DOCSLIB.ORG

5E8b7093c138b.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5E8b7093c138b.Pdf 48 49 by Cem DOĞUT bomber that could operate Electric J79-GE-8 engine first jet aircraft produced Phantom’s story began in any weather conditions was selected to power the by McDonnell Douglas. in 1952 when David S. (all-weather). The project aircraft. The J79 was also The F4H-1 first entered Lewis was appointed as was launched with these used on the McDonnell service in 1960 with the the preliminary design needs, but on May 29, Douglas F-101 Voodoo U.S. Navy. In the meantime, manager of McDonnell 1955, new requirements aircraft, and as in Voodoo, the United States Air Douglas (MDD). With were sent to the company the engines sat low in Force also requested a the team he established, by the Navy. Everything the fuselage to maximize new plane. Secretary of he started working on had changed suddenly. internal fuel capacity and Defense Robert McNamara the new aircraft model Now, the Navy wanted a ingested air through fixed wanted the same aircraft requested by the U.S. tandem-seat fighter jet geometry intakes. With all to be used in all aviation Navy. The aircraft would that could fly CAP (Combat these changes, the first branches (Air Force, Navy, be a supersonic fighter jet. Air Patrol) missions at 300 XF4H-1 prototype was Marines) of the military. MDD started the “Super miles for 2 hours with the finished and became ready The Navy wanted the Demon” project based on capability to detect and for new trials. On July 25, Phantom as an interceptor, the existing F3H Demon engage hostile aircraft at 1955, the Navy ordered two while the Air Force wanted model. MDD’s rivals the extended ranges. XF4H-1 test aircraft and five it for its fighter-bomber Grumman XF9F-9 and the YF4H-1 pre-production missions. The new The YAH-1 project was later Vought XF8U-1 Crusader examples. The first test Phantoms produced for revised. A second crewman were already meeting aircraft made its maiden the Navy are considered was added to operate the supersonic fighter flight on May 27, 1958, with more successful than the the radar, the internally requirements. In response, test pilot Robert C. Little at Convair F-106 aircraft used mounted cannon was they started to work on the controls. The plane was by the Air Force and was removed, the fuselage the more advanced YAH- officially named Phantom II selected by the USAF as was modified to carry 1 project in 1954. The on July 3, 1959, at the 20th well. The plane was initially four semi-active homing planned design criteria anniversary of the factory designated F4H (later missiles, and the General were a single-seat fighter/ to honor FH-1 Phantom, the F-4A) by the United States 50 AJB-3 bombing computer. inches, and the AN/APQ- over. This because the A total of 649 F-4Bs were 116 terrain-following radar USAF believed that newly produced. In the following (TFR) was installed on the introduced radars and years, this model began aircraft. For photography, air-to-air missiles would to be replaced with the the plane was equipped replace the cannons, and F-4J, and between 1966 with a KS-87 forward the hostile aircraft would and 1972, 552 F-4J aircraft oblique camera, two KS- be engaged at 10-15 miles were delivered in total. 87 side-looking cameras, without getting closer to The 288 F-4B aircraft were and a KS-56 panoramic the enemy. Phantom II upgraded to the F-4N camera pointing straight was built on this theory. standard. down. The aircraft’s sensor Unfortunately, this theory suite was also upgraded soon found to be a mistake, The F-4B Phantom II with the AN/APQ-102 and USAF learned the hard aircraft went to Vietnam on side-looking radar and way in the Vietnam War. The August 5, 1964, to conduct the AN/AAS-18A infrared relatively new heat-seeking bomber escort missions. On reconnaissance system for and radar-guided missiles April 9, 1965, the Phantom easier navigation in adverse at the time were frequently II won its first air victory. weather conditions and reported as unreliable, so During the war, U.S. Navy night missions. In 1971, the the cannon was still needed F-4 Phantom squadrons RF-4E was produced by for close engagements. participated in 84 combat combining the RF-4C nose To overcome this tours with F-4Bs, F-4Js, and and the F-4E airframe for problem, USAF F-4Cs F-4Ns. The Navy claimed the German Air Force. The began carrying external 40 air-to-air victories at RF-4E was the unarmed gun pods; however, the the cost of 73 Phantoms export version offered desired hit rate could not lost in combat (7 to enemy to allied air forces. It was be achieved as the aircraft aircraft, 13 to SAMs, and designed strictly for export was not equipped with 53 to AAA). In 1987 the last and never served with the lead-computing gunsights. Phantoms were retired USAF. The lack of a cannon was from deployable USN addressed by adding an © Cem DOĞUT squadrons. Phantoms The F-4D model was internally mounted 20 continued to serve as put into service in 1967. mm M61A1 Vulcan on the Although the F-4C was Navy, while the original target drones (QF-4) at the F-4E using the extended virtually identical to designation by the USAF Naval Air Warfare Center nose section of the RF-4C. the Navy/Marine Corps was the F-110A Spectre until their subsequent The combined weight of F-4B in performance, (later F-4C). The F-4 retirement in 2004. the gun and ammunition the F-4Ds were explicitly shifted the center of gravity