SOCHere you have a Mach 3 plus aircraft armed with long range missiles against another Mach 3 aircraft armed with medium range missiles, both aircraft were developed as interceptors of Mach 3 bombers and the MiG-25 in part influenced by the YF-12 program.
The MiG-25P was developed as a counter to the perceived overflight threat posed by the A-12, so yes, it was in some way influenced by the Blackbird program.
for Boyd`s followers it was another reason to develop the F-15 and not the YF-12
Uh, no, the two projects had absolutely nothing at all to do with one another. Why can’t you grasp that simple fact? The F-15 was conceived as an air superiority tactical fighter to take over the air combat mission from the F-4. It had nothing to do with the development or cancellation of NORAD and Air Defense Command interceptor aircraft.
it was too obvious that the YF-12 was not a match, an agile Mach 3 fighter as they thought the MiG-25 was, proved to be more than a match for an sluggish YF-12
They wouldn’t have ever considered a MiG-25 vs. F-12B encounter. That’s the whole point. The class of aircraft the F-12 belonged to was outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts. If that was not the case, then it would have been the F-106 program that was affected!
At any rate, the RFP process for the FX (F-15) program began in 1965. The F-12B wasn’t cancelled until 1967. If the FX was to supercede the F-12B as you seem to want to believe, then the timeline would have been different.
As it stands, the F-12B program and the F-15 program were not related. Boyd’s cadre influenced the latter, but had absolutely nothing to do with the former.
SOCSOC
In 1961 when the F-4 was fielded it was only another interceptor and did not have a gun, however it evolved by need into a dogfighter and bomber was it suited for this? no, it was a simple interceptor rushed into production as a multirole fighter and te prove many were shot down and the same was with the F-111 that in its initial debut over Vietnam turned to be a fiasco
The USAF’s F-110A/F-4C Phantom II was not seen as an interceptor, it was immediately trialled with all manner of A/S weaponry, and USAF F-4s performed numerous strike missions ovre Vietnam. The USN’s Phantom II was primarily used as an interceptor and later a tactical fighter for CAP and escort duties as carrier air wings already possessed A-6 and A-7 strike aircraft.
What created the conditions for the F-15 were Boyd`s theories, losses in Vietnam, cancellation of the YF-12 and the MiG-25.
The F-12B and F-15 were NOT RELATED PROGRAMS! The F-15 was the FX air superiority fighter program, the F-12B was the AMI Advanced Manned Interceptor program. Two separate programs; the in-service”follow-on” to the F-12B was the F-106, NOT the F-15! The F-15 was to take the air combat role from the F-4.
The MiG-25 showed it could take the task of an interceptor and it was cheaper, the YF-12 was ill designed and unsuited for the task that prompted the design of the F-15;)
The F-12B was perfectly suited for the role in which it was designed, but F-12B vs. MiG-25 is a whole different story for a different time and place.
SOCI think newly registered users have to have some sort of “serious” e-mail account, and their accounts have to be activated by the Webmaster. I think that’s how it works now, I could be wrong.
At any rate, if any of you do notice someone being an irritant and trying to sell you handbags or other crap, let the moderators of that forum know (i.e. telling me about something on Commercial Aviation is not really going to help you as I am not a Moderator on that particular forum, although I will forward any such issues to the people who can fix them) and they’ll electronically assassinate the spammer and blow up his or her posts.
SOCI think newly registered users have to have some sort of “serious” e-mail account, and their accounts have to be activated by the Webmaster. I think that’s how it works now, I could be wrong.
At any rate, if any of you do notice someone being an irritant and trying to sell you handbags or other crap, let the moderators of that forum know (i.e. telling me about something on Commercial Aviation is not really going to help you as I am not a Moderator on that particular forum, although I will forward any such issues to the people who can fix them) and they’ll electronically assassinate the spammer and blow up his or her posts.
SOCSOC
You are not using a 1964 perspective because in 1964
The F-4 did not have an internal gun and was basicly another interceptor like the F-111B however the F-111B did have a gun😉
Oh really, the F-4 was only an interceptor? What in the world is it doing carrying bombs in that picture then? The point was that the next tactical fighter for the USAF and USN in 1964 was the F-4. That has nothing to do with its carriage of an internal cannon. Neither the F-12B nor the F-111B were going to be used as tactical fighters.
you are using 1968 perspective when it was too clear the F-4 needed a gun, the YF-12 was too expensive and lacked agility so it was better suited for surveillance and the F-111B was not a fighter but a bomber.
Explain to me why a bomber interceptor like the F-12B was going to need any serious level of agility.
The F-111B was neither a fighter nor a bomber, it was a dedicated interceptor.
And for the record, the F-4s did carry cannon pods.
SOCSOC
It makes me laugh the fact you are hiding a very important fact If the Navy ordered Grumman a study of the F-111B combat capabilities versus the MiG-23 and MiG-25 and the F-111B was going to replace the F-4 in few words do what the F-14 did why you can not see that is the reason Mc Namara was defeated by Boyd in the design philosophy to be follow by the US
There’s the central flaw in your argument: the F-111B was NOT going to replace the F-4! The F-4 would have served as the primary tactical fighter for the USN, with the F-111B serving as the interceptor. Now, mix the two of them together, take out a good deal of the air-to-surface capability, and you get what? The F-14!
From an 1964 perspective the F-12 and the F-111 were going to be the next generation of US fighters, if the F-14 and F-15 appeared is because the USAF and US navy thought that despite the YF-12 was a Mach 3 fighter it was not a dogfighter like the new MiG-25 and the F-111 was not better.
From a 1964 perspective the F-4 was the next USAF and USN fighter to see widespread frontline use. The F-111 was a tactical, low-level strike aircraft, never intended to serve as any sort of fighter until McNamara directed the Navy to use it as the basis for the Fleet Air Defence aircraft replacing the then-cancelled Missileer.
As far as the USAF goes, you are confusing tactical fighters such as the F-100 or F-4 with strategic interceptors such as the F-89, F-101B, or F-106. Boyd’s theories apply to the former, but not the latter; the F-12B would have been part of the latter.
And the MiG-25 was no dogfighter either, I’m starting to think that all of this is just some veiled attempt to “prove” that the MiG-25 was superior to the Blackbird…
The MiG-23 was designed using the american experience in the F-111.
The MiG-23 did make use of VG wings, perhaps in part due to analysis of American work on the F-111, but the Soviet answer to the F-111 was the Su-24.
From a 1964 perspective a Mach 3, AIM-47 armed aircraft or a Mach 2.5, AIM-54 armed aircraft were very powerful threats to the simple and slower MiG-21 and Su-9s even to the Tu-28
They may well have been threats to those older Soviet aircraft, but the fact of the matter was that their operational employment would have meant they never encountered them.
The F-12B was an Air Defense Command interceptor designed solely to intercept incoming supersonic bombers. The supersonic bomber threat never materialized and due in part to McNamara’s preference of the cheaper F-106, the F-12B was cancelled. The F-12B was never going to be fielded in large numbers and sent all over the world hunting MiGs, it was a purpose-designed aircraft, in that fashion no different from, say, an AEW&C platform.
The F-111B was the USN’s Fleet Air Defense aircraft, designed to use the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination to do one thing and one thing only: protect the carrier from incoming missiles. Again, a purpose-built aircraft.
The USAF’s F-111 was a strike aircraft, not a fighter.
Where is the problem.
SOCI appreciated that at the time. You were using sarcasm against a perfectly innocuous statement, by megalith: ‘Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the processes we are talking about, both specific to green house gasses and more generally the scientific prosess.’ which is not insulting your intelligence but questioning the basis of your arguments.
“Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding…It is also apparant that you are not someone who regularly handles/generates statistics..you are illlustrating your lack of scientific understanding.”
