Read the forum code of contact
By: - 16th April 2011 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I’ve always assumed it was for bombing; and the tail-gun positions could indicate that these aircraft were to be used in a more hostile environment. I believe the navigator was stationed in the lower nose compartment and the duties of navigator and bomb-aimer are somewhat complimentary plus transport aircraft without glazed noses seem to manage not to get lost all the time.
On the subject of bombing-gear during one of the Gulf Wars US C-130 aircraft were used to drop huge bombs out of the rear cargo-doors (still on their loading pallets!) and I know that the C-130 was also used for bombing during the Vietnam War.
Interesting question, I’m sure somebody more knowledgeable will be along in a minute to correct my preconceptions. :)
By: - 16th April 2011 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is a pure guess on a quiet Saturday morning and please treat it as such, but Post-War British transports were specified with a secondary light bombing role, hence why Hastings, Beverley, Argosy etc have a flat bomb aimers glass in the nose. Smaller tyes such as Pembroke and Twin Pin could be configured for role.
Is it possible that the Soviets might have had the same secondary requirement?
By: - 16th April 2011 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding (founded on general chat) was that the glazing aided photography / reconniassance opportunities whilst making approaches over potentially sensitive areas.
This was highlighted by flight plans often being filed over sensitive sites / locations - pre 'Opensky' days to maximise opportunities for such activities! :confused:
By: - 16th April 2011 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It probably did, but the specifications of transports of the era included light bombing and the visual aiming of.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...hence why Hastings, Beverley, Argosy etc have a flat bomb aimers glass in the nose.
That’s a very good point; I’d forgotten how many RAF transports also had nose glazing.
I spotted this on holiday at the former Soviet airbase at Sármellék (now Sármellék International Airport :)) in Hungary.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting replies, chaps, thanks!
I'm a bit sceptical of the bombing element, because unless proper bomb racks are fitted, rolling out the back is lamentably inaccurate. As to using a heavy transport for light bombing, hmmm. I accept the British spec for that, daft as it may have been, but it doesn't follow that's the Russian view.
The bomb that CD's thinking of that the Americans dropped out of the back of Hercs was the BLU-82 (designed for the job, replacing the M 121) used in Vietnam to clear helicopter landing areas and in the first Gulf War for 'shock and awe' tactics, neither requiring major accuracy.
Defensive armament on a transport does not (I submit) imply any more agressive role is implicit - transports don't necessarily have a safe environment to fly in, even if they aren't bombers.
Would love to see some hard facts on Russian thinking, spcs, operational plans, as against reverse-engineering explanations...
Thanks again,
By: - 16th April 2011 at 10:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing sinister here, the windows are for accurate air drop of stores or meatbombs (parachutists).
The run in to the DZ is done exactly as for a bombrun and involves the navigator comparing the target to the mark on his map and rather than a bomb release button would call 'red on' at the initial point then 'green on' at the release point.
Albert didn't have the luxury of a nose window so the nav would have to squeeze in and lie on the floor to look out of the co-pilots ankle windows, this often involved some difficulty extracting some of the more ample navs. I have flown on ops missions where this method was used, but a lot of the time it was used when we were dropping the RAF Falcons. The J model of course uses a continuously calculated release point displayed in the HUD.
With regard to C130 dropping ordnance, there were a few nights we were warned not to get to close to some areas in Afghanistan as they were dropping daisy cutters,an old Vietnam era weapon, which even from a range of many miles were an impressive sight to see in the dark.
Also developed, but if memory serves me, never used in anger, is the MOAB. (Can't remember the proper name just the nickname Mother Of All Bombs) If you search for MOAB test drop on YoofTube, there used to be footage on there of it being delivered out of the back of Albert
By: - 16th April 2011 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The bomb that CD's thinking of that the Americans dropped out of the back of Hercs was the BLU-82 (designed for the job, replacing the M 121) used in Vietnam to clear helicopter landing areas and in the first Gulf War for 'shock and awe' tactics, neither requiring major accuracy.
Not sure that those Daisy Cutters were aimed as such!:eek:
I get there is a difference here aswel, fast jet transports as opposed to lumbering British Piston jobs.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 11:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting replies, chaps, thanks!I'm a bit sceptical of the bombing element, because unless proper bomb racks are fitted, rolling out the back is lamentably inaccurate.
Thanks again,
I really have to take issue with that statement, we flew, and as far as I am aware crews are still flying, highly accurate air drop missions in Afghanistan where loads are dropped within 15 feet of the DZ marker. I am not talking harness packs here, but 1 ton pallets of food and ammo to troops where there were enemy positions close enough to benefit from maldropped loads. I have seen double MSP drops with similar accuracy (an MSP is a platform which could contain for instance a LWB Land Rover).
Replace stores with ordnance and the Nav, Loady and Air Despatch Crew would make sure that the package was still received by the recipient with the same accuracy.
The Daisy Cutters used recently and MOAB both used GPS guidance to target, so their accuracy at release is not really relevant as the weapon will correct all the way down to the Impact Point
By: - 16th April 2011 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Baloffski, your expertise is acknowledged, and certainly I'm well aware of the accuracy of air drop loads, having recently researched similar for a feature on RAAF Hercs, and conversation with US Herc drivers and FEs. However it's the official US view on the BLU-82 that it was 'inaccurate' - not mine or my conclusion. Also the Russians 'dropped' (excuse pun) a version of the same ordinance delivery system from one of their transports for the same (inaccuracy) reasons. Why one load might be regarded as 'inaccurate' following - as you point out - essentially the same process as another that is regarded as 'highly accurate' I don't know.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Daisy Cutters used recently and MOAB both used GPS guidance to target...
