a Soviet Fleet Air
Defense a/c with a Marine close-support a/c that is just a modified
Harrier to US speciifcations."
~Dan, USAF, retired, senile, needs bedpan...
Dan
As usual you resort to personal insult.
Dan
designs in an attempt to derail the discussion. The discussion was about
two specific designs, not about fantasy aircraft.
Rob Arndt
The following a/c were never paper designs but actual prototypes and
even an operational a/c:
- Do-29 STOL
- Do-31 VTOL transport
- VFW-Fokker VAK-191 fighter
- EMR-Sud VJ-101 interceptor
- Dornier E-1 Aerodyne (concept for German land operations and US
carrier operations)
- Zell zero launch F-104 Starfighter (operation a/c)
It is not my fault but the W. German and US Governments fault for
these programs being cancelled. All held military potential but cost
restraints on the German side and the US push to cancel German
programs in favor of US a/c purchases or provisions is obvious.
And if you make fun of the tail-sitters, then make fun of the US
versions as well that were based on German WW2 VTO/VTOL designs like
the He Wespe & Lerche, Fw Triebflugel, and Ba-349 Natter.
Maybe I should not have introduced that material there but I saw the
thread as insulting to the other VTO/VTOL/STOL/VSTOL inventors and
nations.
Rob
Tankfixer
teut...@aol.com mumbled
> > designs in an attempt to derail the discussion. The discussion was about
> > two specific designs, not about fantasy aircraft.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The following a/c were never paper designs but actual prototypes and
> even an operational a/c:
>
> - Do-29 STOL
> - Do-31 VTOL transport
> - VFW-Fokker VAK-191 fighter
> - EMR-Sud VJ-101 interceptor
> - Dornier E-1 Aerodyne (concept for German land operations and US
> carrier operations)
> - Zell zero launch F-104 Starfighter (operation a/c)
So when did the USAF deploy units of zero launch F-104 Rob ?
Dare say never ?
To claim an experimental program that happens to use an aircraft in
service as "operational" is just plane dishonesty...
>
> It is not my fault but the W. German and US Governments fault for
> these programs being cancelled. All held military potential but cost
> restraints on the German side and the US push to cancel German
> programs in favor of US a/c purchases or provisions is obvious.
>
> And if you make fun of the tail-sitters, then make fun of the US
> versions as well that were based on German WW2 VTO/VTOL designs like
> the He Wespe & Lerche, Fw Triebflugel, and Ba-349 Natter.
>
> Maybe I should not have introduced that material there but I saw the
> thread as insulting to the other VTO/VTOL/STOL/VSTOL inventors and
> nations.
You were the only one taking it as insulting.
Many designers saw benifit in short/vertical takeoff and landing.
Few were able to bring that to an actual operation aircraft that saw
service.
And of those few only one is an actual success.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Rob Arndt
> In article <1178380427.179032.90...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> teuton...@aol.com mumbled
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you are reading that wrong and misinterpreting my response to
Dan.
Dan said that ALL of the a/c I posted were German paper projects only,
so I corrected him with the list of protoype a/c and one operational a/
c- the F-104 that TESTED the ZELL system. I think you are reading this
as deployment of W.German F-104 ZELLs when the (operational) bracket
is only concerning the Starfighter as an actual combat aircraft that
was tested with the Zell system- none of the others listed were
operational a/c.
ZELL= ZEro Launch Length
Here is a short re-cap of the W. German Zell tests:
'Under contract from the Luftwaffe, Lockheed carried out tests with an
F-104G launched by rocket from a platform. At least one Luftwaffe
F-104G was modified for a series of zero-length launch (ZELL) tests in
1963 at Edwards AFB in California. The F-104G was mounted on a
trailer, and a 130,000 lb.s.t. Rocketdyne solid-fuel rocket booster
was attached to the rear of the fuselage. For takeoff, the pilot would
run up the J79 engine to full thrust, then light the rocket motor.
Within four seconds after ignition, the F-104G would be flying at 300
mph and the rocket booster would drop off. The program was not
disclosed to the public until March 21, 1966. Although tests were
successful, the scheme was not adopted for operational use. After the
ZELL test program was completed, the test F-104G was returned to
service in Germany.'
Here's a German site with photos of the West German ZELL Starfighter:
http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Kampfjets/Starfighter/starfighter.html
Of course the US and USSR had operational a/c that were tested with
the ZELL system:
US had the F-84 and F-100 tests.
USSR had the SM-30 (MiG-19) tests.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
None of the a/c used in any of these tests were "paper projects" a/c
but real a/c and all returned to active duty.
I did not suggest an operation Zell system, although they could have
been fielded. But the Harrier was more practical in the end...
Rob
Vaughn Simon
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
>
> None of the a/c used in any of these tests were "paper projects" a/c
> but real a/c and all returned to active duty.
>
Also, someone needs to point out that this program was not VSTOL like the
Harrier and the Yak-38. In fact it seems to be a very different animal with a
very different mission and very different logistical requirements. Most
obviously, once that spectacular takeoff has happened, one still needs some sort
of runway on which to land. Once landed, I imagine it would take hours (and
some very special equipment) to set the thing up for another zero-length
takeoff.
Since Rob has made the case that the AV-8 and the Yak-38 are not
comparable, it is hard to understand why he threw this nugget into the
conversation, because this seems so distant from the others. That said, I would
happily travel across the country to visit the airshow that featured a
zero-length F-101 takeoff.
I have another candidate that makes no sense in this mix. This is a jet
powered VSTOL aircraft that was purchased in small quantities by US forces but
apparently never deployed. I was privileged to see someone seriously attempt
flight in one at my local airport. As it turned out, he never got full fuel
flow to the jets and did not quite get enough rotor speed to lift off. Still
great entertainment!
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/museums/getimage.htm?id=758
Rob Arndt
wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
My original reply featured VTO/STOL/VTOL/VSTOL... so the Zell is in
there as both a vertical launch and STOL... although ZERO length is as
"SHORT" as it gets!!!
Rob
Dan
Germany and have seen some of the actual aircraft. For example, I have
put my hands on a Dornier D0-31 and Natter at the Deutches Museum.
