Q? We don't need no stinking Q!

"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you alive
in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the scene
.... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're not
talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively low
.... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the AIM-9X is
developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near dead six
(!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've been flying
F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain Pacific Rim
scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could give chase and
run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
. ..
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

KB

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q) relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed 700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.


Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John

Speed isn't important? Speed is life! Hell, I flew a turning fool of
an airplane, the F102. Wing loading about 45 psf. All that turn could
do was let me go around in tight circles when a faster airplane hawked
me. And that only lasted as long as my fuel did. But next I flew the
F104A - and 800+ was there if I needed it, even with its original
engine. The one with the Dash 19 engine would really step out. AMAF
two friends of mine took the birds out to 2.5 - 'only' 300 past the
redline. Speed is good!
And I bet Ed agrees with me; when you've just PO'ed Charlie by
taking out an SA2 site and the other 5 sites are still there looking
for you, 745 (all our F4Ds could do with all the junk hanging on them)
heading out for feet-wet was very nice indeed. - 745 because our
engines were right at the top of the trim band - they sure weren't
that fast back home.
I don't ever recall complaining about an airplane that wasn't
slow enough . . .
Walt BJ

Three armchair thoughts:

1- The need for speed going into a dogfight is increasingly irrelevant.
Speed = life was the motto before modern engines. It still applies, but to
a lesser degree IMO. The thrust of the F-22 is sick. You can regain energy
unlike the Camel, P-51, F-86, F-105, F-4, or even the F-15. You absolutely
still need energy, but with better enginges, you have less need for
pre-existing speed to provide that energy.

2- "lleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress." Ideally, that
makes very good sense. Let the missile do the dogfighting. In reality, I
don't think missile technology is there yet, so you still need the agile
jet, with the ability to disengage.

3- Speed shrinks tail-on missle envelopes. Both S-A, and A-A. I bet the
Iraqi's wish they were all flying F-111s when they tried to run on the deck
to Iran! Might not have saved them all, but it would have probably saved
some of them. Speed increases head-on envelopes. The hit and run tactics
of Mig-21s and -25s have proven to be among their better options probably
because speed decreases detection time and hence increases surprise.

So I think it's clear that speed is, and always will be, an important asset
even if engines and missiles continue to improve. It matters for a lot more
than just egressing dogfights.

TV

On Jul 4, 11:11 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety. We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+ egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as a current hornet driver i have to say i agree wholeheartedly.
though i love the big alpha hog as much as the next guy, i would trade
the unlimited alpha for
the ability to put more smash on my 120C5 any day (i only dream about
what kind of A/F poles the Raptor guys get up in the bozosphere
running around at those knots), as well as the ability to run from
well, any airplane, which we cannot do now. Funny, we just had a BFM
phase brief and we were talking about how our tacmans are total bs
when they talk about separating from a fight. Though it may be great
swaggering bar talk to speak of how we better be good at BFM, because
"once we anchor its either win or die" - I wouldn't be so keen on
getting into a vis fight at war not because of what the flanker/
fulcrum/insert adversary here will do, but my complete inability to
get away from all of the other dudes either smelling blood or looking
at his fireball and chasing me down. Only real Hornet deficiency - too
slow!!! We can talk about the gas issue some other day hahaha!
phase brief yesterday..our

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 4, 11:11 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety.
We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from
the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who
just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need
speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't
exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As
the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that
we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put
up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them
early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one
late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+
egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three
low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as a current hornet driver i have to say i agree wholeheartedly.
though i love the big alpha hog as much as the next guy, i would trade
the unlimited alpha for
the ability to put more smash on my 120C5 any day (i only dream about
what kind of A/F poles the Raptor guys get up in the bozosphere
running around at those knots), as well as the ability to run from
well, any airplane, which we cannot do now. Funny, we just had a BFM
phase brief and we were talking about how our tacmans are total bs
when they talk about separating from a fight. Though it may be great
swaggering bar talk to speak of how we better be good at BFM, because
"once we anchor its either win or die" - I wouldn't be so keen on
getting into a vis fight at war not because of what the flanker/
fulcrum/insert adversary here will do, but my complete inability to
get away from all of the other dudes either smelling blood or looking
at his fireball and chasing me down. Only real Hornet deficiency - too
slow!!! We can talk about the gas issue some other day hahaha!
phase brief yesterday..our

But it sure it fun to knife fight in that phone booth, eh?

