Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
for the B-52.

Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. It also was one of the first AC capable of
non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).

In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.

So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?

Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
than weight ratio.

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

On Nov 2, 11:31*pm, Bob Nixon > wrote:
> Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
> accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
> basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
> the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
> last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
> Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
> line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
> Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
> Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
> for the B-52.
>
> Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
> of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
> MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
> 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
> AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
> flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
> down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
> avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
> AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
> configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
> Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
> wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
> altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
> the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
> high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
> fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
> in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
> the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. *It also was one of the first AC capable of
> non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
> F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
> engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
> speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
> intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
> intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).
>
> In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
> variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
> small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
> XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
> to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
> designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
> vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.
>
> So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
> know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
> faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
> a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?
>
> Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
> type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
> big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
> must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
> at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
> than weight ratio.
>
> Thanks, Bob Nixon..

You might try this question over in rec.aviation.military.

Given the fuel usage and design/strength requirements and tradeoffs
for low speed vs high mach...why build a mach 3 fighter? Who are you
going up against? Stand off and go missiles (fire and forget) is the
rule, head to head not so much.

Given the AWACs advantage we don't need to outrun a mach 5 missile.

The name of the game is to specify for the NEXT war, not the LAST war.

Seeing a Russian fighter proceed horizontally with its long axis
vertical was an eye-opener.
Fighters dog-fighting at mach 2+ ain't gonna happen.
When cruise missiles and RPVs are in the armamentarium,
fast fighters' importance recedes and people start seeing usability in
something not unlike a P-51 again! :-)

Brian

Bob Nixon wrote:
> Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
> accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
> basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
> the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
> last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
> Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
> line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
> Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
> Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
> for the B-52.
>
> Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
> of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
> MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
> 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
> AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
> flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
> down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
> avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
> AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
> configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
> Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
> wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
> altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
> the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
> high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
> fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
> in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
> the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. It also was one of the first AC capable of
> non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
> F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
> engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
> speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
> intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
> intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).
>
> In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
> variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
> small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
> XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
> to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
> designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
> vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.
>
> So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
> know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
> faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
> a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?
>
> Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
> type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
> big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
> must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
> at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
> than weight ratio.
>
> Thanks, Bob Nixon..

On Nov 3, 11:14*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> The name of the game is to specify for the NEXT war, not the LAST war.
>
> Seeing a Russian fighter proceed horizontally with its long axis
> vertical was an eye-opener.
> Fighters dog-fighting at mach 2+ ain't gonna happen.
> * When cruise missiles and RPVs are in the armamentarium,
> * fast fighters' importance recedes and people start seeing usability in
> something not unlike a P-51 again! *:-)
>
> Brian
>
> Bob Nixon wrote:
> > Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
> > accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
> > basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
> > the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
> > last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
> > Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
> > line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
> > Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
> > Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
> > for the B-52.
>
> > Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
> > of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
> > MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
> > 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
> > AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
> > flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
> > down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
> > avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
> > AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
> > configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
> > Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
> > wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
> > altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
> > the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
> > high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
> > fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
> > in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
> > the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. *It also was one of the first AC capable of
> > non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
> > F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
> > engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
> > speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
> > intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
> > intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).
>
> > In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
> > variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
> > small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
> > XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
> > to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
> > designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
> > vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.
>
> > So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
> > know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
> > faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
> > a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?
>
> > Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
> > type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
> > big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
> > must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
> > at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
> > than weight ratio.
>
> > Thanks, Bob Nixon..

Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.

Bob..

