tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post1830892177817190788..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: A bad idea: Supersonic flightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74672891441561105112012-01-09T03:18:32.207-08:002012-01-09T03:18:32.207-08:00Scott - I stand corrected on the F-11's fighte...Scott - I stand corrected on the F-11's fighter origins. I assumed as it was never used as a fighter and was so obviously too big and heavy for such a role that it was never conceived as a fighter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26824139195923866162012-01-09T01:44:47.664-08:002012-01-09T01:44:47.664-08:00Contra anonymous: the F-111 was indeed intended to...Contra anonymous: the F-111 was indeed intended to be fighter, bomber, interceptor, and for all three air forces. Google on McNamara, TFX and "commonality." It was an unutterable failure at this. It also cost multiple times what it was supposed to cost. The parallels with the F-35 are obvious. The '111 wasn't a complete failure; it turned out to be reasonably OK as a low level radar-avoiding bomber. Pretty much no reason to use it at high speeds at all though. When they built the B-1B, which fulfilled the same role in a heavier capacity, they ended up admitting as much, and that particular ridiculous contraption tops off at an anemic mach 1.2. Might as well use a B-52 at that speed.<br /><br />I wouldn't compare the F-35 so much to the F-105 as the '111. The '105 was designed for a very specific role: it was a TAC bomber, designed to fly low and strike Soviet targets in the event of WW-3; it only had to do this trick once. It was reasonably good at this; word has it it could outrun an F-15 close to the deck, with that stubby little wing. It was pretty much a manned cruise missile. Deploying it in Vietnam, with the dense AA system in place and without the time consuming maintenance schedule it required to work properly was stupid. Not that there was much alternative at the time. One way you can compare the F-105 to the F-35: they are both about the same size, and have the same shitty little wing. While the F-35 will have thrust vectoring: wings are important in airplanes, the last time I checked.<br /><br />I don't know much about the '104, but I always admired the thing for its clean lines. Someone pointed out that the 50s (and 60s) were the era of the superbomber. That's very much true, and a lot of the reasons American fighter planes sucked so badly in that era, is all they were designed to do is go fast and shoot down Russian bombers. It was the era of the "bomber mafia" in air force politics. That's also why we had completely bonkers contraptions like the B-58 Hustler (which cost more than its weight in gold) and the XB-70 Valkyrie. The soviets had theirs as well. Oddly, the Soviets managed to produce decent fighters in this era. I think this is in part by leaving the interceptor role to specialized (and otherwise useless) devices like the Su-15 Flagon, Yak-28 and the Mig-25 Foxbat.<br /><br />FWIIW, my introduction to the F-35 was bidding on Navy SBIR contracts in 2006 (when the blasted thing was supposed to start flying). They were soliciting bids on landing gear, paint, turbine blades, clutches and shit which would tell you when the thing was about to rattle itself to pieces. It screamed "failed program" .... even 6 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35417411459530210962012-01-09T01:19:23.462-08:002012-01-09T01:19:23.462-08:00@ Darfur Miller: did you read the same Jack Brough...@ Darfur Miller: did you read the same Jack Broughton books that I did? While he had an obvious emotional connection to the gizmos he flew (<a href="http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/the-early-supersonic-age-f10/" rel="nofollow">as do I </a>for some weird reason); his books were a testament to what turkeys the F-105 were for the role they were expected to perform in Vietnam. I mean, half of Thud Ridge is recounting how his comrades died.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22582663055806230372012-01-08T15:07:05.919-08:002012-01-08T15:07:05.919-08:00This is very interesting, but an editor might have...This is very interesting, but an editor might have suggested you change the title: you don't really establish that supersonic flight was a bad idea in this article.<br /><br />You establish that the F-104 is a freaky and dangerous aircraft, but to establish that supersonic flight is bad <i>per se</i> you would need to refer to a host of other aircraft.Ashnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78073044489865614402012-01-08T11:54:34.004-08:002012-01-08T11:54:34.004-08:00dearieme:"the most famous pilot of all time.....dearieme:"the most famous pilot of all time..." is surely Lindbergh - who, rather like Edison, is famous principally for something he didn't do."