Animals and aircraft: a sometimes dubious mixture

 

Courtesy of an e-mail from Eaton Rapids Joe, I was led to this account of a massive pig airlift operation.

Business pard's son flies 747's for Atlas Air. Latest load was around 900 pigs from Cincinnati, stop over in Anchorage. A reverse thruster had stuck, so they had to transfer those pigs to another 747. I figure the big plane can haul around 4 double decker, 18 wheeler (pot) loads of pigs. That's a pot load max of around 50K pounds or so, times 4, still under a 747 max load of 250-300K pounds. They were able to open the 747 nose and side doors to give those pigs some air while the new plane was being readied.

I googled Philippine pig problem and found out they have African Swine Fever Virus, which is contagious and deadly. So the govt is importing 32,000 breeding age pigs from USA and Europe, placing them in ASFV free areas. That virus kills pigs, but does not infect humans. Don't ya know those big planes stank after hauling all those pigs. Bud said the pigs were stomping, were actually shaking the plane. Big plane, but lots of stomping pigs. (Stomping, mad pigs.... would make a great Antifa demonstration).

. . .

Wonder what a "pig ticket" for a half the way around the world trip would cost. And times 900.... And ultimately 32,000 pigs.... Only a govt could afford that, for sure not pig farmers.

There's more at the link, particularly comments from other interested readers.  My favorite:  "Ha! In the Philippines they'll offload 900 pigs and haul them off on three motorbikes, two garongs and a jeepney."  Friends who've been there assure me that's more likely than not . . .

The story reminded me of one of the more "interesting" freight problems involved in flying the Hump, the air transportation of men, machines and equipment from India to China during the Second World War.  I wrote about it at some length several years ago.  One of the most difficult tasks was to fly mules and donkeys to China for use as pack animals, which were essential in the heavily forested terrain of Burma and nearby areas.  The Hump loadmasters would cram anything up to a dozen into C-46 or C-47 transports, and fly them all the way to China.  The trouble was, their urine would seep through the aluminum floor plates and corrode the control cables that ran from the cockpit to the tail.  The problem was discovered one day when a C-47 pilot taxied out to the runway in China, to take off for a return flight to India, and discovered that the rudder would no longer answer to his control inputs.  Subsequent inspection revealed that all the planes used for those animal cargoes were in just as parlous a condition, requiring major overhauls and the replacement of many control cables and surfaces before they could go back to work.

Of course, domesticated (or semi-domesticated) livestock is manageable as cargo.  Wild animals . . . not so much.  One of my favorite episodes was Operation Crocodile in South Africa in 1970.  Conservationist Ian Player was trying to rescue a number of Nile crocodiles from an estuary threatened by severe drought.  He appealed to the South African Air Force, which made available one of its then-new Super Frelon helicopters.

Hilarity - and a great deal of bad language - ensued.  The game rangers and their assistants had to capture, then immobilize the crocodiles, one after another, and load them into cargo nets (a process in which the animals proved to be less than cooperative).  The helicopter would then hover overhead (producing violent protests from the crocodiles, who didn't want anything to do with this strange bird), hook up the net, and airlift the croc to a safer place several miles up-river.  Once there, it was lowered to the ground, the net was removed, and the ropes and tape and other immobilizing bits and pieces were taken off.  This had to be done very carefully, always being prepared for some very high-speed maneuvers to get away from the by now extremely annoyed crocodile.  Video footage of proceedings was very popular with everyone except those immediately involved!

Africa, of course, is a very strange place, and its animals and aviation have their own stories to tell.  One of the worst is, I assure you, absolutely true.  People sometimes accuse me of making it up, so I'll let you read the news report at the link to prove that no, I'm not.

Peter

The early days of drone warfare

 

CDR Salamander noted yesterday that the Iranian Shahed-136 drone was based, at least in part, on a joint US-West German development from the 1980's.  He quotes Wikipedia's description.

In the early 1980s, the United States and West Germany began developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to detect and engage enemy radar systems. The aircraft was also intended to mimic larger aircraft, acting as a decoy to divert enemy fire from manned aircraft. On the German side, Dornier, and later its successor company DASA, was working on the project for the German Air Force.

During the project’s development, a workable seeker head could not be developed, limiting its suitability for the intended anti-radar mission. This, along with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, led to the project’s eventual termination. Following the end of the project, details of the system’s design were sold to Israel, which would develop its own IAI Harpy.

There's more at the link.

That's true, of course, but there was an additional drone being developed at the same time that was also sold to Israel.  It was a South African project known as the Kentron ARD-10 Lark.  The following image and report date from the early 1990's.

At the time, South Africa was becoming increasingly sophisticated in its use of the relatively primitive unmanned aerial vehicles of the time.  I had some peripheral involvement in the electronics being developed for them.  An account of the period includes the following:

Various use must have been made during the following years after 1983, however the next open mention was during the 1987-88 raids into Angola (Operations Modular/Hooper/Packer) in which extensive use was made of UAV's for surveillance, reconnaissance, artillery spotting and more interestingly to lure Soviet SAM batteries out of hiding so that our long range G-5/6 guns could hit them. Two Kentron Seeker systems were lost to the last mentioned tactic, although it was apparently more than worth it - many expensive SAM-8/9/13 were fired attempting to shoot the Seeker's down, in doing so not only did they waste valuable ammunition - but also revealed their positions and many of their Soviet SAM sites were then promptly destroyed by G-5/6 artillery fire (apparently one Seeker survived between 16-17 SAM-8 missiles being fired at it before it was finally shot down).

