Recently in Historical Category

I was intrigued to learn that UK farmer David Cundall may have located 20 or more Spitfires in Myanmar, buried in their original shipping crates. If the discovery turns out to be the real deal, it makes a fine counterpoint to Australia's decision last year to bury 23 F-111s beneath a landfill - apparently there is a very real concern with asbestos and other hazardous materials used in these old airframes.

Media reports suggest Cundall's plans are well advanced, with the aircraft having been located, and a camera shoved down a borehole to examine them. Cundall  learned of the aircraft speaking to British vets of the Burmese front. They claimed to have buried the aircraft in 1945 following the end of WWII.

Though the aircraft are reportedly well packaged in wax paper and so forth, one wonders how well preserved they could be. Sixty years underground in the soggy climate of Burma is a very long time. There are very good reasons why the USA stores old aircraft in the arid climes of Arizona and California as opposed to the swamps of Florida or Louisiana. All it would take is a few broken seals to corrode these Burmese Spitfires.

In any event, the west is having a love-in with the Burmese regime, which these days shows signs of becoming more democratic. A more open regime could well see Cundall's dream come true. Perhaps the old aircraft will be excavated and shipped home - just the thought of the paperwork and expense involved gives one pause - with a few examples becoming airworthy again someday.

In 2072 will Asian Skies write about a plan to dig up 23 former RAAF F-111s?

A Martin B-26 Marauder (above image courtesy of wp.scn.ru) has made its way to Taiwan, where the twin engine aircraft once flew reconnaissance missions over China. A media repot said the aircraft is part of an exchange deal between Taiwan's military and Portland's Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum.

According to the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) web site, the type was formerly used by its Black Cat squadron to snoop on China from 1958 until 1974, when the unit was disbanded.  Over this period Taiwanese B-26s completed 838 missions, but lost 15 aircraft.

These missions occurred at night at low level. Hairy stuff, if you asked me.

The B-26 arrived in three containers and will be restored to 'Black Cat' colours and be on display at a military museum in the port city of Kaohsiung.  In return for the B-26 the Portland museum will receive two former ROCAF F-5s.  

Below images courtesy of Taiwan Military News Agency.

I'm no aircraft disposal expert, but few, it seems to me, receive the dismal fate shared by 23 former RAAF F-111s. The fuselages of the iconic aircraft were last week buried in an Australian landfill, outraging the sensibilities of the nation's aviation geeks.

To be fair, Australia is offering seven F-111s to museums and other historical organizations, but the terms are onerous:

• Housing the aircraft in a completely enclosed facility;
• Ensuring members of the public are prevented from climbing into engine intakes and exhaust ducts;
• Limiting, controlling and supervising public access to the cockpit;
• Preventing the public from opening aircraft panels;
• Supervising public access to the wheel well and weapons bays;
• Completing specified preservation maintenance; and
• Meeting Commonwealth auditing and reporting requirements.

All this serves to completely rule out the conversion of the aircraft into playground equipment for schools. How cool would it be to have one these things in the school yard, the cockpit and engine housings open for children to play around in. It would mean stripping out most of the aircraft's hardware (engines, avionics, etc.) but it is better than burying the aircraft. The aircraft would have also made fine dive sites if sunk on the barrier reef. Hell, any of this is better than burying them.

On the other hand, burying them does ensure the airframes will be available for future archaeologists to pore over. Perhaps, thousands of years from now, one or two of these old birds will find itself in a museum after all. 

On a recent holiday I read The Age of Airpower by Martin Van Creveld. If reading something so obviously work related on holiday marks me as a workaholic then so be it. Perhaps worse, I couldn't put it down.

The book is an A-Z of military campaigns in which airpower played a role. Best of all it discussed a number of obscure campaigns, such as the Italians' use of airpower in Libya before World War I, and the British policy of Air Control in the interwar period.

It also details the role of airpower in the major wars, and how different airpower doctrines evolved and were executed by major the five main WWII belligerents - the USA, the UK, Russia, Japan, and Germany.

Through all this Van Crevald manages to weave the apprehension the world's army's and navies have always felt toward airpower. Armies feel airpower is best employed in a close support role, whereas air forces - ever mindful of their independence - see a bigger role, with airpower best employed in interdiction, or in knocking out the enemy's command and control systems as the US demonstrated in the first Gulf War.

Despite the positive title The Age of Airpower will give defence contractors cause to reflect. It points out that no two powers capable of making advanced fighters have engaged in hostilities since WWII owing to the threat of nuclear weapons, which he feels obviate the role of combat aircraft.

He also questions the wisdom of spending billions on expensive aircraft such as the F-22, F-35, and Eurofighter. These modern aircraft simply cannot be mass produced and rapidly deployed like the Mustangs, Spitfires, Focke Wolfes, and Messerschmitts of WWII.  In a modern war of attrition, he suggests, belligerents would soon be forced to fall back on less advanced systems.

All in all a great, entertaining read about a deeply fascinating subject.  

There has been an outcry in South Korea about the bizarre incident in which two Korean marines fired over 100 rounds at an Asiana A320 they mistook for a North Korean bomber. Oddly they did not shoot at the plane that over flew them 20 minutes earlier, and the ones before that - flight paths are, if anything, predictable.

Following the worrying incident (what if the marines had a MANPAD?) South Koreans are calling for improved training of their soldiers. I propose a simpler solution. Back in WWII soldiers were issued playing cards with aircraft silhouettes. The idea was to help them familiarize themselves with allied types. I'm not sure how many aircraft (if any) such cards saved from friendly fire, but it would be a good, low cost solution for the South Koreans and provided a much needed PR opportunity.