You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I couldn't find the old cold war jets thread, but I came across this and thought some others might like a lock down read....
I like this picture because it reminds me that the coolest jets were designed 60 years ago. In 1940, wood and canvas biplanes were still common, 20 years later, they were designing Mach 3 aircraft. 60 years later, it's all about stealth, not speed and we ugly pigs like the F35.
This picture of the YF 23 (much cooler looking plane than the F22) brings that home - super futuristic but covered in mould and cobwebs!
I also have a soft spot for the YF 32...
YF 32
Does anybody else see Olaf?
Now that is one pug-ugly jet, although apparently it was the better of the two options.
Aesthetics, innit!
Olaf wasn't chosen because it would have been laughed at.
Now that is one pug-ugly jet
Is it case that the early stuff had to be able to be flown by the pilot? So they are sleek and balanced.
The new aircraft are build to carry what they need and then use control computers to make them "flyable"? Without which they would be uncontrollable?
Now that is one pug-ugly jet
Here's the champ, still flying.
"If it looks right it flies right"
As amazing as some of the technical innovations in aviation have been there are always traditionalist who decry different designs because the go against the rules (a bit like road cycling)
The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.
The new aircraft are build to carry what they need and then use control computers to make them “flyable”? Without which they would be uncontrollable?
Not sure that has anything of anything to do with the appearance.
Is it case that the early stuff had to be able to be flown by the pilot? So they are sleek and balanced.
No. Some of the really sleek looking early jet were deathtraps. F100 and F104 for example. The F4 Phantom was never a beautiful looking aircraft, but seems to have a good reputation for not killing pilots.
XB-70 is a fascinating aircraft and, if you're on Instagram, its worth following romig21 who posts a lot focussing on the XB-70 (and Blackbirds) with a good bit of detail (interesting posts regarding the fatal crash with the F104)...
Modern fighters are designed to be unstable & the computers keep them flying where the pilot wants them to, more unstable basically means more manouverable.
From memory I think the XB70 crashed because the pilots couldn't raise their arms to reach/move the controls once it started to spin, due to the cockpit being so far ahead of the mass centre it created so much centripetal acceleration. A sexy machine though.
The stealth requirements of modern aircraft means all or most of the stores have to be carried internally so that makes them appear more bloated and fatter than previous aircraft where stealth was a much lesser concern. Also with advancements in stand off weapons and integration into a wider network manoeuvrability is not as important as it once was as the chances of a dogfight are very slim...which leads people to assume the F35 is crap because its not as manoeuvrable as an F15 or F16, though in reality that was never the intention and its far more lethal. Ultimately it depends on how you define 'Better'.
The 50's and 60's was a fascinating era in aviation but was as much if not more about development and R&D and political willy waving in the fight to be the biggest superpower, rather than producing decent and effective aircraft. I suspect if the XB70 had entered into service it would have been a pretty useless thing in the event of a real war.
The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.
There is a YouTube vid of Senator McCain ridiculing a general in a hearing suggesting A10's should be phased out with B1's providing close ground support.
Also with advancements in stand off weapons and integration into a wider network manoeuvrability is not as important as it once was as the chances of a dogfight are very slim…which leads people to assume the F35 is crap because its not as manoeuvrable as an F15 or F16, though in reality that was never the intention and its far more lethal.
Sure, but it's pig ugly. If I was Minister of Defense, jets would still have to look cool.
There is a YouTube vid of Senator McCain ridiculing a general in a hearing suggesting A10’s should be phased out with B1’s providing close ground support.
here you go, i quite enjoyed that - syaing it how it is..
Russia's effort at a Dan Dare / Thunderbirds mega-bomber
Myasishchev M-50 'Bounder'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50
Now where's a TSR-2 when you want one....
deathtraps. F100 and F104 for example
Just leaving this here...
Now where’s a TSR-2 when you want one….
Eventually re-invented as a Tornado.
From memory I think the XB70 crashed because the pilots couldn’t raise their arms to reach/move the controls once it started to spin
The aircraft crashed due to the lack of vertical stabilisers, both ripped off by the 104. The issue with their arms meant that neither aircrew could operate their ejector seats. The aircraft was doomed as soon as the F104 made contact, and so ended the chapter of a beautiful aircraft, and one way ahead of it's time. Some of the photos on that IG account show beautifully the scale of it against the SR71.
It's also a sobering thought that this was just a photo-shoot for a promo brochure.
