3rd Aerial Girls Squad Technical Details

Offline

Oct 2012

6648

ErwinJA said:
As some have noted, certain people involved in this project have been known to be extreme in technical accuracy, and they've done a good job of zeroing in on this aspect of production. Based on some feedback I got both publicly and privately, I've decided to give some of the kind of research Midori has likely been doing

Don't have the time tonight to read what you wrote (will later though), but I wanted to at least say you are the type of person who gives me hope for all of humanity.

Gudu jobu!!!

Jan 18, 2015 3:51 AM

Simon

Offline

Dec 2007

Nice post.

One note about the F-4: Its a two seater aircraft with a pilot in the front and a WSO or RIO (weapon systems officer or radar intercept officer) in the back. The WSO / RIO is missing in the opening (i hope they don't forget him in the Anime xD):

Some corrections / additions (i just skimmed over the F-4 part):

ErwinJA said:
By comparison, its initial Soviet counterpart, the MiG-21, could only carry four short-range missiles

This is only correct for later versions of the MiG-21. The early versions (e.g. MiG-21F-13 used by North Vietnam) can only carry 2 missiles.

ErwinJA said:
As such, pilots tended to expend all their missiles at once in the hope of increasing the chance of a kill, and a plane could still literally empty its entire missile armament without getting one!

In the later part of the Vietnam war US pilots were told to fire all missiles of the same type when they engage a target (e.g. fire all 4 AIM-7).

I will read the complete post later when i have more time. Maybe i will add some more comments.

Damn, i would love to see "Third Aerial Girls Squad"... maybe i should watch "Area 88" again.

SimonJan 18, 2015 3:56 AM

Jan 18, 2015 9:58 AM

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Back in late 2012, when he was directing Girls und Panzer, Tsutomu Mizushima
directly answered many technical questions from fans about the tanks (and other
military hardware) through his Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/tsuki_akari

Just now, my quick scan didn't pick up anything over the past week related to the
aircraft, but I wasn't super-careful.

I sure hope they'll add a RIO to the back seat of the F-4 Phantom to the OP when
the Blu-ray/DVD comes out. Either that, or they should reduce the smokiness of
the canopy to make it more evident that nobody is sitting there.

Jan 18, 2015 11:59 PM

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Simon said:
Nice post.

One note about the F-4: Its a two seater aircraft with a pilot in the front and a WSO or RIO (weapon systems officer or radar intercept officer) in the back. The WSO / RIO is missing in the opening (i hope they don't forget him in the Anime xD):

Some corrections / additions (i just skimmed over the F-4 part):

ErwinJA said:
By comparison, its initial Soviet counterpart, the MiG-21, could only carry four short-range missiles

This is only correct for later versions of the MiG-21. The early versions (e.g. MiG-21F-13 used by North Vietnam) can only carry 2 missiles.

This is true, and I apologize for the error - the ones fought in Vietnam were indeed only armed with 2 missiles, and the missiles were no better than the worst Sidewinder models in performance. However, by the time the US was invested in Vietnam, the MiG-21S was available to the Soviet Union. They just did not export such units to Vietnam until after the war, and were mostly giving away surplus F versions until the late-'70s as they upgraded their fleet. Also, the earliest variants could not carry any missiles, and some very late upgrades brought the capacity to 6. But, for most of the MiG-21's service life with the Soviet Union and elsewhere, it could carry 4 missiles.

I did think of making a distinct note of the fact that ALL F-4s were two-seaters, and that there should be another person there. However, I decided to give a chance for that to be addressed in the series. I also thought about pointing out that it should be Squadron.

[/quote]It wasn't just late in the war, and was especially prevalent for the AIM-7. The habit started relatively early and eventually caught on and became standard, to the point that it was getting taught. Of course, a better barometer of its (lack of) effectiveness was that most Israeli pilots refused to even use the AIM-7 at all during the Yom Kippur War - with an estimated total of something like 12 launches and 0-1 kills. Of course, the MiG-23 and R-23 were similarly unpopular, with many pilots preferring the MiG-21. But, I was intentionally keeping it simple for the post, rather than going into too much detail. Otherwise, I'd compare failure rates and kill probabilities, such as how 46% of all AIM-7 firings resulted in a launch failure, with 30-37% of AIM-9 firings going the same way. The actual kill rates in Vietnam that I know were as follows:
K-13 (AA-2): 12%
AIM-9B: 15%
AIM-9D: 19%
AIM-9E: 12%
AIM-9J: 15%
AIM-7D: 8%
AIM-7E: 10%
AIM-7E-2: 8%.
M61 20mm Rotary Cannon: 26%

And yes, they need to make an actual anime of this. It wouldn't be the first time that happened.

ErwinJAJan 19, 2015 12:12 AM

Jan 19, 2015 7:43 AM

vegetablespirit

Offline

Mar 2014

2421

you're insane. I admire your passion. do you mind if I ask how you came to know all of this?

vegetablespiritJan 19, 2015 7:49 AM

Jan 19, 2015 1:14 PM

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Hi Vodall. You yourself pointed out that awesome information session on "Sakuga"
(作画) at that 2013 Anime Central convention in Chicago. I loved watching it. As
it explained, there is a very long tradition in anime of showing action scenes with
multiple missiles being fired. They gave many examples, such as "Project A-Ko"
(1986) which has a legendary missile battle scene.

For anybody here who has not watched that session, please have a look at it.
Here is the YouTube playlist link that Vodall already gave us in her earlier post:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuPNSyztkHPqV-M4ePSmN_2BLhONu0WLg
Note: "Project A-Ko" is mentioned in the 16th of the 16 videos.

I think that ErwinJA is providing very useful information that these missiles should
only be destroying their targets about 10% to 20% of the time. So the animation
should be done correctly so that those probabilities are right. The director of this
series, Tsutomu Mizushima, is a stickler for the accuracy of technical detail. So I
am sure that he will want to hear from fans about anything that needs to be
corrected before the Blu-ray/DVD comes out.

Besides that, anime fans in Japan get extremely obsessive about details. So
ErwinJA is giving us an extremely simplified treatment compared to what will be
seen on the Shirobako discussion boards for anime fans in Japan.

The absence of the RIO/WSO in the back seat of the F-4 Phantom in the OP was
an egregious error, and I won't be at all surprised if we later hear that some poor
animation checker got fired over it. Using dark-tinted plexiglass to try to hide the
issue was really blatant.

okanaganJan 19, 2015 1:27 PM

Jan 20, 2015 2:13 AM

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

vodall said:
you're insane. I admire your passion. do you mind if I ask how you came to know all of this?

I've moderated modern tech military RPGs. And like Midori, I enjoy researching things I don't know. One project I worked on was a guide for . . . modern aerial combat. So, I have quite a bit of information archived.
I'm technically not an expert on this or almost anything else I comment on. I'm just a decent writer and a very good researcher, with results that speak for themselves. Strangely, I've been told, though am skeptical to believe, that some of my research was actually used in the decision-making processes of one or more governments. I do know some things I wrote were copied to military-related sites in at least 5 other languages though.

Oftentimes, I'll accidentally find something interesting while researching something else, which is where the missile breakdown came from - the research was for modern tech, so 1970s data was unneeded - the AIM-9L and AIM-120 so revolutionized aerial combat that Vietnam-era data was pretty much worthless to the project. But, I always save and archive such things for further use if needed.