R / John

On Jul 5, 6:00 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Jul 4, 11:11 am, "John Carrier" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:37:29 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
m...
"Speed is life" was drummed into my brain starting with FAM-1 in the
F-8.
Particularly vital in an era where any likely adversary would eat you
alive in a slow turning fight. Also useful when it was time to leave
the
scene ... max speed to disengage and get to feet wet and safety.
We're
not talking big mach numbers at altitude, but big knots(AKA Q)
relatively
low ... shrinking missile envelopes and generating separation from
the
bad
guys.

Had an interesting conversation with a PXO (former Bug driver) who
just
finished 4 years at the puzzle palace. He claimed we didn't need
speed
in
tactical aircraft.

By default we don't have it in USN aircraft. The F-18C/D can't
exceed
700
knots on a good day. The E/F is slower. They're impressive at high
alpha
(only the F-22 and modded flankers are better), but they're not
dragsters
(they're also a bit weak in endurance and range). But no matter.

Alleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress. As
the
AIM-9X is developed further, it will be able to engage a bogey at or
near
dead six (!?!). Of course, the argument overlooks the fact that
we've
been flying F-18's for some 20 years without this capability. In
certain
Pacific Rim scenarios, an intrepid aviator in a Mig series aircraft
could
give chase and run down the Bug and put one up where the sun don't
shine.

This sounds like one of those scenarios where "by the time he's in
position
to shoot me down, I can shoot him down too"... Ok, so you shoot each
other
down... Not a trade-off which would make the Navy happy.

On the other hand, there are few scenarios today where any opponent is
will
go toe to toe with the US in the air, so it may be a moot point. The
Mig-29
pilot can't shoot you down if his airplane is a smoking ruin sitting on
the
ramp.

Any thoughts? There aren't many potential adversaries that could put
up
a
significant A/A defense and current tactics are to neutralize them
early
(Six day war style, as opposed to Vietnam), but it only takes one
late
arrival in the furball to ruin your day. Is the day of the 800+
egress
over?

R / John

Let me see if I can put this in context--it seems to fit right into
the "we'll never need a gun" or maybe "there's no need for a new
aircraft, we'll just build more (insert current obsolescent system
here.)"

No one is willing to go toe-to-toe with the US in the air because we
have technological superiority. Yet, we see new airplanes being built
and bought by potential adversaries every year. Typhoons and
Eurofighters and MiG-97s or whatever are coming along to someday
challenge us. "Wish Him Dead" missiles are on drawing boards around
the world.

We know from experience that every new weapon generates a new counter.
SAMs didn't kill us, IR seekers didn't kill us, auto-tracking guns
with high rates-of-fire didn't kill us, super-agile Cobra-popping
fighters didn't kill us, etc. etc.

Why? Because we continued to get FASTER, more AGILE, better ARMED,
better TRAINED, more EXPERIENCED, better LED, etc. etc.

Q? I need it. I want it. I've got to have it. I've NEVER been TOO
FAST--and I know it is way too easy to be TOO SLOOOOOWWWWW.

Your mileage may vary.

How true. Egress from adversary in F-5s. My comms: "Your right three
low,
accelerating. Say your airspeed."

Reply with much exuberance, "600 knots!"

"Well, I'm passing 700 and I'm NOT fast enough."

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as a current hornet driver i have to say i agree wholeheartedly.
though i love the big alpha hog as much as the next guy, i would trade
the unlimited alpha for
the ability to put more smash on my 120C5 any day (i only dream about
what kind of A/F poles the Raptor guys get up in the bozosphere
running around at those knots), as well as the ability to run from
well, any airplane, which we cannot do now. Funny, we just had a BFM
phase brief and we were talking about how our tacmans are total bs
when they talk about separating from a fight. Though it may be great
swaggering bar talk to speak of how we better be good at BFM, because
"once we anchor its either win or die" - I wouldn't be so keen on
getting into a vis fight at war not because of what the flanker/
fulcrum/insert adversary here will do, but my complete inability to
get away from all of the other dudes either smelling blood or looking
at his fireball and chasing me down. Only real Hornet deficiency - too
slow!!! We can talk about the gas issue some other day hahaha!
phase brief yesterday..our

But it sure it fun to knife fight in that phone booth, eh?