On Nov 2, 10:31*pm, Bob Nixon > wrote:
> Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
> accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
> basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
> the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
> last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
> Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
> line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
> Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
> Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
> for the B-52.
>
> Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
> of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
> MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
> 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
> AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
> flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
> down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
> avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
> AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
> configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
> Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
> wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
> altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
> the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
> high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
> fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
> in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
> the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. *It also was one of the first AC capable of
> non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
> F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
> engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
> speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
> intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
> intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).
>
> In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
> variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
> small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
> XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
> to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
> designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
> vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.
>
> So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
> know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
> faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
> a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?
>
> Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
> type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
> big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
> must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
> at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
> than weight ratio.
>
> Thanks, Bob Nixon..
>
>

Thanks Richard I did drag out my non Google newsreader and found out
that COX still caries that group but it still irks me that we've been
doing near mach 3.0 dash speeds with aluminum airframes and bubble
canopies since the 60's (F-106 upgrade). So why are we hedging all our
cards on stealth technology that I know will soon be defeated by Russia
[1] (if it hasn't already) or others and meanwhile they're selling
their F/A AC at 1/2 the price of the US and other western countries.
At one time I thought this problem was due to the slower innate
airflow in the afterburner of turbofan engines but everyone including
the Russian's have switched to low bypass fan jets in their fighter
AC.I also think AWACS is ultimately too slow a system to help an
airplane from getting hit by a mach 6.0 radar or IR based missle
anymore than the built in jamming/chaff of the AC under attack and the
pilot's skill at maneuvering.

[1] just going up to a millimeter wave ground and eastern AC radars is
enough to at least partially defeat current stealth technology. And
IR, and sound / visual stealth is a big joke. Just listen and watch
the fire balls coming out of the ass end of an F-22 demo sometime;)

Bob Nixon..

On Nov 3, 3:57*pm, Bob Nixon > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:14*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The name of the game is to specify for the NEXT war, not the LAST war.
>
> > Seeing a Russian fighter proceed horizontally with its long axis
> > vertical was an eye-opener.
> > Fighters dog-fighting at mach 2+ ain't gonna happen.
> > * When cruise missiles and RPVs are in the armamentarium,
> > * fast fighters' importance recedes and people start seeing usability in
> > something not unlike a P-51 again! *:-)
>
> > Brian
>
> > Bob Nixon wrote:
> > > Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
> > > accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
> > > basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
> > > the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
> > > last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
> > > Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
> > > line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
> > > Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
> > > Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
> > > for the B-52.
>
> > > Introductions said, I've always had an interest in the final end user
> > > of the products I'm involved with designing and building or USAF/NAVY/
> > > MARINE aircraft. I think we got serious about supersonic flight in the
> > > 50's producing the century series of fighters and small bombers type
> > > AC. The B-58 hustler was an exception capable of sustained Mach 2
> > > flight with basically a mostly aluminum airframe and high subsonic
> > > down on the deck. then the F-100 which I worked on the rudimentary
> > > avionics at Phan Rang AB RVN in the 35th Avionics squadron (328XX
> > > AFSC). The F100 was barely supersonic both high and low-clean
> > > configurations and was only used in the south as a daylight bomber for
> > > Army strike support and a concept airframe for the latter and faster
> > > wild weasel AC. Next was the RF-101 Voodoo capable of about mach 1.7 @
> > > altitude, F-104 a limited interceptor AC capable of mach 2.4 and holds
> > > the low altitude speed record of 980MPH. Then the 105 with mach 2.2
> > > high and mach 1.2-.3 on the deck. The F-106 was and still is the
> > > fastest (now retired like the rest) single engine fighter interceptor
> > > in the world with unclassified estimates of mach 2.85 or faster than
> > > the F-16 or MiG-21/23/27. *It also was one of the first AC capable of
> > > non-after burning supersonic flight using the same J-75 engine as the
> > > F-105 but without the water injection. Later the F-4 and F-15 twin
> > > engine AC would be capable of mach 2.5+ but that is where the high
> > > speed game for the US and Europe ends with 4.5 generation AC
> > > intentionally designed with (no variable intake ramps to control the
> > > intake shock wave at speeds >mach 2.0).
>
> > > In the meantime the Russian MiG 29-35, MiG-31 & SU-27 thru 37 all have
> > > variable ramps and have >mach 2.0+ top speeds or Dash speed in these
> > > small type AC unlike the sustained speeds of the former B-58, B1-A,
> > > XB-70 & A12/SR-71 blackbird who's materials were much more expensive
> > > to build using large amount of inconel, SS & Titanium in their
> > > designs. Actually the Mach 2.2 sustained B-58 Hustler of 1956-1972
> > > vintage was mostly Aluminum except for the hot engine parts.
>
> > > So what gives with the 4.0 to 4.5 generation US & Euro fighters? I
> > > know the radars have better lock-on range nowadays and missiles are
> > > faster than days of yore but is this enough to justify the F-22 having
> > > a published top speed of only Mach 2.0?
>
> > > Anyway folks, there's probably a simple answer and most our new F/A
> > > type AC have mach 1.0 to 1.2 down on the deck so maybe it's not such a
> > > big seal to be falling behind the Russians in top speed. IOW, there
> > > must be a reason other than just cost as the F-22 Raptor is not cheap
> > > at $100 million a copy and under most flight envelopes has a >thrust
> > > than weight ratio.
>
> > > Thanks, Bob Nixon..
>
> Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
>
> Bob..

Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
1) 10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
bingo)
2) 10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
3) 10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
C&C support?

And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
measuring our dicks by mach number. No one has ever beaten the SR-71
or X-15 in any case.

In article
>,
Richard > wrote:

> > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
> >
> > Bob..
>
> Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
> 1) 10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
> bingo)
> 2) 10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
> 3) 10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
> C&C support?
>
> And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
> measuring our dicks by mach number. No one has ever beaten the SR-71
> or X-15 in any case.

It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *Richard > wrote:
> > > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> > > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> > > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> > > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> > > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
>
> > > Bob..
>
> > Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
> > 1) *10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
> > bingo)
> > 2) *10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
> > 3) *10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
> > C&C support?
>
> > And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
> > measuring our dicks by mach number. *No one has ever beaten the SR-71
> > or X-15 in any case.
>
> It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
> combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
> really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

You mean that fat ugly mach 1.7 capable F-35 that everyone is raving
about cause it's has a VSTOL version with 42,000lbs of thrust. Hell,
they'll be lucky to get to a tanker before running out of fuel after a
Vertical take off with that huge engine on the fat boy.

Bob Nixon..

On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *Richard > wrote:
> > > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> > > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> > > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> > > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> > > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
>
> > > Bob..
>
> > Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
> > 1) *10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
> > bingo)
> > 2) *10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
> > 3) *10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
> > C&C support?
>
> > And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
> > measuring our dicks by mach number. *No one has ever beaten the SR-71
> > or X-15 in any case.
>
> It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
> combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
> really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

You're falling into the Iraqi trap. They may have had the planes but
really had no trained military. If we went up against someone our own
size (like the Russians once they get more oil money) your misplaced
complacency would be all too telling.

Bob Nixon..

Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Richard > wrote:
>
>> > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
>> > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
>> > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
>> > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
>> > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
>> >
>> > Bob..
>>
>> Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
>> 1) 10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
>> bingo)
>> 2) 10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
>> 3) 10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
>> C&C support?
>>
>> And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
>> measuring our dicks by mach number. No one has ever beaten the SR-71
>> or X-15 in any case.
>
> It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
> combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
> really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.
>

One hopes so as most of the traditional role of the fighter has been
rendered obsolete by missiles and what remains is best done at speeds
less than mach 1.

An airborne missile frigate full of radars and assorted missiles would
be more appropriate today.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article
>,
Bob Nixon > wrote:

> On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > *Richard > wrote:
> > > > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> > > > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> > > > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> > > > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> > > > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
> >
> > > > Bob..
> >
> > > Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
> > > 1) *10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
> > > bingo)
> > > 2) *10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
> > > 3) *10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
> > > C&C support?
> >
> > > And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
> > > measuring our dicks by mach number. *No one has ever beaten the SR-71
> > > or X-15 in any case.
> >
> > It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
> > combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
> > really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.
>
> You're falling into the Iraqi trap. They may have had the planes but
> really had no trained military. If we went up against someone our own
> size (like the Russians once they get more oil money) your misplaced
> complacency would be all too telling.

As far as I can tell, your description of "the Iraqi trap" involves
fancy equipment but no emphasis on pilot training. Meanwhile, I'm
describing a move from manned to unmanned vehicles. This does not appear
to be even remotely similar to me.

Your idea of going up against someone of our own size is interesting.
When was the last time that happened? I think you have to go back to
1945. It has never happened in the jet age, and there are no indications
that it ever will. If it does, then there is every indication that the
conflict will go nuclear, and having a few dozen advanced piloted
fighters won't make much of a difference in the outcome.

But let's assume it will happen someday. They have a few dozen advanced
piloted fighters. We field a swarm of a few thousand cheap, expendable
drones. Who wins? Especially as this is not the relatively rudimentary
Predator of today, but the considerably more sophisticated machines you
can expect to see be developed over the next 10-20 years (or more).

You're mistaking a desire to develop our military in new directions for
a desire not to develop it at all. It's not the same thing.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Nov 4, 6:01*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bob Nixon > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Richard > wrote:
> > > > > Brian there are other things one might need higher speeds for, like:
> > > > > Running away from the fight when your odds are 1:10 enemy AC or just
> > > > > getting there faster. we have tankers that can fuel a fighter in less
> > > > > than 5 minutes and go on about his intentions. I don't like to see the
> > > > > West sucking hind teat in any area of AC design.
>
> > > > > Bob..
>
> > > > Again, that's what AWACs is for...and where are you going to find:
> > > > 1) *10 Mach 2+ fighters (the migs would run about 5 minutes then
> > > > bingo)
> > > > 2) *10 pilots who can realistically fight the plane
> > > > 3) *10 idiots who would go against anything coming out of the USA with
> > > > C&C support?
>
> > > > And this is about projection of power for strategic goals, not
> > > > measuring our dicks by mach number. *No one has ever beaten the SR-71
> > > > or X-15 in any case.
>
> > > It seems probable that the F-35 project will be the last major manned
> > > combat aircraft project to be funded in the US. This whole discussion
> > > really sounds like a big exercise in fighting the last war to me.
>
> > You're falling into the Iraqi trap. They may have had the planes but
> > really had no trained military. If we went up against someone our own
> > size (like the Russians once they get more oil money) your misplaced
> > complacency would be all too telling.
>
> As far as I can tell, your description of "the Iraqi trap" involves
> fancy equipment but no emphasis on pilot training. Meanwhile, I'm
> describing a move from manned to unmanned vehicles. This does not appear
> to be even remotely similar to me.
>
> Your idea of going up against someone of our own size is interesting.
> When was the last time that happened? I think you have to go back to
> 1945. It has never happened in the jet age, and there are no indications
> that it ever will. If it does, then there is every indication that the
> conflict will go nuclear, and having a few dozen advanced piloted
> fighters won't make much of a difference in the outcome.
>
> But let's assume it will happen someday. They have a few dozen advanced
> piloted fighters. We field a swarm of a few thousand cheap, expendable
> drones. Who wins? Especially as this is not the relatively rudimentary
> Predator of today, but the considerably more sophisticated machines you
> can expect to see be developed over the next 10-20 years (or more).
>
> You're mistaking a desire to develop our military in new directions for
> a desire not to develop it at all. It's not the same thing.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

I think ol' Bob's busy refighting WWII or Korea and missed the whole
decade of the '90's. Gulf War I being the last 'set piece' military
action and darn few actual use of fighters as fighters.

Bob Nixon > wrote:

> GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ on earlier models in the RVN
> non war?.

Vietnam ended 40 years ago.

The days fighters escorting bombers to protect them from the enemy's fighters
are over.

A dog fight these days is a missile from miles away.

The only role left for the fighter is ground support and you don't need
or want to be flying mach 2 to kill tanks and bunkers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bob Nixon schreef:
> GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ ...

Nixon,
Allow me to suggest you leave this place and carry your (perfectly
acceptable) discussion to a more appropriate newgroup.
Actually this is a lot less bad than some other postings, but you at
least seem to be open-minded and fair enough to see reason.
TIA,

On Nov 5, 11:53*am, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> Bob Nixon schreef:
>
> > GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> > the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ ...
>
> Nixon,
> Allow me to suggest you leave this place and carry your (perfectly
> acceptable) discussion to a more appropriate newgroup.
> Actually this is a lot less bad than some other postings, but you at
> least seem to be open-minded and fair enough to see reason.
> TIA,

Actually Jan, I already have joined the military group but their spin
is a little different on this speed vs stealth thing. Saying you can
have speed or stealth but not both when talking about greater than
mach mach 2.0 with the airplane heat, large size and fuel load
required; as example the SU-27 Flanker that does such a spectacular
job at airshows can be seen on IR 100 miles away if they're moving
above mach 2.0. And Mach 2.0 seem to be the point where airframe
heating at Altitude is critical. Down low everything is harder to see
from afar but even at mach 1.0 they get pretty hot.

I'm just worried that this stealth radar bubble will soon burst and
we'll have spent a whole lot of money on an easily deflatable
technology. BTW, I may not be a pilot but my best friend flies
737-200&700's as a captain for SW Airlines and has for many years.
Before that he was an instructor pilot USAF on the T-38 supersonic
trainer mostly for foreign purchasers. He also flew C-141 AC before
they were replaced by the new C-17. We both also fly radio control
models but he has no desire to fly or buy a private plane and we
compliment each others specialties. For instance, I ask him about
flying ( but he's no historian ) and he asks me how the GPS, INS,
Radar and Vortac/ILS/TACAN VHF radio, IFF transponders and how all
the gear translates to info on the ADI. Recently he insisted on
replacing the bad Magnetron in his home microwave oven and asked me
how it worked. I explained what I recall from my radar background and
also suggested the Wikipedia link.

One more thing then I'm out of here for good. My friend and I both
ride/race sport motorcycles (I have for nearly 50 years now and him
about 40 years) and have seen top speeds at the end of our local
racetrack straightaway in excess of 180MPH or faster than many of your
light hobby aviation AC. My point being please don't act like a bunch
of NASA astronauts or F-22 drivers just because you fly a Cessna 172
on weekends. Military AC and private aviation are far and away two
different things. See ta later.

Bob Nixon..

In article
>,
Bob Nixon > wrote:

> GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ on earlier models in the RVN
> non war?. All because the politicians said any war fought in the
> future will be against targets out of visual range using side winders
> & Sparrow missiles. Now we have Amraam (I worked on several systems
> that went into them and) they even have a longer range version now but
> you still can't tell it oops, I didn't really mean to fire at you a
> "friendly" & turn it back. You must have not turned your mode 4 IFF
> on;););)

They laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Just because they were wrong about missiles in 1958 doesn't mean that
we're wrong about it in 2009. The capabilities of the missiles have
changed ever so slightly over the intervening years.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Nov 5, 6:05*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bob Nixon > wrote:
>
> > GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> > the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ on earlier models in the RVN
> > non war?. All because the politicians said any war fought in the
> > future will be against targets out of visual range using side winders
> > & Sparrow missiles. Now we have Amraam (I worked on several systems
> > that went into them and) they even have a longer range version now but
> > you still can't tell it oops, I didn't really mean to fire at you a
> > "friendly" & turn it back. You must have not turned your mode 4 IFF
> > on;););)
>
> They laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>
> Just because they were wrong about missiles in 1958 doesn't mean that
> we're wrong about it in 2009. The capabilities of the missiles have
> changed ever so slightly over the intervening years.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike I'm trying to back out of this group because it's comprised of
mainly small aviation AC pilots who lets face it, are not exactly like
Einstein or Bozo the clown but just regular guys who think 1940's
boxer 4 & 6's are still tits when compared to the German Zoche 2 stoke
Turbo/supercharges Diesel with both better fuel economy JP4,5 and far
more powerful and lighter but not 80 year proven technology.

