How Lockheed’s Skunk Works Got into the Stealth Fighter Business

[Ought Six]

http://gizmodo.com/5902800/how-lockheeds-skunk-works-got-into-the-stealth-fighter-business?tag=skunk-works

[dharma]

The SR-71 was a stealth design—not a particularly good one, but purpose-built. Yeah, I know, it wasn't a fighter, but neither is an F-117. They weren't new to the concept.

[Ought Six]

The SR-71 was a stealth design—not a particularly good one, but purpose-built. Yeah, I know, it wasn't a fighter....Actually....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-12

[Potemkin]

Actually....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-12


I never knew about "The Bastard". That was interesting.

It shows those Skunk Works guy can really think outside of the box.

[dharma]

Yeah, the YF-12 was kind of funny. It can be thought of as the ultimate supersonic interceptor, in the F-100/F-101/F-102 vein, all designed as very fast, to check Russian bombers. Unfortunately, they had problems doing what fighters usually do, which is turn. The idea was that they'd get on target, fire missiles, and head home. Hey, it wasn't like the Russians were going to be bringing Me-109's along, was it?

This later proved to be a problem in Vietnam, where American fighters regularly got smoked by more agile Migs. F-4's (designed without a nose cannon!) found that their missiles didn't work very well, and learned to get out of dogfights by engaging afterburners and simply outrunning their adversaries.

This deficiency was recognized and corrected by the designers of the F-14/15/16/18 aircraft (an F-16 can dogfight very nicely, thank you). But, in any case, the idea of a "fighter" with a hundred mile turning radius at cruising speed proved to be a bit much even for McNamara's technoboys, and the YF-12, like the F-117 never really a fighter at all, was consigned to the round file.

[Ought Six]

Since the YF-12, there have been a number of fast, high-altitude, long range interceptors that were not that maneuverable. The MiG-25, MiG-31 and Panavia Tornado ADV are examples, and they still fill a legitimate role. The bomber threat did not go away, so the YF-12 would have actually been a useful aircraft. But the focus shifted away from bombers as the primary threat to ICBMs. The Pentagon could not justify such and expensive interceptor when they were spending so much on our missile development programs, so they killed the YF-12. They hoped to fill that gap it left with long range SAMs. It was all about priorities and budgets, as always.

[dharma]

The MiG-25, MiG-31 and Panavia Tornado ADV .. still fill a legitimate role.
One can debate how "useful" the 25 and 31 were, except as very fast boogiemen for western military planners. Never caught an SR-71, did they?

The Tornado was useful in the first gulf war as target practice for Saddam's antiaircraft forces, until someone pointed out that maybe straight, flat, fixed attack vectors were not healthy for planes and pilots and it was refitted with proper armament. It is a decent strike aircraft (bomber). Its use as a "fighter" is limited to standoff theater defense, courtesy of its sophisticated air-to-air missiles. You could hang similar missiles on a B-52, I'd imagine; it wouldn't be a fighter.

In any case, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Using the SR-71 as a fighter would have been like hunting bumblebees with a .270. Great instrument, wrong operation.

The bomber threat did not go away, so the YF-12 would have actually been a useful aircraft.
I see. A Mach 3+ aircraft, that takes a hundred miles to make a turn, and flies best at 60,000+ feet, to hunt TU-95 prop planes. Interesting.

In any case, the Air Force disagreed. They cancelled the YF-12 for the same reasons they cancelled the F-108 and XB-70; assuming it would have even worked, it was dead end technology, obsolete in the era of the ICBM.

[Ought Six]

One can debate how "useful" the 25 and 31 were, except as very fast boogiemen for western military planners. Never caught an SR-71, did they?The MiG-31 is an outstanding interceptor. It comes in high and fast with its massive, powerful RADAR and super long-range missiles and dominates the airspace. It can turn and literally outrun any long-range AAMs fired at it. The only thing that has damaged its usefulness is the advent of stealth technology.
----------The Tornado was useful in the first gulf war as target practice for Saddam's antiaircraft forces, until someone pointed out that maybe straight, flat, fixed attack vectors were not healthy for planes and pilots and it was refitted with proper armament. It is a decent strike aircraft (bomber). Its use as a "fighter" is limited to standoff theater defense, courtesy of its sophisticated air-to-air missiles. You could hang similar missiles on a B-52, I'd imagine; it wouldn't be a fighter.I think you are confusing the ADV (air defense variant) with the IDS (interdictor/strike variant). The latter is meant for ground attack missions, and was used extensively during the Gulf War. It was designed for, and is still used for long range interception of enemy aircraft in the vast empty stretches of the North Sea. The Soviets/Russians regularly run Tu-95 Bear maritime surveillance aircraft patrols down the coast of Norway and into the northern UK air defense zone. The Tornado ADV has met these patrols and shepherded them out of the area since the 1980s. In wartime, it would have protected the Royal Navy and British airspace against attacking bombers. In that role, it would have performed quite well. It is now being replaced by the Typhoon, which has serious range limitations compared to the Tornado. meaning that the Brits will have to intercept Russian aircraft much closer to their shores (they do not have enough air-to-air refueling tankers to extend the range of the Typhoon).