I took that as an insult to my intelligence. That’s the entire bit of his I qupted, by the way, not the small fragment you’ve chosen to latch onto.
The cry of ‘insult’ where there is none is often seen on USENET and now here, probably to draw attention away from the weakness of the plaintiff’s arguments.
No, I actually let it be known what I thought of his comments and then moved on; were I attempting to draw attention away from my argument I wouldn’t have kept going and finding all the information I put in my last post, that you have admittedly chosen to ignore.
Rather like the use of sarcasm without foundation as seems to be a habit of yours.
Really, where have I habitually used sarcasm without foundation? An isolated occurrence here and there is not a habit, you know.
This has nothing to do with any so called ‘party line’ being just good manners to abstain from such boorish behaviour.
Boorish: coarse, uncouth, loutish, churlish. Boorish, oafish, rude, uncouth all describe persons, acts, manners, or mannerisms that violate in some way the generally accepted canons of polite, considerate behavior. Boorish, originally referring to behavior characteristic of an unlettered rustic or peasant, now implies a coarse and blatant lack of sensitivity to the feelings or values of others: a boorish refusal to acknowledge greetings. Oafish suggests slow-witted, loutlike, clumsy behavior: oafish table manners. Rude has the widest scope of meaning of these words; it suggests either purposefully impudent discourtesy or, less frequently, a rough crudity of appearance or manner: a rude remark; a rude thatched hut. Uncouth stresses most strongly in modern use a lack of good manners, whether arising from ignorance or brashness: uncouth laughter; an uncouth way of staring at strangers. (from dictionary.reference.com)
Where has my behavior been boorish?
See above.
Yawn!
Do you need me to find you a yawning smiley? 😀
My use of ‘moved’ in, ‘For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth…’does not imply, nor should be taken to imply, that I consider continental drift to have stopped. Please consider the context of my words.
My point was to hopefully draw attention to the fact that climate change due to the shifting of land masses may be ongoing. If it was happening before, it may still be ongoing now. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, the short answer seemed fine to me, but then again I knew what I was on about.
What you are failing to appreciate is that the last graph that you presented covers a period which is a subset of the first so trying to compare the two is like comparing apples with oranges – one gets confused. And you are.
No. The point is to illustrate that taking the entire data set as the norm is not an accurate representation of what is going on, as evidenced by a completely different trend in the last period than you get if you just look at the entire set.
As for the Telegraph report on this then it is somewhat more rounded than the Times/Fox version.
Well at least that’s a start then.
Now, notwithstanding your other remarks which are pointless to debate point by point until you have done more background reading.
Oh, so I need to investigate your side of the story but you don’t need to look at mine? What’s the point of this entire debate then?
SOCI appreciated that at the time. You were using sarcasm against a perfectly innocuous statement, by megalith: ‘Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the processes we are talking about, both specific to green house gasses and more generally the scientific prosess.’ which is not insulting your intelligence but questioning the basis of your arguments.
“Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding…It is also apparant that you are not someone who regularly handles/generates statistics..you are illlustrating your lack of scientific understanding.”
I took that as an insult to my intelligence. That’s the entire bit of his I qupted, by the way, not the small fragment you’ve chosen to latch onto.
The cry of ‘insult’ where there is none is often seen on USENET and now here, probably to draw attention away from the weakness of the plaintiff’s arguments.
No, I actually let it be known what I thought of his comments and then moved on; were I attempting to draw attention away from my argument I wouldn’t have kept going and finding all the information I put in my last post, that you have admittedly chosen to ignore.
Rather like the use of sarcasm without foundation as seems to be a habit of yours.
Really, where have I habitually used sarcasm without foundation? An isolated occurrence here and there is not a habit, you know.
This has nothing to do with any so called ‘party line’ being just good manners to abstain from such boorish behaviour.