The latter engagements were during 1987/88.  As a direct result of those engagements, the ARD-10 was developed as a more advanced surveillance and reconnaissance platform, with particular emphasis on forcing enemy radars and air defense ordnance to reveal their position.  However, during the same period South Africa embarked on the process that was to lead to democratic elections in 1994, and the ARD-10 was one of many military projects (including the Carver strike fighter) that were canceled due to the peace conference and the end of the Border War.  Its design was sold to Israel for a relative pittance, probably at about the same time that the US-West German project found the same destination.  There seems little doubt that both of those designs were used as input to Israel's Harpy drone, shown below.

It achieved wide international sales and was prominent in a number of smaller wars.  It was later developed into the much more sophisticated Harop drone, shown below, which in modern versions is pretty much state-of-the-art in its field.  It became prominent due to its success in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020. 

Information available about the Kentron ARD-10, Dornier DAR, and Israeli Harpy drones was undoubtedly studied in Iran, and that country's subsequent Shahed 136 bears an unmistakeable resemblance to them all.  All of those aircraft are relatively backward and primitive compared to modern designs;  but then, for a simple strike drone that can be bought cheaply in large numbers and launched in "swarms" to overwhelm enemy defenses, one doesn't need great sophistication.

Russia manufactures the Shahed 136 under license as the Geran-2, and has apparently developed a jet-propelled version of the drone that flies much faster and higher.  This will be harder to intercept, and if its cost can be kept low enough to afford mass production, may make air defense's job much more difficult.  As long as the cost to intercept the drone can be kept higher than the cost to build and operate the drone, the attacker will have an economic advantage.  We'll have to see whether that remains the case as drone technology advances.  If "stealthy" attack drones can be made cheaply enough (something I'm sure many nations are working on), they may pose a grave threat to almost all air defense systems.

Peter

The UPS air disaster as experienced on the ground

 

Midwest Safety has released a 40-minute video compilation of bodycam footage from emergency responders who rushed to the scene of the UPS air crash in Louisville in November last year.  It's harrowing footage, showing the chaos as responders tried to come to grips with a situation far larger and far worse than they could have envisaged.  I highly recommend watching it to learn what happened, figure out how it could have been done better, and to ask yourself, "What would I do in that situation?"

A tip o' the hat to Zendo Deb at 357 Magnum for posting the video.

Having been involved with civil defense and disaster response on two continents over many years, I can promise you:  that Louisville crash is the stuff nightmares are made of for any and all emergency responders.  It's going to be a case study for years, probably decades to come.

May almighty God have mercy on the souls of all who died there.

Peter

Not so fast, buddy...

 

It's been claimed that China is "sending thousands of future military pilots posing as civilians to the United States to learn how to fly".  It's not quite as simple as that.  I'm sure some of the Chinese pilots training in the USA are, indeed, going to fly with the Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force, but not all of them.  Many are here for a different reason altogether.

All over the world, nations set their own standards as to what qualifications their civilian pilots should hold.  Many of them are so lax in their enforcement of training standards (for example, most African nations) that their pilots aren't allowed to fly in more advanced aviation environments (such as most First World countries).  A pilot's certificate from one of the low-standard nations is effectively a local qualification only, and I wouldn't feel safe flying with such a pilot.  Indeed, many qualifications are fraudulently obtained:  for example, in 2022 Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) found that 457 of its staff had fake degrees or pilot certificates.  An earlier investigation revealed that"more than 260 of [Pakistan's] 860 active pilots had either fake licences or had cheated in their exams."  (Remind me never, ever to fly PIA!)

There are other nations, usually in the First World, who insist on pilot training and standards similar to, or close to, those in the USA.  Pilots with those licenses can usually fly aircraft in, to and from such countries and others their aviation authorities trust.  For example, any pilot licensed by the European Union can fly to other EU nations, and also internationally to most other countries.  However, the US pilot license and other advanced aviation qualifications are the only ones that are valid worldwide (except for North Korea and Iran, which don't like us at all!  AFAIK, they're the only nations on earth that don't recognize our flying qualifications.)  Basically, apart from those two countries, if you have a US pilot qualification of appropriate skill and seniority, you can fly in all other nations and get an aviation job there, if you wish.

That means there are a very large number of foreign pilots who come to this country every year, from all over the world, to get a US pilot qualification.  They often have to start from the very beginning, despite some of them having thousands of hours in the air on very large airliners, because the Federal Aviation Administration (on the basis of bitter experience) refuses to recognize almost all foreign flying qualifications.  I'm sure the students find that demeaning, but it is what it is.  They have to go through the whole process:  Student Pilot, Private Pilot, Instrument, Commercial, and on through Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) if they want to fly for the airlines.  It can take as little as nine months for an experienced student, or a year or three for someone less experienced (or a complete beginner who has to build up enough hours in the air to qualify to take each successive level of licensing).  Once they have their US qualifications, even if they can't get a resident visa here, they can still go almost anywhere else in the world and be hired as a pilot, at a salary usually rather more than an entry-level pilot without US certification would earn.

