The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 10, 3:54 pm, WaltBJ wrote:

On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP


I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.

SNIP:
That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it.
What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in
aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your
conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these
subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and
spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are
an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to
the subject.
Walt BJ


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.

It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

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

This thread is completely off the mark of the original post. The merits
of single builder programs rather than multi nation make job deals.
The idea of Canards dates back to the bloody Wright Bros. So I thing the
world knows what it can & can't do. As FOr the Grippen as a plane? Hey,
I love the thing and hopes Santa drops one under my tree. That being
said, it's not the invincible plane your making it out to be.

John D Salt wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in
news
[Snips]
Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible.....

Of course it is. PARRY was written to mimic the responses of a patient
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think it was Douglas Hofstadter
who had the idea of hooking up a copy of ELIZA (written to mimic the
responses of a Rogerian psychotherapist) with one of PARRY and seeing how
they got on.

RACTER, the author of the first book written by a computer program ("The
Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed") has been described by its aithor as
an exercise in AI, standing for Artificial Insanity.

All the best,

John.
Thanks for the info! There's a bit of AI in this newsgroup, eh?

Dean

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

On May 9, 4:57Â*pm, Dan wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

snip

The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid

flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

Â* Â* The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
long time to recover.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability. As dog fighting
goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.


A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
aircraft and absorb/take the radar.

after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.

Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. 20 years of flight
experience and superb training isn't going to save one from a rookie
who gets lucky in getting into that position first.

Air to air missiles are fire and forget, both friendly and enemy
planes fly and maneuver too fast for any need by the attacking plane
to match the enemy turn for turn to keep a (obsolete?)beam riding
missile on target. Combat distances are as far out as possible, way
beyond any cannon range for shoot 'em up dog fighting. From the many
History channel and Discovery channel interviews with modern pilots
they all say that they want to release their bombs and missiles from
as far out as possible and get the hell out. Sticking around let
alone dogfight in a modern battlefield is a suicide wish.

All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
dictates a winner what happens?


So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
dictates.

In an attack against a third rate power, such as one from the Muslim
countries, the overwhelming superiority of US airpower in numbers
means that whatever fighter planes the opposition has will be quickly
eliminated. Doing that doesn't require the super sophisticated super
expensive new generation of attack aircraft the US is building. So
let's get straight to the only opposition that can oppose an attack by
US airpower. That will be China.

China is too big and only the tonnage of bombs will make an
impression. For that you need numbers, both in aircraft and in their
bomb carrying capacity. A war with a giant country that can
manufacture its own weapons of near equivalent performance is one of
attrition not of technical superiority. The current design philosophy
for the F22 and F35 is emphasis on stealth and maneuverability. The
trade-off is complexity and cost. The US can no longer afford an
airforce (land and naval) that can carry on a major war. The numbers
are too few. Because of complexity the US will have a problem of
keeping them in the air in a high intensity war. Because of complexity
it losses in aircraft and men will be hard to replace. Stealth means
limited internal capacity for bombs. In other words your force makeup
is unbalanced and hardware design philosophy flawed. I have given
enough to start a debate. Your turn.

Back to my first paragraph -
"Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. "

If you send in a large attack force, say a 40 plane strike or even a
100 plane one, the sky will be so rich with targets that ground based
AA defenses will have a field day. How many billion dollar planes can
you afford to lose in one mission? If you send in a smaller one, say
12 planes, PLAF defenders can easily send up twice that number and
from all directions to get into that favorable firing position
advantage. Even if every US plane has an ace-in-a-day there will
still be enough PLAF planes left. How many aces can you afford to
lose? Chinese fighters are cheap. Their pilots are mindless
peasants. But they are just as nasty and you already know about
China's manufacturing capabilities and manpower resources.

On May 11, 2:33*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:08:30 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson





wrote:
On May 9, 4:57*pm, Dan wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

snip

The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid

flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this..

* * The "cobra" maneuver is not a very good combat move. Do a simple
free body diagram to see what happens to acceleration and velocity
vectors. The MiG is a sitting duck throughout the maneuver and takes a
long time to recover.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The maneuver is obviously only a technical ability. *As dog fighting
goes a well planned first approach with missles always wins.

