billvon 2,998 #151 July 18, 2009 >although I understand several UAV crashed have been from pilots >overstressing the airframe of the drone. Definitely; you can break any aircraft. It's nice to hear of an aircraft being stressed to destruction compared to a pilot being killed, though. >A mach 2 aircraft is going to have a lot easier time getting a cutoff on >a mach 3 aircraft than a 200 knot aircraft trying to get that same cutoff, >don't you think? Neither aircraft will be able to 'catch up'. Both aircraft will be able to 'cut them off' depending on where they launch from, and depending on their speed. (Although the one already in the air will almost always win that race.) Thus, a fast aircraft that needs a long runway, and cannot stay in the air long, will have some benefits and some drawbacks, and a slower, longer range aircraft that can launch from any airport in the US will have some benefits and drawbacks as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #152 July 18, 2009 QuoteAll you guys are arguing about air attacks. No one here yet has talked about submarine threats and their ability wreck havoc. What about threats from surface ships? The 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. You should note I wrote that a naval or land attack would make far more sense, but still rather implausible. Submarines can launch nukes, but we can counterstrike. We'll never (should never) give up our hole card. It's only with it that we could think about this level of defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #153 July 18, 2009 QuoteThe 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. Yes, of course it's improbable - I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings, and the Russians never penetrate US airspace.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #154 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. Yes, of course it's improbable - I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings, and the Russians never penetrate US airspace. I guess all that expensive defense technology dont work so well then...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #155 July 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote The 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. Yes, of course it's improbable - I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings, and the Russians never penetrate US airspace. I guess all that expensive defense technology dont work so well then... So we should just get rid of it instead, for something that has an even SLOWER response time - makes PERFECT sense... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #156 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. Yes, of course it's improbable - I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings, and the Russians never penetrate US airspace. Ah, I see. If we had more F-22s, 9/11 couldn't have happened. Ok, no more whining from you about deficit spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #157 July 18, 2009 >I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings . . . Uh, that "mach 2" response you were talking about didn't work too well to stop that. Even those supersonic warplanes got there too late to stop non-supersonic airliners. Now, if they'd had one of those super slow UAV's orbiting, say, Manhattan and DC, and perhaps other places at risk for attack, things may have turned out a bit differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #158 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe 'other side' has driven this to an incredibly improbable air attack. Yes, of course it's improbable - I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings, and the Russians never penetrate US airspace. Ah, I see. If we had more F-22s, 9/11 couldn't have happened. Ok, no more whining from you about deficit spending. I didn't say that. Try putting a DIFFERENT set of words in my mouth, next time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #159 July 18, 2009 Quote>I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings . . . Uh, that "mach 2" response you were talking about didn't work too well to stop that. Even those supersonic warplanes got there too late to stop non-supersonic airliners. How much slower would the drones have been? QuoteNow, if they'd had one of those super slow UAV's orbiting, say, Manhattan and DC, and perhaps other places at risk for attack, things may have turned out a bit differently. And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have turned out a bit differently.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #160 July 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. BAD analogy. The F-22 DOES have a comparable turn of speed to other warplanes (if not the Foxbat) and thus WOULD (and does) have an air superiority/intercept role. Ok, so we exclude the Foxbat (which YOU brought up) and your stated position falls apart even further than before.. Wrong yet again, Professor. You're so cute when you try to talk military stuff. Ahem - the Foxbat (which you brought into the discussion) IS an interceptor, and was not designed for any other role, such as attacking the US mainland. And once you exclude it to counter Bill's point, you have excluded your "mach 3" enemy aircraft. I suggest you do your research before criticizing others, then you wouldn't have to contradict your counter to one point in order to counter another..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #161 July 19, 2009 QuoteQuote>I mean, nobody has ever flown airliners into buildings . . . Uh, that "mach 2" response you were talking about didn't work too well to stop that. Even those supersonic warplanes got there too late to stop non-supersonic airliners. How much slower would the drones have been? QuoteNow, if they'd had one of those super slow UAV's orbiting, say, Manhattan and DC, and perhaps other places at risk for attack, things may have turned out a bit differently. And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have turned out a bit differently. Or a few, cheap, '50s era technology Nike bases.