The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

[Mike[_7_]]

The Weekly Standard

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM


Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, because of its reasonable cost and the many improvements
made in the Gripen N/G configuration, is one of the odds-on favourites
in this competition. Eurofighter, the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16, and F/A-18
are all in the bidding, but the Swedish bid is considered by some to
be the one proposal that will meet all of India's requirements.
(Gripen's India-based team were carrying the shrink-wrapped proposal
in their cabin baggage on the flight back to New Delhi after this
week's rollout ceremony.)

How India decides will say a lot about how the future military
aircraft business develops worldwide. If New Delhi's decision makers
opt for the Gripen, the whole concept of teaming and multinational
program needs to be re-examined - as does the heavy US emphasis on RCS
as the primary design criteria. With other future military programs
starting to form up as more "team" projects, such as the USAF Next
Generation Bomber (NGB), these are considerations that need to be
addressed now rather than later.

Reuben F. Johnson is a contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
> The Weekly Standard
>
> The Swedish Model
> How to build a jet fighter.
> by Reuben F. Johnson
> 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>
> Linköping, Sweden
> ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
> become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
> the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
> Generation Gripen"
> (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
> JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
> being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
> Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>
> As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
> stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
> platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
> Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
> of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
> are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
> configuration.
>
> The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
> replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
> F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
> propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
> increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
> electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
> now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
> aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
> PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
> array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
> on the front end.)
>
> But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
> performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
> sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
> to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
> fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
> tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
> nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>
> What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
> produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
> taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
> plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
> half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
> third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
> to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
> own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>
> But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
> the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
> based.
>
> There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
> as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
> F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
> nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
> (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
> Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
> the "MiG-35,"
> although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
> does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
> configuration.)
>
> Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
> companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
> joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
> contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
> largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
> partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
> all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
> United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
> nations that are also part of the program.
>
> Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
> companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
> is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
> Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
> technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
> program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
> these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>
> Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
> stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
> Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
> million per copy.
> This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
> designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
> the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
> (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
> end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
> supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
> the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
> Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
> Gripen purchase instead.)
>
> The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
> the U.S.
> dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
> buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
> strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
> million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
> primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
> industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
> to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>
> The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
> from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
> materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
> added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
> move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
> anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
> to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
> ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
> four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
> nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
> four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>
> (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
> industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
> European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
> one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
> but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
> expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>
> F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
> and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
> matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
> these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
> dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
> development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
> the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>
> Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
> country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
> longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
> Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
> on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
> airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
> electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
> combat or air defence environment.
>
> There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
> stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
> increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
> technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
> has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
> that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
> in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
> after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
> Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>
> The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
> methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
> has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
> will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
> F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
> advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
> methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
> similarly truncated service lives?
>
> (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
> obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
> from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
> The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
> photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
> retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
> allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
> hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
> some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
> much more advanced F-22A.)
>
> On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
> and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
> MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
> fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
> military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.
>
> The JAS-39, because of its reasonable cost and the many improvements
> made in the Gripen N/G configuration, is one of the odds-on favourites
> in this competition. Eurofighter, the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16, and F/A-18
> are all in the bidding, but the Swedish bid is considered by some to
> be the one proposal that will meet all of India's requirements.
> (Gripen's India-based team were carrying the shrink-wrapped proposal
> in their cabin baggage on the flight back to New Delhi after this
> week's rollout ceremony.)
>
> How India decides will say a lot about how the future military
> aircraft business develops worldwide. If New Delhi's decision makers
> opt for the Gripen, the whole concept of teaming and multinational
> program needs to be re-examined - as does the heavy US emphasis on RCS
> as the primary design criteria. With other future military programs
> starting to form up as more "team" projects, such as the USAF Next
> Generation Bomber (NGB), these are considerations that need to be
> addressed now rather than later.
>
> Reuben F. Johnson is a contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.

A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.

It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.

And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 1:48*pm, Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
> On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Weekly Standard
>
> > The Swedish Model
> > How to build a jet fighter.
> > by Reuben F. Johnson
> > 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>
> > Linköping, Sweden
> > ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
> > become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
> > the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
> > Generation Gripen"
> > (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
> > JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
> > being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
> > Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>
> > As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
> > stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
> > platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
> > Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
> > of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
> > are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
> > configuration.
>
> > The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
> > replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
> > F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
> > propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
> > increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
> > electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
> > now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
> > aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
> > PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
> > array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
> > on the front end.)
>
> > But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
> > performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
> > sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
> > to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
> > fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
> > tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
> > nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>
> > What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
> > produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
> > taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
> > plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
> > half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
> > third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
> > to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
> > own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>
> > But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
> > the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
> > based.
>
> > There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
> > as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
> > F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
> > nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
> > (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
> > Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
> > the "MiG-35,"
> > although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
> > does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
> > configuration.)
>
> > Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
> > companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
> > joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
> > contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
> > largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
> > partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
> > all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
> > United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
> > nations that are also part of the program.
>
> > Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
> > companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
> > is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
> > Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
> > technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
> > program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
> > these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>
> > Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
> > stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
> > Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
> > million per copy.
> > This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
> > designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
> > the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
> > (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
> > end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
> > supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
> > the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
> > Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
> > Gripen purchase instead.)
>
> > The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
> > the U.S.
> > dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
> > buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
> > strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
> > million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
> > primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
> > industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
> > to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>
> > The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
> > from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
> > materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
> > added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
> > move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
> > anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
> > to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
> > ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
> > four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
> > nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
> > four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>
> > (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
> > industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
> > European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
> > one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
> > but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
> > expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>
> > F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
> > and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
> > matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
> > these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
> > dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
> > development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
> > the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>
> > Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
> > country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
> > longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
> > Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
> > on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
> > airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
> > electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
> > combat or air defence environment.
>
> > There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
> > stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
> > increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
> > technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
> > has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
> > that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
> > in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
> > after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
> > Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>
> > The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
> > methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
> > has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
> > will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
> > F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
> > advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
> > methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
> > similarly truncated service lives?
>
> > (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
> > obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
> > from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
> > The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
> > photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
> > retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
> > allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
> > hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
> > some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Another manuever the canard allows is form straight and level, roll to
a 45 degree bank, full back on the stick, as vertical is passed FULL
forward on the stick. A type of stall that the canard can recover
from easily.

Inverted stability control is way a ok.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>
>This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
>superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
>stall capacity to recover the failed descent.

You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?
>
>A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
>the USA jets.

You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
>
>It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.

Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
>
>And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
>where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
>maneuver.

And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?

Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Dean A. Markley]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> > wrote:
>
>> This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
>> superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
>> stall capacity to recover the failed descent.
>
> You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
> inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
> it's inverted?
>> A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
>> the USA jets.
>
> You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
>> It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.
>
> Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
>> And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
>> where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
>> maneuver.
>
> And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> see ground clutter?
>
> Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"
> www.thunderchief.org
Well Ed, I was half expecting a blonde babe from the posting title.

Dean

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 2:45*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > wrote:
>
> >This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
> >superiority built in. *As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
> >stall capacity to recover the failed descent.
>
> You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
> inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
> it's inverted?
>
>
>
> >A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
> >the USA jets.
>
> You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
>
>
>
> >It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.
>
> Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
>
>
>
> >And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
> >where the safe place is. *A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
> >maneuver.
>
> And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> see ground clutter?
>
> Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

WWWWWWCGWWW WWW

WWW is the canard winglet.

The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
the direction of stall always.

And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
a fundamentally unstable design. If you stall, then it is
recoverable.

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 3:27*pm, Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
> On May 9, 2:45*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
> > >superiority built in. *As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
> > >stall capacity to recover the failed descent.
>
> > You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
> > inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
> > it's inverted?
>
> > >A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
> > >the USA jets.
>
> > You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
>
> > >It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.
>
> > Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
>
> > >And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
> > >where the safe place is. *A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
> > >maneuver.
>
> > And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> > see ground clutter?
>
> > Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?
>
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
> A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
> will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
> appears to be flying.
>
> WWWWWWCGWWW * * * WWW
>
> WWW is the canard winglet.
>
> The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
> the direction of stall always.
>
> And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
> aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
> a fundamentally unstable design. *If you stall, then it is
> recoverable.
>
> If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
> never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
> It is a critical failure of US technology.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I meant a mig-35 with its true canard. It needs to be addressed
because USA designers fail to understand the lack of certain maneuver
capability in combat.

It should not be hard to test the two. And then add the manuever the
uSA designs can nOT perform.

[eyeball]

On May 9, 6:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
> On May 9, 2:45 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
> > >superiority built in. As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
> > >stall capacity to recover the failed descent.
>
> > You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
> > inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
> > it's inverted?
>
> > >A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
> > >the USA jets.
>
> > You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?
>
> > >It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.
>
> > Speed is speed. Up, down or level.
>
> > >And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
> > >where the safe place is. A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
> > >maneuver.
>
> > And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> > see ground clutter?
>
> > Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?
>
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
> A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
> will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
> appears to be flying.
>
> WWWWWWCGWWW WWW
>
> WWW is the canard winglet.
>
> The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
> the direction of stall always.
>
> And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
> aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
> a fundamentally unstable design. If you stall, then it is
> recoverable.
>
> If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
> never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
> It is a critical failure of US technology.

Such a critical failure that the US is the only real super power...

[Richard Casady]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
>see ground clutter?

I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
for many years.

Casady

[Dan[_2_]]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
<snip>


The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>

The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
long time to recover.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 4:57*pm, Dan > wrote:
> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>
> > flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
> * * The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
> long time to recover.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability. As dog fighting
goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.

A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
aircraft and absorb/take the radar.

after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.

All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
dictates a winner what happens?

So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
dictates.

[Dan[_2_]]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 9, 4:57 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>>
>>> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>> The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
>> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
>> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
>> long time to recover.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability.

It's only good for air shows.

As dog fighting
> goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.

Not always. What happens if the missile fails to perform or the
target outmaneuvers it?

>
> A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
> aircraft and absorb/take the radar.

Please translate.


>
> after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.
>
> All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
> this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
> litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
> dictates a winner what happens?
>
All wars are a function of attrition.


> So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
> dictates.
>

Not to put to fine a point on things, but ALL battle planning is
limited to by the assets on hand to include available technology.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Richard Casady) wrote:

> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
> >And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> >see ground clutter?
>
> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
> for many years.

Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>> On May 9, 4:57 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>>>
>>>> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>>> The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
>>> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
>>> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
>>> long time to recover.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability.
>
> It's only good for air shows.
>
> As dog fighting
>> goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.
>
> Not always. What happens if the missile fails to perform or the target
> outmaneuvers it?
>
>>
>> A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
>> aircraft and absorb/take the radar.
>
> Please translate.
>
>
>>
>> after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.
>>
>> All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
>> this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
>> litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
>> dictates a winner what happens?
>>
> All wars are a function of attrition.
>

It might not always be readily apparent but not all wars involve Americans
either.
But why are we arguing with a bot anyway?

>> So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
>> dictates.
>>
>
> Not to put to fine a point on things, but ALL battle planning is limited
> to by the assets on hand to include available technology.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[St. John Smythe]

Roger Conroy wrote:
> But why are we arguing with a bot anyway?

Got to admit I too suspected a bot.

Bot or not, the engagement doesn't seem worth the fuel.

--
sjs

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 19:48:38 -0500, Dan > wrote:

>Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>> On May 9, 4:57 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>>>
>>>> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>>> The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
>>> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
>>> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
>>> long time to recover.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability.
>
>
> It's only good for air shows.
>
And impressing the Chicks.
>
>As dog fighting
>> goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.
>
A well planned anything usually wins over an ad-hoc response.
>
> Not always. What happens if the missile fails to perform or the
>target outmaneuvers it?
>
Plan B. There always needs to be a Plan B.
>>
>> A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
>> aircraft and absorb/take the radar.
>
> Please translate.
>
That would be nice.
>
>>
>> after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.
>>
>> All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
>> this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
>> litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
>> dictates a winner what happens?
>>
> All wars are a function of attrition.
>
Even if it is simply an attrition of will. A Semi-decent example
would be the Iraqi Air force in both conflicts. They didn't even try.
>
>> So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
>> dictates.
>>
>
> Not to put to fine a point on things, but ALL battle planning is
>limited to by the assets on hand to include available technology.
>
Which would of course include Intel, such as the enemies weapon
platforms capabilities. There is a reason the "Top-Speed" of US Naval
Vessels is never mentioned, or talked about in only general terms. If
you know what the other guy is capable of, you've got one leg up in
the planning process. If you know where he is at & what he is going
to do (tactics) you've got another leg up. Some of the major naval
battles of WW II were won by pure dumb luck. Both sides planned, but
one found out the location of the other first.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:26:43 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> wrote:

>
>"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>> On May 9, 4:57 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>>>>
>>>>> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>>>> The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
>>>> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
>>>> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
>>>> long time to recover.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability.
>>
>> It's only good for air shows.
>>
>> As dog fighting
>>> goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.
>>
>> Not always. What happens if the missile fails to perform or the target
>> outmaneuvers it?
>>
>>>
>>> A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
>>> aircraft and absorb/take the radar.
>>
>> Please translate.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.
>>>
>>> All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
>>> this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
>>> litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
>>> dictates a winner what happens?
>>>
>> All wars are a function of attrition.
>>
>
>It might not always be readily apparent but not all wars involve Americans
>either.
>But why are we arguing with a bot anyway?
>
Perhaps not directly, but since the US is the number one Arms Dealer
in the world, perhaps we are if even just by proxy.
>
>>> So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
>>> dictates.
>>>
>>
>> Not to put to fine a point on things, but ALL battle planning is limited
>> to by the assets on hand to include available technology.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

[Richard Casady]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
>> >see ground clutter?
>>
>> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
>> for many years.
>
>Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.

While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.

Casady

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 10, 2:50*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix
>
> > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (Richard Casady) wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> >> >see ground clutter?
>
> >> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
> >> for many years.
>
> >Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.
>
> While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.
>
> Casady

I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.

[WaltBJ]

On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
SNIP
>
> I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.
SNIP:
That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it.
What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in
aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your
conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these
subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and
spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are
an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to
the subject.
Walt BJ

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 10, 3:54*pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
> On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.
>
> SNIP:
> That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it.
> What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in
> aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your
> conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these
> subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and
> spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are
> an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to
> the subject.
> Walt BJ

Wait, wait waitie.

Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
his ignorence.

I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
ittie comic book.

You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.

It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

[Dean A. Markley]

Richard Casady wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> (Richard Casady) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
>>>> see ground clutter?
>>> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
>>> for many years.
>> Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.
>
> While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.
>
> Casady
Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible.....

Dean

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Richard Casady) wrote:

> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Richard Casady) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> >> >see ground clutter?
> >>
> >> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
> >> for many years.
> >
> >Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.
>
> While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.

He does come across as a couple plates short of a picnic, all right.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Douglas Eagleson > wrote:

> On May 10, 2:50*pm, (Richard Casady)
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >In article >,
> > > (Richard Casady) wrote:
> >
> > >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > >> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
> > >> >see ground clutter?
> >
> > >> I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
> > >> for many years.
> >
> > >Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.
> >
> > While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.
> >
> > Casady
>
> I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.

It's not the *way* you talk, precisely, no.