The IDS had high losses, but that was not the fault of the aircraft itself. Unlike American, French and other coalition ground attack aircraft, the Tornado IDS lacked a standoff attack weapon. So one its main uses in enforcing the 'no fly' zone over Iraq was regular attacks on the runways of Iraqi airbases using JP233 cratering submunition dispenser pod. This required the pilot to fly directly down the center of the runway, lengthwise, in order to create the desired effect. Obviously, with such a predictable attack run, the Iraqis had some success at shooting them down. The astounding stupidity of not purchasing a standoff attack weapon for the Tornado IDV was corrected quickly after the political firestorm that occurred due to the high losses the lack of such a weapon caused.
----------In any case, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Using the SR-71 as a fighter would have been like hunting bumblebees with a .270. Great instrument, wrong operation.Not at all. The Soviets were developing high-altitude, high-speed bombers, just as we were (ours was the XB-70 Valkyrie). An aircraft just like the YF-12 would have been required to intercept them. Again, only because ICBMs became the dominant platform, and the advent of SAM technology forced bombers down to the deck, both the Soviets and ourselves abandoned high-altitude fast bombers and the high-altitude fast fighters required to intercept them.
----------I see. A Mach 3+ aircraft, that takes a hundred miles to make a turn, and flies best at 60,000+ feet, to hunt TU-95 prop planes. Interesting.You need to brush up on your aviation history. This is what the YF-12 was designed to intercept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4
----------In any case, the Air Force disagreed. They cancelled the YF-12 for the same reasons they cancelled the F-108 and XB-70; assuming it would have even worked, it was dead end technology, obsolete in the era of the ICBM.And yet our latest military superweapon is once again a super-fast, high-altitude bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project

[dharma]

The MiG-31 is an outstanding interceptor. The only thing that has damaged its usefulness is the advent of stealth technology.
You know what they say about believing press releases. The Titaninc was unsinkable—until it actually hit something. I am unaware of any record that the 31 ever actually demonstrated how "outstanding" it was, unless you count testimony in front of an appropriations committee.

By the same evidence, it's very useful, except for the fact that it's not very useful anymore.

I think you are confusing the ADV (air defense variant) with the IDS (interdictor/strike variant).
I think not. I discussed them both.

The Soviets/Russians regularly run Tu-95 Bear maritime surveillance aircraft patrols down the coast of Norway and into the northern UK air defense zone. The Tornado ADV has met these patrols and shepherded them out of the area
Duty for which a P-51 Mustang with a belly tank would suffice. Very impressive.

Unlike American, French and other coalition ground attack aircraft, the Tornado IDS lacked a standoff attack weapon.
Which is why it had to fly the "straight, flat, fixed attack vectors" that I discussed, until it was "refitted with proper armament", as I discussed. Thank you for extensively restating my point.

The Soviets were developing high-altitude, high-speed bombers, just as we were (ours was the XB-70 Valkyrie)
So was theirs. Take another look at the picture of the T-4. Ripping off and mocking up an American design years after the fact is not "developing", and not something the YF-12 was designed to counter.

And yet our latest military superweapon is once again a super-fast, high-altitude bomber.
Far more a spacecraft than an aircraft, resembles an XB-70 the way that "rods from God" resemble a trebuchet, and something the YF-12 would be totally useless against.

[Ross]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ought Six
The Soviets/Russians regularly run Tu-95 Bear maritime surveillance aircraft patrols down the coast of Norway and into the northern UK air defense zone. The Tornado ADV has met these patrols and shepherded them out of the area
Duty for which a P-51 Mustang with a belly tank would suffice. Very impressive.

The Tu95 has a top speed of around 575 mph so a Mustang would be quite inadequate for the task .


.

[dharma]

Right you are, if they were in combat. I was speaking metaphorically; "shepherding" doesn't require much in the way of capability. The TU-95 is basically a subpar design ripoff of the B-52, fitted with turboprops because the Russians couldn't figure out how to give it enough range with the jet engines they had.

But, right you are, nonetheless.

[Ought Six]

You know what they say about believing press releases. The Titaninc was unsinkable—until it actually hit something. I am unaware of any record that the 31 ever actually demonstrated how "outstanding" it was, unless you count testimony in front of an appropriations committee.I am not believing the press. I am believing people who actually fly fighter aircraft and know what they are talking about. Go hang out at F-16.com for awhile, and see what the fighter pilots there think of the MiG-31.
----------By the same evidence, it's very useful, except for the fact that it's not very useful anymore.By that logic, the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, the new Eurofighter Typhoon, the French Rafale, the Saab Grippen, and virtually every non-stealth fighter on the market is "not very useful anymore". You had better let all those air forces around the world know before the buy any more! :lol:

The fact is that the MiG-31 remains a dire threat to our non-stealthy aircraft. Our Navy was extremely displeased when China indicated an interest in buying the MiG-31, as it would be able to easily defend a large area from any incursion by USN F/A-18s.
----------I think not. I discussed them both.
---
Which is why it had to fly the "straight, flat, fixed attack vectors" that I discussed, until it was "refitted with proper armament", as I discussed. Thank you for extensively restating my point.Your muddled, confused post was quite unclear. We were discussing fighters. You talked about maneuverability, then veered off into straight runs by attack aircraft, not because of the aircraft's maneuverability limitations, but because of a political decision not to buy standoff ground attack weapons, none of which has anything to do with fighters intercepting enemy aircraft.

