DOCSLIB.ORG

B&W US Military.Xlsx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B&W US Military.Xlsx U00001 73‐22251 Beech C‐12A Army MAAG Iran 75 U00002 73‐22252 Beech C‐12A Army MAAG Iran 75 U00003 73‐22253 Beech C‐12A Army 75 U00004 73‐22255 Beech C‐12A Army 75 U00005 73‐22256 Beech C‐12A Army 75 U00006 73‐1211 Beech C‐12A AF 75 U00007 Bu141292 Lockheed NC‐121K USN VAQ‐33 FEWSG "GD11" 75 U00008 Bu141009 Convair C‐131F USN Mildenhall 75 U00009 Unit markings Army MAAG Iran 75 U00010 Bu152225 McDonnell F‐4B USN VF‐301 "ND103" 75 U00011 Bu152206 McDonnell F‐4B USN VF‐301 "ND105" 75 U00012 Bu152282 McDonnell F‐4B USN VF‐301 "ND113" 75 U00013 Bu153101 McDonnell RF‐4B USMC VMCJ‐1 "RM600" 75 U00014 Bu153091 McDonnell RF‐4B USMC VMCJ‐1 "RM602" 75 U00015 Bu153110 McDonnell RF‐4B USMC VMCJ‐1 "RM607" 75 U00016 Bu153783 McDonnell F‐4J USN VX‐4 "XF1"black o/a 73* U00017 Bu159457 Grumman F‐14A USN VF‐124 "NJ433" 75 U00018 Bu153220 LTV A‐7A USN VA‐56 "NF414" CV41 75 U00019 74‐1740 LTV A‐7D AF 355 TFW "DM" 75 U00020 53‐3266 Douglas VC‐118A AF @ U00021 63‐8304 Republic F‐105F AF 35 TFW 561 TFS "GA" 75 U00022 CG1452 Lockheed HC‐130H USCG San Francisco 75 U00023 CG1453 Lockheed HC‐130H USCG San Francisco 75 U00024 CG7246 Grumman HU‐16E USCG San Francisco U00025 Bu147780 Douglas A‐4C USN 75 U00026 Bu152877 Douglas TA‐4F USMC H&MS‐13 "YU00" 75 U00027 Bu144864 Douglas TA‐3B USN Dept of Navy 75 U00028 Bu148893 Lockheed KC‐130F USMC VMGR‐252 "BH" 75 U00029 66‐7607 McDonnell F‐4D AF 81 TFW "WR" 75 U00030 53‐3303 Douglas VC‐118A AF HQ SHAPE 69 U00031 53‐0117 Boeing HC‐97G AF 58 ARS U00032 Bu147029 Chance F‐8C USMC VMF‐333 "DN9" 65 U00033 Bu50801 Douglas C‐117D USMC H&MS‐17 "SZ" U00034 59‐0044 Convair F‐106A AF 539 FIS U00035 Bu155064 Douglas A‐4F USMC VMA‐223 "WP12" 73 U00036 44‐9044 Douglas C‐54E AF 3750 M&S Group 72 U00037 51‐0085 Douglas C‐124C AF 439 MAW U00038 Bu136640 Grumman TS‐2A USN ex VT‐27 N410DF 74 U00039 66‐0164 Lockheed C‐141A AF 436 MAW 73 U00040 Bu128345 Lockheed SP‐2E USN NAR Olathe "7K224" 68 U00041 Bu135608 Lockheed SP‐2E USN VP‐42 "RB11" MASDC 71 U00042 57‐0767 Lockheed T‐33A AF 84 FIS 73 U00043 66‐7550 McDonnell F‐4D AF 405 TFW "PN"MiG kill 72* U00044 58334 NA T‐28A AF 3380 M&S Group 73 U00045 73‐1212 Beech C‐12A AF 75 U00046 73‐22257 Beech C‐12A Army 75 U00047 65‐0688 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00048 65‐0685 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00049 65‐0775 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00050 66‐0283 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00051 65‐0608 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00052 52‐0844 Boeing KC‐97L AFANG Wi 126 ARS 68 U00053 52‐2694 Boeing KC‐97L AFANG Oh 145 ARS 70 U00054 52‐0931 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Pa 103 ATS 68 U00055 52‐2719 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Tn 105 ATS 67 U00056 53‐0162 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Mn 109 ATS U00057 53‐0272 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ca 115 ATS 71 U00058 53‐0271 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ca 115 ATS 67 U00059 52‐0894 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ms 180 ATS U00060 52‐2692 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ut 191 ATS 62 U00061 52‐0925 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ga 128 ATS U00062 52‐0830 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ok 125 ATS U00063 Bu136753 Grumman C‐1A USN Mildenhall 75 U00064 60‐3461 Beech U‐8F Army USAREUR 75 U00065 58‐0086 Boeing KC‐135A AF 456 BW 75 U00066 59‐1464 Boeing KC‐135A AF 456 BW 75 U00067 51‐7899 Convair T‐29B AF 513 TAW 75 U00068 63‐7769 Lockheed C‐130E AF 463 TAW 773 TAS 75 U00069 63‐7778 Lockheed C‐130E AF 463 TAW 773 TAS 75 U00070 63‐7833 Lockheed C‐130E AF 463 TAW 773 TAS 75 U00071 63‐7837 Lockheed C‐130E AF 463 TAW 773 TAS 75 U00072 64‐0973 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75* U00073 65‐0615 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00074 65‐0689 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00075 65‐0742 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00076 66‐0280 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75* U00077 66‐7480 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00078 66‐7484 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00079 66‐7496 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75 U00080 66‐7498 McDonnell F‐4D AF 48 TFW "LN" 75* U00081 72‐1393 Northrop F‐5E AF 58 TFTW 425 TFTS 75 U00082 55‐0055 Boeing B‐52D AF 22 BW 75 U00083 73‐0085 McDonnellD F‐15A AF 58 TFTW 75* U00084 63‐7584 McDonnell F‐4C AF 58 TFTW "LA" 75 U00085 72‐0441 Northrop F‐5B AF 58 TFTW 425 TFTS 75 U00086 63‐7541 McDonnell F‐4C AF 58 TFTW "LA" 75* U00087 63‐13234 Lockheed F‐104G AF 58 TFTW 75 U00088 55‐0106 Boeing B‐52D AF 75 U00089 57‐6505 Boeing B‐52G AF 2 BW 75 U00090 59‐2573 Boeing B‐52G AF 2 BW 75 U00091 58‐0211 Boeing B‐52G AF 2 BW 75 U00092 49‐0351 Boeing WB‐50D AF Pima County 75 U00093 Bu144200 Lockheed T‐1A USMC Quonset Point 76 U00094 Bu141796 Grumman F‐11A USN VT‐26"3L601"Pima Co 75 U00095 Bu139531 NA F‐86/AF‐1E USN Pima County 75 U00096 Bu142928 Douglas TA‐4B USN "5L" Pima County 75 U00097 61‐2080 Convair B‐58A AF 305 BW Pima County 75 U00098 58‐1005 Sikorsky CH‐37B Army Pima County 76 U00099 56‐2159 Vertol H‐21C Army Pima County 76 U00100 53‐0535 Lockheed EC‐121H AF Pima County 76 U00101 CG1280 Grumman HU‐16E USCG San Francisco U00102 51‐5306 Grumman HU‐16B AF 67 ARS U00103 53‐0352 Boeing KC‐97L AFANG Tn 151 ARS 70 U00104 52‐2761 Boeing KC‐97L AFANG Oh 145 ARS 69 U00105 52‐2621 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ok 125 ATS MASDC 68 U00106 51‐0281 Boeing C‐97F AF U00107 53‐0290 Boeing KC‐97G AF SAC * U00108 52‐2724 Boeing NC‐97G AF 67 U00109 50‐0690 Boeing C‐97C AF MATS 62 U00110 52‐2764 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ca "N227AR" 71 U00111 52‐2766 Boeing C‐97G AFANG Ca "N22766" 72 U00112 51‐0224 Boeing VC‐97E AF "Miss Oklahoma City" 72 U00113 51‐5194 Douglas C‐124C AF 63 TCW @ U00114 51‐10112 Douglas C‐124C AFRes 906 MAG 70 U00115 52‐1057 Douglas C‐124C AF MATS U00116 52‐1084 Douglas C‐124C AFANG Ut 191 MAS 71 U00117 50‐0093 Douglas C‐124A AF MATS * U00118 51‐5279 Grumman HU‐16B AF 67 ARS 60 U00119 Bu141246 Lockheed SP‐2H USN VP‐23 "LJ8" 65 U00120 Bu148337 Lockheed AP‐2H USN VAH‐21 "SL3" MASDC 70 U00121 Bu131540 Lockheed SP‐2E USN NAR M'polis "7E209" 68 U00122 Bu145927 Lockheed EC‐121K USN VW‐13 "MJ" * U00123 52‐3424 Lockheed EC‐121T AF 552 AEW&CW 73 U00124 54‐4062 Lockheed TC‐121G AF 552 AEW&CG 74 U00125 63‐8458 Lockheed TF‐104G AF 58 TFTW 74 U00126 Bu128426 Douglas VC‐118B USMC Washington 78 U00127 62‐1785 Lockheed C‐130E AF MATS early c/s U00128 53‐3269 Douglas MC‐118A AF 439 MAG 68 U00129 53‐3266 Douglas C‐118A AF 7101 ABW 73 U00130 53‐3260 Douglas C‐118A AF AFCS U00131 51‐17642 Douglas C‐118A AF 1611 ATW * U00132 Bu128433 Douglas C‐118B USN VR‐1 "JK" U00133 54‐0139 Douglas C‐133A AF MATS * U00134 54‐0141 Douglas C‐133A AF 436 MAW 68 U00135 54‐0143 Douglas C‐133A AF 436 MAW 70 U00136 Bu91998 Douglas C‐54Q USN Keflavik 67 U00137 Bu90396 Douglas NC‐54R USN OASU Pr Magnet "JB" 67 U00138 Bu56528 Douglas C‐54S USN green/grey c/s * U00139 CG9147 Douglas EC‐54U USCG Elizabeth City 66 U00140 44‐35725 Douglas B‐26C AF Weather Bureau MASDC 71 U00141 43‐22559 Douglas B‐26C AF derelict Tucson U00142 44‐35356 Douglas RB‐26C AF derelict Tucson U00143 Bu150188 Douglas C‐47J USN "FN" U00144 Bu17190 Douglas C‐117D USMC Beaufort U00145 58‐1347 Beech U‐8D Army 75 U00146 44‐35808 Douglas RB‐26C AFANG Ms d'lict Tucson U00147 61‐2778 Lockheed C‐141A AF 436 MAW 69 U00148 60‐0378 Boeing C‐135A AF 1611ATW U00149 47‐0170 Boeing KB‐50J AF 420 ARS U00150 CG4605 Beech TC‐45J USCG Reserve 70 U00151 09456Z NA B‐25G AF "6C" 70 U00152 3699 NA B‐25G AF "6K" 70 U00153 210 NA B‐25J AF displ Loma Rica U00154 51‐1781 Republic F‐84F AF TAC U00155 52‐6426 Republic F‐84F AF TAC U00156 59‐5962 Lockheed C‐140A AF AFCS @ 62* U00157 Bu141011 Convair C‐131F USN 78 U00158 Bu148139 Grumman E‐1B USN VAW‐12"AW725"onCV15 66 U00159 62‐4469 NA T‐39A AF 7101 ABW 75 U00160 Bu128425 Douglas C‐118B USN Washington 75 U00161 CG1414 Lockheed HC‐130E USCG Elizabeth City 75 U00162 Unit markings USCG Elizabeth City 75 U00163 63‐7852 Lockheed C‐130E AF 463 TAW 75 U00164 NASA‐929 Lockheed NC‐130B NASA Earth Survey 2 75 U00165 56‐0097 McDonnell RF‐101C AF 66 TRW * U00166 51‐1676 Republic F‐84F AFANG Ia 124 FIS MASDC 71 U00167 53‐1809 Convair F‐102A AFANG Id 190 FIS MASDC 71 U00168 56‐1268 Convair F‐102A AFANG Ws 176 FIS MASDC 72 U00169 56‐3412 NA F‐100D AF 4403 TFW "SE" 71 U00170 CG1456 Sikorsky HH‐52A USCG Cape May 70 U00171 Bu152008 Douglas A‐4E USN VA‐45 "AU600" CV11 72 U00172 Bu142239 Douglas EKA‐3Q USN VAQ‐130 "AE011"CV42 70 U00173 61‐2415 Vertol CH‐47A Army Edwards 70 U00174 59‐1759 Republic F‐105D AFANG DC 121 TFS 74 U00175 60‐0525 Republic F‐105D AFANG DC 121 TFS 74 U00176 61‐0188 Republic F‐105D AFANG DC 121 TFS 74 U00177 Bu157694 Vertol CH‐46F USMC HMM‐263"EG1"onLPH9 74 U00178 Bu157686 Vertol CH‐46F USMC HMM‐263"EG3"onLPH9 74 U00179 Bu157650 Vertol CH‐46F USMC HMM‐263"EG4"onLPH9 74 U00180 Bu157741 Sikorsky CH‐53D USMC HMM‐263"EG21onLPH9 74 U00181 Bu157172 Sikorsky CH‐53D USMC HMM‐263"EG23onLPH9 74* U00182 Bu158961 HS Harrier AV‐8A USMC VMA‐513"WF11onLPH9 74 U00183 Bu159232 HS Harrier AV‐8A USMC VMA‐513"WF15onLPH9 74* U00184 Bu148618 Grumman EA‐6A USMC VMCJ‐2"CY614onCV66 74 U00185 Bu155651 Grumman A‐6A USMC 74 U00186 Bu157011 Grumman A‐6A USMC VM(AW)332 "EA09" 74 U00187 Bu157984 Grumman F‐14A USN NMC "5" 74 U00188 CG7229 Grumman HU‐16E USCG San Francisco 73 U00189 Bu133118 Grumman US‐2A USN VX‐4 "XF" 73 U00190 Bu149236 Grumman US‐2D USN Norfolk 73 U00191 Bu149245 Grumman ES‐2D USN NMC 73 U00192 Bu138647 Grumman F‐11A USN General Electric 70 U00193 Bu142442 Grumman NTF‐9J USN NMC "62" 73 U00194 Bu136753 Grumman C‐1A USN Mildenhall 72 U00195 Bu147334 Grumman TF‐9J USN VT‐4 "2F332" 73 U00196 Bu155446 NA OV‐10A USN 73 U00197 Bu155475 NA OV‐10A USMC VMO‐2 "UU17" 73 U00198 Bu140567 NA T‐28C USN VT‐3 "2W350" 74 U00199 Bu137663 NA DT‐28B USN NMC "5" 72 U00200 Bu138319 NA DT‐28B USN NMC "6" 73 U00201 Bu156617 NA RA‐5C USN RVAH‐1 "AJ601" CV66 74 U00202 Bu156640 NA RA‐5C USN RVAH‐1 "603"on CV66 74 U00203 Bu153539 NA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: a Comprehensive Approach
    Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach Jay Gundlach Aurora Flight Sciences Manassas, Virginia AIAA EDUCATION SERIES Joseph A. Schetz, Editor-in-Chief Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-4344 NOMENCLATURE Item Definition A area; availability; ground area covered in a mission; radar antenna area, m2; conversion between radians and minutes of arc Aa achieved availability Abound bounded area for a closed section 2 Ad IR detector sensitive area, m 2 Aeff effective antenna area, length Ai inherent availability AO operational availability; UA availability 2 Ap propeller disk area, length ARate area coverage rate Ar effective collection area of optical receiver ASurf surface area AR aspect ratio ARWet wetted aspect ratio AR0 aspect ratio along spanwise path a UA acceleration; maximum fuselage cross-section width; speed of sound; detector characteristic dimension awa radar mainlobe width metric awr radar mainlobe width metric ax acceleration along the x direction (acceleration) B acuity gain due to binoculars; boom area; effective noise bandwidth of receiving process, Hz 21 BDoppler Doppler bandwidth (time ) BN effective noise bandwidth of the receiving process 21 BT radar signal bandwidth (time ) BSFCSL brake specific fuel consumption at sea level b web length; wing span; maximum fuselage cross- section height bw wing span b0 span without dihedral C cost of contractor
    [Show full text]
  • Air University Review: September-October 1973, Volume
    AIR U N I V E R S IT V PROFESSIONAl JOURNAlrcificw Of THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE T H E T he Threat, F oreicn Policy, and Cost Control: P.ARAMETERS FOR F o RCE P l ANNINC................................................................................................... 2 Col. Edward Stellini, USAF Keyn o t e of the 1970s: Joint Ven t c r es lnto Spa c e ................................................................16 Phillip O. Davis William G. Holder Air Force Review Swords, P lowsh.ares, .and Procress....................................................................................... 3 0 Lt. Gen. Kenneth W. Schultz, USAF D rone Remo t el y Pil o t e d Veh icl es and Aer ospac e Power...............................................44 Lt. Col. E. J. Kellerstrass, USAF SuPERSONIC D e LIVERY OF CoNVENTIONAL W ea PONS—F a CT OR F a NCY?.................................. 55 Charles S. Epstein Ner ve Cen t er for Spa c e Defen se...................................................................................................... 66 Maj. Sainuel C. Beainer, USAF In My Opinion T he Unit Co mma n der and the Bureaucracy............................................................... 63 Lt. Col. Arthur C. Mussman, USAF T he Nixo n Doctrine—a New Era in Foreign Policy? ...............................................89 Maj. H. A. Staley, USAF Books and Ideas W here There’s P.ain Theres Hope: M il it a r y Pr o fessio n a l ism in the Dock .......................................................................................................93
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace Propulsion
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Propulsion by Sean Brown A PROJECT submitted to Oregon State University University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Honors Associate) Presented February 27th, 2015 Commencement June 2015 2 4 ©Copyright by Sean Brown February 27th, 2015 All Rights Reserved 5 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Propulsion by Sean Brown A PROJECT submitted to Oregon State University University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Honors Associate) Presented February 27th, 2015 Commencement June 2015 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 8 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 12 2 Propulsion Systems ................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Piston-Propeller.............................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Gas turbine ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Turbojets ................................................................................................................ 12 2.2.2 Turboprops
    [Show full text]
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles
    Defense Science Board Study on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles February 2004 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Washington, D.C. 20301-3140 This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions and recommendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense. This report is UNCLASSIFIED. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3140 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3140 DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACTING UNDERSECRETARYOF DEFENSE (ACQillSmON, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS) SUBJEcr: Reportof the DefenseScience Board Task Force on UnmannedAerial Vehicles and UninhabitedCombat Aerial Vehicles I am pleasedto forward the final report of the DSB Task Force on UnmannedAerial Vehicles (UA V) and UninhabitedCombat Aerial Vehicles (UCA V). This Task Force was tasked to evaluatethe current statusof the UA Vs and UCA Vs and provide recommendationson how to betterintegrate UA Vs and UCA Vs into the force structure. The Task Force concludedit is time for the Departmentof Defenseand the Services move forward and makeUA Vs and UCA Vs an integral part of the force structure,not an "additional asset". To do so requiresappropriate planning, appropriate budgeting, and continuedmanagement attention from the Departmentof Defenseand Serviceleadership. The Task Force's findings and recommendationsfall into eight subjectareas: Introduction of UA Vs into the force structure VA V unit productioncosts UA V mishaprates Communicationsconstraints UA V interoperability and mission management Integrationof UA Vs into national airspace Focustechnology investments Reductionof UA V combatvulnerability I endorseall of the recommendationsof the Task Force and proposethat you review the Task Force Co-Chainnen's letter and the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Drone Flight and Failure: the United States’ Secret Trials, Experiments and Operations in Unmanning, 1936-1973
    Drone Flight and Failure: the United States’ Secret Trials, Experiments and Operations in Unmanning, 1936-1973 By Katherine Fehr Chandler A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Rhetoric and the Designated Emphasis in New Media in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor David Bates, Co-Chair Professor Charis Thompson, Co-Chair Professor Samera Esmeir Professor Jake Kosek Spring 2014 Drone Flight and Failure: the United States’ Secret Trials, Experiments and Operations in Unmanning, 1936-1973 ©2014 by Katherine Fehr Chandler Abstract Drone Flight and Failure: the United States’ Secret Trials, Experiments and Operations in Unmanning, 1936-1973 by Katherine Fehr Chandler Doctor of Philosophy in Rhetoric and the Designated Emphasis in New Media University of California, Berkeley Professor David Bates, Co-Chair Professor Charis Thompson, Co-Chair I examine the precursors to contemporary unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) to ask what is at stake in the designation “unmanned?” The apparent misnomer dissociates technologies and humans, occluding how international interventions, including surveillance, military support, signals intelligence, and targeted killing, are carried out through actions networked between humans and nonhumans. I use a genealogical approach to address how tensions and contradictions articulated by unmanning emerge, using the development, operation and failure of unmanned systems to complicate divisions between human and nonhuman; “us” and the enemy; immersion and distance; military and industry; and above and below. I identify two phases in the development of remote controlled and unmanned aircraft in the United States: targeting and reconnaissance.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Aviation and Space Museum Aircraft
    CANADA AVIATION AND SPACE MUSEUM AIRCRAFT RYAN KDA-4 FIREBEE DRONE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE SERIAL KD-4788 INTRODUCTION The Ryan Firebee began as a series of target drones (now more commonly referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs) 1 developed by the Ryan Aeronautical Company (later Teledyne Ryan), beginning in 1951. It was one of the first jet-propelled drones, and, eventually, one of the most successful and widely used target drones ever built. Generally referred to as the Firebee I, the initial versions possessed high subsonic speed, and were primarily intended for use in ground-to-air and air-to-air gunnery training. Later versions were developed into reconnaissance vehicles, as well as into attack and multi-mission platforms. More than 7,000 Firebee vehicles were built, with many variants being introduced. A Ryan publicity photo illustrating the first customers for the Ryan Firebee: the United States Air Force, the United States Navy, the United States Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. - (Ryan Aeronautical Company Photo) The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) became one of the first customers for the Firebee intending the target drone to be used in particular for the planned weapons testing and training on the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow fighter program. The Firebee has the distinction of being the first UAV in the RCAF. Cover Photo Caption - The Ryan Firebee was launched from a modified Lancaster bomber in RCAF service. - (RCAF Photo) 1 / 22 ______________________________________________________________________ FIREBEE DESIGN HISTORY 2 Q-2 / KDA-1 Firebee The Firebee was the result of a 1946 United States Army Air Force (USAAF) request for a jet-powered gunnery target.
    [Show full text]
  • RPV DRONES Make the Difference by Hank Basham
    RPV's Make the Difference by Hank Basham Air University Review, January-February 1974 Document created: 19 September 03 What will the fighter pilot s chances be when that bird out there is the real thing, a MIG-21 . or a supersonic bomber making a run toward targets within the United States . or some other modern jet making an attack? If he is a pilot of the Aerospace Defense Command, his chances will be good because he has experience resulting from weapons firing training and evaluation against remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) at the Air Defense Weapons Center. RPV's have been around a long time, down along the northwest Florida Gulf Coast area at Tyndall Air Force Base. Here the Teledyne Ryan Firebee jet has been in operation as the prime target for pilots sharpening their air defense skills. Because this remotely piloted vehicle is the nearest thing to a hostile aircraft, pilots who train against the Firebee will have a better chance against an actual attack. Not just a clay pigeon, this bird is a real jet aircraft. It flies like one. It maneuvers like one. Returning combat pilots confirm they must train against a maneuvering jet to be really prepared. Those pilots who train at the Air Defense Weapons Center will know just what to expect when the chips are down. They'll know because they have flown against, fired against, and scored against an RPV that strongly simulated an aircraft being flown by an enemy pilot. It was seventeen years ago when the Firebee entered the air defense picture at Tyndall Air Force Base, home of the Air Defense Weapons Center, and every pilot within the Aerospace Defense Command has at one time or another pitted his skill against the elusive high-speed and high- flying target.
    [Show full text]
  • EW Concepts and Tactics for Single Or Multiple UAS Over the Net-Centric Battlefield
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2009-09 General use of UAS in EW environment--EW concepts and tactics for single or multiple UAS over the net-centric battlefield Erdemli, Mustafa Gokhan. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/4512 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS GENERAL USE OF UAS IN EW ENVIRONMENT—EW CONCEPTS AND TACTICS FOR SINGLE OR MULTIPLE UAS OVER THE NET-CENTRIC BATTLEFIELD by Mustafa Gokhan Erdemli Thesis Co-Advisors: Edward Fisher Wolfgang Baer Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2009 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE General Use of UAS in EW Environment—EW 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Concepts and Tactics for Single or Multiple UAS over the Net-Centric Battlefield 6. AUTHOR(S) Mustafa Gokhan Erdemli 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Expendable Remotely Piloted Vehicles for Strategic Offensive Airpower Roles
    Expendable Remotely Piloted Vehicles for Strategic Offensive Airpower Roles DENNIS LARM, MAJOR, USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES, MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, ACADEMIC YEAR 1995–96. Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama June 1996 This School of Advanced Airpower Studies thesis and others are avail- able electronically at the Air University Research Web site http:// research.au.af.mil under “Research Papers” then “Special Collections.” Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: dis­ tribution unlimited. ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii ABSTRACT . v ABOUT THE AUTHOR . vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ix 1 INTRODUCTION . 1 Notes . 6 2 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND . 9 Notes . 21 3 STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE AIRPOWER . 25 Notes . 35 4 MERITS OF EXPENDABILITY . 39 Notes . 59 5 FUTURE NOTIONAL SCENARIO . 63 Notes . 67 6 CONCLUSION . 69 Notes . 71 Illustrations Figure 1 Family Tree of Aerial Vehicles (1988) . 2 2 Relative Decline of US Aircraft Losses Per Sortie over Four Conflicts . 28 3 Advantages and Disadvantages among Strategic Attack Systems . 58 Table 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Types and Control Mechanisms . 4 iii Page 2 Significant Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Events . 11 3 US Army Air Forces/US Air Force Bomb Tonnage Statistics for Four Conflicts . 27 4 US Army Air Forces/US Air Force Combat Sortie Statistics for Four Conflicts .