A dogfight as a rule can be forced with the lost aircraft. A sucker
aircraft and absorb/take the radar.

after this occur a true missilefree dogfight happens.

Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. 20 years of flight
experience and superb training isn't going to save one from a rookie
who gets lucky in getting into that position first.

Air to air missiles are fire and forget, both friendly and enemy
planes fly and maneuver too fast for any need by the attacking plane
to match the enemy turn for turn to keep a (obsolete?)beam riding
missile on target. Combat distances are as far out as possible, way
beyond any cannon range for shoot 'em up dog fighting. *From the many
History channel and Discovery channel interviews with modern pilots
they all say that they want to release their bombs and missiles from
as far out as possible and get the hell out. *Sticking around let
alone dogfight in a modern battlefield is a suicide wish. *



All free battle has an AMERICAN superior first strike built in. If
this is lost, then what happens is a secondary senario occurs. An
litteral aircraft to aircraft and attritionloss war. When attrition
dictates a winner what happens?

So large air battle planning fails when aircraft performance only
dictates.

In an attack against a third rate power, such as one from the Muslim
countries, the overwhelming superiority of US airpower in numbers
means that whatever fighter planes the opposition has will be quickly
eliminated. *Doing that doesn't require the super sophisticated super
expensive new generation of attack aircraft the US is building. *So
let's get straight to the only opposition that can oppose an attack by
US airpower. *That will be China. *

China is too big and only the tonnage of bombs will make an
impression. *For that you need numbers, both in aircraft and in their
bomb carrying capacity. *A war with a giant country that can
manufacture its own weapons of near equivalent performance is one of
attrition not of technical superiority. *The current design philosophy
for the F22 and F35 is emphasis on stealth and maneuverability. *The
trade-off is complexity and cost. *The US can no longer afford an
airforce (land and naval) that can carry on a major war. The numbers
are too few. Because of complexity the US will have a problem of
keeping them in the air in a high intensity war. Because of complexity
it losses in aircraft and men will be hard to replace. Stealth means
limited internal capacity for bombs. *In other words your force makeup
is unbalanced and hardware design philosophy flawed. *I have given
enough to start a debate. *Your turn.

Back to my first paragraph -
"Is all this super maneuverability useful in escaping a missile lock?
Modern missiles make dogfighting skills almost irrelevant as even a
rookie can press a button and score a kill, the important factor being
to get into a good firing position first. "

If you send in a large attack force, say a 40 plane strike or even a
100 plane one, the sky will be so rich with targets that ground based
AA defenses will have a field day. How many billion dollar planes can
you afford to lose in one mission? If you send in a smaller one, say
12 planes, PLAF defenders can easily send up twice that number and
from all directions to get into that favorable firing position
advantage. *Even if every US plane has an ace-in-a-day there will
still be enough PLAF planes left. *How many aces can you afford to
lose? *Chinese fighters are cheap. *Their pilots are mindless
peasants. But they are just as nasty and you already know about
China's manufacturing capabilities and manpower resources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

A huge moutain range for defesive retreat exists. High altitude
penetration followed by any direction as defensive retreat means a
whole mountian range to tactically defend.

If you loose your mountains you have no defense as a nation. A US war
with China wouldlike be a response to a North Korean outcome called
illegal act.

An Afganistan AIr field is to maybe be built in honor of the nation.

Size appears an issue, but air to air parity means the defenders need
only wait for a trigger from the USA. When we start building bombers
again, then worry. THe USA has to few bombers to attack and drop your
air system.

A huge nice new airfield in Afganistan would make alot of sense. But
security is to poor there right now.

Defending the East Coast is like, I hope that is not called the level
of analysis.

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?

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

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

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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton (what has Verbia ever done for us anyway)

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

On May 11, 4:37Â*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. Â*You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. Â*From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. Â*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? Â*How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. Â*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...cle%2FShowFull
[ 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.

Well put, Doug! Except for the part where you were trying to convey a
thought.....


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