Caesars Palace is a luxury hotel and casino in Paradise, Nevada, United States. The hotel is situated on the west side of the Las Vegas Strip between Bellagio and The Mirage. It is one of Las Vegas's largest and best known landmarks.

 

Caesars Palace was founded in 1966 by Jay Sarno and Stanley Mallin, who sought to create an opulent facility that gave guests a sense of life during the Roman Empire. It contains many statues, columns and iconography typical of Hollywood Roman period productions including a 20-foot (6.1 m) statue of Augustus Caesar near the entrance. Caesars Palace is now owned by Vici Properties and operated by Caesars Entertainment. As of July 2016, the hotel has 3,960 rooms and suites in six towers and a convention facility of over 300,000 square feet (28,000 m2).

 

The hotel has a large range of restaurants. Among them are several which serve authentic Chinese cuisine to cater to wealthy East Asian gamblers. From the outset, Caesars Palace has been oriented towards attracting high rollers. The modern casino facilities include table games such as blackjack, craps, roulette, baccarat, Spanish 21, mini-baccarat, Pai Gow and Pai Gow poker. The casino also features a 4,500-square-foot (420 m2) 24-hour poker room; and many slot machines and video poker machines.

 

The hotel has operated as a host venue for live music and sports entertainment. In addition to holding boxing matches since the late 1970s, Caesars also hosted the Caesars Palace Grand Prix from 1981 to 1982. Notable entertainers who have performed at Caesars Palace include Frank Sinatra, Reba McEntire and Brooks & Dunn, Sammy Davis Jr., Ella Fitzgerald, Teresa Teng, Count Basie, Dean Martin, Rod Stewart, Stevie Nicks, The Moody Blues, Celine Dion, Ike & Tina Turner, Shania Twain, Bette Midler, Cher, Elton John, Liberace, Diana Ross, Liza Minnelli, Julio Iglesias, Ann-Margret, Tony Bennett, Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, Judy Garland, Gloria Estefan, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Matt Goss and Deana Martin.

 

The main performance venue is The Colosseum. The theatre seats 4,296 people and contains a 22,450-square-foot (2,086 m2) stage. The stage was a special construction for Celine Dion's show, A New Day..., in 2003. After departing in 2007, Dion returned to the Colosseum with her new show entitled "Celine" on March 15, 2011, which was under contract through June 9, 2018 for 65 shows per year.

 

History

 

Early history

 

In 1962, cabana motel owners Jay Sarno and Stanley Mallin applied for a $10.6 million loan from the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. He began plans to build a hotel on land owned by Kirk Kerkorian. Sarno would later act as designer of the hotel he planned to construct. His vision was to emulate life under the Roman Empire. The objective of the palace was to ensure an atmosphere in which everybody staying at the hotel would feel like a Caesar; this is why the name "Caesars Palace" lacks an apostrophe, making "Caesars" a plural instead of possessive noun. Caesars Palace was instrumental in beginning a new era of lavish casinos from the late 1960s onward. Architectural writer, Alan Hess, stated: "Caesars Palace needed only a sumptuous array of Classical statuary and a host of marble-white columns to establish its theme. The visitor's imagination, in league with well-placed publicity, filled in the opulence". Jefferson Graham wrote that the result was "the gaudiest, weirdest, most elaborate, and most talked about resort Vegas had ever seen. [Its] emblem was a chesty female dipping grapes into the waiting mouth of a recumbent Roman, fitted out in toga, laurel wreath, and phallic dagger".

 

The inauguration ceremony was held on August 5, 1966. Sarno and his partner, Nate Jacobsen, spent one million dollars on the event. The cost included "the largest order of Ukrainian caviar ever placed by a private organization", two tons of filet mignon, 300 pounds (140 kg) of Maryland crabmeat and 50,000 glasses of champagne. Cocktail waitresses in Greco-Roman wigs would greet guests and say "Welcome to Caesars Palace, I am your slave". Among the performers at the opening were Andy Williams and Phil Richards. According to author Ovid Demaris, Caesars Palace was "a mob-controlled casino from the day it opened its doors". By the time it opened, the significant publicity of the new hotel had generated $42 million in advanced bookings.

 

On December 31, 1967, stunt performer Evel Knievel arrived at the hotel to watch a boxing match and convinced Sarno that he could jump over the distance of 140 feet (43 m) over the fountains. ABC came in to film the jump, in which Knievel hit the top of the safety ramp after the jump and flew over his handlebars into the parking lot of neighbouring Dunes. Fracturing his pelvis, several bones and suffering a concussion, he lay in a hospital unconscious for 29 days in a coma before recovering. On April 14, 1989, Knievel's son Robbie successfully completed the jump.

 

The first casino at the hotel was named Circus Circus. It was intended to be the world's liveliest and most expensive casino, attracting elite gamblers from around the world. In 1969, a Federal Organized Crime Task Force accused the casino's financial manager, Jerome Zarowitz, of having ties with organized-crime figures in New York and New England. Although Zarowitz was never tried, the task force pressured Sarno and his other investors to sell the casino, which led to it being acquired by Lum's restaurant chain owners Stuart and Clifford S. Perlman for $60 million. The company soon shed its restaurant operations and changed its name to Caesars World. On July 15 of that year, executives lay ground on an expansion area of the hotel, and they buried a time capsule in the area.

 

Frank Sinatra began performing at Caesars Palace in 1967, after a fallout with Howard Hughes and Carl Cohen at The Sands. He signed a three-year contract. In the early morning hours of September 6, 1970, Sinatra was playing a high stakes baccarat at the casino, where he was performing at the time. Normal limits for the game are US$2,000 per hand; Sinatra had been playing for US$8,000 and wanted the stakes to be raised to US$16,000. When Sinatra began shouting after his request was denied, hotel executive Sanford Waterman came to talk with him. Witnesses to the incident said the two men both made threats, with Waterman producing a gun and pointing it at Sinatra. Sinatra walked out of the casino and returned to his Palm Springs home without fulfilling the rest of his three-week engagement there. Waterman was booked on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, but was released without bail. The local district attorney's office declined to file charges against Waterman for pulling the gun, stating that Sinatra had refused to make a statement regarding the incident. Despite swearing to never perform at Caesars again, Sinatra returned after his retirement in January 1974, and became a frequent performer at Caesars Palace throughout the decade. He was performing at Caesars when his mother Dolly died in a plane crash in January 1977, and in 1979 he was awarded the Grammy Trustees Award in a party at the hotel, while celebrating 40 years in show business and his 64th birthday. When Sinatra was given back his gaming license by the Nevada Gaming Commission in 1981, he became an entertainment-public relations consultant at the casino for $20,000 a week.

 

In 1971, some 1,500 African American rights activists stormed the hotel in a protest. The National Welfare Rights Organization was involved with a "coalition of welfare mothers, Legal Services lawyers, radical priests and nuns, civil rights leaders, movie stars and housewives". Five years later in the spring of 1976, hundreds of African American workers went on strike at the hotel in the first major strike in Las Vegas history. The entrances to the hotel and casino were blocked, and the hotel lost several million dollars from the strike, including one cancellation worth $500,000. In 1973, the Del Webb corporation was contracted to build a $8 million 16-story building adjacent to the Palace.

 

In 1981, a fire broke out at the hotel, hospitalizing 16 people. The Perlmans sold their shares in Caesars World that year after trying to get a gaming license for a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The New Jersey Casino Control Commission accused the brothers of doing business with people who had organized-crime connections.

 

Later history

 

In 1986, the annual Teamsters convention was held at Caesars with a $650,000 party. The lavish feast included caviar, crab claws, roast beef and a range of 15 different desserts. In 1991, Sheila King won a $250,000 jackpot in the casino at Caesars Palace on a $500 machine and won $50,000 twice soon afterward. Over three years she won $200 million on the machines but kept pumping the money back into the machines. Despite her luck, in 1994 her winnings fell to $500,000, and she spent much of her time over the next four years in the law courts claiming that the casino operators had tampered with her machines and deceived her to keep her winning.

 

In the 1990s, the hotel's management sought to create more elaborate features to compete with the other modern Las Vegas developments. The Forum Shops at Caesars opened in 1992; it was one of the first venues in the city where shopping, particularly at high-end fashion house stores, was an attraction in itself. A new redevelopment opened on October 22, 2004.

 

In June 2005, Harrah's Entertainment acquired Caesars Entertainment, Inc. and became the owner of Caesars Palace. Harrah's changed its own name to Caesars Entertainment in 2010, to capitalize on the prestige of the Caesars brand.

 

In 2010, Caesars Palace was fined $250,000 by the Nevada Gaming Commission for permitting a high-limit baccarat player to dance on the card table while the game was underway. In September 2015, Caesars Palace agreed to pay the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network an $8 million civil money penalty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act.

 

In October 2017, ownership of Caesars Palace was transferred to Vici Properties as part of a corporate spin-off; Vici leased the property back to Caesars Entertainment at an initial annual rent of $165 million.

 

Architecture

 

Jeff Campbell of Lonely Planet refers to the hotel as "quintessentially Las Vegas", a "Greco-Roman fantasyland featuring marble reproductions of classical statuary". The art deco style fused with clear influences from Hollywood epic productions dominate. Construction of the 14-story Caesars Palace hotel on the 34-acre (14 ha) site began in 1962, and it opened in 1966. It lay next to Dunes Hotel and opposite the Desert Inn. The original hotel featured lanes of cypresses and marble columns as part of a 900 feet (270 m) frontage, with the hotel set back 475 feet (145 m) . The car park could accommodate up to 1300 cars.

 

Water is heavily used for at least 18 fountains throughout—the casino resort uses over 240 million gallons a year. A 20 feet (6.1 m) high statue of Julius Caesar hailing a taxi lies in the driveway leading to the entrance, and there are replicas of Rape of the Sabine Women and statues of Venus and David which greet guests as they arrive. Near the entrance is a four-faced, eight-handed Brahma shrine which weighs four tons. It was made in Bangkok, Thailand, with a casting ceremony on November 25, 1983, according to the inscription on it. A multimillion-dollar renovation of the main entrance began in July 2021, and was finished seven months later. It includes a domed ceiling and a 15-foot statue of Augustus.

 

Exterior

 

A $75 million renovation of the hotel's original Roman Tower, built in 1966 and extended in 1974, was completed in January 2016. The 14-story Tower, last renovated in 2001, will have 20 rooms added for a total of 587 rooms and suites, and will be renamed the Julius Tower. Entertainment Close-Up wrote that the Julius Tower is the "latest piece of a $1 billion investment to cement Caesars Palace as the premier resort at the center of the Las Vegas Strip". Nobu Tower (formerly Centurion Tower) is a 14-story tower that was completed in 1970 at a cost of $4.2 million. In 2011 it was announced that the tower would be renovated and be renamed to Nobu, and to operate as the first Nobu Hotel with a restaurant. A remodeling of the Nobu Hotel took place during 2021.

 

Rooms in the Forum Tower opened in 1979. The Palace Tower opened in 1998 and mirrors the Greco-Roman theme of the hotel with fluted columns and Corinthian columns and pediments on its facade and fountains and statues scattered around its interior space.

 

Plans for the Augustus Tower began in 2003 and were consolidated in 2004 with the architects Bergman Walls Associates. The expansion at a cost of $289 million US included a 26-story, 345-foot-tall tower, as well as an addition of new convention and meeting facilities at the resort. The Augustus opened in 2005 with 949 rooms, which were designed for more upscale luxury and service than the other parts of the resort. The Octavius Tower opened in January 2012. The 668-room tower was added as part of a $860-million expansion. The tower shares a lobby with the Augustus Tower. The pools at Caesars Palace are modeled after the Roman baths.

 

Entertainment

 

Many international performers have performed at the hotel, including Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., Rod Stewart, Celine Dion, Cher, Bette Midler, Liberace, Liza Minnelli, Elton John, George Burns, Pat Cooper, Diana Ross, Teresa Teng, Paul Anka, Julio Iglesias, Judy Garland, David Copperfield, Stevie Nicks, Dolly Parton, Tony Bennett, Gloria Estefan, Phyllis Diller, Luis Miguel, Ike & Tina Turner, Janet Jackson, Shania Twain, Jerry Seinfeld, Harry Belafonte, Louie Anderson, Ricky Martin, Mariah Carey, Deana Martin, B.B. King, The Moody Blues, Pilita Corrales and Matt Goss. In mid-1996, a new venue known as "Caesars Magical Empire" was created on the property, showcasing magicians such as Michael Ammar, Jon Armstrong, Lee Asher, Whit Haydn, Jeff "Magnus" McBride, and Alain Nu. The "Empire" was closed on November 30, 2002, after which the structure was razed to make room for a large concert hall created for singer Celine Dion. The Colosseum at Caesars Palace is a 4,296-seat entertainment venue with a 22,450 square feet (2,086 m2) stage, which was originally built at a cost of $95-million for Celine Dion's show, A New Day..., in 2003. A success, the Colosseum show earned almost $175,000 on average per night and grossed $500 million in four years. The venue has since hosted performances by numerous other artists. Gloria Estefan performed a special seven-day concert in October 2003 for the launch of her album Unwrapped, titled Live & Unwrapped. In May 2007, Bette Midler was announced as Dion's formal replacement, performing 100 shows a year, with Elton John continuing to perform his popular Red Piano show 50 nights a year while Midler was on hiatus. After taking a three-year hiatus, Cher, following her Farewell Tour, returned to Caesars Palace with a three-year contract, performing 200 shows beginning May 6, 2008.

 

On May 26, 2009, U.S President Barack Obama performed in the Colosseum in the one-night show A Good Fight alongside Sheryl Crow, Bette Midler and Rita Rudner to fundraise for Nevada's senator Harry Reid re-election campaign. Several streets were closed and the Augustus tower was blocked as security precautions by the Secret Service during the visit. In March 2011, Celine Dion returned to The Colosseum with her new show entitled "Celine", which is under contract for 70 shows per year, through 2017. In 2015, Reba McEntire and Brooks & Dunn began a concert residency at the Colosseum titled Together in Vegas. Absinthe is a live show that premiered on April 1, 2011, on the forecourt of the hotel. The show is hosted by The Gazillionaire, played by actor and former Cirque du Soleil clown Voki Kalfayan and his assistant, Penny Pibbets, portrayed by actress Anais Thomassian. The show is performed outside in a Spiegeltent on a 9 feet (2.7 m) diameter stage. The tent accommodates 600 persons who are seated on folding chairs circled around the stage.

 

The Pussycat Dolls Lounge, an adjunct of the Pure Nightclub, opened at Caesars Palace in 2005. The lounge was patterned after a vintage strip club. The club's center was a stage where dancers called the Pussycat Girls clad in fishnet hose and corsets, began a new dance show every half hour. Celebrities like Paris Hilton and Christina Aguilera occasionally danced as "guest pussycats". In 2007, Caesars Palace opened a Pussycat Dolls Casino directly across from the Pussycat Dolls Lounge. It had an oval pit at the casino's center, where two go-go dancers in cages performed in response to the music. At the end of February 2010, the Pussycat Dolls left the Pure nightclub for a new lounge at the Chateau nightclub, which is part of Paris Las Vegas.

 

The Omnia (Latin for "[the sum of] all things") nightclub, opened in March 2015, replacing the Pure nightclub which operated there for over a decade. The $107 million expansion and redesign incorporates both the 34,000 square feet (3,200 m2) Pure facility and the adjacent World of Poker tournament room to create a 75,000 square feet (7,000 m2) space that can accommodate 3,500 people. Designed by the Rockwell Group, the club is outfitted with theatrical lighting, sound, and climate-control systems, along with rigging and catwalks for aerial performers. It is operated by the Hakkasan Group.

 

The replica of Cleopatra's Barge houses a bar and lounge that opened at Caesars Palace in 1970. Rat Pack members Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin often visited the Barge, with Sinatra occasionally singing there after his own shows.

 

Sports

 

The New Yorker writes that Caesars Palace was "dubbed the Home of Champions after hosting decades of events like boxing matches, auto races, and volleyball tournaments". The Caesars Palace Grand Prix car race (a Formula One World Championship event) was held at the car park of Caesars Palace in 1981 and 1982. The new race proved to be a financial disaster, and was not popular among the drivers, primarily because of the desert heat and its counter-clockwise direction, which put a tremendous strain on the drivers' necks. When Nelson Piquet clinched his first World Championship by finishing fifth in 1981, it took him fifteen minutes to recover from heat exhaustion. The 1982 race was won by Michele Alboreto in a Tyrrell, but the race was not renewed for the following season due to poor attendance. The following two years a CART (IndyCar) event was run, with Mario Andretti and Tom Sneva winning, before the open-wheel event was permanently dropped. In 2013 it hosted a round of the Stadium Super Trucks.

 

Many boxing matches have been held in Caesars Outdoor Arena and at its since demolished Sports Pavilion (an indoor sports arena) since the late 1970s. The hotel has hosted fights between George Foreman and Ron Lyle in January 1976, Roberto Durán and Esteban de Jesús in January 1978, Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali in October 1980, Holmes and Gerry Cooney in June 1982 as well as Wilfredo Gómez versus Juan Antonio Lopez at the same date; Gómez's bout with Salvador Sánchez on August 21, 1981, Marvin Hagler vs. Roberto Durán and a world championship fight between Shane Mosley and Shannan Taylor. In April 1987, the 15,356-seat arena at Caesars Palace hosted "The Super Fight" boxing match between Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. Two bouts between Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe were contested here, including Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe in November 1992, and a revenge match a year later in which Holyfield took the title, and he fought with Michael Moorer at Caesars Palace, including Evander Holyfield vs. Michael Moorer in April 1994 for the WBA, IBF and Lineal Heavyweight Championships. In 2004 boxing returned to the Palace, when Wladimir Klitschko and former Olympian Jeff Lacy headlined a card televised on Showtime at the Palace's new outdoor amphitheatre.

 

Caesars Palace has played host to a number of professional wrestling events throughout the 1990s, the most notable of which is WWE's WrestleMania IX in April 1993 which capitalized on the Roman theme of the venue. Billed as the "Worlds Largest Toga Party" it remains to this day the only WrestleMania with a particular theme. World Championship Wrestling also held a series of events at Caesars Palace, including Clash of the Champions XXX in January 1995 as well as Clash of the Champions XXXII and an episode of WCW Monday Nitro, each in January 1996.

 

On September 27, 1991, a National Hockey League preseason game between the Los Angeles Kings and New York Rangers was held on an outdoor rink built in the Caesars Palace parking lot. Behind a goal from Wayne Gretzky, the Kings came back from a 2–0 deficit to win 5–2. The game served as a prelude to "Frozen Fury", an annual series of preseason games in Las Vegas played primarily against the Colorado Avalanche at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, and eventually the establishment of an expansion team in Las Vegas, the Vegas Golden Knights, for the 2017–18 NHL season.

 

In popular culture

 

Caesars Palace has been a location in numerous films. It has appeared in films such as Hells Angels on Wheels (1967), Where It's At (1969),[196] The Only Game in Town (1970), The Electric Horseman (1979), Rocky III (1982), Oh, God! You Devil (1984), You Ruined My Life (1987), Rain Man (1988), Hearts Are Wild (1992), Fools Rush In (1997), Ocean's Eleven (2001), Intolerable Cruelty (2003), Dreamgirls (2006), Iron Man (2008), The Hangover (2009), 2012 (2009), The Hangover Part III (2013) and Step Up: All In (2014).

 

In television it has appeared in series such as The Partridge Family, the "Viva Ned Flanders" episode of The Simpsons, The Sopranos, Friends, The Strip (1999), and Keeping Up With the Kardashians. It also appeared in the season 12 premiere of America's Next Top Model. The short-lived 1990s game show Caesars Challenge taped in the casino's theatre and pulled contestants from the audience; losing players were given tickets to Caesars shows and dinner as a consolation prize, while an audience game played at the end offered audience members the chance to get casino chips and chocolate coins.

 

(Wikipedia)

 

Das Caesars Palace ist ein Hotel in Paradise im Großraum Las Vegas im US-Bundesstaat Nevada. Es ist im Stil eines antiken römischen Palastes errichtet; der Name leitet sich von Gaius Iulius Caesar her, dem Herrscher des antiken Rom, und soll dessen Pracht widerspiegeln.

 

Das Hotel am Las Vegas Boulevard besitzt 3.960 Gästezimmer und Suiten in sechs Zimmertürmen. Säulen, Statuen und Wasser-Fontänen prägen das Erscheinungsbild der Anlage. Das im Hotel integrierte Spielkasino belegt eine Fläche von etwa 15.000 Quadratmetern. Die Forum Shops, ein großes Einkaufszentrum mit exklusiven Geschäften sowie ein weitläufiger Pool- und Gartenbereich gehören ebenso zu dem Komplex.