BTW, while the Tornado ADV is not an agile dogfighter like the F-16, it can do hellacious high-G maneuvers; far more so than most other aircraft. It is built like a tank, and it is one of the very few fighters that has a strong enough airframe and wing spars to pull tight (relatively) supersonic turns down on the deck. Such a move would literally tear the wings off of an F-16 or other normal fighter. That is right where attacking enemy aircraft are going to be trying to sneak in; on the deck, in a low-level penetration run, trying to hide in the RADAR ground clutter.
----------Duty for which a P-51 Mustang with a belly tank would suffice. Very impressive.Yes, a daytime-only prop-powered fighter with no RADAR would make a great interceptor for Russian bombers or maritime surveillance aircraft, though it is 150 mph+ slower than them. :ohmygod:
----------So was theirs. Take another look at the picture of the T-4. Ripping off and mocking up an American design years after the fact is not "developing", and not something the YF-12 was designed to counter.So much BS; where do I start? The T-4 was a result of design competition among several Soviet aircraft bureaus. It was a working, flying prototype, not a 'mockup'. As for it being a straight copy, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article I provided a link to, and which you obviously neglected to read:Development of the T-4 was fraught with difficulties and required a massive research effort to develop the technologies necessary, including the manufacturing technologies to machine and weld the materials necessary to withstand sustained Mach 3 flight. Some 600 patents or inventions are attributed to the program. [2]As for your timeline, the T-4 tender was put forward by the Soviet government in 1963. The Soviet bureaucracy, being the slow, ponderous beast it was, would have been discussing the idea for at least a couple years before the official tender. Our intel agencies had penetrated the Soviet government at the time, and would have known about that program early-on. The SR-71 was modified into a fighter and the first prototype flow later that same year, 1963. The timeline for the YF-12 being a direct response to the Soviet fast, high-altitude bomber program fits perfectly.
----------Far more a spacecraft than an aircraft, resembles an XB-70 the way that "rods from God" resemble a trebuchet, and something the YF-12 would be totally useless against.The YF-12 is useless against the HTV? Nice strawman, since no one proposed anything remotely like that. :re:

The fact remains that not-very-maneuverable high-speed, high-altitude attack aircraft is once again appearing as a threat. The technology has improved, but the concept is precisely the same; too high and fast to easily shoot down, so likely the only real counter to it is an interceptor with similar performance capabilities that can carry the necessary sensors to detect it and weapons to engage it; just like the YF-12 intercepting the T-4.

BTW, the HTV goes very high into the atmosphere, but does not go into space (which, by international treaty, starts 100 km above the Earth), so it is by definition an aircraft, not a spacecraft.

[dharma]

I am believing people who actually fly fighter aircraft and know what they are talking about.
Of course you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

BTW, how much stick time on the 31 do these guys have?

This is, of course, highly reminiscent of another Russian super plane—so scary that it initiated the development of the F-15. Until, of course, Lt. Belenko landed one in Japan. Let me again remind you of a pertinent phrase: appropriations committee. Gotta keep the rubes anxious, or they won’t spend their money.

By that logic, the [blah, blah, blah] is "not very useful anymore". You had better let all those air forces around the world know before the buy any more! :lol:
Hey, you said it, not me, and I quote” “The only thing that has damaged its usefulness is the advent of stealth technology”. I’ll let you have that conversation. Be sure to add the :lol:, it really strengthens your credibility.

Your muddled, confused post was quite unclear.
Read more carefully.

BTW, while the Tornado ADV is not an agile dogfighter like the F-16, it can do hellacious high-G maneuvers
Interesting, considering such maneuvers are primarily useful in . . . dogfighting.

As for it being a straight copy, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article
Ah, yes, always the definitive source, and honest, it wasn’t a copy at all!

Right. This:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Sukhoi_T-4_%28Monino_museum%29.JPG

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://web.hulteen.com/eric/images/index/xb70.jpg

Just like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/TU-4-MONIN0.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tu-95_wingspan.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/B-52.jpg

and this:

http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/tu160_2.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/berniec/images/22858/usaf-b1-bomber.jpg

and this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Buran.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg

All resemblance totally accidental! Those Russian spies were just over here to check out Disneyland!

And those are just off the top of my head. You might find a bit of research—not just Wikipedia articles—helpful in making this sort of point.

[Ought Six]

Of course you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

How much stick time on the 31 do these guys have?You seem unaware that our pilots get detailed briefings on threats they might have to fly against. You can misuse the 'appeal to authority' fallacy claim to pretend that *any* quoting of an authoritative source is a fallacy, but of course that is crap.
----------This is, of course, highly reminiscent of another Russian super plane—so scary that it initiated the development of the F-15. Until, of course, Lt. Belenko landed one in Japan. Let me again remind you of a pertinent phrase: appropriations committee. Gotta keep the rubes anxious, or they won’t spend their money.Yes, the MiG-25. When the scientists got their very first look at it, they saw it was made out of steel, not titanium, and dismissed it as 'primitive construction methods and materials'. And they saw its powerful RADAR used ceramic tubes, and dismissed that as primitive as well. That is, until the engineers got a look at it. The engineers said, 'Wait a minute, they can build planes that will withstand those temperatures and stresses out of steel! We do not know how to do that. We have to use super-expensive, hard to machine titanium.' And the electronic engineers looked at the RADAR and said, 'Wow! With tubes in the transmitter, it is resistant to EMP from a nearby nuclear detonation. Our RADARs would be fried by that!' It was then that it began to dawn on people that the initial arrogance about the MiG-25 was all wrong.
----------Hey, you said it, not me, and I quote” “The only thing that has damaged its usefulness is the advent of stealth technology”. I’ll let you have that conversation.Yes I did say that. But you said something completely different; "not very useful". That was your invention, not mine.
----------Be sure to add the :lol:, it really strengthens your credibility.Ridicule is delivered where appropriate.
----------Read more carefully.Nice attempt at an out of hand dismissal of your veering off the subject and confusing the matter, but it does not fly (bad pun intended).
----------Interesting, considering such maneuvers are primarily useful in . . . dogfighting.As you said to me, "read more carefully". You do not dogfight on the deck at supersonic speeds. You change course to intercept aircraft you just detected and bring weapons to bear quickly before they turn away or fire on you. With such very high closing speeds, things happen very fast.
----------Ah, yes, always the definitive source....You mentioned fallacies. 'Shoot the messenger' fallacy, anyone?
----------.... and honest, it wasn’t a copy at all! Right. This:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Sukhoi_T-4_%28Monino_museum%29.JPG