What I did say was to point out not a single aircraft project you
listed ever made it to operational status INCLUDING the "zero launch
F-104G." There were F-104 in operational use, just not "zero launch."
Dan
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1178401642.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
>>
>> None of the a/c used in any of these tests were "paper projects" a/c
>> but real a/c and all returned to active duty.
>>
>
> Also, someone needs to point out that this program was not VSTOL like the
> Harrier and the Yak-38. In fact it seems to be a very different animal with a
> very different mission and very different logistical requirements. Most
> obviously, once that spectacular takeoff has happened, one still needs some sort
> of runway on which to land. Once landed, I imagine it would take hours (and
> some very special equipment) to set the thing up for another zero-length
> takeoff.
>
> Since Rob has made the case that the AV-8 and the Yak-38 are not
> comparable, it is hard to understand why he threw this nugget into the
> conversation, because this seems so distant from the others. That said, I would
> happily travel across the country to visit the airshow that featured a
> zero-length F-101 takeoff.
You have to understand aren't isn't capable of arguing a point
logically.
>
> I have another candidate that makes no sense in this mix. This is a jet
> powered VSTOL aircraft that was purchased in small quantities by US forces but
> apparently never deployed. I was privileged to see someone seriously attempt
> flight in one at my local airport. As it turned out, he never got full fuel
> flow to the jets and did not quite get enough rotor speed to lift off. Still
> great entertainment!
> http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/museums/getimage.htm?id=758
>
I bet it was noisy as all get out :)
Tankfixer
teut...@aol.com mumbled
In no was was the aircraft tested an operational airframe.
--
John Halliwell
Arndt <teut...@aol.com> writes
>The following a/c were never paper designs but actual prototypes and
>even an operational a/c:
>
>- Do-29 STOL
>- Do-31 VTOL transport
The Do-31 used two (proven) RR Pegasus engines, courtesy of the
P.1127/Kestral/Harrier development.
--
John
John Halliwell
Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimo...@att.FAKE.net> writes
> The thread correctly compares two VSTOL jet fighters that actually exist and
>are actually deployed in the world's military. I don't have time to Google your
>entire list, but most (or all) seem to be either paper airplanes or prototypes
>that never made it to actual production or actual military deployment in any
>significant numbers.
>
> Are there any other VTOL jet fighters that are actually deployed that the OP
>should have considered?
I suppose you could consider the Sea Harrier as a different aircraft to
the AV-8B, fleet defence too, but there wouldn't be much to discuss
about Sea Harrier vs Yak-36/38...
--
John
Pat Flannery
Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>
> I recall reading that the Yak-38 was NEVER seen more than 50 miles
> from the ship.
That's because it had a mission endurance of around 15 minutes.
Pat
Jam
just wanna hear comments from you guys. I just wanted to widen the
information of both aircrafts.;)
Gordon
we routinely saw them fly from startup to landing of just around 30
minutes. when I say "we routinely saw", I mean, I used to walk out on
deck, look across the half-mile expanse of Pacific separating the USS
Kirk from the Novorosiisk, and I watched them fire up (with a
resounding BANG), spend 45 seconds doing engine checks, then the
stubby little jets would launch at a slight angle and slowly motor
away, then return at about 30 minutes. All day, every day, for weeks
at a time. The trainer versions flew shorter duration flights and
never left the pattern - even though they carried UB 16 rocket pods
under the wings, they never fired them, unlike the single seaters.
v/r Gordon
Pat Flannery
Gordon wrote:
> we routinely saw them fly from startup to landing of just around 30
> minutes.
The 15 minutes was a quote from a Military Channel show about Soviet
aircraft. They probably meant that it could reach a target 15 minutes
away, then had to head for home. They were a complete disaster area when
they tried to use them in Afghanistan. Since the aircraft was
(obviously) designed to take off and land at sea level, sticking it in
the mountains of Afghanistan was really going to cut way into its
lifting capabilities, due to reduced engine thrust.
One oddball feature of the aircraft was a automatic ejection seat that
would fire if it went out of control during take-off or landing. If it
was in hover, it wouldn't even jettison the cockpit hood, but fire the
ejection seat right though it.
Combining that with a automatic seat that gives the pilot no warning he
is about to eject, and you've got the perfect recipe for getting your
arms shredded as you punch out through the shattered plastic of the
cockpit hood.
It's no wonder that pilot morale in the Yak-38 squadrons was abysmal.
> when I say "we routinely saw", I mean, I used to walk out on
> deck, look across the half-mile expanse of Pacific separating the USS
> Kirk from the Novorosiisk, and I watched them fire up (with a
> resounding BANG), spend 45 seconds doing engine checks, then the
> stubby little jets would launch at a slight angle and slowly motor
> away, then return at about 30 minutes. All day, every day, for weeks
> at a time. The trainer versions flew shorter duration flights and
> never left the pattern - even though they carried UB 16 rocket pods
> under the wings, they never fired them, unlike the single seaters.
>
Ever see one crash? They apparently did that quite often. The two
forward lift engines apparently also had a very short operational lifetime.
Pat
Gordon
The Novorosiisk went a whole month without missing one. :) Minsk,
uhh, not so lucky. We weren't there for either event, but each time
one went in somewhere around the planet, we got the briefing - what
looks scariest to me is that they seemed to invariably pitch face down
the second they lost even partial power. And that isn't a zero/zero
seat. I did see video of one Forger pilot getting recovered, so that
means at least one pilot survived the event! Gruesome aircraft...
v/r Gordon
Pat Flannery
Gordon wrote:
>>> ters.
>>>
>> Ever see one crash? They apparently did that quite often. The two
>> forward lift engines apparently also had a very short operational lifetime.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>
> The Novorosiisk went a whole month without missing one. :) Minsk,
> uhh, not so lucky. We weren't there for either event, but each time
> one went in somewhere around the planet, we got the briefing - what
> looks scariest to me is that they seemed to invariably pitch face down
> the second they lost even partial power. And that isn't a zero/zero
> seat. I did see video of one Forger pilot getting recovered, so that
> means at least one pilot survived the event! Gruesome aircraft...