@Okanagan: It does make a very big difference exactly when the show is set. If it's set in the late '70s, the dynamic is very different from '80s or '90s, when all of those planes were still in frontline service.
The Sparrow's failures, for example, were threefold: first, the semi-recessed hard points, while great at reducing drag, proved to be unreliable when launching missiles. Second was the guidance: the Sparrow was a just a step up from the earliest radar guidance technologies, and still required the missile to acquire and follow a signal reflected from the enemy aircraft. If it lost that signal for even a fraction of a second, which easily occurred if the launching aircraft made even slight maneuvers (and was one of the launch problems), lock was broken and the missile went ballistic. The third was that, while advertised as a BVR missile, it was never tested against high-performance fighters. While an AIM-7E could shoot down a 747 at 45 km, we now know that, in general, that would mean about a 15 km range for having sufficient kinematic performance to engage a MiG. As such, almost all BVR (beyond visual range) shots missed. And WVR (within visual range), it often wasn't agile enough to intercept. The E2 fixed the agility issue, but had a bad fuse to compensate.
For the Sidewinder, throughout the Vietnam War, the weapon had three weaknesses: Like the Sparrow, it was not uncommon for it to fail upon launch. This happened about 1/3 of the time. It also could only lock onto the rear exhaust of an aircraft, which limited the launch envelope, and also made evasion relatively easy. Finally, it was very, very easily spoofed. Early IR missiles had a tendency to home in on all sorts of silly things - including sunbaked rocks!

Later Sparrows had improved reliability, greater agility, and the benefit of learned tactics, doubling and even tripling their success rate. The AIM-9L, as the first all-aspect IR-guided missile, fixed almost every weakness in the Sidewinder when it was introduced in 1978, and is one of the most revolutionary weapons in the history of air combat, and saw astounding success rates throughout the 1980s while tactics against it lagged far behind. The AIM-120A AMRAAM likewise fixed most of the issues with the Sparrow when it entered service in 1991.
All of the aircraft depicted could use the AIM-9L with minimal upgrade work (well, except the MiG-23, which instead got the R-73/AA-11 in 1982). And the Viggen and F-4 both got AMRAAM upgrades, while later MiG-23s could carry the AMRAAM-like R-77 (AA-12), which entered service in 1994.

ErwinJAMar 2, 2015 3:23 AM

Jan 20, 2015 6:38 AM

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

In late 2012, during "Girls und Panzer", director Tsutomu Mizushima (水島努)
used to interact with fans through Twitter about technical details of the tanks
as well as other specific information about the series. One time I tweeted him
a question and he sent me a nice reply. I had asked him for the names of the
three diligent members of the Ooarai Girl's High School Discipline Committee:
Sodoko, Gomoro and Pazobi.

This is Mizushima's twitter account: https://twitter.com/tsuki_akari

Note that if you only want to read tweets, rather than sending your own tweets,
you don't need to sign up to be a member on twitter. Just dismiss the big grey
window that pops up to ask you to sign up.

On January 9th, he sent out a tweet mentioning the Mitsubishi F1 (三菱F-1).
Here is a the link to the actual tweet:
https://twitter.com/tsuki_akari/status/553468496546254848
Here is the text of that tweet:
三菱F-1が格闘に不向きだとみんなに言われようが、聞く耳は持ちません。
It is basically saying that the Mitsubishi F1 has a bad reputation, but it sounds
like Mizushima is saying that it isn't actually so bad. If you go to that link, you
can see that several people replied to that tweet. One of those people is
Takaaki Suzuki (鈴木貴昭). He has been a military technical consultant for
"Strike Witches", "Upotte!!", "The Pilot's Love Song" and "Girls und Panzer".
Here is info about that airplane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-1

Yesterday, Mizushima sent out a tweet mentioning the Mirage F1 (ミラージュF1),
the Mirage F5 (ミラージュF1) and the MiG-25. Here is the link to the actual tweet:
https://twitter.com/tsuki_akari/status/557180195883339776
Here is the text of that tweet:
「第三飛行少女隊」。ミラージュF1やF5、それから私の世代には思い入れ
のある人の多いMig25などは、残念ながら選考からもれてしまいました。
Mizushima says that older people such as himself still have feelings for the
Mirage F1 and F5. Then he seems to be apologizing for not having included
the MiG-25 Foxbat.

Up to this point, I am not aware of whether or not Mizushima has issued any
declaration along the lines of "No panty shots; make the tanks accurate"
(パンチラ厳禁！戦車無理すんな！*) as he did for "Girls und Panzer". From what
I inferred in late 2012, the pressure of producing GuP apparently drove him
insane after Episode 10 and Mizushima started sending out some very strange
tweets. This time, perhaps he will be a bit more careful not to make too many
promises to the fans.

Obviously, "3rd Aerial Girls Squad" (第三飛行少女隊) is a work of fiction, so no
doubt Mizushima is going to take some liberties with the technical details. On
the other hand, I think he will go to a lot of effort not to do something which
looks obviously foolish or lazy to professional military experts.

[ * As I recall, this is not precisely the wording that Mizushima originally used,
but many fans have quoted him this way. ]

- - - - - - -

@ErwinJA: From Googling just now to get a very rough idea of the actual
"agility" of these missiles, I saw that a recent (presumably state-of-the-start)
infrared-guided missile, the IRIS-T, is capability of pulling 60 g's and turning
at 60 degrees per second, as mentioned here:
http://theaviationist.com/tag/aim-9-sidewinder/
If I happen to see one of the girls' missiles pulling a tighter turn than that,
I'll certainly be sending an angry tweet to Mizushima.

okanaganJan 21, 2015 4:03 PM

Jan 22, 2015 11:27 AM

#10

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Not much in episode 15, but:

Do 228:

MRJ:

MRJ stands for Mitsubishi Regional Jet. This is Japan's first home-built airliner in over 50 years, following the unsuccessful YS-11, which found almost no success outside of Japan and was a major net loss for the Nihon Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation. The MRJ goes for the "regional jet" market, which covers small airlines that act as feeders for the big companies, and uses relatively small and short-ranged aircraft with very low operation costs. This is a huge market, with an estimated 4000-5000 aircraft expected to be purchased over the next 20 years.

The MRJ has, like many of the newest generation of airliner, suffered from excessive hype and design changes as reality tempered grand designs. Initial plans were for it to have been in service by last year, but the first flight (prototype, not production) has been pushed back several times due to redesigns and problems getting components. As such, it is expected to finally get its first flight about 6 months from now, which would be on track for deliveries in 2017. To date, there have been orders for up to 223 aircraft, and options for 184 more, with most of these going to US-based regional companies. If problems appear during test flights, this could change dramatically, but again: these are not unusual problems, and even heavy hitters like Airbus and Boeing have seen similar problems as of late. I have not heard about any significant problems in addition to (or as a possible hidden cause of) the delays, and the MRJ has the benefit of the newest and most fuel efficient engines. But again, flight tests could change everything if they don't meet the promises.