That's where many, perhaps most, of those Chinese pilots come in.  They are often pilots already, flying for Chinese or Far Eastern airlines.  They save up vacation hours and their dollars, do what studying they can in advance, then come over here to knock out one or two licenses over a month to six weeks.  Two or three trips like that and they can qualify as a US ATP.  After that, the world is their oyster.  They can leave China, go anywhere else they can get a visa, and be reasonably sure of getting an aviation-related job.  (I know about this from a source in the pilot training industry, who's spoken highly of their perseverance and determination.)

So, yes, I'm sure some Chinese military pilots are coming over here to get civilian pilot training, because the standards of training here remain the highest and most demanding in the world.  However, I'll be surprised if the numbers are as great as claimed;  and I don't think the majority of them are, or will become, military pilots.

Peter

Drones again - this time, south of the border

 

Following our discussion last week of drones and their utility for defense of life and property, I found this article about how Mexican drug cartels are weaponizing drones against each other, and against the security forces.

Last month, three drones rigged with explosives detonated outside a prosecutor’s office in Tijuana, Mexico, besieging six cars parked outside with a blast of nails, BBs and metal fragments. The attack was orchestrated by a cartel, Mexican government officials confirmed, and targeted an anti-kidnapping unit of the Baja state attorney general’s office. It is the latest high-profile example of first-person view drones being used by cartels to replicate military tactics being used in Ukraine.

Defense News previously reported that members of Latin American drug cartels had joined Ukraine’s foreign fighter volunteer units to gain FPV drone training.

Earlier this year, a cartel ambush using an explosive drone in the border state of Chihuahua sent two Mexican military service members and one police officer to the hospital. Three drones were subsequently seized.

Attacks made by explosive-equipped drones surged to over 260 in 2023. In 2024, a drone ambush was reportedly followed by an infantry-style attack in a remote community in Mexico, according to AP.

“Nonstate actors can now acquire capabilities once reserved for nation-states,” writes Stephen Honan for the Atlantic Council on cartels’ increasing use of FPV drones. “Cartels are no longer merely criminal syndicates; they increasingly resemble hybrid entities blending organized crime, paramilitary force, and terrorist tactics.”

There's more at the link.

If the cartels are getting that sophisticated in Mexico, it's surely only a matter of time before they try using drones against the US Border Patrol and/or law enforcement agencies in an effort to get more drugs into this country, or attack rivals in the drug trade.  I'd also expect to see them as a security device to guard marijuana plantations and drug "factories", detecting police raids or rival cartel operations before they strike.

There's also the question of airport security.  Drone operations have shut down airports in Europe on several occasions recently.  Nobody knows (yet) who's behind them, but suspicion centers around Russia, which is at war with Ukraine and is hostile to European nations helping the latter country.  Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, and drones merely add another string to the bow of that sort of warfare.

This makes me even more certain that it will be a good idea to learn how to use a drone, partly for reasons of local security during times of unrest, wildfire or other danger, and partly to understand how to defend against them in the hands of local gangs or drug dealers.  You can bet the gang-bangers have already realized how useful these things can be to plot crimes or keep an eye out for patrolling police, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of them being used for such purposes.

My "el cheapo" drone arrived yesterday, and over the next couple of weeks I'm going to start figuring out how to use it.  If I crash it, it won't hurt my wallet too much, as drones costing less than $50 - some less than $10 - are freely available and affordable.  If the learning process goes well, I can look at upgrading to something more effective when funds are available.  If I understand the little beasts better, I can defend against them - and their operators - better as well.

Food for thought - and action.

Peter

A new twist on personal security and defense of your property

 

Big Country Expat is experimenting with a couple of low-cost entry-level quadcopter drones.  He suggests it's a good idea for everyone to get to know at least the basics of how to operate them.

The Scout is a good practice drone, and small enough to get in and around the interior of the house (or any house for that matter) for recon pretty well.

The problem is that it’s so lightweight, ANY and ALL breezes affect its flight. One time I was working on going room-to-room in the house, and the Central Air Conditioning kicked on, and the bird ‘lurched’ across the room in the draft of the AC blowing out of the vent.

So I’m not sure of the utility of it outside in real crosswinds.

This is a standard problem for the cheap ‘practice’ drones if you will. No real weight. One of my early $30 Amazon Chinesium drones I actually lost when practicing outside with the Redhead Nukular Gran. If you recall while I was flying it, I had a BIG gust of wind show up unexpectedly, and grab it, and last I saw of it, it was headed due south towards the Publix a quarter mile away…

Never did find out what happened to that ‘un LOL.

It literally faded to a teeny-tiny dot and then >poof<

So tonight, I tried to to fly this new quad inside BUT had a minor issue. Or maybe not minor per se…

The doggos.

Chili AND Stella both seem to think that the quadcopter is something they need to ‘fetch’ out of the air… I tried to get them to leave it alone, but nope. They weren’t listening at all. In fact Stella got too close while lunging at it, and the rotor blade caught her on the nose. She yelped pretty loudly as it must have hurt, but did that stop her?

She’s a ****ing rockheaded Pittie…

What do you think?

Riiiiiiiight.

Now it’s a challenge apparently.

Must. Snatch. The. Flying. Thing.

