Brief intro and questions about the current mach 2.0 limitations ofWestern designed F/A AC

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

On Nov 2, 11:31*pm, Bob Nixon wrote:
Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
for the B-52.

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

On Nov 3, 11:14*am, brian whatcott wrote:
The name of the game is to specify for the NEXT war, not the LAST war.

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

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

Bob..

On Nov 3, 3:57*pm, Bob Nixon wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:14*am, brian whatcott wrote:



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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..

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

Bob..

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

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

In article
,
Richard wrote:

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

Bob..

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

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

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

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

On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,



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

Bob..

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon..

On Nov 4, 10:01*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,



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

Bob..

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon..

Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
Richard wrote:

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

Bob..

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

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

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


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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Nov 2, 10:31*pm, Bob Nixon wrote:
Hi all, my name is Bob Nixon a retired (disabled due to a MC-Deer
accident in 2004) EE in the microwave/millimeter wave discipline.I
basically worked my way up via GI bill from an avionic technician in
the USAF in the VN era later working both the Silicon Valley & for the
last 22 years in the PHX metro in Chandler AZ in our own down scalled
Silicon Valley with Intel, Microchip, Boeing Apache Mesa production
line and Motorola and several other aviation related industries.
Anyway I worked mostly in smaller companies that produce ECM Jammer
Sources and Early Warning Radar front ends and later some GPS upgrades
for the B-52.

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Bob Nixon..



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

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

Bob Nixon..