R / John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ya its true, its the best hahaha!

TV wrote:

Three armchair thoughts:

1- The need for speed going into a dogfight is increasingly irrelevant.
Speed = life was the motto before modern engines. It still applies, but
to
a lesser degree IMO. The thrust of the F-22 is sick. You can regain
energy
unlike the Camel, P-51, F-86, F-105, F-4, or even the F-15. You
absolutely still need energy, but with better enginges, you have less need
for pre-existing speed to provide that energy.

I respectfully disagree (But then, I'm an Engineer/Pilot, not a Fighter
Pilot)
Speed's still important - It allows you more options when positioning
yourself before the merge. The extra velocity does really, Really nice
things to your missile kinematice - the faster the launch speed, the more
range and maneuverability your missile has. Being whopping fast means that
if somebody's trying to intercept you, they've got to pull a lot of G,
bleeding of their energy, to try and pull lead. If you can go fast for a
long time, like the F-22, you're a whole new type of target. Especially
since the -22 is,on radar, a very small airplane.

2- "lleged reason: It's cheaper to design a missile that'll kill anyone
giving
chase than it is to design an airplane that can egress." Ideally, that
makes very good sense. Let the missile do the dogfighting. In reality, I
don't think missile technology is there yet, so you still need the agile
jet, with the ability to disengage.

Well, you can make a missile airframe that accelerates quickly, but
sustaining that speed takes a lot of fuel. Which takes up weight and space.
There's tradeoff all around, in that area - look at the way the Sidewinder
diverged. The original AIM-9B had a motor that put out about 4400# of
thrust for a shade over 2 seconds. After that, it's coasting - and it's
pretty short ranged. The mk 36 motor used on later Sidewinders puts out
about 3,000# of thrust - but pushes along for 4-5 seconds. This gives you
a higher speed at burnout, and more distance downrange at burnout - all good
things for longer range.
The French, with the R.550 "Sidewinder Compatable" went with a higherthrust
motor with a roughly 1.5 second burn time - great for a high speed right
off the rail, but lousy for range, since the missile starts slowing down an
eyeblink after it's launched.
After you've figured out what tradeoffsyou want to make, you've then got to
stick a guidance system in it. Now you've got to package sensors that can
see the target at a long range, and is smart enough to figure out what's
the target and what's trying to convince the seeker that it's something
else, and then fit it into a 5" - 8" diameter package. (12.7 cm - 20.3 cm)
That will get your missile more or less there. Now you've got to set off the
warhead far enough away that the fragmet cloud (Think of it as the outer
skin of an inflating balloon) hits the target. Fire too soon - too far
away - and the fragments are too dispersed to do much damage. Fire too late
- too close - and the fragments don't get there at all. Simple enough for
a single aspect and set of missile and airplane speeds, but now the fuze
has to figure all this out for all combinations of intercept geometry and
relative speeds. Proximity Fuze design is hard - when a manufacturer
claims that their missiles are so accurate that they don't need a Prox
Fuze, (Such as the AIM-4 Falcon, or the Rapier SAM), what they're really
saying is "We can't make the blasted fuze work on teh best day we ever
had!"

So - don't bet on a "Kill everything" missile - consider that an F-22 type
target coming at you head on is a very fast, very small (to the missile's
sensors - it's only big in visible light) target. Going away, it's still a
small target, and the missile's going to have to run long and hard to keep
up.

3- Speed shrinks tail-on missle envelopes. Both S-A, and A-A. I bet the
Iraqi's wish they were all flying F-111s when they tried to run on the
deck
to Iran! Might not have saved them all, but it would have probably saved
some of them. Speed increases head-on envelopes. The hit and run tactics
of Mig-21s and -25s have proven to be among their better options probably
because speed decreases detection time and hence increases surprise.

Yep. It makes the targeting/interception problem a lot more difficult, both
for airplanes and missiles - any sort of aimed fire, really.

So I think it's clear that speed is, and always will be, an important
asset
even if engines and missiles continue to improve. It matters for a lot
more than just egressing dogfights.

Definitely. Getting to the target and getting back out of the defense in a
short a time as possible means that they get less shots off at you.
Which is generally considered a good thing.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion