The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Dave Kearton wrote:
Dan wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator
only lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



All of your verbs are belong to us.



Vowel movement?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:

Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?

It really is sounding more and more like a bot.
--
sjs

On May 11, 8:21*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson





wrote:
On May 11, 4:37*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. *You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. *From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. *Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? *How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. *How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. *But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. *And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. *SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

====================================

Buddy, if you believe in that kind of childish freedom crap no wonder
the Chicoms find it so easy to eat your lunch.

Now before anyone gets all riled up about American manhood hear this.
China has no intention in getting into an arms race or becoming a
global military giant like the US. *It ruins one's own country and
wins no friends. The Chicom strategy is to have enough assets to
prevent the US from doing an Iraq to China. *I believe China is
already there. *The evidence is the modest but steady pace of defense
upgrades. *Weapons systems will continue to be developed and improved
to a level comparable with the rest of the world. *But there will not
be any crash program and there will not be any accelerated strive for
technical superiority. *This is because conventional weapons have
already reach the limit of their design parameters. There are no
technical breakthroughs worth the billions of dollars in effort. *

Once more. *A war with China is a war of attrition. *It's a numbers
game not one of technical superiority.

Planes do need to be larger, engines more powerful and efficient.
This is necessary to carry more ordnance, go further or stay aloft
longer and to quickly get out of trouble. *Otherwise everything else
is done near sonic speeds. *An emphasis on one aspect of design, eg.
stealth, requires major trade-off in other areas.
This closing sentence is telling *http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117a.htm

[To summarize the F-117A's attack capability: the aircraft relies on
optical targeting and its effectiveness, as experience in Yugoslavia
showed, can be severely undermined by bad weather. The aircraft's
maximum weapons-carrying capacity of two bombs makes it a decent
diversionary tool but a less-then effective bomber in medium- to
large-scale armed conflicts. ]

Same thing with surface ships. *The PLAN won't use a naval ship to
fight off a USN ship. *That's a misuse of an asset. It is aircraft and
missiles against the USN intruder. Even the 40 knot maximum claimed on
some smaller USN ships that cannot outrun an antiship missile or a
frighter plane. *

Same thing with an aircraft carrier. *By common consent 300 km *range
is the limit for tactical missiles. *

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...7&pagename=JPo....
[ Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be
launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers
away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a
meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to
intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and
Harpoon. ]

That obliges the CVBG has to be at least 310km or more out. *That
means the CV's air strike force will have to fly over 600 km of open
water in any mission. *There will be more distance to cover to hit an
inland target. *Any Chinese general will opt for max effort to take
out the CVBG first for by then the strike force won't have an intact
CVBG to come back to. *Go figure out the risks to the CVBG and to the
air strike force.

Now if the US does not have the option to threaten China with a
conventional strike then what are you maintaining a 12 carrier fleet
for? *A navy the size of the RN or IN is more than enough for the
piddling threats the USN had to deal with so far and in the
foreseeable future. *Perhaps a 3 carrier inventory is about all you
will need if you want to hang on to carriers.

I don't believe there will be any scenario where the US will threaten
China with nukes. *So let's not go there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
A Lord allows the usage of nuclear weapons, a war ethic is demanded
and the concept as a rule was always to begin to weigh the regime
against the allowance for acts of evil to continue. All police
systems in general have acts of evil committed against the people, but
the degree determine the Lords allowance for nuclear usage.

You will not have trouble in heaven as a rule because the evil acts
demanded a good to act against it.

It all comes down to minimizing the innocents lost. A smaller weapon
to act when available must be chosen. So so-called “bunker buster”
nukes are required to attack in the eyes of the Lord. A program is in
place to allow small usage.

As a rule the regime of China is on notice for violating and being
evil. Evil means to commit wrongs as judged by a good man.

SO the meaning of mistakes was the relation of Hiroshima to the war
act of good nuclear weapons usage. A first mistake was made and the
target was an innocent people, almost.

A next usage would entail a correct targeting. Military
infrastructure as a rule is allowed to be nuclear attacked.

Ethics in nuclear warfare are evaluated as only a powerful weapon that
can be miss-targeted, easily. It has a mistaken image as a disallowed
weapon because of the first mistake.

When you attack civilians because the whole nation is assisting the
enemy you have a severe problem with the innocent children. How do you
prevent their evil destruction with your powerful weapons?

Civilian targeting is the issue with the Lord. And the correct usage
allows all US commanders to sleep well and know their justice was a
good attack. Precision attack with correctly sized nuclear weapons is
allowable.

So when the US has to act on China, all the scenarios demand a good to
win. Attack and a loss is not allowable. Making the nuclear option
almost assuredly the chosen tactic.

China will be struck by nicely designed weapons. And the issue is to
always win, causing the US tactic as a nation to reply with the
question. If attacked nicely would China then announce their evil
intention to attack US continental civilians?

Would the nuclear stalemate, be to always kill innocents in reply to a
small nuclear attack? And so we understand the reply method of the
China liker. He believes in nuclear stratagem of only acting to
destroy innocents to prevent a good nuclear attack.

It is a misguided belief that evil would be allowed to proceed with
second strikes.

On May 11, 6:33 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng wrote:



On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????

On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On May 11, 2:14 am, T.L. Davis wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.

OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?

Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...

Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.

T.L. Davis

There is a sign of your newness to Russian design, maintenance is
secondary to air show performances. Imagine what a Russian mechanic
can do with those nozzles and then multiply that by the guy he
teaches, perhaps in English perhaps not. Certainly not the recipient's
native colloquial tongue

So, impressive as an airshow gimmick, but not necessarily reliable or
representative of easily transferable technology...I got it.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
On May 11, 6:33 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
On May 11, 4:37 pm, PaPaPeng wrote:



On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????


Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.


I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation, would
you?



My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
What would be yours?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.

I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation,
would you?


Fully accepting your credentials and experience

Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues (similar to
bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat effectiveness issue , e.g.
what we would risk to recover a functioning pilot?

Vince

First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting element,
but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have lost the
essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry. You've got
to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if time,
mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all immediate
tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and briefed on
every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large BUT---the
clear understanding that recovering of downed combat aircrew members
is a very high priority is very critical to morale. Knowing that a
mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that your
fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will be
there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes remaining.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

On May 11, 7:36*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
Wait, wait waitie.

Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
his ignorence.

I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
ittie comic book.

You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? *Has he helped debate the
future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.

I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
ludicrous.



It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

btw, you wanna be real? *Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.

Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.

Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
and recover. Those are losing strategies.

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.

My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
What would be yours?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models
to identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter
pilots think about.

Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this
manuever. Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards
while rear horizontal stabilizers can NOT recover.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out
the debate was challenged. It should be a lively debate.

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to
match technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.

Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.

A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.

I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
twiin flight by an expert.


All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
nonslang.

The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?

One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
expert on a newsgroup.

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP:
One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.
SNIP:

Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
know very little about air combat maneuvering.
As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
line of 710KIAS. Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
the two makes a mistake.
I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 at 200, the afterburner
would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
inventory.
What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
- and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
occupied.
..
Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.