[Llarry]

The list of companies providing aggressor/adversary services to the U.S. miliary is pretty impressive. Another company that I'd not heard of flies F-5s in support of both U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy air operations. Tactical Air Support Inc. has been active a while. See the attached photo of their F-5s.

[Llarry]

The Italian company Savoia-Marchetti is probably best known for their three-engine SM.79 Sparviero bomber of World War II. But in the 1920s and 1930s they produced over 240 flying boats of unique design: The Savoia-Marchetti S.55 carried passengers in the large twin floats while the pilots controlled the aircraft from a cockpit in the wing above. An interesting layout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_S.55

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Airborne warning and control aircraft are a vital force multiplier, giving air forces the situational awareness they need to maximize combat air power.

//snip//

Another wealthy U.S. ally which should get on board is Canada. The RCAF benefits from the NATO AWACS force (in Europe) and Canadian taxpayers appear to be unenthusiastic about defense expenditure.

It appears that I have criticized Canada too soon. The Wikipedia article on the E-7 Wedgetail states that Canada will invest C$5 billion (!) in airborne warning and control. The Boeing 737-based E-7 is not the only contender, Sweden's SAAB also makes AWAC aircraft -- and at a lower price. SAAB's GlobalEye radar plane has the distinct advantage of being based on the Canadian Bombardier Global 6000 aircraft.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Italian company Savoia-Marchetti is probably best known for their three-engine SM.79 Sparviero bomber of World War II. But in the 1920s and 1930s they produced over 240 flying boats of unique design: The Savoia-Marchetti S.55 carried passengers in the large twin floats while the pilots controlled the aircraft from a cockpit in the wing above. An interesting layout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_S.55

That must make for one "interesting" takeoff/landing experience!

[Llarry]

A pair of Vought F-8E Crusaders of VF-191 "Satan's Kittens" loaded for the air to ground mission with Zuni 5" rockets. The F-8 in the foreground has rockets on the fuselage sides and in 4-shot pods on wing pylons.

The Zuni folding-fin aerial rocket was first used in the 1960s and was a much more formidable weapon that the usual 2.75" rockets used by U.S. aircraft. Wikipedia says that the last stocks of the rocket were transferred to Ukraine and have all been expended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuni_(rocket)

[Llarry]

The end of manned U.S. Navy SIGINT aircraft appears to be imminent. Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1) are scheduled to be disestablished in March of 2025. Only a few EP-3E aircraft remain active.

The VQ-1 "World Watchers" trace their beginnings to the establishment of Electronic Countermeasures Squadron One in 1955 at Iwakuni, Japan. In 2012, VQ-1 became the largest aviation squadron in the Navy when VQ-1 absorbed the aircraft and resources of the former European-based VQ-2.

For 70 years, VQ-1 and VQ-2 could be found flying near hot spots worldwide.

The signals intelligence mission is being assumed by MQ-4 unmanned air vehicles of Unmanned Patrol Squadron 19 (VUP-19). And the very capable RC-135s of the U.S. Air Force continue to fly missions world-wide.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The end of manned U.S. Navy SIGINT aircraft appears to be imminent. Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1) is scheduled to be disestablished in March of 2025. Only a few EP-3E aircraft remain active.

Given the end of manned Navy signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft, let me look back at the history from the 1940s to the present.

The very beginnings of Navy airborne SIGINT date back to World War II, when the U.S. Navy wanted to ascertain whether Japanese military forces had radar. A small team with makeshift equipment to intercept radar signals was dispatched to the Pacific, where they rode along any available mission to conduct their investigation. After a period without result they found that the Japanese forces did indeed have radars.

At about the same time, Japanese language officers were assigned to carrier task forces involved in combat. On a number of occasions, they would ride along in TBF or TBM Avenger torpedo bombers, which had the room to carry an additional crew member who could listen in on Japanese aircraft radio transmissions.

After World War II the capability largely atrophied, but as the Cold War started, airborne SIGINT operations against the Soviet Bloc began.

The initial air SIGINT operations were conducted by Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer aircraft that had been minimally modified beginning in about 1950.

In 1951, a number of Martin P4M Mercator patrol aircraft were converted to SIGINT collection aircraft. Antisubmarine equipment was removed, and radar and radio receivers were installed in their place. The resulting P4M-1Q was the Navy's first specialized SIGINT aircraft and replaced the PB4Ys. In 1955, the effort was formalized with the establishment of VQ-1 in Japan and VQ-2 in Morocco.

The P4M was a larger aircraft than the P2V Neptune, which was the standard Navy land-based patrol plane, but only 19 P4M-1s had been delivered and virtually all were converted to P4M-1Q SIGINT aircraft and divided between the Pacific and Atlantic units. The P4M used two radial engines and two jet engines and could work up a decent turn of speed, although the heavy extra electronic equipment meant that the -1Qs were always heavy.