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://web.hulteen.com/eric/images/index/xb70.jpg

Just like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/TU-4-MONIN0.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tu-95_wingspan.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/B-52.jpg

and this:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avtu160_1.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/berniec/images/22858/usaf-b1-bomber.jpg

and this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Buran.jpg

isn’t a ripoff of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg

All resemblance totally accidental! those Russian spies were just over here to check out Disneyland!

And those are just off the top of my head. You might find a bit of research—not just Wikipedia articles—helpful in making this sort of point.I am very well familiar with aviation history, thanks. I have been studying it literally all my life. You obviously are not. You may notice that most modern fighters look pretty much the same, as do most bombers, as do most ICBMs, and as do most tanks. Yet they were all the product of extensive development programs by the countries that built them. Using the same basic technologies, there are only a certain number of aerodynamic shapes that will work. To suggest that anything that any aircraft is automatically a copy simply because it looks similar is ignorant.

There were certainly a number of copies, like the Tu-4 and the Soviet space shuttle, and certainly basic technologies were stolen. But the Tu-95 proposal was delivered to the Soviet government in 1950 and approved in 1951. The first B-52 prototype did not fly until 1952. Your timeline does not work. Both nations were using Nazi ideas; large jet bombers with multiple engines and swept wings,exactly what the Nazis had been exploring at the end of the war. Both sides had their captured Nazis experts. Both sides were working from the same playbook. No surprise what the results were.

So what was the MiG-25 a copy of? Nothing, because we had nothing like it; a Mach 3 fighter with a huge RADAR that could operate at such high altitudes. The YF-12/SR-71 could go higher and faster, but it was a specialist aircraft that had to be pampered and leaked fuel like a sieve until heat cause the seams to expand and seal up. The MiG-25 was a rugged combat aircraft that could operate from a rough field and be serviced, refueled and rearmed under crude frontline combat conditions, and be mass-produced relatively easily, like any other fighter. It was quite the accomplishment.

[dharma]

You seem unaware that our pilots get detailed briefings on threats they might have to fly against.
I'm quite aware. You know what they say about military intelligence—or maybe not.

Yes, the MiG-25. When the scientists got their very first look at it [etc.]
Yes, I know the convoluted arguments that were made to try to justify spending more dough to fight primitive, heavy, slow aircraft.

'Wait a minute, they can build planes that will withstand those temperatures and stresses out of steel!
Right! Those stresses! A maximum G-load rating of 2.2G with full fuel tanks! A combat radius of 186 miles! An airspeed indicator redlined at Mach 2.8! Amazing! (Numbers courtesy of Wiki).

All very compelling.

Ridicule is delivered where appropriate.
Where you're out of logical argument, that is.

I am very well familiar with aviation history, thanks. I have been studying it literally all my life.
Good for you. Keep at it.

To suggest that anything that any aircraft is automatically a copy simply because it looks similar is ignorant.
To suggest that the Russians didn't borrow the majority of their technology, from atomic weapons on, from the West; to suggest that their spy programs weren't so efficient that their design chiefs saw copies of plans before top brass at the companies that were building them in the West; to ignore the obvious evidence in the pictures I pasted, is beyond ignorant—it's naive, silly, and blind. If you're serious about this, if you're not just trying to make points in an online argument, you really need to keep at it—studying, that is. I suggest some history outside aviation.

the Tu-95 proposal was delivered to the Soviet government in 1950 and approved in 1951. The first B-52 prototype did not fly until 1952. Your timeline does not work.
Again: the Russians were seeing the plans as fast as they were being drawn. The TU-95 is a B-52 copy—with different engines, because they didn't have sufficiently efficient jets.

The MiG-25 was a rugged combat aircraft that could operate from a rough field and be serviced, refueled and rearmed under crude frontline combat conditions, and be mass-produced relatively easily, like any other fighter. It was quite the accomplishment.
Rugged, indeed. Also heavy, slow (in operational form, not souped up and stripped down to set records), and crude. We don't build them that way in the West. Perhaps we should, but I think not.