<br /><br />Since Lindbergh is famous for being the first man to make a solo, non-stop trans-Atlantic flight, how is he famous for doing something that he didn't do?<br /><br />RE:Edison,<br /><br />I always though that he was famous for inventing the phonograph and for pioneering the concept of the industrial research laboratory.syonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04764206921202174601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43139579964409578532012-01-07T15:39:10.432-08:002012-01-07T15:39:10.432-08:00Both Scott Locklin and you have not the foggiest i...Both Scott Locklin and you have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about. And I say that as somebody who is a strong critic of the F-35 (not J-35) program. By the way, if you don't even know the proper designation of the aircraft, that is a pretty good clue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31603946817413444462012-01-06T19:40:50.701-08:002012-01-06T19:40:50.701-08:00propeller:
Sometime in the 60s, and from then on ...propeller:<br /><br />Sometime in the 60s, and from then on until the end of the USSR, the world was always a few hours from a civilization-destroying nuclear war. The threats we face now from nuclear proliferation are real, but they're also orders of magnitude less horrible (New York, Tel Aviv, or Bombay getting nuked is horrible, but not anywhere in the same league as, say, a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR in 1970. The risk is also further away--some nut may have a nuke and be planning to ship it into New York or something, but it's not like there are two contries wit hair triggers set up to ensure that, come the day, they can get all their missiles launched before the other side's missiles arrive.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62285757617692284032012-01-06T09:22:24.274-08:002012-01-06T09:22:24.274-08:00Why the Air Force doesn't want more F-22's...Why the Air Force doesn't want more F-22's:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html" rel="nofollow"> PICTURE: Lockheed reveals concept aircraft for post-F-22 replacement</a>David Davenporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03315090179595817174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56031832083813729912012-01-06T05:11:21.980-08:002012-01-06T05:11:21.980-08:00The F-35 platform will still be VASTLY INFERIOR to...<i>The F-35 platform will still be VASTLY INFERIOR to the F-22 platform which had gone live all the way back in 2005.</i><br /><br />The F-35 was never intended to be as capable as the F-22 in the air superiority role. It was supposed to be <i>almost</i> as good for a fraction of the cost. It probably is almost as good, if for no other reason than the avionics are newer. The problem has been spiraling costs make it half as expensive as the F-22 instead of much cheaper.<br /><br />Were I in charge I would have built more F-22s and cancelled the F-35. The F-15 would have been just fine for strike missions going forward.<br /><br />As much as I love it, I'd retire the A-10 as well. It's too expensive to be kept around for cost reasons and technology advances mean there's no longer any need for a "low and slow" tankbuster. Besides, nobody has anything like the tank force the Russians could field during the cold war.Bob Loblawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081916786770290968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23522786040309184182012-01-06T01:52:08.330-08:002012-01-06T01:52:08.330-08:00I guess the F-104 was the Air Force equivalent of ...I guess the F-104 was the Air Force equivalent of the Chevy Volt.Steve in Greensboronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73123512215407159682012-01-05T20:06:28.651-08:002012-01-05T20:06:28.651-08:00"To grown men who held positions of responsib...<i>"To grown men who held positions of responsibility the 1950s were terrifying." </i><br /><br />And the 2010s aren't? <br /><br />I know the paleos will poo-poo any talk about nuclear threats, but they are just as real now as they were then.Propeller Islandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47908071267028883712012-01-05T15:28:21.869-08:002012-01-05T15:28:21.869-08:00My favorite German Starfighter joke:
