[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A better photo of the appearance of an OA-1K Skyriader II, complete with sensor pod and a pair of rocket pods, plus a bomb (?) under the right wing.

The OA-1K designation is ludicrous, as the aircraft has nothing to do with the A-1J Skyraider, which was retired ages ago.

Looks like the crop dusters that fly around here.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Looks like the crop dusters that fly around here.

Exactly right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The U.S. Air Force bought 180 T-1A pilot trainers. Of those, half have been retired, and the Air Force plans to retire the other half over the next year or two. VR and simulators will fill the void and prepare pilots for their final assignments.

Does this sound wrong to anybody else?

Have commented on the short-sitedness of this with some of my former USAF friends and the lack of direction the service seems to have. Now that the war is over they are heading into what it was like under Clinton or after Vietnam.

Also has anyone seen the latest on the KC-46A suffering from cracks even before it's delivered.

Boeing is seriously suffering in so many aspects.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Exactly right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802

Friend of mine died in one of those after hitting some power lines while
crop dusting at night. I’ve always thought night dusting was a bit crazy.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Have commented on the short-sitedness of this with some of my former USAF friends and the lack of direction the service seems to have. Now that the war is over they are heading into what it was like under Clinton or after Vietnam.

Also has anyone seen the latest on the KC-46A suffering from cracks even before it's delivered.

Boeing is seriously suffering in so many aspects.

Yes........ https://www.twz.com/air/cracks-in-kc...all-deliveries

[Llarry]

It's SIGINT Sunday! Virtually all nations with air forces have some capability for signals intelligence -- monitoring foreign radar or other electronic emissions or monitoring communications. I've discussed the U.S. capabilities and platforms in this area several times (Air Force RC-135, Navy EP-3 [now retired] and Navy MQ-4.

It can come as a surprise to no one that China is rapidly developing capabilities in this area. So far, they seem to have concentrated their efforts on two large four-engine turboprop transports -- the Shaanxi Y-8 (based on the Soviet/Russian Antonov An-12 NATO Cub) and the more modern Shaanxi Y-9. There are many versions of these two aircraft with specialized missions such as airborne warning and control, anti-submarine warfare and SIGINT. While China is also building Xi'an H-6 (NATO Badger) jet bombers in some numbers, I've not yet seen a SIGINT version.

I've also not seen a photo of a pure communications intercept version of either of the Chinese aircraft but note that frequently the various sub-categories of SIGINT are performed by the same platform.

The first photo is of a Shaanxi Y-8 ELINT version. These aircraft have been seen ranging widely in the Western Pacific in waters around Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. The second photo is of a Shaanxi Y-9 ELINT aircraft. Neither has the numerous blade antennas usually seen on a communications intercept platform, so they may be concentrating on adversary radar signals.

A fully mature air force would probably also need a large jet-powered platform and I've not yet seen such a SIGINT aircraft in the PRC Air Force or Naval Air Force. The obvious choice would be the Xi'an H-6 (NATO Badger), although a modified airliner would also be a possibility.

[Llarry]

Just two U.S. Marine Corps attack squadrons continue to fly the AV-8B Harrier. Both are stationed on the U.S. East Coast.

Here's the squadron commander's aircraft of VMA-231 with an impressive load of ten 500-pound bombs.

[Llarry]

The Boeing KC-46A seems to be in the news quite often -- and not in a good way.

It is worth considering that there are around 90 KC-46As in service, but there are 215 KC-135Rs and KC-135Ts in service at present, including active USAF, Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard aircraft.

The attached is a photo of a KC-135 based at RAF Mildenhall, UK.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Boeing KC-46A seems to be in the news quite often -- and not in a good way.

It is worth considering that there are around 90 KC-46As in service, but there are 215 KC-135Rs and KC-135Ts in service at present, including active USAF, Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard aircraft.

The attached is a photo of a KC-135 based at RAF Mildenhall, UK.

My brother was a crewman on a KC-135 back in the mid 70’s. On occasion,
they refueled the SR-71. I seem to recall him telling me recently that his
KC-135 is still flying today, but with better engines.

[3.0L]

[M5Rick]

Just in

Click on the u tube button.

[Llarry]

Myasishchev Monday!

The Soviet Union's (and later Russia's) high-altitude flyer was developed in great secrecy by Myasishchev in the 1950s.

The CIA was floating camera-equipped balloons at high altitude over the USSR and the Soviets were looking for a high-altitude aircraft to shoot them down. Myasishchev came up with Subject 34, which was a twin-boom aircraft that would be armed with a pair of air-to-air missiles and a pair of 23mm cannon in a dorsal turret.

The threat receded just as Subject 34 was readied for flight, as the U.S. now had reconnaissance satellites and had developed the Lockheed A-12 (later SR-71) and no longer used the balloons. Subject 34 was readied for flight anyway, but the single example was destroyed when it hit a hillside in poor visibility upon its first takeoff.

Taking a page from the American book, the design was revised as a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft designated the M-17 Stratosphera. The M-17 flew in 1982 and was named the Mystic by NATO. Very few -- perhaps only two? -- were built, but the M-17 was used to set a number of altitude records in 1990.