[dharma]

Getting back to my first post, I thought this was interesting. It's a page from Kelly Johnson's notebook, from 1958. Note the "two ramjets" spec (the SR-71 used variable cycle engines in final form), the inclusion of the chines at the sides, and the notation: "Basic concept - reduce radar c.s." (cross section). This was for the A-3, never built to the best of my knowledge, but the follow-on to the SR-71 is pretty obvious.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/SketchJohnsonLockheedA-3.jpg

[Glockd]

As far as the Mig25 being a potent foe or not you should arrange a chat with Scott Spicer. You will have to use a Medium though, as a Foxbat blew his F/A-18 Hornet right outta the fuckin sky and got away scott free. And we totally owned the fuckin airspace when it happened, Gulf War 1 (BTW, Thank You Very Fucking Much to the AWACS Controller who ordered other Navy Pilots to ignore the fact that the Foxbat was attempting to lock them up, the AF would deal with any Iraqi Aircraft - if any even existed. The 18 Driver who reported that could have nailed the Foxbat or at least kept him off Scott). And I'm gonna bet the guy that flew the damn thing was not fit to shit in the same latrine as Victor Belenko let alone fly wing.

And I have to wholeheatedly agree with Ought concerning the ADV variant of the Tornado, it got is ass handed to it because it was the wrong airframe configuration for the mission whereas had the Brits had enough IDS Tornado's to send (they didn't) with the right bells, whistles, boxes, and trained crews (you would be surprised how much like a monkey fucking a football an F-15C Driver is in the ground attack mission - essentially the same argument, IDS Vs. ADV Eagle Charlie vs. Mudhen - slang for the E model) or how badly both variants would have faired without the oh-so-out-of-date- but-got-the-right-gadgets-for-the-mission Blackburn Buccaneer.

Ought is a total idiot when talking his love doll, the F-22, but he is not doing too bad here.

Just an FYI, my source is not a jet jock, my source is a former enlisted F-16 Attack Control Systems Specialist (I know where the arming swith for a nuclear payload is in the cockpit of an F-16A Block 25 - no longer exists - I even cycled the switch a few times - on the ground of course - while still in high school) turned Officer. He was formerly Wing Ops with F-4G Wild Weasels at George AFB, Gulf War 1, Intel with 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, (its the intel guys that really know the threat, not the zoomies) who was in the base command post directing fighters on 9/11 (the attacks interrupted his in-processing brief and he went right to work - long story) and who's retirement ceremony I will be honored to attend at the end of this month.

[Glockd]

However, the Russians do rip us off at every turn. Less so with the B-52 and Bear, more so with the Su-24 Fencer/F-111, direct copies of the B-29 (down to the word Boeing on the control column) etc. but they do build enough of their own design, like the Mig-15, - well actually, copied from the Germans Mig-21, SU-15, SU-22 their ealy Yak and La series of piston engined fighters, etc. Regardless, the Mig-25 was an attempt to answer the XB-70 and B-58 Hustler, plus the A-12/SR-71 series, and later the original design for the Mach 2 B-1. The Air Force did need at one time a very fast interceptor with great range because the mass bomber formations envisioned would likely have been dealt with by air-to-air missiles with Nuclear Tips to destroy them, and the goal of detonating a nuclear warhead is to do so as close to the other guys territory as possible (kinda sucks to detonate nukes over your own soil). The A-12 would have filled this bill, very high, very fast, one pass, formation destroyed and home. Manueverability was not a concern. Hell, alot of the 50's and 60's era fighters sucked ass in terms of turning radius (and at one time we did not need guns either remember - missiles would do all the work) and were as manueverable as bricks. The F-101, 2, 4, & 6, the F7U Cutlass, F4D Skyray, F-8, F11F Tiger, etc. etc. are all examples of speed and range, one pass machines not dogfighters.

The Tornado is not a dogfighter, but it is a good missile platform and it can keep the bad guys way back, and with the right package, it can be a great striker, as recently proven over Libya.

[Ought Six]

However, the Russians do rip us off at every turn. Less so with the B-52 and Bear, more so with the Su-24 Fencer/F-111, direct copies of the B-29 (down to the word Boeing on the control column) etc. but they do build enough of their own design, like the Mig-15, - well actually, copied from the Germans Mig-21, SU-15, SU-22 their ealy Yak and La series of piston engined fighters, etc. Regardless, the Mig-25 was an attempt to answer the XB-70 and B-58 Hustler, plus the A-12/SR-71 series, and later the original design for the Mach 2 B-1. The Air Force did need at one time a very fast interceptor with great range because the mass bomber formations envisioned would likely have been dealt with by air-to-air missiles with Nuclear Tips to destroy them, and the goal of detonating a nuclear warhead is to do so as close to the other guys territory as possible (kinda sucks to detonate nukes over your own soil). The A-12 would have filled this bill, very high, very fast, one pass, formation destroyed and home. Manueverability was not a concern. Hell, alot of the 50's and 60's era fighters sucked ass in terms of turning radius (and at one time we did not need guns either remember - missiles would do all the work) and were as manueverable as bricks. The F-101, 2, 4, & 6, the F7U Cutlass, F4D Skyray, F-8, F11F Tiger, etc. etc. are all examples of speed and range, one pass machines not dogfighters.

The Tornado is not a dogfighter, but it is a good missile platform and it can keep the bad guys way back, and with the right package, it can be a great striker, as recently proven over Libya.This was pretty much my point; that while everyone knows there was a lot of spying and stealing of basic technologies going on, to suggest that just about every Soviet/Russian aircraft is a direct copy of an American one simply reveals a deep ignorance of aviation history and Soviet/Russian design bureaus and their capabilities.

