Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
China

Harb-A Harbin SH-5

Nan-A  unknown cargo transport               
Nan-B  Nanchang J-12

Xian-A     Shenyang J-8 FINBACK (referred to as "Hsian-A" in early CIA documents)
12
Interesting USENET post on RAM-Q

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/SOVIET$20RAM-Q/rec.aviation.military/LHsljVZ5VEo/ymnGaVhn49QJ


At the time of the Ram Q imagery, we figured the Commies were setting
us up by assembling a decoy airframe and then conveniently
"forgetting" to put it completely under cover during 'high oblique
passes'.  As far as I recall, there was never a full image of the
creature - one pass would show the forward fuselage, the next a little
more, without ever showing the whole thing.  Then it went away,
leaving us with a designation and a couple blurry photos and nothing
more.

In conversations with other people in my career field at the time, we
couldn't narrow it down to anything beyond, "Possibly a new Sukhoi or
IL."  In later years, I've started to wonder if it wasn't a mockup of
the IL-102.  Yes, this critter was *that* ugly.



14
Avionics / Re: MiG-21 Avionics
« Last post by PaulMM (Overscan) on Today at 12:47:01 am »
Soviet Technical Manuals for the MiG-21FL's R-2L radar. Poor quality unfortunately :)

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00038R001800180001-4.pdf
16
NOTE: RAM-H is described as a 'large delta-wing aircraft'. It seems unlikely its really Tu-144D as listed above - the Tu-144 was well known in 1974 so  you'd think it would have been recognised and described as a CHARGER variant. Possibly its actually the T-4?
17
Theoretical and Speculative Projects / USN Distributed Lethality
« Last post by NeilChapman on Yesterday at 09:42:10 pm »

The USN has been touting distributed lethality for the last couple of years.  This thread is intended to discuss any thoughts on how the USN and their allies would advance that objective.

I'd like to start this off with one article discussing the possible resurrection of the "battleship".

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147?page=show

Having read the article, it occurred to me that submarines are being designed to last 30-40 years, Aircraft Carriers 90 years.  Laser systems have not matured to be effectively fielded but are moving forward.

Is there a case to be made to build ships that can be "block upgraded" as future laser-defended battlecruisers?  For instance, would it make sense for the US to build nuclear powered cruisers (survivability level 3) fielding large numbers of VLS tubes to act as naval "missile trucks" in anticipation of laser defensive systems in future?  Perhaps these ships could be built using traditional defensive systems today, but with the electrical power to field laser defenses when mature.  I would anticipate these cruisers sailing with CBG's and ARG's.

My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million.  In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.




19
VLAD A - MiG-25 FOXBAT
NOVO A - Unidentified as of 1974
NOVO B - Su-15 FLAGON
ARSEN A - Mi-24 HIND A
TAG A (Unknown in 1974 - Beriev/Bartini VVA-14)

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78T04759A010400010167-8.pdf
20
RAM-A Unidentified as of 1974
RAM-B Unidentified as of 1974
RAM-C: Yak-36 FREEHAND
RAM-D: 'Observed only once - similar to E-166'
RAM-E Twin engine delta wing fighter (presumably Sukhoi T-6-1)
RAM-F: T-6-2IG / Su-24 FENCER

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78T04759A010400010167-8.pdf
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10