Set. AV2 Flashcards Quizlet. Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, andor clandesetine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations forces are trained and capable of undertaking challenging tasks, especially for longer periods of time in covert situations in sensitive environment and enemy controlled areas. Sub elements Agile combat support, Aviation foreign internal defense, Battlefield air operations, command control, Information operations, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ISR, Military information support operations, precise strike, specialize air mobility, specialized refueling. Search the worlds information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what youre looking for. Robins Afb Co Op Program Programs' title='Robins Afb Co Op Program Programs' />Benefits Enrollment for 2018 is Closed. Norman employees visit benefitsenrollment. HSC employees visit benefitsenrollment. Chapter 10 Respiratory System STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION. Morton Lippmann. The respiratory system extends from the breathing zone just outside of the nose and mouth. AS0 Reserved ASAS1 LVLT1 Level 3 Communications, Inc. AS2 UDELDCN University of Delaware AS3 MITGATEWAYS Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Start studying SetAV2. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Cancelled contract for North American F93A 49049058 Cancelled contract for Kellett YH10A 49059068 Cancelled contract for North American F93A 49. Paulo 49074 So 46318 do 40723 Brasil 38043 da 37922 Da 35214 US 33367 Folha 2900 Local 19724 Reportagem 1790 Jos 15364. The General Dynamics F111 Aardvark was a supersonic, mediumrange interdictor and tactical attack aircraft that also filled the roles of strategic nuclear bomber. Kilauea Mount Etna Mount Yasur Mount Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira Piton de la Fournaise Erta Ale. General Dynamics F 1. Aardvark Wikipedia. The General Dynamics F 1. Aardvark was a supersonic, medium range interdictor and tacticalattack aircraft that also filled the roles of strategic nuclear bomber, aerial reconnaissance, and electronic warfare aircraft in its various versions. Developed in the 1. General Dynamics, it first entered service in 1. United States Air Force. The Royal Australian Air Force RAAF also ordered the type and began operating F 1. Cs in 1. 97. 3. The F 1. Its design influenced later variable sweep wing aircraft, and some of its advanced features have since become commonplace. The F 1. 11 suffered a variety of problems during initial development. Several of its intended roles, such as an aircraft carrier based naval interceptor with the F 1. B, failed to materialize. Select Course Date, Location, Provider andor Type to refine your search. USAF F 1. 11 variants were retired in the 1. F 1. 11. Fs in 1. EF 1. 11s in 1. 99. The F 1. 11 was replaced in USAF service by the F 1. E Strike Eagle for medium range precision strike missions, while the supersonic bomber role has been assumed by the B 1. B Lancer. The RAAF was the last operator of the F 1. December 2. 01. 0. DevelopmenteditEarly requirementseditThe May 1. U 2 incident, in which an American CIAU 2 spy plane was shot down over the USSR, stunned the United States government. Besides greatly damaging US Soviet relations, the incident showed that the Soviet Union had developed a surface to air missile that could reach aircraft above 6. The United States Air Force. Strategic Air Command SAC and the RAF Bomber Commands plans to send subsonic, high altitude B 4. V bomber formations into the USSR were now much less viable. By 1. SAC had begun moving to low level penetration which greatly reduced radar detection distances. At the time, SAMs were ineffective against low flying aircraft, and interceptor aircraft had less of a speed advantage at low altitudes. The Air Forces Tactical Air Command TAC was largely concerned with the fighter bomber and deep strikeinterdiction roles. TAC was in the process of receiving its latest design, the Republic F 1. Thunderchief, which was designed to deliver nuclear weapons fast and far, but required long runways. A simpler variable geometry wing configuration with the pivot points farther out from the aircrafts centerline was reported by NASA in 1. This led Air Force leaders to encourage its use. Game Virtual Jenna Gratis there. In June 1. USAF issued specification SOR 1. Soviet air defenses at very low altitudes and high speeds. The specification also called for the aircraft to operate from short, unprepared airstrips. In the 1. United States Navy sought a long range, high endurance interceptor aircraft to protect its carrier battle groups against long range anti ship missiles launched from Soviet jet bombers and submarines. The Navy needed a fleet air defense FAD fighter with a more powerful radar, and longer range missiles than the F 4 Phantom II to intercept both enemy bombers and missiles. Seeking a FAD fighter, the Navy started with the subsonic, straight winged aircraft, the Douglas F6. D Missileer in the late 1. The Missileer was designed to carry six long range missiles and loiter for five hours, but would be defenseless after firing its missiles. The program was formally canceled in 1. The Navy had tried variable geometry wings with the XF1. F Jaguar, but abandoned it in the early 1. It was NASAs simplification which made the variable geometry wings practical. By 1. Variable geometry offered high speeds, and maneuverability with heavier payloads, long range, and the ability to takeoff and land in shorter distances. Tactical Fighter Experimental TFXeditThe U. S. Air Force and Navy were both seeking new aircraft when Robert Mc. Namara was appointed Secretary of Defense in January 1. The aircraft sought by the two armed services shared the need to carry heavy armament and fuel loads, feature high supersonic speed, twin engines and two seats, and probably use variable geometry wings. On 1. 4 February 1. Mc. Namara formally directed the services to study the development of a single aircraft that would satisfy both requirements. Early studies indicated that the best option was to base the design on the Air Force requirement, and use a modified version for the Navy. In June 1. 96. 1, Secretary Mc. Namara ordered the go ahead of Tactical Fighter Experimental TFX, despite Air Force and Navy efforts to keep their programs separate. The side by side seating adopted in the F 1. The Air Force and the Navy could agree only on swing wing, two seat, twin engine design features. The Air Force wanted a tandem seat aircraft for low level penetration ground attack, while the Navy wanted a shorter, high altitude interceptor with side by side seating to allow the pilot and radar operator to share the radar display. Also, the Air Force wanted the aircraft designed for 7. Mach 2. 5 speed at altitude and Mach 1. The Navy had less strenuous requirements of 6 g with Mach 2 speed at altitude and high subsonic speed approx. Mach 0. 9 at low level with a length of 5. The Navy also wanted the aircraft with a nose large enough for a 4. Mc. Namara developed a basic set of requirements for TFX based largely on the Air Forces requirements and, on 1 September 1. Air Force to develop it. A request for proposals RFP for the TFX was provided to industry in October 1. In December, proposals were received from Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Mc. Donnell, North American and Republic. The evaluation group found all the proposals lacking, but Boeing and General Dynamics were selected to submit enhanced designs. Boeings proposal was recommended by the selection board in January 1. Switching to a crew escape capsule, instead of ejection seats and alterations to radar and missile storage were also needed. Both companies provided updated proposals in April 1. Air Force reviewers favored Boeings offering, while the Navy found both submissions unacceptable for its operations. Two more rounds of updates to the proposals were conducted, with Boeing being picked by the selection board. In November 1. 96. Mc. Namara selected General Dynamics proposal due to its greater commonality between Air Force and Navy versions. The Boeing aircraft shared less than half of the major structural components. General Dynamics signed the TFX contract in December 1. A Congressional investigation followed, but could not change the selection. Design phaseeditThe F 1. A and B variants used the same airframe structural components and Pratt Whitney TF3. P 1 turbofan engines. They featured side by side crew seating in an escape capsule as required by the Navy. The F 1. 11. Bs nose was 8. The Navy version would carry an ANAWG 9. Pulse Doppler radar and AIM 5. Phoenix missiles. The Air Force version would carry the ANAPQ 1. ANAPQ 1. 10terrain following radar and air to ground armament. A team of engineers at General Dynamics was led by Robert H. Widmer. 2. 1Lacking experience with carrier based fighters, General Dynamics teamed with Grumman for the assembly and testing of the F 1. B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would also build the F 1. As aft fuselage and the landing gear. The General Dynamics and Grumman team faced ambitious requirements for range, weapons load, and aircraft weight. The F 1. 11 design also included new features on a production military aircraft, such as variable geometry wings and afterburning turbofan engines.