designation came about in The Air Force F-4Cs arrived tailored for the needs of of the plane forward. To 1962 when the designation in Vietnam in December the USAF. The D models fix this, a seventh fuel cell systems for all branches 1964. On July 10, 1965, were later upgraded using was added to the rear, the of the U.S. military were F-4Cs of the 45th Tactical the experience gained radar was replaced with unified by order of U.S. Fighter Squadron scored in Vietnam. They were the new AN/APQ-120, Defense Secretary Robert the USAF’s first victories integrated with a new and the existing J79-GE-8 McNamara. The first Air against North Vietnamese optical sight and lead- engines were replaced Force F-4C Phantom flew MiG-17s using AIM-9 computing gunsight. The with the more powerful on May 27, 1963, exceeding Sidewinder air-to-air aircraft could carry 20mm J79-GE-17 engines (each Mach 2 on its maiden flight. missiles. In 1962, the U.S. SUU-16/A and SUU-23/A can generate 17900 lbs. Air Force wanted to replace The first Phantom model external gun pods. Also, of thrust) to compensate its RF-101 reconnaissance used by the Navy in real they started to use laser- the increased weight. Also, aircraft and started the terms was the F-4B. In guided munition for the F-4E Block 48 models RF-4C development 1961 both the Navy and first time with the AN/AVQ- were fitted with leading- program. The prototypes Marine Corps began to add 10 Pave Knife targeting edge slats to increase the were concerted from the F-4Bs to their inventories. pod. aircraft maneuverability. existing F-4C airframes, The aircraft is equipped The United States Air Force and the production aircraft In the late 50s and early with J79-GE-8 axial-flow retired the F-4s from active made its initial flight 60s, the U.S. Air Force turbojet engines, AN/ duty in 1996, and just like in May 1964. The nose thought that the era of APQ-72 radar, AAA-4 the Navy continued to use section was redesigned close-range dog fights infrared search & track the planes as target drones and extended by 33 with aircraft guns was (IRST) system, and AN/ until January 1, 2017. 51 International © Roger RICHARDS F/RF-4 Phantom II Users Germany In the 1960s, the F-104G Starfighter became the standard aircraft of NATO and Luftwaffe (German Air Force). By the early 70s, the F-104G was struggling to meet the needs of users. Luftwaffe wanted a high performance, reliable and fast aircraft that could fly H-423 laser gyro inertial Canberra B.20 bombers a total of 92 F-4Ds in the in any weather condition. navigation system (INS), in the RAAF fleet until the following period. The Due to the high losses with the GEC Avionics CPU- F-111C was received.24 ROKAF also ordered 37 the F-104Gs, they sought 143/A digital central air data aircraft produced for USAF new-built F-4Es and started for a twin-engine plane. computer, and MFD (Multi- were leased to RAAF for receiving these aircraft in Germany first ordered 88 Function Display) screens two years at a total cost of 1978. They received 23 RF- RF-4Es in 1969 and then were added to the aircraft. $US41,554 million under 4Cs from the USAF in 1990. ordered another 175 F-4F Germany retired her F-4Fs the “Peace Reef” program The RF-4Cs are officially Phantom II on June 24, in 2013. which was signed on June retired, and a small number 1971. Under this agreement, 22, 1970. All 24 aircraft of F-4Es are still active. Messerschmitt-Bölkow- Australia were delivered to Australia Blohm (MBB) would United Kingdom In the 1960s, McDonnell between September and manufacture parts for Douglas offered a special October.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat
    By Systems Assessment Group NDIA Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee August 1999 FEASIBILITY OF THIRD WORLD ADVANCED BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat The Systems Assessment Group of the National Defense Industrial Association ( NDIA) Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee performed this study as a continuing examination of feasible Third World missile threats. Volume 1 provided an assessment of the feasibility of the long range ballistic missile threats (released by NDIA in October 1998). Volume 2 uses aerospace industry judgments and experience to assess Third World cruise missile acquisition and development that is “emerging” as a real capability now. The analyses performed by industry under the broad title of “Feasibility of Third World Advanced Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat” incorporate information only from unclassified sources. Commercial GPS navigation instruments, compact avionics, flight programming software, and powerful, light-weight jet propulsion systems provide the tools needed for a Third World country to upgrade short-range anti-ship cruise missiles or to produce new land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) today. This study focuses on the question of feasibility of likely production methods rather than relying on traditional intelligence based primarily upon observed data. Published evidence of technology and weapons exports bears witness to the failure of international agreements to curtail cruise missile proliferation. The study recognizes the role LACMs developed by Third World countries will play in conjunction with other new weapons, for regional force projection. LACMs are an “emerging” threat with immediate and dire implications for U.S. freedom of action in many regions .