Q. How do y...My favorite German Starfighter joke: <br /><br />Q. How do you define an optimist?<br /><br />A. That's a Starfighter pilot who quits <br /> smoking so he won't die of lung cancer.Justthisguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277333206171756636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16663264333335141082012-01-05T06:51:52.880-08:002012-01-05T06:51:52.880-08:001. There are 2 types of tactical air to ground ope...1. There are 2 types of tactical air to ground operations.... 1. cas which is attackinf enemy troop concentrations like tanks and infantry and 2. interdiction which is the general bombing of C4isr asset- command, control, supply, intelligence, communications, roads, bridges, serbian tv and radio stations, chinese embassies...lol. Jsf is optimized ofr interdiction, it's pretty inefficient and worse in all other areas when compared to the planes that are coming online with other nations esp russian and chinese. <br /><br />2. Which leads us to foreign developments, the russians have developed sukhoi t-50 and is in pre production testing stage, the same thing with the chinese ( who have taken amazing leaps in indigenous Fighter peoduction ) who have multiple stealth programs with j-20 being the only one known to the world. These planes are definitely better at air to air combat and at first sight is better in stealth features when compared to f-35. Which means in the future USAF or allies ( who are screwed becasue f-35 is the best they will have ) can't operate against t-50,j-20 other semi stealth fighters without f-22s else f-35 will be toast. Now tehre aren't that many f-22s anyway. Add to that the russians have been working with multiple sensors liek IR and radars of various wave band to counter stealth, and have made their planes the most manuveearable on earth. Even datalinking degrades stealth advantage to some extent. IOW any small advance in anti/counter stealth tech will have disproportionate effect on USAF.<br /><br />3. f-35 itslef becomes completely useless against capable opposition. Yet at teh same time it's going to cost at least a 1/3rd of an f-22, and is supposed to be the backbone of usaf. It was supposed to be a cheap $50-70 mil plane, now it is shaping to be more expensive than european semi stealth 4.5 generation planes. This is a disaster of epic propertions really, the amount of money ( $.5-1 tril ) that will fund a lemon, the indiffernece of the general populace and lack of interest or knowledge about this, the corruption of lobbies and special interests, the deteroriating performance of government entities to such a an extreme degree. This is f-111*100 times the failure, worse still f-35 is the only option, it's the only thing they have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88933778014367549132012-01-05T06:21:15.501-08:002012-01-05T06:21:15.501-08:00Seems the Norwegians had a better run with the F-1...Seems the Norwegians had a better run with the F-104 than the Germans did, at least according to these enthusiasts:<br /><br />http://www.starfighter.no/<br /><br />Of course, the Norwegian planes were mostly used for recon flights intercepting Soviet aircraft along the coastline and over the Arctic, for which they were well suited.DanJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83612903514174858462012-01-05T03:40:47.652-08:002012-01-05T03:40:47.652-08:00"Troops may prefer an A-10 to an F-16 or a he..."Troops may prefer an A-10 to an F-16 or a helicopter, but they prefer a B-1 or Strike Eagle to an A-10."<br /><br />True, and it's certainly sensible to have plenty of B-1's and Strike Eagle's around if the US intends to engage in a full on conventional war the next time Russia invades a country. In the meantime, it still takes a lot less time and money for a A-10 (if you're facing enemies with manportable SAMs or old Soviet antiair cannons) or a whole squadron of loud heavily armed turboprop cropdusters to travel across a country, than it does for a B-1 to come from another continent.Paul Rainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48489507015752153452012-01-05T02:35:34.560-08:002012-01-05T02:35:34.560-08:00Manned (fighter?)flights will disappear in ten yea...<i>Manned (fighter?)flights will disappear in ten years time anyway. Replaced by drones.</i><br /><br />The British government thought so too - 1957!<br /><br />Well, they thought missiles rather than drones. A descision that, at a stroke, destroyed a whole sector of the British aircraft industry and one it never fully recovered from. Given that most major combat aircraft programs were then cancelled. The Lightning, already mentioned in this thread, being well advanced by this stage and thus not cancelled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27877088441096634932012-01-05T01:52:50.500-08:002012-01-05T01:52:50.500-08:00Remember that during the Korean War, despite the r...