>
Back when Kiev first took to sea, the thing was under almost constant
NATO observation so they could figure out what the Forgers could do. For
a long time they thought they could do only VTOL operations without a
rolling takeoff...which makes no sense whatsoever, given the deck layout.
But they did have a great set of pictures in AW&ST showing one coming in
to land when one of its front lift engines blew up, and the thing went
cartwheeling out of control as the pilot ejected.
One strange feature of the plane's ejection seat is that it didn't eject
you straight up, but rather up and to port, so that you had less chance
of striking the carrier's island during takeoff and landing ejections.
What really threw everybody about the Kiev class was the strange door on
the fantail at the waterline...is this where the landing craft loaded
with tanks and troops emerged?
Was the damn thing some sort of aircraft carrier/helicopter
carrier/cruiser/ASW/LST ship?
You could probably fit that all in one hull of that size...provided that
you didn't need to put crew, fuel, and machinery in it.
The opening on the fantail was where the VDS came out of.
But back in the Reagan years, it was Godzilla itself.
BTW, were all the Forgers carrying rocket pods, or did some have AAMs on
them?
Because if they were biasing them for attack missions with that
endurance, can you imagine just how close you'd have to bring the ship
into proximity to the target to let them engage it?
The thing would be a sitting duck.
Pat
Gordon
> Back when Kiev first took to sea, the thing was under almost constant
> NATO observation so they could figure out what the Forgers could do. For
> a long time they thought they could do only VTOL operations without a
> rolling takeoff...which makes no sense whatsoever, given the deck layout.
> But they did have a great set of pictures in AW&ST showing one coming in
> to land when one of its front lift engines blew up, and the thing went
> cartwheeling out of control as the pilot ejected.
I'm sure they docked his widow for the price of the "perfectly good"
Forger that he neglected to bring home. I am familiar with that group
of photos - there are at least two other sets that I don't believe got
published.
> One strange feature of the plane's ejection seat is that it didn't eject
> you straight up, but rather up and to port, so that you had less chance
> of striking the carrier's island during takeoff and landing ejections.
With that wicked forward pitchdown, I doubt if it mattered.
> What really threw everybody about the Kiev class was the strange door on
> the fantail at the waterline...is this where the landing craft loaded
> with tanks and troops emerged?
Not that I am aware of.
> Was the damn thing some sort of aircraft carrier/helicopter
> carrier/cruiser/ASW/LST ship?
Nope - just a carier/missile cruiser. The Soviets themselves called
it a TAKR (Large, Aircraft-carrying ASW Cruiser). Its own noise was
sufficient to keep it from using its VDS for any real purpose, unless
it was to keep a troll line astern to tangle up any innocently-passing
(cof) US subs. The Kiev class was almost as loud as a US CV (although
_nothing_ was THAT loud), so it was useless as an ASW platform. It
had ASW missiles aboard, but basically had to rely on its Hormones for
targeting.
> You could probably fit that all in one hull of that size...provided that
> you didn't need to put crew, fuel, and machinery in it.
> The opening on the fantail was where the VDS came out of.
> But back in the Reagan years, it was Godzilla itself.
For us, "Godzilla" was the Kirov, which appeared virtually
impregnable.When the Udaloy and Sov classes came out, those were eye
openers, but at least we felt they could be dealt with.
A very common thing for us to do while we were trailing their
infrequent fleet deployments was to brainstorm "Death and Glory"
attacks on their fleet, arrayed around us in the night. With four
Karas, a Krusty II, pair of Krivaks, and the mighty carrier against
our little Frigate, we felt if the balloon went up, we'd be shelled
into oblivion before we could get our hatches dogged, never mind that
often our pitiful main gun was out of service. Our CIWS managed to
shoot one of its barrels approximately 200 yards astern, in a lovely
arc I might add, so that wasn't much help. We were practically
impotent to tell the truth. Assuming the GMGs could get the 5"/38 to
work, the "plan" was to sail as close to the TAKR as we could and then
rake it with the CIWS and 5", then use the ASROC in the direct-fire
mode, firing directly into the side of the carrier. We'd get a
mission kill at the very least. As the same time, shoot every torpedo
in the magazine at the Karas that would surely be coming for blood -
why not? - even if they did little damage to the dogs, they would at
least not be onboard our little gray boat and adding to the
conflagration when we were served red-hot Red Banner revenge. :)
We had a Cowboy and a Akula CPA our bouy field at ___ yards and we
didn't get a peep out of either of them - that's when we knew we were
screwed, ASW-wise. The Walker family, in my opinion, should have been
shot on the 10 o'clock news for all the damage they did to us.
> BTW, were all the Forgers carrying rocket pods, or did some have AAMs on
> them?
They almost all had rocket pods, with two a/c on deck loaded with four
AAMs, which were not usable at all in my opinion. Our job was to take
dozens of rolls of photos each day of every detail of that ship and
its a/c, as detailed as possible, so we had plenty of closeups of the
unprotected seeker heads, sandblasted all to hell from the micro-
meteorites chipped from the ceramic deck tiles during launch. We
certainly didn't feel any fear of them, as far as their AAMs were
concerned.
> Because if they were biasing them for attack missions with that
> endurance, can you imagine just how close you'd have to bring the ship
> into proximity to the target to let them engage it?
Honestly, I think they carried the rocket pods for the possibility of
attacking our ship. They didn't have anything else in range and they
DEFINITELY targetted our ship several times. The bomb incident is
recorded on VHS tape - the pilot released it with an audible "Clink!"
directly overhead of our ship - we watched the bomb carry a short
distance away where it made an impressive water column. The next
Forger to break through the misty clouds overhead fired all of its
rockets into the water directly in our path, causing quite a few
"OHFUCKS" to be heard while we waited to see the impact point. The
bow of our ship stumbled right into the air-bubble-filled crater in
the water, making the whole ship momentarily lurch nose-down. The
definitely got our attention.
> The thing would be a sitting duck.
We all were :)
v/r Gordon
NoHoverstop
>
> One oddball feature of the aircraft was a automatic ejection seat that
> would fire if it went out of control during take-off or landing. If it
> was in hover, it wouldn't even jettison the cockpit hood, but fire the
> ejection seat right though it.
