It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need help to ID aircraft/missiles from 1964 DLI-USAF SR pamphlet

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Hi all, I was digging around the garage, came upon this old text book, and when I was flipping through it I found some pictures of aircraft I could not identify.

Here are the pictures; I’m particularly interested in the large bomber and the missiles under that Mil;

First the disclaimer that I’m sure a lot of ATS members will enjoy! : )



Here’s the bomber I can’t seem to place;



Here’s the Mil and the missiles it delivered;



And finally a fighter with a very large caliber wing root mounted auto-cannon, which I can not ID, any ideas?



How about it?




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The first picture is the Myasishchev M-50 'Bounder' flanked by a pair of MiG-21s (I think this picture was taken during the 1961 Tushino flypast).

The Second picture is Mil Mi-6 'Hook' (not sure off the top of my head about the missiles - I'll look them up.)

Number 3 is MiG-19s

The Winged Wombat



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
The missiles appear to me to be the two stage Frog-3 surface to surface missile.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
The bomber I beleive is a M-50 Myasishchyev NATO code name Bounder

The Fighter appears to be a Mig 19 Nato code name Farmer


The MIL seems to be a Mi-6 HOOK, But, the turbine housings do not appear far back enough as the do in actualy pictures of the craft. Was this a real image or an artists conception?

The missiles are pretty tough to identify but Im pretty sure they were not fired from the chopter rather transported there to be used by say ground forces.

Can you get someone to translate the pamphlet?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 



The first picture is the Myasishchev M-50 'Bounder' flanked by a pair of MiG-21s (I think this picture was taken during the 1961 Tushino flypast).


Thanks, that’s what it is! As far as I remember at that time ballistic missile proponents lobbied against the project and sunk it, and further development was scrapped around 1960.


Number 3 is MiG-19s


I can’t believe I missed that one. I though it was an SU of some sort, the giant muzzle break of the wing root mounted cannon through me off.

Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 



The missiles appear to me to be the two stage Frog-3 surface to surface missile.


It’s not the frog. Note the stabilizing fins. Frogs have then only on the tail section.


edit:Never mind! I took a closer look, and it’s an optical illusion!

Since there are two missiles on the rack, the fins of the second one make it look like they are farther up.

They are frogs, two of them on the delivery sled.

Thanks again!


[edit on 5-2-2008 by iskander]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 



The MIL seems to be a Mi-6 HOOK, But, the turbine housings do not appear far back enough as the do in actualy pictures of the craft. Was this a real image or an artists conception?


It’s a real image, I scanned it my self. Again it could be a funny angle, or an early variant, because those turbines do look to be awfully close to the crew cabin.


The missiles are pretty tough to identify but Im pretty sure they were not fired from the chopter rather transported there to be used by say ground forces.


They are Frogs like The Winged Wombat pointed out, and they do look like they were just delivered by the HOOK.


Can you get someone to translate the pamphlet?


It’s in Bulgarian, I’ve read it but the actual text does not have a single reference to the picture, nothing about the chopper or the missiles, just a general list of various achievements, references to battles of WWII and so forth.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
just to add links for the aboive posters:

www.fas.org...

M50^^


www.fas.org...

Mig-19^^ and i would happily say its not the J6 (cineses built version) because of the radome.


hmmm the missile looks to small to be a frog 3 IMO quitelikely a frog 1

[edit on 5/2/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



hmmm the missile looks to small to be a frog 3 IMO


I don’t know, I pulled some images from google, seems to be about right;

www.globalsecurity.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

www.globalsecurity.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



hmmm the missile looks to small to be a frog 3 IMO


I don’t know, I pulled some images from google, seems to be about right;






posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Hi Iskander no hard feelings about that run in we had on the other thread I hope? Sorry about that, think we both got a little hot under the collar and out of line.


As for the Myasishchev M-50 'Bounder' , I could be wrong but I have a feeling that one may still be in existence in an outdoor aircraft museum in Russia, possibly Monino or Kolomenskoye. As I say it's off the top of my head as I haven't looked, but I am sure I saw a picture of it within the last year or so on display looking rather dilapidated.

LEE.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


could well be then
the pictures i saw were all on a TEL which could have made it appear bigger.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Thanks for the impute guys, I’m going through boxes in the garage to find some papers from years back, which specifically relate to F-5/F-20 and F-16/F-18 topic we’re discussing in the other thread.

I happen to come across the pamphlet and just had to ask what those pictures were.

Thanks to all, and I’m still looking for the documents for the F-16 thread.

From my rusty memory it was a development assessment report which early on made it clear that F-16s air intake will have severe problems, that its airframe/landing gear will not allow it to be adapted for Navy use which will require the development of an entirely different aircraft (F/A-18), that continuing changes of F-16s role and tech modifications will result in a all around average performer with questionable reliability, all while development of the F-5 family could have fulfilled all of the requirements including models for Navy use.

Basically McDonnell Douglas knowing that General Dynamics General 401-16B/ YF-16 out lobbied Northrop’s P-530 / P-600 / P-610 / YF-17, jumped on the opportunity and also began lobbying their butts of against Northrop, thus finally managing to kill the F-20 by 1986, all while through out the time they were working on the 18 which first flew 1978, and to add insult to injury, both T20 and F-18 were powered by the same F404 engines.

The whole thing was a power struggle between airspace corporations, which is clear especially considering that Northrop later joined up with McDonnell Douglas to make some dirty deals for which they were cough back in 1993.

Northrop got cough making payoffs to undercut Beloit Corporation, all while they joined up with McDonnell Douglas to sell 64 F/A-18s to Finland for the total of $3 billion.


The F-20 is powered by a General Electric F404 engine, with 17,000 pounds of thrust. The F404 is recognized as one of the world's most reliable advanced technology engines. It is also used to power the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps F/A-18A Hornet strike fighter. Aerodynamic features of the F-20 included an enlarged leading edge extension to the wing, which generated up to 30 percent of the lift maneuvers. The "shark-shaped" nose allowed the F-20 to maneuver at much higher angles of attack than current operational fighters. The F-20 airframe could withstand nine G's.

The F-20 was reliable and easy to maintain. Based on comparisons with the average of contemporary international fighters, the F-20 consumed 53 percent less fuel, required 52 percent less maintenance manpower, had 63 percent lower operating and maintenance costs and had four times the reliability.


www.globalsecurity.org...

I’m sure everybody here will agree upon uncanny similarities between F-5s airframe/configuration and that of F/A-18, all while F-5 first flew in 1959.

Ironically, even back in the 80s testing showed that F-20 outperformed F-18 and did not have aerodynamic problems that Hornet did.

Another great example of that is the Iranian "Azarakhsh", which is what F-5 should have been back in the 60s, but instead together with the unnecessary, unreliable and redundant F-16 we got the F/A-18 but about two decades late.

The only good things about F-16 are great export numbers and high profit margins. It’s was all about the business, the profits, and the all mighty dollar.

I’ll keep looking for the report so I can scan it in and get back on topic in the original thread, and if moderators think it’s appropriate and needed fell free to move this post to the F-16 thread, I don’t mind.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join