I grew up in an an aviation household. My father was first an aeronautical engineer for Douglas, then a test pilot for McDonnel and then McDonnel-Douglass, and before that was an Air Force fighter pilot. The first magazine I ever read was Aviation Week, because they were all over the house. As a kid, I went to see my dad fly many times. And I spent many hours on weekends playing next to concrete apron next to where my dad was working on his Navion private plane at Van Nuys airport in L.A. I was totally obsessed with aviation, especially military aviation. I got to meet a lot of my dad's friends, like astronauts Gordon Cooper and Pete Conrad, and air racer and acrobatic pilot Bob Hoover, and test pilot and my dad's boss, Gus Grissom. I pestered everyone with endless questions, and read everything I could lay my hands on about aviation. That has stuck with me up until this day.

[dharma]

As far as the Mig25 being a potent foe or not ... a Foxbat blew his F/A-18 Hornet right outta the fuckin sky
I have no insight into this particular incident, but it sounds like he got sucker punched with his arms at his sides and his friends looking somewhere else. Does that really say anything about the quality of the guy who hit him?

the Russians do rip us off at every turn. Less so with the B-52 and Bear
Well, actually, it was more the B-47 and the Bear. The Bear is basically a stretched B-47 airframe, and the wing planforms are identical, as I understand it. On appearance, one suspects they made some changes when the B-52 plans became available, and it's a lot easier to make the case in terms of looks.

The Air Force did need at one time a very fast interceptor with great range because the mass bomber formations envisioned would likely have been dealt with by air-to-air missiles with Nuclear Tips
Yes, I get that—for about two years, then it was the era of the ICBM. The YF-12 would have been instantly obsolete. As I noted, "it can be thought of as the ultimate supersonic interceptor, in the F-100/F-101/F-102 vein, all designed as very fast, to check Russian bombers. Unfortunately, they had problems doing what fighters usually do, which is turn. The idea was that they'd get on target, fire missiles, and head home."

at one time we did not need guns either remember - missiles would do all the work) and were as manueverable as bricks.
Yes, and then Vietnam happened, as I noted; no nose guns and missiles that didn't work. The Air Force was in love with cool toys, as the military always seems to be. Too bad that their fighters weren't fighters!

I have a friend who flew F-102s, and I believe he has actually used the phrase "handled like a brick". Broke pretty frequently, too.

The Tornado is not a dogfighter, but it is a good missile platform and it can keep the bad guys way back, and with the right package, it can be a great striker, as recently proven over Libya.

Yes, as I noted: "It is a decent strike aircraft (bomber). Its use as a 'fighter' is limited to standoff theater defense, courtesy of its sophisticated air-to-air missiles."

[dharma]

to suggest that just about every Soviet/Russian aircraft is a direct copy of an American one simply reveals a deep ignorance [blah blah blah]
Feel free to point out where I said that. Putting words in others' mouths is a favorite trick of yours, yet you complain bitterly when others do it to you.

I was totally obsessed with aviation ... and read everything I could lay my hands on
Yeah, you're the only American boy who ever was obsessed with airplanes. :snobsmilie:

Not so much, guy. You've got some holes in that capacious (we know it is because you've told us) knowledge base, though I know it irks you like crazy to admit it.

[Ought Six]

Its use as a 'fighter' is limited to standoff theater defense, courtesy of its sophisticated air-to-air missiles."Actually, if it had fired all of its missiles, it was perfectly capable of chasing down and shooting down Soviet bombers like the supersonic Tupolev Tu-22M with its 27mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, if nessary. It was designed as a long-range interceptor, and once initial problems with its Foxhunter RADAR were corrected, it filled that role well. To criticize the aircraft for not being an agile dogfighter like the F-16 is ridiculous, as that is not what the aircraft was designed for. It would be equally ridiculous to call the F-16 a crappy long-range interceptor, though true, because that is not what the F-16 is designed for.

BTW, the 186 mile combat radius of the MiG-25 was with internal fuel only. It *never* flew without several quite large external tanks.

[dharma]

Actually, if it had fired all of its missiles, it was perfectly capable of chasing down and shooting down Soviet bombers
I was talking about real world use, not just empty Cold War posturing—as in Bosnia/Kosovo, where it kept the skies clear with its mere presence, by virtue of its sophisticated missile suite. It served a similar function in the no-fly zones in Iraq after the first Gulf War.

[Ought Six]

So providing protection for the North Sea fleet and the northern approaches of the UK against Soviet Tu-22Ms and Tu-95s carrying massive cruise missiles (some with nuclear warheads) was just "empty Cold War posturing"? You have an odd view of national defense. I think the national leaders, military commanders and the service people who flew the missions on both sides might have had a slightly different view of their missions.

[dharma]

So providing protection for the North Sea fleet and the northern approaches of the UK against Soviet Tu-22Ms and Tu-95s carrying massive cruise missiles (some with nuclear warheads) was just "empty Cold War posturing"?
At that point, yup, pretty much. How many shots were fired in anger, or ever were going to be, with nuclear war in the balance? And, if nuclear war had begun, would the Tornados have made a rat's ass worth of difference?

You have an odd view of national defense.
Damn straight I do. Too bad other people don't have the same one. Ever hear of something called the war in Vietnam?

I think the national leaders, military commanders and the service people who flew the missions on both sides might have had a slightly different view of their missions.
Without a doubt. One has to believe in what one is doing.