<i>Remember that during the Korean War, despite the rough equivalence between the F-86 and MiG-15 in dogfighting, the American pilots had a 10-1 kill ratio.</i><br /><br />But perhaps we should remember that there were a lot of very experienced WW2 fighter pilots flying F-86s in Korea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77811980049945151482012-01-04T22:47:12.060-08:002012-01-04T22:47:12.060-08:00The Israeli aircraft losses in the Kom Kippur war ...The Israeli aircraft losses in the Kom Kippur war had a lot more to do with the air defenses they were up against than the inherent capabilities of the aircraft. The box score in air-to-air combat against the Arabs was 334 to 5. Israeli losses were almost entirely due to SA-6 and AAA fire against aircraft doing close air support, particularly fighter-bombers like the A4 and F4. <br /><br />The real revolution between 1973 and 1982 was in electronic warfare and the suppression of enemy air defenses. <br /><br />For something like Afghanistan old OV-10 Broncos would be better than the F-35. They'd have longer loiter time and operate from more austere airfields, and still drop JDAMS just fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79761416700843265682012-01-04T19:37:07.287-08:002012-01-04T19:37:07.287-08:00Simply put, Steve, this is one of the rare posts w...Simply put, Steve, this is one of the rare posts where your lack of either any actual flying experience or even a detailed review of the literature has caused you to get it not only not right, but "not even wrong", as Don Lancaster likes to say.<br /><br /> The Thud WAS devastatingly successful as a low level penetrator, when its crews were allowed to deploy it to fuull effect. Jack Brougham's two books are pretty informative on this.<br /><br /> The 104 was never intended for low level fighter bomber work, and was a pessimal choice, YET once the air forces involved learned some very expensive lessons, it came to be much more successful than one would have thought possible. The simplest fix-give it a bigger wing-was never implemented, but its very high wing loading DID give it an advantage in the turbulent air over Europe if it was flown with sufficient technique. <br /><br /> The F-106 was the real Cinderella of the Century Series, a MUCH more capable aircraft than it was generally credited as, and the best of the bunch to fly.Darfur Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15566735426451105822012-01-04T17:50:35.908-08:002012-01-04T17:50:35.908-08:00Another comment, this one aimed more at the articl...Another comment, this one aimed more at the article on the F-35. <br /><br />The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 for a while now, mostly because it's slow. <br /><br />Slow is fine when you're in a low intensity conflict, or your aircraft are based twenty miles from the area of operations. It gets pilots, aircraft, and ground troops killed when you're covering a multi-hundred mile front line, or against an opponent who posses significant anti-air capability. <br /><br />Faster planes like the F-16 or, hypothetically, the F-35 can get in and get out before the enemy has time to react, and can get high enough to make any infantry-carried or light-vehicle weapons useless. They can also carry enough air-to-air weapons (in addition to ground stores) to operate in relative security behind enemy lines. <br /><br />The A-10 relies entirely on being able to survive enough hits to limp back to base. Fine if you're busting tanks a hundred yards in front of friendly ground troops - Less so when you're striking enemy logistics operations two hundred miles away from the fighting. <br /><br />There's also the fundamental limitation of capabilities that comes with a single-seat ground attack aircraft. The pilot quickly becomes to preoccupied flying the aircraft and working the weapons to pay attention to what's happening on the ground, and that's resulted in more than a few friendly-fire incidents. Troops may prefer an A-10 to an F-16 or a helicopter, but they prefer a B-1 or Strike Eagle to an A-10. <br /><br />The F-35A (Air force) mounts it's cannon internally. The F-35B (Marine) and -35C (Navy) both have it as an external gun pod. Using the cannon as a ground-attack weapon is a little dicey - The 30mm on the A-10 is no longer as effective against tanks and other armored vehicles as it was when it was introduced. It also requires the aircraft to attack from low-altitude, which is where the aircraft is the most vulnerable. Operations in Bosnia restricted pilots to altitudes above 20,000 feet to reduce the danger of man-portable heat-seeking missiles. At that altitude, it's pretty much bombs and guided rockets only.