But fear not. I looked up the F-22 link on Wilkipedia and now I have
more faith in my country and their military decisions. see link below
and read if it's not beyond most of your comprehension;) See link
below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
http://www.zoche.de/FAQ.HTM

As it turns out the top speed is really still classified but published
as mach 2.25 @ altitude and near mach 2 in super-cruise so the old way
of figuring top speed by looking for a variable inlet ramp is
apparently no longer the case and to boot the system has so many
advances to even discuss here in Cessna 172 country but one of those
things are a system that self checks the AC's stealth capability. I
also read somewhere else that the Raptor has a 10:1 kill ratio against
the Russian built Flanker SU-30+ series of AC proven at an Indian
sponsored fly-off of all the new AC and even the F-15 & F16s. Please
folks, thanks for your opinions but I think I've figured out the big
picture of the F-22 & 35 now.

Bob Nixon.

On Nov 5, 3:51*pm, Bob Nixon > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:53*am, jan olieslagers >
> wrote:
>
> > Bob Nixon schreef:
>
> > > GET OVER DOG FIGHTING???? Isn't that the very reason they put a gun on
> > > the F4-E and center racked add-on M61 EQ ...
>
> > Nixon,
> > Allow me to suggest you leave this place and carry your (perfectly
> > acceptable) discussion to a more appropriate newgroup.
> > Actually this is a lot less bad than some other postings, but you at
> > least seem to be open-minded and fair enough to see reason.
> > TIA,
>
> Actually Jan, I already have joined the military group but their spin
> is a little different on this speed vs stealth thing. Saying you can
> have speed or stealth but not both when talking about greater than
> mach mach 2.0 with the airplane heat, large size and fuel load
> required; as example the SU-27 Flanker that does such a spectacular
> job at airshows can be seen on IR 100 miles away if they're moving
> above mach 2.0. And Mach 2.0 seem to be the point where airframe
> heating at Altitude is critical. Down low everything is harder to see
> from afar but even at mach 1.0 they get pretty hot.
>
> I'm just worried that this stealth radar bubble will soon burst and
> we'll have spent a whole lot of money on an easily deflatable
> technology. BTW, I may not be a pilot but my best friend flies
> 737-200&700's as a captain for SW Airlines and has for many years.
> Before that he was an instructor pilot USAF on the T-38 supersonic
> trainer mostly for foreign purchasers. He also flew C-141 AC before
> they were replaced by the new C-17. We both also fly radio control
> models but he has no desire to fly or buy a private plane and we
> compliment each others specialties. For instance, I ask him about
> flying ( but he's no historian ) and he asks me how the GPS, INS,
> Radar and Vortac/ILS/TACAN VHF radio, IFF transponders *and how all
> the gear translates to info on the ADI. Recently he insisted on
> replacing the bad Magnetron in his home microwave oven and asked me
> how it worked. I explained what I recall from my radar background and
> also suggested the Wikipedia link.
>
> One more thing then I'm out of here for good. My friend and I both
> ride/race sport motorcycles (I have for nearly 50 years now and him
> about 40 years) and have seen top speeds at the end of our local
> racetrack straightaway in excess of 180MPH or faster than many of your
> light hobby aviation AC. My point being please don't act like a bunch
> of NASA astronauts or F-22 drivers just because you fly a Cessna 172
> on weekends. Military AC and private aviation are far and away two
> different things. See ta later.
>
> Bob Nixon..

You don't need motors to go that fast.

Used to do it every weekend skydiving (vertical dive), sometimes from
22,000.

Motor vehicles are for sissies. Real men let gravity do the work
(that's why recliners are so popular!).
:-)