Jump to content
tanknet.org

Jason

Members
  • Content Count

    1,568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jason

  • Rank
    Tanked for Sam and paided bonus.....

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Military Models,hockey,baseball, mountain biking,music,TANKS,military history

Recent Profile Visitors

276 profile views
  1. Michael, did Doug take care of you on this? Let me know, I have plenty of spare swastika decals if you still need a pair or two.
  2. Figured this should be the first place I visit in my return. Well, after quite an extended hiatus from the hallowed halls of Tanknet I have returned. Most of the above info is still correct. Age is quite considerably higher now though, I'm about to turn 40 in a few weeks. I am no longer in the service. I don't play hockey any longer as my knees and back are shot. I haven't visited in about four years until speaking with Mike Eastes the other night and deciding to re-visit the the old stomping grounds. This is my first post here since 2008.
  3. I never heard about the Typhoon either. The Russian blamed the Kursk on us, but it is a foregone conclusion it was one of their torpedoes. They use a highly volatile mix for the propulsion system in their torpedoes and it is somewhat unstable under certain conditions, as well as being corrosive from what I understand.
  4. You're right, I got my subs mixed up. However, there are conspiracy theories surrounding the loss of both subs, and both are equally unlikely.
  5. Based on sonar audio tapes that have been played, replayed, and replayed again, they are fairly certain that a critical weld failed and she imploded. In my opinion, the rest of the conspiracy theories have about as much credibility as the moon landing being done in a Hollywood studio.
  6. Jason

    BMD-4M Production?

    They made it VERY uncomfortable........
  7. I suppose if one really wanted to, you could put EW stuff into a legacy Hornet two seater. However...... The Super Hornet airframe makes more sense from a couple of standpoints. It is a larger overall size air frame, meaning it can carry more internal and external equipment and has more room for growth or expansion in the future. It also has a greater range on internal fuel meaning longer mission endurance, translates into more time on station and less time spent refueling.
  8. Okay, according to Yefim Gordon in his Red Star Volume 16 book on the Su-9/11/15, who is generally accepted as a pretty reliable source when it comes to Soviet/Russian aircraft. Page 103 is the Su-15 spec page. Su-15 - Range on internal fuel: 1270km-745mi (this is overall range-not radius - thus 635km each way). Su-15TM - 1380km-860mi Su-15UT - 1290km-800mi In Bill Gunston's book, Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft under the entry for the Su-15 it quotes: Su-15TM - 1380km Su-15 - 1260km - but later blocks of production Su-15's were at 1305km according to Gunston.
  9. Radius would be out and return to base, so a total of 1180km overall. I have several different sources with varying numbers in the reference library at home, I will post more when I get home from the office and have a chance to look through some of my books. Speaking of Su-15's, if anyone is an aircraft model builder, Trumpeter will be releasing a 1/72 kit of the Flagon. Sorely lacking considering there are really only two injection molded 1/72 scale kits of the Su-15 and they are both pretty innaccurate. The Pioneer kit is at best a basic representation of it.
  10. Or even the F-101B. But both F-101B and F-106 had an edge in terms of overall unrefueled combat range. Ranges are with missile load. As you can see, the Sukhoi is sorely lacking in range. F-101B Maximum speed: Mach 1.72 (1,134 mph, 1,825 km/h) Combat Range: 1,520 mi (1,320 nm, 2,450 km) Service ceiling 58,400 ft (17,800 m) Rate of climb: 49,200 ft/min (250 m/s) F-106 Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (1,525 mph, 2,455 km/h) Combat Range: 1,800 mi (1,600 nm, 2,900 km) Service ceiling 57,000 ft (17,000 m) Rate of climb: 29,000 ft/min (150 m/s) Su-15 Maximum speed: Mach 2.1, (1,386 mph, 2,23
  11. The XF-88 Voodoo was the original contender for that requirement, along with the North American XF-93 (a souped up Sabre variant, but almost a completely new aircraft) and the Lockheed XF-90. That requirement got canned by the USAF brass in the very early 1950's and the XF-88 faded into the background until it was presented for a new requirment later in the 1950's. After a time the design was resurrected and totally revamped. Very basic similarities between the XF-88 and production F-101A/C single seaters, just the overall layout really, almost a completely different aircraft systems wise. The
  12. The F-102 was in service almost ten full years before the Su-15. While the design purposes were similar, the F-102 was relegated to National Guard and reserve units by the time the Sukhoi entered service. The F-102 would be a contemporary of the Su-9/11 series in my opinion. Same with the F-104. Even the F-106 was entering squadron service about five years before the Su-15 and the English Electric Lightning was in squadron service by 1960. Actually, now that I think of it, the F-4 was already well entrenched in service by the time the Su-15 was entering service (c. 1965). As far as the F-102
  13. A few other things on the Su-15. Entered service in 1965, was withdrawn in 1992-93. Initially started as a souped up variant Sukhoi Su-9/11 Fishpot. Great speed and excellent rate of climb. Poor range and the engines drained fuel at a very high rate. Poor manueverability and very unforgiving of pilot error with very sensitive controls. Extremely high take off and landing speeds, this sucker needed loooonnnng runways and the high landing speed caused quite a few landing accidents. Was capable of automatic interceptions using the Vozdukh-1M datalink and SAU-58 automatic control system. Typical o
  14. Actually BP, in addition to taking down Korean Air flight 007, another Flagon damaged another Korean airliner (Flight 902 over Murmansk in 1978 - not shot down, but crashed on landing due to damage, two people died) and one rammed an Iranian CL-44 airliner near Baku, Azerbaijan in 1981. See, it was a more successful aircraft than generally given credit for.
  15. Except one that was still in service as a mine warfare vessel operating MH-53E's in the mine sweeping role.
×
×
  • Create New...