On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 06:11:25 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:

How relevant is Mach 2+ performance these days - how relevant was it at
all

It was never tactically relevant.

Agreed. But, high speed was a big advertising/PR point during the
Century Series days. I flew two aircraft that were definitely Mach 2
capable, but in 23 years of tactical aviation never went M-2 once.

The parallel might be the horsepower of your sporty car--while the car
might be capable of 155+ MPH, it really won't be done by 99.99% of all
owners. The corollary benefit of good acceleration between 30-75 MPH
is what most users will take advantage of.


I can imagine high speed being useful when intercepting the odd Foxbat or
two, but otherwise - how often would you require such high speeds ?


An F-4 could theoretically reach launch parameters for a mach 3, 70,000'+
target doing about 1.4 at 36,000. Biggest problem was controlling target
aspect in the horizontal. More speed would have helped some there.

When the Foxbat was the rage, we often practiced "snap-up" intercepts
in the F-4 and, as you indicate they were extremely critical regarding
geometry. The key was getting as close to head-on as possible so as to
be at R-max in your pitch-up. At the high closing speed the interval
between R-max and R-min was brief and waiting to pull until within
range meant the target would be past you before you could fire. Any
angular displacement horizontally would drastically compound the
problem. Virtually impossible to pull enough lead.

Speed can be useful in minimizing raid penetration and increasing AA missile
LARs. It's also very useful when leaving hostile territory, albeit that's
typically at mid altitudes where Q vice mach is the controlling factor.

Once again, you're spot on. Speed in knots is clearly life. Speed in
Mach is propaganda.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8