Here's our lesson for today: "important" and "meaningful" are not the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9y2qtaopbE

[Ought Six]

At that point, yup, pretty much. How many shots were fired in anger, or ever were going to be, with nuclear war in the balance?Who said a war would have to be nuclear? In WWII, both sides agreed, when war broke out, not to use chemical weapons, though both sides had very large arsenals of them. It is not a huge stretch to consider the possibility that the Soviets, with their overwhelming advantage in heavy armor, might have launched a conventional invasion of western Europe while issuing a declaration that they would not use nuclear weapons.

Military planning involves being prepared for the unexpected, not just what seems to be the most likely scenario. You do not ignore conventional warfare and the weapons to fight a conventional war just because many nations have nukes. The Soviet military included reading 'The Art of War' as an integral part of officer training. Doing the unexpected in a way that plays to their strengths and against the enemy's weaknesses was standard doctrine for them, just as Sun Tzu recommended. The aforementioned scenario would have fit their military mindset perfectly.
----------And, if nuclear war had begun, would the Tornados have made a rat's ass worth of difference?See above. In a conventional conflict, the protection of the Royal Navy North Sea Fleet based at Scapa Flow would have been absolutely critical. For the Soviets, using their bombers to attack, degrade, contain and destroy the North Sea fleet and other military assets in the northern UK region, as well as Norway, would have been a mission of primary importance. So yes, the Tornado ADVs were a very important asset.
----------Damn straight I do. Too bad other people don't have the same one. Ever hear of something called the war in Vietnam?Your point?
----------Without a doubt. One has to believe in what one is doing. Here's our lesson for today: "important" and "meaningful" are not the same thing.Equating Indian/Pakistani border rituals with North Sea Tornado ADV patrols in specific and the Cold War in general is too silly to merit comment. It is fair to point out, however, that the tensions behind those border rituals have broken out into full-blown war between the two nations in the past more than once, and could well result in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan at any time. The 'posturing' is a merely a manifestation of the tensions, fear, paranoia and even hatred between nations. Dismissing such posturing and all that goes with it as "meaningless" is naive and foolish in the extreme.

[dharma]

Your point?
You need it spelled out? Vietnam was an expenditure of huge amounts of blood and treasure—for nothing. It should never have happened. If a libertarian had been in the White House, it wouldn't.

Equating Indian/Pakistani border rituals with North Sea Tornado ADV patrols in specific and the Cold War in general is too silly to merit comment.
You're blind. I know of no argument that cures that, so I won't try. There may be someone reading this, however, who watches that pitiful video and sees the parallels with the empty puffery at all the hostile borders of the world and gets the point. As I said, important doesn't equate to meaningful. That may have gone over your head, but it won't go over everyone's.

[Ought Six]

You need it spelled out? Vietnam was an expenditure of huge amounts of blood and treasure—for nothing. It should never have happened. If a libertarian had been in the White House, it wouldn't.It was miserably managed, but it achieved its political goal; to stop Communist expansion in the region. So while I would not have gotten involved, to say it accomplished nothing is plainly false. Vietnam made Russia and China realize that America was, in fact, willing to expend massive amounts of money and to lose tens of thousands of its own soldiers in proxy wars to stop their plan for world domination through subversion of third world nations, one after the other. After Vietnam, the Soviets and Chinese took a much more restrained, low-key approach.
----------You're blind.What an elegant argument! A tour de force of logic and reason.

[dharma]

It was miserably managed, but it achieved its political goal
We lost a war, tens of thousands died, the economy was nearly ruined, and South Vietnam ended up as what it would have been anyway: communist. But it was a success!

I'm gonna love hearing what a great thing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are.

[Ought Six]

We lost a war, tens of thousands died, the economy was nearly ruined, and South Vietnam ended up as what it would have been anyway: communist. But it was a success!Just because it accomplished a political goal does not mean it was a success in all ways. Obviously, it was not. Equally obviously, neither was it a total failure in every way.
----------I'm gonna love hearing what a great thing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are.Sure, let us talk about that. Do you want to go back to a time when nearly every Muslim nation on the planet was a state sponsor of various terrorist groups? Because that changed when we took down Saddam, and Bush said 'you are with us or against us' in the War On Terror, radically changing the political paradigm in the Muslim world. The example of Arab and south Asian Muslims voting for their own leaders and forming their own democratic governments was followed by the 'Arab spring'; with Muslims overthrowing traditional dictatorships and demanding the right to vote for their own leaders and form their own governments, exactly as Bush predicted. Coincidence? I think not.

The process is messy and nasty, just as the birth and early years of our own nation was, but there has now been a fundamental political change in the Muslim world for the first time since the end of the colonial era. We are still in the midst of the birthing pains, but Muslim democracy has replaced tyranny, and it is here to stay. Certainly a lot of Muslim nations will have to deal with Islamism, women's rights, sexual mores evolving, the rights of religious minorities, and many other tough issues, just as we had to deal with religion in the government, slavery, the destruction of Native American cultures, and other issues of those earlier times. But their is absolutely no question that Iraq and Afghanistan have irrevocably changed the Muslim world, breaking the longstanding stasis and moving them several big steps closer to the 21st century and the modern world.

