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

In article
,
Bob Nixon wrote:

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



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

Bob..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Nov 4, 6:01*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
*Bob Nixon wrote:



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

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

Bob..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon wrote:

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

Vietnam ended 40 years ago.

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

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

On Nov 5, 11:53*am, jan olieslagers
wrote:
Bob Nixon schreef:

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon..

In article
,
Bob Nixon wrote:

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

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

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

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

On Nov 5, 6:05*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
*Bob Nixon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon.

On Nov 5, 3:51*pm, Bob Nixon wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:53*am, jan olieslagers
wrote:

Bob Nixon schreef:

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Nixon..

You don't need motors to go that fast.

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

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