    [Show full text]
  • Drones and Support for the Use of Force
    Drones and Support for the Use of Force Combat drones are transforming attitudes about the use of military force. Military casualties and the costs of conflict sap public support for war and for political and military leaders. Combat drones offer an un- precedented ability to simultaneously reduce these costs by increasing accuracy, reducing the risks to civilians, and protecting military person- nel from harm. These advantages should make drone strikes more popu- lar than operations involving ground troops. Many critics contend that drone warfare will make political leaders too willing to authorize wars, which could weaken ethical and legal constraints on the use of force. Be- cause combat drones are a relatively new phenomenon, these arguments have largely been based on anecdotes, a handful of public opinion polls, or theoretical speculation. Drones and Support for the Use of Force utilizes experimental research to analyze the effects of combat drones on Americans’ support for the use of force. The authors develop expectations drawn from social science theory and then assess these conjectures using a series of survey experi- ments. Their findings— that drones have had important but nuanced ef- fects on support for the use of force— have implications for democratic control of military action and civil-military relations, and they provide insight into how the development and proliferation of current and future military technologies influence the domestic politics of foreign policy. James Igoe Walsh is Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Marcus Schulzke is an independent scholar and was formerly a Lecturer in the Department of Politics at the University of York.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Hawk Systems Engineering Case Study
    Global Hawk Systems Engineering Case Study GLOBAL HAWK SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY By: Bill Kinzig, MacAulay-Brown, Inc. Air Force Center for Systems Engineering 2900 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-7765 Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) Page - i Air Force Institute of Technology ID 8844 Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2010 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Global Hawk Systems Engineering Case Study 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Air Force Institute of Technology,Air Force Center for Systems REPORT NUMBER Engineering,2950 Hobson Way,Wright Patterson AFB,OH,45433 9.
    [Show full text]
  • “Friend of Humans”: an Argument for Developing Autonomous Weapons Systems
    “Friend of Humans”: An Argument for Developing Autonomous Weapons Systems Christopher P. Toscano* “New eras don’t come about because of swords; they’re created by the people who wield them.” ― Nobuhiro Watsuki * Lieutenant Commander Toscano is an active-duty Navy Judge Advocate and 2014 LLM Graduate of the George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Judge Wallach, CAPT Raul “Pete” Pedrozo, CAPT Stephanie M. Smart, COL Marc Warren, CDR Robert Passerello, CDR Susan McGarvey, CDR James Benoit, and Professors Dan Richard and Peter Raven-Hansen for their contributions to this article. The author would also like to thank his wife, Aki, for her enduring support: 本当にありがとう愛貴ちゃん！The positions and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, or the United States Navy. 1 Introduction1 With the introduction of robots2 to the battlefield, critics and activists have raised doubts that echo a long history of opposition to landmines, aviation, submarines, and nuclear technologies.3 War, however, is unavoidable, and weapons technology advancement is an inevitable consequence. Humanity’s inability to live at peace has led combatants to seek enhanced weapons and strategies to defeat their adversaries more effectively.4 More advanced weaponry never reduces humanity’s propensity for violence. As Clausewitz notes, “[t]he tendency to destroy the adversary, which lies at the bottom of the conception of War, is in no way changed or modified through the progress of civilization.”5 While this tendency is a sad commentary on human nature, weapons development also provides a hidden opportunity to safeguard against unnecessary destruction and loss of life.
    [Show full text]