It should also be noted that while the regional jet market is relatively new, not being defined as it exists today until the early '90s, Mitsubishi is an insurgent here going after a market dominated by two heavy contenders: Canada's Bombardier and Brazil's Embraer. Together, in the past 25 years, they've produced more than 10 times as many planes in this class as Mitsubishi is expecting to sell, and may leverage their experience, cost, and prevalence to get buyers to pull out and go with "safer" options. However, while Embraer is basically an unstoppable juggernaut who's expected to win over 60% of all orders over the next two decades (they already have 25% in the bag!), and has already risen to Mitsubishi's challenge on fuel efficiency, Bombardier's been focusing on larger aircraft and letting itself slide in the regional jet market. This could allow Mitsubishi to sneak in and capture up to 20-25% of the market, which will be a necessity for the project - current orders are insufficient to break even. They need more like 400 firm orders to guarantee that.

HondaJet:

ErwinJAJan 22, 2015 11:55 AM

Jan 24, 2015 3:23 AM

#11

Simon

Offline

Dec 2007

vodall said:
you're insane. I admire your passion. do you mind if I ask how you came to know all of this?

Read some good books, e.g. "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972" by Marshall L. Michell III if you want to know about the air combat over North Vietnam. I just read too many books. xD Any good books about the air combat over Israel?

ErwinJA said:
I did think of making a distinct note of the fact that ALL F-4s were two-seaters, and that there should be another person there. However, I decided to give a chance for that to be addressed in the series.

It's just something i noticed, nothing really important. ;)

Jan 28, 2015 10:57 PM

#12

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Simon said:

vodall said:
you're insane. I admire your passion. do you mind if I ask how you came to know all of this?

Don't know of any off hand. I only have a couple tanker and infantry ones. A lot of my air combat information from there was packaged with other things, and some of it came from just talking to Israelis (going straight to the source can be good).
The Dogfights tv series did have a few episodes that covered Israel (and several dealing with 'Nam), and they provide a nice look at actual tactics.

Jan 29, 2015 1:12 AM

#13

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Wow! That sounds thrilling to actually talk to professionals with immediate
knowledge about this stuff. It sounds more like you are doing professional
journalism. I guess they would have to be super-careful about what they say
and what they don't say. Ideally, it would be nice if they could ultimately
point you to some openly published reference so that you can confirm it in a
way that the rest of us can make use of. One tool would be the Freedom Of
Information Act.

- - - - - -

I checked just now on Tsutomu Mizushima's personal Twitter account He has
not tweeted anything more about airplanes.

okanaganJan 29, 2015 1:15 AM

Jan 29, 2015 8:20 AM

#14

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

okanagan said:
Wow! That sounds thrilling to actually talk to professionals with immediate
knowledge about this stuff. It sounds more like you are doing professional
journalism. I guess they would have to be super-careful about what they say
and what they don't say. Ideally, it would be nice if they could ultimately
point you to some openly published reference so that you can confirm it in a
way that the rest of us can make use of. One tool would be the Freedom Of
Information Act.

- - - - - -

I checked just now on Tsutomu Mizushima's personal Twitter account He has
not tweeted anything more about airplanes.

All of my information is available on open sources, just not always easy to find. Even what I heard from the pilots is stuff you can find on your own if you search properly. However, a lot of my data is also from online content that I can no longer pull up - either I can't find it again or know for certain that the page is gone. This includes a comprehensive list of armor and penetration values for various tanks and cannons, a comprehensive comparison of the costs of a MiG-29 VS an F-16, a full breakdown, item by item (with prices) of a MiG-29 sale to Venezuela, the single most comprehensive source for info on WWII battleships, and a host of others.
It was actually after several of these website went completely defunct that I started saving data itself instead of just links.

As far as hard data goes, talking to people who served mostly just verifies information or discredits bad stats. It's more interesting for the personal stories and opinions than the facts, many of which they can't share.

ErwinJAJan 29, 2015 8:24 AM

Jan 29, 2015 8:54 AM

#15

bastek66

Offline

May 2009

9175

New designs vs old designs

Jan 29, 2015 10:54 AM

#16

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

I think that from 02:21 to 02:22 the bear (Roro) and the pirate girl (Mimujii)
were attacking a B-36 Peacemaker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker
It is very distinctive in that it had six rear-facing propeller engines. Only
four were visible, but it was drawn in such a way that there might have been
a total of six engines. In addition, later versions of the B-36 had four jet
engines slung on pylons out near the wingtips. That made for a total of ten
engines.

For the pirate girl to be flying a chibi-F4-Phantom meant that it is possible
to take a lot more liberty with technical accuracy without experts being able
to complain that certain rivets were drawn in the wrong place.

Pirate girl's F4 included a weird thin black bump on the bottom of the nose.
Apparently, some versions of the F4 had it while others did not.
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/mcdonnel_phantom.gif
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/modernplanes/mcdonnell-douglas/mcdonnell-douglas-f-4-phantom-ii-4.gif
What is that thing for, anyway? Apart from that, Pirate girl's F4 is remarkably
accurate in all of its details, up to and including the locations of the hard points
for the missiles.

I don't know what Roro the bear was flying.

okanaganJan 29, 2015 11:28 AM

Jan 29, 2015 12:30 PM

#17

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Jan 29, 2015 12:44 PM

#18

Offline

Jan 2015

Papercraft models of super deformed Miitsubishi T-2 and Mitsubishi F-4EJ Phantom

I think Roro was flying a Mitsubishi F-1 (which is based on the T-2).. the black bump on the Phantom is the M61A1 20mm Vulcan cannon, which the F-4EJ is equipped with.

Bontakun65Jan 29, 2015 12:49 PM

Feb 3, 2015 6:48 PM

#19

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Bontakun65 said:
the black bump on the Phantom is the M61A1 20mm Vulcan cannon, which the F-4EJ is equipped with.

This is a common misconception. Most variants of the F-4 Phantom had the little bulge in the nose. In the F-4B/C models, this originally housed an early IRST (InfraRed Search & Track) system. In the D model, it either held a radar warning receiver, or was deleted entirely. A similar structure was used to house the M61 cannon, so just seeing a bulge in the nose means nothing.

There are two key things to look for in differentiating the F-4E from earlier models:
1) The nose is much longer. An excellent visual cue is the bulge you noticed itself. In the earlier, gunless models, that bulge extends almost to the tip of the nose. In the F-4E, the nose extends well beyond the bulge.
2) The length and placement of the bulge. In the earlier models, the bulge starts forming well in front of the cockpit, about where the nose cone ends, while the F-4E's cannon bulge actually goes much further back, starting underneath the cockpit.

Now that we know what we're looking for, let's take a look:

Now, compare that to this handy dandy picture (from this site):

There can be no doubt: this is either an F-4B, F-4C, or early F-4D model. It cannot be an RF-4, F-4E (including EJ), F-4J, or F-4G.

Feb 3, 2015 7:37 PM

#20

Offline

Oct 2012

6648

ErwinJA said:
There can be no doubt: this is either an F-4B, F-4C, or early F-4D model. It cannot be an RF-4, F-4E (including EJ), F-4J, or F-4G.

Again, god bless you man. You and Okanagan are my official antidepressants when it comes to the future. Waiting for your posts makes me postpone judgement on humanity. No apocalypse today, trumpets have been muted.