I had (well still have somewhere) an "Observer's Book of Aircraft" from the year dot. By far the coolest looking aircraft in it is the Myasishchev Bounder.
IIRC approx 330 English Electric Lightnings were built, 89 RAF Lightnings were lost due to accidents. Note that this includes the T5 that crashed in South Africa in 2009, but does not include Kuwaiti or Saudi Lightnings.
Of the 571 Eurofighter Typhoons built, 10 have been lost. Of these, two were lost in a mid-air collision, one due to pilot error and another on a combat mission due to "technical issues", one overran the runway on landing.
Quite aside from the quantum leap in the pilot's situational awareness, range, armament capability, AI the progress made in safety is staggering.
Ok, this is controversial, but I always thought the TSR2 was ugly as well. I accept that it could have done great things for the British aero industry, and was killed by Govt incompetence (sound familiar?), but it was beaten with an ugly stick and nothing to look at.
The A10 is a formidable machine, mainly due to the firepower but also the fact that it is slow, giving it increased value for CAS. In the wrong hands though it goes very wrong very quickly
Myasishchev M-50 ‘Bounder’
I like a Backfire-B too. A bargain-basement B-1.
Always thought the XB70 had been designed by Gerry Anderson!
The issue with their arms meant that neither aircrew could operate their ejector seats
Not quite. The pilot made it out, the co-pilot didnt
The early Cold War jet that would have ruled the world had politics and some per dubious tactics by Lockheed not got in the way
The Saunders Roe Sr.53 and SR.177
https://images.app.goo.gl/rjsT45SdRBbonS968
This seems like a good opportunity to post this, an interview with an SR-71 pilot which I read very recently.
https://hushkit.net/2020/12/24/declassified-spying-at-mach-3-our-interview-with-sr-71-blackbird-pilot-reveals-how-us-lured-north-korea-to-shoot-missiles/
It’s a fascinating read, and gives a lot of extra background info that I’m not sure has been published elsewhere.
The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.
I know a couple of A-10 pilots, it was apparently an absolute hoot to fly.
This was a good read on the Avro Arrow, which seems to mirror the fate which befell the TSR2
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200615-the-record-breaking-jet-which-still-haunts-a-country
This seems like a good opportunity to post this, an interview with an SR-71 pilot which I read very recently.
I remember seeing a brief interview with a SR71 pilot in a Concorde documentary. He was cruising along, comfortably above the speed of sound, at whatever mental height they flew at, when ATC asked him to change height as a Concorde was coming through. He smiled to himself that he and his co-pilot were essentially sitting in spacesuits, peeing into a tube, and the people in the plane flying as high, and faster, than them were sipping gins and tonic...
It could have done great things for the British aero industry,
it did do wonders, none of the research or advances in technology were wasted. As is pointed out up thread, the Tornado is essentially “next generation TSR2”
@CountZero that Blackbird interview was excellent.
I like Sled Driver but Brian Shul can be a bit much at times.
it did do wonders, none of the research or advances in technology were wasted. As is pointed out up thread, the Tornado is essentially “next generation TSR2”
In the '50's and '60's we invested a huge and unaffordable amount of our national GDP in R&D in aircraft and nuclear power and weapons, not for any long term ambition to retain our own domestic capability in any of those areas, but to make sure we were taken seriously by the US and secured a seat at the top table on the global stage, and in that aim the strategy was successful. The US were all set to ditch us until we developed our own nuclear bomb capability and when we lead the world in Aviation technology. We knew our empire was dwindling, we didn't have the economic or political will to do what it would have taken to become a stand alone super power again, but didn't want to be relegated down to the status of the minor countries scrabbling around for the scraps and largely ignored and uninfluencial on the geopolitical stage.
All our technology was fettered away to the US in exchange for US off the shelf products and us being a key player and influencer on the world stage.
didn’t want to be relegated down to the status of the minor countries scrabbling around for the scraps and largely ignored and uninfluencial on the geopolitical stage.
Probably a topic for a different thread, but why do we care so much about this? I think our notion that we are a big fish causes more problems than it fixes (look at the Iraq mess and Brexit, for a start, both have our idea of our inflated global importance at their heart)
People in power always want more power.
Quick have another pic (infographic) of some fancy American bombers carriers.
