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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
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 |