 

Geschichte

 

1962 erhielt Jay Sarno einen Kredit über 10,6 Mio. US$ aus dem Central States Pension Fund der Teamsters und errichtete von 1962 bis 1965 ein Hotel mit angeschlossenem Kasino. Es wurde am 5. August 1966 eröffnet. Ein Jahr nach der Eröffnung des Hotels erlangte das Hotel durch den Motorradstuntman Evel Knievel großes Aufsehen, als dieser sich schwer verletzte, nachdem er im Beisein zahlreicher Zuschauer über die Brunnenanlage entlang der Vorfahrt des Caesars Palace gesprungen war, jedoch bei der Landung stürzte.

 

1962 begann der Bau des Roman Towers, dem ersten Hotelturm der Anlage mit 680 Zimmern in 14 Geschossen. Das halbkreisförmige Gebäude wurde zentriert hinter dem Haupteingang und der von Springbrunnen gesäumten Vorfahrt angelegt. 1970 wurde das Hotel durch den rechteckigen, erneut 14-stöckigen, Centurion Tower mit 222 Zimmern erweitert. Der abgerundete Roman Tower wurde später um eine entgegengesetzt-gekrümmte Kurve verlängert. Der Forum Tower mit 22 Geschossen kam 1979 hinzu. Am 17. Oktober 1981 und am 25. September 1982 fand auf dem Parkplatzgelände der Große Preis von Las Vegas statt. Sieger der Formel-1-Rennen waren Alan Jones (1981) sowie Michele Alboreto (1982). Da die Rennstrecke auf den Parkplätzen des Caesars Palace sehr uneben war, fand der Grand Prix nur zweimal im Großraum Las Vegas statt.

 

Das Caesars Palace war in den 1980er Jahren Austragungsort vieler berühmter Box-Kämpfe, bevor es in den 1990er Jahren von einem reinen Casino-Hotel zu einem familienfreundlichen Unterhaltungskomplex umgebaut wurde. Diese Änderung haben alle großen Hotels im Großraum Las Vegas vollzogen. Auch heute finden allerdings noch Boxkämpfe statt, vor allem in der Außenanlage „Thomas and Mack Arena“. 1987 wurden Szenen des 1988 erschienenen oscarprämierten Kinofilms Rain Man mit Tom Cruise und Dustin Hoffman in den Hauptrollen im Caesars Palace gedreht.

 

1997 wurde der Palace Tower errichtet. Erstmals wurde dessen Fassade im römisch inspirierten Stil gestaltet. Die bis dahin errichteten Hoteltürme kamen ohne ebensolchen aus. Im selben Jahr wurden auch die 1992 eröffneten Forum Shops, wie auch die Casino- und Konferenzflächen erweitert und die ebenso römisch gestaltete Pool- und Gartenanlage errichtet. Im Jahr 2000 wurden nun an allen früher errichteten Bauteilen antike Stilelemente nachgerüstet um sie den neu gebauten Hotelteilen anzugleichen.

 

2003 wurde das Colosseum eröffnet, ein modernes Theatergebäude mit über 4000 Sitzplätzen, das äußerlich dem antiken Kolosseum in Rom nachempfunden ist. Viele Künstler haben im Laufe der Jahre im Caesars Palace gastiert, beispielsweise Frank Sinatra, Liberace und David Copperfield. Seit März 2003 stehen abwechselnd unter anderen Cher, Céline Dion, Elton John und Shania Twain auf der Bühne des Colosseum. Für die Pussycat Dolls wurde darüber hinaus die „Pussycat Dolls Lounge“ eröffnet, in der sie auch auftraten.

 

Im Jahr 2004 wurden die Forum Shops mit einer dem Strip zugewandten dreistöckigen Ausbaustufe auf die heutige Größe ausgebaut. In diesem Gebäudeteil befinden sich auch die bekannten spiralförmigen Rolltreppen. Im Jahr 2005 wurden der Augustus Tower (35 Geschosse, 949 Zimmer) und die neue Hotellobby ihrer Bestimmung übergeben. Im selben Jahr hat der französische 3-Sterne-Koch Guy Savoy ein Restaurant im Caesars Palace eröffnet.

 

2008 diente das Casino als Filmset für den Kinohit Hangover. In diesem fragt Alan (Zach Galifianakis) die Rezeptionistin, ob Caesar wirklich im Caesars Palace gelebt habe. 2013 wurde das Hotel erneut als Filmset in Hangover 3 genutzt.

 

Der bisher letzte Neubau des Hotels ist der Octavius Tower und wurde 2011 eröffnet. Das Caesars ist damit eines der wenigen Hotels im Großraum Las Vegas, das seit seiner Eröffnung keine Gebäudeteile abgerissen bzw. (wie dort üblich) gesprengt hat, sondern stattdessen immer wieder erweitert und umgebaut wurde.

 

Seit 2013 befindet sich im ehemaligen Centurion Tower des Caesars das eigenständig betriebene Boutique-Hotel Nobu Hotel.

 

Besitzverhältnisse

 

Nach mehreren Besitzerwechseln gehört das Caesars Palace seit 2005 zur Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. Die Harrah’s Gruppe hat Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (bis 2003 Park Place Entertainment Corporation), einem Konzern mit 55.000 Mitarbeitern, der knapp 30 Hotel-Kasinos weltweit unterhält, übernommen. Seit 2010 tritt nun das gesamte Unternehmen wieder als Caesars Entertainment auf.

 

In Las Vegas gehören unter anderem die Hotels Bally’s, Flamingo und Paris zur Gruppe. Es gibt weitere Caesars Hotels in den Vereinigten Staaten, beispielsweise in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

 

(Wikipedia)

A nice view of a Gemini engineering mock-up on display at the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation plant, St. Louis, MO, ca. 1963-65.

Note the possible McDonnell engineers peering through the windows. The copilot really seems to be enjoying the ‘ride’.

 

Since I’m certain everyone's been wondering what the conspicuous cowling is on the spacecraft's port side, attached to the reentry control system section, wait no more.

It’s the horizon sensor fairing!

Who knew?! Did you? I didn’t.

Whew!

Sur cette rame on peut aperçevoir les triangle ETCS et c'est pour en parler que je poste cette photo : L' ETCS ( European train control system ) est comme son nom l'indique un système de signalisation ferroviaire européen qui a pour but de faciliter le passage des frontières mais aussi pour améliorer la sécurité et éviter au maximum les erreurs humaines grâce à un système de balises transmettant les différentes imformations en cabine grâce à un seul et même système et cela pourrait être utile en europe quand on pense que certains trains comme les Thalys de la relation Paris - Bruxelles - Amsterdam ou Paris cologne possèdent pas moins de 7 systèmes différents ( TVM ou KVB pour la france ) concentrons nous sur l'aspect local de l' ETCS le réseau luxembourgeois est extrêmement avancé en matière d'ETCS puisque depuis 2017 le réseau est entièrement équipé de L'ETCS niveau 1 est tous les trains circulant au luxembourg doivent l'appliquer en théorie depuis la 31 décembre 2019 y compris donc nos Z 24500 métrolor mais tout ne s'est pas passé comme prévu : avisée en 2012 du projet luxembourgeois le président de la région lorraine refuse de financer le projet et ce n'est qu'en 2016 que le projet est financé et engagé mais la rélaisation du projet ETCS est estimé à 60 mois par la SNCF cela nous amméne donc à Juillet 2020. En 2017 un événement va précipiter les choses : l'accident de Dudelange au Luxembourg une collision entre un fret et un voyageur entre Bettembourg et Zouftgen une ligne fortement accidentogène je pense à l'accident de Zouftgen en 2006 cette accident décide le luxembourg à accélérer le date butoir de transition ETCS en avançant la date butoir au 31/12/2019 un objectif impossible à tenir pour la SNCF qui n'a équipé que douze rames sur les 24 engagées sur le Sillon Lorrain créeant des perturbations momentanées pour les frontaliers malgré cela la situation s'est améliorée depuis et les 24500 sont donc équipées de l'ETCS

Description (1955) The Bell Aircraft Corporation X-1E airplane being loaded under the mothership, Boeing B-29. The X planes had originally been lowered into a loading pit and the launch aircraft towed over the pit, where the rocket plane was hoisted by belly straps into the bomb bay. By the early 1950's a hydraulic lift had been installed on the ramp at the NACA High-Speed Flight Station to elevate the launch aircraft and then lower it over the rocket plane for mating.

 

There were four versions of the Bell X-1 rocket-powered research aircraft that flew at the NACA High-Speed Flight Research Station, Edwards, California. The bullet-shaped X-1 aircraft were built by Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo, N.Y. for the U.S. Army Air Forces (after 1947, U.S. Air Force) and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The X-1 Program was originally designated the XS-1 for EXperimental Supersonic. The X-1's mission was to investigate the transonic speed range (speeds from just below to just above the speed of sound) and, if possible, to break the "sound barrier." Three different X-1s were built and designated: X-1-1, X-1-2 (later modified to become the X-1E), and X-1-3. The basic X-1 aircraft were flown by a large number of different pilots from 1946 to 1951. The X-1 Program not only proved that humans could go beyond the speed of sound, it reinforced the understanding that technological barriers could be overcome. The X-1s pioneered many structural and aerodynamic advances including extremely thin, yet extremely strong wing sections; supersonic fuselage configurations; control system requirements; powerplant compatibility; and cockpit environments.

 

The X-1 aircraft were the first transonic-capable aircraft to use an all-moving stabilizer. The flights of the X-1s opened up a new era in aviation. The first X-1 was air-launched unpowered from a Boeing B-29 Superfortress on January 25, 1946. Powered flights began in December 1946. On October 14, 1947, the X-1-1, piloted by Air Force Captain Charles "Chuck" Yeager, became the first aircraft to exceed the speed of sound, reaching about 700 miles per hour (Mach 1.06) and an altitude of 43,000 feet. The number 2 X-1 was modified and redesignated the X-1E. The modifications included adding a conventional canopy, an ejection seat, a low-pressure fuel system of increased capacity, and a thinner high-speed wing. The X-1E was used to obtain in-flight data at twice the speed of sound, with particular emphasis placed on investigating the improvements achieved with the high-speed wing. These wings, made by Stanley Aircraft, were only 3-3/8-inches thick at the root and had 343 gauges installed in them to measure structural loads and aerodynamic heating. The X-1E used its rocket engine to power it up to a speed of 1,471 miles per hour (Mach 2.24) and to an altitude of 73,000 feet. Like the X-1 it was air-launched. The X-1 aircraft were almost 31 feet long and had a wingspan of 28 feet. The X-1 was built of conventional aluminum

stressed-skin construction to extremely high structural standards. The X-1E was also 31 feet long but had a wingspan of only 22 feet, 10 inches. It was powered by a Reaction Motors, Inc., XLR-8-RM-5, four-chamber rocket engine. As did all X-1 rocket engines, the LR-8-RM-5 engine did not have throttle capability, but instead, depended on ignition of any one chamber or group of chambers to vary speed.

 

NASA Media Usage Guidelines

 

Credit: NASA

Image Number: E55-02072

Date: 1955

With the arrival of the Olifant in Samaria, the engineers of the Samarian Ordnance Corps finally had access to a design that was decent enough to further develop into an indigenous design. The project was given the codename Raam (רעם/Thunder), as the new tank was supposed to be faster than the Piyl, the Samarian version of the Olifant.

Lacking any significant experience in actual tank design, help from the outside was quickly sought in Die Wêreldryk, where the Olifant was designed. Further aid came from the Nordic Union, that was generous enough to send a team of engineers that had worked on the Stridsvagn 101, in response to the Samarian request. The vast knowledge and skill of all these engineers was just what the Ordnance Corps needed, and design work on the new tanks progressed swiftly. With high speed in mind, a very powerful engine was developed under the name Sufa (סופה/Whirlwind), specifically for this project. The 105 mm gun from the Piyl was adapted and given a shorter barrel, just like the L7 on the Strv 101. It was only marginally less accurate than the one on the Piyl, but shared the same punching power, making it quite the competitive gun. Secondary armament was also similar to the Piyl, consisting of a co-axially mounted and a pintle-mounted 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. The final result was a machine that looked quite similar to the Nordic Strv 101, but with lots of technology from the Afrikaanse Olifant, and was dubbed Sho’t (שוט/Whip).

Testing showed that the top speed was an impressive 67.5 km/h on dirt roads, with performance in sand dropping to only about 56 km/h. Armour was not deemed very important, as the latest rounds could penetrate almost everything. To cut costs and reduce training, Thermal sights and IR sights were left out, limiting the Sho’t to daytime operations only, or clear nights with plenty of moonlight. This was compensated by the Piyl’s excellent range and ability to fight at night. Testing showed that the engine was prone to overheating, but this was fixed in the production model, with the installation of the improved Sufa IV engine. Crew comfort was also not excellent by any standards. The seats were tiny and rock-hard, the driver would often bang his elbow against the ammo rack that was right next to him when shifting, the gunner didn’t have much room, nor a personal hatch, …

In service, crews were not that bothered by the lack of comfort. The reliable Sufa IV needed little maintenance, as did the rest of the tank. Proving to be a reliable and hard-hitting weapon, it was used to great effect during the Tiran Crisis, aided by the long-range fire support from the Piyls. The fast Sho’ts utilized flanking manoeuvres, and took advantage of gaps created by the Piyls, confusing and wreaking havoc among the Anbat forces and allowing the Piyls to move up and take over strategic locations.Just like the Piyls, the Sho’ts were regularly updated with new optics, new turret rotating mechanism, a new gun stabiliser and a new fire-control system.

The latest plans to further extend the service life of the Sho’t is the addition of Pullover ERA, to give it a fighting chance against the man-portable ATGMs that are becoming more and more common.

 

Here we can see two Sho’ts parked on the factory lot at the Ordnance Works in Shechem. The left one is missing some tools and other equipment, the one on the right is completely fitted out and ready to be shipped off. Both have their guns in the travel lock.

 

First Gen MBT

Gun: 105mm +0

Armour: Centurion +0

Hull: 76 mm / 50 mm (Skirts: +6 mm) / 38 mm

Turret: 152 mm / 89 mm / 89 mm

Speed: 65 km/h: +0

Perks:

Advanced Optics +1

Low Maintenance: +1

Quirks:

No Thermal Sights: -1

Uncomfy: -1

Cost: 6₪

 

I heavily modified Aranethon’s Olifant, to the point that only some parts of the turret are from the original model. But still huge thanks to him, I wouldn’t have started this without the original one.

  

A stunning depiction of LEM ascent stage liftoff, from a 1965 Marquardt Corporation ad, by David Hawbecker. Marquardt was the manufacturer of the Reaction Control System (RCS) engines for both the LEM & Command/Service Module.

 

Only through the gracious assistance & skills/talent of Garrett O’Donoghue/”Numbers Station” am I able to post this image that’s otherwise GONE.

Nice to see Mr. Hawbecker’s RCS exhaust plumes evolved from the previous ’sputtery’ look, to be continuous, with shock diamonds no less.

 

The original source, featured on page 74 of the March 29, 1965 issue of “Missiles and Rockets” magazine, at:

 

archive.org/details/missilesrockets1619unse/page/74/mode/1up

Credit: Internet Archive website

 

Garrett is pulling some gems - from the near, distant and everything in-between - past, and making them available. Treat yourself to a veritable visual cornucopia:

 

www.flickr.com/photos/numbersstation/albums

 

And:

 

e05.code.blog/

 

Thank you Brother.

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards, placed in a streamlined fairing on the upper side of the nose, just in front of the cockpit. This system allowed for long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his position with active radar emissions, and it could also be used for target illumination and guiding precision weapons.

Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

After joining the global U.N. Spacy union, Germany adopted the VF-1 in late 2008, it replaced the Eurofighter Typhoon interceptors as well as Tornado IDS and ECR fighter bombers. An initial delivery of 120 aircraft was completed until 2011, partially delayed by the outbreak of Space War One in 2009. This initial batch included 85 VF-1A single seaters, fourteen VF-1J fighters for commanders and staff leaders, and twenty VF-1D two-seaters for conversion training over Germany (even though initial Valkyrie training took place at Ataria Island). These machines were erratically registered under the tactical codes 26+01 to 26+99. Additionally, there was a single VF-1S (27+00) as a personal mount for the General der Luftwaffe.

 

The German single-seaters were delivered as multi-role fighters that could operate as interceptors/air superiority fighters as well as attack aircraft. Beyond the standard equipment they also carried a passive IRST sensor in front of the cockpit that allowed target acquisition without emitting radar impulses, a LRMTS (Laser Rangefinder and Marked Target Sensor) under the nose, a Weapon Delivery and Navigation System (WDNS) and an extended suite of radar warning sensors and ECM jammers.

After Space War I, attritions were replaced with a second batch of VF-1 single seaters in 2015, called VF-1L (for “Luftwaffe”). These machines had updated avionics and, among modifications, a laser target designator in a small external pod under the cockpit. About forty VF-1 survivors from the first batch were upgraded to this standard, too, and the VF-1Ls were registered under the codes 27+01 – 90.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force

 

Accommodation:

Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including

12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional VF-1 is more or less “only” a camouflage experiment, spawned by a recent discussion about the German Luftwaffe’s so-called “Norm ‘81” paint scheme that was carried by the F-4Fs during the Eighties and the early Nineties. It is one of the most complex standardized paint scheme I am aware of, consisting of no less than six basic shades of grey and applied in two different patterns (early variant with angled/splinter camouflage, later this was changed into more organic shapes).

 

I have built a fictional post-GDR MiG-21 with the Norm ’81 scheme some years ago, but had always been curious how a Macross VF-1 would look with it, or how it could be adapted to the F-14esque airframe?

 

Concerning the model, it’s another vintage ARII VF-1, in this case a VF-1J, built OOB and with the landing gear down and an open canopy. However, I added some small details like the sensors in front of the cockpit, RHAWS sensors and bulges for ECM equipment on the lower legs (all canonical). The ordnance was subtly changed, with just two AMM-1 missiles on each outer pylon plus small ECM pods on the lo hardpoint (procured from an 1:144 Tornado). The inner stations were modified to hold quadruple starters for (fictional) air-to-ground missiles, left over from a Zvezda 1:72 Ka-58 helicopter and probably depicting Soviet/Russian 9M119 “Svir” laser-guided anti-tank missiles, or at least something similar. At the model’s 1:100 scale they are large enough to represent domestic alternatives to AGM-65 Maverick missiles – suitable against Zentraedi pods and other large ground targets. The ventral GU-11 pod was modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures. Some blade antennae were added as a standard measure to improve the simple kit’s look. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure for the scenic shots and the thick canopy was later mounted on a small lift arm in open position.

 

Painting and markings:

This was quite a challenge: adapting the Norm’ 81 scheme to the swing-wing Valkyrie, with its folded legs and the twin tail as well as lacking the Phantom’s spine and bulged air intakes, was not easy, and I went for the most straightforward solution and simplified things on the VF-1’s short spine.

 

The Norm ‘81’s “official” colors are all RAL tones, and I decided to use these for an authentic lokk, namely:

RAL 7009 Grüngrau: Revell 67 (acrylic)

RAL 7012 Basaltgrau: Revell 77 (acrylic)

RAL 7039 Quarzgrau: Xtracolor X259 (enamel)

RAL 7037 Staubgrau: Xtracolor X258 (enamel)

RAL 7030 Steingrau: Revell 75 (enamel)

RAL 7035 Lichtgrau: Humbrol 196 (enamel)

 

This basically plan worked and left me with a very murky aircraft: Norm ’81 turned out to be a kind of all-propose camouflage that works well against both sky and ground, at least in the typical German climate, and especially good at medium to low altitude. RAL 7030, 7037 and 7039 appear like gradually darker shades of the basically same brownish grey hue, framed with darker contrast areas that appear either greenish or bluish.

 

However, the Xtracolor enamels turned out to be total sh!t: they lacked pigments in the glossy and translucent base and therefore ANY opacity, esp. on any edge, at least when you use a brush like me. Not certain if using an airbrush improves this? The result were uneven and rather thick areas of paint, not what I had hoped for. And the Revell 75 just did what I hate about the company's enamels: drying up prematurely with a gooey consistency, leaving visible streaks.