So this means in the future, I’ll have to either practice in the bedroom for the initial ‘tuning’ of it and getting a feel for the flight characteristics, or take it down to the park at the elementary school we used to take the Grans to after school or on a Saturday and give it a try there.

When I say ‘tuning’ I mean that the controls and servos need to be dialed in for accuracy, otherwise it might have drift already in the settings, and I need to make sure that it does a steady hover, and do some other things, to include getting the 4k Cameras ‘dialed in’ as well.

Seeing that drones are the future and at least trying to learn how to use them is a good and necessary thing. Better to learn on the short $$$ models than to spend a grand on a nice DJI Drone like the Ivans and Krainians use and have that get wrecked?

I’d rather burn through a half a dozen ‘practice drones’ learning how to ‘fly’ a drone rather than buying a $$$$$Mondo-Expensivo$$$$$ one and wasting/crashing/destroying it by accident.

There's more at the link, including pictures.

I think he makes a very good point.  While cheap entry-level quadcopters are still freely available, I think it's an excellent idea to learn to use them.  They may not be Predator- or Reaper-class weaponized drones, but one can use them to fly around one's property, or up and down the street, and see what's going on in the neighborhood.  If there are reports of rioting or unrest nearby, one can keep an eye on the situation, and if one sees "undesirables" heading in one's direction, one can be proactive in responding to them, either by "getting out of Dodge" before they arrive, or getting together with neighbors to greet them, in full readiness to protect one's loved ones and property, when they arrive.

I think I have a new project for the next few weeks . . .  Finding a low-cost drone that can cope with North Texas winds might be a challenge, but I'll do my best.  If anyone sees a drone heading for the wild blue yonder, coming from my general direction, let me know, will you, please?

Peter

The convoluted world of international arms deals

 

It's been reported that Turkey is to buy 20 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft from Britain.

It is the largest fighter jet export deal in almost two decades and will support thousands of jobs across the UK for years to come, the government said.

. . .

The Eurofighter jets are jointly produced by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, and the deal was subject to approval from the other members of the consortium.

About 37% of each jet's production takes place in the UK, including final assembly at BAE Systems plants in Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire.

The government said the deal would support 6,000 jobs at the two BAE plants, 1,100 in south-west England, including at the Rolls-Royce plant in Bristol, and 800 in Scotland.

It is the first new order of UK Typhoons since 2017.

Describing the agreement as the "biggest jets export deal in a generation", defence secretary John Healey said it would "pump billions of pounds into our economy and keep British Typhoon production lines turning long into the future".

There's more at the link.

What struck me at once was the minuscule size of the order.  Twenty fighter aircraft is a drop in the bucket compared to the Turkish Air Force's existing combat aircraft fleet, which includes well over 200 F-16's.  Furthermore, if the quoted figures are accurate, an ₤8 billion order averages out to a cost per plane of ₤400 million apiece - a ridiculously high amount, even if it includes future support and training expenditure.  To make matters even more confusing, Turkey is developing its own stealth fighter to replace its F-16's in due course.  The Typhoons are no better technology than the F-16 - so why buy them?  What's going on?

The answer is convoluted.

• Turkey has long been interested in using the Typhoon's power plant, the Eurojet EJ200 engine, in its Kaan fighters.  Based on a Rolls-Royce design, the latter company offered to help Turkey develop its own derivative of the EJ200 for the new fighter.  That agreement was derailed through political squabbles.  Initial prototypes of the Kaan will use US-sourced engines, and a locally-manufactured engine will power production models.  By buying Typhoons now, Turkey will gain access to European-standard engines and technology that can be used to train its pilots, engineers and technicians ahead of widespread introduction of the Kaan in due course;  and it can reverse-engineer Typhoon technology to improve its domestic equivalent products.  It will thus have access to both American and NATO-standard hardware and software.
• Turkey is trying to improve relations with other European nations, particularly given the geopolitical pressures caused by its involvement in Syria and other Middle Eastern nations.  By effectively "bribing" the British government with a massive arms order, it probably expects British diplomatic and economic pressure over Middle Eastern issues to decrease.
• The Typhoon is an aircraft type that has never seen combat in the Middle East.  Israel knows the capabilities of American combat aircraft very well, since it flies them in its own air force.  It may be that Turkey figures a different style of aircraft, with different electronics and systems, might give it an edge if it comes to a shooting conflict over Syria or elsewhere.

I get the feeling that Turkey is following Qatar's example.  Qatar is a tiny island nation in the Persian Gulf, but operates one of the most sophisticated air forces anywhere.  It flies Eurofighter Typhoons, US F-15's and French Rafale aircraft.  It's ridiculous to operate so many types of diverse aircraft in relatively small numbers, but that's not the point.  By spending tens of billions of dollars on such technology, Qatar is effectively buying influence in the nations that sell them.  They'll be less likely (Qatar hopes) to put pressure on that nation to support Middle Eastern initiatives it doesn't like, and less likely to approve Israeli action against Qatar for its ongoing support of Middle Eastern terrorist movements like Hamas and Hezbollah.  Instead of asking "What's the right thing to do?", diplomats from supplier countries will be forced to ask "What will it cost us in terms of sales and support of defense technology if we allow this or don't allow that?"  It's yet another example of "follow the money".

