 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / July 2007huh?
are they really retiring the 117 in 2008? too expensive to maintain? On Jul 6, 8:50 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: > are they really retiring the 117 in 2008? > too expensive to maintain? yeap...tho I hear some are fighting to keep it around a few more years. >On Jul 6, 8:50 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: >> are they really retiring the 117 in 2008? >> too expensive to maintain? > >yeap...tho I hear some are fighting to keep it around a few more years. it must really be expensive. i know you have to have a lot of other support from ecm and such. doesn't really surprise me. it's not a fighter and the super high flyers with smarties may be safer. can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? The F-22 is much more capable and effective, I think. And yes, B-52's can drop all of the new munitions, including guided missiles, etc. The F-117 was a great plane for its time, but the F-22 is both stealthy and bobust, a fighter and bomber. Last I heard the B-52 will be around another 30 years... maybe even make a hundred. >>On Jul 6, 8:50 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: >>> are they really retiring the 117 in 2008? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >smarties may be safer. >can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? F/A-22 is also easier to maintain and more provides for a more flexible mission response. F-117 could be thought of as the USAF Tomcat...as far as retirements go. Not to mention that they don't call the Nighthawk the "toxic avenger" for nothing. Old tech, and some of the materials used in it's construction and maintenance are...let's say - "hazardous".  Signature- Rufus > The F-22 is much more capable and effective, I think. And yes, B-52's > can drop all of the new munitions, including guided missiles, etc. The [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>smarties may be safer. >>can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? >The F-22 is much more capable and effective, I think. And yes, B-52's >can drop all of the new munitions, including guided missiles, etc. The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>smarties may be safer. >>can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? the air force is saying at least until 2030 on the 52. > >The F-22 is much more capable and effective, I think. And yes, B-52's > >can drop all of the new munitions, including guided missiles, etc. The [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > the air force is saying at least until 2030 on the 52. Probably outlive me, then. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> In article <ol6u83tfkp7biv8u7i9f11hs3n1l0d7ojj@4ax.com>, Bluepen > <lmertz@kpunet.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. me, too. High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. Now, let's say you drop JSOWs. That can dramatically increase the range the bomb can fly. The JSOW was/is basically a glider bomb. Since gliders have a glide ratio of 20 to 1 or higher, that makes these little gems nice stand off weapons. Whether the BUFF is carrying them is anothe thing. Back in my time as a BUFF Weapons Officer, they were among a long list of things the AF and ACC were looking at. Jim Williams > >On Jul 6, 8:50 pm, some...@some.domain wrote: > >> are they really retiring the 117 in 2008? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > smarties may be safer. > can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? >High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at >45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. Now, let's say [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> smarties may be safer. >> can't a bomb out of a 52 go a lot of miles? considering the size of that cave, what couldn't you fit in a 52? i bet it's just a matter of hardware to hold, and software to drop. you want 4 moabs loaded on, yessir, right away.... speaking of them, i wonder how far one could dig with a bunker buster nose on it? i bet you could kill a very large tunnel or bunker complex. or make a skip bomb of it. dam busters, indeed. >>High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at >>45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. Now, let's say [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > tunnel or bunker complex. or make a skip bomb of it. dam > busters, indeed. It's also a matter of structural and electrical interface requirements and airframe operating CG for whatever you stick in there... ...and I see to recall that you can hang stuff on the outside of a Buff, too. Signature- Rufus >> In article <46904158$0$12191$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Jim Williams" > <jwilliams53@cinci.rr.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >....and I see to recall that you can hang stuff on the outside of a Buff, >too. yeah, the guys leaving thailand with 500 lbers all over the sucker was impressive. What won't fit on the inside might just fit on the outside. The D model could carry 108 500 lb bombs. The H models don't carry that many because the bomb bay doesn't have the same modification as the D had. Still, it will carry 45 or 51 500 lb bombs depending on the pylons attached. It makes a mess no matter how many it carries. I have heard that a common current load is 27 dumb bombs internal and 10 GPS bombs external. Jim > >> In article <46904158$0$12191$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Jim Williams" > > <jwilliams53@cinci.rr.