 

After a black ink wash, very light post-shading was added. I should have from the start tried to stick to the acrylics and also mix the Xtracolor tones from Revell acrylics, a stunt that turned during the weathering process (trying to hide the many blemishes) out to be quite feasible. RAL 7037 was mixed from Revell 47 plus 89 in a ~1:1 ratio, and RAL 7039 from Revell 47, 77 and 87 with a touch of 09. Nevertheless, the paint finish turned out sub-optimal, but some shading and weathering saved most of the mess – even I am not satisfied with the outcome, the model looks more weathered than intended (even though most operational German F-4Fs with this paint scheme looked quite shaggy and worn, making the different shades of grey almost undiscernible).

 

After some consideration I gave this German VF-1 full-color (yet small) "Kite" roundels, together with a German tactical code. German flags and a vintage JaboG 32 squadron badge decorate the fin - a plausible move, because there are British Valkyries in source books that carry RAF fin flashes. Stencils and other markings came from VF-1 OOB sheets.

Finally, after some typical highlights with clear paint over a silver base were added, and the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A spontaneous interim project, with interesting results. The adapted Norm ’81 scheme works well on the VF-1, and it even is a contemporary design from the era when the original TV series was conceived and aired. With the authentic tones I’d call it quite ugly – even though I was amazed during the photo session how well the different shades of grey (four from above!) blend into each other and break up the aircraft’s outlines. If there were no red-and-white roundels or the orange pilot in the cockpit (chosen intentionally for some color contrast), the camouflage would be very effective! Not perfect, but another special member in my growing VF-1 model fleet. ^^

 

A formation of Lockheed Martin F-35A "Lightning IIs", from the 388th Fighter Wing and 419th FW, refuel over the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah, as part of a combat power exercise Nov. 19, 2018. The exercise aims to confirm their ability to quickly employ a large force of jets against air and ground targets, and demonstrate the readiness and lethality of the F-35. As the first combat-ready F-35 units in the Air Force, the 388th and 419th FWs at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are ready to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

My 3-axis camBLOCK motion-control system set up in the Alamaba Hills this morning.

 

www.camblock.com

Homlungen lighthouse are located on a small island just outside Kirkøy in Hvaler island, Norway. This shot is shot with my Sony nex-7 and a Sigma 19mm. I just wish the A6000 had the tri-navi system. Best camera control system ever made (in my eyes :) )

“Spacesuits and computers were used in combination with a simplified mockup of NASA's Apollo moonship (background) at the Aeronautical Division of Honeywell in Minneapolis, where the stabilization and control system for the three-man spacecraft was developed. In the photo engineer Bill Summers (left) made final adjustments on one of a number of computers which would feed simulated flight information to engineer-test pilot Jim O'Neil (right) when he was inside the command module mockup.

--Minneapolis-Honeywell photo”

 

Despite the “sepiation” of a large portion of the photograph, it’s wonderfully vivid, sharp, glossy & detailed…absolutely delightful.

 

A wonderful & unexpected surprise, the above description, along with the image is at the following (Adobe Acrobat page 202, of 297):

 

history.nasa.gov/SP-4009vol2.pdf

 

If the following information/identification is correct, Mr. O’Neil appears (to me) to be wearing a Mark IV full pressure suit, manufactured by Arrowhead Manufacturing Company (as a competitor to the B.F. Goodrich suit):

 

airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/pressure-suit-mark-...

 

And:

 

www.si.edu/object/helmet-flying-full-pressure-mark-iv-uni...

Both above credit: Smithsonian NASM website

 

Additionally, pertaining to the Mark IV image:

 

"This is a United States Navy Mark IV high altitude pressure suit. The Arrowhead Products Company made this suit in the mid-1950s at the request of the Navy as a competition suit. The B. F. Goodrich Company made a similar suit that the Navy later adopted as it as its emergency pressure suit., One interesting feature of this suit is the use of the molded rubber convolutes in the joints. These joints allowed pilots greater mobility in the arms, legs and waist than previous suits and were lighter weight, too. However, they were hard and uncomfortable for pilots while sitting in the aircraft cockpit. Nevertheless, NASA obtained this suit from the Navy during the course of evaluating pressure suits to turn into spacesuits for the Mercury program. Even though NASA opted to use the B.F. Goodrich design for Mercury, they kept the convolute joint in mind and selected the ILC Industries as the contractor for Apollo suits when that company proposed a similar joint system., NASA transferred this suit to the Museum in 1975."

 

At:

 

www.omnia.ie/index.php?navigation_function=2&navigati...

Credit: OMNIA website

  

Last, but certainly not least. And I may be reaching; however, could this possibly be the same Jim O’Neil??? To me, the eyes, nose, even filtrum & upper lip contour look to be of the same person. Although the timeline of his biography doesn’t fully support such, he was in a staff position at this time…so maybe?:

 

www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=996

Credit: Veteran Tributes website

Reaction Control System (RCS) Each RCS consists of high-pressure gaseous helium storage tanks, pressure regulation and relief systems, a fuel and oxidizer tank, a system that distributes propellant to its engines, and thermal control systems (electrical heaters). Forward RCS units provide the thrust for attitude (rotational) maneuvers (pitch, yaw and roll) and for small velocity changes along the orbiter axis (translation maneuvers).

 

STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY CENTER

NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM

Chantilly, VA

Whilst they waited for the Mk4 to be completed the Intercity Sector came up with the novel idea of matching up the Class 91's with a HST set complete with power car. The idea was that the Class 43 power car was to be used for Hotel power only, however the idling diesel engines didn't take kindly to this with Deltic style exhaust drum fires. As a result the control systems were changed and the power cars also supplied power creating a 8300hp monster of a train!

 

I travelled these trains extensively enjoying the lightening fast performance they gave. 91005 is seen at Grantham on the 29th June 1989 on the 1210 Leeds Kings Cross. Class 43 43013 was on the south end of the set.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, vice president of engineering and research at Lockheed's Skunk Works, visited USAF air bases across South Korea in November 1951 to speak with fighter pilots about what they wanted and needed in a fighter aircraft. At the time, the American pilots were confronting the MiG-15 with North American F-86 Sabres, and many felt that the MiGs were superior to the larger and more complex American design. The pilots requested a small and simple aircraft with excellent performance, especially high speed and altitude capabilities. Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States.

 

Work started in March 1952. In order to achieve the desired performance, Lockheed chose a small and simple aircraft, weighing in at 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) with a single powerful engine. The engine chosen was the new General Electric J79 turbojet, an engine of dramatically improved performance in comparison with contemporary designs. The small L-246 design remained essentially identical to the Model 083 Starfighter as eventually delivered.

 

Johnson presented the design to the Air Force on 5 November 1952, and work progressed quickly, with a mock-up ready for inspection at the end of April, and work starting on two prototypes that summer. The first prototype was completed by early 1954 and first flew on 4 March at Edwards AFB. The total time from contract to first flight was less than one year.

 

The first YF-104A flew on 17 February 1956 and, with the other 16 trial aircraft, were soon carrying out equipment evaluation and flight tests. Lockheed made several improvements to the aircraft throughout the testing period, including strengthening the airframe, adding a ventral fin to improve directional stability at supersonic speed, and installing a boundary layer control system (BLCS) to reduce landing speed. Problems were encountered with the J79 afterburner; further delays were caused by the need to add AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. On 28 January 1958, the first production F-104A to enter service was delivered.

 

Even though the F-104 saw only limited use by the USAF, later versions, tailored to a fighter bomber role and intended for overseas sales, were more prolific. This was in particular the F-104G, which became the Starfighter's main version, a total of 1,127 F-104Gs were produced under license by Canadair and a consortium of European companies that included Messerschmitt/MBB, Fiat, Fokker, and SABCA.

 

The F-104G differed considerably from earlier versions. It featured strengthened fuselage, wing, and empennage structures; a larger vertical fin with fully powered rudder as used on the earlier two-seat versions; fully powered brakes, new anti-skid system, and larger tires; revised flaps for improved combat maneuvering; a larger braking chute. Upgraded avionics included an Autonetics NASARR F15A-41B multi-mode radar with air-to-air, ground-mapping, contour-mapping, and terrain-avoidance modes, as well as the Litton LN-3 Inertial Navigation System, the first on a production fighter.

 

Germany was among the first foreign operators of the F-104G variant. As a side note, a widespread misconception was and still is that the "G" explicitly stood for "Germany". But that was not the case and pure incidence, it was just the next free letter, even though Germany had a major influence on the aircraft's concept and equipment. The German Air Force and Navy used a large number of F-104G aircraft for interception, reconnaissance and fighter bomber roles. In total, Germany operated 916 Starfighters, becoming the type's biggest operator in the world. Beyond the single seat fighter bombers, Germany also bought and initially 30 F-104F two-seat aircraft and then 137 TF-104G trainers. Most went to the Luftwaffe and a total of 151 Starfighters was allocated to the Marineflieger units.

 

The introduction of this highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed German air force was fraught with problems. Many were of technical nature, but there were other sources of problems, too. For instance, after WWII, many pilots and ground crews had settled into civilian jobs and had not kept pace with military and technological developments. Newly recruited/re-activated pilots were just being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first-generation jet aircraft or trained on piston-driven types. Ground crews were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in poor northwest European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair-weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, a great many Starfighter accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). German Air Force and Navy losses with the type totaled 110 pilots, around half of them naval officers.

 

One general contributing factor to the high attrition rate was the operational assignment of the F-104 in German service: it was mainly used as a (nuclear strike) fighter-bomber, flying at low altitude underneath enemy radar and using landscape clutter as passive radar defense, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. In addition to the different and demanding mission profiles, the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the inertial navigation system, added distraction to the pilot and additional weight that further hampered the flying abilities of the plane. In contemporary German magazine articles highlighting the Starfighter safety problems, the aircraft was portrayed as "overburdened" with technology, which was considered a latent overstrain on the aircrews. Furthermore, many losses in naval service were attributed to the Starfighter’s lack of safety margin through a twin-engine design like the contemporary Blackburn Buccaneer, which had been the German navy air arm’s favored type. But due to political reasons (primarily the outlook to produce the Starfighter in Southern Germany in license), the Marine had to accept and make do with the Starfighter, even if it was totally unsuited for the air arm's mission profile.

 

Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace from WWII, commanded one of Germany's first (post-war) jet fighter-equipped squadrons and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction.

In 1966 Johannes Steinhoff took over command of the Luftwaffe and grounded the entire Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine F-104 fleet until he was satisfied that the persistent problems had been resolved or at least reduced to an acceptable level. One measure to improve the situation was that some Starfighters were modified to carry a flight data recorder or "black box" which could give an indication of the probable cause of an accident. In later years, the German Starfighters’ safety record improved, although a new problem of structural failure of the wings emerged: original fatigue calculations had not taken into account the high number of g-force loading cycles that the German F-104 fleet was experiencing through their mission profiles, and many airframes were returned to the depot for wing replacement or outright retirement.

 

The German F-104Gs served primarily in the strike role as part of the Western nuclear deterrent strategy, some of these dedicated nuclear strike Starfighters even had their M61 gun replaced by an additional fuel tank for deeper penetration missions. However, some units close to the German borders, e.g. Jagdgeschwader (JG) 71 in Wittmundhafen (East Frisia) as well as JG 74 in Neuburg (Bavaria), operated the Starfighter as a true interceptor on QRA duty. From 1980 onwards, these dedicated F-104Gs received a new air superiority camouflage, consisting of three shades of grey in an integral wraparound scheme, together with smaller, subdued national markings. This livery was officially called “Norm 82” and unofficially “Alberich”, after the secretive guardian of the Nibelung's treasure. A similar wraparound paint scheme, tailored to low-level operations and consisting of two greens and black (called Norm 83), was soon applied to the fighter bombers and the RF-104 fleet, too, as well as to the Luftwaffe’s young Tornado IDS fleet.

 

However, the Luftwaffe’s F-104Gs were at that time already about to be gradually replaced, esp. in the interceptor role, by the more capable and reliable F-4F Phantom II, a process that lasted well into the mid-Eighties due to a lagging modernization program for the Phantoms. The Luftwaffe’s fighter bombers and recce Starfighters were replaced by the MRCA Tornado and RF-4E Phantoms. In naval service the Starfighters soldiered on for a little longer until they were also replaced by the MRCA Tornado – eventually, the Marineflieger units received a two engine aircraft type that was suitable for their kind of missions.

 

In the course of the ongoing withdrawal, a lot of German aircraft with sufficiently enough flying hours left were transferred to other NATO partners like Norway, Greece, Turkey and Italy, and two were sold to the NASA. One specific Starfighter was furthermore modified into a CCV (Control-Configured Vehicle) experimental aircraft under control of the German Industry, paving the way to aerodynamically unstable aircraft like the Eurofighter/Typhoon. The last operational German F-104 made its farewell flight on 22. Mai 1991, and the type’s final flight worldwide was in Italy in October 2004.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 54 ft 8 in (16.66 m)

Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.63 m)

Height: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m)

Wing area: 196.1 ft² (18.22 m²)

Airfoil: Biconvex 3.36 % root and tip

Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 29,027 lb (13,166 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× General Electric J79 afterburning turbojet,

10,000 lbf (44 kN) thrust dry, 15,600 lbf (69 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,528 mph (2,459 km/h, 1,328 kn)

Maximum speed: Mach 2

Combat range: 420 mi (680 km, 360 nmi)

Ferry range: 1,630 mi (2,620 km, 1,420 nmi)

Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 48,000 ft/min (240 m/s) initially

Lift-to-drag: 9.2

Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (510 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.54 with max. takeoff weight (0.76 loaded)

 

Armament:

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan six-barreled Gatling cannon, 725 rounds

7× hardpoints with a capacity of 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), including up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder, (nuclear)

bombs, guided and unguided missiles, or other stores like drop tanks or recce pods

  

The kit and its assembly:

A relatively simple what-if project – based on the question how a German F-104 interceptor might have looked like, had it been operated for a longer time to see the Luftwaffe’s low-viz era from 1981 onwards. In service, the Luftwaffe F-104Gs started in NMF and then carried the Norm 64 scheme, the well-known splinter scheme in grey and olive drab. Towards the end of their career the fighter bombers and recce planes received the Norm 83 wraparound scheme in green and black, but by that time no dedicated interceptors were operational anymore, so I stretched the background story a little.

 

The model is the very nice Italeri F-104G/S model, which is based on the ESCI molds from the Eighties, but it comes with recessed engravings and an extra sprue that contains additional drop tanks and an Orpheus camera pod. The kit also includes a pair of Sidewinders with launch rails for the wing tips as well as the ventral “catamaran” twin rail, which was frequently used by German Starfighters because the wing tips were almost constantly occupied with tanks.

Fit and detail is good – the kit is IMHO very good value for the money. There are just some light sinkholes on the fuselage behind the locator pins, the fit of the separate tail section is mediocre and calls for PSR, and the thin and very clear canopy is just a single piece – for open display, you have to cut it by yourself.

 

Since the model would become a standard Luftwaffe F-104G, just with a fictional livery, the kit was built OOB. The only change I made are drooped flaps, and the air brakes were mounted in open position.

The ordnance (wing tip tanks plus the ventral missiles) was taken from the kit, reflecting the typical German interceptor configuration: the wing tips were frequently occupied with tanks, sometimes even together with another pair of drop tanks under the wings, so that any missile had to go under the fuselage. The instructions for the ventral catamaran launch rails are BTW wrong – they tell the builder to mount the launch rails onto the twin carrier upside down! Correctly, the carrier’s curvature should lie flush on the fuselage, with no distance at all. When mounted as proposed, the Sidewinders come very close to the ground and the whole installation looks pretty goofy! I slightly modified the catamaran launch rail with some thin styrene profile strips as spacers, and the missiles themselves, AIM-9Bs, were replaced with more modern and delicate AIM-9Js from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. Around the hull, some small blade antennae, a dorsal rotating warning light and an angle-of-attack sensor were added.

  

Painting and markings:

The exotic livery is what defined this what-if build, and the paint scheme was actually inspired by a real world benchmark: some Dornier Do-28D Skyservants of the German Marineflieger received, late in their career, a wraparound scheme in three shades of grey, namely RAL 7030 (Steingrau), 7000 (Fehgrau) and 7012 (Basaltgrau). I thought that this would work pretty well for an F-104G interceptor that operates at medium to high altitudes, certainly better than the relatively dark Norm 64 splinter scheme or the Norm 83 low-altitude pattern.

 

The camouflage pattern was simply adopted from the Starfighter’s Norm 83 scheme, just the colors were exchanged. The kit was painted with acrylic paints from Revell, since the authentic tones were readily available, namely 75, 57 and 77. As a disrupting detail I gave the wing tip tanks the old Norm 64 colors: uniform Gelboliv from above (RAL 6014, Revell 42), Silbergrau underneath (RAL 7001, Humbrol’s 127 comes pretty close), and bright RAL 2005 dayglo orange markings, the latter created with TL Modellbau decal sheet material for clean edges and an even finish.

The cockpit interior was painted in standard medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Grey), the landing gear including the wells became aluminum (Humbrol 56), the interior of the air intakes was painted with bright matt aluminum metallizer (Humbrol 27001) with black anti-icing devices in the edges and the shock cones. The radome was painted with very light grey (Humbrol 196, RAL 7035), the dark green anti-glare panel is a decal from the OOB sheet.

 

The model received a standard black ink washing and some panel post-shading (with Testors 2133 Russian Fulcrum Grey, Humbrol 128 FS 36320 and Humbrol 156 FS 36173) in an attempt to even out the very different shades of grey. The result does not look bad, pretty worn and weathered (like many German Starfighters), even though the paint scheme reminds a lot of the Hellenic "Ghost" scheme from the late F-4Es and the current F-16s?

 

The decals for the subdued Luftwaffe markings were puzzled together from various sources. The stencils were mostly taken from the kit’s exhaustive and sharply printed sheet. Tactical codes (“26+40” is in the real Starfighter range, but this specific code was AFAIK never allocated), iron crosses and the small JG 71 emblems come from TL Modellbau aftermarket sheets. Finally, after some light soot stains around the gun port, the afterburner and some air outlets along the fuselage with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A simple affair, since the (nice) kit was built OOB and the only really fictional aspect of this model is its livery. But the resulting aircraft looks good, the all-grey wraparound scheme suits the slender F-104 well and makes an interceptor role quite believable. Would probably also look good on a German Eurofighter? Certainly more interesting than the real world all-blue-grey scheme.

In the beauty pics the scheme also appears to be quite effective over open water, too, so that the application to the Marineflieger Do-28Ds made sense. However, for the real-world Starfighter, this idea came a couple of years too late.

The F-106 was the ultimate development of the USAF's 1954 interceptor program of the early 1950s. It was the sixth iteration of the famous 1950s-era “Century” series of jet fighters. The initial winner of the competition had been the F-102 Delta Dagger, but earlier versions of this aircraft had demonstrated extremely poor performance, being limited to flying at subsonic speeds and relatively low altitudes. During the testing phase, the F-102 underwent numerous changes to improve its performance, notably the application of the area rule to the fuselage shaping, an engine change, and the dropping of the advanced MX-1179 fire control system and its replacement with a slightly upgraded version of the MX-1 already in use on subsonic designs. The resulting aircraft became the F-102A, and despite being considered barely suitable for its mission, the Air Force sent out a production contract in March of 1954, under which the first deliveries were expected during the following year.

 

By December 1951, the Air Force had already turned its attention to a further improved version, which was initially referred to as the F-102B. The main planned change was the replacement of the F-102A's Pratt & Whitney J57 (which had itself replaced the original J40) with the more powerful Bristol Olympus, which was produced under license as the Wright J67. By the time this engine would be available, the MX-1179 was expected to be available, and thus, it was also selected. The result would be the "ultimate interceptor" that the USAF had wanted originally. However, while initial work on the Olympus appeared to be going well, by August of 1953, Wright was already a full year behind schedule in development. Continued development did not resolve problems with the engine, and in early 1955, the Air Force approved the switch over to the Pratt & Whitney J75.

 

The J75 was bigger than the J57 in the F-102A and had a greater mass flow. This demanded changes to the inlets to allow more airflow, and this led to the further refinement of using a variable-geometry inlet duct to allow the intakes to be tuned to the best performance across a wide range of supersonic speeds. This change also led to the vents being somewhat shorter. The fuselage grew slightly longer and was cleaned up and simplified in many ways. The wing was partially enlarged in area, and a redesigned vertical tail surface was used. The engine's two-position afterburner exhaust nozzle was also used for idle thrust control. The nozzle was held open, reducing idle thrust by 40%, giving slower taxiing speeds and less brake wear.

