US Military Photos and Videos:

GarryB wrote:Must be photoshopped because only Russians do that... and they do it because Russian armour is so poor it is safer sitting on the outside...  NOT.  

You got it all wrong, the Pentagon had a new promising program to increase the effectiveness of ERA, called "Operation Human Shield":

Freshly released HD video of B2 by Northrop Grumman.

JohninMK wrote:Amazing view of what the USAF casts to one side and leaves behind, driven by the need of the MIC to make profits from new production. This is a 360 view of the Davis Monthan Air Force Base boneyard.

https://www.aerialsphere.com/spheres/arizona/tucson/boneyard/1/

Well when one B52H crashed they pulled one B52 from graveyard like this and modernised, overhauled it and its now in service, i mean it has some logic to it keeping stuff like this. Imagine, last B29 bomber was cut down in 80s i belive. I wish Russia had place with so good conditions for preservation for its strategic reserve, now they would have hundreds of MiG23s and MiG27s laying around in near perfect condition to overhaul and modernise for Syria...

"The air-to-air combat occurred during a freedom of navigation exercise conducted by Sixth Fleet off the Libyan coastline. The two VF-32 F-14s, BuNo. 159610, call sign “Gypsy 207” flown by Swordsmen skipper Commander Joseph B. Connelly and by Commander Leo F. Enwright as Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) and BuNo. 159437, call sign “Gypsy 202″ crewed by Lieutenant Hermon C. Cook III and Lieutenant Commander Steven P. Collins as RIO, were flying Combat Air Patrol (CAP) from USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), when an E-2C detected the two MiGs taking off from Bumbah air base.

The Floggers, heading towards the U.S. Navy jets, were picked by the F-14s’ AN/AWG-9 radar at a distance of 72 miles. As proved by the radio communications between the aircrews involved in the engagement, the VF-32 fighters performed avoidance maneuvers for five times to avoid confrontation, but the LARAF aircraft matched their turns every time. Then at 6 minutes and 27 seconds in the footage, at a range of 12.9 miles you can hear Gypsy 207 calling for a “Fox One” shot, meaning that he has just fired a Sparrow which, probably because of a guidance problem, misssed the target. The F-14s and MiGs continued to move closer until, at 6 minutes and 37 seconds in the video, Gypsy 202 fired another Sparrow at a distance of about ten miles against the same Flogger, destroying it.

At 7 minutes and 21 seconds the clip shows that, with the remaining Flogger now in their eyeballs, Connelly and Enwright took advantage of their action to get back of the MiG-23 calling for a “Fox Two” shot (referring to the launch of a Sidewinder) at 7 minutes and 36 seconds. Noteworthy at 7 minutes and 44 seconds the missile hit the second Flogger downing it. The two Libyan pilots managed to eject at the last minute ending the engagement."

"Free navigation exercise"....

MIG's failed against f-14

max steel wrote:MIG's failed against f-14

My understanding of whole this "encounter" is that MiGs actually tried to chase them away, not engage them. Coz you see the distances they mention here? They are well inside range envelope of AA-7 Apex which is considered as main tool of MiG23. If they wanted to engage them they would probably have done that...

Militarov wrote:

"The air-to-air combat occurred during a freedom of navigation exercise conducted by Sixth Fleet off the Libyan coastline. The two VF-32 F-14s, BuNo. 159610, call sign “Gypsy 207” flown by Swordsmen skipper Commander Joseph B. Connelly and by Commander Leo F. Enwright as Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) and BuNo. 159437, call sign “Gypsy 202″ crewed by Lieutenant Hermon C. Cook III and Lieutenant Commander Steven P. Collins as RIO, were flying Combat Air Patrol (CAP) from USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), when an E-2C detected the two MiGs taking off from Bumbah air base.

The Floggers, heading towards the U.S. Navy jets, were picked by the F-14s’ AN/AWG-9 radar at a distance of 72 miles. As proved by the radio communications between the aircrews involved in the engagement, the VF-32 fighters performed avoidance maneuvers for five times to avoid confrontation, but the LARAF aircraft matched their turns every time. Then at 6 minutes and 27 seconds in the footage, at a range of 12.9 miles you can hear Gypsy 207 calling for a “Fox One” shot, meaning that he has just fired a Sparrow which, probably because of a guidance problem, misssed the target. The F-14s and MiGs continued to move closer until, at 6 minutes and 37 seconds in the video, Gypsy 202 fired another Sparrow at a distance of about ten miles against the same Flogger, destroying it.

At 7 minutes and 21 seconds the clip shows that, with the remaining Flogger now in their eyeballs, Connelly and Enwright took advantage of their action to get back of the MiG-23 calling for a “Fox Two” shot  (referring to the launch of a Sidewinder) at 7 minutes and 36 seconds. Noteworthy at 7 minutes and 44 seconds the missile hit the second Flogger downing it. The two Libyan pilots managed to eject at the last minute ending the engagement."

"Free navigation exercise"....

Just to add, let's not forget that the MiG-23 version that Libya operated at the time was the MS, an export version withno BVR capability - it used the same radar (RS-22) and missiles (R-13) as the MiG-21bis, and therefore had no chance against long range interceptors as the F-14, with an extremely powerful radar and BVR missiles. Many times this incident is used to show how "useless" the MiG-23 was, but Warsaw Pact versions had much more powerful and modern radar and missiles, especially the newest versions (ML/MLD) avaliable since the late 70's.