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82387221978927606112012-01-04T17:15:33.953-08:002012-01-04T17:15:33.953-08:00Sure, this could actually be technical difficultie...Sure, this could actually be technical difficulties, but boy does the timing lend itself to speculation. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br5I3UcB5-A<br /><br />Support our troops......unless they don't want more war.Anon87noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42966407931584554892012-01-04T17:15:21.763-08:002012-01-04T17:15:21.763-08:00I disagree with the notion that manned fighters wi...I disagree with the notion that manned fighters will disappear in the next few decades. <br /><br />They've worked well against people who don't really have the capability to shoot down aircraft, and where we have an overwhelming economic advantage. However, as the recent incident with Iran 'capturing' a drone suggests, they have pretty substantial flaws when faced with an opponent who can claim anything close to technical parity.<br /><br />Against a near-peer opponent, 'man-in-the-aircraft' becomes much, much more critical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1282835340768195442012-01-04T17:00:02.739-08:002012-01-04T17:00:02.739-08:00Steiner, The F-4 Phantom was a dog, just because t...Steiner, The F-4 Phantom was a dog, just because they improved it's relative performance near the end of the Vietnam War doesn't mean it became a great fighter. Boyd did an analysis of the Phantom and found that it was deficient in a great many areas, just not nearly as many as the F-105 or the F-111 were. The F-111 was completely useless in air to air combat, whereas the F-4 could win in certain situations, but in most the MiG-21 was a better fighter. If the USAF and USN started winning dogfights later, it was because they played to the fighter's strengths and not it's numerous weaknesses and where up against less experienced North Vietnamese pilots.<br /><br /> Remember that during the Korean War, despite the rough equivalence between the F-86 and MiG-15 in dogfighting, the American pilots had a 10-1 kill ratio. In Vietnam, the ratio never got close to that, because the MiG-21 was better at air combat and needed inferior pilots to lose. Additionally the Israeli Air Force used French fighters like the Mirages and Mystere when they won the Six Day War, and when they nearly lost the Yom Kippur War six years, most of their aircraft losses were F-4 Phantoms and the A-4 Skyhawks ( Another US Navy design, btw ) whereas the French made fighters did much better against Soviet AA defenses. The next time Israel went up against a major Arab country in the Lebanon War in 1982, The F-16 and F-15 ran circles around the Syrian MiG's and didn't lose a single fighter in air to air combat. That loss was so complete and unexpected that according to some high ranking Soviet military leaders it lead to a feeling amongst the Soviet leadership that they had been lapped technologically by the US and that lead to many to support a young technocratic leader named Gorbachev. Learn some history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19870012563558602542012-01-04T16:22:30.664-08:002012-01-04T16:22:30.664-08:00The F-22 was supposed to have been the platform wh...<i>The F-22 was supposed to have been the platform which would tide us over until that new generation of air warfare emerges.<br /><br />Yet the weasels in Washington want us [to pretend] to wait until the fantasy of the F-35 is made into reality [maybe in 2015?]</i><br /><br />In fairness to all the other weasels in Washington, the decision to close the F-22 assembly line and put all our eggs in the F-35 basket was made by one particular weasel: Robert Gates.<br /><br />Because the F-35 was supposedly going to be cheaper - he'd seen that on some Powerpoint chart and apparently believed it. More's the pity, he killed precisely the wrong program.Automatic_Wing https://www.blogger.com/profile/10174899673368042634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38893859012696041082012-01-04T16:08:25.823-08:002012-01-04T16:08:25.823-08:00Back in the sixties it was believed that by the ye...Back in the sixties it was believed that by the year 2000 civilian aircraft would all be zipping around the world at Mach 3 or 4. It took a while to discover that supersonic flight is also a bad idea (that is, an uneconomical idea) for civil aviation. Concorde ended up being an interesting footnote in history and not the wave of the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com