Meanwhile, the Navy desired to have a carrier-capable SIGINT aircraft and the large A3D (later A-3) offered room for the desired equipment. A couple of dozen aircraft were produced in a SIGINT configuration and first flew in 1958. VQ-1 and -2 were then assigned both land-based large aircraft (P4M-1Q) and carrier-capable aircraft (A3D-2Q/new EA-3B).

Inevitably, the small number of P4M-1Qs dwindled with accidents, etc., and the Navy chose to convert ex-radar picket aircraft to a SIGINT configuration. The result was the EC-121M (old WV-2Q) which replaced the P4Ms around 1960. Again, each of the large VQ squadrons were assigned about half of the available new airplanes.

In addition to accidents, there were shoot-downs of SIGINT aircraft by Soviet and Korean fighters. SIGINT missions did not overfly adversary territory but would orbit well off the coast in international airspace. The SIGINT aircraft right to do so under international law and custom was not always respected by the Communist countries.

The next entrant to the airborne SIGINT arena was the P-3 Orion. Three P-3A Orions were modified to EP-3B SIGINT aircraft in the late 1960s and those were followed by a number of EP-3Es. As the airframes aged out over the years, the initial batch of EP-3Es were replaced by fresher airframes and of course the SIGINT equipment was updated over the years.

By the late 1980s, the carrier-based jet EA-3B Skywarriors were simply too old and were retired, leaving the Navy without a carrier SIGINT capability. That gap was briefly filled by a new entrant, the ES-3A Shadow, which was an S-3 antisubmarine plane gutted of ASW equipment and with SIGINT gear installed. The ES-3As were assigned to two new squadrons: VQ-5 and VQ-6, thus leaving VQ-1 and -2 with just large landplanes. Post-Cold War economy moves ended up cutting the career of the ES-3A and the two squadrons short, with both VQ-5 and VQ-6 disestablished in 1999.

Meanwhile the EP-3Es of VQ-1 and VQ-2 soldiered on, engaging in worldwide SIGINT recon missions. U.S. Navy patrol squadrons converted from the P-3C Orion to new P-8A jets, leaving the EP-3s as the old-timers in the patrol and reconnaissance force. While a SIGINT version of the P-8A would have been ideal, it was simply too expensive. As previously posted, the Navy abandoned the field to the Air Force's RC-135s. The Navy replacement of the EP-3E thus became an unmanned air vehicle, the MQ-4C Triton which has both ocean surveillance and SIGINT capabilities.

[Llarry]

For nearly half a century the U.S. NOAA has operated two WP-3D Orions for weather reconnaissance. They have now contracted to buy new C-130J Hercules aircraft to replace the long-serving WP-3Ds. The new Hercules are expected to be delivered in 2030.

[Llarry]

Here's something you certainly don't see every day... a helicopter towing a ship. In 1967, a then-new Marine Corps Sikorsky CH-53A conducted a test tow of the USS Austin (LPD 4), a 10,000 ton (light) amphibious transport dock ship. As you can see, it worked.

The CH-53A was powered by two turboshaft engines totaling 6,160 shaft horsepower. The current production CH-53K has three engines totaling 22,500 shp. Quite an advance!

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Here's something you certainly don't see every day... a helicopter towing a ship. In 1967, a then-new Marine Corps Sikorsky CH-53A conducted a test tow of the USS Austin (LPD 4), a 10,000 ton (light) amphibious transport dock ship. As you can see, it worked.

The CH-53A was powered by two turboshaft engines totaling 6,160 shaft horsepower. The current production CH-53K has three engines totaling 22,500 shp. Quite an advance!

We went on a WESTPAC with them, IIRC...

[flybigjet]

Saab GlobalEye system installed on a pair of Bombardier 6500's:

[Llarry]

Tomcat Thursday...

The U.S. Navy recognized the limitations of the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine from the start and piggybacked on the Air Force's development of the more advanced Pratt & Whitney F100 engine. The Navy funded development of an improved F401 afterburning turbofan that eliminated many of the problems of the TF30. The plan was to buy only 100+ F-14As and then switch over to the F-14B with the F401 engine. Budget realities intervened and, in the end, only a single F-14B test aircraft was produced. The F-14A remained in production for many years with a problematic engine.

Years later, the funding was found to test and then buy an F-14 with an improved engine -- in this case the Air Force's General Electric F110 that was being installed in F-16s (and recently in F-15s). Since the designation F-14B had already been used, these were designated F-14A+. After a while, that awkward designation was discarded and the F-14B designation was reused.

The first photo is of the sole F-14B aircraft with the F401 engine and the second is of a operational F-14B (formerly F-14A+).

Is everybody confused yet?

[Artemis]

[Llarry]

A cockpit instrument panel comparison of the Boeing 737-100 of the 1960s-70s with the B737 Max 9 of today.

