Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B E3 Sentry Awacs With Sidewinders?  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3702 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8656 times:

In a book ( old book from 1991 ) I have with info of various airplanes, it is noted that one type of E 3 Sentry

" has the capability to carrie small underwing pylons, wich could carry AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM's for a modest self defence facility "

I beleave it was the E-3C version


Anyone know if this has actually been tried out and tried out actively or was it just talk that never became reality ?




Anyone have picture ?

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8616 times:

From Scramble

Quote:
E-3B

Designation for 24 modified Core E-3A's. Also known as Block 20 a/c. New features are full maritime capabilities, Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), Have Quick secure-voice radio's, more powerfull IBM CC-2 computer, five additional Situation Control Displays (for up to 17 mission controllers) and self-defence equipment (chaff/flare dispensers and Sidewinder launch rails).

From the same source, the E-3C are 10 new build aircraft built to the E-3B standard.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8610 times:

Wouldn't be very hard. Would just need a pylon, wiring and switches to arm/uncage the missile, and a trigger.

But not very practical on a plane that size, if someone gets close enough to use those you are in VERY big trouble.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8574 times:

So there has never actually been an Awacs Sentry that had this added ? It was just apossibility that was'nt put into effect ?

User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8570 times:

BladeLWS,

I'd have to agree -- if a plane gets close enough that you need sidewinders you're doomed.

If it carried Phoenix's, that AAAM missile, or that Russian AWACS killer that would be some good defense.


User currently offlineTIMC From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8565 times:

I don't know about awacs, but a similar aircraft, the Nimrod MR.2 had Sidewinders equipped for the Falklands Conflict, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod#MR2

I was trying to see if I could find a photo on the database but I can't  Sad


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8482 times:

I don't ever recall the E-3C being qualified to carry, or use sidewinders. Let's face it, it is an AWACS, and should know a threat is coming long before the threat gets within firing range. If that threat is within sidewinder range, 5nm or less, the flying frisby is toast, anyway. AWACS, Tankers, RC-135s, and other high value assets will always have a CAP available to them for defense, so they don't need sidewinders. They do need chaf, flairs, ECM, and other defenses, but not air to air missiles.

If an AWACS has found itself under a threat, and CAP is to far away, they can outrun the threat if they begin their turn away from the threat outside of 30nm to 40nm. Maximum airspeed, max desent rate, and in excess of a 45 degree bank turn will be required. But, if done right, he can get away.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8445 times:

The possibilty exists, for old 707 hands it would have been mounted at the hardpoint where you would hang a engine just for a ferry flight inboard of the inboard engine. There is wiring and a cannon plugs plus other connections I have never seen used under the panels at the leading edge. I speculate the only plane to have flown with it is the Boeing TS3 E-3 73-1674 kept at Paine Field


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8213 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 7):
The possibilty exists, for old 707 hands it would have been mounted at the hardpoint where you would hang a engine just for a ferry flight inboard of the inboard engine. There is wiring and a cannon plugs plus other connections I have never seen used under the panels at the leading edge. I speculate the only plane to have flown with it is the Boeing TS3 E-3 73-1674 kept at Paine Field

Actually, the KC/RC-135 wing (the same wing on the B-707-120 and B-720 series) also had hard points, inboard of the inboard engines. The Rivit Amber RC-135E, 62-4137 had a heat exchanger under one wing, and an auxiliary generator (Lycoming T55-L5 turbine) under the other wing, during her carrier. Tragicly, on 5 June 1969, the only RC-135E Rivet Amber (aka Lisa Ann) aircraft ever built, TCS Irene-92, was lost over the Bering Sea, while returning to Eilson AFB, AK from Shemya AFB, Shemya Island, Alutions, AK, with a crew of 19.

No survivors or wreckage was ever found. The last HF radio communications from Irene-92 was at 1739Z.

- 5 June 1969 - On the morning of 5 June 1969 Rivet Amber (Call Sign - Irene 92) departed Shemya for a direct flight (Non Operational) to Eielson AFB with 19 souls onboard. About 45 minutes after departing Shemya, Irene 92 transmitted the following message to Elmendorf AFB at 9:36 AM Local / 1736z on HF (High Frequency):

(1736z)
~ "Elmendorf Airways, Elmendorf Airways, Irene 92, Irene 92, over."

