Weapons

[Royalistflyer]

I'm interested in weaponry - we talk a lot about aircraft and what they can and can't do, but we do tend to leave weaponry aside sometimes.
Personally I don't at all expect the RAF to be facing Russian Air Force fighters. However they do sell their stuff to buyers who might turn out to be our adversaries. So how do we see this article, not bothering ourselves about who wrote it or their motives, what do we think of the "facts"?

Russian news: Russia Can Outshoot US' Stealth Jets (F-22 & F-35) - Russia Insider (http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_opinion/2014/12/06/11-09-16pm/pentagon_worries_russia_can_now_outshoot_us_stealth)

[Pontius Navigator]

If I wanted a new contract and more money for R&D I am not going to say that our kit is perfect.

I once read a series of reports, each should have been destroyed as it was replaced. Initially the threat was awe inspiring and shed loads of money was thrown at the problem. Then the threat was reassessed but the new aircraft were already budgeted and thus reassigned elsewhere.

As it happens they were really intended for such deployment but there was no money for that.

Don't underestimate the power of the US industrial/military complex.

[MPN11]

Back in the day, I was running a programme to see what the WP could actually do to damage our MOBs. When, post-ColdWar1, we had more data, we realised how useless the WP actually was at the time ... we had been working on 'pucker-factor' data.

I take Pontius Navigator's view in the spirit I think it was intended ... "Please give us more $Bn to address this issue". Although I do accept that there may be another side to that argument, of course.

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, of course.

The B70 was an outstanding example. Created to out fly fighters and SAM the Russians designed the Foxbat and finished up with a fighter that had no target.

In economic warfare terms that was a win for the US.

[27mm]

On the other hand, the recce version of Foxbat was an altogether more effective platform....

[Pontius Navigator]

27mm, as was the Foxhound, but without the threat would the Russians have wasted money on an aircraft that had no adversary in its operating zone until the SR71 came along.

The B70 was cancelled before the Foxbat first flight and about the time of the SR71. Did the Russians get lucky or did they know?

[Shaft109]

I know the U2 was totally top secret until shot down, but wasn't that Blackbird slightly known about i.e. not completely secret in it's early years?

[Pontius Navigator]

Shaft, the U2 was in the Observer's Book of Aircraft in 1957. Now whether the intelligence communities knew it's real purpose I don't know.

[Shaft109]

You learn something everyday, surely anyone with that book and a little thought would know it's true purpose just from the specs?

[MPN11]

U-2 = Long Range High Altitude Bomber, innit?

Just one Sunny Bomb, well above SAM envelope ... ahhh, I see a snag. :mad:

[Pontius Navigator]

Ingress- tick

Egress-

[MPN11]

UK Strike Force ... Need I say more?

But I don't have the bizarre psychotic mindset of the Kremlin.

[Shaft109]

Can see assumption can cloud your thoughts.

Since I've always known the U2 TR1 as a spy plane it never occurred to me it could be used as a bomber, bit like the F117 maybe.

One Nuclear weapon (the camera payload must weigh quite a bit) above the expected radar coverage creeping in.

[AreOut]

umm, U2 has been shot several times from various militaries using ancient SA-2 SAMs (designed right after WWII)

any modern SAM wouldn't have any problems taking it down with 99% efficiency as U2 isn't really maneuverable for evading rockets

about article..just a russian propaganda, US weapons are everything but obsolete and their electronics is still more advanced than russian albeit difference is getting smaller year by year

[LowObservable]

In the MiG history by Rostislav Belyakov (MiG-25 designer) a footnote states that the Soviets knew about the A-12 in 1960.

[Danny42C]

For the second time of asking on this Fountain of All Wisdom and Knowledge, what is the thing on poor Jumbo's back (recent "Capcom" entry") ? :confused:

[con-pilot]

In the MiG history by Rostislav Belyakov (MiG-25 designer) a footnote states that the Soviets knew about the A-12 in 1960.

Must have been a spy or a traitor working for Lockheed then, as the first flight of the A-12 was in 1962.

I can remember President Johnson announcing the existence of the A-12 in 1964, in a press conference. My father told me that Johnson was more or less forced to admit its existence due to sightings by civilian pilots, mostly airline, and what Air Traffic Controllers were seeing on their radar scopes off the coast of California.

[KenV]

On the subject of Stealth vs Electronic Attack (EA), USAF has long neglected EA. USN has always maintained an EA capability and USAF has been dependent on USN to provide EA for decades. USN's Growler and its upcoming EA suite have tremendous capability and it'll be interesting to see how the Stealth vs EA battle shapes up in the future.

As for Russia's EA capability, I'm not very familiar with it. But EA is a complex undertaking requiring specialized equipment and operators to do right. Both the Prowler and the Growler are dedicated EA platforms with multiple crew members specifically trained for EA. I hafta wonder if a single seat Sukhoi or MiG with its pilot trained for air to air engagements would be all that effective in a really intensive engagement. But again, that is speculation.

[jonw66]

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10428460_686944324687169_1543611810571235003_n.jpg?oh=428dbf e824c17d2d5572e5cb41e713a7&oe=54D1D3FAHi Pontius,
Danny is referring to this photo in the previous caption competition.
As this is a discussion of weapons he decided to raise it again here.
A little confusing if you do not follow the caption competition.
Cheers
Jon

[Danny42C]

jonw66,

jon,

Inspecting the picture carefully with magnifying glass, I observe that the weapon being operated by the US Army Corporal has a box-section shroud round the barrel which appears to be part of an air-cooling system. This runs from a tube staked to Jumbo's bum (looks painful, but, as I suppose, the fasteners do not go deep enough into the pachyderm for Jumbo to feel it, that must be all right). This tube also serves as the back leg of the tripod.

The other end of the tube leads into the bottom of the box, so with Jumbo stationary, convection might provide some cooling (and at elephant cruising speed, ram-effect a little more), but not enough to allow sustained fire. There is no sign of any possible water-cooling arrangement.

I suspect that the idea was originally meant for a front-firing gun in an aircraft (but then what would you do with the cotton belt coming out ?). It's all a bit odd.

All this is a distraction from the main question: what is on the other end of the barrel? A Browning of some sort ? (Wop/AGs and AGs, step forward !)

Or could it all be a concoted picture for some inter-war years "Caption Competition" ? :*

Danny.

[Pontius Navigator]

The position of the machine gun behind moving parts of the transporter would seem to pose a similar problem to early fighters firing through the prop.

Was there an interrupted device to prevent Fire through the manual handling device?

[MPN11]

That wasted at least 1/2 an hour. of my day :D

It appears to be a Colt-Browning M1895 ... M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun)

Indeed, if you Google "Colt Machine Guns", and click on the "Images" link, you will find Jumbo's photo ;)

[Danny42C]

MPN11,

Thank you for your painstaking research ! (YLSNED). I never knew that Browning made a gas-operated gun (thought they were all recoil-operated).

Obviously, the low rate of fire (one-third that of our WW2 aircraft Brownings) made the cooling problem much easier, but the gun much less suitable for high speed aircraft use.

When I went through ITW in June '41, they couldn't spare any Brownings for us to practise on, so we had to make do with the old Vickers "K" G.O. gun (don't think I could strip one down now, though !) But it was a good gun in its time, I'm told.

Cheers, Danny.

[NutLoose]

Danny, the BAR (Browing Automatic Rifle) used during WW2 and up to Nam was also gas operated :)

See

Gun Review: Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) - The Truth About Guns (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/foghorn/gun-review-browning-automatic-rifle-bar/)

[jonw66]

YLSNED
You learn something new every day.:)
Thanks Danny

[Danny42C]

Nutloose,

Thanks for the link !

The only rifles and LMGs I remember being generally used as infantry weapons in the British Army in WWII were the SMLE, the Bren, the Lewis gun, the Sten and Sterling (and some Thompson guns in Special Forces and the Home Guard). To be frank, I'd never heard of the BAR before, but it looks like a very useful bit of kit.

Wiki gives me:

List of common World War II infantry weapons> 32 United Kingdom>

Rifles

No. III Lee-Enfield
No. 4 Mk1 Lee-Enfield
Rifle No. 5 Mk I
Rifle, .303 Pattern 1914
De Lisle carbine
M1 carbine (limited)
Marlin Model 1894

Sub-machine guns

Sten - about 4 million produced from all sources
Lanchester
Thompson M1928, M1928A1, M1
Sterling Submachine Gun

(They describe the Bren - gas-operated- as a "Light Machine Gun")

In '46, after demob, I joined the TA Rifle Club in Southport (we fired on the Altcar Ranges). They loaned me a .303 "Ross" rifle which I kept at home (nobody bothered about it - I'm sure I had no kind of licence - but of course I had no ammo, that was issued only on the range, and every round accounted for). And they had an indoor range at the TA Drill Hall: Parker-Hale and Webley "Match Rifles" (Martini-Henry action, long .22 rim-fire cartridges).

Wiki describes the "Ross", but I'm sure mine didn't have the "straight-pull" bolt, just the same action as a SMLE, but it had only a five-round magazine.

As jonw66 says: YLSNED ! Cheers, Danny.

PS: At Altcar, I once won a "Spoon Shoot" competition (a tiny siver coffee cup spoon with 'crossed rifles' on the handle) - but that was all ! Kept it for years before it got lost. D.

[Hempy]

I think the 'tube arrangement' that appears to connect the barrel sheathing to the rear leg of the tripod is in fact the vertical traverse mechanism of said tripod. Interesting that the stops wouldn't really seem to fully protect poor Jumbos noggin with the barrel in the fully depressed position..

[Pontius Navigator]

And the Boys
Boys anti-tank rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle,_Anti-Tank,_.55_in,_Boys)

[LowObservable]

Con-Pilot - Not necessarily Lockheed. The program was much bigger than U-2 and involved subcontractors all over the place, and the GRU could hardly have missed it. Not to mention the sudden demand from P&W and LH for a metric ****ton of titanium and the tools needed to work with it.

[Boudreaux Bob]

The GRU had such a presence inside the United States?

Whatever would J Edgar have to say about that?

[Pontius Navigator]

B#gger me?