Article

2007-08-22 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2007-08-22 01:10|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 RAF 3rd generation fighters intercept rickety old 40s era russkie prop aeroplane...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2007-08-22 01:36|| 2007-08-22 01:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Looks like Pootie has had to resort to nationalism to hold his frail state together. I'll bet scrambling the interceptor only plays into his plans for the excuses required to build up his military.

England needs Russia's energy, so they are afraid to get too aggressive.

I would think ignoring these things would work best. He wouldn't dare do anything anyway, so why waste the time and energy for what amounts to a show? If one of these pathetic dinosaurs crashes on British soil without an escort then Russia would have a lot of explaining to do and it would probably take the wind out of Pootie's sails.

It'd be a shame if some of those flying barns just crashed into the Atlantic and disappeared.

Posted by gorb 2007-08-22 02:16|| 2007-08-22 02:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Nope. Bears are turboprop not piston based. They are much faster than piston-based WWII fighters like Cosrasirs or Mustangs and only lightly slower than B52s.

Also Cold War jet interceptors aprticularly eth Jaguar found that Bears could accelarate better than them so it was not that easy to keep them shadowed.

Also the Bear is much newer than late Fourty's. I think it entered service in the in the late 60s after the failure of a project of a jet bomber with a range in the same order than the one of the B52.

The threat of the Bear, who was able to sink a ship with a single hit of the huge missile(s) he carried compelled the Navy to adopt a fighter carrying a very lon,g range, wide angle radar couple with the super long range Phoenix missile. This was the F14

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-08-22 02:21|| 2007-08-22 02:21|| Front Page Top

#4 Also Cold War jet interceptors aprticularly eth Jaguar found that Bears could accelarate better than them so it was not that easy to keep them shadowed.

Maybe this is true, but I have a hard time believing a glorified propeller-driven plane with a top speed in the 500mph range could accelerate faster than a jet plane that can go almost 1000mph. Perhaps this is true if the Bear didn't have any kind of load.

I checked wiki and the bears seem to have their roots in '40s technology, and the turboprops themselves seem to have their roots in '50s technology.

Posted by gorb 2007-08-22 03:29|| 2007-08-22 03:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Jets are 30s Technology!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2007-08-22 05:12|| 2007-08-22 05:12|| Front Page Top

#6 Bears are 1950s era turboprops, but then so are C-130s. The Bear was developed because the Soviet jet engines at the time were unable to push a heavy bomber to range with a good load. The dual contra-rotating props on each engine develop the needed power and give a good range to the plane. If the Russians bother to update the avionics, the Bear is still a good plane to have and a threat to maritime shipping.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-08-22 05:21|| 2007-08-22 05:21|| Front Page Top

#7 Also, for long range at moderate speeds over open oceans, turbo-props are an acceptable approach. The P-3 Orion is a turbo-prop and it has been patrolling the oceans since 1962. That is the big strength of the Bear for the Russians : it has long legs and can carry some pretty devastating anti-shipping missiles. Plus, it is already built and doesn't eat fuel like a standard jet bomber.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-08-22 05:26|| 2007-08-22 05:26|| Front Page Top

#8 For gorb:

Jet engines take more time than piston or turboprop ones to go from low to high power ( a feature wo allowed Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires to hold their own against German jets) and that can allows the Bear to get some lead and perhaps hide in cloud. Also third genaration fighters were not optimized for high cruise speed and are able of crossing the sound barrier only when using fuel thirsty afteburners. In fact their predecessors were better at supersonic sustained flight than them (look at the charts to be convinced). It could be that the Jaguar had a particulrly poor cruise speed for a jet. Also don't forget that the mission is not to catch with teh Bear and down it but to shadow it for as long as possible thus the jet needs to avooid going beyond its econmy speed. I don't think it was unrelated that the F14, the primary Bear hunter, was the westen fighter who could stay longer at transonic or near transonic speeds (at these speeds the F14's wing was at prcatical effects a delta).

With Russia becoming agressive agsin the wisdom of not replacing the F14 can be questionned. The Hornet be it in noraml or Super version does not fill Tomcat's niche: high cuise speed and endurance, ability to engage the traget at very long distances well before it can close with the carriers.

Jet fighters need to use afterburners for crossing the sound barrier and these will burn the plane's fuel load very quickly. (I don't think it is unrelated that US Navy's "anti-bear" plane is at parcatical effedcts when its wings are positionned for high speed a delta plane and this uses muvch less fuel

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-08-22 07:28|| 2007-08-22 07:28|| Front Page Top

#9 Putie Baby,

Michael Jordan coming out of retirement sounds neat, but the reality on the playing field doesn't measure up to some Hollyweird dream story. Give it a rest. Your family needs clothes, shoes, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. Save the need for 'flash' for another day and time.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-22 08:32|| 2007-08-22 08:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Air to air missile accelerates faster than turboprop or jet...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2007-08-22 11:46|| 2007-08-22 11:46|| Front Page Top