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:MIG's failed against f-14

My understanding of whole this "encounter" is that MiGs actually tried to chase them away, not engage them. Coz you see the distances they mention here? They are well inside range envelope of AA-7 Apex which is considered as main tool of MiG23. If they wanted to engage them they would probably have done that...

Libya at the time didn't have R-23 equipped MiG-23, as per my previous post it had only the MS version back then, which is a severely downgraded export version.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:MIG's failed against f-14

My understanding of whole this "encounter" is that MiGs actually tried to chase them away, not engage them. Coz you see the distances they mention here? They are well inside range envelope of AA-7 Apex which is considered as main tool of MiG23. If they wanted to engage them they would probably have done that...

Libya at the time didn't have R-23 equipped MiG-23, as per my previous post it had only the MS version back then, which is a severely downgraded export version.

Hmm, well i know that MiG23MS was exported to Libya with and that it had RP/22SM radar, however beside R60 to my knowledge they could also use K13s which had quite decent range. Also, i recall reading that after reviewing footage from F14As AAX1 TV system (this video?) they determined Liybian MiGs were armed with R23s (T)?

"During the 8 minutes engagement, the MiGs kept turning in on the Tomcats to maintain a firing solution for their Soviet built air-to-air missiles. As later examination of F-14 still photography resolved, the MiG-23s were armed with AA-7 Apex missiles. After several evasive maneuvers by the Tomcats and aggressive maneuvers by the Floggers, the incoming pair of MiG-23s were declared hostile and the F-14 crews were cleared to engage. The crew of the lead F-14A, AC202 (BuNo. 159437) fired an unsuccessful AIM-7 Sparrow missile, while the second F-14As, AC207 (BuNo. 159610) AIM-7 found its target and destroyed one MiG-23. Thereafter, the lead F-14 closed in on the remaining MiG-23 and launched an AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seaking missile."

Could it have been R-23T which had IR seeker, rather than R-23R? Still R-23T had somewhat around 15km max range.

Aggressive manouvers?

Maybe if they were approaching Florida you could consider changing flight direction 5 times as being aggressive.

Reminds me of the time when US Navy heros in F-14s shot down two Su-22s and it was later worked out that rather than launching a weapon at the F-14s to initiate the confrontation the Su-22 dropped a drop tank...

Either way... International waters and the US Navy fires first...

GarryB wrote:Aggressive manouvers?

Maybe if they were approaching Florida you could consider changing flight direction 5 times as being aggressive.

Reminds me of the time when US Navy heros in F-14s shot down two Su-22s and it was later worked out that rather than launching a weapon at the F-14s to initiate the confrontation the Su-22 dropped a drop tank...

Either way... International waters and the US Navy fires first...

Americans I remember when USAF shot down 4 Jugoslavian J21 Jastreb from formation of 6 while they were forcing "No fly zone" over Bosnia. Jastreb is basically COIN aircraft by todays definition.

I do not know original source of this photo but its quite spectacular

My source: https://www.facebook.com/bracaratnici/photos/a.785986554767590.1073741851.726090814090498/1066646726701570/?type=3

Post it in US Navy thread i shared this incident already.

Fort Irwin National Training Center

I share with you the history of the medium bomber built by the Douglas should replace a company's success, the B-18 Bolo, but eventually supplanted by its competitors. Does anyone know if the plane came into action during WW2? If so, how was your performance? In the link below you will find a fantastic collection of photos, some of them rare and colorful this amazing bomber.


http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/douglas-b-23-dragon.html


Best Regards.

USS Zumwalt

Looks unfinished...

GarryB wrote:Looks unfinished...

Seems it also has some temporally equipment installed only to be used during trials. But even when finished it wont be much different than it is now at least externally.

Zumwalt after those photos above took its way to sea trials, shot video.

Militarov wrote:

did they forgot to drop B-61 ?

If anyone is interested into how Apache gun reloading looks like. Take note these guys are quite slow, but this process itself is so unneededly (i belive i just made up a word) complicated that i got no words for t.

U.S. Army proceeds with Chinook Block II upgrade program

The U.S. Army's acquisition executive has cleared the planned Chinook Block II upgrade program.

The upgrade program aims to keep the Boeing-made CH-47F and MH-47G fleets in service through the 2020s. The plan, approved by Army acquisition chief Heidi Shyu, includes new or remanufactured airframes for both regular and special forces units. Maj. Gen. Michael Lundy outlined the plan during an Association of the U.S. Army briefing on Thursday.

"It is on track, it's through the [alternative systems review]," Lundy said. "It has been approved as a plan and we're on progress to make that a program of record."

Other planned upgrades in the Block II program include work on the electrical system, rotor system, and transmission. There is not yet a requirement for a new engine, though the program will prime the helicopters for the possibility of changing the engine in the future.

In addition to upgrading the aircraft, Block II will also modify Army Chinooks to align more closely with the MH-47 aircraft used by the Army Special Operations.

"Over time those two have kind of diverged, we are going to converge the design," Col. Rob Barrie told Defense News.

CH-47 Chinooks are designed for transporting troops, artillery and other supporting equipment. The MH-47G variant features more advanced avionics to support Special Operations missions.