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.