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapon Producers
    Chapter 2 Nuclear Weapon Producers Nuclear weapon producers in this report Aecom (United States) Alliant Techsystems (United States) Babcock & Wilcox (United States) Babcock International (United Kingdom) BAE Systems (United Kingdom) Bechtel (United States) Bharat Electronics (India) Boeing (United States) CH2M Hill (United States) EADS (Netherlands) Fluor (United States) Gencorp (United States) General Dynamics (United States) Honeywell International (United States) Huntington Ingalls (United States) Jacobs Engineering (United States) Larsen & Toubro (India) Lockheed Martin (United States) Northrop Grumman (United States) Rockwell Collins (United States) Rolls-Royce (United Kingdom) Safran (France) In some of the nuclear-armed states – especially the SAIC (United States) United States, the United Kingdom and France – Serco (United Kingdom) governments award contracts to private companies to Thales (France) ThyssenKrupp (Germany) carry out work on their nuclear arsenals. This report URS (United States) looks at 27 of those companies providing the necessary infrastructure to develop, test, maintain and modernise nuclear arsenals. They are involved in producing or maintaining nuclear weapons or significant, specific components thereof. The 27 companies described in this chapter are substantially involved in the nuclear weapons programmes of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, India or Israel and themselves based in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Germany and India. In other nuclear-armed countries – such as Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea – the modernization of nuclear forces is carried out primarily or exclusively by government agencies. In those countries, the opportunities to achieve divestment through public campaigning are limited. A potentially more effective way to challenge investments in these nuclear industries would be through influencing budgetary decision-making processes in national legislatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of MILITARY LASERS
    History and Development of Military Lasers Chapter 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY LASERS JACK B. KELLER, JR* INTRODUCTION INVENTING THE LASER MILITARIZING THE LASER SEARCHING FOR HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS RETURNING TO HIGHER ENERGIES SUMMARY *Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired); formerly, Foreign Science Information Officer, US Army Medical Research Detachment-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 7965 Dave Erwin Drive, Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235 25 Biomedical Implications of Military Laser Exposure INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the history of the laser, Military advantage is greatest when details are con- from theory to demonstration, for its impact upon the US cealed from real or potential adversaries (eg, through military. In the field of military science, there was early classification). Classification can remain in place long recognition that lasers can be visually and cutaneously after a program is aborted, if warranted to conceal hazardous to military personnel—hazards documented technological details or pathways not obvious or easily in detail elsewhere in this volume—and that such hazards deduced but that may be relevant to future develop- must be mitigated to ensure military personnel safety ments. Thus, many details regarding developmental and mission success. At odds with this recognition was military laser systems cannot be made public; their the desire to harness the laser’s potential application to a descriptions here are necessarily vague. wide spectrum of military tasks. This chapter focuses on Once fielded, system details usually, but not always, the history and development of laser systems that, when become public. Laser systems identified here represent used, necessitate highly specialized biomedical research various evolutionary states of the art in laser technol- as described throughout this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuñez Angles
    5th International Seminar on Security and Defence in the Mediterranean Multi-Dimensional Security Reports (+34) 93 302 6495 - Fax. (+34) 93 302 6495 - [email protected] (+34) 93 302 6495 - Fax. [email protected] Weapons of mass destruction in the Mediterranean: An omnidirectional threat. Jesús A. Núñez Villaverde, Balder Hageraats and Ximena Valente - Calle Elisabets, 12 08001 Barcelona, España Tel. Fundación CIDOB WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: AN OMNIDIRECTIONAL THREAT Jesús A. Núñez Villaverde Co-director of the Institute of Studies on Conflicts and Humanitarian Action, IECAH Balder Hageraats Researcher at IECAH Ximena Valente Researcher at IECAH Introduction 1. Similar to the first report, the concept of WMD is used in its general understanding of having the Similarly to the first report on Weapons of mass destruction in the three basic components of nuclear, Mediterranean: current status and prospects, released in 2005, this chemical and biological weapons. In practical terms, however, the main second report (Weapons of mass destruction in the Mediterranean: an focus of this report is on nuclear omnidimensional threat) is the result of an initiative – responding to a weapons given that these are the sustained interest in matters of security and defence in the Mediterranean only ones that true fit the profile of WMD at the moment. - by the CIDOB Foundation. It is therefore fitting to mention the annual seminars on security and defence that are held in Barcelona since 2002. In line with the decision taken at the third of these meetings, the aim of this report is to facilitate – both for those attending the sessions directly as well as the wider security community interested in the region - the analysis of one of the most pressing problems on the international agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Bombs, Guns and Missiles (And CPP Investments)
