In Vietnam, high loss rates in Wild Weasel SEAD missions led to the Air Force showing interest in a modified Teledyne Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug for high-risk missions. This would become the BGM-34 (Ryan Model 234) series. 🧵
I don't know a ton about it, nor is there much information, but I'll try to cover it the best I can.
The first model, BGM-34A, began flight tests in 1971. It could be armed with Mavericks, as seen in the first image, or AGM-45 Shrikes, such as this example.
To accomplish this remote weapons delivery capability, a datalink antenna was installed on the top of the vertical stabilizer, which transmitted a feed from the nose-mounted TV camera back to the drone operator, as well as some flight information.
A couple stills from a video of the BGM-34 Control Center and video information from a BGM-34B.
These initial tests were promising, but some improvements were necessary. The BGM-34B (Model 234A) began testing in 1973, and featured a more powerful engine, larger control surfaces, and some drones were modified with a better TV camera and laser designator.
These were tested with Paveways and Mavericks, primarily, but they appear to have been also tested with TV-guided bombs as well.
BGM-34C (Model 259), which began testing in 1976, allowed for interchangeable "mission modules." The first contained a KS-10A strike camera, and the EW section likely contained deception jammers that operated in Soviet SAM bands to provide a SAM-free corridor for strike aircraft.
The last section, mounted on the BGM-34C here, was a real-time strike TV camera, likely an improved version of the ones used on the BGM-34A and early BGM-34B.
A few excerpts from various Defense Appropriations Congressional Hearings in regards to the BGM-34C program and funding for it.
Here are a few pictures with the KS-10A camera mounted.
The BGM-34C would have replaced the AQM-34G EW variant of the Model 147, and the AQM-34L photo-recon variant, as well as provide strike capabilities. However, funding appears to have dried up after 1978.
Sources vary on why funding dried up. Some claim that it was deemed unnecessary after the end of the Vietnam War, and others claim that Tactical Air Command leadership saw it as a "threat" to manned vehicles. Either way, the program would never make it into production.
Also, since there's only a few more weeks remaining for this, please consider donating to the fundraiser for my friend working on counter drone operations in Ukraine. They need to hit at least half their goal.
Someone asked me to do a comparison of capabilities between F-35A and JAS-39E Gripen. A ton of material is classified but I will do my best here.
In short, Gripen is not even in the same class as F-35A. It isn't awful, but it is not a competitor with F-35.
Let's start with one of the greatest advantages of the Gripen: its electronic warfare systems. The Gripen has a relatively robust signal receiver network across the aircraft, with several antennas capable of electronic attack, such as the wingtip pods and external jammers.
The Gripen's wingtip pods provide an uncommon capability called "crosseye jamming." Crosseye jamming can create a positional false target in the horizontal or vertical plane, rather than just range.
If you want to try to optically track a target with damn near zero contrast, be my guest.
The Japanese Navy found that at night the human eye struggled to pick up ships over about five miles. A ship on the horizon is a significantly bigger target than a B-2 or F-117.
For a computer, greater signal to noise ratios are required to effectively track a target. This is why imaging infrared is preferable to optical contrast. Shown below is the last few seconds of flight of an AIM-9X.
This uses imaging infrared to detect and track the target.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US Navy's ability to conduct air superiority and offensive strikes has been slowly diminishing. Today, we stand at an inflection point, where the F/A-XX program to deliver a new strike fighter to the Navy is in Jeopardy.
🧵
This thread is a pitch for a congressional write-in campaign. The first part is a history of the degradation of the Navy's air wing. The second part is an analysis of a recent oversight hearing. The last post of this thread contains instructions for emailing your representatives.
In the 1980s, the A-6F was proposed for development. This was to be an updated A-6E including modern avionics, new engines, and AMRAAM. This would have provided the Navy with a relatively low cost program, retaining a two-seat crew with a large payload and good mission systems.
Some very interesting stuff going on here with the Shenyang aircraft. 🧵
Exhaust appears visually similar to the F-22's with 2D thrust vectoring and shrouding. Wing shaping is nothing particularly special but seems good. Like JH-36, it retains some conventional control surfaces.
The all moving wingtips are a novel solution. I don't know what the trade offs are but they must be at least somewhat worth it. Potentially these are considered lower risk, higher strength, or more effective than the semi-morphing control surfaces on the JH-36.
The intake design is interesting. Unlike JH-36, which uses caret intakes underneath and uses a DSI above, the Shenyang aircraft uses what appears to be two DSIs below. The gear appears to fold sideways into a bay ABOVE the side bays, giving it a J-20-esque four bay arrangement.
With the renewed interest in the Europa wars, this may be the best time to bring up the unusual short ranged missile developed for space-superiority craft.
The AIM-95E "Europa Agile," the only missile designed for operation in deep space AND within thin atmospheres.🧵
First off, I apologize in advance for the lack of photos on this topic. All existing photos of Agile are of the ones designed in the 1970s for operation within Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, you will have to imagine some of these changes to the system.
The Agile for aerial use was cancelled in the mid 1970s after about $50m was wasted developing several different airframes and seekers. This spelled the end for the program as most know it, but this would only be the starting point for the Europa Agile.
For my entire life I have been taught about the importance of effective searches. Since May 2024, I have fought with an unwanted feature that has made my experience worse.
A rant about "AI Overview," AI assisted search and their impact on using Google as a tool for research.🧵
Google has billed these features as "taking the legwork out of searching" and "able to answer complex questions." This is a bald faced lie.
The AI has wasted more time than it has saved me, lied about results, and forced me to learn methods to get around it rather than to use it.
I do a lot of research using keywords that I need matched exactly. For example, right now, I was looking up the specific thrust of the General Electric F414 engine used in the X-59, an experimental plane in development for NASA. This should be a simple question to answer.