All our technology was fettered away to the US in exchange for US off the shelf products
if you have that view, it’ll blow your mind that without Direct US funding right from the get go, the Harrier would’ve died on the drawing board
I had no idea the Valkyrie was that big. It's bloody enormous and dwarfs the B1, which in itself is no Playmobil! Even the F15 is large as modern jets go, an F16 would be another good comparison as they're much more 'sports car'.
Am I right in thinking that the dropped wingtips were adjustable? Certainly looks like it in the photos of it in flight. I'd imagine the vortices given off by those wings were impossibly unique unpredictable, and certainly spelt doom for that F104 that strayed too close.
Quick have another pic (infographic) of some fancy American bombers carriers.
What's the betting the B52 will still (STILL!) be in service when the others are gone?
I had no idea the Valkyrie was that big. It’s bloody enormous and dwarfs the B1, which in itself is no Playmobil!
only 5 metres shorter than Concorde. No wonder they were considering launching space planes from it
Am I right in thinking that the dropped wingtips were adjustable? Certainly looks like it in the photos of it in flight.
Yep they could hinge downwards
That infographic above is a bit misleading, the B-2 may not be particularly long it is still pretty large, but its size is more about wingspan (almost as large as the B-52's) and its surface area than its length.
I was looking for cool B-58 Hustler videos when I cam across this story about the XB-70 that I'd read in Hunter S Thompson's piece on test pilots but had forgotten...
I've stood under the remaining XB-70 and it is a truly amazing aircraft for it's time. Looking at all 6 engines mounted in 1 big group at the rear reminds me of something out of Thunderbirds.
Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted an aircraft with the range/payload of the B-36 and the speed of the B-58....the result was the XB-70 Valkyrie.
Interesting fact.....
To reduce the aircrafts radar signature North American devised a special "finishing system", this consisted of gold plating almost every panel before the low emittance basecoat was applied.
Although the gold layer was only 0.00002-inch thick given the 17,000 square feet of surface area that meant 31.7 lbs of gold per aircraft!
I remember many years ago seeing a series of photos of the F-104 hitting the stabiliser of the XB-70, followed by the plane banking away out of control. Thinking about it, I’m sure my memory of those photos is pretty close to how they were, it’s possible it might have been in LIFE magazine.
Edit: This is a sequence of photos, just seconds after the impact.
Here’s a video explaining exactly what happened, including actual footage just before the accident - quite amazing to see that big bird flying.
The A-10 was hated by Air Force generals because it was ugly and slow, the pilots that flew it and the troops it supported on the other hand absolutely loved it.
Flown by ****wits who shoot anything that moves. The number of friendly fire incidents they are responsible for are legion
In combat completely dependent on no decent ground air defences being around, and total air superiority
Overhyped junk flown by National Guardsman
Flown by ****wits who shoot anything that moves. The number of friendly fire incidents they are responsible for are legion
If you look back at WW2 archives, you'll find that friendly fire incidents are nothing new.
In combat completely dependent on no decent ground air defences being around, and total air superiority
Same goes for helicopters and an F16, F15, F18, F35 etc. on a close air support mission.
That XB70 video is remarkable. Those stills of the Starfighter hitting it and shearing the verts off are amazing.
The number of friendly fire incidents they are responsible for are legion
Of the 10 blue on blue involving UK forces since the Korean war, 2 have been by A10s.
"Secrets in the Sky: The Untold Story of Skunk Works" is well worth a watch for anyone that hasn't seen it
Same goes for helicopters and an F16, F15, F18, F35 etc. on a close air support mission.
Not really, AH deploy as pop up targets giving very short engagement windows, FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
The reality is they are very vulnerable to any modern AD system. The standards they are operated to are very poor and the pilots are National Guard cowboys
But you know the internet says they are amazeballs
FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
Not if they're trying to strafe ground targets with a cannon. Important thing to remember is that the current conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in have zero need for air superiority fighters, but they do need something tough that can loiter around and deal with guys in pick-up trucks. An A10 can handle being hit by a .50 calibre machine gun. An F16 can't. It's also much cheaper to operate than an F35.
FGA have at least double the speed of an A10, again shortening the engagement windows.
waaaaaay back in the early 60s my dad was flying Hunters from Aden in support of marines and SAS in the Radfan campaign, even then the RAF realised that the speed of 1st Gen fighters made GS work really really hard, and recommended that a low speed relatively well protected airplane be developed for COIN work,
the USAF have deployed any number of airplanes in the role from the A-1 to the A37, to the OV-10 and the A-7, the A10 is just one more along that development line. Yes it’s vunerable to AD, but lots of airplanes are, which is why (in part) WW F-18s exist.
