Posted on 03/03/2011 8:04:56 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
I share your enthusiasm for the F-22 but, I think we have had our technology stalled by the current administration.
Whatever lead we have is rapidly deteriorating.
In the 60s, a Hawaiian Air National Guard F-86 pilot (the famous “HANG Man”) Would meet all the hot USN and USAF pilots enroute to SEA in their F-4s at 30,000 over Mana Loa.
In his old Sabre, the HANG Man never lost, and never took more than 55 seconds to get a gun kill on the kids.
One time, 4 squids in Phantoms tried him on, at once. He killed 3 in less than two minutes and the trailer called Bingo fuel!
They can beat everything other than the Raptor >100:1 and they have the record to prove it.
It has very little to do with airframe, speed, ceiling or quickness. With US Avionics/weapons and tactics we could put up F-4s and best most other aircraft.
“America is that far ahead. Imagine what is on the drawing boards today. “
Actually, I just got laid off after 30 years in the defense industry. I can tell you my former company has zero cutting edge products. They told us to forget about R&D unless it could pay for itself in one year. My impression is that companies across the board are not investing in future products. My guess is that the tax advantage for doing so is gone.
A couple of years ago, my former company let a top engineer go. He wanted too much money. So, he called the customer he’d been working with and said, “You know that project they’ve had for two years and done nothing on? Give it to me and I’ll have you a working prototype in 6 months.” They did and he did. Now he has a tiny office down the street and full colonels drop by with sketches, a write-up and a check.
This has happened because the bureaucracy of the defense industry is mind-numbing. I’d get a call about a proposal I’d submitted two years prior and I’d ask why they were questioning me now. “Oh, well, we’re going into negotiations tomorrow.” Some of this, of course, is reflective of the military’s slow moving nature. But, largely, it’s because management was top-heavy with lawyers. It’s always okay for somebody at the top to stop something by saying no. Saying yes, however, exposes you to risk and possible failure.
If we want to be cutting edge, we need to break up the defense mega-companies into smaller, lither competitors.
The WWII British Typhoon was a loser, too. This is just upholding tradition.
The plane isn’t the problem, but the planning for it.
Eurofighter built by UNIONS full of EuroTrash
Now in a standoff fight the T-33 would have been toast, but, in close it must have really been a “scooter” to the big old F-4.
Take a look at the A400M, way behind schedule, will not hit specifications (especially weight/payload/range) and will limp into service in a couple of years.
Oh, and the entry aircraft will be your basic VW beetle as opposed to the BMW that was promised. Those will come later, maybe.
The funny thing is that the Europeans, if they could bury their pride, could have gotten a really good deal on the C-17 and saved a ton of money along the way.
But, if you want to check out a real “work of art” look at the N90 helicopter which is a total pile of trash and makes the Eurofighter and A4000M look like well managed programs!
Just as bad with the Raptor. We paid for 187, but only the last 91 will be fully mission capable.
And somewhere, John Boyd is laughing his head off.
Try and get confirmation of that from the German army forces at Faliase Gap
Even before then
Late 1941, Battle Luftwaffe tried low level high speed raids against Southern England by Fw-190s. Result: Fail. Reason The Typhoon
42/43. RAF low level high speed raids against Northern France. how? The Typhoon
1944 prior to D-Day strikes against the Greman communication system. 150 locomotives destroyed a month. The Typhoon
The Typhoon was originally intended as an intercepter I think, and in its originally intended role, it was a failure, but a spectacular success in its adapted role as a CAS plane, probably THE best of the war...
It was the MB-150.01 PROTOTYPE.
It later became the Bloch MB-152 which was cut to pieces in 1940.
It had a favorable 188:86 kill ratio. Of course production slowed when France was invaded.
Wow, thanks for the skinny
When it failed its original intent, the Typhoon was pressed into service as whatever it could be used for. Low altitude interceptor was one. Not much manuvering there. You just need a big engine. It did have a big engine.
Then it became a ground attack machine. As a personal note, it seems like every warplane I read about that has failed to live up to its intent and/or has outlived its usefulness, is pressed into ground attack use. They seem to be considered disposable, unfortunately for their pilots. The Typhoon was not ideal for that either, with the big wide air intake, housing the radiators, which were very vunerable to ground fire.
Anyway, the Brits finally got it pretty much right when they replaced the Typhoon with the Tempest. It is what the Typhoon was intended to be, but failed. The Typhoon was never a great airplane in spite of the occasional successes you note.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.