Feb 4, 2015 12:46 AM

#21

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Very, very interesting! As well, on the extreme-left extreme-upper corner of
Aoi's computer screen, it said F-4D Phantom II. You can see it at 08:44 in
Episode 16.

So I guess that all of this is logically consistent! Congratulations to Tsutomu
Mizushima for his usual perfect technical accuracy.

I recall something about certain models of the Phantom being produced in Japan,
but I don't know any details. Is it possible that Momijii was flying a Japan-made
Phantom? We already know that Roro was flying a Japanese-made F1.

Presumably, only certain models of the F-4 Phantom would have been made in
Japan.

okanaganFeb 4, 2015 12:51 AM

Feb 4, 2015 5:27 AM

#22

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

okanagan said:
I recall something about certain models of the Phantom being produced in Japan,
but I don't know any details. Is it possible that Momijii was flying a Japan-made
Phantom? We already know that Roro was flying a Japanese-made F1.

Presumably, only certain models of the F-4 Phantom would have been made in
Japan.

I've stated this explicitly several times now: this is not a Japanese plane. Japan only produced and used a variant of the F-4E, the F-4EJ and RF-4EJ. All of these have the longer nose and bulge.

The only nations that ever operated short-nosed variants were the US, Iran (F-4D), South Korea (F-4D), and Spain (F-4C).

Feb 4, 2015 9:11 AM

#23

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

@ErwinJA: Sorry, I was tired last night and I didn't double-check the earlier
posts on the thread. Indeed, you clarified that point a couple of times.

Note to self: Momijii's plane is not made in Japan.

Feb 5, 2015 7:50 AM

#24

Offline

Jan 2015

Actually we were referring to these aircraft, which are in chibi / superdeformed mode.. so the proportions may not match the actual aircraft.

Momijii's aircraft may be an F-4D or it could also be an F-4EJ.. since it is superdeformed we cannot make any conclusions about the nose length. That's why I posted a photo of the superdeformed papercraft models for comparison.

Feb 5, 2015 8:13 AM

#25

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Bontakun65 said:
Actually we were referring to these aircraft, which are in chibi / superdeformed mode.. so the proportions may not match the actual aircraft.

Yeah, I realized I didn't catch that you were referring to the SD one (what I get for being in a hurry). I honestly didn't think about that since it's pointless to speculate on "could be" when it's impossible to determine from the picture, especially when there's no indication of the F-4EJ anywhere else. :P

ErwinJAFeb 5, 2015 8:24 AM

Feb 5, 2015 11:55 AM

#26

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

This was at 10:27 in Episode 17. What is this?

In case the above image fails to display, or for higher resolution, please click below:
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mikiy666-tenco/imgs/c/f/cf68bebb.jpg

okanaganFeb 5, 2015 12:40 PM

Feb 5, 2015 3:12 PM

#27

Offline

Jan 2015

okanagan said:
This was at 10:27 in Episode 17. What is this?

In case the above image fails to display, or for higher resolution, please click below:
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mikiy666-tenco/imgs/c/f/cf68bebb.jpg

That is the Kinoshita Kn-2-Ku Command and Control Aircraft ^_^

Feb 5, 2015 3:32 PM

#28

Offline

Oct 2012

6648

Bontakun65 said:

okanagan said:
This was at 10:27 in Episode 17. What is this?
In case the above image fails to display, or for higher resolution, please click below:
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mikiy666-tenco/imgs/c/f/cf68bebb.jpg

That is the Kinoshita Kn-2-Ku Command and Control Aircraft ^_^

I thought it was the Musashino An-2-me High Altitude Heavy bomber. It's a variation on your plane, the main difference is the extra payload it can carry, as evident by unique protruding belly of the airplane.

Feb 5, 2015 7:55 PM

#29

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Takuan_Soho said:

Bontakun65 said:

That is the Kinoshita Kn-2-Ku Command and Control Aircraft ^_^

I think the wings look slightly off for that one. The fatter wings are a distinct feature of the Musashino RC-3 ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) aircraft, which stores more fuel in the wings in order to improve range and endurance. It's perfectly understandable not to recognize the difference - ELINT birds are unglamorous and generally little known since their contributions are typically hushed.

Edit:
Having watched the ep, we can now confirm the F-4 as being a USAF F-4D. However, something looks fishy in the PV scene showing it landing: that looks like at least 4 external fuel tanks getting carried. As far as I know, the F-4 could only carry 3 - a 600-gallon tank centerline and 370-gallon tanks on the outboard wing pylons. The inboard ones were "dry," lacking the fittings needed to transfer fuel from a drop tank.

Ep 17: F-35A JSF

ErwinJAFeb 5, 2015 9:56 PM

Feb 5, 2015 9:40 PM

#30

Offline

Oct 2012

6648

ErwinJA said:
I think the wings look slightly off for that one. The fatter wings are a distinct feature of the Musashino RC-3 ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) aircraft, which stores more fuel in the wings in order to improve range and endurance. It's perfectly understandable not to recognize the difference - ELINT birds are unglamorous and generally little known since their contributions are typically hushed.

I hesitate to argue with an expert I have already praised several times, however if we take the wingspan into consideration, it is clear that this is not the Musashino RC-3 ELINT, but the stealth version of the Masashiro an-2-me (anime) high altitude heavy bomber. As evidence I would point to the ultra modern, sleek, ultra-thin swept back wings (which on this airplane are often called arms). The Elint requires a bit more developed wings in order to support the electronic equipment for which it is famous for. This airplane, based upon the photograph provided, is obviously too underdeveloped in the wing department to be able to support such an advanced, and heavy system.

Feb 5, 2015 11:11 PM

#31

Offline

Jan 2015

Flight sequence for the aircraft in question.

Feb 6, 2015 3:23 AM

#32

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Takuan_Soho said:

I think you have the wrong type of ELINT aircraft. All the RC-3 needs are some computers and additional antennae, which are also clearly visible underneath the "chin" and a bit above the "nose." It's the RC-3D that has a heavy payload.

On a side note, shouldn't it be the An-1-Me? Fits better (AN1ME), and loses the possibility of confusion with an ancient Soviet transport aircraft used by North Korean airborne forces :P

Feb 12, 2015 12:49 PM

#33

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Ep 18:

B-1B Lancer

During the dialog, they mention a B-1B that needs to be intercepted. The B-1B is currently the second most important bomber in US inventory, after the B-52, and the most numerous supersonic bomber in the world. This plane had a long and very troubled lineage. Its ancestry can be traced to failed XB-70 Valkyrie, which was designed for a world in which interceptor aircraft were the main means of catching bombers. In such a case, a high altitude, Mach 3 bomber was unstoppable. However, high-altitude surface-to-air missiles appeared in the '60s, and were rapidly improving - there would be a missile effective against the XB-70 by the early '70s. As such, the project died in the experimental stage.

Nonetheless, a new requirement for a Mach 2+ bomber with B-52-level range and payload was put forth, but with a nod to better low altitude performance (if you can't go over them, go under). This resulted in the variable geometry B-1A. Originally, the plane would also be able to maintain supersonic speeds even at low altitude, but cost-cutting reduced it to high subsonic. It was still Mach 2+ at altitude, but the cost-cutting measures killed its survivability since high speed and altitude was no longer viable, and it was cancelled in 1977 in favor of an interim solution of B-52s with long-range cruise missiles to be followed up by the then-nascent ATB program, which would eventually produce the B-2 stealth bomber.