[WaltBJ]

On May 10, 4:00 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
> On May 10, 3:54 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
SNIP:
>
> btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

SNIP:
You are correct in suggesting that I have never flow a canard
aircraft. However, I have bult and flown several canard model aircraft
and yes with proper design they are stable aircraft. They will stall
but with proper design they will recover by themselves - as will all
properly designed aircraft. A higher angle of attack for the canard
will ensure it stalls first to drop the nose and pick up speed and
recover automatically. Similarly, dihedral in the canard made them
laterally stable.
I know of no maneuver that a canard can execute that can not be
duplicated bya 'conventional' aircraft. As for stopping in mid-air, I
have done precisely that in 3 different aircraft, the T33, F104 and
F4. In all 3 cases I was going straight up to zero airspeed, slid
straight down backwards, and all three aircraft pitched over forward
to straight down and flew out of the maneuver. This particular
maneuver has no use tactically as one is helpless until maneuvering
airspeed is regained.
BTW, I was trying to execute 3 successive vertical rolls in the
T33 and ran out of speed. I was still in flight training and
definitely learned something on that flight. In the F104 I was testing
the aircraft with its new model engine to see how fast it could get to
45000 from brake release. 90 seconds, but shortly thereafter I was out
of airspeed. in the F4 I did it repeatedly as part of a series f
maneuvers to demonstrate to pilots new to the airplane that it was
predictable and dependable.
As for the Cobra maneuver, it leaves the aircraft suspended at 90
degrees to an attacker's path as a stationary target for gunfire. Even
if the Su pilot manages to shuck one atacker by doing the Cobra 'just
right' he better hope #2 isn't anywhere near.
A rolling dive? WW1 fighters could do that. Roll inverted to a
dive? Old prop driven divebombers did that, too. Yes, you can simply
push forward in negative G to get into a dive but that causes all thw
dust and sand in thw cockpit to get into your face and down the back
of your neck. FWIW no fighter particularly cares what you do to it so
long as you don't over-G it too much. In that case sometimes it breaks
and that can ruin your whole day. The one exception is continuous max
rate rolls - in some fighters you end up in yaw-roll coupling and
finish up going sideways and maybe breaking up.
As for a canard recovering by itself, so will a conventional
design aircraft - as the speed rises above the trim setting point the
nose wil automatically start to rise. Left alone, the bird may even
execute a series of loops until the ground interferes. I know of a
case where a 747 was inadvertently stalled up around 40,000 and it did
two wingovers (sloppy loops) before the crew got it all figured out.
But normally somewhere along the way an aircraft will roll off on one
wing and go into an increasingly steep spiral - to the ground, unless
recovered by the crew. Unless of course it is one of the new
generation computer-flown aircraft - as long as the fancy stuff
works.
A few days ago at MacDill AFB I watched the F16 and the A/F!8
perform maneuvers that told me both the wing and the tail were
generating positive lift, as does a canard. Both those aircraft are
unstable aircraft and must be computer-flown.
You can see they are different breeds of cat since the horizonta
stabilizer is pretty much in line with teh wing instead of a large
nose-up angle. Weird.
Nothing wrong with a canard as long as it is not blocking your all-
around vision. It can be designed to augment main wing lift through
vortex action. But it's not magic and there is always a tradeoff in
aircraft design.
Sweden's upgrading of the Gripen still leaves them with an
obsolescent aircraft - it ain't stealthy!
Walt BJ

[T.L. Davis]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
>never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
>It is a critical failure of US technology.

OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?

Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...

Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.

T.L. Davis

[John D Salt]

"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in
:

[Snips]
> Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible.....

Of course it is. PARRY was written to mimic the responses of a patient
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think it was Douglas Hofstadter
who had the idea of hooking up a copy of ELIZA (written to mimic the
responses of a Rogerian psychotherapist) with one of PARRY and seeing how
they got on.

RACTER, the author of the first book written by a computer program ("The
Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed") has been described by its aithor as
an exercise in AI, standing for Artificial Insanity.

All the best,

John.

[St. John Smythe]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
> will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
> appears to be flying.
<snip>
> If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
> never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
> flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
> It is a critical failure of US technology.

It would be delusional to flatter yourself into thinking you know more
about canards than do the U.S. aircraft designers who decided against
using them.
--
sjs

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 11, 2:14 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > wrote:
> >If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
> >never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
> >flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>
> >It is a critical failure of US technology.
>
> OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
> to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
> SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
> original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
> serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?
>
> Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...
>
> Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
> numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
> help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.
>
> T.L. Davis

There is a sign of your newness to Russian design, maintenance is
secondary to air show performances. Imagine what a Russian mechanic
can do with those nozzles and then multiply that by the guy he
teaches, perhaps in English perhaps not. Certainly not the recipient's
native colloquial tongue

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>Wait, wait waitie.
>
>Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
>says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
>his ignorence.
>
>I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
>ittie comic book.
>
>You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
>I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
>future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.

I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
ludicrous.
>
>It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.
>
>btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.

Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.

Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
and recover. Those are losing strategies.

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.

My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
What would be yours?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Tiger]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 10, 3:54 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
>>On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
>>wrote:
>>SNIP
>>
>>
>>>I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.
>>
>>SNIP:
>>That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it.
>>What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in
>>aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your
>>conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these
>>subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and
>>spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are
>>an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to
>>the subject.
>>Walt BJ
>
>
> Wait, wait waitie.
>
> Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
> says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
> his ignorence.
>
> I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
> ittie comic book.
>
> You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
> I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
> future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.
>
> It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.
>
> btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

This thread is completely off the mark of the original post. The merits
of single builder programs rather than multi nation make job deals.
The idea of Canards dates back to the bloody Wright Bros. So I thing the
world knows what it can & can't do. As FOr the Grippen as a plane? Hey,
I love the thing and hopes Santa drops one under my tree. That being
said, it's not the invincible plane your making it out to be.

[Dean A. Markley]

John D Salt wrote:
> "Dean A. Markley" > wrote in
> :
>
> [Snips]
>> Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible.....
>
> Of course it is. PARRY was written to mimic the responses of a patient
> suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think it was Douglas Hofstadter
> who had the idea of hooking up a copy of ELIZA (written to mimic the
> responses of a Rogerian psychotherapist) with one of PARRY and seeing how
> they got on.
>
> RACTER, the author of the first book written by a computer program ("The
> Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed") has been described by its aithor as
> an exercise in AI, standing for Artificial Insanity.
>
> All the best,
>
> John.
Thanks for the info! There's a bit of AI in this newsgroup, eh?

Dean

[PaPaPeng]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>On May 9, 4:57Â*pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>>
>> > flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>>
>> Â* Â* The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
>> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
>> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
>> long time to recover.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability. As dog fighting
>goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.

>
>A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
>aircraft and absorb/take the radar.
>
>after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.

Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. 20 years of flight
experience and superb training isn't going to save one from a rookie
who gets lucky in getting into that position first.

Air to air missiles are fire and forget, both friendly and enemy
planes fly and maneuver too fast for any need by the attacking plane
to match the enemy turn for turn to keep a (obsolete?)beam riding
missile on target. Combat distances are as far out as possible, way
beyond any cannon range for shoot 'em up dog fighting. From the many
History channel and Discovery channel interviews with modern pilots
they all say that they want to release their bombs and missiles from
as far out as possible and get the hell out. Sticking around let
alone dogfight in a modern battlefield is a suicide wish.
>
>All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
>this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
>litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
>dictates a winner what happens?
>

>So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
>dictates.

In an attack against a third rate power, such as one from the Muslim
countries, the overwhelming superiority of US airpower in numbers
means that whatever fighter planes the opposition has will be quickly
eliminated. Doing that doesn't require the super sophisticated super
expensive new generation of attack aircraft the US is building. So
let's get straight to the only opposition that can oppose an attack by
US airpower. That will be China.

China is too big and only the tonnage of bombs will make an
impression. For that you need numbers, both in aircraft and in their
bomb carrying capacity. A war with a giant country that can
manufacture its own weapons of near equivalent performance is one of
attrition not of technical superiority. The current design philosophy
for the F22 and F35 is emphasis on stealth and maneuverability. The
trade-off is complexity and cost. The US can no longer afford an
airforce (land and naval) that can carry on a major war. The numbers
are too few. Because of complexity the US will have a problem of
keeping them in the air in a high intensity war. Because of complexity
it losses in aircraft and men will be hard to replace. Stealth means
limited internal capacity for bombs. In other words your force makeup
is unbalanced and hardware design philosophy flawed. I have given
enough to start a debate. Your turn.

Back to my first paragraph -
"Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. "

If you send in a large attack force, say a 40 plane strike or even a
100 plane one, the sky will be so rich with targets that ground based
AA defenses will have a field day. How many billion dollar planes can
you afford to lose in one mission? If you send in a smaller one, say
12 planes, PLAF defenders can easily send up twice that number and
from all directions to get into that favorable firing position
advantage. Even if every US plane has an ace-in-a-day there will
still be enough PLAF planes left. How many aces can you afford to
lose? Chinese fighters are cheap. Their pilots are mindless
peasants. But they are just as nasty and you already know about
China's manufacturing capabilities and manpower resources.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 11, 2:33*pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 9, 4:57*pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>
> >> > flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this..
>
> >> * * The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
> >> free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
> >> vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
> >> long time to recover.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> >The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability. *As dog fighting
> >goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.
>
> >A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
> >aircraft and absorb/take the radar.
>
> >after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.
>
> Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
> Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
> rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
> to get into a good firing position first. 20 years of flight
> experience and superb training isn't going to save one from a rookie
> who gets lucky in getting into that position first.
>
> Air to air missiles are fire and forget, both friendly and enemy
> planes fly and maneuver too fast for any need by the attacking plane
> to match the enemy turn for turn to keep a (obsolete?)beam riding
> missile on target. Combat distances are as far out as possible, way
> beyond any cannon range for shoot 'em up dog fighting. *From the many
> History channel and Discovery channel interviews with modern pilots
> they all say that they want to release their bombs and missiles from
> as far out as possible and get the hell out. *Sticking around let
> alone dogfight in a modern battlefield is a suicide wish. *
>
>
>
> >All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
> >this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
> >litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
> >dictates a winner what happens?
>
> >So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
> >dictates.
>
> In an attack against a third rate power, such as one from the Muslim
> countries, the overwhelming superiority of US airpower in numbers
> means that whatever fighter planes the opposition has will be quickly
> eliminated. *Doing that doesn't require the super sophisticated super
> expensive new generation of attack aircraft the US is building. *So
> let's get straight to the only opposition that can oppose an attack by
> US airpower. *That will be China. *
>
> China is too big and only the tonnage of bombs will make an
> impression. *For that you need numbers, both in aircraft and in their
> bomb carrying capacity. *A war with a giant country that can
> manufacture its own weapons of near equivalent performance is one of
> attrition not of technical superiority. *The current design philosophy
> for the F22 and F35 is emphasis on stealth and maneuverability. *The
> trade-off is complexity and cost. *The US can no longer afford an
> airforce (land and naval) that can carry on a major war. The numbers
> are too few. Because of complexity the US will have a problem of
> keeping them in the air in a high intensity war. Because of complexity
> it losses in aircraft and men will be hard to replace. Stealth means
> limited internal capacity for bombs. *In other words your force makeup
> is unbalanced and hardware design philosophy flawed. *I have given
> enough to start a debate. *Your turn.
>
> Back to my first paragraph -
> "Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
> Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
> rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
> to get into a good firing position first. "
>
> If you send in a large attack force, say a 40 plane strike or even a
> 100 plane one, the sky will be so rich with targets that ground based
> AA defenses will have a field day. How many billion dollar planes can
> you afford to lose in one mission? If you send in a smaller one, say
> 12 planes, PLAF defenders can easily send up twice that number and
> from all directions to get into that favorable firing position
> advantage. *Even if every US plane has an ace-in-a-day there will
> still be enough PLAF planes left. *How many aces can you afford to
> lose? *Chinese fighters are cheap. *Their pilots are mindless
> peasants. But they are just as nasty and you already know about
> China's manufacturing capabilities and manpower resources.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

A huge moutain range for defesive retreat exists. High altitude
penetration followed by any direction as defensive retreat means a
whole mountian range to tactically defend.

If you loose your mountains you have no defense as a nation. A US war
with China wouldlike be a response to a North Korean outcome called
illegal act.

An Afganistan AIr field is to maybe be built in honor of the nation.

Size appears an issue, but air to air parity means the defenders need
only wait for a trigger from the USA. When we start building bombers
again, then worry. THe USA has to few bombers to attack and drop your
air system.

A huge nice new airfield in Afganistan would make alot of sense. But
security is to poor there right now.

Defending the East Coast is like, I hope that is not called the level
of analysis.

[PaPaPeng]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
>scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 11, 4:37*pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > wrote:
> >High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
> >scenario China will never overcome.
>
> That's one big pile of empty rocks. *You can pound that to kingdom
> come and all you will do is move them rocks around. *From that
> direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
> of hostile defended territory. *Lots of opportunity to take out
> intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
> bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
> fuel.
>
> An attack from the East Coast? *How many planes can you launch from a
> Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. *How do you protect
> a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

[Dan[_2_]]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
>>> scenario China will never overcome.
>> That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
>> come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
>> direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
>> of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
>> intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
>> bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
>> fuel.
>>
>> An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
>> Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
>> a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>
> I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
> nuclear first strike.
>
> I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
> carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>
> You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
> freedom is clear in the government of China.
>
> I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
> people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
> you went astray.
>
> You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
> and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
> passing evil. SO your country is dictated.
>
> Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
> queens.
>
> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
> lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Kearton]

Dan wrote:
>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:

>>>
>>> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
>>> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator
>>> only lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>>
>> Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



All of your verbs are belong to us.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton (what has Verbia ever done for us anyway)

[PaPaPeng]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:

>On May 11, 4:37Â*pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
>> >scenario China will never overcome.
>>
>> That's one big pile of empty rocks. Â*You can pound that to kingdom
>> come and all you will do is move them rocks around. Â*From that
>> direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
>> of hostile defended territory. Â*Lots of opportunity to take out
>> intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
>> bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
>> fuel.
>>
>> An attack from the East Coast? Â*How many planes can you launch from a
>> Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. Â*How do you protect
>> a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>
>I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
>nuclear first strike.
>
>I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
>carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>
>You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
>freedom is clear in the government of China.
>
>I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
>people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
>you went astray.
>
>You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
>and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
>passing evil. SO your country is dictated.
>
>Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
>queens.
>
>So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
>bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
>lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

====================================

Buddy, if you believe in that kind of childish freedom crap no wonder
the Chicoms find it so easy to eat your lunch.

Now before anyone gets all riled up about American manhood hear this.
China has no intention in getting into an arms race or becoming a
global military giant like the US. It ruins one's own country and
wins no friends. The Chicom strategy is to have enough assets to
prevent the US from doing an Iraq to China. I believe China is
already there. The evidence is the modest but steady pace of defense
upgrades. Weapons systems will continue to be developed and improved
to a level comparable with the rest of the world. But there will not
be any crash program and there will not be any accelerated strive for
technical superiority. This is because conventional weapons have
already reach the limit of their design parameters. There are no
technical breakthroughs worth the billions of dollars in effort.

Once more. A war with China is a war of attrition. It's a numbers
game not one of technical superiority.

Planes do need to be larger, engines more powerful and efficient.
This is necessary to carry more ordnance, go further or stay aloft
longer and to quickly get out of trouble. Otherwise everything else
is done near sonic speeds. An emphasis on one aspect of design, eg.
stealth, requires major trade-off in other areas.
This closing sentence is telling http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117a.htm

[To summarize the F-117A's attack capability: the aircraft relies on
optical targeting and its effectiveness, as experience in Yugoslavia
showed, can be severely undermined by bad weather. The aircraft's
maximum weapons-carrying capacity of two bombs makes it a decent
diversionary tool but a less-then effective bomber in medium- to
large-scale armed conflicts. ]

Same thing with surface ships. The PLAN won't use a naval ship to
fight off a USN ship. That's a misuse of an asset. It is aircraft and
missiles against the USN intruder. Even the 40 knot maximum claimed on
some smaller USN ships that cannot outrun an antiship missile or a
frighter plane.

Same thing with an aircraft carrier. By common consent 300 km range
is the limit for tactical missiles.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197171387&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be
launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers
away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a
meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to
intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and
Harpoon. ]

That obliges the CVBG has to be at least 310km or more out. That
means the CV's air strike force will have to fly over 600 km of open
water in any mission. There will be more distance to cover to hit an
inland target. Any Chinese general will opt for max effort to take
out the CVBG first for by then the strike force won't have an intact
CVBG to come back to. Go figure out the risks to the CVBG and to the
air strike force.

