F-22 Lies

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

Without any ill will toward you or your family, most Jews consider the
children of a Jewish mother to be Jewish.


I appreciate the input, Paul. My wife is all a bit bewildered by this
discussion and has asked that I let it drop - with her feelings uppermost
in
mind, I'm going to try to not think about this any more.

Better still, you should apologise, Krztalizer. Try and move away from that
old Soviet Jew hating way and learn the ways of a free society.

Whew! Just had a dogfight trying to get my password accepted by
GooGroups. Turned out my browser's anticookie setting was too high.
Hell of a note when you gotta accept a cookie to log on. Oh well it
won't be there very long heh heh.
I read Riccioni's paper. Having flown the 104A Dash 19 I wonder just
what sort of supercruise it had in full military at the tropopause.
Since it would accelerate to 1.05 at 25,000 in military perhaps at 1.4
(getting there in AB)where the ram effect and the shock cone effect
starts kicking in, maybe it could sustain 1.4 in military. Maybe. I
regret not thinking of running 'speed bleed' tests back thnen but we
were using the airplane, not testing it. Since three of our airplanes
went to Edwards, perhaps Mary knows some of the pilots - and could
find out if they ever did any tests to see if the bird could
supercruise.
BTW Riccioni tends to overexaggerate for emphasis. I remember reading
his papers back in the lightweight fighter controversy. What he says
does not gibe with what I read in AW&ST F22 flight test articles.
The crticism of the 22's IR signature in supercruise is valid if the
22 continues into the threat area supercruising. It doesn't apply if
the 22 slows to lower the signature. The supercruise is of value if
the arena is say five hundred miles away......
LPI AI radar and using intermittent momentary sweeps reduces the
chance of enemy location of the 22 - or any other AI fighter, for that
matter. Considering that the arena will be filled with radar clutter
the chance of getting a fix on anyone just searching is tough enough.
If the oppo is dumb enough to spotlight a target, yes, he can be
detected easily. But if you only come up for a couple sweeps and then
go to standby for say fifteen seconds before coming up for another
couple sweeps - it's a tough problem. The ability to 'freeze' the
scope picture is an outstanding mod.
As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
10 miles. Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
were figuring out what to do next. I remember the lightweight fighter
guys throwing fits at the idea of AI radar in a fighter. I got the
impression they thought all wars would be fought in the desert during
the day time with guns and just possibly old AIM9B Sidewinders.
WHo are we going to fight that will require yhe 22 and 35? Considering
they will be around at least as long as the 14,15,16 - be my guest.
Their opposition will be the bad guys' next generation, people.
Oh, yes. Tarver, be nice for once!
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...

Oh, yes. Tarver, be nice for once!

Ed wants to raise the level of discussion and I am willing to let him try.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
That probably works for those decendants of what were second class
citizens
in Russia.

Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?

You will find that such a mindset will harm your children later on.

Cut it out John...just quit it now..
--

-Gord.

On 16 Jan 2004 13:14:42 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
10 miles. Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
were figuring out what to do next.

Then Col. Olds at a maintenace meeting Ubon early 1967 said something
along the lines and crew chiefs clean the canopy good because a bug
speck might look like a mig in the distance.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
That probably works for those decendants of what were second class
citizens
in Russia.

Soo, even though "that probably works" for my family, in your pompous,
self-centered universe, its still a terrible wrong...?

You will find that such a mindset will harm your children later on.

Cut it out John...just quit it now..

Krztalizer needs to move beyond his Soviet style thinking and join the free
world.

Europe can produce a rival at $75 mil and Russia $50 mil.

Sure, that's why they've done it, right? And the Chinese don't build
aircraft carriers because they just don't feel like it. And I have a
bridge in the desert you might be interested in buying.

"Twoashes" wrote in message
om...

And I have a
bridge in the desert you might be interested in buying.

Geez. The folks in that desert retirement community (NV or AZ, I
forget) that imported an old bridge that they bought from the city of
London, England are selling it already?

Must have been a lemon. ;-)

WaltBJ wrote:

snip

As for the visual signature - get real. The best 'eyeball' guys I ever
knew - and that is a total number of 2 in 22 years of flying fighters
in eleven fighter squadrons - could spot a 104 coming head-on at about
10 miles.

With that kind of eyesight, one presumes they spent their spare time
perched on top of light poles, trees or cliffs ;-)


Even a Sparrow could rattle their cage about the time they
were figuring out what to do next.

Depends on the radar. My Zipper aficionado friend's friend, the late Tom
Delashaw, flew in the Navy maneuvering target tests against F-4Bs in his
F-104C model. Head-on, the F-4s were normally unable to get a lock until
inside min.AIM-7E range (IIRR, max. contact range achieved was 18nm), if
they achieved one at all, and usually Tom had long since tallied them.
IIRC, not a single valid AIM-7 shot was called against him. But that's
against a 1950s vintage pure pulse radar (APQ-72; the F-4C's APQ-100 was
similar except for the bombing strobe), with the original "forget using
it in a dogfight" switchology; mounted on an airframe/engine combo
renowned for the amount of smoke it produced; a missile with a large
minimum range and '4 potato' speedgate settling time; and with the Zipper
pilot being a FWS grad who knew when to use ground clutter (no RWR on his
a/c at the time).