It was revived in 1981 because of delays with the B-2, and the fear that there would be a gap when the B-52 force was inadequate to the nuclear delivery task (estimated at around 1985) and the B-2 force was not yet ready. The design was modified to the B-1B due to different performance requirements, which reduced speed at altitude, but also reduced its radar signature and increased its speed at sea level. The plane was never that good in a high-threat environment, but was strictly better than the B-52 in absolutely every area except range, which means bupkiss with in-flight refueling. In fact, it's even cheaper to operate than the B-52 it outperforms!

In terms of performance, the B-1B can only maintain Mach 1.25 at altitude, but can go Mach 0.92 at sea level, which is good but not great. Where it excels is payload. It can carry 34,000 kg internally and 23,000 kg externally, which is more than the combined payload of the B-52 (31,500) and B-2 (18,000, suggested 23,000 theoretical max), and 40% more than the next highest, which is the Russian Tu-160 (40,000 kg). All while still being cheaper to fly! As such, it still has a few decades left in it, if for no other reason than the B-52s have to be replaced first.

Mizushima's tweets (meant to address these):

Mirage F1

F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II

MiG-25 "Foxbat"

The ultimate overhyped aircraft, the MiG-25 was originally developed as a response to the US XB-70 Valkyrie, which greatly worried Soviet planners. When the XB-70 was canceled, the MiG-25 program continued as a possible means of intercepting those annoying U-2 and SR-71 overflights.

To that end, the Soviets developed a 1-trick pony. The plane was literally built around its giant engines, and everything was sacrificed for speed, altitude and rate of climb. Range was poor - it was intended for home defense anyway. And while it could fly very high and very fast, it was no fighter - many strike aircraft could outmaneuver it even with full bomb loads! Recognizing this, it had no cannon, and relied completely on 4 R-40 (NATO: AA-6 Acrid) medium-range missiles, which compared favorably to then-current western missiles. As a strike aircraft, it was high-altitude only, and had a bomb load only on par with the Mirage F1. Even as an interceptor, its radar performance was merely adequate. However, while it couldn't dogfight and could not bomb well, its speed and altitude capabilities made it an excellent high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, where it spent much of its service life nearly untouchable, though still limited by anemic range. It was also extremely expensive to operate due to the impact of its performance on the relatively cheap construction.

Its combat record has been mixed. In the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqis claimed their MiG-25s shot down 19 fighters and 3 other planes, admitting 3 losses. Independent sources question Iraqi claims (duh!), and cite up to 10 MiG-25s getting downed, mostly by the F-14 + AIM-54 combo. Against Israel, several MiG-25s were downed over Lebanon by F-15s, but MiG-25R reconnaissance flights proved to be unstoppable throughout the '70s and much of the '80s. In the Gulf Wars, a MiG-25 shot down an F/A-18, and another shot down a Predator. A number of hit-and-run attacks also met some success (no kills, but missions aborted), and the MiGs literally outran the response. Nonetheless, several Foxbats were downed.

The MiG-25 was further developed into the MiG-31, which reduced speed in order to provide improved reliability, slightly more agility, and most importantly, vastly improved radar and missiles. The plane has a powerful radar and up to 8 missiles - 4 R-37 (NATO: AA-9 "Amos"), which were second only to the US Phoenix in range when introduced, and 4 smaller missiles for defense. This made it second only to the F-14 in long-range engagement capability, and not that far behind. And only almost guaranteed death if the enemy gets close.

The main legacy of the MiG-25 was its hype - its performance was so overestimated by western analysts that the phenomenal F-15 Eagle was developed in part to counter it, and the F-15 blows the MiG-25 out of the water in pretty much every area except the 3 the MiG-25 was built around, while approaching or matching it even in those. Most former Soviet republics retired their fleets on cost and serviceability issues, and only a handful of other nations ever got them. Still, the MiG-25 remains in service with the Syrian, Algerian, and Azerbaijan Air Forces, and its successor, the MiG-31, still serves in the Kazakh and Russian Air Forces.

ErwinJAMar 2, 2015 3:10 AM

Feb 12, 2015 9:51 PM

#34

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

I'm not sure why you describe the XB-70 Valkyrie as "failed". Also, you say
that there would have been no missile effective against it until the early 1970s.
However, on June 8th, 1966, it was demonstrated that the XB-70 could be
downed simply by smashing an F-104 Starfighter into it. This was learned in
an accident where four other military aircraft were flying in tight formation
with a prototype XB-70 in an attempt at taking a nice memento photograph.
Rather than calling the XB-70 "failed", maybe "forgotten" is a better word.
Even though 1960s infrared-guided and radar-guided missiles could not have
downed the Valkyrie, maybe F-104s would present some kind of hazard.

In any case, thanks for the awesome info!!!

- - - - - - - - - -

I just checked Tsutomu Mizushima's personal Twitter account. He has not
tweeted anything weapon-related or aircraft-related since that tweet that
I mentioned a long time ago. However, he did send out a tweet twenty
hours ago where he wondered out loud about the blood type of that newbie
voice actress.

okanaganFeb 12, 2015 9:54 PM

Feb 13, 2015 3:34 PM

#35

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

okanagan said:
I'm not sure why you describe the XB-70 Valkyrie as "failed". Also, you say
that there would have been no missile effective against it until the early 1970s.
However, on June 8th, 1966, it was demonstrated that the XB-70 could be
downed simply by smashing an F-104 Starfighter into it. This was learned in
an accident where four other military aircraft were flying in tight formation
with a prototype XB-70 in an attempt at taking a nice memento photograph.
Rather than calling the XB-70 "failed", maybe "forgotten" is a better word.
Even though 1960s infrared-guided and radar-guided missiles could not have
downed the Valkyrie, maybe F-104s would present some kind of hazard.

In any case, thanks for the awesome info!!!

- - - - - - - - - -

I just checked Tsutomu Mizushima's personal Twitter account. He has not
tweeted anything weapon-related or aircraft-related since that tweet that
I mentioned a long time ago. However, he did send out a tweet twenty
hours ago where he wondered out loud about the blood type of that newbie
voice actress.

The program was a failure. Its goal was to create a bomber that could reliably deliver nuclear bombs to strategic targets in the Soviet Union. The resulting plane could not. Yes, the escorting F-104 getting sucked into the wingtip and taking both planes down had a significant impact on the program, but the truth was that planes, like other weapons, are not designed based only on current threats, but potential future ones as well. While it was not until the early '70s that improved S-200 (NATO: SA-5 "Gammon") missiles came out, the XB-70 was not ready for service yet in 1966 either. The S-200 (SA-5A) entered service in 1967, and the XB-70 could only just barely fly over its engagement envelope. The S-200V came out in 1970, and could, in theory, engage the XB-70 easily. At that point, the XB-70 became obsolescent.

In truth, high-altitude penetration was already being replaced by low-altitude starting in the early '60s. The Soviet Union proved it could shoot down previously uninterceptable high altitude aircraft like the U-2 in 1960, and had long-range, high-altitude SAMs by 1970. However, it's first look-down/shoot-down radar did not appear until 1972, and it was not until the 1980s that truly effective ones came out. It was also not until 1984 that the Soviet Union deployed an effective AEW aircraft.