Now if the US does not have the option to threaten China with a
conventional strike then what are you maintaining a 12 carrier fleet
for? A navy the size of the RN or IN is more than enough for the
piddling threats the USN had to deal with so far and in the
foreseeable future. Perhaps a 3 carrier inventory is about all you
will need if you want to hang on to carriers.

I don't believe there will be any scenario where the US will threaten
China with nukes. So let's not go there.

[Shanghai McCoy]

Well put, Doug! Except for the part where you were trying to convey a
thought.....


Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
>>> scenario China will never overcome.
>>>
>> That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
>> come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
>> direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
>> of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
>> intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
>> bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
>> fuel.
>>
>> An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
>> Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
>> a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>>
>
> I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
> nuclear first strike.
>
> I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
> carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>
> You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
> freedom is clear in the government of China.
>
> I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
> people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
> you went astray.
>
> You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
> and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
> passing evil. SO your country is dictated.
>
> Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
> queens.
>
> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
> lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>

[Dan[_2_]]

Dave Kearton wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>
>>>> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
>>>> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator
>>>> only lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>>> Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
> All of your verbs are belong to us.
>
>
>
Vowel movement?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[St. John Smythe]

Dan wrote:

> Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?

It really is sounding more and more like a bot.
--
sjs

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 11, 8:21*pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 11, 4:37*pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
> >> >scenario China will never overcome.
>
> >> That's one big pile of empty rocks. *You can pound that to kingdom
> >> come and all you will do is move them rocks around. *From that
> >> direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
> >> of hostile defended territory. *Lots of opportunity to take out
> >> intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
> >> bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
> >> fuel.
>
> >> An attack from the East Coast? *How many planes can you launch from a
> >> Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. *How do you protect
> >> a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>
> >I agree that the US can not take out China. *But the reason is only a
> >nuclear first strike.
>
> >I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
> >carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>
> >You like many dislike free people. *And the equation to eliminate
> >freedom is clear in the government of China.
>
> >I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
> >people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
> >you went astray.
>
> >You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
> >and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
> >passing evil. *SO your country is dictated.
>
> >Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
> >queens.
>
> >So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
> >bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
> >lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>
> ====================================
>
> Buddy, if you believe in that kind of childish freedom crap no wonder
> the Chicoms find it so easy to eat your lunch.
>
> Now before anyone gets all riled up about American manhood hear this.
> China has no intention in getting into an arms race or becoming a
> global military giant like the US. *It ruins one's own country and
> wins no friends. The Chicom strategy is to have enough assets to
> prevent the US from doing an Iraq to China. *I believe China is
> already there. *The evidence is the modest but steady pace of defense
> upgrades. *Weapons systems will continue to be developed and improved
> to a level comparable with the rest of the world. *But there will not
> be any crash program and there will not be any accelerated strive for
> technical superiority. *This is because conventional weapons have
> already reach the limit of their design parameters. There are no
> technical breakthroughs worth the billions of dollars in effort. *
>
> Once more. *A war with China is a war of attrition. *It's a numbers
> game not one of technical superiority.
>
> Planes do need to be larger, engines more powerful and efficient.
> This is necessary to carry more ordnance, go further or stay aloft
> longer and to quickly get out of trouble. *Otherwise everything else
> is done near sonic speeds. *An emphasis on one aspect of design, eg.
> stealth, requires major trade-off in other areas.
> This closing sentence is telling *http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117a.htm
>
> [To summarize the F-117A's attack capability: the aircraft relies on
> optical targeting and its effectiveness, as experience in Yugoslavia
> showed, can be severely undermined by bad weather. The aircraft's
> maximum weapons-carrying capacity of two bombs makes it a decent
> diversionary tool but a less-then effective bomber in medium- to
> large-scale armed conflicts. ]
>
> Same thing with surface ships. *The PLAN won't use a naval ship to
> fight off a USN ship. *That's a misuse of an asset. It is aircraft and
> missiles against the USN intruder. Even the 40 knot maximum claimed on
> some smaller USN ships that cannot outrun an antiship missile or a
> frighter plane. *
>
> Same thing with an aircraft carrier. *By common consent 300 km *range
> is the limit for tactical missiles. *
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197171387&pagename=JPo....
> [ Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be
> launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers
> away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a
> meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to
> intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and
> Harpoon. ]
>
> That obliges the CVBG has to be at least 310km or more out. *That
> means the CV's air strike force will have to fly over 600 km of open
> water in any mission. *There will be more distance to cover to hit an
> inland target. *Any Chinese general will opt for max effort to take
> out the CVBG first for by then the strike force won't have an intact
> CVBG to come back to. *Go figure out the risks to the CVBG and to the
> air strike force.
>
> Now if the US does not have the option to threaten China with a
> conventional strike then what are you maintaining a 12 carrier fleet
> for? *A navy the size of the RN or IN is more than enough for the
> piddling threats the USN had to deal with so far and in the
> foreseeable future. *Perhaps a 3 carrier inventory is about all you
> will need if you want to hang on to carriers.
>
> I don't believe there will be any scenario where the US will threaten
> China with nukes. *So let's not go there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A Lord allows the usage of nuclear weapons, a war ethic is demanded
and the concept as a rule was always to begin to weigh the regime
against the allowance for acts of evil to continue. All police
systems in general have acts of evil committed against the people, but
the degree determine the Lords allowance for nuclear usage.

You will not have trouble in heaven as a rule because the evil acts
demanded a good to act against it.

It all comes down to minimizing the innocents lost. A smaller weapon
to act when available must be chosen. So so-called “bunker buster”
nukes are required to attack in the eyes of the Lord. A program is in
place to allow small usage.

As a rule the regime of China is on notice for violating and being
evil. Evil means to commit wrongs as judged by a good man.

SO the meaning of mistakes was the relation of Hiroshima to the war
act of good nuclear weapons usage. A first mistake was made and the
target was an innocent people, almost.

A next usage would entail a correct targeting. Military
infrastructure as a rule is allowed to be nuclear attacked.

Ethics in nuclear warfare are evaluated as only a powerful weapon that
can be miss-targeted, easily. It has a mistaken image as a disallowed
weapon because of the first mistake.

When you attack civilians because the whole nation is assisting the
enemy you have a severe problem with the innocent children. How do you
prevent their evil destruction with your powerful weapons?

Civilian targeting is the issue with the Lord. And the correct usage
allows all US commanders to sleep well and know their justice was a
good attack. Precision attack with correctly sized nuclear weapons is
allowable.

So when the US has to act on China, all the scenarios demand a good to
win. Attack and a loss is not allowable. Making the nuclear option
almost assuredly the chosen tactic.

China will be struck by nicely designed weapons. And the issue is to
always win, causing the US tactic as a nation to reply with the
question. If attacked nicely would China then announce their evil
intention to attack US continental civilians?

Would the nuclear stalemate, be to always kill innocents in reply to a
small nuclear attack? And so we understand the reply method of the
China liker. He believes in nuclear stratagem of only acting to
destroy innocents to prevent a good nuclear attack.

It is a misguided belief that evil would be allowed to proceed with
second strikes.

[Ron]

On May 11, 6:33 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
> On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > > wrote:
> > >High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
> > >scenario China will never overcome.
>
> > That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
> > come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
> > direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
> > of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
> > intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
> > bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
> > fuel.
>
> > An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
> > Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
> > a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>
> I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
> nuclear first strike.
>
> I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
> carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>
> You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
> freedom is clear in the government of China.
>
> I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
> people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
> you went astray.
>
> You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
> and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
> passing evil. SO your country is dictated.
>
> Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
> queens.
>
> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
> lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????

[T.L. Davis]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On May 11, 2:14 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
>> >never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
>> >flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.
>>
>> >It is a critical failure of US technology.
>>
>> OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
>> to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
>> SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
>> original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
>> serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?
>>
>> Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...
>>
>> Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
>> numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
>> help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.
>>
>> T.L. Davis
>
>There is a sign of your newness to Russian design, maintenance is
>secondary to air show performances. Imagine what a Russian mechanic
>can do with those nozzles and then multiply that by the guy he
>teaches, perhaps in English perhaps not. Certainly not the recipient's
>native colloquial tongue

So, impressive as an airshow gimmick, but not necessarily reliable or
representative of easily transferable technology...I got it.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> On May 11, 6:33 pm, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
>> On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
>> > >scenario China will never overcome.
>>
>> > That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
>> > come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
>> > direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
>> > of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
>> > intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
>> > bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
>> > fuel.
>>
>> > An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
>> > Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
>> > a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?
>>
>> I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
>> nuclear first strike.
>>
>> I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
>> carange on this creators world shall diminish.
>>
>> You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
>> freedom is clear in the government of China.
>>
>> I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
>> people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
>> you went astray.
>>
>> You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
>> and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
>> passing evil. SO your country is dictated.
>>
>> Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
>> queens.
>>
>> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
>> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
>> lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>
> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????
>

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
> to meet your imminent demise.


I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation, would
you?


>
> My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
> What would be yours?
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"
> www.thunderchief.org

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>Leadfoot wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
>>> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
>>> to meet your imminent demise.
>>
>> I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation,
>> would you?
>>
>
>Fully accepting your credentials and experience
>
>Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues (similar to
>bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat effectiveness issue , e.g.
>what we would risk to recover a functioning pilot?
>
>Vince
>
First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting element,
but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have lost the
essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry. You've got
to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if time,
mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all immediate
tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and briefed on
every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large BUT---the
clear understanding that recovering of downed combat aircrew members
is a very high priority is very critical to morale. Knowing that a
mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that your
fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will be
there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes remaining.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 11, 7:36*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > wrote:
> >Wait, wait waitie.
>
> >Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
> >says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
> >his ignorence.
>
> >I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
> >ittie comic book.
>
> >You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
> >I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? *Has he helped debate the
> >future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.
>
> I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
> video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
> with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
> ludicrous.
>
>
>
> >It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.
>
> >btw, you wanna be real? *Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.
>
> Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
> But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
> augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
> etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
> unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.
>
> Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
> aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.
>
> Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
> occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
> and recover. Those are losing strategies.
>
> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
> to meet your imminent demise.
>
> My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
> What would be yours?
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models
to identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter
pilots think about.

Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this
manuever. Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards
while rear horizontal stabilizers can NOT recover.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out
the debate was challenged. It should be a lively debate.

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to
match technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.

Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.

A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.

I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
twiin flight by an expert.


All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
nonslang.

The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?

One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
expert on a newsgroup.

[WaltBJ]

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
SNIP:>
> One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
> What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
> All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
> will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.
>
> What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
> recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
> canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>
> A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> fighters.
SNIP:

Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
know very little about air combat maneuvering.
As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
line of 710KIAS. Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
the two makes a mistake.
I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 at 200, the afterburner
would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
inventory.
What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
- and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
occupied.
..
Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

[WaltBJ]

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
> On May 11, 7:36 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
>
> > > wrote:
> > >Wait, wait waitie.
>
> > >Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
> > >says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
> > >his ignorence.
>
> > >I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
> > >ittie comic book.
>
> > >You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
> > >I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
> > >future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.
>
> > I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
> > video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
> > with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
> > ludicrous.
>
> > >It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.
>
> > >btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.
>
> > Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
> > But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
> > augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
> > etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
> > unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.
>
> > Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
> > aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.
>
> > Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
> > occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
> > and recover. Those are losing strategies.
>
> > Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
> > yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
> > to meet your imminent demise.
>
> > My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
> > What would be yours?
>
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
> I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
> understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models
> to identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter
> pilots think about.
>
> Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this
> manuever. Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards
> while rear horizontal stabilizers can NOT recover.
>
> So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each
> select maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>
> Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.
>
> It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out
> the debate was challenged. It should be a lively debate.
>
> There should be no blinders about different performace realities.
>
> I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to
> match technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.
>
> So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
> self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
> would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.
>
> Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
> And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
> inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.
>
> A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
>
> And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
> set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
> is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.
>
> I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
> train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
> recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
> careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
> Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
> takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
> So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
> recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
> single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
> twiin flight by an expert.
>
> All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
> to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
> is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
> issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
> be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
> nonslang.
>
> The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
> overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?
>
> One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
> What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
> All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
> will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.
>
> What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
> recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
> canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>
> A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> fighters.
>
> So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
> expert on a newsgroup.

[Mike Kanze]

Well-said, Ed.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>Leadfoot wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
>>> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
>>> to meet your imminent demise.
>>
>> I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation,
>> would you?
>>
>
>Fully accepting your credentials and experience
>
>Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues (similar to
>bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat effectiveness issue , e.g.
>what we would risk to recover a functioning pilot?
>
>Vince
>
First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting element,
but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have lost the
essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry. You've got
to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if time,
mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all immediate
tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and briefed on
every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large BUT---the
clear understanding that recovering of downed combat aircrew members
is a very high priority is very critical to morale. Knowing that a
mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that your
fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will be
there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes remaining.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Mike Kanze]

Vince,

>CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense. Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the possibilities

Even the dumbest of enemies knows that a downed U.S. airman will usually draw a CSAR effort, so it is one of the things that the remaining aircraft cum on-scene commander must consider. Sometimes It's not an easy choice, weighing the desire to help a buddy against the possibility of inadvertently joining him on the ground (or worse).

Other times it's a no-brainer: If shot down over metro Hanoi in 1967, one simply accepted that no CSAR effort would be forthcoming.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message news:P4iWj.10198$%X1.6893@trnddc08...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > wrote:
>
>> Leadfoot wrote:
>>>> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
>>>> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or
>>>> prepare to meet your imminent demise.
>>> I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
>>> situation, would you?
>>>
>> Fully accepting your credentials and experience
>>
>> Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues
>> (similar to bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat
>> effectiveness issue , e.g. what we would risk to recover a
>> functioning pilot?
>>
>> Vince
>>
> First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
> mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting
> element, but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have
> lost the essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry.
> You've got to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if
> time, mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.
>
> In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
> dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
> place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
> the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
> positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
> refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
> immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
> complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all
> immediate tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and
> briefed on every mission.
>
> For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
> you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
> of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large
> BUT---the clear understanding that recovering of downed combat
> aircrew members is a very high priority is very critical to morale.
> Knowing that a mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that
> your fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will
> be there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes
> remaining.
>

Thank you

I apologize if I implied that morale was less important. As Napolean
was reputed to say "moral is to material as three to one"

I was simply inquiring about the procedure. As in the Aboukir Cressy
and Hogue, http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/cressy.htm

CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
possibilities

Vince





> Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Palace
> Cobra" www.thunderchief.org

[WaltBJ]

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
SNIP
First let me say you got one thing right although stated it awkwardly.
FLY the aircraft. Airspeed, then altitude..
>
> What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
> recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
> canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>>>>>10,000 feet? In 1967 I flew a fighter that at fighting speed (650-700) could exceed 50,000 on a zoom from the deck.
>
> A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> fighters.
>>>>>Wherever did you get this idea? E/M diagrams go all the way to the deck and a competent fighter pilot studies them for every airplane he flies or expects to meet sometime.
A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
too low. BTW, the Tbirds and the Blues fly down there and so do all
the air to ground types.

> So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called expert on a newsgroup.
>>>>>Bot phrasing, indeed.
Walt BJ

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
...
> On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
> SNIP
> First let me say you got one thing right although stated it awkwardly.
> FLY the aircraft. Airspeed, then altitude..
>>
>> What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
>> recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
>> canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
>> do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
>> and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>>>>>>10,000 feet? In 1967 I flew a fighter that at fighting speed (650-700)
>>>>>>could exceed 50,000 on a zoom from the deck.
>>
>> A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
>> fighters.
>>>>>>Wherever did you get this idea? E/M diagrams go all the way to the
>>>>>>deck and a competent fighter pilot studies them for every airplane he
>>>>>>flies or expects to meet sometime.
> A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
> floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
> get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
> in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
> must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
> too low. BTW, the Tbirds and the Blues fly down there and so do all
> the air to ground types.
>
>> So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
>> expert on a newsgroup.
>>>>>>Bot phrasing, indeed.
> Walt BJ
>
Walt
Its a waste of time (and electrons) responding. Douglas Eagleson is a bot.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
> wrote:


>I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
>understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models
>to identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter
>pilots think about.

I hope you mean aircraft performance models on computers rather than
small replicas of real airplanes.

Your discussion of canards, inverted vs erect flight, stalls either
positive or negative, etc. indicate that you DON'T understand
aerodynamics.
>
>Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this
>manuever. Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards
>while rear horizontal stabilizers can NOT recover.

Inverted or upright has nothing to do with speed. If, by "out speed"
you mean out-accelerate (gain speed faster) than the basic is to
achieve zero-G--the relationship of the wing to true vertical is
irrelevant. Simply reduce G to zero and you've stopped generating lift
and hence eliminated induced drag. If you also do this downward you
get the additional acceleration of gravity, but your upright or
inverted posture is irrelevant.
>
>So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each
>select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

There are only three things that define an air-to-air engagement:
1.) Attempt to reduce angles between aircraft on offensive, increase
them on defense. (That includes both aspect angle and angle-off)

2.) Attempt to achieve a positive delta-energy (that can be either
potential or kinetic.)

3.) Unless about to shoot, do all maneuvers outside of the defenders
plane of motion. If defensive, jam the attacker into your plane of
motion thereby inducing over-shoot.
>
>Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

Canards are irrelevant to the discussion. They are simply control
surfaces--no more, no less.
>
>It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out
>the debate was challenged. It should be a lively debate.
>
>There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

Fighter pilots study performance charts of both their own and their
prospective opposition's aircraft. Thrust/weight, turn rate/radius,
Em, Ps and weapons parameters.
>
>I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to
>match technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

Canards are a low cost solution to ham-fisted pilots--see the Rutan
homebuilts for discussion of their stability.

They are inherently unstealthy and agility can be gained by other
technologies.
>
>So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
>self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
>would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.

Neither were rational nor were they beyond US aircraft capability.
>
>Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
>And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
>inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.

Two things--a hammerhead stall used by crop-dusters is not something
adviseable in a high performance aircraft nor survivable against moder
A/A weapons.

Second the "deadly performance box" is somewhere I suspect you haven't
been.
>
>A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
>
>And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
>set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
>is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.

There is a lot of training before real-world engagements. I spent a
lot of time at three levels of that--first as student, then as
instructor and then as trainer of instructors in air/air fighter
maneuver.
>
>I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
>train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
>recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
>careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
>Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
>takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
>So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
>recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
>single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
>twiin flight by an expert.

Good for you, but apples and oranges.
>
>All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
>to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
>is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
>issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
>be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
>nonslang.
>
>The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
>overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?
>
>One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
>What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?

What "canard maneuver"? Rolling inverted and stalling? Rolling
inverted and diving?

>All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
>will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

An attacker who loses sight is a poorly trained individual. Defenders
are much more likely to lose sight--and in your scenario that
probability is more likely.
>
>What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
>recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
>canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
>do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
>and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

Assuming lost sight, the probable action is ease off back pressure,
drift into lag and reposition to allow your wingman to engage and
complete the kill.
>
>A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
>fighters.
>
>So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
>expert on a newsgroup.

I don't know what you consider a "low altitude" regime, but
look-down/shoot-down radar weapons capability has made "ground
clutter" a thing of the past. And, super-cooled all-aspect IR missiles
are equally effective regardless of altitude or ground proximity. Guns
don't care either.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Dan[_9_]]

Dan wrote:
> Dave Kearton wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>>
>>>>> So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
>>>>> bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator
>>>>> only lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
>>>> Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>> All of your verbs are belong to us.
>>
>>
>>
> Vowel movement?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well, you gotta admit he does inspire creativity in OTHERS!

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 13, 10:34 am, WaltBJ > wrote:
> On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
> SNIP:>> One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
> > What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
> > All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
> > will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.
>
> > What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
> > recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
> > canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> > do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> > and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>
> > A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> > fighters.
>
> SNIP:
>
> Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
> know very little about air combat maneuvering.
> As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
> imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
> All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
> structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
> wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
> lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
> flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
> in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
> line of 710KIAS. Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
> limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
> Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
> both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
> but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
> effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
> opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
> Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
> does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
> If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
> single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
> unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
> is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
> the two makes a mistake.
> I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
> six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
> it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
> despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 at 200, the afterburner
> would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
> poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
> inventory.
> What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
> of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
> in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
> avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
> advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
> advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
> Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
> 10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
> In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
> - and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
> the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
> aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
> model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
> we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
> explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
> very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
> sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
> couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
> occupied.
> .
> Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
> was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
> longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

Somewhat immature, but I do a plot of 2 against one,
using cardboard models, manueving incrementally,
and 11/12 times the single is burned, all other things
being equal.

However, you can do some teasing maneuvers to
determine their skill levels, prior to engagement.
Specifically, their weakness of common coodination
and experience, then divide and conquer, with wing
man breaking off leader.
Then you can take one at a time.
If you can injure one, chances are his buddy will back
off.
Ken

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 10:34*am, WaltBJ > wrote:
> On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
> SNIP:>> One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
> > What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
> > All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
> > will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.
>
> > What next? *What should a US pilot do? *I would recommend a scene
> > recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. *So if the
> > canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> > do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> > and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>
> > A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> > fighters.
>
> SNIP:
>
> Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
> know very little about air combat maneuvering.
> As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
> imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
> All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
> structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
> wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
> lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
> flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
> in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
> line of 710KIAS. *Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
> limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
> Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
> both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
> but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
> effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
> opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
> Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
> does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
> If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
> single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
> unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
> is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
> the two makes a mistake.
> I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
> six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
> it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
> despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 *at 200, the afterburner
> would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
> poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
> inventory.
> What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
> of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
> in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
> avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
> advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
> advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
> Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
> 10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
> In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
> - and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
> the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
> aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
> model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
> we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
> explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
> very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
> sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
> couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
> occupied.
> .
> Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
> was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
> longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 10:34*am, WaltBJ > wrote:
> On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson >
> wrote:
> SNIP:>> One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
> > What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
> > All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
> > will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.
>
> > What next? *What should a US pilot do? *I would recommend a scene
> > recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. *So if the
> > canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
> > do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
> > and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
>
> > A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
> > fighters.
>
> SNIP:
>
> Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
> know very little about air combat maneuvering.
> As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
> imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
> All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
> structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
> wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
> lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
> flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
> in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
> line of 710KIAS. *Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
> limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
> Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
> both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
> but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
> effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
> opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
> Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
> does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
> If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
> single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
> unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
> is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
> the two makes a mistake.
> I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
> six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
> it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
> despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 *at 200, the afterburner
> would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
> poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
> inventory.
> What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
> of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
> in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
> avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
> advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
> advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
> Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
> 10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
> In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
> - and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
> the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
> aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
> model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
> we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
> explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
> very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
> sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
> couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
> occupied.
> .
> Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
> was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
> longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

Dogfighting 101

I can only imagine the scenario where the first aircraft as a rule
must destroy. A basic rule was stated outlining the worst possible
thing to do as a method. Radar homing as a method was to always be the
non-dogfight.

A pilot can change the rules and make it a true dogfight. So if the
rule is to never dogfight and break-off to recover the first attack
scenario then what is happening? A person has to hear the scenario.

Say, a flight of enemy fighters appears on the radar. You spot,
target and fire. And then find out they only lost one aircraft of the
several. As time goes, they are now maneuvering to attack. So the
worst thing is one to one fighting and it is the standard of aircraft
evaluation. Changing the scenario to non-one to one only fails to
adjust to real war time reality. So evaluate aircraft in a consistent
fashion.

I clearly demanded debate concerning dogfights. Changing my scenario
to avoid the challenge of debate is all you required.

Standard method as a radar attack is NOT the scenario. If US aircraft
are so inferior that they must retreat and radar attack only, what
does that mean when no retreat was allowed by the enemy?

A first radar targeting becomes the rule for success. Air to air
attacker then finds out that some play by real rules called first
sight by eye allows first radar launch of air to air.

Closing the eyes to not allow sighting by eye certainly says
something. Visual sighting followed by radar targeting was the real
world.

Where are you in fighter recommendation?

[Mike Kanze]

Vince,

I didn't miss your point at all.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message news:aBlWj.32$0h.24@trnddc02...
Mike Kanze wrote:
> Vince,
>
> >CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
> Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
> possibilities
> Even the dumbest of enemies knows that a downed U.S. airman will usually
> draw a CSAR effort, so it is one of the things that the remaining
> aircraft /cum/ on-scene commander must consider. Sometimes It's not an
> easy choice, weighing the desire to help a buddy against the possibility
> of inadvertently joining him on the ground (or worse).
>
> Other times it's a no-brainer: If shot down over metro Hanoi in 1967,
> one simply accepted that no CSAR effort would be forthcoming.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze

Of course
You miss my point
here was the exchange

> >>>> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
> >>>> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or
> >>>> prepare to meet your imminent demise.
> >>> I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
> >>> situation, would you?

I was simply raising the question that even when csar is being mounted
leaving the wingman may be the best course

Vince


>
> Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I
> could get rid of my inhibitions?"
> Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put
> them in."
>
> - Night After Night, 1932
>
> "Vincent Brannigan" >>
> wrote in message news:P4iWj.10198$%X1.6893@trnddc08...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >> Leadfoot wrote:
> >>>> Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
> >>>> yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or
> >>>> prepare to meet your imminent demise.
> >>> I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
> >>> situation, would you?
> >>>
> >> Fully accepting your credentials and experience
> >>
> >> Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues
> >> (similar to bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat
> >> effectiveness issue , e.g. what we would risk to recover a
> >> functioning pilot?
> >>
> >> Vince
> >>
> > First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
> > mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting
> > element, but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have
> > lost the essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry.
> > You've got to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if
> > time, mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.
> >
> > In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
> > dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
> > place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
> > the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
> > positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
> > refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
> > immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
> > complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all
> > immediate tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and
> > briefed on every mission.
> >
> > For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
> > you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
> > of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large
> > BUT---the clear understanding that recovering of downed combat
> > aircrew members is a very high priority is very critical to morale.
> > Knowing that a mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that
> > your fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will
> > be there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes
> > remaining.
> >
>
> Thank you
>
> I apologize if I implied that morale was less important. As Napolean
> was reputed to say "moral is to material as three to one"
>
> I was simply inquiring about the procedure. As in the Aboukir Cressy
> and Hogue, http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/cressy.htm
>
> CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
> Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
> possibilities
>
> Vince
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Palace
> > Cobra" www.thunderchief.org <http://www.thunderchief.org>

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...

> I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
> understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
> identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
> think about.

> Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
> Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
> stabilizers can NOT recover.

Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!

ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!

"Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" Acrobatic pilots do them all the
time -- including from inverted spins -- in small airplanes. Test pilots do
them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
trainers like the US Navy T-2!

The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
the airplane's negative G capability. If the horizontal stab and elevator have
sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.


> So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each select
> maneuver that the aircraft can do.

> Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...

Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." EACH
AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. Again, canard
vs horizontal stab is moot. If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.


> It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out the debate
> was challenged. It should be a lively debate.

You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
challenged. That challenge is obviously valid.


> There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

So why do you have them?


> I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
> technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

And you obviously think wrong.


> Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
.. . .
> A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
weevils...

The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 1:40*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
> > I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. *I
> > understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
> > identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
> > think about.
> > Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
> > Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
> > stabilizers can NOT recover.
>
> Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!
>
> ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!
>
> "Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
> possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" *Acrobatic pilots do them all the
> time -- including from inverted spins -- *in small airplanes. *Test pilots do
> them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
> trainers like the US Navy T-2!
>
> The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
> the airplane's negative G capability. *If the horizontal stab and elevator have
> sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
> continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.
>
> > So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. *And each select
> > maneuver that the aircraft can do.
> > Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.
>
> You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...
>
> Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. *And each
> select maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>
> Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." *EACH
> AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. *Again, canard
> vs horizontal stab is moot. *If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
> is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
> other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.
>
> > It is not a matter of anything but debate. *My ability to point out the debate
> > was challenged. *It should be a lively debate.
>
> You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
> challenged. *That challenge is obviously valid.
>
> > There should be no blinders about different performace realities.
>
> So why do you have them?
>
> > I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
> > technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.
>
> And you obviously think wrong.
>
>
>
> > Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
> . . .
> > A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
>
> Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
> weevils...
>
> The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
> maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
> instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
> appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.



A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
thanks for recognizing it.

So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.

I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
incorrectness as a fact.

Is that hard?

Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.

Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.

[Richard Casady]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> wrote:

>Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

Casady

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Richard Casady" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.
>
> I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
> around, at any rate.
>
> Casady

He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.

[Dan[_2_]]

WaltBJ wrote:

> A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
> floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
> get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
> in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
> must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
> too low.

Another thing to avoid at the lower levels is cumulogranite clouds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Eugene Griessel]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote:

>Its a waste of time (and electrons) responding. Douglas Eagleson is a bot.

No, no, no! Douglas Eagleson is a very poorly written amateurish bot.
Alternately he is just a smartarse conman who thinks people will be
impressed by his idiot ramblings.

Either way killfile the stupid arsehole.

Eugene L Griessel

Earnestness is just stupidity that's been to University.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Eugene Griessel]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote:

>
>"Richard Casady" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.
>>
>> I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
>> around, at any rate.
>>
>> Casady
>
>He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
>If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.

Wat maak jy so laat in die nag - slaaptyd!

Eugene L Griessel

One should try everything once - except incest and folk-dancing.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Dan[_2_]]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 13, 1:40 pm, "JR Weiss" >
> wrote:
>> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
>>> I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
>>> understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
>>> identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
>>> think about.
>>> Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
>>> Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
>>> stabilizers can NOT recover.
>> Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!
>>
>> ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!
>>
>> "Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
>> possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" Acrobatic pilots do them all the
>> time -- including from inverted spins -- in small airplanes. Test pilots do
>> them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
>> trainers like the US Navy T-2!
>>
>> The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
>> the airplane's negative G capability. If the horizontal stab and elevator have
>> sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
>> continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.
>>
>>> So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each select
>>> maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>>> Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.
>> You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...
>>
>> Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. And each
>> select maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>>
>> Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." EACH
>> AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. Again, canard
>> vs horizontal stab is moot. If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
>> is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
>> other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.
>>
>>> It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out the debate
>>> was challenged. It should be a lively debate.
>> You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
>> challenged. That challenge is obviously valid.
>>
>>> There should be no blinders about different performace realities.
>> So why do you have them?
>>
>>> I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
>>> technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.
>> And you obviously think wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
>> . . .
>>> A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
>> Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
>> weevils...
>>
>> The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
>> maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
>> instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
>> appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.
>
>
>
> A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.
>
> Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
> Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
> claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
> thanks for recognizing it.
>
> So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
> point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
> forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.
>
> I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
> under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
> incorrectness as a fact.
>
> Is that hard?
>
> Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
> aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
> rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.
>
> Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
> with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
> vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
> to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
> thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.
>

I wonder if this guy has ever had a coherent thought. He's as bad as
cobb.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Eugene Griessel" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Casady" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.
>>>
>>> I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
>>> around, at any rate.
>>>
>>> Casady
>>
>>He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
>>If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.
>
> Wat maak jy so laat in die nag - slaaptyd!
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> One should try everything once - except incest and folk-dancing.
>
> - I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Jy's reg - ek gaan nou...
Groete uit die koue Karoo.
Roger

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>> On May 13, 1:40 pm, "JR Weiss" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
>>>> I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
>>>> understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models
>>>> to
>>>> identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter
>>>> pilots
>>>> think about.
>>>> Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this
>>>> manuever.
>>>> Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear
>>>> horizontal
>>>> stabilizers can NOT recover.
>>> Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think
>>> you do!
>>>
>>> ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!
>>>
>>> "Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are
>>> BOTH
>>> possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" Acrobatic pilots do them
>>> all the
>>> time -- including from inverted spins -- in small airplanes. Test
>>> pilots do
>>> them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in
>>> jet
>>> trainers like the US Navy T-2!
>>>
>>> The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control
>>> authority and
>>> the airplane's negative G capability. If the horizontal stab and
>>> elevator have
>>> sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil
>>> systems will
>>> continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.
>>>
>>>> So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each select
>>>> maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>>>> Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.
>>> You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...
>>>
>>> Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. And
>>> each
>>> select maneuver that the aircraft can do.
>>>
>>> Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers."
>>> EACH
>>> AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. Again,
>>> canard
>>> vs horizontal stab is moot. If the fight is within a part of the
>>> envelope that
>>> is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force
>>> the
>>> other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.
>>>
>>>> It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out the
>>>> debate
>>>> was challenged. It should be a lively debate.
>>> You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts
>>> was
>>> challenged. That challenge is obviously valid.
>>>
>>>> There should be no blinders about different performace realities.
>>> So why do you have them?
>>>
>>>> I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to
>>>> match
>>>> technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.
>>> And you obviously think wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
>>> . . .
>>>> A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
>>> Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
>>> weevils...
>>>
>>> The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation,
>>> dynamically select
>>> maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the
>>> correct
>>> instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds,
>>> and bring
>>> appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.
>>
>>
>>
>> A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.
>>
>> Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
>> Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
>> claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
>> thanks for recognizing it.
>>
>> So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
>> point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
>> forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.
>>
>> I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
>> under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
>> incorrectness as a fact.
>>
>> Is that hard?
>>
>> Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
>> aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
>> rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.
>>
>> Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
>> with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
>> vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
>> to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
>> thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.
>>
>
> I wonder if this guy has ever had a coherent thought. He's as bad as
> cobb.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It's a bot - killfile it.

[Richard Casady]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:39:03 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

> I was simply raising the question that even when csar is being mounted
> leaving the wingman may be the best course

It doesn't take long to run low on fuel. Then you have to leave or
else.

Casady

[Eugene Griessel]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote:

>Jy's reg - ek gaan nou...
>Groete uit die koue Karoo.

Waar? I can remember a very bitter weekend in June/July spent chasing
a bunch of army candidate officers about between Ceres and Sutherland.
With only military issue sleeping bags and rum to keep us warm. Cold!
Your skin was left on the rifle when you took your hand off the damned
thing. Us four navy terrorists spent one night in sort of a layby -
with those concrete picnic tables. The place was rat-infested and we
passed the time shooting at the things with the LAR - ****ed out of
our minds on rum. How we did not kill ourselves is still a mystery
because the ricochets were zooming about like anything.

Eugene L Griessel

Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
> The Weekly Standard
>
> The Swedish Model
> How to build a jet fighter.
> by Reuben F. Johnson
> 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>
> Linköping, Sweden
> ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
> become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
> the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
> Generation Gripen"
> (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
> JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
> being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
> Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>
> As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
> stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
> platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
> Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
> of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
> are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
> configuration.
>
> The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
> replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
> F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
> propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
> increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
> electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
> now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
> aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
> PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
> array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
> on the front end.)
>
> But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
> performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
> sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
> to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
> fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
> tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
> nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>
> What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
> produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
> taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
> plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
> half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
> third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
> to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
> own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>
> But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
> the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
> based.
>
> There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
> as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
> F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
> nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
> (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
> Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
> the "MiG-35,"
> although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
> does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
> configuration.)
>
> Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
> companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
> joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
> contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
> largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
> partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
> all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
> United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
> nations that are also part of the program.
>
> Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
> companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
> is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
> Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
> technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
> program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
> these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>
> Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
> stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
> Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
> million per copy.
> This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
> designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
> the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
> (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
> end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
> supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
> the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
> Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
> Gripen purchase instead.)
>
> The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
> the U.S.
> dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
> buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
> strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
> million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
> primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
> industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
> to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>
> The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
> from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
> materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
> added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
> move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
> anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
> to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
> ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
> four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
> nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
> four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>
> (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
> industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
> European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
> one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
> but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
> expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>
> F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
> and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
> matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
> these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
> dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
> development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
> the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>
> Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
> country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
> longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
> Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
> on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
> airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
> electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
> combat or air defence environment.
>
> There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
> stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
> increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
> technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
> has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
> that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
> in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
> after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
> Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>
> The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
> methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
> has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
> will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
> F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
> advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
> methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
> similarly truncated service lives?
>
> (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
> obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
> from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
> The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
> photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
> retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
> allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
> hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
> some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
> much more advanced F-22A.)
>
> On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
> and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
> MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
> fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
> military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.
>
> The JAS-39, ...
>
> read more »

this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:bIjqSNhAI9AJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf


If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.

A major reason for canard designs to be unacceptable was the tumble
characteristic. “The best place for canards is on your enemy’s
aircraft” is a rumored quote of an American General.

A tumble is allowed by a high angle of attack. A real maneuver. A
turn with a high speed stall can tumble canards they claim.

Why is this a surprise, because it means the angle of attack, AOA, was
real high. So canards can fly at real high AOA.

So larger tumbles means better fighters.

Somebody at NASA is an idiot. Just use a larger vertical stabilizer
so you can tumble ok.

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is
disgusting.

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...

> A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Actually, not. You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
"horizontal stabilizer" fighter. You then provided specific claims for each of
them. THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" in general.


> Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable. Stalling a
> fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was claimed to be ALWAYS
> nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate, thanks for recognizing it.

The theory as a general theory is flawed. "Canard stall recover" is
"intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.


> So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact point, then
> my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-forces. Meaning maybe
> 12g's.

You are wrong.

No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. No human pilot can function
under -12g!


> I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad under high
> inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my incorrectness as a
> fact.

> Is that hard?

No; it's easy.

An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
under high + or -g. It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
physical or aerodynamic law.

An airplane that has a profile symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
same whether upright or inverted. Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. It would not
"know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
the computers. Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
under "+" or "-" g. ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
limitation of + or - g.


> Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common aerobatic
> aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the rudder to
> recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.

Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. Both prop
and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. All 4
permutations are viable. All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. All
4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. NONE of
them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!


> Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem with
> always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust vector stall
> recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail to assist in stalls
> for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern thrust vector method, but it
> seeems to me to make little help.

Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
a general theory from a specific design fault!

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 4:29*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
> > A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.
>
> Actually, not. *You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
> "horizontal stabilizer" fighter. *You then provided specific claims for each of
> them. *THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" in general.
>
> > Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable. *Stalling a
> > fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was claimed to be ALWAYS
> > nonrecoverable. *This is the point of the debate, thanks for recognizing it.
>
> The theory as a general theory is flawed. *"Canard stall recover" is
> "intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
> current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
> hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
> drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.
>
> > So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact point, then
> > my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-forces. Meaning maybe
> > 12g's.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. *No human pilot can function
> under -12g!
>
> > I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad under high
> > inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my incorrectness as a
> > fact.
> > Is that hard?
>
> No; it's easy.
>
> An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
> under high + or -g. *It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
> physical or aerodynamic law.
>
> An airplane that has a profile *symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
> same whether upright or inverted. *Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
> flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. *It would not
> "know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
> the computers. *Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
> under "+" or "-" g. *ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
> limitation of + or - g.
>
> > Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common aerobatic
> > aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the rudder to
> > recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.
>
> Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. *Both prop
> and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. *All 4
> permutations are viable. *All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. *All
> 4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. *NONE of
> them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!
>
> > Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. *A problem with
> > always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust vector stall
> > recovery. *And the answer is obvious. *Why does this fail to assist in stalls
> > for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern thrust vector method, but it
> > seeems to me to make little help.
>
> Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
> figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
> a general theory from a specific design fault!

Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me
being wrong about stalls in canards.

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight,
but stall.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 4:29*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
> > A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.
>
> Actually, not. *You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
> "horizontal stabilizer" fighter. *You then provided specific claims for each of
> them. *THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" in general.
>
> > Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable. *Stalling a
> > fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was claimed to be ALWAYS
> > nonrecoverable. *This is the point of the debate, thanks for recognizing it.
>
> The theory as a general theory is flawed. *"Canard stall recover" is
> "intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
> current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
> hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
> drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.
>
> > So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact point, then
> > my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-forces. Meaning maybe
> > 12g's.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. *No human pilot can function
> under -12g!
>
> > I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad under high
> > inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my incorrectness as a
> > fact.
> > Is that hard?
>
> No; it's easy.
>
> An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
> under high + or -g. *It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
> physical or aerodynamic law.
>
> An airplane that has a profile *symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
> same whether upright or inverted. *Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
> flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. *It would not
> "know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
> the computers. *Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
> under "+" or "-" g. *ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
> limitation of + or - g.
>
> > Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common aerobatic
> > aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the rudder to
> > recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.
>
> Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. *Both prop
> and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. *All 4
> permutations are viable. *All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. *All
> 4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. *NONE of
> them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!
>
> > Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. *A problem with
> > always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust vector stall
> > recovery. *And the answer is obvious. *Why does this fail to assist in stalls
> > for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern thrust vector method, but it
> > seeems to me to make little help.
>
> Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
> figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
> a general theory from a specific design fault!

Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me
being wrong about stalls in canards.

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight,
but stall.

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

> this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.

> http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf

[URL corrected]


> If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.
.. . .

> So larger tumbles means better fighters.
.. . .

> Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.


?!? Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!


> Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? They built a canard airplane. It flew. What is "disgusting" about that?

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...

> Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Nope.

In a "symmetrical" airplane as I described, its performance and recovery
characteristics in high g stalls will be identical under + or - g. I cannot
describe that performance because it will differ for EACH specific design,
whether canard or horizontal stabilizer!


> Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me being wrong
> about stalls in canards.

You ARE WRONG "about stalls in canards"!!! You CANNOT generalize, based on
specific design details! A Wright Flyer is not a Viggen is not a Gripen is not
a MiG-35 MFI!


> If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
> nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall.

NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 4:49*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:
> > this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.
> > http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.p*df
>
> [URL corrected]
>
> > If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.
>
> . . .
>
> > So larger tumbles means better fighters.
>
> . . .
>
> > Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.
>
> ?!? *Absolute nonsense!
>
> NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!
>
> > Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.
>
> ?!? *They built a canard airplane. *It flew. *What is "disgusting" about that?

The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US
policy is to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one
reply in this thread.

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability
to tumble. And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome
this shortfall by a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And
perform one of the manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree
banked Condor maneuver.

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 4:58*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
> > Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.
>
> Nope.
>
> In a "symmetrical" airplane as I described, its performance and recovery
> characteristics in high g stalls will be identical under + or - g. *I cannot
> describe that performance because it will differ for EACH specific design,
> whether canard or horizontal stabilizer!
>
> > Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me being wrong
> > about stalls in canards.
>
> You ARE WRONG "about stalls in canards"!!! *You CANNOT generalize, based on
> specific design details! *A Wright Flyer is not a Viggen is not a Gripen is not
> a MiG-35 MFI!
>
> > If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
> > nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall..
>
> NO!!! *That is still utter nonsense!

I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
characteristic of their centers of gravity.

The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge
of the envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not
do anything but loose the aircraft.

I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT
safe in rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense.
Why not just say what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear
stabilizer fighters are safe."

[Herbert Viola[_2_]]

In article
>,
Douglas Eagleson > wrote:

>
> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
> behavior of all canards.

I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi herb.

On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>
> > It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
> > behavior of all canards.
>
> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.

I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
aerodynamic intel is retarded.
For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
Ken

[Eugene Griessel]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>Hi herb.
>
>On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>>
>> > It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
>> > behavior of all canards.
>>
>> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
>
>I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
>aerodynamic intel is retarded.
>For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
>effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
>yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
>The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
>would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.

Oh so could Eagleson - except his machine wouldn't blow - it would
suck.

Eugene L Griessel

Lysdexia: a peech imspediment we live to learn with...

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 14, 2:05*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Hi herb.
>
> On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>
> > > It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
> > > behavior of all canards.
>
> > I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
>
> I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
> aerodynamic intel is retarded.
> For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
> effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
> yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
> The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
> would blow that machine out the sky *PRONTO.
> Ken

Simple slang to confuse was the issue.

I use slang to demand a correct behavior in true thought.

I can read predicate. And to disagree was all the predicate says. So
Tucker writes in slang "two form" to simply evade the issue I proposed
once more.

A slight of hand only. Everybody just wants to evade the point and
flame. A poor behavior.

[Dan[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi herb.
>
> On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>>
>>> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
>>> behavior of all canards.
>> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
>
> I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
> aerodynamic intel is retarded.
> For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
> effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
> yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
> The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
> would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
> Ken

Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 13, 4:44*pm, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
> On May 13, 4:29*pm, "JR Weiss" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
> > > A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.
>
> > Actually, not. *You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
> > "horizontal stabilizer" fighter. *You then provided specific claims for each of
> > them. *THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" in general.
>
> > > Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable. *Stalling a
> > > fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was claimed to be ALWAYS
> > > nonrecoverable. *This is the point of the debate, thanks for recognizing it.
>
> > The theory as a general theory is flawed. *"Canard stall recover" is
> > "intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
> > current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
> > hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
> > drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.
>
> > > So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact point, then
> > > my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-forces. Meaning maybe
> > > 12g's.
>
> > You are wrong.
>
> > No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. *No human pilot can function
> > under -12g!
>
> > > I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad under high
> > > inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my incorrectness as a
> > > fact.
> > > Is that hard?
>
> > No; it's easy.
>
> > An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
> > under high + or -g. *It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
> > physical or aerodynamic law.
>
> > An airplane that has a profile *symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
> > same whether upright or inverted. *Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
> > flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. *It would not
> > "know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
> > the computers. *Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
> > under "+" or "-" g. *ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
> > limitation of + or - g.
>
> > > Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common aerobatic
> > > aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the rudder to
> > > recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.
>
> > Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. *Both prop
> > and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations.. *All 4
> > permutations are viable. *All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. *All
> > 4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. *NONE of
> > them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!
>
> > > Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. *A problem with
> > > always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust vector stall
> > > recovery. *And the answer is obvious. *Why does this fail to assist in stalls
> > > for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern thrust vector method, but it
> > > seeems to me to make little help.
>
> > Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
> > figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
> > a general theory from a specific design fault!
>
> Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.
>
> Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me
> being wrong about stalls in canards.
>
> If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
> beat nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight,
> but stall.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroHiAlphaNotes.pdf



Here is a study that mentions a critical aspect of the issue of canard
flight. High angle of attack allows for very fast roll rates in
general. A wing designed for high angle of attack becomes a superior
wing in general.

A f-22 uses a special thrust vectoring to achieve high angles of
attack, it does not use a superior wing design. A major fact shown
was the roll rate as angle of attack is varied. Reliance on thrust
vectoring to compensate for a wing design reduces the roll rate.

Roll rate is a speed to turn in. And the degree of roll appear
amendable to only a f-16 challenge.

In dogfights it has a deficiency. In stealth it likely has
superiority. Maybe a tradeoff was accepted. As long as pilots know of
this limitation they may alter tactics to overcome lower performance
ability.

In decision making many factor appear and my guess is it is to be
termed a fourth generation dog fighter and a fifth generation stealth
fighter.

Roll rate is another envelope variable and the lack of speed to turn
appear to make another maneuver available to be considered. A basic
cork screw as a prelude to turn is either to be followed or not
followed by the attacker, say an F-22. A leading enemy can expect the
F-22 to not follow.

An F-22 cannot keep up.

As a result all acts to avoid the US fighter can be successful break
off maneuvers. If you do not match the cork screw, you also loose. A
whole class as a basic dogfight disappears.

It is a huge compromise design, the non-canard F-22.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 14, 8:03 am, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Hi herb.
>
> > On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>
> >>> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
> >>> behavior of all canards.
> >> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
>
> > I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
> > aerodynamic intel is retarded.
> > For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
> > effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
> > yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
> > The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
> > would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
> > Ken
>
> Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?

Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
after him.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ken

[Dan[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 14, 8:03 am, Dan > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> Hi herb.
>>> On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
>>>>> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
>>>>> behavior of all canards.
>>>> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
>>> I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
>>> aerodynamic intel is retarded.
>>> For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
>>> effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
>>> yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
>>> The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
>>> would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
>>> Ken
>> Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?
>
> Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
> after him.
>

I guess Pronto was the Loan Arranger's sidekick then.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 14, 2:33 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 14, 8:03 am, Dan > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> Hi herb.
> >>> On May 14, 12:06 am, Herbert Viola > wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> >,
> >>>> Douglas Eagleson > wrote:
> >>>>> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
> >>>>> behavior of all canards.
> >>>> I was wondering where all my stupid pills went.
> >>> I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
> >>> aerodynamic intel is retarded.
> >>> For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
> >>> effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
> >>> yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
> >>> The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
> >>> would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
> >>> Ken
> >> Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?
>
> > Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
> > after him.
>
> I guess Pronto was the Loan Arranger's sidekick then.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

We hear you. Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, Area
Ponderosa, we have a secret plan to put Kenards
on the nose, if and when the poop hit's the fan.
Ken

[eatfastnoodle]

On May 9, 3:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
> The Weekly Standard
>
> The Swedish Model
> How to build a jet fighter.
> by Reuben F. Johnson
> 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>
> Linköping, Sweden
> ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
> become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
> the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
> Generation Gripen"
> (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
> JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
> being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
> Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>
> As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
> stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
> platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
> Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
> of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
> are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
> configuration.
>
> The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
> replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
> F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
> propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
> increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
> electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
> now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
> aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
> PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
> array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
> on the front end.)
>
> But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
> performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
> sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
> to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
> fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
> tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
> nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>
> What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
> produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
> taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
> plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
> half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
> third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
> to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
> own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>
> But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
> the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
> based.
>
> There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
> as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
> F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
> nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
> (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
> Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
> the "MiG-35,"
> although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
> does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
> configuration.)
>
> Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
> companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
> joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
> contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
> largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
> partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
> all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
> United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
> nations that are also part of the program.
>
> Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
> companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
> is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
> Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
> technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
> program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
> these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>
> Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
> stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
> Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
> million per copy.
> This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
> designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
> the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
> (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
> end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
> supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
> the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
> Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
> Gripen purchase instead.)
>
> The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
> the U.S.
> dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
> buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
> strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
> million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
> primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
> industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
> to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>
> The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
> from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
> materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
> added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
> move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
> anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
> to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
> ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
> four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
> nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
> four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>
> (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
> industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
> European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
> one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
> but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
> expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>
> F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
> and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
> matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
> these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
> dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
> development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
> the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>
> Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
> country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
> longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
> Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
> on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
> airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
> electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
> combat or air defence environment.
>
> There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
> stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
> increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
> technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
> has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
> that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
> in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
> after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
> Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>
> The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
> methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
> has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
> will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
> F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
> advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
> methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
> similarly truncated service lives?
>
> (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
> obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
> from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
> The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
> photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
> retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
> allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
> hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
> some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
> much more advanced F-22A.)
>
> On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
> and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
> MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
> fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
> military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.
>
> The JAS-39, ...
>
> read more »

Oh, weekly standard, surely they know how to build a fighter.

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
>
>> > Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is
>> > disgusting.
>
>> ?!? They built a canard airplane. It flew. What is "disgusting" about that?

> The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US policy is
> to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one reply in this
> thread.

The article does NOT support that contention. If you think it does, post the
appropriate citation.


> It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of behavior
> of all canards.

It does NOT! It discusses the Wright Flyer as ONE example in a "Historical
Overview"! Post the specific citation that you claim supports your statement.


> And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability to
> tumble.

It did NOT! It cited the behavior of a SPECIFIC DESIGN -- the XP-55!


> And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome this shortfall by
> a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And perform one of the
> manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree banked Condor maneuver.

Say what?!? How does a rudder and vertical stabilizer relate to a pure PITCH
response?!?

Also, how can a canard "overcome this shortfall" if you believe a canard CAUSED
this "shortfall?!? You're again talking absolute NONSENSE!

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
>
>> > If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
>> > nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall.
>
>> NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

> I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
> characteristic of their centers of gravity.

> The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of the
> envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do anything
> but loose the aircraft.

One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes a
performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We cannot
even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific design,
because most of it is utter nonsense.


> I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe in
> rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not just say
> what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer fighters are
> safe."

Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You claim
that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight, but there is
NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in a dogfight! That
is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all canard aircraft are
equal.

I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere. The
ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME fighters may be
recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance factor!

[JR Weiss]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> > The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
>> > would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
>>
>> Wasn't Pronto the Lone Stranger's sidekick?
>
> Wasn't that Toronto? They named a town in canada
> after him.

I do believe you're ONTO something!

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"JR Weiss" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote...
>>
>>> > If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
>>> > beat
>>> > nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but
>>> > stall.
>>
>>> NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!
>
>> I did generalize about canards. It is allowed because they have a
>> characteristic of their centers of gravity.
>
>> The NO!! does not make sense to me. WHy does a person fly at the edge of
>> the envelope? If you are in a bad place in the envelope you can not do
>> anything but loose the aircraft.
>
> One more time... You are attempting to generalize to ALL canard airplanes
> a performance parameter that is [maybe] specific to a specific design. We
> cannot even assume your performance assessment is correct for any specific
> design, because most of it is utter nonsense.
>
>
>> I point out that inverted stall is a SAFE place in a canard and NOT safe
>> in rear stabilizer aircraft. SO you claim my point is nonsense. Why not
>> just say what you only allude to, "inverted stalls in rear stabilizer
>> fighters are safe."
>
> Your point is nonsense simply because it makes no sense whatsoever! You
> claim that a recoverable inverted stall is a "safe place" in a dogfight,
> but there is NO REASON any pilot would want to be in an inverted stall in
> a dogfight! That is even beyond your [false] baseline assumption that all
> canard aircraft are equal.
>
> I do not allude to that statement about rear stabilizer fighters anywhere.
> The ONLY thing I might "allude to" is that inverted stalls in SOME
> fighters may be recoverable. Again, it is a SPECIFIC DESIGN performance
> factor!
>
>
JR, you are wasting time and electrons arguing with a psychotic bot.

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

> http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroHiAlphaNotes.pdf

> Here is a study that mentions a critical aspect of the issue of canard flight.
> High angle of attack allows for very fast roll rates in general. A wing
> designed for high angle of attack becomes a superior wing in general.

Where does it say that? What was the max roll rate of the Wright Flyer? AJ-37
Viggen? A-4E Skyhawk? F-5E Tiger?

Several transport aircraft and a few tactical aircraft have been tested using
the Coanda effect to allow flight at very high AoA. However, that high AoA
capability sacrificed considerable capability at low AoA / higher speed. Show
me where a high AoA capability has added to overall wing performance...

On page 9-10, regarding the general case, it says:

"Control effectiveness tends to diminish as the angle of attack increases."

It follows with a SPECIFIC DESIGN case:

"Here, differential canard is used to make up for the loss of rudder
effectiveness."

Note that NOTHING is said about a lack of horizontal stab, or inherent
superiority of any general scheme! Note also that several aircraft (e.g., F-14)
use differential horizontal stab to augment roll rate, so a canard has no
inherent advantage there.

Please show me a roll rate vs AoA chart for ANY fighter airplane (or ANY
airplane, for that matter, that has higher roll rate at higher AoA!


Also, it specifically supports my contention that performance characteristics
are DESIGN SPECIFIC! On page 9-5, specifically referencing lateral and
directional control of canard aircraft, is:

"One of the complications associated with canard aircraft is the wide
variation in these characteristics with canard setting. The trailing vortex
system from the canard interacts with the leading edge vortices of the main
wing, forebody vortices and also the vertical tail. Thus the lateral/directional
characteristics of canard configurations play a large role in deciding if a
canard configuration is practical."


A f-22 uses a special thrust vectoring to achieve high angles of
attack, it does not use a superior wing design. A major fact shown
was the roll rate as angle of attack is varied. Reliance on thrust
vectoring to compensate for a wing design reduces the roll rate.

Roll rate is a speed to turn in. And the degree of roll appear
amendable to only a f-16 challenge.

In dogfights it has a deficiency. In stealth it likely has
superiority. Maybe a tradeoff was accepted. As long as pilots know of
this limitation they may alter tactics to overcome lower performance
ability.

In decision making many factor appear and my guess is it is to be
termed a fourth generation dog fighter and a fifth generation stealth
fighter.

Roll rate is another envelope variable and the lack of speed to turn
appear to make another maneuver available to be considered. A basic
cork screw as a prelude to turn is either to be followed or not
followed by the attacker, say an F-22. A leading enemy can expect the
F-22 to not follow.

An F-22 cannot keep up.

As a result all acts to avoid the US fighter can be successful break
off maneuvers. If you do not match the cork screw, you also loose. A
whole class as a basic dogfight disappears.

It is a huge compromise design, the non-canard F-22.

[JR Weiss]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote...
>
> JR, you are wasting time and electrons arguing with a psychotic bot.

Got nothing better to do right now than review a bit of aerodynamics...

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:22:55 -0400, "Dean A. Markley"
> wrote:

>Well Ed, I was half expecting a blonde babe from the posting title.

I kind of like thinking about Elin Nordegen too but what she has to do
with military or naval matters is beyond me.

(Anyone who doesn't know who she is can Google)

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:28:11 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> wrote:
>
>>Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.
>
>I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
>around, at any rate.

I dunno - I think of a deviant compsci instructor getting his students
to write Eagleson Eliza-bots with dread....

How about a nice game of chess!

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:05:45 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>>I agree. The canard is vastly superior and yes the US
>>aerodynamic intel is retarded.
>>For example, using negative lift on the tail is less
>>effective than using positive canard lift, but the dumb
>>yanks won't learn that until they get a good thrashing!
>>The F-22 is vulnerable, I could design a machine that
>>would blow that machine out the sky PRONTO.
>
>Oh so could Eagleson - except his machine wouldn't blow - it would
>suck.

It would be amusing to talk about canards on a Sopwith Camel and see
how the bot would respond...

[Gernot Hassenpflug[_2_]]

The Horny Goat > writes:

> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:22:55 -0400, "Dean A. Markley"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well Ed, I was half expecting a blonde babe from the posting title.
>
> I kind of like thinking about Elin Nordegen too but what she has to do
> with military or naval matters is beyond me.
>
> (Anyone who doesn't know who she is can Google)

Elin Nordegren... I could get a woody just thinking about her. Only
problem is then I associate woody with woods, and that's about all I
can take... I break down in tears :-) Tiger has done exceptionally
well for himself!
--
BOFH excuse #113:

Root nameservers are out of sync

[Dave Kearton]

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

>>
>> Elin Nordegren... I could get a woody just thinking about her. Only
>> problem is then I associate woody with woods, and that's about all I
>> can take... I break down in tears :-) Tiger has done exceptionally
>> well for himself!




<insert golf joke here - how many strokes on that hole, etc>



I would try a #3 wood and sink the putt in about 30 (while thinking about
cricket scores, football, my childhood piano teacher etc)



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton (30 seconds, that is ;-(

[Dan[_12_]]

Dave Kearton wrote:
> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>
>>> Elin Nordegren... I could get a woody just thinking about her. Only
>>> problem is then I associate woody with woods, and that's about all I
>>> can take... I break down in tears :-) Tiger has done exceptionally
>>> well for himself!
>
>
>
>
> <insert golf joke here - how many strokes on that hole, etc>
>
>
>
> I would try a #3 wood and sink the putt in about 30 (while thinking about
> cricket scores, football, my childhood piano teacher etc)
>
>
>


If the make the woods out of metal now are they still called woods?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Kearton]

Dan wrote:
>> Dave Kearton wrote:
>>> Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Elin Nordegren... I could get a woody just thinking about her.
>>>>> Only problem is then I associate woody with woods, and that's
>>>>> about all I can take... I break down in tears :-) Tiger has done
>>>>> exceptionally well for himself!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <insert golf joke here - how many strokes on that hole, etc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would try a #3 wood and sink the putt in about 30 (while thinking
>>> about cricket scores, football, my childhood piano teacher etc)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If the make the woods out of metal now are they still called woods?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




....because most retirees can't say "titaniums"



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[WaltBJ]

On May 15, 11:40 am, "JR Weiss"
> wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:
> >http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroHiAlphaNotes.pdf
> > Here is a study that mentions a critical aspect of the issue of canard flight.
> > High angle of attack allows for very fast roll rates in general. A wing
> > designed for high angle of attack becomes a superior wing in general.
>
> Where does it say that? What was the max roll rate of the Wright Flyer? AJ-37
> Viggen? A-4E Skyhawk? F-5E Tiger?
>
>
>
<SNIP a ton:
The two fastest 'rollers' Iknow of are the F104 Starfighter and the
F5 series.
The 104 clocks out at about 420 degrees per second - note the Flight
Manual limitation is 360 degrees of roll - if below 1/2 G, 180
degrees. This is to stay out of inertial coupling, which is a really
good idea..
The F5 series is credited with 450 degrees per second. I have never
flown a T38 or an F5. so can't speak to that.
However, I have done maximum rate rolls in a 104A. This requires the
pilot to grab the canopy rail with his free hand to brace himself
against the lateral acceleration. Otherwise he will be slammed
sideways in the seat and inadvertently take out some aileron.
Additionally, if he desires to roll out at any given bank angle he has
to start recovery with about 45 degrees to go. The 'book' says 90, but
that's for non-acrobatic/ACM-current pilots.
It is difficult to see the value of higher rates of roll; it's hard
enough at 420 degrees per second to monitor what's going on outside
the airplane. But that rate of onset/recovery sure does make for
snappy pointed (hesitation) rolls and counters scissors by dissimilar
aircraf very nicely.
Hmm. something new - an anti-bot countermeasure!
Walt BJ

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ
> wrote:

>>
><SNIP a ton:
> The two fastest 'rollers' Iknow of are the F104 Starfighter and the
>F5 series.
>The 104 clocks out at about 420 degrees per second - note the Flight
>Manual limitation is 360 degrees of roll - if below 1/2 G, 180
>degrees. This is to stay out of inertial coupling, which is a really
>good idea..
>The F5 series is credited with 450 degrees per second. I have never
>flown a T38 or an F5. so can't speak to that.

I logged time in the T-38 in pilot training and flying some FCF
profiles afterward during my years as a UPT instructor, then four
years doing instructor training in Fighter Lead-In flying the AT-38B.

The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
deflection in less than two rolls.

The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.

It has virtually NO tactical utility.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 27, 6:18*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ
>
> > wrote:
>
> ><SNIP a ton:
> > * The two fastest 'rollers' Iknow of are the F104 Starfighter and the
> >F5 series.
> >The 104 clocks out at about 420 degrees per second - note the Flight
> >Manual limitation is 360 degrees of roll - if below 1/2 G, 180
> >degrees. This is to stay out of inertial coupling, which is a really
> >good idea..
> >The F5 series is credited with 450 degrees per second. I have never
> >flown a T38 or an F5. so can't speak to that.
>
> I logged time in the T-38 in pilot training and flying some FCF
> profiles afterward during my years as a UPT instructor, then four
> years doing instructor training in Fighter Lead-In flying the AT-38B.
>
> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
> deflection in less than two rolls.
>
> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need
elevator deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule
to cause the high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and
corkscrew breakoff to the anywhere direction.


High angle of attack roll rate is critical to either following the
target or breaking off.


Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.

1. elevator deflect and roll positive g.
2. As 180 degree roll is passed a person needs to do a single
elevator motion. And if you get it wrong the maneuver turns into a
dive.
3. SO push on the elevator to mAKE THE FORWARD CORCKSCREW POSSIBLE.

So it is a hard thing to get the hang of and it has negative gs.

A special modification was to aerodynamics. What can be changed. A
dive as arule is always sort of expected. SO a vertical exit from the
corkscrew appear the false exit. A fake exit is possible
aerodynamically. A simple vertical followed by a return to the
corkscrew really making it impossible to follow.

ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
...
On May 27, 6:18 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ

>> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
>> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
>> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
>> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
>> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
>> deflection in less than two rolls.
>>
>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>>
>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need
> elevator deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule
> to cause the high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and
> corkscrew breakoff to the anywhere direction.

Oh great a janitor advising a fighter pilot on air combat tactics

Sheesh

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 27, 10:53 am, Douglas Eagleson >
wrote:
> On May 27, 6:18 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > ><SNIP a ton:
> > > The two fastest 'rollers' Iknow of are the F104 Starfighter and the
> > >F5 series.
> > >The 104 clocks out at about 420 degrees per second - note the Flight
> > >Manual limitation is 360 degrees of roll - if below 1/2 G, 180
> > >degrees. This is to stay out of inertial coupling, which is a really
> > >good idea..
> > >The F5 series is credited with 450 degrees per second. I have never
> > >flown a T38 or an F5. so can't speak to that.
>
> > I logged time in the T-38 in pilot training and flying some FCF
> > profiles afterward during my years as a UPT instructor, then four
> > years doing instructor training in Fighter Lead-In flying the AT-38B.
>
> > The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
> > throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
> > of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
> > for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
> > deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
> > deflection in less than two rolls.
>
> > The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
> > then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
> > and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
> > It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need
> elevator deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule
> to cause the high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and
> corkscrew breakoff to the anywhere direction.

What? Read what Walt and Ed wrote.
Do consider "inertial coupling".
If I understand correctly, doing a serious elevator input
while speed rolling will "corkscrew" you into the nearest
mud. Anyway release wing tip tanks before execution.

> High angle of attack roll rate is critical to either following the
> target or breaking off.
>
> Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.
>
> 1. elevator deflect and roll positive g.
> 2. As 180 degree roll is passed a person needs to do a single
> elevator motion. And if you get it wrong the maneuver turns into a
> dive.
> 3. SO push on the elevator to mAKE THE FORWARD CORCKSCREW POSSIBLE.
>
> So it is a hard thing to get the hang of and it has negative gs.
>
> A special modification was to aerodynamics. What can be changed. A
> dive as arule is always sort of expected. SO a vertical exit from the
> corkscrew appear the false exit. A fake exit is possible
> aerodynamically. A simple vertical followed by a return to the
> corkscrew really making it impossible to follow.
>
> ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

WOWser. What trailing aircraft do you have in mind?
vs. F104 or F5, perhaps a Mig21?
Doug, I'd like to seriously complete your scenario.
Regards
Ken

[Dan[_9_]]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:

>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.

Nice to know.

>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.

Tell that to the F-86 pilots.

Dan

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
> ...
> On May 27, 6:18 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ
>
>>> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
>>> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
>>> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
>>> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
>>> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
>>> deflection in less than two rolls.
>>>
>>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>>>
>>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
>> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need
>> elevator deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule
>> to cause the high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and
>> corkscrew breakoff to the anywhere direction.
>
> Oh great a janitor advising a fighter pilot on air combat tactics
>
> Sheesh
>
> Keith
>
>

Maybe he can mop up all enemy resistance.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[St. John Smythe]

Douglas Eagleson wrote to Ed Rasimus:

> Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.
<snip>
> ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

Douglas, does the expression, "teaching Grandma to suck eggs" mean
anything to you?

Failure to answer directly will serve as proof that the poster with the
initials DE is an otbay. (The preceding obfuscation is for tactical
reasons that should be obvious to most posters.)

Thank you very much,
--
sjs

[Dean A. Markley]

Dan wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On May 27, 6:18 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:37:55 -0700 (PDT), WaltBJ
>>
>>>> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
>>>> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
>>>> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
>>>> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
>>>> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
>>>> deflection in less than two rolls.
>>>>
>>>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>>>>
>>>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>>>>
>>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>>
>>> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need
>>> elevator deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule
>>> to cause the high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and
>>> corkscrew breakoff to the anywhere direction.
>>
>> Oh great a janitor advising a fighter pilot on air combat tactics
>>
>> Sheesh
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
> Maybe he can mop up all enemy resistance.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Maybe he's really thinking of a fighter "sweep"?

[Dave Kearton]

Dean A. Markley wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe he can mop up all enemy resistance.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> Maybe he's really thinking of a fighter "sweep"?


Hmmmm, how long before someone pans that ?



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
> deflection in less than two rolls.
>
> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
> It has virtually NO tactical utility.

The A-4 Skyhawk was likewise rated at 720 degrees/sec. The
tactical utility of this was to knock unwary flight students
in the head with the canopy, a sort of "welcome to the party, Pal!"
stunt practiced by the VT-22 instructors at NASKINGS on a
stud's first hop while I was there.

The routine was thus: after an hour and a half of being bored silly
on a Basic Instruments hop (the first several flight of the
Advanced Jet syllabus were instrument hops in the back seat)
your instructor would take the controls and tell you to pop the bag.
As you enjoyed the scenery, he'd circle out to the 5-mile initial
for a visual entry to the break. He'd come smoking in at the
speed of heat, 325 at least, get approval for a left break, say
over the intercom "Hey, what's that out there at three o'clock,"
then smack the stick over. Usually inertia held you steady while
the ol' Scooter rotated about you, and you got a faceful of
Plexiglas (this practice got kiboshed while I was there, after
a student suffered a mild concussion this way).

Forewarned by a fellow stud, I braced my shoulders against the
sides of the canopy (the only tactical utility of size 46 shoulders)
and rode it out unknocked.

720 degrees a second ***will*** tumble your internal gyros....
when dual you could usually bump your fellow adventurer's
helmet against the 'glas by going full throw unexpectedly.
The humor of this little stunt palled rather quickly.


Jeff

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
(actually, Ed Rasimus wrote:)
>>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.

Dan wrote:
> Nice to know.

>>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.

> Tell that to the F-86 pilots.


Please keep track of your attributions, Dan, or someone might
get the mistaken impression that the Eaglesonbot actually wrote
a lucid sentence. Three of 'em, actually.


Jeff

[Dan[_12_]]

Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> (actually, Ed Rasimus wrote:)
>>>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
> Dan wrote:
>> Nice to know.
>
>>>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
>> Tell that to the F-86 pilots.
>
>
> Please keep track of your attributions, Dan, or someone might
> get the mistaken impression that the Eaglesonbot actually wrote
> a lucid sentence. Three of 'em, actually.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
I never made any of those statements.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David Phillips]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 06:15:45 -0600, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second. The stick
>> throw is 6" either side of center, with the first 4.5" giving you 50%
>> of aileron deflection and the last 1.5" giving you the full deflection
>> for max rate rolls. Dash-1 restriction is against continuous full
>> deflection rolls with a warning that it is difficult to stop full
>> deflection in less than two rolls.
>>
>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>>
>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
>The A-4 Skyhawk was likewise rated at 720 degrees/sec. The
>tactical utility of this was to knock unwary flight students
>in the head with the canopy, a sort of "welcome to the party, Pal!"
>stunt practiced by the VT-22 instructors at NASKINGS on a
>stud's first hop while I was there.
>
>The routine was thus: after an hour and a half of being bored silly
>on a Basic Instruments hop (the first several flight of the
>Advanced Jet syllabus were instrument hops in the back seat)
>your instructor would take the controls and tell you to pop the bag.
>As you enjoyed the scenery, he'd circle out to the 5-mile initial
>for a visual entry to the break. He'd come smoking in at the
>speed of heat, 325 at least, get approval for a left break, say
>over the intercom "Hey, what's that out there at three o'clock,"
>then smack the stick over. Usually inertia held you steady while
>the ol' Scooter rotated about you, and you got a faceful of
>Plexiglas (this practice got kiboshed while I was there, after
>a student suffered a mild concussion this way).
>
>Forewarned by a fellow stud, I braced my shoulders against the
>sides of the canopy (the only tactical utility of size 46 shoulders)
>and rode it out unknocked.
>
>720 degrees a second ***will*** tumble your internal gyros....
>when dual you could usually bump your fellow adventurer's
>helmet against the 'glas by going full throw unexpectedly.
>The humor of this little stunt palled rather quickly.

Nothing do I know of the ratings of the Skyhawk, having gone the route
of the USN diving community, but during my 2nd class middie cruise for
NROTC, I got a ride in one down in Corpus Christi (Beesville?). Most
of the middies got a 'dedicated' flight, just a familiarization hop
with an IP.

The liason officer hadn't done his job quite right, and there were
more middies than scheduled middie flights. I got placed with an IP
that was doing formation flight training with a real student.

Student would form up, we'd fly a little bit and (I learned a few
minutes later) the IP would give a hand signal, and yank & bank.
Helmet against canopy, boom. I think it was the third time before I
saw the hand signal, and was able to be ready for the break.

After the instruction part was over, the IP sent the student home, and
we got to fool around a bit, with the IP being very kind to a goofy
middie (that might be redundant ..., the goofy middie part, that is)

After we landed, the pilot told me how to unhook my mask, and then
told me to run my hand down the Gsuit hose and disconnect it, telling
me it might be a little hard to reach.

G suit hose came off the fitting as soon as I started to move my hand
on it. It was never got hooked up ( I was put in the plane by the
liason officer, not a plane captain.) IP expressed mild admiration
that I'd not blacked out. It had been a very near thing, on some of
the turns, but I think I hung on through the entire flight. Great
fun. When I win the Jillion dollar lottery, I'm going to have to buy
an A-4 :-)

[Richard Casady]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:57:56 -0700, Dan > wrote:

>Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>
>>> The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>> then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>> and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
>Nice to know.
>
>>> It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
>Tell that to the F-86 pilots.

Try to find any, or any of the planes.

Casady

[Richard Casady]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 13:18:55 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>
>It has virtually NO tactical utility.

I should think the opposite, since it wastes energy, and postpones
doing something useful.

Casady

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:47:48 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

>On Tue, 27 May 2008 13:18:55 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>>The FCF profile involves rolls left and right with first half-rate and
>>then a full-deflection in each direction. It will make your head spin
>>and if you are not braced, bounce your helmet off the canopy.
>>
>>It has virtually NO tactical utility.
>
>I should think the opposite, since it wastes energy, and postpones
>doing something useful.
>
>Casady

Aileron rolls don't take much energy, and it must be acknowledged that
there is a minimum required amount of rolling agility to be effective,
but after that point increases in roll rate don't offer much.

As for defensive maneuvers, the essential basic is that all defensive
maneuvering must be done with respect to the attacking aircraft.
Failure to consider the position and potential of the attacker when
making any move will quickly lead to loss.

The truism, "lose sight, lose the fight" is basic catechism for
aspiring fighter drivers.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[WaltBJ]

Roll rate: 720 degrees per second - what a head-bouncer! We could get
the Zipper to roll a but faster by stomping on teh rudder to yaw it -
the A-model's manual rudder took a good hard stomp, though.
Seriously, rolls are used to set a bank angle so you can change
direction by using the pitch control and piling on G. - some older
fighters do not roll very fast at high indicated airspeed so a faster
roll rate helps you either nail or shake them.
MiG15/17 run into trouble rolling in the transonic area. Unfortunately
all later fighters AFIK do not have this problem.
As for fancy corkscrew maneuvers to shed another guy - if he knows
what he's doing he'll lag you, stay back a ways, refuse to commit, and
wait for you to **** off all your energy and then he will shoot you
down. Besides, even if you do shake him, what has his wingman been
doing all this time? Getting into position on you, that's what. The
other thing - once you turned up in 90 degrees of bank guys 20 mies
away saw you and guys 100 miles away had you on radar.
BTW we trained in and adopted 'loose deuce' back in the 60s - I
should think that is a pretty wide-spread tactic at least in the
serious air forces by now. You might have Lead trapped at six but what
is Two doing???
Walt BJ

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
> The Weekly Standard
>
> The Swedish Model
> How to build a jet fighter.
> by Reuben F. Johnson
> 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>
> Linköping, Sweden
> ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
> become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
> the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
> Generation Gripen"
> (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
> JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
> being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
> Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>
> As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
> stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
> platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
> Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
> of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
> are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
> configuration.
>
> The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
> replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
> F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
> propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
> increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
> electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
> now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
> aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
> PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
> array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
> on the front end.)
>
> But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
> performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
> sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
> to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
> fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
> tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
> nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>
> What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
> produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
> taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
> plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
> half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
> third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
> to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
> own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>
> But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
> the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
> based.
>
> There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
> as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
> F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
> nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
> (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
> Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
> the "MiG-35,"
> although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
> does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
> configuration.)
>
> Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
> companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
> joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
> contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
> largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
> partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
> all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
> United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
> nations that are also part of the program.
>
> Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
> companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
> is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
> Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
> technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
> program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
> these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>
> Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
> stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
> Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
> million per copy.
> This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
> designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
> the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
> (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
> end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
> supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
> the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
> Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
> Gripen purchase instead.)
>
> The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
> the U.S.
> dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
> buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
> strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
> million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
> primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
> industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
> to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>
> The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
> from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
> materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
> added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
> move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
> anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
> to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
> ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
> four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
> nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
> four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>
> (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
> industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
> European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
> one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
> but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
> expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>
> F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
> and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
> matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
> these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
> dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
> development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
> the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>
> Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
> country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
> longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
> Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
> on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
> airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
> electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
> combat or air defence environment.
>
> There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
> stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
> increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
> technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
> has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
> that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
> in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
> after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
> Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>
> The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
> methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
> has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
> will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
> F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
> advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
> methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
> similarly truncated service lives?
>
> (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
> obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
> from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
> The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
> photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
> retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
> allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
> hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
> some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
> much more advanced F-22A.)
>
> On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
> and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
> MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
> fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
> military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.
>
> The JAS-39, ...
>
> read more »

A basic thing to remember a.

A simple test again who knows the answer?

What maneuver can attach to the wing of the trailing opponent and
deflect the ailerons?

A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that will
always attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian control.

A canard aircraft will always appear to fall out of the sky, btw. It
will stall the front first. Flying into a sonic front as a rule was
always to worry the pilot because some people can intentionally form a
special wake front for you.

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Dan wrote:
> I never made any of those statements.

Nor are you the only guy who posts to the group using
the moniker "Dan."


Jeff

[Eugene Griessel]

"Jeff Crowell" > wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> I never made any of those statements.
>
>Nor are you the only guy who posts to the group using
>the moniker "Dan."

I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....

Eugene L Griessel

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors--
and miss.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Jack Linthicum]

On May 29, 8:15 am, (Eugene Griessel) wrote:

> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors--
> and miss.
>
> -

Alan Alda The Moonshine War

Note to American Presidents: Find jobs for all employees who leave the
White House

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>"Jeff Crowell" > wrote:
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>> I never made any of those statements.
>>
>>Nor are you the only guy who posts to the group using
>>the moniker "Dan."
>
>I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
>
And the down-side is? Take it as a reminder to head over to
youtube and search for "Swedish Model."