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > yeah, the guys leaving thailand with 500 lbers all over the > sucker was impressive. > What won't fit on the inside might just fit on the outside. The D model > could carry 108 500 lb bombs. The H models don't carry that many because > the bomb bay doesn't have the same modification as the D had. Still, it > will carry 45 or 51 500 lb bombs depending on the pylons attached. It makes > a mess no matter how many it carries. > Back in 1978, I took a trip to the USSR while in college. On the way back, I ran into a BBC camera crew that had been let into Vietnam and were on their way back to Britain. One of the things they noted were the fish farm ponds These were thousands of circular ponds, and existed in long lines across the landscape. It took them a few moments to realize how all theses circular ponds for raising fish had been excavated courtesy of the American Government with the aid of Boeing in a surprisingly short period of time, and free of charge. Your tax dollars at work. :-) Pat >Xref: core-phx-easynews rec.models.scale:615145 >Status: N [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Pat ah yes, talapia, the poor country's friend. and good eatin, too. > High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at > 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. Well, no. You'd never get that result, even ignoring air resistance which rather quickly scrubs off most of the bomb's forward velocity. Recall that the bomb will -never- have more forward velocity than the speed of the aircraft releasing it while the downward velocity will increase at the rate of 32ft/sec/sec. Thus, velocity = gt and distance = (1/2)gt^2 where g = 32ft/sec^2. Of course, in the real world, eventually air resistance takes over as the bomb's downward speed stabilizes at its terminal velocity - but that same air resistance will also have scrubbed off all its forward velocity. Cheers, >> High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at >> 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Cheers, African or European swallow?.. Signature- Rufus >>> High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at >>> 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >African or European swallow?.. you tied the coconut WHERE? >>>>High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at >>>>45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > you tied the coconut WHERE? He could grip it by the husk... Signature- Rufus > African or European swallow?.. Ni! Pat >> African or European swallow?.. > >Ni! > >Pat no, nee. python spelling. >>>African or European swallow?.. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > no, nee. python spelling. Oh what sad times indeed, when any passerby would say "nee" to an old woman... Signature- Rufus > Oh what sad times indeed, when any passerby would say "nee" to an old > woman... Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-Pf'tang, Zzoo-Boing, gdgdbaaoizen! Ni. SPTS >> Oh what sad times indeed, when any passerby would say "nee" to an old >> woman... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > SPTS Oh, Knights whom until very recently said "nee"... Signature- Rufus >> Ni! >> >> Pat >> > no, nee. python spelling. > NI! NI! NI! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_who_say_Ni Now go away, or it'll be time for the Test Of The Tree...AND THE HERRING! :-) Sir Patrick The Slothful >>> Ni! >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Sir Patrick The Slothful anyone using wiki is retarded python apells it nee. > anyone using wiki is retarded > python apells it nee. > Well, their website doesn't: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/ You can read the original scripts for the movie here: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/holygrail.asp In both versions it's "Ni". And your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away, or I shall taunt you again! SPTS >> anyone using wiki is retarded >> python apells it nee. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >SPTS i blow wind in your nostrils, i diddle your sister after lunch, i throw puppies at your mother... i like groaci curses better. to be gone, littermate of drones to fertilxe the stinkweed patch with your offspring to walk in space without protection... well, on the waste of time cd it's nee. also in my mp funbook. probably one of their jokes to f.ck with people so, nee nee nee, go kiss a tree. >snip> >>Well, their website doesn't: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i like groaci curses better. >to be gone, littermate of drones So which came first - Retief series or Monty Python? >>snip> >>>Well, their website doesn't: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >So which came first - Retief series or Monty Python? retief, far and away. i believe the first was 1959 i read a retief story once where he was an old man and he goes back to lily to lead a revolution with "forged" documents. at the end, he is the emporer of the lily empire and magnum asks him where he got the fake docs that looked so good. he replys they weren't fake....a long setup to that point, (almost 40 years of stories) but typical laumer. wish o could find that summabitch again. >>>snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (almost 40 years of stories) but typical laumer. > wish o could find that summabitch again. It's on the Baen site, in the free library, if it's not in "Retief!" <http://www.webscription.net/p-347-retief.aspx>, it's in one of the others. Cheers, Gary B-) Signature______________________________________________________________________________ Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know whether you were up them with or not - Barry Humphries >Status: N > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Cheers, > Gary B-) i dunno, i've looked for it for many years and a lot of retoef "experts" tell me i'm lying and no such story. but i know what i read. the beginning starts a lot like the sweatie storie with him on a ship, except he's 30 years older. i really want to reread. >>Status: N >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > on a ship, except he's 30 years older. i really want to > reread. Yes, that's the story I recall, and I *read* it in a Baen Free book, sometime in that last 6 to 12 months, probably "Retief" <http://www.webscription.net/p-347-retief.aspx>, but it may have been in one of the others. No, it's in "Retief", it's called "DIPLOMAT-AT-ARMS" and it is Chapter 2, at <http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671318578/0671318578.htm>, so stop whingeing and go and read it! Cheers, Gary b-) Signature______________________________________________________________________________ Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know whether you were up them with or not - Barry Humphries >> In article <snccm4-fb9.