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #162 July 19, 2009 The Russians have a long range bomber that can do sustained speeds nearly that John, it is called the TU-160 It has so much onboard fuel it would be easy for it to reach the US Mainland deep into our country. The TU-26 and variants of the TU22 are no slouches either. High subsonic transit and then a dash of over 1500 miles at mach 2.5+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #163 July 19, 2009 QuoteThe Russians have a long range bomber that can do sustained speeds nearly that John, it is called the TU-160 It has so much onboard fuel it would be easy for it to reach the US Mainland deep into our country. The TU-26 and variants of the TU22 are no slouches either. High subsonic transit and then a dash of over 1500 miles at mach 2.5+ It's M2.05, not 2.5. And 2.05 is not 3 or even nearly 3 as required for Mike's point. The Tu22 max speed is M1.4 (less than 50% of M3) and it's so unreliable they stopped making them. The Tu26 is just an upgraded 22. No-one currently has an operational Mach 3 bomber or fighter/bomber. SUSTAINED flight above about M2.1 is not possible with currently available aluminum alloy airframes on account of airframe heating. That's why the X15, SR71, A12, XB70 etc. did not have aluminum airframes. The Mig25 has stainless steel from the cockpit forward which allows it a dash capability above M2 but it can't sustain it for long.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #164 July 19, 2009 Quote>MY point is that, if the drone is NOT in the way, it has NO chance >of intercept. Correct. Which means that UAV's are good defensive weapons (defense of a home area) and not great offensive weapons (air superiority over another country for example.) Which, to me, is a good thing. >Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. The MiG25 cannot sustain those speeds, engines are more-or-less useless after any sustained MACH 2.5+ flight. It was developed in anticiapation of the US development of B-70 Valkyrie, which was canceled. The MiG25, for all it's speed, and NATO designation F.oxbat (F.igher), it is not a fighter. It's a bomber interceptor. The MiG29 Fulcrum, MiG31 Foxhound and Su27 Flanker were Eastern Bloc responses to the F-15, F-16. I know that MiG and Su have some new fancy stuff out there, but I don't think there's anything out there that has held a candle to anything we have, and everyone has been playing catch-up since the F-4...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #165 July 19, 2009 QuoteQuote>MY point is that, if the drone is NOT in the way, it has NO chance >of intercept. Correct. Which means that UAV's are good defensive weapons (defense of a home area) and not great offensive weapons (air superiority over another country for example.) Which, to me, is a good thing. >Without the speed to catch the incoming well clear of their objective or >an incredible density to ensure COMPLETE coverage, they're the airborne >equivalent of a HAWK battery or an Avenger HMMWV. Or an F-22, which doesn't have the speed to catch a Foxbat either. Given their relative costs ($10 million for an MQ-9 vs. $137 million for an F-22) the UAV's seem like a pretty good deal. The MiG25 cannot sustain those speeds, engines are more-or-less useless after any sustained MACH 2.5+ flight. Airframe too. It's aluminum behind the cockpit, which overheats in anything more than a short dash at Mach 2.5 Quote It was developed in anticiapation of the US development of B-70 Valkyrie, which was canceled. The MiG25, for all it's speed, and NATO designation F.oxbat (F.igher), it is not a fighter. It's a bomber interceptor. Correct - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical Mach 3 warplane.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #166 July 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe tanker is faster than the drone at refueling speed for the 'heavies', much less fighters But STILL not Mach 3, or anywhere close. So what? How is the drone going to get close enough to fire, when everything can outrun it? QuoteBesides, where are these Mach 3 warplanes of which you write?[\reply] Ever hear of the Foxbat, Professor? . What is the Foxbat's range at Mach 3? I don't know. Why do you ASSume it's going to make it's entire flight at Mach 3? QuoteIt is heavy, made of stainless steel, highly UNmaneuverable and a sitting duck for missiles. Sounds like billvon's 'super drone' X43 is fucked, then, huh? Another non-sequitur. (a) It doesn't have the maneuvering limitations that a human on-board pilot imposes. (b) It doesn't use heavy stainless steel for thermal resistance. (c) It doesn't have to carry heavy life-support systems that a manned high mach aircraft does. Why not show your expertise and calculate the turning radius of a sustained Mach 3 turn that keeps the G-forces on the pilot below 10G.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #167 July 19, 2009 QuoteYou should note I wrote that a naval or land attack would make far more sense, but still rather implausible. Please excuse my lack of attention to detail QuoteSubmarines can launch nukes, but we can counterstrike. We'll never (should never) give up our hole card. It's only with it that we could think about this level of defense. I'm thinking more of conventional warfare. Their version of the tomahawk, anti-ship missiles, harbor mining, ect. ect. Also, with Russia now exporting their Nuclear powered boats, along with thier conventional diesel boats, a lot of countrys have some deadly capabilities of cold war Russia._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #168 July 21, 2009 QuoteCorrect - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical Mach 3 warplane. Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? I rather thought not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #169 July 21, 2009 QuoteAnother non-sequitur. (a) It doesn't have the maneuvering limitations that a human on-board pilot imposes. (b) It doesn't use heavy stainless steel for thermal resistance. (c) It doesn't have to carry heavy life-support systems that a manned high mach aircraft does. Why not show your expertise and calculate the turning radius of a sustained Mach 3 turn that keeps the G-forces on the pilot below 10G. You first - show how heavy a drone would be that WOULD have the capability (speed/maneuverability) to intercept a supersonic fighter/bomber.