Peter Skelton

[Dean A. Markley]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On May 9, 1:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>> The Weekly Standard
>>
>> The Swedish Model
>> How to build a jet fighter.
>> by Reuben F. Johnson
>> 04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM
>>
>> Linköping, Sweden
>> ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
>> become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
>> the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
>> Generation Gripen"
>> (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
>> JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
>> being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
>> Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.
>>
>> As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
>> stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
>> platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
>> Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
>> of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
>> are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
>> configuration.
>>
>> The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
>> replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
>> F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
>> propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
>> increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
>> electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
>> now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
>> aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
>> PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
>> array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
>> on the front end.)
>>
>> But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
>> performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
>> sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
>> to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
>> fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
>> tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
>> nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.
>>
>> What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
>> produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
>> taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
>> plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
>> half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
>> third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
>> to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
>> own modifications and integration of weapon systems.
>>
>> But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
>> the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
>> based.
>>
>> There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
>> as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
>> F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
>> nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
>> (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
>> Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
>> the "MiG-35,"
>> although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
>> does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
>> configuration.)
>>
>> Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
>> companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
>> joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
>> contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
>> largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
>> partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
>> all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
>> United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
>> nations that are also part of the program.
>>
>> Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
>> companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
>> is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
>> Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
>> technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
>> program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
>> these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.
>>
>> Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
>> stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
>> Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
>> million per copy.
>> This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
>> designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
>> the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
>> (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
>> end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
>> supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
>> the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
>> Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
>> Gripen purchase instead.)
>>
>> The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
>> the U.S.
>> dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
>> buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
>> strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
>> million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
>> primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
>> industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
>> to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."
>>
>> The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
>> from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
>> materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
>> added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
>> move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
>> anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
>> to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
>> ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
>> four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
>> nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
>> four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.
>>
>> (Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
>> industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
>> European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
>> one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
>> but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
>> expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)
>>
>> F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
>> and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
>> matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
>> these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
>> dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
>> development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
>> the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.
>>
>> Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
>> country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
>> longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
>> Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
>> on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
>> airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
>> electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
>> combat or air defence environment.
>>
>> There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
>> stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
>> increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
>> technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
>> has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
>> that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
>> in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
>> after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
>> Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.
>>
>> The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
>> methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
>> has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
>> will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
>> F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
>> advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
>> methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
>> similarly truncated service lives?
>>
>> (The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
>> obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
>> from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
>> The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
>> photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
>> retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
>> allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
>> hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
>> some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
>> much more advanced F-22A.)
>>
>> On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
>> and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
>> MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
>> fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
>> military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.
>>
>> The JAS-39, ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> A basic thing to remember a.
>
> A simple test again who knows the answer?
>
> What maneuver can attach to the wing of the trailing opponent and
> deflect the ailerons?
>
> A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that will
> always attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian control.
>
> A canard aircraft will always appear to fall out of the sky, btw. It
> will stall the front first. Flying into a sonic front as a rule was
> always to worry the pilot because some people can intentionally form a
> special wake front for you.
horsecrap

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
> Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
> ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....

It's a fair cop.


> Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors--
> and miss.

Love those Heinlein tags.



Jeff

[JR Weiss]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>> The two fastest 'rollers' Iknow of are the F104 Starfighter and the F5
>> series.
>>The 104 clocks out at about 420 degrees per second
>>The F5 series is credited with 450 degrees per second.
>
> The T-38 roll-rate is listed at 720 degrees per second.

The A-4 is also 720 deg/sec. I can vouch for it!

[JR Weiss]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote...
>>>> Maybe he can mop up all enemy resistance.
>>>>
>>> Maybe he's really thinking of a fighter "sweep"?
>
> Hmmmm, how long before someone pans that ?

Pan Pan! Imminent pun failure!

[JR Weiss]

"WaltBJ" > wrote...
> Roll rate: 720 degrees per second - what a head-bouncer! We could get
> the Zipper to roll a but faster by stomping on teh rudder to yaw it -
> the A-model's manual rudder took a good hard stomp, though.

When I was an A-4 instructor, I was amazed at the number of pilots who thought
full stick deflection in the A-4 gave you that 720 deg/sec rate (I suspect it
was more like 3/4 that). Many of them were even MORE amazed when I showed them
what happened when you stomp the rudder as well to get the REAL max rate...

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need elevator
> deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule to cause the
> high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and corkscrew breakoff to
> the anywhere direction.

Hmmm... Sounds REMOTELY like a high-G barrel roll that can be used ONLY as a
last-ditch maneuver against a close-in gun attack... OTOH, if the bullets
aren't already flying, you haven't escaped ANYTHING -- you've just ****ed away
your energy and allowed the attacker to shoot you when you stop maneuvering
(which you WILL do, else you'll soon hit the ground out of control).

There is nothing about this maneuver, BTW, that favors a canard airplane...


> High angle of attack roll rate is critical to either following the target or
> breaking off.

So is timing... Again, the maneuver you describe has limited use in ONE
situation.


> Matching the target is advised and it is as follows.

"Matching the target"?!? If you are doing anything like that, you ARE the
target!!! If you are NOT the target at the start, you certainly will be at the
end!


> 1. elevator deflect and roll positive g.
> 2. As 180 degree roll is passed a person needs to do a single elevator
> motion. And if you get it wrong the maneuver turns into a dive.
> 3. SO push on the elevator to mAKE THE FORWARD CORCKSCREW POSSIBLE.

Now you make it sound like a Lomcevak(sp?) (except you forgot the rudder input),
which is NOT a useful tactical maneuver!


> So it is a hard thing to get the hang of and it has negative gs.

> A special modification was to aerodynamics. What can be changed. A dive as
> arule is always sort of expected. SO a vertical exit from the corkscrew
> appear the false exit. A fake exit is possible aerodynamically. A simple
> vertical followed by a return to the corkscrew really making it impossible to
> follow.

Indeed, a dive is always "expected" after a pilot ****es away all his kinetic
energy...

An attacker would not WANT to follow such a ridiculous maneuver! As pointed out
by another REAL pilot, the attacker only needs to lag up high and keep sight,
and shoot you when you emerge from the folly!


> ALWAYS lossing the trailing aircraft.

More like "never" than "ALWAYS"!

[JR Weiss]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

> A basic thing to remember a.

> A simple test again who knows the answer?

> What maneuver can attach to the wing of the trailing opponent and deflect the
> ailerons?

The question is nonsense, so it is unanswerable.


> A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that will always
> attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian control.

ANY time a trailing aircraft crosses the wake vortex, full control will
momentarily be overridden by the vortex! Nothing new here, and nothing
unrecoverable!


> A canard aircraft will always appear to fall out of the sky, btw. It will
> stall the front first. Flying into a sonic front as a rule was always to worry
> the pilot because some people can intentionally form a special wake front for
> you.

More utter nonsense!

[Dan[_12_]]

JR Weiss wrote:
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote...
>>>>> Maybe he can mop up all enemy resistance.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe he's really thinking of a fighter "sweep"?
>> Hmmmm, how long before someone pans that ?
>
> Pan Pan! Imminent pun failure!
>
>
It's too fine a May day for such things.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:17:12 -0700, "JR Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:
>
>> A spiral or corkscrew as a maneuver allows an escape. You need elevator
>> deflection, while entering the simple aileron roll, as a rule to cause the
>> high angle of attack necessary to slow the aircraft and corkscrew breakoff to
>> the anywhere direction.
>
>Hmmm... Sounds REMOTELY like a high-G barrel roll that can be used ONLY as a
>last-ditch maneuver against a close-in gun attack... OTOH, if the bullets
>aren't already flying, you haven't escaped ANYTHING -- you've just ****ed away
>your energy and allowed the attacker to shoot you when you stop maneuvering
>(which you WILL do, else you'll soon hit the ground out of control).
>
>There is nothing about this maneuver, BTW, that favors a canard airplane...

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

All was as you say, Sensei.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Richard Casady]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
>500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
>where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
>about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
>been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
>heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

Casady

[JR Weiss]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
>>Hmmm... Sounds REMOTELY like a high-G barrel roll that can be used ONLY as a
>>last-ditch maneuver against a close-in gun attack... OTOH, if the bullets
>>aren't already flying, you haven't escaped ANYTHING -- you've just ****ed away
>>your energy and allowed the attacker to shoot you when you stop maneuvering
>>(which you WILL do, else you'll soon hit the ground out of control).

> Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
> 500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
> where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
> about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
> been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
> heartbeats.
>
> All was as you say, Sensei.

I'm honored!

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

>On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>>Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
>>500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
>>where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
>>about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
>>been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
>>heartbeats.
>
>It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
>world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
>if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
>supersonic bit for long.
>
>Casady

Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Ron]

On May 31, 8:53 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard
>
>
>
> Casady) wrote:
> >On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
> >>Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
> >>500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
> >>where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
> >>about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
> >>been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
> >>heartbeats.
>
> >It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
> >world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
> >if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
> >supersonic bit for long.
>
> >Casady
>
> Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
> really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
> a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
> and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
> without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
> blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

Just imagine though what life would have been like though for the Navy
Spad pilots tasked with throwing some instant sunshine over their
shoulder.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Ron >
wrote:

>On May 31, 8:53 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard
>>
>> >It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
>> >world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
>> >if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
>> >supersonic bit for long.
>>
>> >Casady
>>
>> Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
>> really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
>> a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
>> and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
>> without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
>> blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
>Just imagine though what life would have been like though for the Navy
>Spad pilots tasked with throwing some instant sunshine over their
>shoulder.

It didn't make much difference. They delivered smaller yield weapons
and the margins were just as close for the faster jets hauling larger
bangs. The "safe separation" distance from your own blast was so
critical that when they painted the F-105s in camo they had to
recalculate all of the nuclear delivery parameters--the reflective
quality of the shiny aluminum was less heat absorbent than the dark
colors of the camo.

Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
underside?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
>underside?

This was why RN Sea Harriers got repainted on their way south in 1982:
the gloss white underpinnings were unlikely to be required for that
particular conflict, and were likely to draw unfriendly eyes more than a
more subdued scheme might.

Why should delivering a "600lb Bomb, Medium Case" have been such a big
deal anyway? :)


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Dave Kearton]

Dan wrote:
>> JR Weiss wrote:
>>> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:
>>
>>>> A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that
>>>> will always attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> ANY time a trailing aircraft crosses the wake vortex, full control
>>> will momentarily be overridden by the vortex! Nothing new here,
>>> and nothing unrecoverable!
>>
>> Well, you see, there was this MOVIE...
>>
>> Dan



"Maverick, eject, eject, there's a MiG-28 on your tail ....


.....and he's got Exocets...."




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Dan[_9_]]

JR Weiss wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

>> A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that will always
>> attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian control.
>
> ANY time a trailing aircraft crosses the wake vortex, full control will
> momentarily be overridden by the vortex! Nothing new here, and nothing
> unrecoverable!

Well, you see, there was this MOVIE...

Dan

[Typhoon502]

On May 30, 6:37*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
>
> > wrote:
> >Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
> >500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
> >where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
> >about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
> >been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
> >heartbeats.
>
> It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
> world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
> if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
> supersonic bit for long.

I'm not sure that a Thud could outrun 37mm cannon shells, though.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 31, 12:06 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Ron >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 31, 8:53 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard
>
> >> >It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
> >> >world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
> >> >if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
> >> >supersonic bit for long.
>
> >> >Casady
>
> >> Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
> >> really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
> >> a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
> >> and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
> >> without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
> >> blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.
>
> >> Ed Rasimus
> >> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >> "When Thunder Rolled"
> >> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
>
> >Just imagine though what life would have been like though for the Navy
> >Spad pilots tasked with throwing some instant sunshine over their
> >shoulder.
>
> It didn't make much difference. They delivered smaller yield weapons
> and the margins were just as close for the faster jets hauling larger
> bangs. The "safe separation" distance from your own blast was so
> critical that when they painted the F-105s in camo they had to
> recalculate all of the nuclear delivery parameters--the reflective
> quality of the shiny aluminum was less heat absorbent than the dark
> colors of the camo.
>
> Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
> underside?

My guess, don't fry the sperm.
Please do NOT confuse,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bamba_(song)

> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
Cheers
Ken

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....

Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

Richard Casady wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
>>Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
>>500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
>>where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
>>about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
>>been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
>>heartbeats.
>
> It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
> world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
> if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
> supersonic bit for long.

In the midst of my unpacking, I've dredged up a paper copy of:
AIR COMBAT TACTICS EVALUATION F-100, F-104, F-105, F-4C VS MIG-15/17 TYPE
AC(F-86H),
Authored by the USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, May 1965.
Basically, lacking a sufficient number of MiG-17s at the time,
the USAF used ANG F-86Hs as MiG-equivalents, and turned them loose
against TAC F-100s, F-104s, F-105s, and F-4Cs to find the best tactics
to use when defensive (F-86s bouncing), and offensive.
In all cases, the best tactic against a gun attack by the F-86 was to extend
out, using AB and God's G, (0 G push - negating induced drag), breaking if
necessary to spoil a gun run, and to consider reattacking when supersonic.
Even at Mach 0.9 (Call it 600 Kts) it takes enough time for any of these
jets to pull out of gun range in level flight for the MiG to run out of
bullets.

The speed was there, but acceleration, impressive as it was, wasn't enough
to get you faster fast enough.

--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose your hat is a bad plan

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

"The Horny Goat" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
> Griessel) wrote:
>
>>I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>>Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>>ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
>
> Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!

I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.

cheers....Jeff

[Dan[_12_]]

Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
> "The Horny Goat" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
>> Griessel) wrote:
>>
>>> I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>>> Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>>> ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
>> Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!
>
> I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.
>
> cheers....Jeff
>
>
Well, women DO have Volvos.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>> "The Horny Goat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
>>> Griessel) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>>>> Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>>>> ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
>>> Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!
>>
>> I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I even know a few men who drive Volvos!

[JR Weiss]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote...
>
>> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>
> I even know a few men who drive Volvos!

I like to fondle them...

[Ron]

On Jun 5, 10:37 am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
> >> "The Horny Goat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
> >>> Griessel) wrote:
>
> >>>> I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
> >>>> Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
> >>>> ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
> >>> Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!
>
> >> I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.
>
> >> cheers....Jeff
> > Well, women DO have Volvos.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I even know a few men who drive Volvos!

Yes, but they are rather box-like arent they? :)

[Mike Kanze]

>fairly high pitched male Thai voices!

Waaaay off topic:

As a teenager living in France (1963 - 1965), it was always strange to see an American western in a French cinema, with John Wayne speaking rapid, high-pitched (dubbed) French. And at first I thought it equally strange to see the Indians doing the same, until I remembered my North American history, French being one of the first European languages many tribes learned.


--
Mike Kanze

"Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure."

- Mark Skousen


"Bob" > wrote in message ...
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:37:09 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> wrote:

>
>"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>> Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>>> "The Horny Goat" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
>>>> Griessel) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
>>>>> Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
>>>>> ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
>>>> Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!
>>>
>>> I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.
>>>
>>> cheers....Jeff
>> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>I even know a few men who drive Volvos!

The only commercial I remember from Thai TV four decades ago.
Volvo was whoa whoa.
And here is the new, luxury car whoa whoa...
Along with that was Matt Dillon and Chester in fairly high pitched
male Thai voices!

[Gernot Hassenpflug[_2_]]

"JR Weiss" > writes:

> "Roger Conroy" > wrote...
>>
>>> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>>
>> I even know a few men who drive Volvos!
>
> I like to fondle them...

Well, friend, stay far away from me please :-)

--
BOFH excuse #331:

those damn raccoons!

[Dan[_12_]]

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
> "JR Weiss" > writes:
>
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote...
>>>> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>>> I even know a few men who drive Volvos!
>> I like to fondle them...
>
> Well, friend, stay far away from me please :-)
>

If women didn't have Volvos where would babies come from?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[JR Weiss]

"Dan" > wrote...
>>>>> Well, women DO have Volvos.
>>>> I even know a few men who drive Volvos!
>>> I like to fondle them...
> If women didn't have Volvos where would babies come from?

There would be many Saabs...