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>, "Gary R. Schmidt" > <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Cheers, > Gary b-) i've read diplomat many times. wer're talking two different stories. and i don't whine, so intercourse the penguin, ducky. >>>In article <snccm4-fb9.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>, "Gary R. Schmidt" >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > stories. and i don't whine, so intercourse the penguin, > ducky. Cut and pasted from Chapter 2, "DIPLOMAT-AT-ARMS", of the book "Retief", on the Baen site: --- "Merely the result of careful research," Retief said modestly. "I found all I needed on late developments, buried in our files. The making of the Signet was quite a piece of work; but credit for that goes to our own technicians." "I was even more impressed by that document," a young counselor said. "What a knowledge of their psychology and of technical detail that required." Retief smiled faintly. The others had all gone into the hall now, amid a babble of conversation. It was time to be going. He glanced at the eager junior agent. "No," he said, "I can't claim much credit there. I've had that document for many years; it, at least, was perfectly genuine." --- 30. Signature______________________________________________________________________________ Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know whether you were up them with or not - Barry Humphries >> In article <140fm4-2ac.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>, "Gary R. Schmidt" > <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > >30. that's diplomat? from the first book? i can't be remembering that poorly. [SNIP] > that's diplomat? from the first book? > i can't be remembering that poorly. Yes. You do know that there was a novella/short-story called "Diplomat-At-Arms" (which is what this is) and a book called the same? Which, AFAIRC, is *not* an expansion of the short. (May also be the old "different titles for different markets" thing, too.) Cheers, Gary B-) Signature______________________________________________________________________________ Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know whether you were up them with or not - Barry Humphries >[SNIP] >> that's diplomat? from the first book? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > Gary B-) i do know. i never knew the title of the story, so i assumed there was an error. there was, i made it. i so f.cking happy to have that story. there are about a half dozen loudmouths who will have to eat some crow for telling me i made it up, no such story, etc. i love the internet. kills them wize azzes all day long. thanks. >> anyone using wiki is retarded >> python apells it nee. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > SPTS For that...you must bring us...A SHRUBBERY!!! Signature- Rufus > For that...you must bring us...A SHRUBBERY!!! http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/plush/778d/ http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/plush/8148/ Rabbits _eat_ shrubbery. Ni! Pat >> For that...you must bring us...A SHRUBBERY!!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat ...what, behind the rabbit? Signature- Rufus Actually, the answer is yes. After 3000 hours in the BUFF and 6 years as a planner, one thing I know a little about is the range of the high altitude dropped bomb. The initial forward velocity of the bomb is the groundspeed of the aircraft. The effect of gravity, friction, and the fins cause the bomb to follow a parabolic flight path and pitch down to a 80-90 degree from horizontal impact angle. The vertical velocity is greater than 600 feet per second and can approach 1000 feet per second. That makes the bomb a thoroughly destructive beast even if it does not detonate. Jim > > High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at > > 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Cheers, > Actually, the answer is yes. After 3000 hours in the BUFF and 6 years as a > planner, one thing I know a little about is the range of the high altitude [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thoroughly destructive beast even if it does not detonate. > Want to see something loopy, check out how He-111's dropped theirs. They were dropped vertically out of the plane's bomb bay...tail end first. Pat >> Actually, the answer is yes. After 3000 hours in the BUFF and 6 years as a >> planner, one thing I know a little about is the range of the high altitude [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Pat and with their stolen and vastly improved version of the nordon, they were pretty accurate. > Want to see something loopy, check out how He-111's dropped theirs. They > were dropped vertically out of the plane's bomb bay...tail end first. > > Pat yeah, I got inside a 111 at an air museum in Arizona. very strange bomb bay indeed, but it seemed practical... Craig > yeah, I got inside a 111 at an air museum in Arizona. very strange > bomb bay indeed, but it seemed practical... > It was an efficient way of carrying a lot of medium/small bombs in a fuselage of that shape. On the civilian version of that plane before its true purpose was revealed, the bomb bay was the the aircraft's "smoking compartment" A rather large area given the small passenger complement of the airliner (ten, with four in the "smoking compartment") Still it beat the six passengers on the Do-17 "airliner/mailplane" who had to be be gymnasts just to get aboard and take their seats. Pat >> yeah, I got inside a 111 at an air museum in Arizona. very strange >> bomb bay indeed, but it seemed practical... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Pat neither onkle adolph nor his pilot, hans bauer liked the 111 as a airliner. apparently there was no way to seal it tight so it was drafty, cold, and noisy. like their counterparts, the b25 boys, almost all the 111 vets have hearing aids, usually two. i knew one when i was a kid in the vaterland and he was deef as a post. his faverite word was VASS? And if you impart some spin to the weapon, you can get some limited lift via Magnus effect and also help (or hurt) the ballistics a bit. Signature- Rufus > Actually, the answer is yes. After 3000 hours in the BUFF and 6 years as a > planner, one thing I know a little about is the range of the high altitude [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >>Cheers, > And if you impart some spin to the weapon, you can get some limited > lift via Magnus effect and also help (or hurt) the ballistics a bit. That would make it move slightly to one side, wouldn't it? Okay, we make a lightweight bomb, and seal it inside of a big Styrofoam sphere, like a giant Wham-O Tracball: http://www.virtualtoychest.com/tracball/tracball.html We then mount these in C-130's and spin them up like Dambuster bombs before rolling them out the back. The Magnus effect makes them fall on other paths than merely ballistic as they hit the high speed airflow behind the plane. In short, you can fly to one side of the enemy and hurl bombs at him diagonally like explosive curveballs from hell. You can fly right over him, and after you pass and he thinks it's safe to look around, he will not have noticed that thing you released out of the back which climbed several hundred feet above the aircraft before starting its slow descent...as the nuclear weapon in it arms. :-) Pat >> And if you impart some spin to the weapon, you can get some limited >> lift via Magnus effect and also help (or hurt) the ballistics a bit. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pat Guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing, and which side of the aircraft it comes off of...and how heavy it is. But that's what the little wedgies are for: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-ironbombs-02.gif Signature- Rufus > High altitude bombing has about a foot for foot range. So if you are at > 45,000 feet, the bomb will fly 45,000 forward from releaase. That depends on your airspeed of course. > Now, let's say > you drop JSOWs. That can dramatically increase the range the bomb can fly. > The JSOW was/is basically a glider bomb. Since gliders have a glide ratio > of 20 to 1 or higher, that makes these little gems nice stand off weapons. > That depends on the glider of course; I doubt JSOWS fly at anywhere near that good of a sink rate. Pat >Status: N > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Pat has the air force completely given up glide bombs? it would seem that an efficent glider could take a bomb into some interesting places as well as be launched from several hundred miles away. if you can make a tank glide 16 odd miles, something a little lighter and erodynamic should be effective. > has the air force completely given up glide bombs? it would > seem that an efficent glider could take a bomb into some > interesting places as well as be launched from several > hundred miles away. > One of the problems would be speed. You could make a really efficient glider weapon with long thin wings like a U-2, but it would be difficult to carry without swing-out wings, and once in gliding flight it would be going fairly slow if it was to have a really good sink rate (ratio of loss of height to forward movement...a 1:10 ratio means that for every ten feet it moves forward it losses one foot in height) Back during WW II, the Germans did try to make a very long range glider bomb with this thing: http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246.html Which sported a really aerodynamic fuselage, and long, thin, U-2 style wings...made of cast concrete! But it approached the target at only 280 mph, and that's something that today's SAMs could easily destroy on approach if it was detected. So to make it work, you'd need to give it really good stealth. On the other hand, you don't have to worry about IR emissions on a unpowered glider weapon, so maybe you could do it. The best approach might be to use a booster rocket that shoots it up as high and fast as possible, and then lets it glide down from there to its target at very high velocity. And that's a very doable idea: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hgv.htm Pat >> has the air force completely given up glide bombs? it would seem that >> an efficent glider could take a bomb into some interesting places as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pat You mean...like this, maybe? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-pics.htm Signature- Rufus > You mean...like this, maybe? > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-pics.htm Never seen that one before; neat wing layout. Did you read that thing's convoluted history?: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-history.htm Pat >> You mean...like this, maybe? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat Not much different from that of JSOW, and is about how things go...read a short snip once on illuding to some of bureaucratic the issues getting the Ar 234 to and through development and test...nothing new under the sun. Signature- Rufus >> has the air force completely given up glide bombs? it would >> seem that an efficent glider could take a bomb into some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Pat a stealth glider would work. drop it off a fast hauler way up. that german toy could go 100 miles. also, i think it could be good for special ops guys. small one man stealth gliders could go where the parachute boys couldn't |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.