So again, I would not have personally chosen to go into Iraq, though I would have gone into Afghanistan after bin Laden. And again, to say it was all for naught is obviously not true. We both would do things very differently, but we cannot close our eyes to the elemental changes in the world and pretend they did not occur due to those two wars.

[dharma]

Just because it accomplished a political goal does not mean it was a success in all ways. Obviously, it was not. Equally obviously, neither was it a total failure in every way.
Ah. Let me alter my statement: we lost a war, tens of thousands died, the economy was nearly ruined, and South Vietnam ended up as what it would have been anyway: communist. But it wasn't a total failure! We made a statement!

Strong argument, boy.

Sure, let us talk about that. ... radically changing the political paradigm in the Muslim world ... there has now been a fundamental political change in the Muslim world
Indeed. Iraq is now in shambles and falling into the orbit of Iran, while Iran (what was that about state-sponsored terrorism?) has been emboldened and is seeking to go nuclear and become pre-eminent in the Mideast. All of north Africa is going from secular dictatorship to fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship. Egypt has broken its export agreements with Israel and is becoming belligerent. Afghanistan is going from fundamentalist chaos to . . . fundamentalist chaos. Pakistan has been radicalized, and fundamentalists hold sway there much more than they did under Musharraf. Syria is a bloodbath, and the good guys are losing because we gave them hope, than failed to help them.

Hell of a job, Brownie!

[Ought Six]

Ah. Let me alter my statement: we lost a war, tens of thousands died, the economy was nearly ruined, and South Vietnam ended up as what it would have been anyway: communist. But it wasn't a total failure! We made a statement!

Strong argument, boy.If that was what I said, you would have a point. And if distorting and falsifying what I said is the best you can do, then "strong argument, boy."
----------Indeed. Iraq is now in shambles and falling into the orbit of Iran, while Iran (what was that about state-sponsored terrorism?) has been emboldened and is seeking to go nuclear and become pre-eminent in the Mideast. All of north Africa is going from secular dictatorship to fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship. Egypt has broken its export agreements with Israel and is becoming belligerent. Afghanistan is going from fundamentalist chaos to . . . fundamentalist chaos. Pakistan has been radicalized, and fundamentalists hold sway there much more than they did under Musharraf. Syria is a bloodbath, and the good guys are losing because we gave them hope, than failed to help them.

Hell of a job, Brownie!Yes, the whole area is almost as f'ed up as America during and after the Revolution. I hope they can have the same sort of abject failure we experienced.

[dharma]

If that was what I said, you would have a point.
It was, and I do. We made a statement that Russia and China would not have an easy time of it, and they eased off a bit. Great reason for a war.

the whole area is almost as f'ed up as America during and after the Revolution.
America post-revolution and the Muslim Mideast post-Iraq. Astounding. Congratulations on the single most maladroit comparison I may ever have heard.

[Ought Six]

It was, and I do. We made a statement that Russia and China would not have an easy time of it, and they eased off a bit. Great reason for a war.No, you said that. I did not. I said we fought a proxy war with Russia and China. That is not a mere "statement". It was a several year long major military campaign that forced a significant shift in the enemy's plans for world domination. The old Communist adage is, "Probe the enemy with your bayonet fixed. If you meet steel, retreat. If you meet soft flesh, advance." We met them with steel, and they retreated. They were never again as bold and direct in their efforts to subvert other nations. The Communist dominoes in SE Asia stopped falling. If it were not for Vietnam, we would have lost the entire region. That is a hell of a lot more than "a statement". Again, not the approach I would have taken, but a result that cannot be denied or dismissed, as you are attempting to do.
----------America post-revolution and the Muslim Mideast post-Iraq. Astounding. Congratulations on the single most maladroit comparison I may ever have heard.Sorry you are so very blind to the obvious parallels. A long, bloody, difficult war for the rebels with the help of foreign powers. After the war, the new governments engaging in institutional bigotry and open discrimination against religious minorities. The ongoing tensions between the winners and losers, with many citizens on the losing side fleeing for their lives. The struggle between disparate factions on the winning side to establish a working democratic republic and write a constitution. The initial failure of a weak state. The reworking of the entire government into a better one with a greater emphasis on human rights. Dealing with huge ongoing schisms remaining between major factions, which in our case eventually led to one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history. We see all this unfolding before our very eyes, but you apparently see none of it.

[Glockd]

I knew I spelled Scotts name wrong. Lt. Cmdr. Michael "Scott" Speicher was at 29,000 feet at Mach .95, 100 miles from Baghdad when the nose of his aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure. Thats fancy talk for his jet was hit by an R-40 (AA-6 ACRID) AAM fired by a Mig 25 flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood, 84th squadron IQAF. He was the first American combat casualty of the war. The official story was that he was hit by a SAM, but other guys from his flight knew a Mig got him. They had been locked up too, detected the Migs radar with their warning receivers, and tried to get AWACS to give them permission to fire.

I dont give a fuck what any shitsack says, the fuckin controller refused permission because the almighty fucking Air Force was supposed to kill Migs not the goddamn Navy. Speicher would probably still be alive if the Navy had been allowed to control the Navy and the Air Force bothered only with the Air Force and so on.

This is one of the many reasons why the Marine Corps fights so hard to retain control of its own TACAIR component and why we dont fucking trust anyone else.

[Glockd]

In 2002, an Iraqi Mig-25 also used an R-40 to down an MQ-1 Predator. The Predator fired back with an AIM-92 but the Mig evaded it.