 

Throughout the early development of the F-102B, it had to compete for attention and resources with the F-102As; the aviation author Marcelle Knaack observed that there were less funds to develop the more capable systems of the F-102B, which would have been useful in more quickly overcoming some of the technical difficulties that would be encountered. The number of F-102As on order grew substantially beyond that which had been originally forecast, indicative of the growing importance attached to what had once been intended to be an interim or 'stop-gap' aircraft to fill in until the F-102Bs could be delivered. In December of 1955, a mock-up with the expected layout of the MX-1179, now known as the MA-1, was inspected and approved.

 

On April 18th, 1956, in a clear sign of growing confidence that the aircraft was improving, an extended production contract for 17 F-102Bs was issued to Convair; however, this order was for substantially fewer aircraft than had been anticipated initially at this stage. On June 17th of that year, the plane was officially re-designated as the F-106A. On August 18th, 1956, the USAF issued a systems development directive that called for both the development and the production of the F-106s to occur simultaneously; Knaack attributed this policy to being responsible for several later problems in the program. In April of 1957, the USAF formally rejected Convair's F-102C proposal (essentially a re-engined model of the F-102) to concentrate on the more advanced F-106 program, which it had anticipated to enter service during the following year.

 

On December 26th, 1956, the prototype F-106, an aerodynamic test bed, performed its maiden flight from Edwards Air Force Base in California. On February 26th, 1957, the second prototype, which was outfitted with a fuller set of equipment, made its first flight. Early flight testing around the end of 1956 and the beginning of 1957 demonstrated somewhat disappointing results, having achieved less of a performance gain over the F-102 than had been anticipated. Specifically, both the acceleration and maximum speed were below Convair's estimates. Furthermore, both the engines and avionics proved to be somewhat unreliable. These combined problems and the delays associated with them were nearly responsible for the termination of the program.

 

However, the service decided to persist with the F-106 program after the Air Defense Command had heavily advocated for it. Based upon the test data submitted, USAF officials had determined that modifications to the inlet duct cowling and charging ejectors were likely to increase both acceleration and speed; modifications would be made following the completion of Category II testing and were evaluated during Category III testing. At this stage, the service enacted several measures to hasten development towards production; in April of 1957, it authorized the conditional acceptance of several F-106s being used by Convair for flight testing; it also took several quick decisions to settle outstanding development questions. By mid-1957, funding for 120 F-106As had been allocated. The USAF ultimately opted to order 350 F-106s, which was substantially less than the planned 1,000 fleet of aircraft. Deliveries of the single-seat F-106A and the twin-seat F-106B combat-capable trainer variant commenced to 15 fighter interceptor squadrons in October of 1959.

 

On December 15th, 1959, an F-106 flown by Major Joseph W. Rogers made history when his plane set a new world speed record for fighter jets, reaching an incredible speed of 1,525.96 mph (2,455 kph) at 40,500 ft (12,300m). The F-106 was envisaged as a specialized all-weather missile-armed interceptor to shoot down bombers. It was complemented by other Century Series fighters for different roles, such as daylight air superiority or fighter-bombing. To support its part, the F-106 was equipped with the Hughes MA-1 integrated fire-control system, which could be linked to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) network for Ground Control Interception (GCI) missions, allowing the aircraft to be steered by controllers. The MA-1 system proved to be highly troublesome and was eventually upgraded more than 60 times while in service.

 

Like the F-102s, the F-106 was designed without a gun or provision for carrying bombs, but it carried its missiles in an internal weapons bay for clean supersonic flight. It was armed with four Hughes AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missiles (either AIM-4F/G infra-red guided missiles or semi-active radar homing (SARH)-guided (which detected reflected radar signals) AIM-4E missiles, along with a single 1.5 kiloton-warhead AIR-2 (MB-2) Genie unguided air-to-air rocket intended to be fired into enemy bomber formations. Like its predecessor, the F-102 Delta Dagger, it could carry a drop tank under each wing. Later, jet fighters such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the F-15 Eagle took missiles recessed externally in the fuselage. However, stealth aircraft would re-adopt the idea of carrying missiles or bombs internally for a reduced radar signature.

 

The first ejection seat fitted to early F-106s was a variation of the seat used by the F-102 and was called the Weber interim seat. It was a catapult seat that used an explosive charge to propel it clear of the aircraft. This seat was not a zero-zero seat and was inadequate for ejections at supersonic speeds as well as ground-level ejections and ejections at rates below 120 knots (140 mph; 220 kph) and 2,000 ft (610 m). The second seat that replaced the Weber interim seat was the Convair/ICESC (Industry Crew Escape System Committee) Supersonic Rotational B-seat, called the supersonic "bobsled," hence the B designation. It was designed with supersonic ejection as the primary criterion since the F-106 was capable of Mach 2 performance. Fighter pilots viewed high-speed ejections as the most important. Seat designers considered an ejection at low altitude and slow speed the most likely possibility. The ejection sequence with the B-seat was quite complicated, and some unsuccessful ejections resulted in pilot fatalities. The third seat, which replaced the Convair B-seat, was the Weber Zero-Zero ROCAT (Rocket Catapult) seat. Weber Aircraft Corporation designed a "zero-zero" seat to operate at up to 600 knots (690 mph; 1,100 kph). High-altitude supersonic ejections were rare, and ejections at relatively low altitudes and speeds were more likely. The Weber "zero-zero" seat was satisfactory and was retrofitted to the F-106 after 1965.

 

Early operations of the F-106 were troubled by numerous technical issues; these included generator defects, fuel-flow issues (particularly during cold weather), and combustor-starter malfunctions. In December of 1959, all F-106s were temporarily grounded following the accidental jettisoning of the canopy mid-flight on one aircraft. Many of, but not all, of these problems were resolved by the start of 1961; this can be partially attributed to two significant modification and retrofit programs conducted during this timeframe. Following the resolution of initial teething problems—in particular, an ejection seat that killed the first 12 pilots to eject from the aircraft—its exceptional performance led to the aircraft becoming relatively popular amongst its pilots.

 

The F-106 served in the contiguous U.S., Alaska, and Iceland, as well as for brief periods in both Germany and South Korea. The F-106 was the second-highest sequentially numbered P/F- aircraft to enter service under the old number sequence (the F-111 was highest) before the system was reset under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system. In service, the F-106's official name, "Delta Dart," was rarely used, and the aircraft was universally known simply as "The Six" as it was the sixth and last member in Convair’s Century series of jet fighters. The arrival of the F-106 in quantity quickly led to the withdrawal of various older aircraft that were being used in the interceptor role at that time, such as the North American F-86 Sabres and the Northrop F-89 Scorpions.

 

Although contemplated for use in the Vietnam War, the F-106 never saw combat, nor was it exported to any foreign users. However, after the cancellation of their own Avro Arrow, the Canadian government briefly considered purchasing the F-106C/D. To standardize aircraft types, the USAF was directed to conduct Operation Highspeed, a fly-off competition between the USAF F-106A and the U.S. Navy F4H-1 (F-4B) Phantom, which was not only as capable as the F-106 as a missile-armed interceptor but could carry as large a bomb load as the Republic F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bomber. The Phantom was the winner but would first be used to escort and later replace the F-105 fighter bomber in the late 1960s before replacing older interceptors in the Air Defense Command in the 1970s.

 

The F-106 was progressively updated in service, with improved avionics, a modified wing featuring a noticeable conical camber, an infrared search and track system, streamlined supersonic wing tanks that provided virtually no degradation to overall aircraft performance, better instrumentation, and features like an inflight refueling receptacle and an arrestor hook for landing emergencies.

 

Air-to-air combat testing suggested "The Six" was a reasonable match for the F-4 Phantom II in a dogfight, with superior high-altitude turn performance and overall maneuverability (aided by the aircraft's lower wing loading). Indeed, the Phantom had better radar—it was operated by an additional crew member—and could carry a load of up to four radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow and four infrared AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, while the AIM-4 Falcon missiles carried by the F-106 proved to be a disappointment for dogfighting over Vietnam. The F-4s had a higher thrust/weight ratio with superior climb, better high-speed/low-altitude maneuverability, and could be used as a fighter-bomber. Air combat experience over Vietnam showed the need for increased pilot visibility and the utility of a built-in gun, which had been added to the "E" variant of USAF Phantoms.

 

In 1972, some F-106As were upgraded in Project Six Shooter, which involved fitting the F-106 with a new canopy without metal bracing, significantly improving pilot visibility. Also added was an optical gunsight and provision for a M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon. The M61 Vulcan had 650 rounds of ammunition in the center weapons bay, replacing the AIM-26 Super Falcon or Genie. The F-15A Eagle started replacing the F-106 in 1981, with "The Sixes" being passed on to Air National Guard units. The F-106 remained in service in various USAF and ANG units until they were fully retired from service in August of 1988.

 

Between June 1st, 1983, and August 1st, 1988, the Delta Darts were incrementally retired and sent to the Military Storage and Disposition Center in Arizona. When the need for a high-performance Full-Scaled Aerial Target Drone was required, the USAF began withdrawing Delta Darts from storage. Starting in 1986, 194 of the surviving surplus aircraft were converted into target drones, and these were designated QF-106As and used for target practice vehicles under the Pacer Six Program by the Aerial Targets Squadron. The last one was destroyed in January of 1998. The drones were still capable of being flown as manned aircraft, such as for ferrying to a test; during the trial, they were flown unmanned. The QF-106 replaced the QF-100 Super Sabre drone; the last shootdown of a QF-106 (BuNo 57-2524) took place at Holloman AFB on February 20th, 1997, after which the QF-106 was superseded by the QF-4S and QF-4E Phantom II drone.

 

Six aircraft were retained by NASA for testing purposes through 1998. An F-106B two-seat trainer was operated by NASA Langley Research Center between 1979-1991. This Delta Dart was used in research programs ranging from testing supersonic engines to improving the maneuverability of fighters. Between 1980 and 1986, the aircraft was modified for lightning strike research and became known as the “Lightning Strike Plane” and was struck 714 times without significant damage. While on an hour-long flight at 38,000 ft (12,000 m) in 1984, lightning struck the research aircraft up to 72 times. One effective modification was the replacement of the composite nose radome with a metallic radome. Although the maximum speed of the F-106 was Mach 2.3, during the lightning experiments, it was flown at subsonic speeds into clouds at 300 knots (350 mph; 560 kph) from 5,000 to 40,000 ft (1,500 to 12,200 m). The aircraft was equipped with optical sensors, which consisted of a video camera and a light detector. Data acquisition was performed with 1980s state-of-the-art digital waveform recorders.

 

NASA used six drones in its Eclipse Project, which ran from 1997–1998. The Dryden Flight Research Center supported project Eclipse, which sought to demonstrate the feasibility of a reusable Aerotow-launch vehicle. The objective was to tow, inflight, a modified QF-106 aircraft with a C-141A as a transport aircraft. This test demonstrated the possibility of towing and launching a space launch vehicle from behind a tow plane.

 

On February 2nd, 1970, an F-106 of the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, piloted by Captain Gary Foust, entered a flat spin over Montana. Foust followed procedures and ejected from the aircraft safely. The resulting change of balance caused the plane to stabilize and later land "wheels up" in a snow-covered field, suffering only minor damage. The aircraft, appropriately nicknamed "The Cornfield Bomber," was then sent back to base via rail, repaired, and returned to service, and is now on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton.

 

This F-106B, BuNo 57-2513, was only the 33rd F-106 ever produced, and spent almost all of its career as a testbed, flying with the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, California after delivery in 1958, then assigned directly to USAF Logistics Command from then until 1982, usually flying from Kelly AFB, Texas. It was assigned to the 325th Fighter Weapons Wing at Tyndall AFB, Florida until 1986, when it returned to California; it was assigned to the B-1B development program at Palmdale to act as a chase plane. (Yanks' sources also claim that 57-2513 briefly served with the 120th Fighter-Interceptor Group (Montana ANG) at Great Falls, but the F-106.net page doesn’t confirm this.)

 

57-2513 flew with the B-1 chase program until 1990, when it returned to Tyndall and was assigned to 475th Weapons Evaluation Group, and was finally retired in 1993–one of the last (if not the last) non-drone F-106s to leave service. It would be acquired by the Yanks Air Museum in 2004 and restored to its markings with the B-1 program.

A behind the scenes look at the Crestron team building the exhibit at InfoComm 2016.

An F/A-18 research jet simulated various flight conditions that NASA's Space Launch System may experience as it makes its way from the launch pad to space to evaluate the rocket's flight control system. The tests are helping engineers design a system that can autonomously adjust to unexpected conditions during flight.

 

Image credit: NASA/Dryden

 

Read more:

www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/f...

 

More about SLS:

www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

 

More SLS Photos:

www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/S...

 

Space Launch System Flickr photoset:

www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/sets/72157627559536895/

  

_____________________________________________

These official NASA photographs are being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photographs. The photographs may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by NASA. All Images used must be credited. For information on usage rights please visit: www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelin...

*** NOT my picture *** Official NATO E-3a Component Picture:

NATO E-3A Component prepares to celebrate its 35th Anniversary

The anniversary aircraft gets unveiled

12 JUN 2017

GEILENKIRCHEN, Germany - In commemoration of the NATO E-3A Component’s 35thAnniversary, an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft was unveiled on Monday, June 12, 2017 sporting a new look.

”The special painted AWACS gives great exposure to the task and mission of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force,” said Lieutenant Colonel Raimon Schulz, Chairman of the 35th Anniversary Committee. "The anniversary aircraft will be flown for the upcoming 6 years and the decals can be adjusted to other special events like the celebration of 70 years NATO in 2019. The flags on the sides of the aircraft symbolise the multinational character of this unique unit within NATO,” he added.

NATO conducts education and training to raise the effectiveness of multinational forces and their ability to work together, therefore this AWACS displays decals of all the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW&C) Force countries that work on the NATO Air Base.

If you would like to see the newly painted AWACS, it will be on display during Open Days GK, Jul. 1 to 2, 2017. More information can be found on: www.35jahre-nato-awacs.de

Story by NATO E-3A Component Public Affairs Office

 

A once familiar sight to those of us who boarded buses, sat down and waited for the conductor to come along and take our fare! The Ultimate was the ticket machine chosen by many operators and could even be found, to a more limited extent, on OPO buses until more ingenious electronic machines came into use. Other versions of the Ultimate could be found in cinemas, baths and other public venues where, built into counters, the Ultimatic was used.

 

Manufactured by the Bell Punch Co Ltd, at works in Uxbridge, the Ultimate came in five 'sizes. ranging from one unit to a large six unit. Most municipal operators managed with five - each 'unit' issued a pre-printed value ticket and the 'denomiations' were used to issue other values if required ; for example a 5d ticket could be two 2d and one 1d ticket. The knob on the side was for information such as fare stages or date - up to five different 'items' could be provided.

 

The brochure has a 'print date' of 1954 and much of the contents feels of that age but the covers have been updated to include more modern "01" London telephone numbers but values are pre-decimal. Bell Punch - the title alludes to the original type of punch used to 'clip' a pre-printed ticket taht activated a bell to allow passengers to know the action had taken place - was formed in 1878 and grew into a concern whose activities covered many forms of ticket systems and the allied interests of calculators and totalisers. The early success was based upon the adoption of the Bell Punch by the major London bus and tram operators in the late Victorian era and the susbsequent growth of bus and tram systems across the UK who required fare collection systems.

 

The holding company Control Systems was formed in 1927. Although various aspects such as calculators were divested over the years Control Systems was finally taken over in the 1980s by a Swedish company and the name vanished.

 

  

Features

 

RTF (Ready to Fly) Technology

6-Axis Flight Control System w/ Adjustable Gyro Sensitivity

Camera: 300,000 pixel (640 x 480)

Aerobatic “Flip” Capability

LED Lights for Night Flights

  

List Price: unavailable

Sale Price: Too low to display.

  

...

 

goo.gl/JB0ksg

Royal Air Force AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) Early Warning Aircraft, doing circuits at Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

Object Details: The Heart Nebula is a massive star forming region 100 to 200 light-years in diameter and lying approximately 7,500 light-years from Earth in the Perseus spiral arm of our galaxy. A combination of an emission nebula & an open star cluster; it can be found in the constellation of Cassiopeia. Spanning over twice the width of the full moon in our sky, it is powered & sculpted by the open star cluster Melotte 15 (near center). which contains stars 50 times more massive than our sun.

 

Catalogued as IC 1805, the common name is of course a result of pareidolia; another example of which can be found at the apex at the bottom of the heart, which when turned 90 degrees and viewed separately is known as the 'Fishhead'.

 

Image Details: The data for the attached image were taken by Jay Edwards on October 22 & 29, 20122 using an Orion 80mm f/6 carbon-fiber triplet apochromatic refractor (i.e. an ED80T CF) connected to a Televue 0.8X field flattener / focal reducer and an IDAS NBZ dual band filter which has narrowband passes centered on the emissions of Hydrogen-alpha (656.3 nanometers) and Oxygen III (495.9 & 500.7 nanometers) on an ASI2600MC Pro cooled astronomical camera. The 80mm was piggybacked on a vintage 1970, 8-inch, f/7, Criterion newtonian reflector and was tracked using a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system and guided using PHD2 to control a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider in an 80mm f/5 Celestron 'short-tube' refractor, which itself was piggybacked on top of the 80mm apo.

 

The image consists of two and a half hours (150 minutes) of total integration time (not including applicable dark, flat and flat dark calibration frames) and was constructed using a stack of fifty 3 minutes sub-exposures. Although I am still working out an applicable workflow for this new camera, the data were processed using a combination of PixInsight and PaintShopPro. As presented here it has been cropped to approximately 75 percent of the original fov, resized down to 2807 x 2160 (~ one-forth it's original resolution) and the bit depth has been lowered to 8 bits per channel.

 

Given that this data was taken using a dual-band filter; I'm hoping to split out the H-alpha & OIII data, synthesize a third channel and recombine them to produce a 'Hubble-palette' like & / or Foraxx version(s) of this object in the future.

 

Wishing everyone clear, calm & dark skies; and of course a Happy Valentine's Day !!!

An E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System flies over an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia just after refueling Nov. 16, 2013. The AWACS provide service members situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Dan Frost)

I have been lost in Photoshop. I was having ideas in Lightroom and they led to edits and on to Photoshop CS and from there they are stretching out towards some notion of motion pictures. I have not used this Film Temperature Control System. I have been calling a film cooker. It looks superb and it comes with a three pin U.K. Plug fitted ready for accurate simmering film into tender toner and sharpish shadows and might fine highlights.

 

I have used two fonts to give °CineStill a look as it has in the packaging.

 

I forget to mention the soundtrack. Two tracks from those provided by my editing service with no composers and players listed. I have edited tracks individually and together. All errors on me and all praise to unknown originators of music. I wish that I had some names to praise.

 

© PHH Sykes 2023

phhsykes@gmail.com

  

CineStill TCS-1000 - Temperature Control System - UK Plug

analoguewonderland.co.uk/products/cinestill-tcs-1000-temp...

 

°CS "TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM", TCS-1000 IMMERSION CIRCULATOR THERMOSTAT FOR MIXING CHEMISTRY AND PRECISION FILM PROCESSING, 120V ONLY

cinestillfilm.com/products/tcs-temperature-control-system...

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.

 

In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.

 

The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).

 

For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.

 

The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.

 

In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.

 

Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.

 

Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.

 

Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)

Weight: 22.6 t

Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)

Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)

Height: XXX

Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)

Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering

 

Armor:

Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds

 

Performance:

Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads

Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)

Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel

 

Engine:

1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,

delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)

1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds

Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars

  

The kit and its assembly:

I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.

 

This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.

 

Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).

 

An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!

Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.

Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).

 

Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.

  

Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.

 

With the latest storm locking the observatory I built at my home here in upstate, NY in yet another coat of snow, sleet and freezing rain yesterday, although I still I have quite a lot of data I have yet to process in any manner; I thought I'd use some of the time to process data I shot of the Pacman Nebula last October in my first attempt to use data from a dual narrowband band filter and a one-shot-color cooled astronomy camera to produce an image in an alternate palette.

 

As such the attached composite shows images of the Pacman Nebula created by separating out the Hydrogen-alpha wavelengths (which lie in the red end of the spectrum) from the Oxygen III wavelengths (which lie between green & blue) and using a combination of the two to synthesize a third color channel. Being a huge fan of surreal imagery I have also included a starless version.

 

Object Details: Cataloged as NGC 281 is an emission nebula which can be found glowing at magnitude 7.4 in the constellation of Cassiopeia. Spanning just over 1/2 degree in our sky (e.g. slightly larger than the apparent diameter of the full moon), and although visible in binoculars under a dark sky, it's a stunning object when viewed in larger instruments.

 

Known as 'The Pacman Nebula' due to it's resemblance to the video game character, it lies approximately 10,000 light-years from Earth in the Perseus spiral arm of our Milky Way galaxy and is about 80 light-years in diameter.

 

Embedded within the nebula, and providing the energy which causes the nebula itself to glow, is the young open star cluster IC 1590. The very dark areas visible within the nebula are known as 'Bok Globules' (i.e. relatively small, dense, dark clouds of dust and gas in which stars may be forming),

 

Image Details: The data for the attached images were taken by Jay Edwards on October 16, 22 & 29, 2022 using an Orion 80mm f/6 carbon-fiber triplet apochromatic refractor (i.e. an ED80T CF) connected to a Televue 0.8X field flattener / focal reducer and an IDAS NBZ dual band filter which has narrowband passes centered on the emissions of Hydrogen-alpha (656.3 nanometers) and Oxygen III (495.9 & 500.7 nanometers) on an ASI2600MC Pro cooled astronomical camera.

 

The 80mm was piggybacked on a vintage 1970, 8-inch, f/7, Criterion newtonian reflector and was tracked using a Losmandy G-11 mount running a Gemini 2 control system and guided using PHD2 to control a ZWO ASI290MC planetary camera / auto-guider in an 80mm f/5 Celestron 'short-tube' refractor, which itself was piggybacked on top of the 80mm apo.

 

The image consists of five hours of total integration time (not including applicable dark, flat and flat dark calibration frames) and was constructed using a stack of one-hundred 3 minutes sub-exposures. Processed using a combination of PixInsight and PaintShopPro, as presented here it has been cropped. resized down and the bit depth has been lowered to 8 bits per channel.

 

A higher resolution version in a more 'standard palette' (i.e. assigning H-alpha to red & O-III to both green and blue) can be found at the link attached here:

www.flickr.com/photos/homcavobservatory/52601136739/

 

I'm looking forward to creating this object in other palettes, as well as other objects in these types of alternate palettes.

 

Wishing clear, dark, and calm skies to all !

AKSM-32100D (БКМ-321) is a trolleybus with a transistorized control system based on IGBT modules and an AC induction motor, equipped with accumulators based on lithium-iron-phosphate batteries with a reserve of autonomous travel up to 30 kilometers. Unlike base model AKSM-32100, it is equipped with a 150 kW traction motor. The first three ones were delivered to Ulyanovsk, Russia at the end of 2015. In 2016-2019 St. Petersburg received 35 ones, others were delivered to Belarus cities (5 to Grodno, 4 to Gomel, 4 to Vitebsk). In 2021, they were delivered to Belarus capital Minsk (25 ones) and Vratsa (9). In December 2021, three more restyled trolleybuses came to Grodno to operate the new route 24.

 

АКСМ-32100D trolleybuses are produced by the Belarus company Belkommunmash (BKM; Производственное Объединение «Белкоммунмаш», БКМ). BKM was organized in 1973 on the basis of the streetcar and trolleybus repair shop under the Ministry of Municipal Economy of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic. During the first two decades the plant was repairing trolleybuses and streetcars of Minsk. After USSR breakage the independent Belarus got a strong incentive to develop its own vehicles production. Therefore a few articulated trolleybuses YMZ T1 (ЮМЗ Т1) were assembled at the plant in 1993 from engineering sets of Yuzhny Machine Building Plant of Ukraine. The enterprise also modernized trolleybuses of the ZIU models 100 - 101 produced by the Engels Electric Transportation Plant (later CJSC "TrolZa") in Engels, Saratov region of Russia. Later the company started to develop its own trolleybus models, the first model AKSM/BKM 201 (АКСМ/БКМ 201) appeared in 1996, followed by models 213, 221, 321 (as in foto) and 333. Since 2000 the production of streetcars started: AKSM-1M, AKSM-60102. In 2016, the production of electric buses has been organized. Today the BKM Holding (ОАО «Управляющая компания холдинга «Белкоммунмаш» - ОАО «УКХ «БКМ) is the leading industrial enterprise in Belarus in the field of production and overhaul of rolling stock of urban electric transport.

Cyber security is strongest when engineered into our systems versus designing cyber security protections later. That is why we design all aircraft, and their supporting systems, to operate in a cyber contested environment.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor" is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 "Eagle" and F-16 "Fighting Falcon". Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 "Eagle" and F-16 "Fighting Falcon" or the newer F-35 "Lightning II", which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G "Growler". Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 "Raptor" is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 "Phantom II" that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

A Lockheed Martin F-22 "Raptor" flies behind a Boeing KC-135 "Stratotanker" during aerial refueling training off the coast of Finland, Oct 19, 2018. The F-22 deployed from the 27th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde /ˈkɒŋkɔrd/ is a retired turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner or supersonic transport (SST). It is one of only two SSTs to have entered commercial service; the other was the Tupolev Tu-144. Concorde was jointly developed and produced by Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.

 

Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport to New York JFK, Washington Dulles and Barbados; it flew these routes in less than half the time of other airliners. With only 20 aircraft built, the development of Concorde was a substantial economic loss; Air France and British Airways also received considerable government subsidies to purchase them. Concorde was retired in 2003 due to a general downturn in the aviation industry after the type's only crash in 2000, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and a decision by Airbus, the successor firm of Aérospatiale and BAC, to discontinue maintenance support.

 

A total of 20 aircraft were built in France and the United Kingdom; six of these were prototypes and development aircraft. Seven each were delivered to Air France and British Airways. Concorde's name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusually for an aircraft—are known simply as "Concorde", without an article. The aircraft is regarded by many people as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel.

 

Early studies

 

Concorde

 

The origins of the Concorde project date to the early 1950s, when Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) asked Morien Morgan to form a committee to study the SST concept. The group met for the first time in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.

 

At the time it was known that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing. This led to the use of very short-span, very thin rectangular wings like those seen on the control surfaces of many missiles, or in aircraft like the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter or the Avro 730 that the team studied. The team outlined a baseline configuration that looked like an enlarged Avro 730, or more interestingly, almost exactly like the Lockheed CL-400 "Suntan" proposal.

 

This same short span produced very little lift at low speed, which resulted in extremely long takeoff runs and frighteningly high landing speeds. In an SST design, this would have required enormous engine power to lift off from existing runways, and to provide the fuel needed, "some horribly large aeroplanes" resulted. Based on this, the group considered the concept of an SST unfeasible, and instead suggested continued low-level studies into supersonic aerodynamics.

 

Slender deltas

 

Soon after, Dietrich Küchemann at the RAE published a series of reports on a new wing planform, known in the UK as the "slender delta" concept. Küchemann's team, including Eric Maskell and Johanna Weber, worked with the fact that delta wings can produce strong vortexes on their upper surfaces at high angles of attack. The vortex will lower the air pressure and cause lift to be greatly increased. This effect had been noticed earlier, notably by Chuck Yeager in the Convair XF-92, but its qualities had not been fully appreciated. Küchemann suggested that this was no mere curiosity, and the effect could be deliberately used to improve low speed performance.

 

Küchemann's papers changed the entire nature of supersonic design almost overnight. Although the delta had already been used on aircraft prior to this point, these designs used planforms that were not much different from a swept wing of the same span. Küchemann noted that the lift from the vortex was increased by the length of the wing it had to operate over, which suggested that the effect would be maximized by extending the wing along the fuselage as far as possible. Such a layout would still have good supersonic performance inherent to the short span, while also offering reasonable takeoff and landing speeds using vortex generation. The only downside to such a design is that the aircraft would have to take off and land very "nose high" in order to generate the required vortex lift, which led to questions about the low speed handling qualities of such a design. It would also need to have long landing gear to produce the required angles while still on the runway.

 

Küchemann presented the idea at a meeting where Morgan was also present. Eric Brown recalls Morgan's reaction to the presentation, saying that he immediately seized on it as the solution to the SST problem. Brown considers this moment as being the true birth of the Concorde project.

 

Design

 

Concorde is an ogival (also "ogee") delta-winged aircraft with four Olympus engines based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. Concorde was the first airliner to have a (in this case, analogue) fly-by-wire flight-control system; the avionics of Concorde were unique because it was the first commercial aircraft to employ hybrid circuits. The principal designer for the project was Pierre Satre, with Sir Archibald Russell as his deputy.

 

Concorde pioneered the following technologies:

 

For high speed and optimisation of flight:

 

Double delta (ogee/ogival) shaped wings

Variable engine air intake system controlled by digital computers

Supercruise capability

Thrust-by-wire engines, predecessor of today’s FADEC-controlled engines

Droop-nose section for better landing visibility

For weight-saving and enhanced performance:

 

Mach 2.04 (~2,179 km/h or 1,354 mph) cruising speed for optimum fuel consumption (supersonic drag minimum although turbojet engines are more efficient at higher speed) Fuel consumption at Mach 2.0 and altitude of 60,000 feet was 4,800 gallons per hour.

Mainly aluminium construction for low weight and conventional manufacture (higher speeds would have ruled out aluminium)

Full-regime autopilot and autothrottle allowing "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing

Fully electrically controlled analogue fly-by-wire flight controls systems

High-pressure hydraulic system of 28 MPa (4,000 lbf/in²) for lighter hydraulic components

Complex Air Data Computer (ADC) for the automated monitoring and transmission of aerodynamic measurements (total pressure, static pressure, angle of attack, side-slip).

Fully electrically controlled analogue brake-by-wire system

Pitch trim by shifting fuel around the fuselage for centre-of-gravity control

Parts made using "sculpture milling", reducing the part count while saving weight and adding strength.

No auxiliary power unit, as Concorde would only visit large airports where ground air start carts are available.

 

Engines

 

Concorde's intake system

 

Concorde needed to fly long distances to be economically viable; this required high efficiency. Turbofan engines were rejected due to their larger cross-section producing excessive drag. Turbojets were found to be the best choice of engines. The engine used was the twin spool Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593, a development of the Bristol engine first used for the Avro Vulcan bomber, and developed into an afterburning supersonic variant for the BAC TSR-2 strike bomber. Rolls-Royce's own engine proposed for the aircraft at the time of Concorde's initial design was the RB.169.

 

The aircraft used reheat (afterburners) at takeoff and to pass through the upper transonic regime and to supersonic speeds, between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.7. The afterburners were switched off at all other times. Due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel (almost 2% of the maximum fuel load) taxiing to the runway. Fuel used is Jet A-1. Due to the high power produced even with the engines at idle, only the two outer engines were run after landing for easier taxiing.

 

The intake design for Concorde’s engines was especially critical.[Conventional jet engines can take in air at only around Mach 0.5; therefore the air has to be slowed from the Mach 2.0 airspeed that enters the engine intake. In particular, Concorde needed to control the shock waves that this reduction in speed generates to avoid damage to the engines. This was done by a pair of intake ramps and an auxiliary spill door, whose position moved in-flight to slow transiting air.

 

Engine failure causes problems on conventional subsonic aircraft; not only does the aircraft lose thrust on that side but the engine creates drag, causing the aircraft to yaw and bank in the direction of the failed engine. If this had happened to Concorde at supersonic speeds, it theoretically could have caused a catastrophic failure of the airframe. Although computer simulations predicted considerable problems, in practice Concorde could shut down both engines on the same side of the aircraft at Mach 2 without the predicted difficulties. During an engine failure the required air intake is virtually zero so, on Concorde, engine failure was countered by the opening of the auxiliary spill door and the full extension of the ramps, which deflected the air downwards past the engine, gaining lift and minimising drag. Concorde pilots were routinely trained to handle double engine failure.

 

Heating issues

 

Air compression on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight. Besides engines, the hottest part of the structure of any supersonic aircraft, due to aerodynamic heating, is the nose. The engineers used Hiduminium R.R. 58, an aluminium alloy, throughout the aircraft due to its familiarity, cost and ease of construction. The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C (261 °F), which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02. Concorde went through two cycles of heating and cooling during a flight, first cooling down as it gained altitude, then heating up after going supersonic. The reverse happened when descending and slowing down. This had to be factored into the metallurgical and fatigue modelling. A test rig was built that repeatedly heated up a full-size section of the wing, and then cooled it, and periodically samples of metal were taken for testing. The Concorde airframe was designed for a life of 45,000 flying hours.

 

Owing to air friction as the plane travelled at supersonic speed, the fuselage would heat up and expand by as much as 300 mm (almost 1 ft). The most obvious manifestation of this was a gap that opened up on the flight deck between the flight engineer's console and the bulkhead. On some aircraft that conducted a retiring supersonic flight, the flight engineers placed their caps in this expanded gap, wedging the cap when it shrank again. To keep the cabin cool, Concorde used the fuel as a heat sink for the heat from the air conditioning. The same method also cooled the hydraulics. During supersonic flight the surfaces forward from the cockpit became heated, and a visor was used to deflect much of this heat from directly reaching the cockpit.

 

Concorde had livery restrictions; the majority of the surface had to be covered with a highly reflective white paint to avoid overheating the aluminium structure due to heating effects from supersonic flight at Mach 2. The white finish reduced the skin temperature by 6 to 11 degrees Celsius. In 1996, Air France briefly painted F-BTSD in a predominantly blue livery, with the exception of the wings, in a promotional deal with Pepsi. In this paint scheme, Air France were advised to remain at Mach 2 for no more than 20 minutes at a time, but there was no restriction at speeds under Mach 1.7. F-BTSD was used because it was not scheduled for any long flights that required extended Mach 2 operations.

 

Structural issues

 

Fuel pitch trim

 

Due to the high speeds at which Concorde travelled, large forces were applied to the aircraft's structure during banks and turns. This caused twisting and the distortion of the aircraft’s structure. In addition there were concerns over maintaining precise control at supersonic speeds; both of these issues were resolved by active ratio changes between the inboard and outboard elevons, varying at differing speeds including supersonic. Only the innermost elevons, which are attached to the stiffest area of the wings, were active at high speed. Additionally, the narrow fuselage meant that the aircraft flexed. This was visible from the rear passengers’ viewpoints.

 

When any aircraft passes the critical mach of that particular airframe, the centre of pressure shifts rearwards. This causes a pitch down force on the aircraft if the centre of mass remains where it was. The engineers designed the wings in a specific manner to reduce this shift, but there was still a shift of about 2 metres. This could have been countered by the use of trim controls, but at such high speeds this would have caused a dramatic increase in the drag on the aircraft. Instead, the distribution of fuel along the aircraft was shifted during acceleration and deceleration to move the centre of mass, effectively acting as an auxiliary trim control.

 

Range

 

In order to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean, Concorde was developed to have the greatest supersonic range of any aircraft. This was achieved by a combination of engines which were highly efficient at supersonic speeds, a slender fuselage with high fineness ratio, and a complex wing shape for a high lift to drag ratio. This also required carrying only a modest payload and a high fuel capacity, and the aircraft was trimmed with precision to avoid unnecessary drag.

 

Nevertheless, soon after Concorde began flying, a Concorde "B" model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions. It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy reheat. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593. This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible. This was cancelled due in part to poor sales of Concorde, but also to the rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s.

 

Droop Nose

 

Concorde’s drooping nose, developed by Marshall Aerospace, enabled the aircraft to switch between being streamlined to reduce drag and achieve optimum aerodynamic efficiency, and not obstructing the pilot's view during taxi, takeoff, and landing operations. Due to the high angle of attack the long pointed nose obstructed the view and necessitated the capability to droop. The droop nose was accompanied by a moving visor that retracted into the nose prior to being lowered. When the nose was raised to horizontal, the visor would rise in front of the cockpit windscreen for aerodynamic streamlining.

 

A controller in the cockpit allowed the visor to be retracted and the nose to be lowered to 5° below the standard horizontal position for taxiing and takeoff. Following takeoff and after clearing the airport, the nose and visor were raised. Prior to landing, the visor was again retracted and the nose lowered to 12.5° below horizontal for maximum visibility. Upon landing the nose was raised to the five-degree position to avoid the possibility of damage.

 

The Federal Aviation Administration had objected to the restrictive visibility of the visor used on the first two prototype Concordes and thus requiring alteration before the FAA would permit Concorde to serve US airports; this led to the redesigned visor used on the production and the four pre-production aircraft. The nose window and visor glass needed to endure temperatures in excess of 100 °C (212 °F) at supersonic flight were developed by Triplex.

 

Retirement

 

Concorde's final flight; G-BOAF from Heathrow to Bristol, on 26 November 2003. The extremely high fineness ratio of the fuselage is evident.

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was dated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747. By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in British Airways' fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role.

 

On 11 April 2003, Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing British Airways’ Concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £1 (US$1.57 in April 2003) each. British Airways dismissed the idea, prompting Virgin to increase their offer to £1 million each. Branson claimed that when BA was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another British airline to operate Concorde if BA ceased to do so, but the Government denied the existence of such a clause. In October 2003, Branson wrote in The Economist that his final offer was "over £5 million" and that he had intended to operate the fleet "for many years to come". The chances for keeping Concorde in service were stifled by Airbus's lack of support for continued maintenance.

 

It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically. A lack of commitment to Concorde from Director of Engineering Alan MacDonald was cited as having undermined BA’s resolve to continue operating Concorde.

 

Air France

 

Air France made its final commercial Concorde landing in the United States in New York City from Paris on 30 May 2003. Air France's final Concorde flight took place on 27 June 2003 when F-BVFC retired to Toulouse.

 

An auction of Concorde parts and memorabilia for Air France was held at Christie's in Paris on 15 November 2003; 1,300 people attended, and several lots exceeded their predicted values. French Concorde F-BVFC was retired to Toulouse and kept functional for a short time after the end of service, in case taxi runs were required in support of the French judicial enquiry into the 2000 crash. The aircraft is now fully retired and no longer functional.

 

French Concorde F-BTSD has been retired to the "Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace" at Le Bourget (near Paris) and, unlike the other museum Concordes, a few of the systems are being kept functional. For instance, the famous "droop nose" can still be lowered and raised. This led to rumours that they could be prepared for future flights for special occasions.

 

French Concorde F-BVFB currently rests at the Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim at Sinsheim, Germany, after its last flight from Paris to Baden-Baden, followed by a spectacular transport to Sinsheim via barge and road. The museum also has a Tu-144 on display – this is the only place where both supersonic airliners can be seen together.

 

British Airways[edit]

 

BA Concorde G-BOAB in storage at London Heathrow Airport. This aircraft flew for 22,296 hours between its first flight in 1976 and its final flight in 2000.

 

BA Concorde G-BOAC in its hangar at Manchester Airport Aviation Viewing Park]]

British Airways conducted a North American farewell tour in October 2003. G-BOAG visited Toronto Pearson International Airport on 1 October, after which it flew to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. G-BOAD visited Boston’s Logan International Airport on 8 October, and G-BOAG visited Washington Dulles International Airport on 14 October. It has been claimed that G-BOAD’s flight from London Heathrow to Boston set a transatlantic flight record of 3 hours, 5 minutes, 34 seconds. However the fastest transatlantic flight was from New York JFK airport to Heathrow on 7 February 1996, taking 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds; 90 seconds less than a record set in April 1990.

 

In a week of farewell flights around the United Kingdom, Concorde visited Birmingham on 20 October, Belfast on 21 October, Manchester on 22 October, Cardiff on 23 October, and Edinburgh on 24 October. Each day the aircraft made a return flight out and back into Heathrow to the cities, often overflying them at low altitude. On 22 October, both Concorde flight BA9021C, a special from Manchester, and BA002 from New York landed simultaneously on both of Heathrow's runways. On 23 October 2003, the Queen consented to the illumination of Windsor Castle, an honour reserved for state events and visiting dignitaries, as Concorde's last west-bound commercial flight departed London.

 

British Airways retired its Concorde fleet on 24 October 2003. G-BOAG left New York to a fanfare similar to that given for Air France’s F-BTSD, while two more made round trips, G-BOAF over the Bay of Biscay, carrying VIP guests including former Concorde pilots, and G-BOAE to Edinburgh. The three aircraft then circled over London, having received special permission to fly at low altitude, before landing in sequence at Heathrow. The captain of the New York to London flight was Mike Bannister. The final flight of a Concorde in the US occurred on 5 November 2003 when G-BOAG flew from New York's Kennedy Airport to Seattle's Boeing Field to join the Museum of Flight's permanent collection. The plane was piloted by Mike Bannister and Les Broadie who claimed a flight time of three hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds, a record between the two cities. The museum had been pursuing a Concorde for their collection since 1984. The final flight of a Concorde world-wide took place on 26 November 2003 with a landing at Filton, Bristol, UK.

