RpROn carrier landings the pilot can choose to go around again, to the point of wheel on the deck already, whilst informing the carrier of his choice.
With a computer it will become a guessing game what the computer will do.
There is more involved than just the aircraft, there are people on the deck whose lives are at risk also.
When a pilot is in control and an absolute disaster happens, he knows if he has to get out. If he does not have full control over those precious seconds, or milliseconds, the computer may kill some one.
RpRTwo of those I have experienced myself.
I was driving across Nebraska, on country roads, quite some time back and two F-4s passed me from behind about one hundred feet over the road.
The one where the guy drives between two cars coming at him I was in one of those when I was passing some one on an extremely icy foggy day.
I saw the headlights coming and rather than try to get back in my lane and spin I simply drove over to the far left shoulder.
I think that you gents in the U.K. probably have seen some oddities on icy roads.
Some one tell me how the car ended up standing on its rear bumper.
RpRTwo of those I have experienced myself.
I was driving across Nebraska, on country roads, quite some time back and two F-4s passed me from behind about one hundred feet over the road.
The one where the guy drives between two cars coming at him I was in one of those when I was passing some one on an extremely icy foggy day.
I saw the headlights coming and rather than try to get back in my lane and spin I simply drove over to the far left shoulder.
I think that you gents in the U.K. probably have seen some oddities on icy roads.
Some one tell me how the car ended up standing on its rear bumper.
RpROne thing you must remember about the U.S. military is the higher ups love to get the latest pie-in-the-sky technology until a shooting war comes back to bite them in the ass in form of coffins coming home that should not be.
The vehicle that replaced the Jeep is the most blatant recent example.
Their do-all vehicle was real good at getting grunts killed.
To say it only needs x, y or z because the paper wars they fight at the Pentagons say this is all they need, sadly is not just a internet site thing, it happens in the real world also.
RpRTwo examples: a Mig-23 used by aggressor squadrons in the U.S. killed the pilot when he did a extremely high-speed low level retirement pass and the aircraft came apart in the air.
Over on the F-106 site, one ground crew-man said a pilot came in.
Unlike the usual there was no chit-chat exchange. The pilot said nothing and walked away.
When he looked at the aircraft on every leading edge the paint was gone and behind the edge it is was heat blistered.
He said this was the only time he ever saw that and because the pilot said nothing, he asked no questions.
With the new systems there is no catch them at all costs or get away at all costs flying possible?
RpR
RpRSerious question.
Those of you who get Aviation Week, Technology & Space, know that several years back there was a story in there told by the pilot of an F-15 who came within fractions of a second of being shot down by an enemy aircraft.
He was saved by another U.S. aircraft that saw the enemy fighter and shot it down before it could fire, although the enemy aircraft already had its gun-camera on. (They know this because they recovered the camera and it shows the missile that shot it down approaching.)
The pilot that told the story, said for the first time in his life he was truly scared, and he knew the other aircraft already had a lock-on and he had no idea where it was.
This happened because the U.S. aircraft did not have an AWACS aircraft to rely on (I believe the AWACS plane had to leave due to being low on fuel) so there was no eye-in-the-sky to save him.
It was by the grace of God the other U.S. pilot was there to save him and shot first.
How dependent are the new aircraft, F-35, on AWACS which is what really gave/gives the U.S. an edge.
RpRI’m reading The Gun, a book on the AK-47
it looks in depth at how the machine gun made its introduction, from the Gatling to the Maxim. how it was too late to effect the US Civil War, made an impression in the Colonial Wars, and finally how it completely changed the way men fought in WWI
the most shocking fact was the Allies’ inability to appreciate its true potential. even though they had first hand experience in Africa and observers reported the devestating effect it had in the Japanese-Russian conflicts, the US and the UK largely failed to aknowledge its impact, invest in it or develop correct operating procedures
worst of all they responded to the mass fielding of German machine guns with completely outdated tactics, marching in wave after wave in an attempt to engage the enemy with bayonetsthe process repeated itself when the West met the AK-47. where the Russians had learned from WW2 and developed both a round and a gun that could do a lot of things effectively, the West and specifically the US continued on with outdated ideas, developing an automatic rilfe that used traditional large rifle rounds
when they did finally introduce the M-16, it was late and ineffective, resulting in heavy losses, just as traditional thinking and incompetence had in WWIthe reason I’m posting this information is to underline the risks of traditional thinking and investing when it comes to war and technology. the US and its allies are heavily investing in traditional manned aircraft, especially the completely overpriced and ineffective F-22 and F-35, where potentially opponents like China and even Iran are heavily investing in UAVs and forming the tactics to go along with them
how does one stop wave after wave of UAVs, each costing as little as $100,000, when the missiles used to shoot them down cost at least $500,000, and the aircraft used to do it cost at least $50 million?