How on earth do you use GPS guidance on something like that.....plus weren’t the BLU-82/B dropped with a rather unaerodynamic pallet attached? :confused:
During the Falklands there were reports of Argentine C-130 ‘rolling bombs off the cargo ramp’ against merchant ships; it later transpired that the C-130 involved had bomb racks fitted in place of the under-wing fuel-tanks but I wonder if the reports from the merchant ship crews were later ‘interpreted’ by some knowledge of those with similar experience or planning? Just a thought.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Civil Soviet airliners sometimes strayed off track near Strumble Head to take photos of the missile test facility at Aberporth West Wales.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 13:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding (founded on general chat) was that the glazing aided photography / reconniassance opportunities whilst making approaches over potentially sensitive areas.This was highlighted by flight plans often being filed over sensitive sites / locations - pre 'Opensky' days to maximise opportunities for such activities! :confused:
I would agree with the above, I remember years back (1970's) being at Cigli airforce base, Izmir, Turkey (USAF and Turkish Airforce) waiting for a Aeroflot An-12 to land with Cargo. The Turkish air traffic controller told me at the time that despite the long runway he anticipated the AN-12 to do an overshoot, purely to give the crew an oppurtunity to photograph the field. True to his word the aircraft did exactly that and landed second time around. Glass nose AN-12 CCCP11104, sneeky!
http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=19801028-1&vnr=1&kind=PC
By: - 16th April 2011 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While I don't disagree with the bomber sentiment, allow me to point out a few possible theories....
A lot of Soviet-era airliners were developed from bombers, so it may have been anneffort to keep development costs down. the Tu-104 it is said had the same nose section as the Tu-16..with something like 22 windows.
The Soviets actually did build some...the Tu-104 and Tu-114 come to mind.
While many western firms looked at turning jet bomber designs into airliners, I'm not aware of any that actualy went into production, most like civil variants of the Victor (H.P.111), Valiant (Type 1000) and B-58 (a military SST that I'm not sure was ever seriously marketed to airlines) remained paper planes only.
Airliners (as opposed to civil transports based on military designs like the civil Il-76s) designed by Ilyushin don't seem to have had glass noses. So it didn't seem to be a requirement.
Finally, I 've read that during the Soiet-era, full employement was mandatory, so that (along with the practical need for navigators flying in what can be assumed were parts of Russia that lacked modern Navaids) navigators were encouraged. My trusty Putnam's Soviet Transport Aircraft since 1945, by John Stroud 1968, points out that typical crews consisted of two pilots, radio operator, navigator, flight engineers...ceratinly a large crew for a jet during a period where western commercial operators were trtying to get rid of crew members through technology.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Going back to JDK's original question; all of the above doesn't really explain why various Soviet jet transports particularly the Tu-104, Tu-124 and Tu-134A had glazed noses. Surely, they wouldn't have been used for load dropping. And also, why didn't other Soviet manufacturers put glazed noses onto their aircraft, such as Ilyushin?
Just thought that I would stir it up a bit :diablo:
Cheers,
FC
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Slow fly by
There was a Soviet type that used to overfly RAF Muharaq(Bahrein)same time every day and very slowly so all the lower ranks would drop shorts and moon it as it flew over!Perhaps somewhere the photos still exist!!
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And also, why didn't other Soviet manufacturers put glazed noses onto their aircraft, such as Ilyushin?
Like the Ilyushin IL-76 pictured above?
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I really have to take issue with that statement, we flew, and as far as I am aware crews are still flying, highly accurate air drop missions in Afghanistan where loads are dropped within 15 feet of the DZ marker.
That's a bit of a pisser, when I was involved the safest place to be was the aiming point as it was garanteed to be the one place a pallet wouldn't land. It wasn't unknown to set up a BBQ & lawn chairs etc:cool: then wait for daylight to go looking all over the Mojave desert to find out where the hell everything landed.:mad:
I never heard of anyone getting hurt (or flattened into the landscape) but there were a couple of near misses when personal had wandered away from the safety of the target area... One guy was taking a leak, had a pallet land about 15ft in front of him & then suffered an attack of the screaming abdabs as he was tangled up in one of the chutes as he tried to run away.. :diablo:
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Civil Soviet airliners sometimes strayed off track near Strumble Head to take photos of the missile test facility at Aberporth West Wales.
We used to get Russian Trawlers with an amazing ammount of aerials off the coast from Valley when the buccs were doing Sea Eagle trials at STCAAME.
By: - 16th April 2011 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JDK, you got it right in your original post!
The glass noses on Tu-134s etc are for the navigator, when flying across Russian wastes. Very little in the way of radar, on the ground or in the aircraft!
Clearly they had other uses too...
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 16th April 2011 at 09:33
Here's a question I've never found a fully referenced answer to - why did most Russian transport aircraft have glazed lower noses, a la bomb-aimer positions? (Such as the Antonov An-12, Ilyushin Il-76.) As most of them were never equipped with bomb gear or so forth, I presume that's not what they were for, but for navigation in Russian wastes, perhaps? It's a different question to the (often the same) aircraft equipped with tail gun turrets - defensive is appropriate for transports, but offensive (bombing) a different thing.
Thanks in advance!