Weapons
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

SR71
 

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?

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.

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

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

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

Ingress- tick

Egress-

UK Strike Force ... Need I say more?

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

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.

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

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

Well, the Thread IS called "Weapons" !
 

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:

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.

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.

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/...a7&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

What is it ?
 

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.