Nukes.
I read just recently that the nukes carried by U.S. interceptor were not there to really blow the other aircraft out of the sky, but to disarm the bombs they were carrying.
Ditto for the anti-missile missiles.
In a global war, you can almost be assured that nuclear air-burst will be used to destroy, negate the ability for the ground to communicate with anything.
It worked, by accident, extremely well in the analog age, and will be even more effective in the digital age.
If you want to think how the next global war will be fought think of WWII, or even the Christmas raids in Nam, if it moves it dies.
Not the politically correct bs that is being used now as politicians sit safely behind their desks.
RpRThat is not true at all. The F-105 could carry a single B61 nuclear weapon in its bomb bay, but in practice almost always carried fuel there instead. The F-111 could carry either one nuclear bomb, a pair of conventional 750 lb bombs, fuel, ECM, a gun pack, or the Pave Tack pod internally depending on when and what version of the aircraft. The F-111 and the F-105 both carried the vast majority of their loads on external stations.
As to aircraft that actually can and do carry their bomb loads internally, the F-35 will do that and the F-22 can as well but to a more limited extent, and presumably the Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 will as well.
Thank you for that.
I went to wiki, something I usually would rather not do, very late at night last night and the way they wrote it up, I read it wrong.
They only gave totals.
They did not give bomb-bay capacity, although upon reading more than the specs., today, they gave they did say the 105s bomb bay was fifteen feet by 32 inches by 32 inches. So I am assuming they could get one rather large bomb in there, or a couple of smaller ones.
Side note, I went to the one Air Force Museums we have down in Nebraska and the FB-111 they have there does have a Gatling gun.
—————–
The F-22, T-50 and J-20 are all aircraft that most likely will not be carrying bombs unless things get very, very dire, so I take it the F-35 is the only one designed to be fighter bomber that does not have to fly in carrying heavy clutter and therefore sticking out like sore thumb on radar?
The air superiority fighters are keeping it clean, and therefore better fuel mileage which theoretically means they can get there quickly and get out or else where quickly, with a load, if need be.
How come this attitude is not being used on planes that keep the feet on the ground alive.
An improved version of the Blackburn Buccaneer, or something on that order, would seem to make more sense.
It could carry 4,000lbs internally, although it was subsonic.
RpRUCAVs, I guess if I were one who might be targeted by such in a real war, where deaths are hundreds per day, I would not hesitate for a minute in sending a nuke out to shut the site down.
RpRCould you please provide the facts and figures to back up what you are stating?. re Katrina.As it’s different to what our National News showed.
The National Guard were deployed PDQ if I remember rightly.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
http://www.akdart.com/katrina.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/2/111601.shtml
This was probably best but I do not subscribe any longer and cannot get a full text off of the net:————————-
WSJ: The Battle of New Orleans – Even in America, civil order is more fragile than we think.
Wall Street Journal ^ | September 2, 2005 | Editorial
Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 7:23:21 AM by OESY
…Of all the bad news from New Orleans, the most disturbing has been the reports of spreading disorder, with looting, marauding gangs and even sniper fire at helicopters and rescue workers. Americans sometimes expect their government to do far too much….
One reason for the New Orleans breakdown is the size of the calamity, whose growing severity caught nearly everyone by surprise. Louisiana National Guard troops that were deployed initially for rescue and relief efforts weren’t available for the more basic duties of public security. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is also geared to providing relief, not order, and only yesterday did the federal government begin to focus on the potential anarchy. Among our political leaders, only Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour seemed to appreciate the genuine risk of disorder, with his early warnings that looters would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, the allegation that enough National Guard troops aren’t available because many are deployed in Iraq doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The Louisiana Guard has something like 3,500 men and women deployed in Iraq, but that leaves another 8,000 or so troops available for post-Katrina duty, and neighboring states undamaged by the hurricane have still others who could be called upon. All told, the Pentagon now estimates that 30,000 National Guard troops will be deployed along the Gulf coast, and another 3,000 regular Army soldiers to pursue the armed gangs on the loose. Our advice is: Do whatever it takes.