I remember the lightweight fighter
guys throwing fits at the idea of AI radar in a fighter. I got the
impression they thought all wars would be fought in the desert during
the day time with guns and just possibly old AIM9B Sidewinders.

More like they thought that for the foreseeable future IFF wouldn't allow
many BVR shots, and the AIM-7s' reliability was unlikely to ever be all
that much better, so it and its required radar/systems werent worth the
cost in money, weight and performance. In short, they foresaw Vietnam
conditions applying for some time, where the overwhelming majority of
AIM-7 kills were WVR maneuvering shots that could have been taken by a far
less expensive IRM, if the air force had had an AIM-9 with the minimum
range, launch G and turn performance of the AIM-7E2 (the pre-production
AIM-9J only got into combat in August 1972). Virtually all the true BVR
shots in VN were Combat Tree, usually at night. From comments I've read
by Bitburg Eagle pilots in the late -'70s, they tended to agree that the
gun and AIM-9J/P/L were going to be their primary armament if the Red
Hordes attacked, as they were less than confident in the AIM-7F (aka "The
Great White Hope"), and they figured the picture would be far too confused
in any case for them to just lock and launch because that guy doesn't have
the right squawk. Given the near own goals in DS, and the "oops" post-DS
facing far less numerous and mopre poorly EW-equipped foes than the
WarPact hordes, I'd say they were right.

AFAIK we never scored a kill with the AIM-7F (I'm not sure if the head-on
look-up launches from F-14s against MiG-23s in the Gulf of Sidra in the
mid-80s were -7F or -7M, but I'm sure that they both missed), although the
Israelis presumably had. AIM-7M seems to have been a fair amount better,
but even there the pK doesn't appear anywhere near as high as the
contemporary AIM-9's.

I do think they went a bit overboard with just wanting a ranging radar,
but given AWACS and F-15s it may well have been justifiable as an
acceptable method of keeping the cost down (numbers) and performance up.
An AI radar certainly wasn't essential, just nice to have (weighed against
extra weight, cost, maintenance and training time). I'm not sure if that
was a consensus view of the LWF Mafia, or if most of them thought
something like a later F-5E's APQ-159 (the one with angle-track; the
earlier APQ-153 only had range track) would be the thing. But once a
light, small multimode PD radar came along in the form of the APG-66, it
made sense to put it in, at least in the context of the USAF requiring the
F-16 to take over the multi-role mission from the F-4 (and F-15), instead
of using it for the long range air superiority mission for which it was
designed, and where the multi-mode capability was extra weight. It was
the mission switch and the associated weight/cost growth that the Mafia,
especially Boyd, hated. Once the decision had been made, Boyd did his
best to get the USAF to increase the wing area to 320 sq.ft. instead of
300 (from the YF-16's 280) to maintain Ps at the heavier weight, but
failed.

Guy

The biggest problem with the Navy F4s' radar was the way they landed.
That controlled crash didn't help their radars at all. At Da Nang I
had a Navy troop in my back seat on a night mission over Laos. He was
impressed by our old F4D radar (1972) and the way it could see tankers
at 75 miles over land. I expressed wonder as I knew he was flying F4S
aircraft. He replied that after about 4 carrier 'arrivals' the radar
wasn't so hot anymore. Along that same vein, neither TAC nor 7AF gave
radar (and missile) maintenance/TLC enough emphasis. After 9 years
flying the F86D and F102 I knew what good radar could do. But getting
good radar requires a high quality of aircrew knowledge, strict
adherence to maintenance by the book (no TLAR tweaking), sharp radar
technicians and precise fault writeups and trouble shooting. Both TAC
and 7AF were more interested in flying aircraft than fixing radars.
FWIW our F102 radar at the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) was as good as
the F4D's radar. 30-45 miles on a T33, 75-125 miles on a KC135/707.
As for those sharp-eyed pilots - my eyes were then 20-15 - theirs were
markedly better. When GCI called '10 miles' on a head-on engagement I
used to lean forward so I could see better out to both sides - pretty
soon I'd see either Howie or Joe cocked up in a hard turn into my six
and the fun would begin.
Our very lightweight ASG14 on the 104A could see another 104 at 14
miles - and two radar mechs could pick up the set and carry it to the
airplane. That left the scope and the ballistics computer to be
carried by another man.
Even back then a fighter with only a ranging radar was a day VFR
fighter that better stay on the ground if there were any significant
amount of clouds in the sky - like over Europe most of the time. And
essentially worthless at night. We in the 319FIS would just shake our
heads when we read their ill-considered vituperations. BTW John Bond
was one of my instructor pilots when I went through the F86F Sabre
school at Nellis in 1954.
Walt BJ