Overall, the XB-70 program was indeed a failure. It was a failure because, by the time they had a plane flying, it was already becoming clear that the requirements it had been designed to fill were no longer valid. There were a number of other issues, such as the fuel situation, but the main problem was simply it was built to an obsolete standard. Even the SR-71 rarely flew over areas protected by S-200s, and they had a lot more leeway in going around things than a bomber would.

By comparison, the decision to shelve the B-1A was also due to its design no longer reflecting the threats it would face. Even then, the final choice to cancel the program came because it was projected that the B-52H with AGM-86 ALCMs should to be sufficient to the task until 1985, when the USSR would be getting better long-range look-down radars, and the USAF would get its next-generation bomber. Even when they did that, it was specifically considered a low-cost interim solution while they waited for the B-2. Modifying the B-52 was cheaper than building new planes, and the B-2 would provide a quantum leap in capability, or so they thought. Thus, the B-1 program suffered a similar fate to the XB-70 for much the same reason, and was only reinstated because the B-2 program ended up getting delayed by 12 years (and cut from 132 to 75 and then 20).
Ironically, of course, the original design that was dumbed down for cost-cutting reasons would have been superior to the final B-1B.

The real reason the B-1B saw service, while the XB-70 didn't, was that the use of ALCMs meant it didn't have to go into the teeth of enemy defenses, and thus, just being faster and with a significantly lower RCS than the B-52 gave it just (barely) enough survivability to do the nuclear strike job. Even then, it was an emergency stop-gap measure, not intended to be the future mainstay that it almost became.

ErwinJAFeb 18, 2015 5:16 AM

Feb 26, 2015 2:17 PM

#36

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

Episode 20:

Dead Sea Spa:

While the Dead Sea itself is known for how well people float in it* (and its abrasion locating capabilities), that's not all it has to offer. Traditionally, those going into the sea first smear themselves with the mud found at its shore. Initially, this mud was known for its powerful healing properties - effectively treating a number of skin conditions. However, further research showed that it also excelled in maintenance, leading to an internationally-renowned line of skin-care products. The unique combination of minerals found in the soil and water has no known analogue anywhere else in the natural world, and has also yet to be reproduced synthetically. Thus, the Dead Sea is arguably the best place in the world to go for skin care. It's only natural a girl would want to go to a spa there.

However, this is actually all in danger. The Jordan River is the only source of water inflow for the Dead Sea, but is also the primary source of water for much of the populations of Israel and Palestine, as well as parts of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Between irrigation and direct human use, 70-90% of the river's water is taken by humans. Due to the massive influx of people starting in the 1940s, the river has been increasingly unable to replenish the Dead Sea's water at a rate sufficient to counter evaporation. Since measurement began in 1930, the water level has dropped by 39 meters (130 feet), and is continuing to drop by about 1 meter per year. Surface area has naturally been affected as well, with an almost 43% reduction during the same period - most of the now-dry area becoming salt flats.

In recent years, Israel and Jordan have begun working together on possible plans to "save" the Dead Sea. One project involves pumping water from the Red Sea to Jordan, desalinizing it for use in Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank, and then sending the brine and wastewater to the Dead Sea. Environmentalists, however, fear this could alter the unique chemical composition of the soil and water in the area, as well as damage ecosystems in the Red Sea (some nice reefs that way). Other proposals involve changing policy for water use of the Jordan River so that more reaches the Dead Sea. A combination of those efforts would probably be best - pumping water from the Red Sea and Mediterranean in order to reduce the burden on the Jordan River.

Regardless of the method, however, there will be consequences. The only method that would really save the area without significant environmental impact would be a massive reduction in population.

*Having been there, I challenge anyone who goes to dive more than 1 meter below the surface. It's much harder than you'd think.

Fighter Generations (Not directly addressed in the series, but relevant):

You may have looked at various aircraft in this and other shows and seen planes identified as 4th and 5th, or even 4.5th Generation aircraft. Believe it or not, there are actually criteria here, with new generations being identified based on revolutionary changes in aircraft design.

1st Generation aircraft were powered by non-afterburning turbojet engines, and aside from their engines and, in some cases, moderately swept wings, they were otherwise similar to piston-engine aircraft of their day. They had the same flight and fire control systems, and the same cannon and rocket armament. In fact, their only real advantage over piston-engine fighters of the time was speed. These planes include the not only the German Me-262 and British Meteor, but also 1950s planes like the Soviet MiG-15 and American F-86. 1st Generation fighters were still able to compete, conditionally, through the 1960s and into he 1970s, where the MiG-17 saw some success. Some are still in use, most notably China's Q-5, which is a modified MiG-17.

The 2nd Generation appeared in the mid-1950s, and introduced afterburning engines, completely eliminated straight wings, increased the seep on swept wings, and consequently were able to break the sound barrier. This is also where radars started to see use on normal production aircraft instead of only specialized variants. Gun tracking systems and air-to-air missiles started to see use as well. The generation is exemplified by the US "century series," which began with the F-100 Super Sabre, and also included the MiG-19 and the iconic Mirage III. Many planes in this category served past 2000, with some still in service in third-world air forces.

The 3rd Generation started in the 1960s. These saw the first computerized systems thanks to breakthroughs in electronics, and the missile became not only a standard weapon, but the weapon of choice in aerial combat. Beyond-visual-range capabilities started to appear, as did aircraft powered by high-bypass turbofans, which were more fuel efficient at cruise speed and also often had a higher top speed while afterburning than turbojets. These also saw advances in control surfaces that dramatically improved agility compared to second-generation aircraft. Variable geometry wings were also introduced with this generation. All of the "main" fighters in 3rd Aerial Girls Squad are 3rd Generation aircraft, with other notable entries being the MiG-21 and F-5. With upgrades, many of these are still flying today as a cost-effective alternative to more modern fighters.

4th-Generation fighters started appearing in the late 1970s and introduced two things that together just blew the competition out of the water: modern computer systems and fly-by-wire controls. The fly-by-wire system, itself made possible by computers, not only improved responsiveness, but allowed planes that were inherently unstable to be designed. These planes were much more agile due to that instability, but would be literally impossible to pilot without computerized systems making constant corrections. The computerized systems also made upgrades easier than ever, with new hardware being much easier to integrate and many improvements occurring just with new software. Turbofans became standard with these aircraft. BVR engagement capability also became standard. 4th generation fighters are not only the mainstay of most modern air forces today, but they're still being developed - India's indigenous Tejas, in its initial configuration, is a 4th generation aircraft, as are China and Pakistan's JF-17/FC-1 and China's J-10. Others include the iconic F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29S (early variants arguably don't quite qualify), Su-27, Tornado, and Mirage 2000.

