Q? We don't need no stinking Q!

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com