The standards they are operated to are very poor and the pilots are National Guard cowboys
of the 10 blue on blue in the 50 years since the Korean War, just one mission was flown by ANG pilots. So if you’re judging those pilots as cowboys then I guess the Army folklore about them is probably as real as Hans Christian fairy stories
Look around the world and you’ll see turbo props doing the A-10s job for other air forces. Speed isn’t always king
It has always been the case... A-1 SPAD for Vietnam, A-10 for the cold war and AFG and now the Tucano being re-rolled as the cheap alternative for CAP in the modern age where the need to suppress a modern air defense network is not required.
Let's be honest... War is expensive and modern, cutting edge planes are expensive to develop, produce and maintain. If you can get by using a turboprop rather than a turbine, it's cheaper. You can save the F-35s for chasing away Russians in the Baltic or in Alaska.
Not if they’re trying to strafe ground targets with a cannon.
Any competent AD operator will have downed you before you press the trigger. Using cannon your line of weapons release is too close, you will be unable to penetrate the ground defended area without being engaged (missile strike, not missile release) first
Why has the AH development pushed the "pop up", simple, slow moving aircraft are vulnerable to other aircraft and any modern AD system.
For the A10 it's even harder with the latest AD systems as they are developed to tackle the pop up AH threat and are significantly faster and have a shorter engagement time.
If you want to argue that operating with total air superiority, against pick up trucks, used for sweeping up "targets of opportunity" especially the ones with Hi Viz panels makes a great plane then fill your boots.
The yanks did get lucky in a way with the A10, it would have been a shit show in a USSR conventional attack into West Germany etc., assuming NATO didn't achieve air supremacy (which was never going to be likely) but for the conflicts it's been deployed in since it went into service it's worked very well. Sure it's also fortunate MANPADS never really became ubiquitous and still aren't widely deployed apart from in top tier armies.
As for AH64 vs A10 - the key difference is time on target and that's critical to many CAS missions. The AH64 is great at going out and destroying a pre-planned target and in short-duration CAS (e.g. once called in by infantry that are in trouble). But it can't loiter (or in-air refuel) like the A10 can, which you can just send out in a CAS role before the enemy is even engaged by ground forces, it's just there ready if/when you need it. It's also far more capable than just shooting up pick up trucks...
The yanks did get lucky in a way with the A10, it would have been a shit show in a USSR conventional attack into West Germany etc., assuming NATO didn’t achieve air supremacy (which was never going to be likely) but for the conflicts it’s been deployed in since it went into service it’s worked very well. Sure it’s also fortunate MANPADS never really became ubiquitous and still aren’t widely deployed apart from in top tier armies.
As for AH64 vs A10 – the key difference is time on target and that’s critical to many CAS missions. The AH64 is great at going out and destroying a pre-planned target and in short-duration CAS (e.g. once called in by infantry that are in trouble). But it can’t loiter (or in-air refuel) like the A10 can, which you can just send out in a CAS role before the enemy is even engaged by ground forces, it’s just there ready if/when you need it. It’s also far more capable than just shooting up pick up trucks…
No idea what most of this means, but I agree 100%.
As for AH64 vs A10 – the key difference is time on target and that’s critical to many CAS missions.
Totally dependent on air superiority and no decent ground AD systems in place. The AH64 can survive in a hostile AD world a lot better than an A10.
But you know, it works when nobody can effectively fire back
Any competent AD operator will have downed
any competent intelligence assessment would see the AD threat, and dictate air-Ops accordingly.
The AH64 can survive in a hostile AD world a lot better than an A10.
yeah...no. And while we’re at it, AH64s have been involved in as many blue in blue as A10s have...so by your own yardstick “the failures are legion”
especially the ones with Hi Viz panels
"They were rocket launchers, weren't they?..."
[shakes head in disbelief]
yeah…no. And while we’re at it, AH64s have been involved in as many blue in blue as A10s have…so by your own yardstick “the failures are legion”
I'm not the one having keyboard orgasms over YouTube clips of A10's
I'd put that clip of Blackadder discussing the British Army facing natives armed with guava fruit if I could, the similarities are striking
“They were rocket launchers, weren’t they?…”
You mean the "bright orange" rocket launchers used by armies the world over......