5th generation aircraft are a bit more difficult. You see, there's a lot of disagreement, mostly among countries and manufacturers trying to up-play their own products, as to what constitutes it. The only unarguably 5th generation fighter in service is the US F-22 Raptor, which introduced numerous revolutionary features. One of these was a low-bypass turbofan engine, which allows speeds in excess of the speed of sound without use of afterburner (aka: supercruise). Another was the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, which was a quantum leap in radar technology that allowed for greatly reduced radar signature by eliminating the classic "dish," greater capabilities in jamming and burning through enemy jamming, frequency hopping that makes identifying its signals as being from a single radar source difficult (aka LPI - Low Probability of Intercept), and greater detection and tracking zones without the need for moving parts. Communications improvements led to a data-link system that allowed aircraft to actually share targeting information with each other (and AWACS or ground radars), giving them the ability to even shoot without using their own sensors! Thrust vectoring was also introduced for the first time on a non VTOL aircraft. And, of course, the stealthy airframe. Most of those features are considered hallmarks of the 5th generation. While the F-22 is the only one that has them right now, the F-35 is entering service soon, and Russia/India, South Korea/Indonesia, Japan, Sweden, China, and Turkey all have programs that could produce a genuine 5th generation fighter within the next 10 years.

4.5 Generation is kind of an after-the-fact marketing ploy that indicates planes with 4th generation airframes and 5th generation components, mostly avionics. It's been used to identify planes like the F-15SE and latest F-16 and F/A-18 upgrades which simply have an AESA radar, data link, and maybe some slightly improved stealth features. Russia says the same of its latest Su-27 variants, including newer Su-30s and the Su-35. Again, based on the radar more than anything else. It's also been coined for the Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale, which boast supercruise capability in addition to the radar and data link - but their manufacturers would still like to call them 5th generation! Since most 4.5 generation fighters are simple upgrades of 4th generation ones, they're an attractive and cost-effective means of generating a capability that many nations otherwise couldn't afford - and is more than adequate in the near term considering how few nations are getting genuine 5th generation aircraft.

ErwinJAFeb 27, 2015 6:02 PM

Feb 27, 2015 10:21 PM

#37

zeroyuki92

Offline

Nov 2010

791

I simply would like to drop by and say that this thread is brilliant. While I still can't even identify different aircrafts (especially jet), some general informations and explanations of technical jargons are much appreciated. Moreover, discussion about that aircraft in ep. 17 is magnificently awesome that my sides was slightly displaced for a while.

Anyway, I find that identifying aircrafts is simply much harder than identifying its ground counterpart, tanks. While tanks usually have some very distinctive physical features (especially pre-MBT), I find that for planes I have to rely on more subtle, hard to notice details. Do you have some good method/works to read/play/watch as an introduction for airplane world? While I don't intend to become some expert or avid fans (not really into airplanes from the very beginning), I also would like to learn something new and that also would be beneficial if I'm working on some military theme in the future.

Feb 28, 2015 9:42 AM

#38

vegetablespirit

Offline

Mar 2014

2421

Somewhat irrelevant, but anyone interested in Shirobako and aircraft may find this video amusing.

Mar 1, 2015 11:21 PM

#39

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

zeroyuki92 said:
I simply would like to drop by and say that this thread is brilliant. While I still can't even identify different aircrafts (especially jet), some general informations and explanations of technical jargons are much appreciated. Moreover, discussion about that aircraft in ep. 17 is magnificently awesome that my sides was slightly displaced for a while.

Anyway, I find that identifying aircrafts is simply much harder than identifying its ground counterpart, tanks. While tanks usually have some very distinctive physical features (especially pre-MBT), I find that for planes I have to rely on more subtle, hard to notice details. Do you have some good method/works to read/play/watch as an introduction for airplane world? While I don't intend to become some expert or avid fans (not really into airplanes from the very beginning), I also would like to learn something new and that also would be beneficial if I'm working on some military theme in the future.

It's very much an aspect of familiarity. The more you look at them, the more you start to notice the differences. Museums can be great here (I went to both Wright-Patterson AFB and the National Aerospace Museum several times each).
Tanks aren't necessarily easy either. While it's not too hard to tell the difference between a Challenger 2 and a T-90, you still have to know what you're looking for to differentiate between a T-72 and a T-80, for example. And yes, I identify AFVs too ;-)

As you suggest, you can make a bit of a checklist yourself. There are a few things that can really narrow things down:

1) Planform. This is the term for the general shape of the fuselage and wings, with the wing configuration being the most obvious. Wings come in three main categories: straight, swept, and delta, with configuration including where they're mounted in relation to the fuselage (high, low, mid) as well as how they're integrated. There are also a few oddball shapes, like trapezoidal (only used by the US), which also limit number of possible planes.
The most common configuration on modern aircraft are cropped tailed delta and basic tailed delta. For modern (3rd generation or later) combat aircraft, any other form reduces it to only a handful of options.

2) Engines. Aside from the patently obvious number of engines, their relative size and placement is worth noting. But even more important are the intakes. The size, shape, and location of the intakes can be a major giveaway. For example, I identified the Kfir from other Mirage III versions due to the small extra intake at the base of the vertical stabilizer (aka tail or dorsal fin). On the other hand, the F-16 has a rounded one that looks like a squashed circle on the underside behind the cockpit - unique enough that only its Mitsubishi F-2 derivative really copies it. The odd-looking nose intake on the MiG-21 is similarly distinct. The F-15 has boxy ones that slant down and back, and are situated almost right next to the cockpit. The MiG-29 and Su-27 have similar shaped intakes, but underneath the plane and mounted further back. And so on.

95% of identification will come from those basic things. It's only when things get more specific, like identifying an F-35A from an F-35B (check the structure on the top, behind the cockpit), that you really have to delve into the minutiae. There, not unlike with tanks, you look for things like bulges, relative length of components, and other things.

At the early stages, it helps to bring up an image gallery and start just comparing. That's actually what I did here - I used my basic knowledge to narrow it down and just cycled through the possibilities while checking clearly unique characteristics.

ErwinJAMar 2, 2015 2:59 AM

Mar 6, 2015 12:03 PM

#40

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

What is that aircraft that we see at the very start of Third Aerial Girls Squad,
Episode 1? It is visible from 11:48 to 11:51 in Episode 21. It has United States
markings. It seems to be multi-engined, perhaps turboprop. We are seeing it
close-up from behind the right wing. I checked Mizushima's Twitter, and so far
he hasn't said anything about it. The two "exhaust ports" on the back of the
"engine nacelle" look very distinctive. At first, I was thinking about the Lockheed
C-130 Hercules, but that's not it.

okanaganMar 27, 2015 7:40 AM

Mar 6, 2015 12:17 PM

#41

zeroyuki92

Offline

Nov 2010

791

Thank you very much for the reply. I'm actually not from a country with significant military history (Only traditional guirella warfare at pre/shortly post independence, and some minor border conflicts/small scale aggresions), so military museum is out from the option. Occasional military parade is the best alternative available I think.

In fact, most of my small knowledge of military knowledge and vehicle identifications stem from reading history books/article/wiki, since my country didn't even put worldwide history in the school curriculum, including WW1/2. Thus, my knowledge of tanks/aircrafts (which was nil before college) rely on my later reading of their past roles in war, since their characteristics and features were heavily influenced by mindset, situation and performance in actual battle. Modern vehicles, on the other side, in my current mindset is much harder to relate since they actual presence in actual conflict is much more limited.

That said, studying various planforms is indeed the best place to start learning, currently reading wiki and other sources about them. Again, thank you very much for the help.

