If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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???? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LETS BUILD A MODEL PLANE | adelsonsl | Aviation Photos | 1 | May 16th 07 11:10 PM |
Swedish! | Owning | 3 | March 3rd 06 12:44 AM | |
The end of the Saab Viggen - The legendary Swedish jet fighter | Iwan Bogels | Simulators | 0 | April 19th 05 07:22 PM |
The Very Last Operational New German Fighter Model Of WW2 | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 13 | January 13th 04 03:31 PM |
RV Quick Build build times... | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | December 17th 03 03:29 AM |