Burt Rutan

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

"Ed Majden" wrote:

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced. Balderdash!

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."

The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
you don't have to get all sweaty.

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

If that leads you to the conclusion that Burt Rutan is packed with an
inordinate quantity of bovine excrement, it would be a reasonable
deduction.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Snipped

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Snipped

Ed, We lose more airplanes than that in a bad week at Red Flag. Comparing
the DS II rates to DS I or VietNam is apples to oranges. They hardly shot
back. Even in DS I the air defense wasn't as robust as around Hanoi,
because we were allowed to kill it.

All your statistics show is that a decent program of SEAD works to prevent
losses. Says nothing about the capabilities of the F-15E, F-16C, or the
A-10. It does say a lot about the AGM-88 and smart weaponry over the last
12 years of SEAD in Iraq.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Les Matheson" wrote:

Snipped

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Snipped

Ed, We lose more airplanes than that in a bad week at Red Flag. Comparing
the DS II rates to DS I or VietNam is apples to oranges. They hardly shot
back. Even in DS I the air defense wasn't as robust as around Hanoi,
because we were allowed to kill it.

All your statistics show is that a decent program of SEAD works to prevent
losses. Says nothing about the capabilities of the F-15E, F-16C, or the
A-10. It does say a lot about the AGM-88 and smart weaponry over the last
12 years of SEAD in Iraq.

I don't agree with the "apples to oranges" characterization. Iraq
boasted a concentrated Soviet-built integrated air defense system with
a load of radars, wide array of SAM systems and a lot of guns. While
clearly localized and probably badly mismanaged, those night-scope
videos of the fire over Baghdad were pretty impressive to this tired
Weasel-wingman's eyes.

While the IADS had developed over the years, so too had the
counter-measures, offensive weaponry and tactics. That along with a
political structure that was willing to let the pros do the job was
the key.

Which, of course, all goes back to the original purpose which was to
debunk the statements of Burt Rutan regarding the torpor of the
American military aviation industry. We've done quite well over the
years.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus wrote
Snipped

While the IADS had developed over the years, so too had the
counter-measures, offensive weaponry and tactics. That along with a
political structure that was willing to let the pros do the job was
the key.

Snipped
Exactley my point. We fought a different war against a less organized
opponent and did better. Only comparison possible on a meaningful level is
to say, let the military do what is designed to do, "Break things".


--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced.

I was recently told the same thing about the education system in
China--by a graduate student who is all of 23 years old!

My father of course told me the same. Evidently the world has been in
a free-fall for a very long time.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Good point. It also reflects several major factors effecting loss rates:
ROE, tactics and enemy capabilities. The Vietnamese capability was far
greater (largely because of ROE), and the tactics employed (essentially WW2
mentality "here we come, try and stop us") were ill-conceived. Another
factor, technological superiority, was rarely employed to maximum advantage.

In DS1 we used technology (Stealth, cruise missiles, anti-radiation,
intelligence gathering, etc.) wisely and negated much of the air defense
capability in the first missions of the war. ROE didn't prevent bombing the
airfields or attacking defensive positions as it did in Vietnam. Our
tactics better emphasized measures to insure survivability. DS2 was more
and better of the same (with virtually no air defense network to worry
about).

I suspect the venerable Thud (suitably armed with a modern weapons system
.... I bet there was room in that vast airframe for a retrofit) could have
performed admirably as a strike aircraft in the latest war. Put an F-18
system in there and ... hmmm. Similar (more?) range, similar (more?) load,
faster ingress, faster egress. Well, there'd be a down side too.
Maintainability, maneuverability (less a factor than you might think),
survivability (not sure of the relative issues there, but if we haven't
learned anything in 40 years ...).

R / John

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
take one into combat these days!"


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Ditch" wrote in message
...
Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians
to
fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good
point...he
goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want
to
take one into combat these days!"

It's the equivilent to bringing a knife to a gunfight.

"Ditch" wrote in message -John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or
North
American*

or a Boeing, Consolidated, Ford, Waco, Curtiss, Martin, McDonnell,
Northrop,Republic, Vought!!!!