Effectively, Turkey is trying to lock the UK into the same kind of deal.  "We'll pay you well above the odds for a few fighters, provided you shut up about sensitive issues in the Middle East that affect us."  Furthermore, the current British government has made such a flaming mess of running the country that it's desperate for funds from anywhere, so it'll be more than willing to be "bribed" like this.

There's a distinctly distasteful odor about this arms deal . . .

Peter

Living history

 

Courtesy of a link provided by our Australian correspondent Andrew, here's a half-hour video of a flight aboard one of only two surviving B-29 Superfortress bombers from World War II.  Given that we're still in August, the month (in 1945) when two atomic bombs dropped by B-29's brought World War II to an end, I thought it might be interesting to see how the world looks from inside one of these bombers' big glass noses.

That was the highest of high-tech back in the day.  Those four big piston engines certainly make the plane "shake, rattle and roll" as it flew, and you can see from the pilot's actions how the controls were constantly in use to keep it straight and level.

A fascinating bit of history.

Peter

That's one way to get there...

 

From XKCD a few days ago.  Click the image to be taken to the original at the comic's Web page.

The mouseover text at the original site reads:  "We should have you at the gate in just under two hours - two and a half if we get pulled over".

Given the number of travel disruptions airlines have reported over the past summer (most recently just yesterday), I daresay more than a few of their pilots must have considered that option!

Peter

Thoughts on Ukraine's drone strike against Russia's strategic bombers

 

We haven't seen any independent reports about Ukraine's drone strike yesterday morning against Russia's strategic bomber force (Tupolev Tu-95's, Tu-22's and Tu-160's).  Ukraine claims that 40 or more of these aircraft were hit by its drones;  if so, that would mean that up to a third of them have been damaged or destroyed.  (Since the factories that produced these aircraft, and components for them, have mostly been shut down or drastically reduced in capacity, a severely damaged aircraft will take so long to repair and restore that it might as well be written off as destroyed anyway.)

My first thought is that this attack is not a surprise.  Anyone studying military history and current military technology could have (and in many cases did) predict such a strike against Russian assets.  The only surprise to me is that it's taken so long to do it.  I thought it would come within the first couple of years of the war.

Second, this should be an extremely urgent wake-up call to the West.  Drone flights over our air bases have been publicly reported for years;  I'll be very surprised indeed if some, if not most of them were operated by potential enemies such as China, Russia, Iran and others.  Some may also have been operated by terrorist groups or drug cartels looking for potential high-profile targets.  A strike similar to Ukraine's could be launched against the USA at any time by almost anyone, because there will be no difficulty getting drones and their explosive payloads into this country and right up to the boundaries of the air bases concerned.  Our internal security measures are laughably poor (and I speak as one who had extensive experience of anti-terrorism measures in another country for the best part of two decades).  I hope Defense Secretary Hegseth and his top brass are alert to that possibility, and I hope they're doing something very concrete about it - because if they're not, we could lose half our Air Force overnight.  I mean that literally.  The same could happen to any or all NATO country(ies).

My third thought is that this might escalate the Russia-Ukraine war to a new level of viciousness.  Russia's strategic bomber force, one of the "nuclear triad" legs that safeguard its independence and national pride, has suffered a severe blow.  That might be enough to make already paranoid Russian politicians and military leaders even more so.  How might they retaliate?  There are a number of ways, up to and including tactical nuclear weapons.  Will they go that far?  Who knows?  I suspect we may be about to find out.

Fourth, where did the containers holding those drones come from?  I don't think they were all smuggled clandestinely across an active war zone to penetrate Russia.  I suspect at least some of them were shipped into Russia through third parties, perhaps as outwardly innocent-seeming commercial containers containing normal goods and products.  Can that have been done without the involvement of the intelligence and/or customs officials in those third party nations?  Possibly . . . but I'd be more inclined to believe that a certain degree of officially blind eyes were involved.  If Russia can determine the ingress routes of those containers, it may be able to use its own extensive intelligence resources to find out whether official tolerance was given to their passage.  If so, I won't be at all surprised if Russia does something nasty to discourage those nations from further meddling.  What might that be?  Who can say?

Finally, this highlights how parlous is the international security situation at present.  From Ukraine's point of view, this strike was a no-brainer.  Ukraine's already losing on the battlefield, slowly but steadily.  A big propaganda success like this, causing severe damage to its enemy, can only look positive from the loser's perspective.  However, for the nations supporting Ukraine, it's a lot more difficult and dangerous.  If it leads to Russian retaliation against, not just Ukraine, but every nation that supports it, that may drag the entire region into the war whether they like it or not.  The almost suicidal fixation of some nations to support Ukraine no matter what is another aspect of this problem (for example, Germany's recent removal of restrictions on its weapon exports to Ukraine, allowing the latter to use them to attack anywhere in Russian territory).  In physics, Newton's Third Law of Motion assures us that "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".  In war, the reaction is equally guaranteed, but not that it'll be equal.  It can be a lot more than equal, to make a point.  If Russia hits out at any and every nation it believes might have been involved with or supported the Ukraine drone strike, that may drag the whole of NATO into the war - and right now, NATO is in no condition to sustain a conflict of that nature for any length of time.

So . . . a propaganda and military success for Ukraine, but producing a much more volatile and dangerous situation for the wider region.  Was that a win, overall?  We'll find out . . .

Peter

Sounds about right...

 

Circulating on social media yesterday, following the progressive left's outrage over Qatar's gift of a tricked-out Boeing 747 to President Trump (well, actually to the nation, but he's the one who'll use it):

Peter

Work smarter, not harder - aviation edition

 

I have to hand it to the bean-counter who dreamed up this classic tariff evasion plan.

Delta Air Lines has taken a creative approach to sidestepping U.S. tariffs by rerouting a brand-new Airbus A350-900 (tail number N528DN) from Toulouse, France, to Tokyo, Japan. The move allows the aircraft to be classified as "used" before entering the U.S. airspace, potentially avoiding import duties.

There's more at the link.

Of course, now Delta has to persuade US customs and import officials that the plane really is "used", rather than "thinly-disguised new".  Given that we're talking about an aircraft worth well into nine figures, that might be easier said than done!  I rather suspect that Delta's initial claim is going to be denied in red ink, with exclamation marks, and that the whole affair will be sorted out in court.  Still, nice try, Delta!

Peter

88 years ago today...

 

... this happened.

May those who died in the Hindenburg disaster rest in peace.

Peter

The first female LOACH driver for a very special unit

 

I'm sure most of my readers have heard of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), commonly known as the 160th SOAR.  They fly in support of all Army Special Forces, and sometimes help out Navy and Marines SF as well.  They're a very specialized outfit with one heck of a reputation among "those that know".

Lindsey Chrismon flew with the 160th, and was the first female pilot of the AH-6 "Little Bird".  First used during the Vietnam War (during which it was christened the LOACH, for "Light Observation Helicopter"), the 160th is today the only unit still flying them (in a greatly updated version, of course).  Capt. Chrismon also flew the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.  In the video below, she tells her story.  It's filled with interesting details and bits and pieces of information.  It's an hour and a half long, but I suggest it's worth taking the time to watch it, even in segments as and when you can manage it.

Grateful thanks to Capt. Chrismon for her service, and for a very interesting narrative.

Peter

"A passing bomber"

 

Heard an interesting "rumor" from a friend yesterday, one of whose relatives is said to be with an unnamed outfit, from an unidentified armed force, that's doing interesting things in western Syria, sending out reconnaissance teams to keep an eye on who's who and what's what.  No names, no confirmations, and all the usual caveats.

It would appear that a reconnaissance team was sitting on top of a hill in western Syria, when what to their wondering eyes should appear but a convoy of several dozen heavy transporters, heading west as fast as they could go towards the Iraqi border.  Of even greater interest was that they'd seen this same convoy heading east, towards Lebanon, a week or so before;  and the cargoes involved were clearly large rockets or missiles, plus some other heavy weaponry.  The assumption was that these were Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Due to the sudden collapse of the Syrian government, it's presumed that the convoy could no longer get through, and was therefore being recalled to its source so that its cargoes could be redeployed.

It would further appear (if unsubstantiated "rumor" be correct) that said reconnaissance team called up "a passing bomber" and various and sundry other aircraft that are hammering the living daylights out of ISIS and its sympathizers.  Upon learning that an arrow-straight road leading straight to the Iraqi border, and clearly visible from the air, was now occupied by a convoy of heavy movers with "interesting" cargoes, the aircraft in question are said to have taken a sudden and very active interest in the highway.  The resulting secondary explosions were described as "tactical-nuke-size fireballs", which elicited prolonged, admiring and possibly profane comments from the hilltop observers.  Apparently a good time was had by all except the (surviving) convoy personnel.

I'm informed that it looks as if those cargoes of donations to fundamentalist Islamic terrorist solidarity will no longer be returning to sender.  Pity about that . . .

Needless to say, all this is purely the fruit of my imagination, there's no truth in the "rumor", and all the usual excuses.  Nobody involved would dream of breaching Opsec.  Not at all.  Not hardly.

Peter

EDITED TO ADD:  Yes, I mixed up directions (thanks to posting late at night while very tired).  In the above post, for "East" read "West", and vice versa.  Thanks to all the commenters who caught it.

Behind the scenes at an airport control tower

 

With all the reports in recent months about aircraft being directed to use the same runway at the same time, and other near-tragedies, I thought it might be worthwhile to allow Bob Newhart to remind us of the challenges facing air traffic controllers.

I don't know whether this qualifies or not as the lighter side of air travel, but we can always use a smile or two.

Peter

A tale of heroism and disaster, and ultimate triumph

 

I'm sure many readers know of the USAAF raid on the Ploesti oil fields in Romania in 1943, codenamed "Operation Tidal Wave".  They were appallingly costly, with well over half the raiding force of B-24 Liberator bombers either shot down, or so badly damaged that they never flew again after the mission.  They were also largely unsuccessful;  the oil fields and refineries were back in production within weeks, and even increased their output.  Nevertheless, the lessons learned on those missions taught the fledgling USAAF a great deal about strategic bombing, and informed its subsequent actions in Europe and the Far East.

The heroism of the crews who flew to Ploesti has long been acknowledged, but I've not seen many accounts of the missions by those who were there.  Warfare History Network has just republished a 2017 article about them on its Web site.  Here are a few excerpts to set the scene.

Hadley’s Harem was one of 177 B-24 Liberators that had set out that morning to bomb the major source of oil for Nazi Germany. The men had been told that the mission was vital; it would help end the war a lot sooner.

Only 93 planes returned to base, and 60 of those were so badly damaged they never flew again. Of the more than 1,700 airmen on the mission, 532 were killed, captured, wounded, or listed as missing in action. Of those fortunate enough to make it back to Benghazi, 449 were wounded, many so severely they were unfit to return to active service. One of the pilots who made it back, Lieutenant John McCormick, said later, “There wasn’t a man among us who will ever be the same after that 14-hour jaunt to Ploesti.”

Colonel John R. “Killer” Kane, who landed his plane in Turkey after the mission to Ploesti, described the operation as “the worst catastrophe in the history of the Army Air Corps.” Kane’s navigator, Lieutenant Norman Whalen, said, “We knew it was a disaster and knew that in those flames shooting up from the refineries we might be burned to death. But we went right in.”

. . .

To reach the refineries, they had to pass through a narrow valley. Enemy guns lined the route, some situated at a higher altitude than the planes, so they were shooting down at the aircraft. The Germans even had a fast-moving flak train ready to speed down the valley below the waves of bombers and shoot at them from below.

The planes that were able to release their bombs early in the raid sent up columns of burning oil, a deadly screen for the planes that followed. Many of the planes not already damaged by flak burst into flames when they flew through the fire. There was no escape for the crews; they were flying too low to bail out.

. . .

Hadley’s Harem dropped instantly, crashing into the sea with what the survivors later described as a paralyzing shock. A few of the men were knocked unconscious. Page said he bounced like a spring. Water poured in through the flak holes and the open nose, jamming the main escape hatch and trapping them inside the sinking plane. “My God,” Page thought, “am I going to die this way?”

He tried to force the escape hatch open, but it was stuck. As the water rose rapidly in the cockpit, Page saw Gib Hadley and co-pilot Lindsay unstrap their seat belts and flail around, trying to find an opening, but there was none. After another moment, Page saw them die.

He pulled himself into the top turret, took a deep breath of the last remaining air, and plunged down into the water, desperate for an escape route. A glimmer of light caught his eye. It was where the tail of the ship had been sheared off by the crash. Page swam to the surface just as the wreckage of Hadley’s Harem sank.

There's much more at the link.

Hadley's Harem was salvaged many years later, and the bodies of the pilots recovered and buried with full military honors.  Part of the aircraft's fuselage is today displayed in a Turkish museum.  Click the image for a larger view.

It's a painful account to read, but it's a record of heroism and determination that deserves to be remembered.  Highly recommended reading.

Peter

UAV's (drones) are well over a century old

 

I was intrigued to read a lengthy history of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's - also known as "drones") in Air & Space Quarterly.  Here's a brief excerpt.

Elmer Sperry was an American inventor whose wide-ranging interests included the development of gyroscopic stabilizers to reduce the lurching of U.S. Navy ships at sea. He became intrigued with the idea of radio-controlled aircraft, but recognized that stabilization during flight would be essential to make it work. With the assistance of the Navy, Sperry and his son Lawrence developed an automatic gyrostabilizer in 1913, which enabled a Curtiss flying boat to fly straight and level without input from the human pilot on board. On June 18, 1914, Lawrence Sperry and his French assistant Emil Cachin demonstrated the invention at the Aero Club of France’s airplane safety competition. As Sperry stood on one wing of his pilotless flying craft, Cachin on the other, one of the judges on the ground cried out: “Mais, c’est inoui!” (“But that’s unheard of!”). Needless to say, Sperry won the competition’s first prize—50,000 francs ($10,000)—and became famous overnight.

Curtiss-Sperry "Flying Bomb" UAV (1917)

 

Wars accelerate the development of technology, and the drone is no exception. After World War I erupted and the Western Front descended into stalemate, the British decided to take advantage of Sperry’s breakthrough and build a top-secret facility to design the first generation of drones. British engineer, inventor, and television pioneer Archibald Low was given the job, and the Germans considered him to be so capable, they attempted to kill him twice (the second time by a poisoned cigarette). 

Low entered the history books with his engineering project known as “Aerial Target.” Intended to be an aerial torpedo to be used against Zeppelin bombers and U-boats, it had been named Aerial Target to fool the Germans into thinking it was just fodder for testing anti-aircraft weapons. Low’s flying torpedo took off for the first time under radio control in March 1917, a feat that later saw him recognized as the “father of radio guidance systems” and, more recently, “father of the drone.” The initial demonstration was far from perfect—it ended with a spectacular crash landing.

Low's "Aerial Target" (1917)

“A great number of the pieces are in place for remotely piloted aircraft pretty early, by the beginning of World War I,” says Connor. “But what was really lacking was the ability to control the drones effectively, and this was down to the reliability of the radio signals. In so many cases, like the United States’ Kettering aerial torpedo, these projects just devolve into what might be considered a flying bomb. Even Low demonstrated only a degree of control with his Aerial Target: He nearly killed observers on the ground when it crashed during its demonstration flight.”