> Combining that with a automatic seat that gives the pilot no warning he
> is about to eject, and you've got the perfect recipe for getting your
> arms shredded as you punch out through the shattered plastic of the
> cockpit hood.
I met the chap who designed that system (the AES). The aircraft needed
it because if any of the three engines had a problem during the hover it
would pitch out of seat limits way too quickly for the pilot to get out.
Nobody was totally happy about this, but when your peace-loving country
needs to defend itself against Yankee Air-Pirates and their running-dog
allies, but doesn't have an engine industry capable of producing Pegasus
engines (which is the sort of thing they really wanted - according to
same chap), then you just have to do your best. I understand that the
F-35B will also have an AES. Punching straight through the canopy is
about the only option if there's no airspeed to clear the canopy out of
the ejection path really quickly. I have put my personal trust in the
Harrier canopy MDC and seat canopy-breakers to do their job if required.
I take the point about auto versus pre-meditated ejection, but decent
arm/leg restraints should help with that and it's not really different
being auto-ejected compared to unwarned command-ejected (as several
ocupants of two-seat fast-jets have been). Mind you, I've just looked
at a picture of me sitting in an early-model Yak38 and there's no sign
of MDC on the canopy. Big breakers on the seat head-box! Maybe this was
a deficiency that got corrected later. Bet they never changed the
"delightful" cockpit interior paint colour though.
> It's no wonder that pilot morale in the Yak-38 squadrons was abysmal.
Might have been more to do with the Country's "Management"? Oh and the
"friendly locals" in Afghanistan eager to welcome pilots who'd abandoned
their aircraft. That said, I'm given to understand that most pilots
refused to arm the AES when the jet entered service. The Navy command
structure apparently did not force the issue, since the pilots really
were that suspicious of the thing. However, after plenty of pilot losses
in situations where the AES would have saved those pilots, opinion
changed and arming the AES became SOP.
>
>
> Ever see one crash? They apparently did that quite often. The two
> forward lift engines apparently also had a very short operational lifetime.
>
> Pat
Not first-hand. The one example I actually saw flying stayed serviceable
throughout (at least to an extent that allowed it to finish it's display
slot). However I've seen a video of one crashing from a stable hover
after an uncommanded lift-engine shut-down. I watched this video in the
apartment of the then Chief Test Pilot at Zhukovsky, who was the chap
filmed dangling under the chute in that video, courtesy of the AES. He
said that being lobbed out of the jet was the first hint he'd had of
trouble and that he would be dead if not for the AES. Having seen the
timing of events between him leaving the jet and the jet being upside
down on the ground in a big fireball, and noted not the vaguest external
hint of trouble prior to ejection, I'm inclined to agree with him. His
arms and legs, though I did not inspect them closely, appeared
distinctly un-shredded.
Gordon
> I met the chap who designed that system (the AES). The aircraft needed
> it because if any of the three engines had a problem during the hover it
> would pitch out of seat limits way too quickly for the pilot to get out.
> Nobody was totally happy about this, but when your peace-loving country
> needs to defend itself against Yankee Air-Pirates and their running-dog
> allies, but doesn't have an engine industry capable of producing Pegasus
> engines (which is the sort of thing they really wanted - according to
> same chap), then you just have to do your best. I understand that the
> F-35B will also have an AES. Punching straight through the canopy is
> about the only option if there's no airspeed to clear the canopy out of
> the ejection path really quickly. I have put my personal trust in the
> Harrier canopy MDC and seat canopy-breakers to do their job if required.
> I take the point about auto versus pre-meditated ejection, but decent
> arm/leg restraints should help with that and it's not really different
> being auto-ejected compared to unwarned command-ejected (as several
> ocupants of two-seat fast-jets have been). Mind you, I've just looked
> at a picture of me sitting in an early-model Yak38 and there's no sign
> of MDC on the canopy. Big breakers on the seat head-box! Maybe this was
> a deficiency that got corrected later. Bet they never changed the
> "delightful" cockpit interior paint colour though.
> That said, I'm given to understand that most pilots
> refused to arm the AES when the jet entered service. The Navy command
> structure apparently did not force the issue, since the pilots really
> were that suspicious of the thing. However, after plenty of pilot losses
> in situations where the AES would have saved those pilots, opinion
> changed and arming the AES became SOP.
> The one example I actually saw flying stayed serviceable
> throughout (at least to an extent that allowed it to finish it's display
> slot). However I've seen a video of one crashing from a stable hover
> after an uncommanded lift-engine shut-down. I watched this video in the
> apartment of the then Chief Test Pilot at Zhukovsky, who was the chap
> filmed dangling under the chute in that video, courtesy of the AES. He
> said that being lobbed out of the jet was the first hint he'd had of
> trouble and that he would be dead if not for the AES. Having seen the
> timing of events between him leaving the jet and the jet being upside
> down on the ground in a big fireball, and noted not the vaguest external
> hint of trouble prior to ejection, I'm inclined to agree with him. His
> arms and legs, though I did not inspect them closely, appeared
> distinctly un-shredded.
Can you please give us more?? I am very interested in the information
and viewpoints that you have on this subject.
v/r Gordon
Dean A. Markley
Dean
Gordon
>
> Gordon, could you really use ASW torpedoes against surface ships?
ASROCs are essentially torpedo-tipped missiles; our juvenile plan was
to fire the whole launcher's worth directly into the opposing ship
from point-blank range -- hey, it was a last ditch solution, we never
knew if it would work or not, but it sure seemed like a viable
solution to just dying with a whimper. The missile techs got in on
the game and were brainstorming ways to detonate the torps on impact.
It was a fun diversion for quite a few of our crew!
As for using the torpedoes themselves against their capital ships -
they wouldn't have done much more than bend their props! Mk-46s were
not very deadly.
v/r
Gordon
WaltBJ
> On May 11, 6:12 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gordon, could you really use ASW torpedoes against surface ships?
> As for using the torpedoes themselves against their capital ships -
> they wouldn't have done much more than bend their props! Mk-46s were
>Gordon
SNIP:
If the Mk 46 could take out a single blade that would help: if a covey
of 46s took out just one blade on each of the props that boat would be
in a world of hurt. t'd ne Vibe City in any revs at all.
BTW didn't the A7 simply punch the nose gunner out through the canopy?
I know the top of the seat had a canopy buster on it. And FWIW the
Lockheed C2 seat on our F104As would fire you out through the canopy
if it failed to go on time. (ISTR the seat fired 1/2 second after the
canopy jettison system.) Again, the top of the seat back was higher
than one's helmet top. On the F/TF102A, if the canopy stuck, you were
screwed. A good friend of mine had to plant a TF in a field when the
thing caught fire and the canopy wouldn't leave. One hook wouldn't
release. The touchdown shock finally fired the thing off, and as it
left one side of the canopy dipped down, killing his copilot. My
friend crawled clear but got a broken back from the landing impact
(nosehigh slamdown - delta wing). 6 months later he was walking again.
Lucky to the max.
Walt BJ
Gordon
> On May 11, 6:49 pm, Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:> On May 11, 6:12 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Gordon, could you really use ASW torpedoes against surface ships?
> >SNIP
> > As for using the torpedoes themselves against their capital ships -
> > they wouldn't have done much more than bend their props! Mk-46s were
> > not very deadlly.
> >Gordon
>
> SNIP:
> If the Mk 46 could take out a single blade that would help: if a covey
> of 46s took out just one blade on each of the props that boat would be
> in a world of hurt. t'd ne Vibe City in any revs at all.
>
> BTW didn't the A7 simply punch the nose gunner out through the canopy?
I only met the A-7 guys after they completed the act :) Flailers one
and all.
> I know the top of the seat had a canopy buster on it. And FWIW the
> Lockheed C2 seat on our F104As would fire you out through the canopy
> if it failed to go on time. (ISTR the seat fired 1/2 second after the
> canopy jettison system.) Again, the top of the seat back was higher
> than one's helmet top. On the F/TF102A, if the canopy stuck, you were
> screwed. A good friend of mine had to plant a TF in a field when the
> thing caught fire and the canopy wouldn't leave. One hook wouldn't
> release. The touchdown shock finally fired the thing off, and as it
> left one side of the canopy dipped down, killing his copilot. My
> friend crawled clear but got a broken back from the landing impact
> (nosehigh slamdown - delta wing). 6 months later he was walking again.
Woof :(
BTW, I can never remember but I know you'd know, was it the Martin-
Baker that was called the "Cut/Clean/&Dress"?
yf Gordon
WaltBJ
> BTW, I can never remember but I know you'd know, was it the Martin-
> Baker that was called the "Cut/Clean/&Dress"?
> yf Gordon
>
>
>>>>Thank God for Martin-Baker, though. I sent them a report of the incident and they sent me back a very nice M-B company tie. I also got a piece of the airplane's aluminum structure, although it's sort of twisted and melted. FWIW some yoyo up at Ogden AMA left a large ball of typhoon tape in number 2 fuel cell fifteen months prior It chose our flight to block the gravity transfer port between #2 and #1 cells. Since the quantity probe and low-level float are in 2, and 2 never got low, when 1 ran dry the engines quit with 3000# fuel on the gauge. Because they made 5.500 F4s, 67-240 only (!) cost 2,236,000 bucks. BTW I got to keep the chute - ones used in emergency jumps are never reused. (All the luck used up?) Seriously, it's because the exact dynamic conditions at opening are not known. But there wasn't much opening shock at all. We left at glide speed, 215 KIAS, and the seat has a drogue chute to stabilize and decelerate teh seat. Very good engineering, indeed. And the latest seats are even better yet.
Walt BJ
WaltBJ
early seats had too high a G-onset: the seat hit you like hammer with
something like 15 G Right Now. Compression fractures were kind of
routine. Worse were the guy who squeezed the handle expecting an
instant bang. But the canopy had to get out of the way, and with the
adrenalin in charge time slows 5 times or more. They'd look down to
make sure they had the right handle and Bang the seat would fire and
now with a crook in their spine they were severely wrenched.
>>>The early F111 capsule was weird; guys got hurt in that because it would really tighten all the straps just before firing teh catapult and somehow crook the spine and then Bang the G was hard and fast.
>>>FWIW the seat is thrust out by an initial powder charge burning in a tube about 4 feet long attached to the seat riding around (in?) another tube attached to the airplane. The powder gases force the tubes apart, flinging the seat out of the airplane. Telescoping the 'cannon barrels' extended the thrust distance almost 2X and let the ejection G drop to around 8 thus sparing vertebrae. It's still enough to make your upper eyelids close, though.
>>>Just about all seats have a rocket booster under the seat pan that is ignited by a lanyard attached to the airplane. About the time the tubes separate the rocket fires and up you go, 250 feet with an MB H7E. Yes, you can hear the rocket hissing loudly as you boost upward. It only burns a few seconds, 3 or 4 or so. Right after it stops burning the drogue chute is deployed with an audible click. A few seconds after that the main chute deploys, yanking one out of the seat.
FWIW 'Cut Slice and Dice" sounds like something an F7U Cutlass would
have had aboard . . . .
Walt BJ
Alan Dicey
> Gordon - I never heard of any seat called 'Cut Clean and Dress'. The
> early seats had too high a G-onset: the seat hit you like hammer with
> something like 15 G Right Now. Compression fractures were kind of
> routine. Worse were the guy who squeezed the handle expecting an
> instant bang. But the canopy had to get out of the way, and with the
> adrenalin in charge time slows 5 times or more. They'd look down to
> make sure they had the right handle and Bang the seat would fire and
> now with a crook in their spine they were severely wrenched.
The earliest seats had explosive charges, modern seats have rocket
packs, which are less abrupt.
http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/Articles/seat_history.htm
http://www.ejectionsite.com/
Gordon
> Gordon - I never heard of any seat called 'Cut Clean and Dress'.
Sorry, Walt - I should have included the background with my question.
During my early days before getting a rating, I was sent through
dozens of schools and workshops, including a short course in ejection
seat safety and arming procedures. The instructor loathed one
particular seat - he said if you were standing over it and
inadvertantly activated some part of it, the seat itself had the
ability to NOT fire, so you'd just get a drogue shot upward. The
story (which I assume is a "sea story") was that the metal plug at the
top shot upwards and through a plane captain's skull, with the drogue
chute surgically implanted into the guy's head. Supposedly, when this
occurred, the guy didn't even bleed, hence the "cut clean & dress"
comment. The mental image always stuck in my head (cof) after that.
Does that sound like any particular ejection seat, or was the
instructor just flappin' his gums?
v/r Gordon
Greasy Rider
"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:1179001021....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I was aboard the Independance in 1959 when a seat fired on the hanger deck
while a plane captain was straddling the cockpit facing aft.
That is exactly what happened to him.
Gordon
Geez... now I'll NEVER get that mental image out of my head.
Dan
Back in the 1970s there was a story going around about a man who
found out his wife was cheating and suicided by popping himself into the
ceiling of a hangar with an ejection seat. The version I heard was it
was at Shaw. Sounds like an urban legend to me.
There was an accident at Hahn AB, West Germany, in the 1970s where a
LOX bottle popped on an F-4E. The LOX bottle is directly below the back
seat. The photograph of the GIB's brain bucket, with his head still in
it, on the ground behind the tail is something I will never forget. If
memory serves it happened inside a TAB V. It happened not long before I
got there so I never met the man.
Gordon
At NAS Cecil Field (outside of Jax, FLA), we had a hangar with a
noticiable dent in the ceiling -- said dent was pointed out as the
result of someone effin' around in a cockpit without having safed the
seat. These are the lessons we learn from, I guess.
v/r
Gordon
Pat Flannery
Gordon wrote:
>> but doesn't have an engine industry capable of producing Pegasus
>> engines (which is the sort of thing they really wanted - according to
>> same chap),
That's the case; Yakolev's original designs owed a lot to the Harrier
layout, but no big VTOL engine quashed that idea;
The Yak-36 "Freehand" owed a lot to our Bell X-14 VTOL concept.
After the end of the Cold War, some of Yak's whiz kids came to work for
Lockheed, and you can see a lot of their input in the F-35, particularly
in the swiveling tail nozzle, like was going to be used on the Yak-141
Freestyle.
>> then you just have to do your best. I understand that the
>> F-35B will also have an AES. Punching straight through the canopy is
>> about the only option if there's no airspeed to clear the canopy out of
>> the ejection path really quickly. I have put my personal trust in the
>> Harrier canopy MDC and seat canopy-breakers to do their job if required.
>> I take the point about auto versus pre-meditated ejection, but decent
>> arm/leg restraints should help with that and it's not really different
>> being auto-ejected compared to unwarned command-ejected (as several
>> ocupants of two-seat fast-jets have been). Mind you, I've just looked
>> at a picture of me sitting in an early-model Yak38 and there's no sign
>> of MDC on the canopy. Big breakers on the seat head-box! Maybe this was
>> a deficiency that got corrected later. Bet they never changed the
>> "delightful" cockpit interior paint colour though.
>>
Pale blue-gray? That was pretty much the standard color for Soviet cockpits.
Did he explain what the green undersides on the Yak-38 are all about?
Heat protection of some sort?
>> That said, I'm given to understand that most pilots
>> refused to arm the AES when the jet entered service. The Navy command
>> structure apparently did not force the issue, since the pilots really
>> were that suspicious of the thing. However, after plenty of pilot losses
>> in situations where the AES would have saved those pilots, opinion
>> changed and arming the AES became SOP.
>> The one example I actually saw flying stayed serviceable
>> throughout (at least to an extent that allowed it to finish it's display
>> slot). However I've seen a video of one crashing from a stable hover
>> after an uncommanded lift-engine shut-down. I watched this video in the
>> apartment of the then Chief Test Pilot at Zhukovsky, who was the chap
>> filmed dangling under the chute in that video, courtesy of the AES. He
>> said that being lobbed out of the jet was the first hint he'd had of
>> trouble and that he would be dead if not for the AES. Having seen the
>> timing of events between him leaving the jet and the jet being upside
>> down on the ground in a big fireball, and noted not the vaguest external
>> hint of trouble prior to ejection, I'm inclined to agree with him. His
>> arms and legs, though I did not inspect them closely, appeared
>> distinctly un-shredded.
>>
Assuming they did use some sort of auto-retract system for your
arms...and you are holding onto the control stick... :-)
>
> Can you please give us more?? I am very interested in the information
> and viewpoints that you have on this subject.
>
>
Me too; this is really fascinating stuff.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Gordon wrote:
>
> ASROCs are essentially torpedo-tipped missiles; our juvenile plan was
> to fire the whole launcher's worth directly into the opposing ship
> from point-blank range -- hey, it was a last ditch solution, we never
> knew if it would work or not, but it sure seemed like a viable
> solution to just dying with a whimper.
Why don't you shoot them with the other thing an ASROC can
carry...believe me, that will sink them. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
WaltBJ wrote:
> And FWIW the
> Lockheed C2 seat on our F104As would fire you out through the canopy
> if it failed to go on time. (ISTR the seat fired 1/2 second after the
> canopy jettison system.) Again, the top of the seat back was higher
> than one's helmet top.
That original downward firing seat on the F-104 was fairly odd; there's
load of information on ejection seats of all types over here:
http://www.ejectionsite.com/
The seats themselves are reachable from this page:
http://www.ejectionsite.com/frame_sg.htm
> On the F/TF102A, if the canopy stuck, you were
> screwed. A good friend of mine had to plant a TF in a field when the
> thing caught fire and the canopy wouldn't leave. One hook wouldn't
> release. The touchdown shock finally fired the thing off, and as it
> left one side of the canopy dipped down, killing his copilot. My
> friend crawled clear but got a broken back from the landing impact
> (nosehigh slamdown - delta wing). 6 months later he was walking again.
> Lucky to the max.
>
There was a U-2 pilot who went to eject through the canopy at high
altitude and just bounced off of it.
The plastic the canopy was made of became harder in extreme cold, and
Lockheed hadn't taken that into account when designing how much umph the
seat had.
Pat
Gordon
> > ASROCs are essentially torpedo-tipped missiles; our juvenile plan was
> > to fire the whole launcher's worth directly into the opposing ship
> > from point-blank range -- hey, it was a last ditch solution, we never
> > knew if it would work or not, but it sure seemed like a viable
> > solution to just dying with a whimper.
>
> Why don't you shoot them with the other thing an ASROC can
> carry...believe me, that will sink them. :-)
Why, whatever do you mean, Pat? <blink, blink>
Seriously, we were stationed in Japan - there were no other 'things'
in the magazine. We were lucky to have those! :\
v/r Gordon
Pat Flannery
Dan wrote:
>
> Back in the 1970s there was a story going around about a man who
> found out his wife was cheating and suicided by popping himself into
> the ceiling of a hangar with an ejection seat. The version I heard was
> it was at Shaw. Sounds like an urban legend to me.
This sounds like a variant version of the accidental He-162 ejection
years after the war story.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Gordon wrote:
>
> Why, whatever do you mean, Pat? <blink, blink>
>
> Seriously, we were stationed in Japan - there were no other 'things'
> in the magazine. We were lucky to have those! :\
>
It would be interesting to see what a 10 kt blast would do to a warship
if detonated directly against it (until I looked the W-44 up, I had no
idea it was that powerful, I was expecting something in the 3-5 kt
range... it's going to really memorable when that underwater shockwave
slams into the launching ship's hull). I'll bet the Russian ships had
some atomic goodies along.
Pat
Paul J. Adam
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
>It would be interesting to see what a 10 kt blast would do to a warship
>if detonated directly against it
A 10kT weapon will produce a fireball about 300m in diameter, which is
likely to leave very little of the targeted ship...
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Andrew Robert Breen
Paul J. Adam <mai...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <134g3k0...@corp.supernews.com>, Pat Flannery
><fla...@daktel.com> writes
>>It would be interesting to see what a 10 kt blast would do to a warship
>>if detonated directly against it
>
>A 10kT weapon will produce a fireball about 300m in diameter, which is
>likely to leave very little of the targeted ship...
Or, in the circumstances described, much left of the targeting ship
either. Not that would change the probable lifetime of the frigate and its
crew by more than a few minutes, of course :(
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Gordon
> In article <BkeqjKHmaFSGF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul J. Adam <main...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <134g3k0hc4pt...@corp.supernews.com>, Pat Flannery
> ><flan...@daktel.com> writes
> >>It would be interesting to see what a 10 kt blast would do to a warship
> >>if detonated directly against it
>
> >A 10kT weapon will produce a fireball about 300m in diameter, which is
> >likely to leave very little of the targeted ship...
>
> Or, in the circumstances described, much left of the targeting ship
> either. Not that would change the probable lifetime of the frigate and its
> crew by more than a few minutes, of course :(
But we'd have earned our place at the Big Table, wouldn't we? We
brainstormed things like this constantly, the whole time we were with
their battlegroup.
v/r Gordon.
Andrew Robert Breen
Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
>On May 14, 5:43 am, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>> In article <BkeqjKHmaFSGF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
>> Paul J. Adam <main...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <134g3k0hc4pt...@corp.supernews.com>, Pat Flannery
>> ><flan...@daktel.com> writes
>> >>It would be interesting to see what a 10 kt blast would do to a warship
>> >>if detonated directly against it
>>
>> >A 10kT weapon will produce a fireball about 300m in diameter, which is
>> >likely to leave very little of the targeted ship...
>>
>> Or, in the circumstances described, much left of the targeting ship
>> either. Not that would change the probable lifetime of the frigate and its
>> crew by more than a few minutes, of course :(
>
>But we'd have earned our place at the Big Table, wouldn't we? We
By all the infernal gods, you would!; and royally at that. You'd have been
right up there with _Shark_ and _Glowworm_ (or, if you'd missedor it had
fizzled, _Good Hope_...). The bravest of the brave. Please don't read my
comments as any disparagement of you - it was meant in entirely the
opposite sense.
>brainstormed things like this constantly, the whole time we were with
>their battlegroup.
I bet you did. I recall overhearing a conversation during an (evening,
unofficial) ship-visit with my father in the early '70s (when I was - what
- 7 or 8 - small enough to be below the radar..) when the officers of the
ship were chatting to my father about how they'd engage a _Kashin_ with
the mighty weapons of their type 14 frigate[1]
[1] Try and straddle her with Limbo while sweeping her decks with Bofors
fire... Gulp. They'd have died if it had happened, but they'd have died
bravely - same as the Soviet sailors on those cruisers with stern-facing
missile tubes which were tasked to shadow US 'carrier would have done.
Amazingly, 'most people got through those years..
Paul J. Adam
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>I bet you did. I recall overhearing a conversation during an (evening,
>unofficial) ship-visit with my father in the early '70s (when I was - what
>- 7 or 8 - small enough to be below the radar..) when the officers of the
>ship were chatting to my father about how they'd engage a _Kashin_ with
>the mighty weapons of their type 14 frigate[1]
>
>[1] Try and straddle her with Limbo while sweeping her decks with Bofors
>fire... Gulp.
Though it has to be said, Limbo tended to be kept until last in a
SINKEX, because while it might have been reasonably suicidal to get
close enough to engage a resisting surface unit, if you fired and were
on target the results were rather dramatic...
But then, I've kept - and look for an opportunity to use - this little
dit:-
"In '40-'42 my father was in Egret, 1200 ton sloop, four twin 4". Orders
were that if their convoy was attacked by a cruiser, pocket battleship
or above then they'd order convoy to scatter and they and the two
smaller,
older sloops would make smoke and close. guns to load SAP and fire
at rangefinders and turret bases."
>They'd have died if it had happened, but they'd have died
>bravely - same as the Soviet sailors on those cruisers with stern-facing
>missile tubes which were tasked to shadow US 'carrier would have done.
It complicates the tactical picture when you cannot rely on your
adversary to rationally calculate the odds and decide "we'd be doomed,
best fcuk off home rather than fight". Okay, so you can _probably_ stop
them doing much damage... you hope...