One frequent reaction…: New Orleans is typical of Third World countries, something that was thought could never happen in America. This happens to overlook a fair chunk of U.S. history… including riots and violence. But it is also a sign of complacency born of prosperity and the resilience of our legal and civic institutions….
RpRCould you please provide the facts and figures to back up what you are stating?. re Katrina.As it’s different to what our National News showed.
The National Guard were deployed PDQ if I remember rightly.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
http://www.akdart.com/katrina.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/2/111601.shtml
This was probably best but I do not subscribe any longer and cannot get a full text off of the net:————————-
WSJ: The Battle of New Orleans – Even in America, civil order is more fragile than we think.
Wall Street Journal ^ | September 2, 2005 | Editorial
Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 7:23:21 AM by OESY
…Of all the bad news from New Orleans, the most disturbing has been the reports of spreading disorder, with looting, marauding gangs and even sniper fire at helicopters and rescue workers. Americans sometimes expect their government to do far too much….
One reason for the New Orleans breakdown is the size of the calamity, whose growing severity caught nearly everyone by surprise. Louisiana National Guard troops that were deployed initially for rescue and relief efforts weren’t available for the more basic duties of public security. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is also geared to providing relief, not order, and only yesterday did the federal government begin to focus on the potential anarchy. Among our political leaders, only Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour seemed to appreciate the genuine risk of disorder, with his early warnings that looters would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, the allegation that enough National Guard troops aren’t available because many are deployed in Iraq doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The Louisiana Guard has something like 3,500 men and women deployed in Iraq, but that leaves another 8,000 or so troops available for post-Katrina duty, and neighboring states undamaged by the hurricane have still others who could be called upon. All told, the Pentagon now estimates that 30,000 National Guard troops will be deployed along the Gulf coast, and another 3,000 regular Army soldiers to pursue the armed gangs on the loose. Our advice is: Do whatever it takes.
One frequent reaction…: New Orleans is typical of Third World countries, something that was thought could never happen in America. This happens to overlook a fair chunk of U.S. history… including riots and violence. But it is also a sign of complacency born of prosperity and the resilience of our legal and civic institutions….
RpRKatrina was the exception to the rule, inasmuch as it was to prevent looters. I.M.H.O. that decision was the right course of action, sometimes the majority have to suffer for the minority, At least somewon had the balls to do it, regardless of the 2nd.
Yes, Law abiding gun owners suffered, no doubt because a lot left in a hurry, and their weapons were left Locked Up?, in their homes,or even left insecure?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Just what planet do you live on?
They took their firearms and then the armed robbers came in and robbed them.
The judge was mystified how the City Of New Orleans could attempt to claim that the Second Amendment did not apply to what they did.
The City was fortunate that the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation only sued for return of firearms as it could have cost the city a lot of money.
The Federal Courts did not think highly of the City of New Orleans.
It was a Federal Court case, based on the 2nd Amendment, so if any city ever tried it again they could end up with some dead policemen and have to explain to a Federal judge why they tried to commit a Federal felony.
RpRKatrina was the exception to the rule, inasmuch as it was to prevent looters. I.M.H.O. that decision was the right course of action, sometimes the majority have to suffer for the minority, At least somewon had the balls to do it, regardless of the 2nd.
Yes, Law abiding gun owners suffered, no doubt because a lot left in a hurry, and their weapons were left Locked Up?, in their homes,or even left insecure?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Just what planet do you live on?
They took their firearms and then the armed robbers came in and robbed them.
The judge was mystified how the City Of New Orleans could attempt to claim that the Second Amendment did not apply to what they did.
The City was fortunate that the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation only sued for return of firearms as it could have cost the city a lot of money.
The Federal Courts did not think highly of the City of New Orleans.
It was a Federal Court case, based on the 2nd Amendment, so if any city ever tried it again they could end up with some dead policemen and have to explain to a Federal judge why they tried to commit a Federal felony.
RpRNO
The confiscation of fire-arms during Katrina proved the point.
After the fact, they took what happened at Katrina to court and the courts said it was illegal and should never happen again, strictly on the basis of the 2nd Amendment.
The fact the government, including state and local, are trying to take fire-arms away from legal owners who have broken no laws shows that those who wrote the Constitution knew power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a fact that never goes away no matter how naive a populace may be.
Sign In