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #170 July 21, 2009 >And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have >turned out a bit differently. Quite true. But since they are so expensive to operate, and can stay on station for such a short time, that's not practical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #171 July 21, 2009 Quote>And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have >turned out a bit differently. Quite true. But since they are so expensive to operate, and can stay on station for such a short time, that's not practical. The aircraft that *DO* have the (relatively) inexpensive loiter ability can't intercept unless they're in JUST the right place at JUST the right time, and the ones that *CAN* intercept are (in the same relative sense) prohibitively expensive to operate in an extended patrol scenario. Catch-22, at least with current technologyMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #172 July 21, 2009 Quote Quote Correct - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical . Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? Who first brought up the mach 3 warplane to make his point? Why, YOU did.Who first brought up the Mig 25 Foxbat to make his point? Why, YOU did.Every time you counter one point you contradict yourself on another point. If it were a chess match you should knock your king over. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #173 July 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Correct - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical . Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? Who first brought up the mach 3 warplane to make his point? Why, YOU did.Who first brought up the Mig 25 Foxbat to make his point? Why, YOU did. Yes, I did - so what, John???? Do you actually HAVE a point, or is this going to be like upthread where all you could talk about was the tanker (which, I've shown, can outrun the drone as well, so your continued harping on the Foxbat is sounding more and more desperate). Quote If it were a chess match you should knock your king over. If this were a chess match, you'd be looking at my fool's mate going "where'd that come from"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #174 July 21, 2009 The only person you fool is yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #175 July 21, 2009 Quote The only person you fool is yourself. Aren't you supposed to be working up some drone numbers, or are you still waiting for it to catch up with that tanker?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nanook 1 #167 July 19, 2009 QuoteYou should note I wrote that a naval or land attack would make far more sense, but still rather implausible. Please excuse my lack of attention to detail QuoteSubmarines can launch nukes, but we can counterstrike. We'll never (should never) give up our hole card. It's only with it that we could think about this level of defense. I'm thinking more of conventional warfare. Their version of the tomahawk, anti-ship missiles, harbor mining, ect. ect. Also, with Russia now exporting their Nuclear powered boats, along with thier conventional diesel boats, a lot of countrys have some deadly capabilities of cold war Russia._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #168 July 21, 2009 QuoteCorrect - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical Mach 3 warplane. Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? I rather thought not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #169 July 21, 2009 QuoteAnother non-sequitur. (a) It doesn't have the maneuvering limitations that a human on-board pilot imposes. (b) It doesn't use heavy stainless steel for thermal resistance. (c) It doesn't have to carry heavy life-support systems that a manned high mach aircraft does. Why not show your expertise and calculate the turning radius of a sustained Mach 3 turn that keeps the G-forces on the pilot below 10G. You first - show how heavy a drone would be that WOULD have the capability (speed/maneuverability) to intercept a supersonic fighter/bomber.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #170 July 21, 2009 >And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have >turned out a bit differently. Quite true. But since they are so expensive to operate, and can stay on station for such a short time, that's not practical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #171 July 21, 2009 Quote>And if we'd had the mach 2 fighters orbiting, things might have >turned out a bit differently. Quite true. But since they are so expensive to operate, and can stay on station for such a short time, that's not practical. The aircraft that *DO* have the (relatively) inexpensive loiter ability can't intercept unless they're in JUST the right place at JUST the right time, and the ones that *CAN* intercept are (in the same relative sense) prohibitively expensive to operate in an extended patrol scenario. Catch-22, at least with current technologyMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #172 July 21, 2009 Quote Quote Correct - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical . Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? Who first brought up the mach 3 warplane to make his point? Why, YOU did.Who first brought up the Mig 25 Foxbat to make his point? Why, YOU did.Every time you counter one point you contradict yourself on another point. If it were a chess match you should knock your king over. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 July 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Correct - which nicely eliminates it as mnealtx's hypothetical . Mach 3, Mach 2, Mach 1... hell, even the transports outrun it. Have any other points, John? No? Who first brought up the mach 3 warplane to make his point? Why, YOU did.Who first brought up the Mig 25 Foxbat to make his point? Why, YOU did. Yes, I did - so what, John???? Do you actually HAVE a point, or is this going to be like upthread where all you could talk about was the tanker (which, I've shown, can outrun the drone as well, so your continued harping on the Foxbat is sounding more and more desperate). Quote If it were a chess match you should knock your king over. If this were a chess match, you'd be looking at my fool's mate going "where'd that come from"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #174 July 21, 2009 The only person you fool is yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #175 July 21, 2009 Quote The only person you fool is yourself. Aren't you supposed to be working up some drone numbers, or are you still waiting for it to catch up with that tanker?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