A further improved version, the enlarged and twin-engine M-55 Geophysica, was flown in 1988 and was also used to set a number of world altitude records (but in a heavier weight class than the American U-2). A dual-control trainer version was also developed, but only five M-55s total were manufactured. I do not know if any of the M-55s still fly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-55

I've been unable to find a photo of the original Subject 34.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

My brother was a crewman on a KC-135 back in the mid 70’s. On occasion,
they refueled the SR-71. I seem to recall him telling me recently that his
KC-135 is still flying today, but with better engines.

The CK-135Q was the Stratotanker variant that refueled the lead sled-- they were based out of Beale, but obviously did a *lot* of TDY.

R.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Have commented on the short-sitedness of this with some of my former USAF friends and the lack of direction the service seems to have. Now that the war is over they are heading into what it was like under Clinton or after Vietnam.

Also has anyone seen the latest on the KC-46A suffering from cracks even before it's delivered.

Boeing is seriously suffering in so many aspects.

If *only* there was another proven airframe that worked fine, carried almost twice the gas of the KC-135 and was retired for no good reason by a short-sighted, venal Congress in order to give Boeing more room at the trough with the KC-46.

(Not to mention that Boeing had to cook the competition TWICE with one of their employees going to jail for a bit in order to win.)

Oh, maybe something like the KC-10?

Naaaah-- that's crazy talk.

R.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

If *only* there was another proven airframe that worked fine, carried almost twice the gas of the KC-135 and was retired for no good reason by a short-sighted, venal Congress in order to give Boeing more room at the trough with the KC-46.

(Not to mention that Boeing had to cook the competition TWICE with one of their employees going to jail for a bit in order to win.)

Oh, maybe something like the KC-10?

Naaaah-- that's crazy talk.

R.

Sheer lunacy. Decent MICAP status as well. Proven performer and made for a comfy space A travel. Space A'd across the Pacific twice and twice across the Atlantic.

[M-technik-3]

Have not seen and 141 posts so here's the finni flight shot deom McGuire.



Wow been over twenty years now this was 16 sept 2004.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Have not seen and 141 posts so here's the finni flight shot deom McGuire.



Wow been over twenty years now this was 16 sept 2004.

The "Life-Sucking-Tube-Of-Pain".... or, the "Starlizard" (once they painted the Starlifter European green instead of grey and white).

Fun fact: A C-141A would out climb an F-4 through 10,000'.

When they stretched the A's into the B's (cutting the fuselage in two different places, adding ~23' worth of plugs and adding aerial refueling capability), they didn't even have to re-rate the engines-- it was *that* overpowered.

One of the coolest things I've ever seen was a four-ship of -141A models in diamond formation.

R.

[Llarry]

Myasishchev Tuesday? What? Well, I don't have much info on Myasishchev, so I'm going for it...

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the USSR needed a strategic bomber capable of reaching American targets with the large nuclear weapons of the era. Two design bureaus produced heavy bombers for the task. Tupolev produced the Tu-95 (NATO Bear) with four huge turboprops and Myasishchev produced the M-4 (NATO Bison) four engine jet bomber. Prototypes flew in the early 1950s and both were ordered into production.

The Myasishchev M-4 had greater speed and load-carrying capability that the Tu-95 but lacked the range of the Tupolev. That put many American strategic targets just out of range. Nevertheless, 125 were built by Myasishchev. Later models were updated with more powerful engines and given inflight refueling capability and designated 3M. Production ceased in 1963.

By comparison, over 500 Tu-95s were built.

Most M-4s and 3Ms were initially used as maritime reconnaissance and strike aircraft. Most were converted in the 1970s and 1980s to aerial tankers as Tu-95s took over the maritime missions. The Myasishchev tankers were retired in the 1990s, leaving the Tu-95s as the primary long-range bomber/missile carrier/maritime recon aircraft.

I'm confident other Myasishchev designs were made, but the Mystic and the Bison are the most important, so this concludes the Myasishchev Monday series.

Edit: Another photo of a M-4 or 3M completing aerial refueling. The system dumped about 300 liters of fuel at the end, leading to what we see in the last photo.

[Tommo3]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Just two U.S. Marine Corps attack squadrons continue to fly the AV-8B Harrier. Both are stationed on the U.S. East Coast.

Here's the squadron commander's aircraft of VMA-231 with an impressive load of ten 500-pound bombs.

Wonderful picture. Brings back memories of being an Engineer on the Harrier in Germany during the 1980s. Used to love living in the woods for a few weeks operating them.

[flybigjet]

LAX-DEN last night.

DEN had 50+ knot gusts with sleet and rain, resulting in a full ground stop.

A DAL flight coming in from the NW Gate had severe mountain wave-- -7000 VVI, +30/-20 on airspeed.

We came in from the SW Gate and it was an interesting ride.

Big picture on the chart? Colors are bad.

R.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

The CK-135Q was the Stratotanker variant that refueled the lead sled-- they were based out of Beale, but obviously did a *lot* of TDY.

R.

My brother was based at Beale. He got dad and me on the base so we could
see his airplane up close. While we were there we had the good fortune to
watch an SR-71 takeoff and a U-2 land. Loved it when a truck chased the
U-2 down the runway to grab the wingtip. Also, the area around the blast
fences smelled like the piss tubes we had in Vietnam. Really rank.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

On occasion,
they refueled the SR-71.

TRIVIA: I believe that it had to be a converted KC-135 with separate fuel tanks for the SR71 since it used JP-7 fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/prod...ray-heres-why/