 

All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn. Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again. BA maintain ownership and have stated that they will not fly again due to a lack of support from Airbus. On 1 December 2003, Bonhams held an auction of British Airways’ Concorde artifacts, including a nose cone, at Kensington Olympia in London. Proceeds of around £750,000 were raised, with the majority going to charity. G-BOAD is currently on display at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York. In 2007, BA announced that the advertising spot at Heathrow where a 40% scale model of Concorde was located would not be retained; the model is now on display at the Brooklands Museum.

 

Chrysler Concorde (1998)

 

The Concorde was completely redesigned for the 1998 model year. The new design was similar to the new Chrysler LHS, however the two models each had a unique front end shape and different rear fascias. The "Second Generation" design was introduced in 1996 as the Chrysler LHX Concept Car. This concept vehicle had large 20" wheels, and a centrally located instrument cluster. The wheelbase was expanded to 124 inches (3,100 mm) to allow for rear passenger supplement restraints, rear occupant entertainment center and storage compartment.

 

Despite overall length increasing by 7.5 inches (190 mm), the second generation's weight dropped by nearly a hundred pounds. This was achieved by extensive use of aluminum for the rear suspension, hood, as well as the two new engines. In addition the 214 hp (160 kW) 3.5-liter V6 engine, there was also a new 200 hp (149 kW) 2.7-liter V6 and 225 hp (168 kW) 3.2-liter V6. The 3.5-liter was redone and output upgraded to 253 hp (189 kW) and was available on the 2002-2004 Concorde Limited (formerly LHS).

 

Much was done in the design process to make the second generation LH sedans look more distinct from each other. The 1998 Concorde differed far greater from the Dodge Intrepid and the new 1999 Chrysler 300M (successor to the Eagle Vision), than did the first generation models. With the exception of the doors and roof, the Concorde shared little sheetmetal with the Intrepid and 300M. The new Concorde's front end was underscored by a striking full-width grille, relocated to the front bumper to give the impression of a bottom breather. Sweeping curves and a more rounded front end also helped set the Concorde apart from the Intrepid and 300M. The second generation Chrysler LHS had an appearance very similar to the Concorde; The only major differences being its more centrally located single frame grille and amber turn signals on the taillights.

 

As in the previous generation, six passenger seating with a front bench seat and column shifter was optional. Cloth seating was standard on base LX with leather seating optional. Leather was standard on upscale LXi and later Limited models.

 

The Concorde, 300M, and Intrepid were discontinued in 2004. The all-new Chrysler 300 replaced the Concorde (and 300M) in late 2004 as a 2005 model.

 

The Concorde 2nd generation replaced the first generation car (launched in 1991), itself derived from the AMC division Eagle Premier (and Dodge Monaco). Interestingly, these two AMC products were directly related to the then-new Renault 25 and inherited the Renault north-south installation of the powertrains, with the engine mounted ahead of, and driving, the front axle. This layout is very similar to that used in the larger Audis, thus permitting the installation of a all-wheel-drive system for added traction, though there were no volume models of either the AMC division cars, or the latter LHS platform Chryslers that used this system.

 

Notes on each of the aircraft Concorde and automotive Concorde are taken from excerpts published on Wikipedia.

 

The two models shown here, the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde and the second generation Chrysler Corcorde have been designed in Lego. The aircraft in approximately 1:50 scale, and the car in miniland (1:21) scale for Flickr LUGNuts 79th Build Challenge, - "LUGNuts goes Wingnuts" - featuring automotive models named after, inspired by, or related to aircraft.

Thornton Quarry, a large rock quarry south of Chicago, as seen from an airplane flying into Midway (for a layover, like the rest of my Chicago photos to date). The north lobe of the quarry, somewhat visible in the middle of this photo, is now a dirty-water reservoir for the Chicago drainage system. A dam was built in the tunnel under interstate 80 to prevent the water from entering the still-active south lobe of the quarry. At the time of its construction, the water reservoir was believed to be largest reservoir of its kind in the world.

 

This image is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution license. I did this for this image (not all of my images have this license, most are all rights reserved), as I feel that it is an interesting image of a somewhat underappreciated engineering marvel. I had trouble finding information on this subject when I was researching this photo (which totally stunned me when I saw it from the plane), and I hope that my photo will help there be more information out there about this subject. This license means that you are free to use this image in whatever way you want, so long as you give me credit ("Attribution").

A U.S. Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor assigned to the 90th Fighter Squadron approaches a U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker in order to receive fuel in the skies above Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, Australia, March 2, 2017. Twelve Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and approximately 200 U.S. Air Force Airmen participated in the first Enhanced Air Cooperation, an initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between the U.S. and Australia.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

There would definitely be chaos in the skies if it weren't for our air traffic controllers.

 

Air traffic controllers are personnel responsible for the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic in the global air traffic control system. Usually stationed in air traffic control centers and control towers on the ground, they monitor the position, speed, and altitude of aircraft in their assigned airspace visually and by radar, and give directions to the pilots by radio. The position of air traffic controller is one that requires highly specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities. Controllers apply separation rules to keep aircraft at a safe distance from each other in their area of responsibility and move all aircraft safely and efficiently through their assigned sector of airspace, as well as on the ground. Because controllers have an incredibly large responsibility while on duty (often in aviation, "on position") and make countless real-time decisions on a daily basis, the ATC profession is consistently regarded around the world as one of the most mentally challenging careers, and can be notoriously stressful depending on many variables (equipment, configurations, weather, traffic volume, human factors, etc.). Many controllers, however, would cite high salaries, and a very large, unique, and privileged degree of autonomy as major advantages of their jobs. Source: Wikipedia

 

"There are approximately 15,000 federal air traffic controllers on the job every day at 315 FAA air traffic facilities around the country, managing more than 87,000 daily flights across U.S. airspace." Source: Everett Potter, Special for USA TODAY Dec. 8, 2014

 

To the women and men of the FAA, thank you for your service.

 

© 2017 Skip Plitt Photography, All Rights Reserved.

 

This photo may not be used in any form without permission from the photographer. None of my images are in the Creative Commons. If you wish to use one of my images please contact me at: skipplittphotography@gmail.com

 

Todos los derechos reservados. Esta foto no se puede utilizar en cualquier forma sin el permiso del fotógrafo.

A U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System assigned to the 965th Airborne Air Control Squadron, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., takes off from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, during Red Flag 17-3 June 13, 2017. The E-3 is a mobile command and control platform that provides control anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Dustin Mullen) www.dvidshub.net

Airborne warning and control system.

“LUNAR TESTS -- Jack Mays, a test subject from the MSC Crew Systems Division, wears an International Latex Corporation spacesuit under a thermal overgarment during tests at the Lunar Topographical Simulation Area. He is also wearing a Portable Life Support System (PLSS) back pack. A full-scale mock-up of a Lunar Module is in background.”

 

…What he is not wearing however, is a helmet. In fact, he may be yelling something like “Where the f**k is my helmet?!?!?! You knew they were coming to take pictures today!!!” Or, being a consummate NASA professional, he may be realistically portraying his final moments in the near vacuum of the lunar surface, attempting to gasp…right before his eyes pop out of his head.

The top of a MSC water tower can be seen 'next' to the Lunar Module Descent Engine (LMDE) skirt/nozzle.

 

Jack Mays:

 

youtu.be/YtbvVZG257o

Credit: Manned Space/YouTube

SoulRider.222 / Eric Rider © 2022

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=keFzBeJkFCI

 

The M42 40 mm Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun, or Duster; is an American armored light air-defense gun built for the United States Army from 1952 until December 1960, in service until 1988. Production of this vehicle was performed by the tank division of the General Motors Corporation. It used components from the M41 light tank and was constructed of all-welded steel.

 

A total of 3,700 M42s were built. The vehicle has a crew of six and weighs 49,500 lbs fully loaded. Maximum speed is 45 mph with a range of 100 miles. Armament consists of fully automatic twin 40 mm M2A1 Bofors, with a rate of fire of 2×120 rounds per minute enabling nearly 85 seconds of fire time before running out of ammo, and either a .30 caliber Browning M1919A4 or 7.62mm M60 machine gun.

Initially, the 40 mm guns were aimed with the assistance of a radar fire control system housed in a secondary vehicle of similar design but this idea was scrapped as development costs mounted.

 

The 500 hp, six-cylinder, Continental (or Lycoming Engines), air-cooled, gasoline engine is located in the rear of the vehicle. It was driven by a cross-drive, two-speed Allison transmission.

 

Although the M42 Duster was initially designed for an anti-aircraft role, it proved to be effective against unarmored ground forces in the Vietnam war.

 

Production of the M42 began in early 1952 at GM's Cleveland Tank Plant. It entered service in late 1953 and replaced a variety of different anti-aircraft systems in armored divisions. In 1956, the M42 received a new engine and other upgrades along with other M41 based vehicles, becoming the M42A1. Production was halted in December 1960 with 3,700 examples made during its production run.

 

Sometime in the late 50s, the U.S. Army reached the conclusion that anti-aircraft guns were no longer viable in the jet age and began fielding a self-propelled version of the HAWK SAM instead. Accordingly, the M42 was retired from front line service and passed to the National Guard with the last M42s leaving the regular Army by 1963, except for the 4th Battalion, 517th Air Defense Artillery Regiment in the Panama Canal Zone, which operated two batteries of M42s into the 1970s.

 

The HAWK missile system performed poorly in low altitude defense. To ensure some low altitude anti-aircraft capability for the ever-increasing amount of forces fielded in South Vietnam, the Army began recalling M42A1s back into active service and organizing them into air defense artillery (ADA) battalions. Starting in the fall of 1966, the U.S. Army deployed three battalions of Dusters to South Vietnam, each battalion consisting of a headquarters battery and four Duster batteries, each augmented by one attached Quad-50 battery and an artillery searchlight battery.

 

Despite a few early air kills, the air threat posed by North Vietnam never materialized and ADA crews found themselves increasingly involved in ground support missions. Most often the M42 was on point security, convoy escort, or perimeter defense. The Duster; (as it was called by U.S. troops in Vietnam) was soon found to excel in ground support. The 40 mm guns proved to be effective against massed infantry attacks. According to an article that appeared in Vietnam Magazine:

 

M42s were old pieces of equipment that needed a lot of maintenance and required hard-to-get spare parts. The gasoline-powered Dusters were particularly susceptible to fires in the engine compartment. Thus, despite its cross country capability, it was not wise to use the Duster in extended search and destroy operations in heavy jungle terrain because of excessive wear on engines, transmissions, and suspensions.

 

On the plus side, the Duster was essentially a fairly simple piece of machinery on which the crews could perform maintenance. Better yet, the Duster's high ground clearance and excellent suspension-system design gave it an ability to withstand land mine explosions with minimal crew casualties.

 

Although the Duster's 40mm shell had a terrific blast and fragmentation effect, it also had a highly sensitive point-detonating fuse that limited effectiveness in heavy vegetation. Under those conditions, the better weapon was the Quad, because the heavy .50-caliber projectile could easily punch through cover that would detonate the Duster's 40mm shell too early for it to be effective. At long ranges, however the 40mm shell was far more useful, particularly against field formations. The Duster also was able to deliver indirect fires by using data from field artillery fire-directions centers.

 

Soldiers of the 1-44th Artillery and their Marine counterparts in I Corps set the pattern of Quad and Duster operations. Because of an early scarcity of armored-combat vehicles, M42s were first used as armor. Often thankful men quickly learned the value of high volumes of 40mm and .50-caliber fire, both in the field and perimeter defenses. Quads beefed up the defenses of remote fire bases, while Dusters accompanied both supply and tactical convoys along contested highways to break up ambushes. Dusters of Battery C, 1-44th Artillery, led the task force of Operations Pegasus that broke the siege of Khe Sanh in April 1968. Dusters and Quads provided critical final-protective fires throughout Vietnam during the Tet offensive and later took part in Operation Lam Son 719. Whenever fire support was needed, M42s could be found.

 

Most of the Duster crew members had their AIT training in the 1st Advanced Individual Training Brigade (Air Defense) at Fort Bliss, Texas. Some of the Duster NCOs had received training at the Non Commissioned Officers Candidate School which was also held at Fort Bliss, Texas.

 

The 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery was the first ADA battalion to arrive in South Vietnam on November 1966. A self-propelled M42A1 Duster unit, the 1-44th supported the Marines at places like Con Thien and Khe Sanh Combat Base as well as Army divisions in South Vietnam's rugged I Corps region. The battalion was assigned to I Field Force, Vietnam and was located at Đông Hà. In 1968 it was attached to the 108th Artillery Group (Field Artillery). Attached to the 1-44th was G Battery 65th Air Defense Artillery equipped with Quad-50s and G Battery 29th Artillery Searchlights. The 1-44th served alongside the 3rd Marine Division along the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in I Corps thru December 1971. Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout, a member of C Battery, 1-44th Artillery was awarded the Medal of Honor.

 

The second Duster battalion to arrive in Vietnam was the 5th Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery. Activated in June 1966 it arrived in Vietnam in November 1966 and was diverted to III Corps, II Field Force, Vietnam and set up around Bien Hoa Air Base. Attached units were D Battery71st Air Defense Artillery equipped with Quad-50s and I Battery, 29th Artillery Searchlights. The Second First; served the southern Saigon region through mid 1971. D-71st Quads remained active through March 1972.

 

The third Duster battalion to arrive was the 4th Battalion, 60th Air Defense Artillery. Activated in June 1966 it arrived in Vietnam in June 1967 and set up operations in the Central Highlands, based out of An Khê (1967–70) and later Tuy Hoa (1970-71). Attached units were E Battery 41st Artillery equipped with Quad-50s and B Battery, 29th Artillery Searchlights (which were already in country since October 1965). Members of these units not only covered the entire Central Highlands, but also supported firebases and operations along the DMZ to the north and Saigon to the south.

 

Each Duster Battalion had four line batteries (A, B, C, D) and a headquarters battery. Each battery had two platoons (1st, 2nd), which contained four sections each with a pair of M42A1 Dusters. At full deployment there were roughly 200 M42 Dusters under command throughout the entire war. The Duster and Quads largely operated in pairs at firebases, strong points, and in support of engineers building roads and transportation groups protecting convoys. At night they protected the firebases from attack and were often the first targets of enemy sappers, rockets, and mortars. Searchlight jeeps operated singly but often in support of a Duster or Quad section at a firebase.

 

Between the three Duster battalions and the attached Quad-50 and Searchlight batteries over 200 fatalities were recorded.

 

The three M42A1 equipped ADA battalions (1-44th, 4-60th and 5-2d) deactivated and left Vietnam in late December 1971. Most if not all of the in-country Dusters were turned over to ARVN forces. Most of the training Dusters at Fort Bliss were returned to various National Guard units. The U.S. Army maintained multiple National Guard M42 battalions as a corps-level ADA asset. 2nd Battalion, 263 ADA, headquartered in Anderson, SC was the last unit to operate the M42 when the system was retired in 1988.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SoulRider.222 / Eric Rider © 2022

 

The M60 is an American second-generation main battle tank (MBT). It was officially standardized as the Tank, Combat, Full Tracked: 105-mm Gun, M60 in March 1959. Although developed from the M48 Patton, the M60 tank series was never officially christened as a Patton tank. The US Army considered it a product-improved descendant of the Patton tank's design. The design similarities are evident comparing the original version of the M60 and the M48A2. It has been sometimes informally grouped as a member of the Patton tank family.

 

The United States fully committed to the MBT doctrine in 1963, when the Marine Corps retired the last (M103) heavy tank battalion. The M60 tank series became America's primary main battle tank during the Cold War. Over 15,000 M60s were built by Chrysler Defense Engineering. Hull production ended in 1983, but 5,400 older models were converted to the M60A3 variant ending in 1990.

 

The M60 reached operational capability upon fielding to US Army European units beginning in December 1960. The first combat use of the M60 was by Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where it saw service under the Magahi 6 designation, performing well in combat against comparable tanks such as the T-62. In 1982 the Israelis again used the M60 during the 1982 Lebanon War, equipped with upgrades such as explosive reactive armor to defend against guided missiles that proved very effective at destroying tanks. The M60 also saw use in 1983 during Operation Urgent Fury, supporting US Marines in an amphibious assault on Grenada. M60s delivered to Iran also served in the Iran–Iraq War.

 

The United States' largest deployment of M60s was in the 1991 Gulf War, where the US Marines equipped with M60A1s effectively defeated Iraqi armored forces, including T-72 tanks. The United States retired the M60 from front-line combat after Operation Desert Storm, with the last tanks being retired from National Guard service in 1997. M60-series vehicles continue in front-line service with a number of countries' militaries, though most of these have been highly modified and had their firepower, mobility and protection upgraded to increase their combat effectiveness on the modern battlefield.

 

The M60 underwent many updates over its service life. The interior layout, based on the design of the M48, provided ample room for updates and improvements, extending the vehicle's service life for over four decades. It was widely used by the US and its Cold War allies, especially those in NATO, and remains in service throughout the world, despite having been superseded by the M1 Abrams in the US military.

 

The M60 featured the M68 105mm main gun in the clamshell shaped Patton-styled T95E5 turret and several component improvements as well as the AVDS-1790-2A diesel engine and improved hull design. Some early production units did not have the commander's cupola.

 

The 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team is the largest formation of the Idaho Army National Guard. It is headquartered at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho. It has been reorganized into an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) but remains the only unit to be designated a "Cavalry Brigade Combat Team" by special appointment of the US Army. The 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team has units located throughout Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Nevada. It was reorganized into a heavy armor brigade in 1989. Often referred to as the Snake River Brigade and formerly known as the 116th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the unit includes about 3,000 citizen-soldiers from Idaho.

 

In July 2016, the 116th CBCT took part in Exercise Saber Guardian, which involve deploying troop elements from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Ukraine and the U.S.

 

The 116th CBCT consists of the following units:

 

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team (Idaho Army National Guard)

116 Cav Rgt DUI.png2nd Battalion (Combined Arms), 116th Cavalry Regiment (Idaho Army National Guard)

116 Cav Rgt DUI.png3rd Battalion (Combined Arms), 116th Cavalry Regiment (Oregon Army National Guard)

163rd Cavalry Regiment DUI.jpg1st Battalion (Combined Arms), 163rd Cavalry Regiment (Montana Army National Guard)

221st Cavalry Regiment DUI.jpg1st Squadron (Armored Reconnaissance), 221st Cavalry Regiment (Nevada Army National Guard) (joined CBCT Nov. 2016)

148 FA Rgt DUI.jpg1st Battalion, 148th Field Artillery Regiment (Idaho Army National Guard)

US 116th BEB insignia.png116th Brigade Engineer Battalion (Idaho Army National Guard) (re-organized from a special troops battalion and elements of the former 116th Engineer Battalion October 2016)

US 145th BSB insignia.png145th Brigade Support Battalion (Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon Army National Guard)

 

History

The 116th Cavalry (Snake River Regiment) was constituted on 4 March 1920 in the Idaho National Guard as the 1st Cavalry. It organized between March – November 1920 in the valley of the Snake River. It was redesignated on 12 October 1921 as the 116th Cavalry (less 2nd and 3rd Squadrons): Headquarters was federally recognized on 11 February 1922 at Boise (2nd and 3rd Squadrons were allotted in 1929 to the Idaho National Guard). The location of headquarters changed on 15 March 1929 to Weiser; and on 9 December 1930 back to Boise. The 116th Cavalry (less 3rd Squadron) converted and was redesignated on 16 September 1940 to the 183rd Field Artillery (the 3rd Squadron concurrently converted and was redesignated as elements of the 148th Field Artillery—hereafter separate lineage).

 

The 183rd Field Artillery Battalion was inducted into federal service on 1 April 1941 at home stations. The regiment was broken up on 8 February 1943 and its elements were reorganized and redesignated as follows: Headquarters and Headquarters Battery as Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 183 Field Artillery Group; the 1st Battalion as the 183rd Field Artillery Battalion (it inactivated on 30 October 1944, Camp Myles Standish, Massachusetts); the 2nd Battalion as the 951st Field Artillery Battalion (it inactivated on 13 October 1945 also at Camp Myles Standish.