The first hope is that you never find that sort of courage required. The
second, is that if necessary you follow the tradition...
>Amazingly, 'most people got through those years..
Trouble is, back then at least we knew who the Bad Guys were and had
obvious levels of "nobody shoot at anyone", "only shoot if _this_
happens" and "Global Thermonuclear War!"
We're less likely to stumble into Armageddon today, but life's a lot
less safe and routine at the business end for our forces.
Andrew Robert Breen
><a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>>I bet you did. I recall overhearing a conversation during an (evening,
>>unofficial) ship-visit with my father in the early '70s (when I was - what
>>- 7 or 8 - small enough to be below the radar..) when the officers of the
>>ship were chatting to my father about how they'd engage a _Kashin_ with
>>the mighty weapons of their type 14 frigate[1]
>>
>>[1] Try and straddle her with Limbo while sweeping her decks with Bofors
>>fire... Gulp.
>
>Though it has to be said, Limbo tended to be kept until last in a
>SINKEX, because while it might have been reasonably suicidal to get
>close enough to engage a resisting surface unit, if you fired and were
>on target the results were rather dramatic...
/Terminally/ impressive to the recipient, I'd imagine. Limbo was a scary
bit of kit..
>But then, I've kept - and look for an opportunity to use - this little
>dit:-
>
>"In '40-'42 my father was in Egret, 1200 ton sloop, four twin 4". Orders
>were that if their convoy was attacked by a cruiser, pocket battleship
>or above then they'd order convoy to scatter and they and the two
>smaller,
>older sloops would make smoke and close. guns to load SAP and fire
>at rangefinders and turret bases."
Y'know, that bit seems oddly familiar ;)
>>They'd have died if it had happened, but they'd have died
>>bravely - same as the Soviet sailors on those cruisers with stern-facing
>>missile tubes which were tasked to shadow US 'carrier would have done.
>
>It complicates the tactical picture when you cannot rely on your
>adversary to rationally calculate the odds and decide "we'd be doomed,
>best fcuk off home rather than fight". Okay, so you can _probably_ stop
>them doing much damage... you hope...
Absolutely - and particularly if you know that the next bugger you meet,
and the one after that are going to go at you in the same manner.
>The first hope is that you never find that sort of courage required. The
>second, is that if necessary you follow the tradition...
My father was always very insistant that the reason they'd got away with
it - the once in _Egret_ they turned to close something large and hostile
(what they'd identified as a big aux. raider, though the location of the
contact doesn't seem to correspond to the known positions of any of the
aux. raiders... - it might have been a blockade runner or supply ship) -
and the several times he was in solo engagements in an ML against multiple
S-boats - was that King's ships had always turned to fight, regardless of
the odds, and that word of this had got about..
>>Amazingly, 'most people got through those years..
>
>Trouble is, back then at least we knew who the Bad Guys were and had
>obvious levels of "nobody shoot at anyone", "only shoot if _this_
>happens" and "Global Thermonuclear War!"
Yup.
>We're less likely to stumble into Armageddon today, but life's a lot
>less safe and routine at the business end for our forces.
And thrice yup..
WaltBJ
1,. When I was a corporal fixing radios on the line at Big Spring TX
(1952) some jeep managed to fire a seat in a T33 parked in the old
hangar down by the flightline cafe. He bounced off the rafters and
landed on the rudder. Don't know which impact killed him but dead he
was.
2. That F35 swiveling nozzle is a giant example of the adjustable
stovepipe angle piece used on wood stoves since I don't know when. I
saw them as a kid up in Alaska before WW2. And some German aircraft
company had one on a jet engine for a VTOL oh maybe 40 years ago. So
'Ivan' didn't invent it after all.
3. The worst seat ever put in service was the F106 'B' seat designed
for ejection at M 2.0. It had spurs, D ring, and when activated
encapsulated the pilot, ran the capsule up into the airstream, flipped
the capsule on its back, extended two long stbilizing booms and off it
went. I was down at Tyndall AFB FL when they did an inspection and
something like 50% of the B seats wouldn't have fully worked. I know
of one 'ejection' where the oil system failed, the pilot finally shuit
down the engine (bad vibration) and tried to eject. His feet got
yanked back and that was it - no more action. He deployed the RAT and
dead-sticked the Six into a farmer's freshly plowed field and when it
all stopped he tried to get out. The cables were still connected to
his spurs and they caused him to fall headfirst over the side,
breaking an ankle in the process. When the farmer got there he managed
to free the pilot who by now had a pretty dim view of Convair, 106s
and the B seat. Soon the B seats were history and the Six got a
regular (reliable) ejection seat.
Walt BJ
Ralph_S
> Harrier or Yak-38, who's gonna win the performance test. I think
> Harrier is better, maybe, because of my research. first of all Harrier
> is still in production but by various variants. While Yak is no match
> for it's efficiency. The only good thing in Yak is its thrust vector
> nozzle.
I'm sure you've gathered by now that the comparison isn't particularly
fair.
The AV-8B is considerably newer and was designed for a different
mission.
A somehwat fairer comparsion would be between the Yak-38 Forger and
the British Sea Harrier FRS.1
Both were shipborne STOVL fighters that entered service in roughly the
same timeframe. In pretty much every respect the Sea harrier was the
superior aircraft.
By all accounts, the Yak-38 was pretty much hopeless. It carried only
a primitive radar, could carry only a very small payload, and had a
short range. It also had a phenomenal accident rate. I've heard it
referred to as a moral support aircraft. It's pretty obvious that the
configuration chosen for the yak-38, with two seperate lift engines,
was very troublesome. There's a massive weight penalty and complexity.
If any one of three engines failed (and neither was particularly
reliable), that was the end of the aircraft. the best thing about it
was the ejection seat!
The Sea Harrier was a different beast altogether. Although -like the
yak-38, it didn't carry any BVR missiles, at least it had a decent
radar. The direct lift option with the Pegasus engine worked like a
charm and while it was subsonic, aircraft performance wasn't too
dissimilar from, for instance, a late model Skyhawk. As for its
capabilities (and those of the all aspect sidewinders it carried) -ask
the Argeninians.
Cheers,
Ralph