I’m not the one having keyboard orgasms over YouTube clips of A10’s
no, to be fair you’re not, but at the same time that it was involved in perhaps one of the worst friendly fire incidents of recent times also doesn’t make it a failure. FWIW I find the glorification of the capabilities of warplanes a bit distasteful regardless of what it is.
it was involved in perhaps one of the worst friendly fire incidents of recent times
Wasn't it an F16 that bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan? Let's scrap them too.
Totally dependent on air superiority and no decent ground AD systems in place
Which is the all the wars it's been deployed in, just because it's not good in certain situations doesn't mean it's not a good platform. It's like saying the AC-130 Spectre is crap because it's slow and vulnerable to modern AD systems - it is vulnerable but it's not used in those scenarios.
Aye and if I remember correctly wasn’t a fusilier shot by one of our own tanks? Better got rid of those as well
And I do believe that in the 15thC the Earl of Oxford was fired on by the Lancastrians as they mistook his banner for a Yorkist one.
we should probably do something about that as well
One thing that A-10s are undisputed masters of is turning 50% of all modern military aviation discussions into arguments about A-10s.
My limited understanding of these things suggests that a lot of close air support these days is not carried out in the manner that the A-10 was originally intended to operate. Instead of low level flying and gun attacks modern close air support involves a lot of mid altitude loitering and lobbing smart munitions at targets when requested. Lots of aircraft can carry out this sort of mission (e.g. B-1Bs carry out close air support missions, in addition to fighter-bombers like the F-15E and F-16 and attack aircraft like the A-10).
When air superiority is present (something that seems to be important for the A-10), probably one of the most important factors for aircraft performing this sort of mission should probably be operating costs. A-10s may well be cheaper to operate than many of the current crop of fast jets but they are still big old jets and they don't seem to be particularly cheap. This may be why the USAF (apparently reluctantly) did some trials involving cheaper to operate aircraft such as the Textron Scorption, the Super Tucano and the AT-6B. They killed off the program early last year though, the USAF does seem to be reluctant to give much attention to anything other than fast jets, whether the alternatives are A-10 shaped or not.
While mid-altitude close air support seems to be important the A-10's low altitude combat abilities do seem to still have a place, and I recall seeing reports from Afghanistan of the morale boost given to friendly troops and the demoralising effect on enemy forces from low level gun passes and the like. I recall also seeing it stated that because of the A-10's sole focus on close air support its pilots are often more skilled when it comes to its finer points and intricacies than the pilots of other types of aircraft. I'd have hoped that it would be possible to transfer those skills to other pilots if necessary, but that may be straying into the territory of fast jet snobbery again.
What it possibly comes down to is whether the USAF feels that the extra benefits provided by A-10s justify the need to keep supporting an ageing single role aircraft, with all the logistical and training hassle that brings. This determination seems to be made harder by USAF fast jet snobbery, but also by US pork barrel politics - I think historically the A-10's staunchest allies in Congress coincidentally represent areas with financial interests in keeping the A-10s flying.
In addition current Western military planning seems to be more focused on conflicts with "near peer" adversaries, rather than the asymmetrical/counter-insurgency conflicts that have been the focus for much of the past 20 years. The A-10 seems to have less of a place in a conflict with a near peer adversary, so there may be another push to finally retire it in the pipeline.
What it possibly comes down to is whether the USAF feels that the extra benefits provided by A-10s justify the need to keep supporting an ageing single role aircraft, with all the logistical and training hassle that brings.
The U.S. Army is basically prohibited from operating fixed wing aircraft, they are allowed to operate helicopters, but fixed wing aircraft are the U.S. Air Force's job, by act of Congress. The U.S.A.F love sportscars like the F15 and F16, the A10 is like a pick up truck. The U.S. Army want to keep the A10 flying, but the Air Force want to scrap it. The Army are prohibited by law from buying them from the Air Force because fixed wing aircraft are the job of the Air Force.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it but the sukhoi T4 is a comparable prototype to the Valkyre, a very interesting looking jet.
What's an A10?
It's it a tiny ISO standard paper airplane?
The chap flying the F104 was an X15 pilot, first chap to fly above 100km and a contemporary of Neil Armstrong.
Just watching that Sukhoi T-4 video and wondering where the bombs would go - that and the XB-70 have that central cluster of engines which would in my mind preclude packing a decent load on.
Anyway, found this about the -70 which I found interesting and maybe quite a good reason why the project never went anywhere...