Mar 27, 2015 6:40 AM

#42

Offline

Dec 2007

2698

okanagan said:
What is that aircraft that we see at the very start of Third Aerial Girls Squad,
Episode 1? It is visible from 11:48 to 11:51 in Episode 21. It has United States
markings. It seems to be multi-engined, perhaps turboprop. We are seeing it
close-up from behind the right wing. I checked Mizushima's Twitter, and so far
he hasn't said anything about it. The two "exhaust ports" on the back of the
"engine nacelle" look very distinctive. At first, I was think about the Lockheed
C-130 Hercules, but that's not it.

Sorry for the delay here - I didn't notice someone had posted :P
The reason I didn't do much with that is that it's a piss-poor angle for identification. However, if you look closely, you can see a rather distinct tail with multiple vertical stabilizers. The tail form, while somewhat iconic, is actually very rare. In the US, you can count the number of planes that have ever had that on your fingers, with a few left over. 2 of them are from WWII (B-24 Liberator and B-25 Mitchell). 1 is a jet (A-10 Thunderbolt II). The C-121 Constellation, military version of the Lockheed Constellation airliner, is a bit old compared to the other planes. It was removed in the very early '70s, before many of the fighters even saw service! The E-1 Tracer, the US Navy's first carrier-based airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft also got retired too early. That leaves two planes: the E-2 Hawkeye and its C-2 Greyhound derivative. These replaced the E-1 and its C-1 counterpart (which had a normal tail configuration) in the 1960s. A check of the engines, whose design is also rather distinct, confirms that it's one of these.

Differentiating between the two is harder. But, in the upper left, an angled structure is visible. It's nearly impossible to distinguish whether its the tail or coming from the upper fuselage, but it doesn't matter - the C-2's tail is almost perfectly flat, with stabilizers therefore being almost perfectly vertical, so you wouldn't see anything angled like that. On the E-2, however, the tail is angled slightly, and there are of course the struts for holding the radar. We therefore have this identified conclusively as an E-2 Hawkeye, though it's impossible to discern the specific variant based on the picture - that requires a good look at the tail, preferably from a side view.

MiG-21S

In the final episode, they ask Mi-Chan's company about a MiG-21 model, and to have it modified to MiG-21S. Numerically, the MiG-21 is one of the most important fighter aircraft in the world, and by far the most produced 3+ generation fighter. Even today, over 1000 are in service with 18 nations. Add in the Chinese J-7, which is mostly a copy with different avionics, and the number increases to over 1850 in 29 air forces. All told, nearly 14,000 MiG-21s and their derivatives were produced, which is more than the three most built western gen 3+ fighters combined!

Now, those who have been following the thread may remember the discussion about missile loads for the MiG-21. That's actually what the MiG-21S distinction is about. The original MiG-21F had cannon and rockets only, and saw only limited production. It was also lightly armed with just 2 30mm cannons, and 2 hard points for bombs or rocket pods. That was it. The first mass produced variant was the MiG-21F-13, which was a stopgap measure due to delays in the P-13 variant. This had only one cannon with reduced ammunition, but carried two K-13 (NATO: AA-2 Atoll) missiles. Two squadrons worth of F-13s were delivered to North Vietnam in 1965, and saw frequent action during Operation Rolling Thunder from 1966-1968. Being directed by ground-based radars, these ran hit-and-run missions where they'd pull up (undetected) behind enemy planes, fire, and run away at full speed. With little chance of either evading or engaging, US aircraft suffered heavily against these tactics. Large numbers also saw action against Israel in the Six-Day War under both Syrian and Egyptian command. They fared poorly, with Egypt losing all but 10 of its 200+ plane force, mostly to IAF surprise attacks on airfields and friendly fire.

That delayed P-13 evolved into the first all-weather interceptor variant, the MiG-21PF (the F-13 was a fair-weather day-only fighter). The PF followed the same flawed thinking that plagued the F-4 Phantom II, which led to it having its internal guns removed and no provision for external weapons. A specialized version, the PFL, was designed to Vietnamese requirements and served alongside the F-13s. A version with upgraded radar and more missile options appeared in the PFM, which, in later units, had provisions for a gun pod underneath the fuselage. PFs also saw heavy use (and losses) in the Six-Day War, and PFMs in later stages of the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War.

This leads to the MiG-21S. The S version had slight changes to the airframe, mainly a "saddle" tank with additional fuel situated in the upper fuselage, and (most importantly) it now had four underwing hard points instead of 2. In addition, 2 of these were "wet," being able to mount fuel tanks to further extend the anemic range that had always plagued the design. It could also fire a semi-active radar version of the K-13 missile. The MiG-21S was only used by the Soviet Air Force, and never offered for export. A downgraded version with an older model radar and a built-in cannon (MiG-21M) was instead offered, and saw action in the Yom Kippur War.

The MiG-21S and M were further developed into the SM and MF, which would form the backbone of many Soviet client air forces throughout the 1970s. These mainly included improved engines and expanded weapon options to include the new R-60 (NATO: AA-8 Aphid) missile, which replaced the K-13. There was only one major variant after those - the MiG-21bis, which was not exported until the very late 1970s. It mainly had engine and avionics improvements.

All told, about 60 nations flew MiG-21s, and over a dozen more used the Chinese knockoff. They amount to almost every African nation that has fielded fighter aircraft (South Africa & Morocco being the main exceptions) and every Asian nation that was not aligned with the west through the entire cold war. They fought in Vietnam, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1967-70 Egyptian-Israeli War of Attrition, the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the early phases of the Angolan Civil War (1975-1991), the Syrian interventions in the Lebanese Civil War (and subsequent conflicts) from 1975 to 1985, the 1977 Ethiopian-Somali War, the 1977 Libyan-Egyptian War, the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, and the 1991 Gulf War. MiG-21s also saw ground-attack only operations in numerous other conflicts. However, only in Indian, Ethiopian, and Vietnamese service did they actually achieve notable results. In every conflict involving Israel (and the Gulf War), they ranged from faring rather poorly to getting absolutely slaughtered, and in most other conflicts, their record was mixed - neither terrible nor impressive. But they remained the planes most likely to be fought by almost any air force up through the 1990s.

ErwinJAMar 27, 2015 9:16 AM

Mar 27, 2015 7:31 AM

#43

Offline

Oct 2012

1917

Thank you. In fact, the E-2A Hawkeye was one of the ten aircraft listed on
somebody's computer screen at some point earlier in the series. Sorry, but I
don't know which episode it was. My assumption is that the list was for those
aircraft for which 3D models had been created.

1. MiG-23ML Flogger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23
2. Kfir C2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir
3. JA-37 Yakuto Viggen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
4. F-4D Phantom II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II
5. Mitsubishi F-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-1
6. E-2A Hawkeye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye
7. MC-130E Combat Talon I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_MC-130
8. F-22 Raptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
9. F-35A Lightning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
10. B-1B Lancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

I have no idea what difference the "A" in "E-2A Hawkeye" signifies. In any case,
it is about the weirdest-looking airplane that I can imagine, and the design of its
tail is absolutely astounding. I can only guess at what design considerations led
them to do it that way.

okanaganMar 27, 2015 7:38 AM

Mar 27, 2015 9:35 AM

#44