[Llarry]

A great shot of a Douglas A-1E Skyraider warbird painted in Vietnamese Air Force colors.

The A-1E was originally set up as a single-piloted airplane, but many were given dual controls later. It also served as the basis for several specialized versions: EA-1E (airborne early warning radar plane), EA-1F (electronic warfare variant), A-1G (radar-equipped night and all-weather attack version.)

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A cockpit instrument panel comparison of the Boeing 737-100 of the 1960s-70s with the B737 Max 9 of today.

And here's a fun bit of trivia.

The B737 is a single Type Variant as far as the FAA is concerned.

Which means, that if you're qualified to fly one of them, you're qualified to fly all of them.

I grew up flying -300's and -500's, and until I was grounded (**hopefully** coming to an end in the next couple of months), I was qual'd on the -700, -800, -900, -900ER, Max8 & Max9. It can get a little... confusing, especially if you're flying several variants in a single day.

I can't imagine going from a "steam-driven" Guppy to a Max in a day-- my head would spin right off my shoulders.

That would fall into the "Yes you can, but maybe you shouldn't" category.

R.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A great shot of a Douglas A-1E Skyraider warbird painted in Vietnamese Air Force colors.

The A-1E was originally set up as a single-piloted airplane, but many were given dual controls later. It also served as the basis for several specialized versions: EA-1E (airborne early warning radar plane), EA-1F (electronic warfare variant), A-1G (radar-equipped night and all-weather attack version.)

The AF also had a variant that had a blue canopy in the back (nicknamed the "Blue Bedroom") that was large enough to stick a stretcher in there. They were occasionally used for Medivac and Search & Rescue with the callsign "Sandy".

You really don't realize how BIG a A-1E is until you get near one. They are HUGE.

R.

[Llarry]

Here are a couple of photos of Navy carrier aircraft back in the pre-Tactical Paint Scheme days when they were painted gull grey on top and white on bottom and had colorful markings. I miss those days.

Attack Squadron 35 (VA-35) was the "Black Panthers" and had very distinctive tail markings. Here's a VA-35 A-6E parked and another refueling an F-14A of VF-41 "Black Aces". The F-14A appears to have toned-down markings.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Llarry

For nearly half a century the U.S. NOAA has operated two WP-3D Orions for weather reconnaissance. They have now contracted to buy new C-130J Hercules aircraft to replace the long-serving WP-3Ds. The new Hercules are expected to be delivered in 2030.

6 year delivery timeframe, that's nuts.

[Llarry]

In the late 1950s, a U.S. Navy Carrier Air Group (soon to be renamed Carrier Air Wing) consisted of two fighter squadrons, two jet light attack squadrons and a squadron of the radial-engine propellor attack AD (new A-1) Skyraider.

In 1956 the Navy issued a requirement for a long-range jet attack aircraft that would replace the anachronistic AD. In December of the 1957 Navy favorite Grumman was selected to develop their design entry, which was soon designated the A2F.

The A2F fell into a new medium attack category with two crewmen -- a pilot and a bombardier/navigator -- and two engines. It was designed to carry plenty of internal fuel and up to 15,000 pounds of external fuel or weapons. It was to operate in all weather conditions and at night and was to have sophisticated avionics to accomplish that task. The Marines weighed in with a desire that the airplane be able to operate from relatively short airstrips; accordingly, the jet exhausts could be angled down 23 degrees for improved short-field performance.

The YA2F first flew in 1960. Production orders soon followed. The complex electronic systems proved troublesome at first and took some time to sort out. In 1962 the A2F was redesignated the A-6 Intruder and by the next year started equipping Navy and Marine Corps attack squadrons. The movable exhausts were deleted from production aircraft, but all A-6 exhausts were angled down 7 degrees. As you can see in the photo taken from underneath, the exhausts had a bit of an S curve to them.

The initial A-6A version arrived on aircraft carriers just as the war in Southeast Asia was heating up and A-6s were soon flying combat missions. Once the avionics bugs were worked out, the Intruder proved to be a terrific attack plane. Ultimately 482 A-6As were delivered. They were followed by other versions which I will not address in this post. Suffice it to say that the A-6 in all its versions had a long and distinguished record in naval aviation, although the aircraft was never exported.

The A-6 introduced a new wrinkle: Wingtip speed brakes. The original design had more traditional speed brakes on the fuselage sides, but they proved troublesome and so were replaced with speed brakes on the tips of the wings.

[Llarry]

If you're an airplane nutjob, you know...

[Llarry]

More news on adversary (or aggressor) aircraft...

Draken International continues to build up their inventory of Czech-built Aero L-159E adversary aircraft in the UK. The company recently transferred 3 L-159Es from the USA to the UK, bringing the total in the UK to 13.

The L-159E is a light combat aircraft produced for the Czech Air Force, which has disposed of some of its inventory.