F-15 Breakup Animation & video

On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level
appropriate
to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense
below
that level.

Careful, your bias is showing.
Scott Wilson

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty
for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection seat, and
pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the
airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an enemy
with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only a few of
them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World War
I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35, but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight
penalty for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection
seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential
acceleration of the airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of
the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an
enemy with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only
a few of them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting
objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World
War I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed
warplanes instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question
of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson


They have already cancelled quite a few projects involving manned aircraft
in favor of UAV's with Boeing getting the nod after losing the F-35
contract. Actually the military ordered less F-35's then they originally
planned so they could buy more UAV's.

On Jan 14, 12:01*pm, "Dennis Johnson" wrote:

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board....

I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
instead. *I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when..

The Air Force has already started down that road, albeit slowly and
tentatively: they've recently admitted that UAV's have been more
extensively used for combat sorties than USAF leaders had let on and
some recent graduates of pilot training have been assiged to UAV's.
That second move is controversial inside and outside the USAF: some
argue that pilots are not the best choices for a kind of operation
fundamentally different from in-the-cockpit flying. If the most
suitable type of individual is at all like a certain chair-flier on
these forums, then I'm glad I'm retired. Fighter jocks were hard
enough to take...

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message . ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35, but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that have pilots on board. There are huge
disadvantages to carrying a person. The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and often
those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty for the life support systems, including the
cockpit, ejection seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the airplane must
be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.


Air power is one thing, sea power is another. Apparently Japan has a larger navy than the brits!
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/na...1217_1_n.shtml

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. What airforce today has
planes that outperform F-15s like an ME109 would outperform a Spad or
a Camel?

I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts, but
Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident had
all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about what
incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a cause
determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating how
quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind the
cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took time
to eliminate other possible causes first.



Jay Honeck wrote:

Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Marissa Reichert" wrote in message
...

I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts,
but
Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident
had
all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about
what
incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a
cause
determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating
how
quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind
the
cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took
time
to eliminate other possible causes first.


Do you have reason to believe that was not the case in this investigation?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:33:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.


Jay

How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
early Model F-15's you are talking about?

Someone on this thread mentioned the White Scarf era. I still have
mine )

Big John

"Big John" wrote in message
news

How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
early Model F-15's you are talking about?


In terms of flying hours the B-52 fleet may be younger.