~ "Irene 92, Elmendorf, Go Ahead."

~ "Elmendorf Airways, Irene 92 experiencing vibration In flight. Not certain of the Emergency. We have the aircraft under control, Irene 92."

(1737z)
~ "This is Elmendorf. You say you're not declaring an Emergency. Is that Charlie ?"

~ ( Keying-Xmtr ) ......
( Very Heavy / Hard Breathing )

~ "Roger...Ahh..." ( Keying-Xmtr ) ... "Ahh..." ( Keying-Xmtr .... silence ) ....

~ "Crew Go To Oxygen".

~ "This is Elmendorf. Say again ? Irene 92, Elmendorf ?"

~ ( Keying-Xmtr ) ... ( Keying-Xmtr )

~ "Irene 92, Elmendorf ?"

(1738z)
~ ( Keying-Xmtr )

(1739z)
~ "Irene 92, Irene 92, Elmendorf, Elmendorf"

~ ( Keying-Xmtr )

~ ( Keying-Xmtr )

~ ( Keying-Xmtr )

The last positive contact with Irene 92 was at 1737z. Unidentified key clicks (Keying-Xmtr) continued until 1822z.





It is suspected that tail section or empennage of 62-4137 broke off inflight. The RC-135E was scheduled to have her fin replaced with the newer taller fin and rudder, the Pacer Fin program which included beefer attachments points, inspections, TCTO-772 and TCTO-775, which also included the C-135 series "belly bands" in September 1970.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the B-707-100 and B-717-100 series (all C-135s) airplanes developed structural stress in the tail. Prior to the loss of Rivet Amber, the USAF lost a KC-135A, and BOAC (the Mt. Fuji accident) and Braniff lost B-707-120Bs to tail structural failures inflight.

Pictures of Lisa Ann;

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/dat...ase/aircraft/getimage.htm?id=12396

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!B2!...n/RivetBallAmberShemya/page10.html

[Edited 2008-11-02 01:49:49]

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8044 times:

That is a though... why not slap a huge bay full of sparrows or something even longer range in a E-3 and take out a zillion enemy fighters from hundreds of miles off...? That would certainly counter China's 10-1 ratio for the F-22!

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8017 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):



That is a though... why not slap a huge bay full of sparrows or something even longer range in a E-3 and take out a zillion enemy fighters from hundreds of miles off...? That would certainly counter China's 10-1 ratio for the F-22!

This is what the F-14 program was supposed to be, a big slow missile truck. The idea of a turboprop "fighter" didn't sit well with the pointy nose crowd, so instead we got a pilot killer


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7980 times:

Oroka,

Quote:
That is a though... why not slap a huge bay full of sparrows or something even longer range in a E-3 and take out a zillion enemy fighters from hundreds of miles off...? That would certainly counter China's 10-1 ratio for the F-22!

The Chinese have a 10-1 kill ratio against he F-22? How the hell did they achieve that feat?


XT6Wagon,

Quote:
This is what the F-14 program was supposed to be, a big slow missile truck. The idea of a turboprop "fighter" didn't sit well with the pointy nose crowd, so instead we got a pilot killer

Last I checked, the F-14 while able to cruise at low speeds with long endurance, the plane did have the ability to dash up to high speeds, from which I was told was in excess of the RA-5 Vigilante (Which was one of the fastest USN planes prior to the F-14) even with the TF-30's. I would suppose it was a bit faster had it been fitted with the F-401 (and probably with the F-110 it was finally fitted with).

Early on it's maneuverability problems were largely due to the TF-30's engine problems (poor surge/stall resistance) and it's lower T/W ratio over the proposed F-401 (and the F-110 that actually replaced the TF-30's), even then, the F-14 wasn't exactly un-maneuverable... at low airspeeds, it had a remarkable cornering-rate, and at altitudes exceeding 21,000 feet - 22,000 feet it could outmaneuver an F-4E (where the F-4E could outmaneuver the F-14 at lower altitudes/higher airspeeds due to it's heavier wing-loading).


Blackbird


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7969 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 11):
The Chinese have a 10-1 kill ratio against he F-22? How the hell did they achieve that feat?

You added 'kill' to that statement, not me. The Chinese plan on having 10 modern fighters for every 1 F-22... 10-1 ratio.

That is why a E-3 with say 10 AIM-54s riding with a flight of F-22s would be a good idea IMO. The huge radar on the E-3 could target incoming fighters, fire off its missiles, assume AWACS duty from behind while the F-22s go and mop up the remainder. The F-22s would act as escort for the E-3 en route in case of ambush.

In a real modern air war, if you don't wipe out the enemy's premier fighters right off the bat, in bulk, they will be a lot harder to take out later. They will assume hit and run tactics, hiding in the weeds, popping up to fire off a missile, then gone again.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7909 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 11):
Last I checked, the F-14 while able to cruise at low speeds with long endurance, the plane did have the ability to dash up to high speeds, from which I was told was in excess of the RA-5 Vigilante (Which was one of the fastest USN planes prior to the F-14) even with the TF-30's. I would suppose it was a bit faster had it been fitted with the F-401 (and probably with the F-110 it was finally fitted with).

Early on it's maneuverability problems were largely due to the TF-30's engine problems (poor surge/stall resistance) and it's lower T/W ratio over the proposed F-401 (and the F-110 that actually replaced the TF-30's), even then, the F-14 wasn't exactly un-maneuverable... at low airspeeds, it had a remarkable cornering-rate, and at altitudes exceeding 21,000 feet - 22,000 feet it could outmaneuver an F-4E (where the F-4E could outmaneuver the F-14 at lower altitudes/higher airspeeds due to it's heavier wing-loading).

No the origonal idea for the "F-14" aka the platform for the Phoenix missile to be launched from was a large turboprop airplane with awacs level of radar and a large payload of phoenix missiles. This idea when no where with the pointy nose crowd and so we got that steaming plile of expensive pilot killing crap. I'd have more respect for it if it wasn't so overly complex, and overly expensive to deliver a missile that didn't NEED a fast expensive complex platform to deploy it. After all its like using a Ferrari F50 to deliver newspapers, only in this case the newspapers can deliver themselves in a 50+ mile radius


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7816 times:



Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
" has the capability to carrie small underwing pylons, wich could carry AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM's for a modest self defence facility



Quoting TIMC (Reply 5):
Nimrod MR.2 had Sidewinders equipped for the Falklands Conflict

Sidewinders on a E3 or Nimrod would make almost no sense. Sidewinders are short range "heat seeking" missles. How do you manuvure the E3 or Nimrod in behind the attacking aircraft to get a good shot?


User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 865 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7732 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
How do you manuvure the E3 or Nimrod in behind the attacking aircraft to get a good shot?

New Sidewinders are all aspect, I believe...


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1438 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

[quote=474218,reply=14]Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
" has the capability to carrie small underwing pylons, wich could carry AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM's for a modest self defence facility



Quoting TIMC (Reply 5):
Nimrod MR.2 had Sidewinders equipped for the Falklands Conflict

Sidewinders on a E3 or Nimrod would make almost no sense. Sidewinders are short range "heat seeking" missles. How do you manuvure the E3 or Nimrod in behind the attacking aircraft to get a good shot?


What about Aim120 or Aim9x, it would almost look like a buff loaded down with Alcms or harpoons



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13048 posts, RR: 78
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7680 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
Sidewinders on a E3 or Nimrod would make almost no sense. Sidewinders are short range "heat seeking" missles. How do you manuvure the E3 or Nimrod in behind the attacking aircraft to get a good shot?

The reason that RAF Nimrods deployed from Ascention Island to support the UK operation, were wired for AIM-9L's, was not to defend or engage enemy fighters, (which would not likely be in a position to intercept).
Rather, it was based on the use of the Argentine AF's B707's to shadow the British Task Force, intially themselves shadowed by Sea Harriers.

Once hostilities commenced, the 707's were treated as a threat since they could provide targeting info, one was driven off by Sea Dart SAM's from RN Destroyers.
But someone clearly thought what if one of our Nimrods patrolling the oceans ran into a 707 doing the same for the other side?

But they never met.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7608 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 17):
But someone clearly thought what if one of our Nimrods patrolling the oceans ran into a 707 doing the same for the other side?

But they never met.

That would have been an interesting engagement.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7558 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 18):
That would have been an interesting engagement.

Possibly not, I'm not sure that the sidewinders would have locked on, double so if the other 707 idles the engines and "glides" home


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7451 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
Possibly not, I'm not sure that the sidewinders would have locked on, double so if the other 707 idles the engines and "glides" home

The AIM-9L used by the British in the Falklands War was an all aspect air-to-air missile. Yanking back the throttles to idle and gliding would not have accomplished much other than dying at a lower rate of speed.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7282 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):
No the origonal idea for the "F-14" aka the platform for the Phoenix missile to be launched from was a large turboprop airplane with awacs level of radar and a large payload of phoenix missiles. This idea when no where with the pointy nose crowd and so we got that steaming plile of expensive pilot killing crap. I'd have more respect for it if it wasn't so overly complex, and overly expensive to deliver a missile that didn't NEED a fast expensive complex platform to deploy it. After all its like using a Ferrari F50 to deliver newspapers, only in this case the newspapers can deliver themselves in a 50+ mile radius

A AIM-54 carrying turboprop, that's a new one on me. Where did you get your information?

Now I know of the F6D Missileer which the AIM-54/F-14 can trace its heritage to. That was supposed to be a subsonic platform for the Eagle AAM. Fortunately that project was cancelled due to the technical risks and the relative inability to defend itself once it launched its missiles. One also has to wonder how effective it would have been against aircraft like the Blackjack. It should also be obvious that such an aircraft would not have been as useful as the F-14. You could forget about an F6D performing a TARPS mission or going against other fighters. Once the F-4 was retired a CAG with such an aircraft would be totally sub-sonic.

As for an AIM-54 carrying turboprop I can think of nothing more preposterous. If a F6D Missileer would have problems with a strike package of Blackjacks or some other high speed intruder how do you think a turboprop would fare?


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7201 times:

XT6Wagon,

Quote:
No the origonal idea for the "F-14" aka the platform for the Phoenix missile to be launched from was a large turboprop airplane with awacs level of radar and a large payload of phoenix missiles. This idea when no where with the pointy nose crowd and so we got that steaming plile of expensive pilot killing crap. I'd have more respect for it if it wasn't so overly complex, and overly expensive to deliver a missile that didn't NEED a fast expensive complex platform to deploy it. After all its like using a Ferrari F50 to deliver newspapers, only in this case the newspapers can deliver themselves in a 50+ mile radius



To the best of my knowledge the only thing that comes even close to fitting that bill was the F6D Missileer which was basically an F3D/F-10 Skyknight on steroids. It was subsonic, but it was not turboprop powered -- it was turbofan powered (It was originally the plane the TF-30 was designed for).


Blackbird


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7135 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 18):
Quoting GDB (Reply 17):
But someone clearly thought what if one of our Nimrods patrolling the oceans ran into a 707 doing the same for the other side?

But they never met.

That would have been an interesting engagement.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
Possibly not, I'm not sure that the sidewinders would have locked on, double so if the other 707 idles the engines and "glides" home

That would really be interesting, seeing the B-707 is a lot faster than the Nimrod. As most heavy drivers in most Air Forces know, it is not difficult to defeat a heat seeker, if you know its coming your way, and you are equipped to defend against it. Simple flares are the easiest way, or extend beyond it's range is another, a third possibility is a max airspeed decend, or even a "split S" manuver. Just be sure you have enough airspace to do it. Radar missiles are also easy to defeat, if you know they are coming. Just rapidly turn perpendicular to the missile course and it will "lose lock".


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13048 posts, RR: 78
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7057 times:

Maybe, but the Argentine 707's were unmodified airliners, no self defence gear and would not be expecting to run into a Nimrod.
And the Mirage III's/Daggers were faster than the Sea Harriers too!

Another chance could have been once the Argentines, after June 1st, started using C-130's to go after the long British supply lines of mostly merchant ships, rolling bombs out of the ramp!
One hit a tanker, but glanced off it (I suspect the method of delivery made it a dud).
But they did get too near the Task Force, so a C-130 got shot down by a Sea Harrier, after which these attempts stopped.
But prior to that, attacks further North could potentially have run into an angry Nimrod!

[Edited 2008-11-06 10:52:07]

25 LMP737 : Add to that the fact that the AIM-9L was an all aspect missile with resistance to countermeasures. Of course like you said they were unmodified 707 w
26 AWACSooner : Ok guys, I can't say what exactly what we DO have on my jet, but I can say that the notion of us flying with missiles on our wings is ludicrous.
27 Venus6971 : Next time your around Bldg 230 and they have a ISO going on ask one of the mechanics what the wiring to no where around the inbd wing hardpoint is fo
28 AWACSooner : I do know what they're for...can't tell you, but it's NOT for missile wiring.
29 SLCPilot : I don't think this is a total thread hijack..... It seems I remember some notion that a P-3 might have shot down a Chinese Mig back in the day. It was
30 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, I heard this rumor many moons ago, in my prior life in SAC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-3_Orion Vietnam Operation Market Time Beginning in 19
31 Venus6971 : I am sure from the Rivet Joint guys there are a bunch of storys like that floating around, during my time on them at EGUN I seen a many wobbled knee'e
32 KC135TopBoom : I thought RIVERT JOINT uses ECM and airspeed as their primary defenses.
33 AWACSooner : Ummm...dude, it is Rivet Joint!
34 Vzlet : Solve both issues by mounting the missiles along the rim of the rotodome!
35 KC135TopBoom : Oops
36 AWACSooner : That would be ok, if it wasn't fiberglass. Hell, while they're at it, make a tailgun...I'd rather be an AWACS tailgunner than an AWACS nav.
37 Venus6971 : What do you call a guy who finished last in his UPT class? E-3 copilot.
38 Moose135 : [quote=Venus6971,reply=37]What do you call a guy who finished last in his UPT class?/quote] Pilot...
39 AWACSooner : The joke could be said about the last guy in Nav school as well...but it wasn't me and I WANTED this jet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B E3 Sentry Awacs With Sidewinders?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Whats The Problem With The F-35 JSF? posted Wed Oct 29 2008 04:10:45 by BBaldwin09
F-15 Landing With One Wing (video) posted Sat Sep 6 2008 12:55:30 by KLM772ER
WW1/2 Pilots With No Kills posted Fri Aug 15 2008 08:33:07 by ANZUS340
C-17 With VIP Gear: Unrefuelled Range? posted Sat Jul 19 2008 18:22:41 by Flighty
Fighter Flys With Wing Blown Off posted Wed Jul 9 2008 03:09:56 by Venus6971
UCAVs With Cannon? posted Mon Jun 16 2008 22:34:06 by N328KF
Second Tanker Protest With GAO posted Tue Jun 3 2008 09:17:57 by Observer
Video M. Cheli Comments His 9G Flight With EF-2000 posted Sun May 18 2008 04:10:27 by 777
Close Encounter With An F-16 posted Mon Mar 31 2008 19:48:18 by 71Zulu
Usmc Having "Issues" With Osprey's RR Engines posted Thu Mar 20 2008 16:59:11 by LAXPAX
C-17 With VIP Gear: Unrefuelled Range? posted Sat Jul 19 2008 18:22:41 by Flighty
Fighter Flys With Wing Blown Off posted Wed Jul 9 2008 03:09:56 by Venus6971
UCAVs With Cannon? posted Mon Jun 16 2008 22:34:06 by N328KF
Second Tanker Protest With GAO posted Tue Jun 3 2008 09:17:57 by Observer
Video M. Cheli Comments His 9G Flight With EF-2000 posted Sun May 18 2008 04:10:27 by 777
Close Encounter With An F-16 posted Mon Mar 31 2008 19:48:18 by 71Zulu
Usmc Having "Issues" With Osprey's RR Engines posted Thu Mar 20 2008 16:59:11 by LAXPAX

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format