    Bombs, Guns and Missiles (and CPP Investments) Delivery Systems: B-1, B-2, B-52 ll 115 of the weapons listed be- AGM = Air to Ground Missile low are aboard the major deliv- Contractor: Boeing (formerly AIM = Air Intercept Missile Aery systems with components McDonnell Douglas) and/or services provided by Canadian BGM = Ballistic Guided Missile AGM-88A HARM BLU = Bomb Live Unit companies that are highlighted on pages CPP Investmentü 11 to 30 of this issue of Press for Con- CBU = Cluster Bomb Unit This high-speed antiradiation missile version! Not all of the prime contrac- GBU = Guided Bomb Unit tors of these weapons could be deter- (HARM) is a more advanced version GPS = Global Positioning System mined. Nine were found to be produced of the AGM-45 “Shrike.” It finds and directly by the U.S. government. Of the MW = Multipurpose Weapon destroys enemy radar-equipped, air 73 weapons listed here – whose defense systems and uses a 143.5 lb nongovernment, prime contractors could be determined, 59 Direct Fragmentation warhead. were built by prime contractors in which the Canada Pen- Delivery Systems: EA-6, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117, Tornado sion Plan has investments, i.e., 81%. Contractor: Raytheon [Texas Instruments] AGM-89 SRAM CPP Investmentü AGM-45 Shrike CPP Investmentü This 2240-lb. Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) has a The “Shrike” guided missile finds and destroys radar trans- 170 kiloton W69 warhead and uses an inertial guidance mitters that are directing missiles at warplanes. It uses a system. Its maximum range is about 115 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018 Part 1 Introduction
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 1: Introduction Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 1: Introduction. The other parts are: Part 2A: United States - Submarines Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • Mp-Avt-108-01
    UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED Interoperability & Aircraft Stores Certification – An Australian Perspective on Where To From Here Malcolm G. Tutty Director Aircraft Stores Compatibility Engineering Agency Aerospace Operational Support Group RAAF Base EDINBURGH South Australia 5111 [email protected] ABSTRACT The level of interoperability of aircraft and stores is vital to Australia being able to fly and fight with our allies. Interoperability (ie the ability of systems, units or forces to provide services from other systems, units or forces and to use the service so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together) is usually given a very high priority early in aerospace weapons programs in setting the standards required and then seems to be left behind when fiscal realities start hitting home. Standardisation can occur within the areas of doctrine, procedures and equipment at three possible levels of standardisation to achieve the required level of interoperability: Compatibility, Interchangeability and Commonality. This paper will discuss Australia’s perspective on the extant development and agreement of better, internationally recognised, technical standards addressing structures, electrical interfaces, EMC/EMI/HERO, safe escape, flight termination systems, safety templates, risk management and, most importantly, a method to verify the level of interoperability. The level of interoperability for nationally “certified” aircraft stores configurations needs to, however, mature beyond such a technical emphasis to one of a people
    [Show full text]
  • Air-To-Surface Missiles Links
    Air-To-Surface Missiles Links AIR-TO-SURFACE-MISSILES Argentine ASMs British ASMs Chinese ASMs French ASMs International ASMs Japanese ASMs Russian ASMs Swedish ASMs US ASMs Yugoslavian ASMs file:///E/My%20Webs/asms/air-to-surface_missiles_links_2.html[5/24/2021 5:50:18 PM] Argentine ASMs Martin Pescador Notes: The Martin Pescador (Kingfisher in Spanish) is an ASM that is primarily meant to take down ships, but is also useful against land targets. It can be fired from helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. It borrows heavily from the US Bullpup, including the simple radio command with joystick control in the cockpit. Though the missile was shown as early as 1979, none were used in the 1982 Falklands War, and the missile has not been seen much. Acquisition may have been slowed or stopped by budgetary problems. Weapon Difficulty Guidance Weight Price Martin Pescador Average Radio Command 140 kg $4568 Weapon Speed Round Min Range Max Range Damage Pen Martin Pescador 3910 KEP/HE 2500 9000 C70 B82 119C file:///E/My%20Webs/asms/argentine_asms.htm[5/24/2021 5:50:37 PM] British ASMs ALARM Notes: This is the antiradiation missile most normally carried by European aircraft. It was first used in combat in the 1991 Gulf War and proved very effective in the Gulf War and the Twilight War. The missile has a loiter capability; if it loses its target, the missile will climb to 12,000 meters, deploy a parachute, and slowly descend over the last known location of the target, waiting for more radar emissions. It can also home in on the last known location of its target, achieving a hit that way.
    [Show full text]
  • JP 3-09.1 Joint Laser Designation Procedures (JLASER)
    JOINT PUB 3-09.1 JOINT LASER DESIGNATION PROCEDURES (JLASER) 1 JUNE 1991 A large body of joint doctrine (and its supporting tactics, techniques, and procedures) has been and is being developed by the US Armed Forces through the combined efforts of the Joint Staff, Services, and combatant commands. The following chart displays an overview of the development process for these publications. MAKING A JOINT PUB ., PROJECT PROPOSAL All joint doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures are organized into a comprehensive hierarchy. Joint Pub 3–04 .1 is located in the operations series of joint publications . Joint Pub 1–01, "Joint Publication System, " provides a detailed list of all joint publications. Joint pubs are also available on CD–ROM through the Joint Electronic Library (JEL) . For information, contact : Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, 7000 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D. C. 20318–7000 . JOINT LASER DESIGNATION PROCEDURES JOINT PUB 3-09.1 PREFACE 1. Purpose. This publication provides joint procedures for employing laser designators with target acquisition systems and laser-guided weapons to enhance the combat effectiveness of joint US forces. 2. Application a. Procedures established in this publication apply to the commanders of combatant commands, joint task forces, and the subordinate components of these commands. These procedures may also apply when significant forces of one Service are attached to forces of another Service or when significant forces of one Service support forces of another Service, under criteria set forth in this publication. b. In applying the procedures set forth in this publication, care must be taken to distinguish between distinct but related responsibilities in the two channels of authority to forces assigned to combatant commands.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Handbook Laser Range Safety
    Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com MIL-HDBK-828 15 April 1993 MILITARY HANDBOOK LASER RANGE SAFETY AMSC/NA FSC 4240 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT ● Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com MIL-HDBK-828 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LASER RANGE SAFETY 1. This standardization handbook was developed by the Department of Defense Laser System Safety Working Group. The working group had representatives from the Departments of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. 2. This document supplements departmental manuals, directives, military standards, and other related documents, to assist in standardizing basic information on laser range safety. 3. Beneficial comments (recommendations, additions, deletions) and any pertinent data which may be of use in improving this document should be addressed to: Commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, SPAWAR OOF, 2451 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22245-5200. Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com MIL-HDBK-828 FOREWORD This Military Handbook is approved for use by all Departments and Agencies of the Department of Defense. Copies of this document may be obtained through DOD publication channels. Available from: Standardization Documents Order Desk Bldg 4D 700 Robbins Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094 To place an order by touch tone telephone, obtain a customer number (for urgent requests, a customer number may be obtained by calling (215) 697-2179) and access the telephone order entry system by dialing (215) 697-1187 (replace the letter “Q” with “7" and “Z” with “9”) . ii Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com MIL-HDBK-828 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighter Aircraft
    MODERN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY AND TACTICS As part of our ongoing market research, we are always pleased to receive comments about our books, suggestions for new titles, or requests for catalogues. Please write to: The Editorial Director, Patrick Stephens Limited, Sparkford, Near Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 7JJ. MODERN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY AND TACTICS Into combat with today's fighter pilots Anthony Thornborough Patrick Stephens Limited © Anthony M. Thornborough 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from Patrick Stephens Limited. First published in 1995 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 1 85260 426 3 Library of Congress catalog card No. 95-78112 Patrick Stephens Limited is an imprint of Haynes Publishing, Sparkford, Nr Yeovil, Somerset BA22 7JJ Typeset by J. H. Haynes & Co. Ltd. Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frame and London CONTENTS Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Modern Technology & Tactics: An Overview 9 Chapter 2 Launch 29 Chapter 3 Air Superiority 53 Chapter 4 Target Ingress 101 Chapter 5 Recovery 169 Chapter 6 Future Technologies 179 Glossary 195 Index 201 INTRODUCTION esigning, building, maintaining and flying lost in the quagmire of technical and professional Dmodern fighters has become an incredibly terminology. Much of this book, therefore, is written complex and expensive business, and one which is in layman's terms for fellow enthusiasts or those becoming increasingly mind-boggling in its breadth.
    [Show full text]