Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cold War Aviation Porn

It's quite small inside as well - I know little of the fun of flying it, but the idea that you could get 8 blokes and their gear in the the back is only realistic if the blokes and their gear had been liquidised first, and then poured into the cabin.

Watching the inside of it while it shook and rattled it's way across the sky did not inspire confidence - it was a rickety piece of shit...
 
Stretching the Cold War theme a bit. But I think it’s justified...

View attachment 185797

Al White started his career in the P-51D and later flew the XB-70 at M3.0+ until the paint started to come off.

xb70ship112_1024x1024.jpg
 
If you're seeing that, you'd have to be viewing it out of a hardened bunker's camera system for it to not be...
Passing through the clouds, that means that had they been live firing they would have been earth penetrators burying into the ground to dig out hardened shelters of nuclear missiles, a "counterforce strike".
Counterforce - Wikipedia

Your fate as to how many days to years you would live would likely depend on which way the wind was blowing.

The image above was a Peacekeeper test at Kwajalein Atoll, the missiles themselves were are now expended as launch vehicles for Orbital Science putting early small satellites into orbit.
Minotaur IV - Wikipedia
Though that market is now flooding with the likes of Arianespace and SpaceX co-launches and a host of new entrants like Rocketlabs and Virgins something or other (cant remember which name they are trading under at the minute, was Virgin Orbit at one point)
 
Two great rivals that would have had a big say had the cold war turned hot over the IGB

iVOHv.jpg


Merlion86_IMG_6550_%288295361527%29.jpg


(Had the check the Frogfoot image, most images of them have Russian rather than Soviet markings.)

Strangely enough other than the A-10 and the WW2 Henschel 129, I cant think of another airplane designed as a tank killer. That said aircraft were massively over rated as tank killers in WW2. After the Falaise Pocket the operations research teams went in and counted the tanks killed, finding very few had been taken out by aircraft (Typhoon and Thunderbolt pilots made really big claims), but the strafing runs had a massive moral sapping impact on soldiers and did kill a lot of soldiers and less well armored vehicles. Air forces can be dragged kicking and screaming to put some resources into close air support, but very few seem to have had a blank sheet of paper and said "how do we kill tanks".
 
There's a document floating about on the internets that shows the the much-vaunted gun was already ineffective against frontline tanks when the aircraft was introduced. Though it did make mincemeat of the older T-54/55/62, it needed a run from behind at the T-64 and T-72. That's not to say it wouldn't utterly shred everything else on the battlefield, but its reputation as "tank killer" is somewhat overblown. (though you could argue that's what the Mavericks were for) I think its reputation is based more around its durability than its weapon prowess.
 
there are three ways to kill tanks without having a 50% loss rate and taking forever.

1. establish air supremacy, blow up tanks from 15,000 feet with Paveways.

2. cut their fuels supplies. a tank without fuel is just a really shit, and short ranged, Artillery piece.

3. use a stand off, multi target system like Brimstone or JSOW.

the A-10 simply isn't capable of surviving on the modern battlefield, its too slow, and using the gun means having to make multiple passes - both are big no-no's. in COIN its no better than an F-16, its just a lot slower - this is a problem if you call out for CAS (close air support) and the nearest aircraft available to provide it is 100 miles away - if i scream for fire an F-16/Typhoon/F-15/F/A-18 will put his toes down and touch 1000mph, an A-10 will turn up five years later at 400mph. the gun isn't actually much use in COIN because of the size of its danger area - that means it difficult to use when you have troops in contact, as well as being politically difficult because of the proximity of civpop. for troops on the ground, as well as forward air controllers, a 500lb Paveway or JDAM - or a Hellfire/Brimstone - dropped off a fast jet at 15,000ft is infinately preferable to a gun run from an A-10. its more accurate, its less vunerable (if an A-10 comes in for a firing run you have to stop shooting at whatever is shooting at you and start shooting at anything that could shoot at the A-10), and its much more likely to be with you in 5 minutes than an A-10.

the only people who really rate it are A-10 mafia, and US politicians who know jack shit.

it would have been fantastic on the inner german border in 1986. go that way and blow up anything you see painted green - not least because the lack of guided weapons at the time meant that the gun was more accurate than 'dumb bombing' from a Tornado GR1 doing 600knots at 12ft. now its the other way around, and the A-10's gun is about the least accurate weapon than can be brought to bear.
 
there are three ways to kill tanks without having a 50% loss rate and taking forever.

1. establish air supremacy, blow up tanks from 15,000 feet with Paveways.

2. cut their fuels supplies. a tank without fuel is just a really shit, and short ranged, Artillery piece.

3. use a stand off, multi target system like Brimstone or JSOW.

the A-10 simply isn't capable of surviving on the modern battlefield, its too slow, and using the gun means having to make multiple passes - both are big no-no's. in COIN its no better than an F-16, its just a lot slower - this is a problem if you call out for CAS (close air support) and the nearest aircraft available to provide it is 100 miles away - if i scream for fire an F-16/Typhoon/F-15/F/A-18 will put his toes down and touch 1000mph, an A-10 will turn up five years later at 400mph. the gun isn't actually much use in COIN because of the size of its danger area - that means it difficult to use when you have troops in contact, as well as being politically difficult because of the proximity of civpop. for troops on the ground, as well as forward air controllers, a 500lb Paveway or JDAM - or a Hellfire/Brimstone - dropped off a fast jet at 15,000ft is infinately preferable to a gun run from an A-10. its more accurate, its less vunerable (if an A-10 comes in for a firing run you have to stop shooting at whatever is shooting at you and start shooting at anything that could shoot at the A-10), and its much more likely to be with you in 5 minutes than an A-10.

the only people who really rate it are A-10 mafia, and US politicians who know jack shit.

it would have been fantastic on the inner german border in 1986. go that way and blow up anything you see painted green - not least because the lack of guided weapons at the time meant that the gun was more accurate than 'dumb bombing' from a Tornado GR1 doing 600knots at 12ft. now its the other way around, and the A-10's gun is about the least accurate weapon than can be brought to bear.
But, but it looks really cool...
 
there are three ways to kill tanks without having a 50% loss rate and taking forever.

1. establish air supremacy,
Did they crib step one from Operation Sealion?
If there was a Soviet motor rifle brigade supported by an independent tank battalion headed my way, I think I'd vote for a flight of 4 A-10s rather than waiting for step 1.
Had I been sat in a BTR rolling towards an armored cavalry battalion supported by a company of Abrams, a few Su-25s would be top of my wish list.
In WW2 the biggest killers of tanks were the anti tank weapons of the artillery and infantry. Not Sturmovicks or tanks.
By the Yom Kippur wire guided missiles had become a major tank killer, the Egyptians only started to lose when they move beyond the SAM umbrella.
The hard work tends to be done by the wee squishy wet things on the ground. The A-10 seems to have had good reputations with the wee squishy wet things I have spoken too (I assume its the same for the SU-25).
 
If you don’t have air supremacy your A-10s will be dead before they get there. They are s-l-o-w in a turning fight and hence easy to kill.

Some first tour hog driver did successfully fly one through a hangar at Bagram though so that was cool.
 
You yet again do wonder who was getting ideas from who

Well one KGB did admit going around farnborough airship getting all the pamphlets he could then typing the info up as intelligence. Might have done the same with Gerry Anderson magazine.
Though if you want something to go very fast with jets they tend to look similar.
 
Such a neat, clean airframe. Hard not to love it, and its close cousins.

Also got to see ANG F-106s flying over the Great Lakes regularly as a wee'un. Pretty.
 
Back
Top Bottom