#11 Before the Tomcats came along, the CV's launched the Phantoms to escort any approaching Bears. Agree with JFM's assessment of the Hornet; a one size fits most is at best a compromise, and not excellent at anything. Short legs, or light ordnance load, one or the other because you cannot hang missles on pylons holding drop tanks. And the loss of the carrier based tanker platforms ( think KA-6D and to a lesser extent, the KS-3A experiment) for deep penetration means that you give up long time surveillance of the incoming bad guys. Yes the Super Lawn Dart can carry a buddy store, but it reminds me of the old joke about mopeds and fat chicks (no I do not know why).....
I do not expect the CV version of the JSF to do any better in the Bear escort role either.
Missing from this is any reference to the LTV A-7E, the Corsair II; single engine light attack, it was also pressed into Bear escort duty from time to time. Missles and guns and fairly long legs.
What I see is the gradual dismantling of Naval Air Pwer and the USAF getting it all. planes and CVs are not getting any cheaper; and with the push to UAVs, expect the Fly-Boys to grap everything with wings......

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-08-22 14:25|| 2007-08-22 14:25|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks, JFM. Do you think all this is still true if the Bear is hauling some kind of weapons load that we care about?

Practically speaking, I think the Bears would get one good attack, and after that they would all be big, slow, shiny flying targets/deathtraps. All the talk of endurance, acceleration, hiding in the clouds, fuel efficiency, etc. would mean nothing to a Jaguar, JSF, or just about any plane with radar that is attacking a Bear instead of just "escorting" it with radar turned off.

Anyone know if Bears have been retrofitted with some kind of defensive capability? Seems to me they have guns, but I don't know how useful they would be (except at ranges far closer than they would be attacked from).

Posted by gorb 2007-08-22 15:03|| 2007-08-22 15:03|| Front Page Top

#13 gorb: guns is about all, some have chaff, but no missles.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-08-22 15:39|| 2007-08-22 15:39|| Front Page Top

#14 Gorb

Practically speking I have seen the video where a single missile from the Bear virtually desistnegrated what looked like a destroyer or bigger ship. A carrier could survive (perhaps) but would be out of action for months.

After that it doesn't matter if the Bear is downed (except to her crew). That is why the Navy wanted so badly an interceptor able to down them from sixty miles or so.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-08-22 17:23|| 2007-08-22 17:23|| Front Page Top

#15 BEARS are still good as standoff platforms for ALCM's, ASW,+ anti-SAT. However, GMD-TMD > as wid Russ LR missles, armed/arming Russian bombers can be detected while still readying for takeoff on their airfields, which in turn gives US-Allied interceptors more time to catch-and-destroy. The Russians know GMD will potens nullify any of their military advantage(s) > 'TIS ONE REASON WHY THEY ARE PO'ed/BELLIGERENT RIGHT NOW, AND WHY FOR "WAR AGZ USA NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" circa 2018 or after.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-08-22 19:14|| 2007-08-22 19:14|| Front Page Top

#16 I think the trend will be towards creating a air-to-air UAV units to each carrier task force for CAP purposes. Ground-launched aircraft with 500-600 mph cruising speed and 35-48 hour loiter time.

Global Hawk has a published speed of 400mph now. With a slightly more powerful engine, and armed with the appropriate radar system and AIM-120Ds, it could escort a Bear from the moment it left ~~Soviet~~ Russian-Cuban-Venezuelan airspace to wherever the Bear lands.

Posted by mrp 2007-08-22 19:35|| 2007-08-22 19:35|| Front Page Top

#17 Give me an F-35C over the F-14 for the interceptor role any time. It carries more fuel (19K lbs vs 16K), longer ranged (600+nm vs 500nm combat radius), better radar, sensors, comms, and missiles, more maneuverable, possibly supercruise, and won't be hogging maintenance bays all day. And did I mention stealth? Let the F-14 enjoy its well earned retirement.

As for the F-18E/F. Want more range? Build it with advanced versions F-414 engines and get 20% more power (and a better fighter) as a bonus.

Posted by ed 2007-08-22 20:18|| 2007-08-22 20:18|| Front Page Top

#18 I think the Bears would get one good attack

They only need one good attack. Unlike these patrol missions where they fly around in onesies and twosies, a strike against a carrier would involve a swarm of Bears.

Worst case, they appear suddenly out at the edge of your radar coverage. At 250-300 miles out, they launch of shitstorm of missiles and turn for home. Maybe your Hornets have the legs to catch them if you have been paying attention; maybe not. Right now you have other worries. Missiles, lots of them, inbound at supersonic speeds. Life will be very exciting soon.

Posted by SteveS 2007-08-22 20:21|| 2007-08-22 20:21|| Front Page Top

23:26 Fred O'Grunion
23:04 GK
22:42 BA
22:41 Zenster
22:40 Zenster
22:37 BA
22:14 Red Dawg
22:12 Zenster
22:11 Barbara Skolaut
22:09 Gary and the Samoyeds
22:07 Zenster
22:04 Zenster
22:02 Frank G
21:58 twobyfour
21:57 Zenster
21:54 Red Dawg
21:51 twobyfour
21:44 SteveS
21:37 Red Dawg
21:33 Red Dawg
21:31 SteveS
21:30 Zenster
21:20 SteveS
21:17 Zenster