Kettering "Bug" (1918)

Indeed, a similar misfortune befell the aforementioned Kettering aerial torpedo—known as the “Bug”—during its demonstration flight at a secluded airfield near Dayton, Ohio, where a group of U.S. Army VIPs had gathered to see the first U.S. “guided missile” in action. The miniature wood biplane—named for its inventor Charles F. Kettering—was packed with explosives. A gyro helped maintain the stability of the craft, and a barometer sent signals to small flight controls that were moved by a system of cranks and a bellows (from a player piano) for altitude control. But after taking off, the Bug pivoted off course, at which point it swooped down and headed straight for the reviewing stands, causing officials to dive for cover under the bleachers. Fewer than 50 Bugs were manufactured, and they never saw combat.

Despite these somewhat disappointing initial outcomes, the development of drones continued after the war, while tech nerds of the era remained captivated by radio’s potential. In 1922, Hugo Gernsback, editor of the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories, published a book, Radio for All, which had a “really amazing frontispiece,” says Rhys Morus. “It’s a picture of a man of the future, sitting in the future office…and through the window, there is a flying machine in the sky labeled ‘radio-controlled aeroplane.’ ” 

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Those first UAV's were not autonomous at all - they were guided by a pilot who was either on the ground, or in another aircraft flying nearby.  Nevertheless, they were the beginning.  By the end of World War II the first autonomous drones were being developed, and by the Vietnam War a few were successfully used on operations.

Looking at today's battlefields, where UAV's are ubiquitous, it's hard to remember that the concept, at least, is more than a century old!  The technology has finally caught up with the theory.

Peter

"I knew that Hawaii would be the place where I would die"

 

Those are the words of Masamitsu Yoshioka, believed to be the last survivor of the Japanese air fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.  He died recently at the age of 106.

He flew in a Nakajima B5N2, nicknamed “Kate” by the Americans, carrying a single 800kg torpedo [Type 91] modified for shallow water. By the time he arrived at Pearl Harbor just before 08:00, having flown nearly two hours across the Pacific, the surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet was well underway, and all was “wrapped in black smoke”, Yoshioka told Jason Morgan of Japan Forward. “There were only two ships that I could clearly see.”

His pilot flew “dead on” at one of the ships, and Yoshioka, who was then 23, deployed his torpedo: “I spotted, out of the corner of my eye, two narrow, white columns of seawater, about two meters in diameter and 30 meters high, exploding up right beside the vessel. Direct hit!” He watched the mast tilt as the ship filled with water.

But it turned out to be the battleship USS Utah, which sank at a cost of 58 lives – needlessly, because the Japanese aircrew had been under strict instructions not to waste time on the Utah, which was only used as a training vessel. Yoshioka only realised his mistake when he noticed that the Utah’s gun turrets did not have barrels.

Masamitsu Yoshioka was born in Ishikawa Prefecture on January 5 1918 and joined the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1936. He started as ground crew, maintaining biplanes, but was accepted for navigator training in 1938, and in 1939 was posted to the aircraft carrier Soryu.

. . .

On November 26 1941 the Soryu left the port of Hitokappu Bay in the far north (now under Russian control). The crew tried to guess their destination: the pipes were still wrapped with asbestos, which suggested a cold-weather environment, but they had also been told to pack shorts.

When Admiral Nagumo, leader of the carrier battle group, announced that they were heading for Hawaii, “the blood rushed out of my head,” Yoshioka recalled. “I knew that this meant a gigantic war and that Hawaii would be the place where I would die.”

. . .

He flew support missions for the attack on Wake Island, also in December 1941, and took part in the Indian Ocean Raid in spring 1942.

The Soryu would be sunk at the Battle of Midway in June 1942, but Yoshioka survived because he was on leave. He then served in the Palau islands but was invalided to the Philippines with malaria before the bloody Battle of Peleliu in 1944. When the kamikaze attacks on the Allied fleets started, there were no parts for the Kates and Yoshioka, grounded, lived to hear the Emperor’s surrender broadcast on the radio.

There's more at the link.

At the time, Americans hated the Japanese for their "sneak attack", and that anti-Japanese racism was a hallmark of the Pacific campaign.  After the war, attitudes mellowed to at least some extent (although some never forgave them).  One hopes we can at least acknowledge the death of a brave man, probably the last of his kind, who did his duty according to his lights.

Peter

First in-flight refueling: now in-flight recharging?

 

I was intrigued to read that the US Army is looking at ways to recharge battery-powered drones (UAV's) in flight.

In a bid to revolutionize unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations, the US Army has patented a new technology that can keep its drones in the air forever.

. . .

The idea is simple: recharge a drone or multiple drones during their flights, just like mid-air refueling for jets.

Based on the patent document, the new technology includes a system for deploying a powered drone tether.

Various mechanisms are included to connect and disconnect rechargeable drones during flight.

A top drone can carry a special rope to extend it from a base station supplying power. This allows one or more rechargeable drones to connect for charging and then detach to perform independent flights.

There's more at the link.

This appears to have all sorts of possibilities.  If they can do it for drones, could they do it for full-size aircraft?  What about helicopters?  (I can see the rotor having all sorts of interesting effects on a dangling power cable!)  How much power can be transferred, how quickly?  How many drones can be recharged simultaneously through a single dangling cable?

All of these questions are intriguing, but with the technology in its earliest stages, I guess it'll be years before we have answers.  All I can say is, based on events over the past couple of days, it might be best if Israeli engineers were not involved in the design . . . or the recharging might become a high-energy event!  (You should pardon the expression.)

Peter