 

The above units were reorganized as elements of the 183rd Infantry (Headquarters was federally recognized on 10 January 1947 at Twin Falls) and the 116th Mechanized Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron (Headquarters was federally recognized on 8 January 1947 at Caldwell). The 183rd Infantry (less 3rd Battalion) and 116th Mechanized Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron were consolidated, reorganized, and redesignated on 12 September 1949 as the 116th Armored Cavalry with headquarters at Twin Falls. The 3rd Battalion, 183rd Infantry, was concurrently converted and redesignated as the 116th Engineer Combat Battalion—hereafter separate lineage. The 3rd Squadron was allotted on 15 December 1967 to the Nevada Army National Guard; it was relieved on 11 May 1974 from allotment to the Nevada Army National Guard and allotted to the Oregon Army National Guard. The 1st Squadron was relieved on 1 May 1977 from allotment to the Idaho Army National Guard. The Attack Helicopter Company was allotted on 1 September 1975 to the Washington and Wyoming Army National Guard. The 116th was one of the four Army National Guard armored cavalry regiments during the 1980s, along with the 107th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 163rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

 

The unit reorganized and was redesignated on 1 September 1989 in the Idaho and Oregon Army National Guard as the 116th Cavalry, a parent regiment under the United States Army Regiment System, to consist of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions and Troop E, elements of the 116th Cavalry Brigade, and Troop F, and element of the 41st Infantry Brigade. The 116th Cavalry Brigade then joined the 4th Infantry Division as the round out brigade. It was reorganized on 1 October 1995 to consist of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions, elements of the 116th Cavalry Brigade and in 1996 the brigade left the 4th Infantry Division.

 

Operation JOINT FORGE (SFOR XI)

Approximately 300 Idaho and Montana Army National Guardsmen and women of the 116th served in Bosnia in 2001 and 2002. The 116th Cavalry Brigade, headquartered at Gowen Field, deployed approximately 100 soldiers in March 2002, returning in October 2002. The 116th was under the command and control of the Army's 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii, during the deployment. The 91st Division (Training Support) trained the 116th Cavalry Brigade prior to its deployment to Bosnia for Stabilization Force 11.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom III

In the early part of 2004 the 116th Cavalry Brigade was alerted for a mobilization to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. In June that year the entire brigade deployed for 18 months. The brigade spent the first six months at Fort Bliss, TX and Fort Polk, LA training for their combat mission.

 

The majority of the brigade arrived in Iraq late 2004. The 116th Cavalry Brigade was assigned to the northern part of Iraq, primarily in and around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk with elements occupying FOB Warrior, FOB McHenry and Gains Mills. For nearly a full year the soldiers of the 116th Cavalry Brigade conducted full spectrum operations in and around Kirkuk, stabilizing the region for national elections, and training the Iraqi Army and police forces.

 

The Iraq deployment marked the first time in the 116th Cavalry Brigade's history that the entire brigade had deployed together. This was also the first time that the 116th shoulder sleeve insignia was authorized to wear as the shoulder sleeve insignia – Former Wartime Service (often referred to as a combat patch).

 

As a cavalry unit, many soldiers serving in the brigade during the deployment were authorized to wear the gold combat spurs.

 

In November 2005 the 116th Cavalry Brigade redeployed to the United States. After redeployment the 116th Cavalry was officially redesignated from 116th Cavalry Brigade to 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team.

 

Operation New Dawn

On 17 September 2010 the brigade began a 12-month deployment to Iraq, first traveling to Camp Shelby, Mississippi, for training and premobilization certification. After serving for a year in various locations in Iraq performing Force Protection missions, the brigade returned to Idaho in September 2011.

 

During their deployment, they conducted numerous Force Protection missions. The unit was spread all over Iraq, being the main controlling task force for the country, from late November 2010 to early September 2011, when they turned the country over to the Kentucky National Guard.

 

From Quick Reaction Force platoons, convoy security teams, to ECP operations as well as administrative and biometrics operations, UAV operations, the 116th play a major role in initiating Operation New Dawn and the overall turnover of the country to the Iraqi Government.

 

Insignia

Shoulder Sleeve Insignia

Description: On a scarlet disc with a 1⁄8 inch yellow border 2 1⁄2 inches in diameter overall, a yellow sun emitting twelve rays surmounted by a blue horizontal wavy band bearing a yellow gliding snake.

 

Symbolism: The wavy band and the snake are taken from the coat of arms of the former organization, the 116th Armored Cavalry Regiment. The wavy band and snake represent the Snake River, and refer to the home area of the former organization, the Snake River Valley. The sun alludes to the state of Idaho, noted for the beauty of its sunrises. The name is taken from Shoshoni Indian words meaning " the sun comes down the mountain" or "it is morning." The predominant color, yellow, is representative of Armored Cavalry units.

 

Background: The shoulder sleeve insignia was originally approved for the 116th Armored Cavalry Regiment on 9 October 1967. The insignia was redesignated and the symbolism revised on 1 September 1989.

 

Distinctive Unit Insignia

A gold color metal and enamel device 1 3⁄16 inches high, consisting of a bundle of five gold arrows, points up, encompassed on either side of the tripartite black scroll passing across the center of the arrows and inscribed "MOVE STRIKE DESTROY" in gold letters; overall in base a red coiled rattlesnake.

 

Symbolism: Yellow/gold is the color traditionally associated with Cavalry. The coiled rattlesnake epitomizes the unit's motto – capabilities and military preparedness. The snake also alludes to the unit's association with the old 116th Armored Cavalry Regiment. The five arrows symbolize the unit's five campaign credits during World War II as Field Artillery; scarlet and yellow/gold are the colors associated with Field Artillery.

 

Background: The distinctive unit insignia was authorized on 2 May 1989.

 

2023 - 2024 -------------------> www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH-FehlT3_4

The Beriev A-50 (NATO reporting name "Mainstay") is a Soviet-built airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft based on the Ilyushin Il-76 transport. Developed to replace the Tupolev Tu-126 "Moss", the A-50 first flew in 1978. It entered service in 1984, with about 40 produced by 1992.

The mission personnel of the 15-man crew derive data from the large Liana surveillance radar with its antenna in an over-fuselage rotordome, which has a diameter of 29 ft 9 in (9.00 m).

 

The A-50 can control up to 10 fighter aircraft for either air-to-air intercept or air-to-ground attack missions. The A-50 is capable of flying for 4 hours at 1000 km from its base at a maximum takeoff weight of 190 tons. The aircraft can be refuelled by Il-78 tankers.

 

The radar "Vega-M" is designed by MNIIP, Moscow, and produced by NPO Vega. The "Vega-M" is capable of tracking up to 50 targets simultaneously within 230 kilometers. Large targets, like surface ships, can be tracked at a distance of 400 km.

 

After completing State Joint Tests, Beriev has delivered the first upgraded Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft to the Russian Air Force. The aircraft, '47 Red'/RF-92957 was handed over at Beriev's facility in Taganrog on October 31, 2011. It was accepted by an air crew serving with the 2457th Aviabaza Boevogo Primeneniya Samolotov Dalnego Radiolokatsionnogo Obnaruzheniya (Aviation Base for Combat Operation of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft) at Ivanovo Severny, which is the only base using the A-50 operationally. The 2457th operates 16 aircraft. A second aircraft, '33 Red' is getting upgraded and is due for delivery in 2012. These are the only two production upgrades ordered to date (January 2012), but Beriev anticipates further orders.

 

Development work on the A-50U commenced some years ago and State Tests started on September 10, 2008, using Russian Air Force A-50 '37 Red' as a prototype. The main element of the modernisation involves replacing the outdated analogue equipment with a new, digital avionics suite supplied by Russia's Vega Radio Engineering Corporation JSC. Notable improvements include: faster data processing, enhanced signal tracking and improved target detection. Crew rest, toilet and galley facilities are also included in the upgrade.

 

These upgrades form the basis of the concept for a new production aircraft, based on the Il-476 airframe (new built Il-76MD with PS-90A76 engines). Configuration will be similar to the A-50U, but with a new Vega Premier active phased array radar.

Part of the lift control system

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

Entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 'Raptor".

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.

“A North American Rockwell Corporation artist's concept depicting the Apollo Command Module (CM), oriented in a blunt-end-forward attitude, re-entering Earth's atmosphere after returning from a lunar landing mission. Note the change in color caused by the extremely high temperatures encountered upon re-entry.”

 

Also:

 

“Artistic illustration of the an Apollo Command Module during atmospheric reentry. The image was created by an artist at North American Rockwell Corporation (previously North American Aviation) leading up to the Apollo 8 mission. North American Rockwell built the Command Service Module and Saturn V S-II stage for the Apollo Program. Image courtesy: NASA/Boeing”

 

Per/at:

 

wehackthemoon.com/missions/fiery-return-apollo-missions

 

wehackthemoon.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_extra_l...

Credit: The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (We Hack The Moon) website

 

Although I’m not sure for how long he was under contract to NAA/NAR to render his artistic genius to the iconic – in my world – suite of Apollo mission depictions, and while there may be a standardized & universally reproduced artistic depiction of a Command Module’s reentry…used by all, I think this is by Gary Meyer.

 

“BETHPAGE, NEW YORK: This is a Manned Spacecraft Center artist’s concept of a multi-use workhorse space vehicle. Called a reusable tug, this highly versatile vehicle can be flown either manned or unmanned. It can be designed to operate around earth, or at the moon in support of interplanetary missions. The tug shown in this concept is approximately five stories high. It serves as a lunar base for scientific personnel who are conducting exploration of the moon.”

 

Of the myriad of space tug proposals & designs I’ve seen, outwardly, this is the most blatantly ‘simple’, and based on the press slug, possibly put forth by Grumman. It appears to be an Apollo Service Module mated to an Apollo Lunar Module descent stage.

Pretty expedient, gut the innards of the SM, make it a livable space, add windows, a mini-high-gain antenna, modify the contents of the descent stage quadrants, add another descent propulsion system engine - and BAM - orbed maiden here we come!

 

The Astronauts on the left appear to be investigating a Surveyor-type lander in the background, and an ALSEP-like scientific station is visible to the right.

 

If indeed a Grumman-originated/produced concept and it being loosely LM-‘derived’...from 1970, there's a chance it's by Craig Kavafes.

 

Lots of good space tug info & photos:

 

www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacetug.php

Credit: ATOMIC ROCKETS website

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the fully functional VF-1 prototype (the VF-X-1).

 

Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be produced en masse within a short period of time, a total of 5,459 airframes were delivered until 2013. The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. From the start the VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable and versatile craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four sub-variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements and upgrades, including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S with additional firepower. The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, production on Earth was stopped but the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and its persistent production after the war in many space sectors proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft underwent constant upgrade programs. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems, placed in a small, streamlined fairing in front of the cockpit. This system allowed passive long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his/her position through active radar emissions. The sensor could also be used for target illumination and precision weapons guidance.

Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with sensor arrays mounted on the wingtips, the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures and other defensive measure like flare/chaff dispensers were also added to some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

In early 2011, VF-1 production on Earth had already reached the 2.500th aircraft, a VF-1J which received a striking white-and-blue commemorative paint scheme upon roll-out, decorated with the logos of all major manufacturers and system suppliers. After a brief PR tour the machine (Bu. No. 2110406/1) was handed over to SVF-1, the famous Skull Squadron, as an attrition replacement for Major Yingluck 'Joker' Maneethapo's aircraft, leader of the unit’s 5th Flight and a Thai pilot ace from the first stages of the Zentraedi attacks in 2009.

With the opportunity to add more personal style to his new mount, Maneethapo's chose the non-standard modex ML 555 for his fighter - a play of words, because the five is pronounced 'ha' in Thai language and '555' a frequent abbreviation for 'laughing'. Bu. No. 2110406/1 retained its bright PR livery, because its primary colors matched well with SVF-1 ‘Lazulite’ flight’s ID color. The aircraft just lost the sponsor logos and instead received full military markings and tactical codes, including the unit’s renowned skull icon and the characteristic “ML” letter code on the foldable fins. The nose art for the 2.500th production VF-1 jubilee was retained, though.

In SVF-1 service, Bu. No. 2110406/1 was soon upgraded with an IRST and retrofitted with FAST Packs and avionics for various zero-G weapons for operations in space, since the unit was supposed to become based on SDF-1 and go into space with the large carrier ship. However, only SVF-1's Flight #1, 2 and 3 were taken on board of the SDF-1 when the ship left Earth, the remaining unit parts remained at the home base on Ataria Island, tasked with homeland defense duties.

 

In 2012, at the end of the war, SVF-1’s Lazulite’ flight was re-located on board of ARMD-02 (Armaments Rigged-up Moving Deck Space Carrier vessel), which was and rebuilt and attached to the refitted SDF-1 Macross as originally intended. There, Bu. No. 2110406/1 served into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013, when it was replaced as a Flight Leader’s mount by a VF-4 and handed over to SVF-42 back on Earth, where it was repainted in standard U.N. Spacy fighter colors (even though it still retained its commemorative nose art) and served until 2017. Bu. No. 2110406/1 was then retired and unceremoniously scrapped, having already exceeded its expected service life.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with several major variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30), sub-variants (VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68) and upgrades of existing airframes (like the VF-1P).

Despite its relatively short and intense production run the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness even years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.S. Marine Corps

 

Accommodation:

Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or 225.63 kN in overboost

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 ppm

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rpm

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including…

12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another small and vintage 1:100 VF-1 Fighter. This time it’s a non-canonical aircraft, based on a limited edition decal sheet that was published with the Japanese Model Graphix magazine in April 2001 (check this here for reference: www.starshipmodeler.com/mecha/jl_clrvalk.htm) with Hasegawa’s first release of their 1:72 Valkyrie Fighter kit. The give-away sheet featured several VF-1s, including an anniversary paint scheme for the 2.500th production Valkyrie. This is AFAIK neither ‘official’ nor canonical – but the pretty blue-and-white livery caught my attention, and I had for a long time the plan to re-create this livery on one of my favored 1:100 models. This would not work 100%, though, so I had to improvise – see below.

 

The kit was built OOB, with the landing gear down and (after taking the flight scenic pictures) with an open canopy, mounted on a small lift arm. Some typical small blade antennae the 1:100 simple kit lacks were added around the hull as a standard measure to improve the look. In the cockpit I added side consoles and a pilot figure for the in-flight shots.

The only non-standard additions are the IRST sensor fairing in front of the cockpit – the model of the anniversary VF-1 in the Model Graphix magazine carries this canonical upgrade, too, it was created from clear sprue material. Another tiny addition were the RHAWS antenna fairings at the top of the fins, scratched from small styrene profile bits.

 

The Valkyrie’s ordnance is standard and was taken OOB, featuring twelve AMM-1 missiles under the wings plus the standard GU-11 gatling gun pod; the latter was modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures at its rear end. The Model Graphix VF-1 is insofar confusing as it seems to carry something that looks like a white ACMI pod on a non-standard pylon, rather attached to the legs than to the wings? That's odd and I could not make up a useful function, so I rejected this detail. The magazine Valkyrie's belly drop tank was - even though canonical, AFAIK - also not taken over to my later in-service status.

  

Painting and markings:

The more challenging part of the build, in two ways. First, re-creating the original commemorative livery would have called for home-made decals printed in opaque white for the manufacturers’ logos, something I was not able to do at home. So, I had to interpret the livery in a different way and decided to spin the aircraft’s story further: what would become of this VF-1 after its roll-out and PR event? In a war situation it would certainly be delivered quickly to a frontline unit, and since I had some proper markings left over, I decided to attach this colorful bird to the famous Skull Squadron, SVF-1, yet to a less glorious Flight. Since flight leaders and aces in the Macross universe would frequently fly VF-1s in individual non-standard liveries, sometimes even very bright ones, the 2,500th VF-1 could have well retained its catchy paint scheme.

 

The second part of the challenge: the actual paint job. Again, no suitable decals were at hand, so I had to re-create everything from scratch. The VF-1J kit I used thankfully came molded in white styrene, so that the front half of the aircraft could be easily painted in white, with no darker/colored plastic shining through. I painted the white (Revell 301, a very pure white) with a brush first. For the blue rear half, I settled upon an intense and deep cobalt blue tone (ModelMaster 2012). For the zigzag border between the colors, I used Tamiya masking tape, trimmed with a tailor’s zigzag scissors and applied in a slightly overlapping pattern for an irregular edge.

The landing gear became standard all-white (Revell 301, too), with bright red edges (Humbrol 174) on the covers. Antenna fairings were painted with radome tan (Humbrol 7) as small color highlights.

 

The cockpit interior became standard medium grey (Revell 47) with a black ejection seat with brown cushions (Humbrol 119 and Revell 84), and brown “black boxes” behind the headrest. The air intakes as well as the interior of the VG wings were painted dark grey (Revell 77). The jet nozzles/feet were internally painted with Humbrol 27003 (Steel Metallizer) and with Revell 91 on the outside, and they were later thoroughly treated with graphite to give them a burnt/worn look.

The GU-11 pod became standard bare metal (Revell 91, Iron metallic), the AMM-1s were painted in light grey (Humbrol 127) with many additional painted details in five additional colors, quite a tedious task when repeated twelve times...

 

After basic painting was one the model received a careful overall washing with black ink to emphasize the engraved panel lines, and light post-shading was done to the blue areas to emphasize single panels.

The full-color ’kite’ roundels came from an 1:100 VF-1A sheet, the skull emblems were left over from my Kotobukiya 1:72 VF-4 build some years ago, which OOB carries SVF-1 markings, too. The 2.500th aircraft nose art decoration was printed on clear decal film with an ink jet printer at home, even though it’s so small that no details can be discerned on the model. SVF-1’s “ML” tail code was created with single white decal letters (RAF WWII font), the red “555” modex came from an PrintScale A-26 Invader sheet, it's part of a USAF serial number from an all-black Korean War era aircraft.

 

The wings' leading edges were finished in medium grey, done with decal sheet material. The Model Graphix Valkyrie does not sport this detail, but I think that the VF-1 looks better with them and more realistic. Red warning stripes around the legs - also not seen on the model in the magazine - were made from similar material.

 

The confetti along the jagged edge between the white and the blue areas was created with decal material, too – every bit was cut out and put into place one for one… To match the cobalt blue tone, the respective enamel paint was applied on clear decal sheet material and cut into small bits. For the white and red confetti, generic decal sheet material was used. All in all, this was another tedious process, but, at the small 1:100 scale, masks or tape would have been much more complex and less successful with the brushes I use for painting. For this home-made approach the result looks quite good!

 

Finally, after some typical details and position lights had been added with clear paints over a silver base, the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish, giving it a slightly shiny finish.

  

A pretty VF-1 – even though I’d call it purely fictional, despite being based on material that was published in a Japanese magazine more than 20 years ago. The simple yet striking livery was a bit tricky to create, but the result, with the additional SVF-1 unit markings, looks good and makes me wonder how this machine would look with FAST pack elements for use in space or as a transformed Battroid?

Based on other similar depictions and the paltry documentation available, as part of a nuclear/‘S-N’ Apollo-like configuration, a lunar landing craft is depicted separating from its “propulsion module” in the near vicinity of the moon. The reaction control system engines of the propulsion module are firing to ensure proper separation. Note the naval vessel-like hatch & handle of the lander, with the step-rung/handrail combination down its side.

My SWAG: I think this vehicle is unmanned...I see no windows. I assume Astronauts transported via Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) will land near it & maybe use it as a base for extended lunar surface operations. The presence of the solar panels atop the lander would seem to support this. I suppose it could also be a logistics/supply vehicle. But then the solar panels would seem to be unnecessary. That is, unless it would/could subsequently serve as a power augmentation/generation facility? Who knows.

 

8.5" x 11".

 

Yet another striking Ludwik Źiemba-influenced work by what I believe are his protégés, A. Saporito & J. Kramer, on behalf of the Lockheed Missiles & Space Company. Very evocative, with the spacecraft in lunar night, over an as yet unidentified (if actual) region of the moon…dimly illuminated by scattered 'cosmic lighting'. 😉

A striking perspective rendering of LEM ascent stage liftoff, ca. 1964-66, possibly for Marquardt Corporation, by David Hawbecker. Marquardt was the manufacturer of the Reaction Control System (RCS) engines for both the LEM & Command/Service Module.

 

I love it, but that's a really creepy, menacing, possibly possessed or demented Mission Commander at the window. The LMP is probably dead.

 

At:

 

www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/original-1960s-concept-art...

Credit: WorthPoint website

 

Sorry, with my extremely limited – terrible actually – photo/image manipulating software, unwillingness to get a WorthPoint account (possibly allowing access to a higher resolution version), and rudimentary skills, this is as good as it gets.

Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde /ˈkɒŋkɔrd/ is a retired turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner or supersonic transport (SST). It is one of only two SSTs to have entered commercial service; the other was the Tupolev Tu-144. Concorde was jointly developed and produced by Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.

 

Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport to New York JFK, Washington Dulles and Barbados; it flew these routes in less than half the time of other airliners. With only 20 aircraft built, the development of Concorde was a substantial economic loss; Air France and British Airways also received considerable government subsidies to purchase them. Concorde was retired in 2003 due to a general downturn in the aviation industry after the type's only crash in 2000, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and a decision by Airbus, the successor firm of Aérospatiale and BAC, to discontinue maintenance support.

 

A total of 20 aircraft were built in France and the United Kingdom; six of these were prototypes and development aircraft. Seven each were delivered to Air France and British Airways. Concorde's name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusually for an aircraft—are known simply as "Concorde", without an article. The aircraft is regarded by many people as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel.

 

Early studies

 

Concorde

 

The origins of the Concorde project date to the early 1950s, when Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) asked Morien Morgan to form a committee to study the SST concept. The group met for the first time in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.

 

At the time it was known that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing. This led to the use of very short-span, very thin rectangular wings like those seen on the control surfaces of many missiles, or in aircraft like the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter or the Avro 730 that the team studied. The team outlined a baseline configuration that looked like an enlarged Avro 730, or more interestingly, almost exactly like the Lockheed CL-400 "Suntan" proposal.

 

This same short span produced very little lift at low speed, which resulted in extremely long takeoff runs and frighteningly high landing speeds. In an SST design, this would have required enormous engine power to lift off from existing runways, and to provide the fuel needed, "some horribly large aeroplanes" resulted. Based on this, the group considered the concept of an SST unfeasible, and instead suggested continued low-level studies into supersonic aerodynamics.

 

Slender deltas

 

Soon after, Dietrich Küchemann at the RAE published a series of reports on a new wing planform, known in the UK as the "slender delta" concept. Küchemann's team, including Eric Maskell and Johanna Weber, worked with the fact that delta wings can produce strong vortexes on their upper surfaces at high angles of attack. The vortex will lower the air pressure and cause lift to be greatly increased. This effect had been noticed earlier, notably by Chuck Yeager in the Convair XF-92, but its qualities had not been fully appreciated. Küchemann suggested that this was no mere curiosity, and the effect could be deliberately used to improve low speed performance.

 

Küchemann's papers changed the entire nature of supersonic design almost overnight. Although the delta had already been used on aircraft prior to this point, these designs used planforms that were not much different from a swept wing of the same span. Küchemann noted that the lift from the vortex was increased by the length of the wing it had to operate over, which suggested that the effect would be maximized by extending the wing along the fuselage as far as possible. Such a layout would still have good supersonic performance inherent to the short span, while also offering reasonable takeoff and landing speeds using vortex generation. The only downside to such a design is that the aircraft would have to take off and land very "nose high" in order to generate the required vortex lift, which led to questions about the low speed handling qualities of such a design. It would also need to have long landing gear to produce the required angles while still on the runway.

 

Küchemann presented the idea at a meeting where Morgan was also present. Eric Brown recalls Morgan's reaction to the presentation, saying that he immediately seized on it as the solution to the SST problem. Brown considers this moment as being the true birth of the Concorde project.

 

Design

 

Concorde is an ogival (also "ogee") delta-winged aircraft with four Olympus engines based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. Concorde was the first airliner to have a (in this case, analogue) fly-by-wire flight-control system; the avionics of Concorde were unique because it was the first commercial aircraft to employ hybrid circuits. The principal designer for the project was Pierre Satre, with Sir Archibald Russell as his deputy.

 

Concorde pioneered the following technologies:

 

For high speed and optimisation of flight:

 

Double delta (ogee/ogival) shaped wings

Variable engine air intake system controlled by digital computers

Supercruise capability

Thrust-by-wire engines, predecessor of today’s FADEC-controlled engines

Droop-nose section for better landing visibility

For weight-saving and enhanced performance:

 

Mach 2.04 (~2,179 km/h or 1,354 mph) cruising speed for optimum fuel consumption (supersonic drag minimum although turbojet engines are more efficient at higher speed) Fuel consumption at Mach 2.0 and altitude of 60,000 feet was 4,800 gallons per hour.

Mainly aluminium construction for low weight and conventional manufacture (higher speeds would have ruled out aluminium)

Full-regime autopilot and autothrottle allowing "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing

Fully electrically controlled analogue fly-by-wire flight controls systems

High-pressure hydraulic system of 28 MPa (4,000 lbf/in²) for lighter hydraulic components

Complex Air Data Computer (ADC) for the automated monitoring and transmission of aerodynamic measurements (total pressure, static pressure, angle of attack, side-slip).

Fully electrically controlled analogue brake-by-wire system

Pitch trim by shifting fuel around the fuselage for centre-of-gravity control

Parts made using "sculpture milling", reducing the part count while saving weight and adding strength.

No auxiliary power unit, as Concorde would only visit large airports where ground air start carts are available.

 

Engines

 

Concorde's intake system

 

Concorde needed to fly long distances to be economically viable; this required high efficiency. Turbofan engines were rejected due to their larger cross-section producing excessive drag. Turbojets were found to be the best choice of engines. The engine used was the twin spool Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593, a development of the Bristol engine first used for the Avro Vulcan bomber, and developed into an afterburning supersonic variant for the BAC TSR-2 strike bomber. Rolls-Royce's own engine proposed for the aircraft at the time of Concorde's initial design was the RB.169.

 

The aircraft used reheat (afterburners) at takeoff and to pass through the upper transonic regime and to supersonic speeds, between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.7. The afterburners were switched off at all other times. Due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel (almost 2% of the maximum fuel load) taxiing to the runway. Fuel used is Jet A-1. Due to the high power produced even with the engines at idle, only the two outer engines were run after landing for easier taxiing.

 

The intake design for Concorde’s engines was especially critical.[Conventional jet engines can take in air at only around Mach 0.5; therefore the air has to be slowed from the Mach 2.0 airspeed that enters the engine intake. In particular, Concorde needed to control the shock waves that this reduction in speed generates to avoid damage to the engines. This was done by a pair of intake ramps and an auxiliary spill door, whose position moved in-flight to slow transiting air.

 

Engine failure causes problems on conventional subsonic aircraft; not only does the aircraft lose thrust on that side but the engine creates drag, causing the aircraft to yaw and bank in the direction of the failed engine. If this had happened to Concorde at supersonic speeds, it theoretically could have caused a catastrophic failure of the airframe. Although computer simulations predicted considerable problems, in practice Concorde could shut down both engines on the same side of the aircraft at Mach 2 without the predicted difficulties. During an engine failure the required air intake is virtually zero so, on Concorde, engine failure was countered by the opening of the auxiliary spill door and the full extension of the ramps, which deflected the air downwards past the engine, gaining lift and minimising drag. Concorde pilots were routinely trained to handle double engine failure.

 

Heating issues

 

Air compression on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight. Besides engines, the hottest part of the structure of any supersonic aircraft, due to aerodynamic heating, is the nose. The engineers used Hiduminium R.R. 58, an aluminium alloy, throughout the aircraft due to its familiarity, cost and ease of construction. The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C (261 °F), which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02. Concorde went through two cycles of heating and cooling during a flight, first cooling down as it gained altitude, then heating up after going supersonic. The reverse happened when descending and slowing down. This had to be factored into the metallurgical and fatigue modelling. A test rig was built that repeatedly heated up a full-size section of the wing, and then cooled it, and periodically samples of metal were taken for testing. The Concorde airframe was designed for a life of 45,000 flying hours.

 

Owing to air friction as the plane travelled at supersonic speed, the fuselage would heat up and expand by as much as 300 mm (almost 1 ft). The most obvious manifestation of this was a gap that opened up on the flight deck between the flight engineer's console and the bulkhead. On some aircraft that conducted a retiring supersonic flight, the flight engineers placed their caps in this expanded gap, wedging the cap when it shrank again. To keep the cabin cool, Concorde used the fuel as a heat sink for the heat from the air conditioning. The same method also cooled the hydraulics. During supersonic flight the surfaces forward from the cockpit became heated, and a visor was used to deflect much of this heat from directly reaching the cockpit.

 

Concorde had livery restrictions; the majority of the surface had to be covered with a highly reflective white paint to avoid overheating the aluminium structure due to heating effects from supersonic flight at Mach 2. The white finish reduced the skin temperature by 6 to 11 degrees Celsius. In 1996, Air France briefly painted F-BTSD in a predominantly blue livery, with the exception of the wings, in a promotional deal with Pepsi. In this paint scheme, Air France were advised to remain at Mach 2 for no more than 20 minutes at a time, but there was no restriction at speeds under Mach 1.7. F-BTSD was used because it was not scheduled for any long flights that required extended Mach 2 operations.

 

Structural issues

 

Fuel pitch trim

 

Due to the high speeds at which Concorde travelled, large forces were applied to the aircraft's structure during banks and turns. This caused twisting and the distortion of the aircraft’s structure. In addition there were concerns over maintaining precise control at supersonic speeds; both of these issues were resolved by active ratio changes between the inboard and outboard elevons, varying at differing speeds including supersonic. Only the innermost elevons, which are attached to the stiffest area of the wings, were active at high speed. Additionally, the narrow fuselage meant that the aircraft flexed. This was visible from the rear passengers’ viewpoints.

 

When any aircraft passes the critical mach of that particular airframe, the centre of pressure shifts rearwards. This causes a pitch down force on the aircraft if the centre of mass remains where it was. The engineers designed the wings in a specific manner to reduce this shift, but there was still a shift of about 2 metres. This could have been countered by the use of trim controls, but at such high speeds this would have caused a dramatic increase in the drag on the aircraft. Instead, the distribution of fuel along the aircraft was shifted during acceleration and deceleration to move the centre of mass, effectively acting as an auxiliary trim control.

 

Range

 

In order to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean, Concorde was developed to have the greatest supersonic range of any aircraft. This was achieved by a combination of engines which were highly efficient at supersonic speeds, a slender fuselage with high fineness ratio, and a complex wing shape for a high lift to drag ratio. This also required carrying only a modest payload and a high fuel capacity, and the aircraft was trimmed with precision to avoid unnecessary drag.

 

Nevertheless, soon after Concorde began flying, a Concorde "B" model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions. It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy reheat. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593. This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible. This was cancelled due in part to poor sales of Concorde, but also to the rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s.

 

Droop Nose

 

Concorde’s drooping nose, developed by Marshall Aerospace, enabled the aircraft to switch between being streamlined to reduce drag and achieve optimum aerodynamic efficiency, and not obstructing the pilot's view during taxi, takeoff, and landing operations. Due to the high angle of attack the long pointed nose obstructed the view and necessitated the capability to droop. The droop nose was accompanied by a moving visor that retracted into the nose prior to being lowered. When the nose was raised to horizontal, the visor would rise in front of the cockpit windscreen for aerodynamic streamlining.

 

A controller in the cockpit allowed the visor to be retracted and the nose to be lowered to 5° below the standard horizontal position for taxiing and takeoff. Following takeoff and after clearing the airport, the nose and visor were raised. Prior to landing, the visor was again retracted and the nose lowered to 12.5° below horizontal for maximum visibility. Upon landing the nose was raised to the five-degree position to avoid the possibility of damage.

 

The Federal Aviation Administration had objected to the restrictive visibility of the visor used on the first two prototype Concordes and thus requiring alteration before the FAA would permit Concorde to serve US airports; this led to the redesigned visor used on the production and the four pre-production aircraft. The nose window and visor glass needed to endure temperatures in excess of 100 °C (212 °F) at supersonic flight were developed by Triplex.

 

Retirement

 

Concorde's final flight; G-BOAF from Heathrow to Bristol, on 26 November 2003. The extremely high fineness ratio of the fuselage is evident.

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was dated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747. By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in British Airways' fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role.

 

On 11 April 2003, Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing British Airways’ Concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £1 (US$1.57 in April 2003) each. British Airways dismissed the idea, prompting Virgin to increase their offer to £1 million each. Branson claimed that when BA was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another British airline to operate Concorde if BA ceased to do so, but the Government denied the existence of such a clause. In October 2003, Branson wrote in The Economist that his final offer was "over £5 million" and that he had intended to operate the fleet "for many years to come". The chances for keeping Concorde in service were stifled by Airbus's lack of support for continued maintenance.

 

It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically. A lack of commitment to Concorde from Director of Engineering Alan MacDonald was cited as having undermined BA’s resolve to continue operating Concorde.

 

Air France

 

Air France made its final commercial Concorde landing in the United States in New York City from Paris on 30 May 2003. Air France's final Concorde flight took place on 27 June 2003 when F-BVFC retired to Toulouse.

 

An auction of Concorde parts and memorabilia for Air France was held at Christie's in Paris on 15 November 2003; 1,300 people attended, and several lots exceeded their predicted values. French Concorde F-BVFC was retired to Toulouse and kept functional for a short time after the end of service, in case taxi runs were required in support of the French judicial enquiry into the 2000 crash. The aircraft is now fully retired and no longer functional.

 

French Concorde F-BTSD has been retired to the "Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace" at Le Bourget (near Paris) and, unlike the other museum Concordes, a few of the systems are being kept functional. For instance, the famous "droop nose" can still be lowered and raised. This led to rumours that they could be prepared for future flights for special occasions.

 

French Concorde F-BVFB currently rests at the Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim at Sinsheim, Germany, after its last flight from Paris to Baden-Baden, followed by a spectacular transport to Sinsheim via barge and road. The museum also has a Tu-144 on display – this is the only place where both supersonic airliners can be seen together.

 

British Airways[edit]

 

BA Concorde G-BOAB in storage at London Heathrow Airport. This aircraft flew for 22,296 hours between its first flight in 1976 and its final flight in 2000.

 

BA Concorde G-BOAC in its hangar at Manchester Airport Aviation Viewing Park]]

British Airways conducted a North American farewell tour in October 2003. G-BOAG visited Toronto Pearson International Airport on 1 October, after which it flew to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. G-BOAD visited Boston’s Logan International Airport on 8 October, and G-BOAG visited Washington Dulles International Airport on 14 October. It has been claimed that G-BOAD’s flight from London Heathrow to Boston set a transatlantic flight record of 3 hours, 5 minutes, 34 seconds. However the fastest transatlantic flight was from New York JFK airport to Heathrow on 7 February 1996, taking 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds; 90 seconds less than a record set in April 1990.

 

In a week of farewell flights around the United Kingdom, Concorde visited Birmingham on 20 October, Belfast on 21 October, Manchester on 22 October, Cardiff on 23 October, and Edinburgh on 24 October. Each day the aircraft made a return flight out and back into Heathrow to the cities, often overflying them at low altitude. On 22 October, both Concorde flight BA9021C, a special from Manchester, and BA002 from New York landed simultaneously on both of Heathrow's runways. On 23 October 2003, the Queen consented to the illumination of Windsor Castle, an honour reserved for state events and visiting dignitaries, as Concorde's last west-bound commercial flight departed London.

 

British Airways retired its Concorde fleet on 24 October 2003. G-BOAG left New York to a fanfare similar to that given for Air France’s F-BTSD, while two more made round trips, G-BOAF over the Bay of Biscay, carrying VIP guests including former Concorde pilots, and G-BOAE to Edinburgh. The three aircraft then circled over London, having received special permission to fly at low altitude, before landing in sequence at Heathrow. The captain of the New York to London flight was Mike Bannister. The final flight of a Concorde in the US occurred on 5 November 2003 when G-BOAG flew from New York's Kennedy Airport to Seattle's Boeing Field to join the Museum of Flight's permanent collection. The plane was piloted by Mike Bannister and Les Broadie who claimed a flight time of three hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds, a record between the two cities. The museum had been pursuing a Concorde for their collection since 1984. The final flight of a Concorde world-wide took place on 26 November 2003 with a landing at Filton, Bristol, UK.

 

All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn. Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again. BA maintain ownership and have stated that they will not fly again due to a lack of support from Airbus. On 1 December 2003, Bonhams held an auction of British Airways’ Concorde artifacts, including a nose cone, at Kensington Olympia in London. Proceeds of around £750,000 were raised, with the majority going to charity. G-BOAD is currently on display at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York. In 2007, BA announced that the advertising spot at Heathrow where a 40% scale model of Concorde was located would not be retained; the model is now on display at the Brooklands Museum.

 

Chrysler Concorde (1998)

 

The Concorde was completely redesigned for the 1998 model year. The new design was similar to the new Chrysler LHS, however the two models each had a unique front end shape and different rear fascias. The "Second Generation" design was introduced in 1996 as the Chrysler LHX Concept Car. This concept vehicle had large 20" wheels, and a centrally located instrument cluster. The wheelbase was expanded to 124 inches (3,100 mm) to allow for rear passenger supplement restraints, rear occupant entertainment center and storage compartment.

 

Despite overall length increasing by 7.5 inches (190 mm), the second generation's weight dropped by nearly a hundred pounds. This was achieved by extensive use of aluminum for the rear suspension, hood, as well as the two new engines. In addition the 214 hp (160 kW) 3.5-liter V6 engine, there was also a new 200 hp (149 kW) 2.7-liter V6 and 225 hp (168 kW) 3.2-liter V6. The 3.5-liter was redone and output upgraded to 253 hp (189 kW) and was available on the 2002-2004 Concorde Limited (formerly LHS).

 

Much was done in the design process to make the second generation LH sedans look more distinct from each other. The 1998 Concorde differed far greater from the Dodge Intrepid and the new 1999 Chrysler 300M (successor to the Eagle Vision), than did the first generation models. With the exception of the doors and roof, the Concorde shared little sheetmetal with the Intrepid and 300M. The new Concorde's front end was underscored by a striking full-width grille, relocated to the front bumper to give the impression of a bottom breather. Sweeping curves and a more rounded front end also helped set the Concorde apart from the Intrepid and 300M. The second generation Chrysler LHS had an appearance very similar to the Concorde; The only major differences being its more centrally located single frame grille and amber turn signals on the taillights.

 

As in the previous generation, six passenger seating with a front bench seat and column shifter was optional. Cloth seating was standard on base LX with leather seating optional. Leather was standard on upscale LXi and later Limited models.

 

The Concorde, 300M, and Intrepid were discontinued in 2004. The all-new Chrysler 300 replaced the Concorde (and 300M) in late 2004 as a 2005 model.

 

The Concorde 2nd generation replaced the first generation car (launched in 1991), itself derived from the AMC division Eagle Premier (and Dodge Monaco). Interestingly, these two AMC products were directly related to the then-new Renault 25 and inherited the Renault north-south installation of the powertrains, with the engine mounted ahead of, and driving, the front axle. This layout is very similar to that used in the larger Audis, thus permitting the installation of a all-wheel-drive system for added traction, though there were no volume models of either the AMC division cars, or the latter LHS platform Chryslers that used this system.

 

Notes on each of the aircraft Concorde and automotive Concorde are taken from excerpts published on Wikipedia.

 

The two models shown here, the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde and the second generation Chrysler Corcorde have been designed in Lego. The aircraft in approximately 1:50 scale, and the car in miniland (1:21) scale for Flickr LUGNuts 79th Build Challenge, - "LUGNuts goes Wingnuts" - featuring automotive models named after, inspired by, or related to aircraft.

A Royal Air Force Lockheed Martin F-35 "Lightning II", U.S. Air Force Boeing F-15E "Strike Eagle", and French air force Dassault "Rafale" fly behind a U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135 "Stratotanker" from the 100th Air Refueling Wing during Exercise Point Blank over the English Channel, Nov. 27, 2018. Training with NATO allies like the U.K. and France improves interoperability and demonstrates the United States’ commitment to regional security. Exercise Point Blank also represents an opportunity to enhance interoperability and integration between allied fourth and fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

 

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.

 

Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

  

Development

 

Origins

 

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 "Flanker"- and MiG-29 "Fulcrum"-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.

 

Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.

 

Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.

  

Production and procurement

 

As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.

 

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.

 

The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.

 

The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.

 

The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.

 

Ban on exports

 

The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.

 

Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.

 

Production termination

 

Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.

 

In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler.[60] Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.

 

In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).[66] A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.

 

Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.

 

In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.

 

Upgrades

 

The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.

 

Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.[83][84] To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.

 

In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.

 

The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.

  

Design

 

Overview

 

The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.

 

The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.

 

The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.

 

The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.

  

Stealth

 

The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.

 

Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.

 

The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.