Boorish: coarse, uncouth, loutish, churlish. Boorish, oafish, rude, uncouth all describe persons, acts, manners, or mannerisms that violate in some way the generally accepted canons of polite, considerate behavior. Boorish, originally referring to behavior characteristic of an unlettered rustic or peasant, now implies a coarse and blatant lack of sensitivity to the feelings or values of others: a boorish refusal to acknowledge greetings. Oafish suggests slow-witted, loutlike, clumsy behavior: oafish table manners. Rude has the widest scope of meaning of these words; it suggests either purposefully impudent discourtesy or, less frequently, a rough crudity of appearance or manner: a rude remark; a rude thatched hut. Uncouth stresses most strongly in modern use a lack of good manners, whether arising from ignorance or brashness: uncouth laughter; an uncouth way of staring at strangers. (from dictionary.reference.com)
Where has my behavior been boorish?
See above.
Yawn!
Do you need me to find you a yawning smiley? 😀
My use of ‘moved’ in, ‘For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth…’does not imply, nor should be taken to imply, that I consider continental drift to have stopped. Please consider the context of my words.
My point was to hopefully draw attention to the fact that climate change due to the shifting of land masses may be ongoing. If it was happening before, it may still be ongoing now. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, the short answer seemed fine to me, but then again I knew what I was on about.
What you are failing to appreciate is that the last graph that you presented covers a period which is a subset of the first so trying to compare the two is like comparing apples with oranges – one gets confused. And you are.
No. The point is to illustrate that taking the entire data set as the norm is not an accurate representation of what is going on, as evidenced by a completely different trend in the last period than you get if you just look at the entire set.
As for the Telegraph report on this then it is somewhat more rounded than the Times/Fox version.
Well at least that’s a start then.
Now, notwithstanding your other remarks which are pointless to debate point by point until you have done more background reading.
Oh, so I need to investigate your side of the story but you don’t need to look at mine? What’s the point of this entire debate then?
SOCLet us imagine what the F-111 and YF-12 represented, first these aircraft were aircraft that relied on long range missiles, now i want to ask you a question can the AIM-54 and AIM-47 kill fighters? the answer is yes, they can and basicly these two aircraft and specially the F-111B would had to meddle with enemy fighters simply because the US navy fighters are the spear head of any US offensive or defensive military reponse.
The F-12B was NEVER GOING TO ENCOUNTER FIGHTERS. How many fighters did the F-101B or F-106 encounter during ADC serivce? The F-111B was purely a fleet defense interceptor and did not have the ability to fire any AAM other than the AIM-54 at the time it was cancelled. These two aircraft were NOT INTENDED FOR FIGHTER-FIGHTER COMBAT.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
Of course you are hiding a very important factor, the Navy did not want a fighter that in reality was a bomber that is the reason they designed the F-14.
They certainly tried real hard to get it to work for a while. The only reason the F-111B even existed at all was due to the commonality fetishes of McNamara. And at that time they didn’t want a fighter AT ALL, they wanted the Fleet Defense interceptor to replace the Missileer.
[in fact the F-111 has the F and not the B of bomber and it is not called B-111, the F-111B was Armed with six Hughes AIM-54A Phoenix air-to-air missiles, four underneath the wings and two inside the fuselage weapons bay. In addition, a 20-mm M61A1 cannon could be fitted
And the F-117A “has the F and not the B of bomber” as well, where is it’s air to air weapons package? The F-105 “has the F and not the B of bomber” as well, and it was designed as a nuclear strike aircraft. That is an absurdly stupid point to use in your argument.
The F-111B was originally conceived as more than just a fleet air defense interceptor, which is where the cannon pod carriage comes from.
The idea of a VFAX multirole fighter was conceived during the early sixties, this aircraft was to replace the F-4 and A-7 in the air superiority and strike roles. The collapse of the F-111B program however left the Navy without a fleet defence missile platform, as a result the VFAX acquired the F-111B’s massive AWG-9 fire control system and payload of associated AIM-54 Phoenix SARH/ARH AAMs.
Irrelevant.
[In fact the reason the US navy cancelled the F-111B is because Grumman was ordered by the US Navy to study the F-111B combat capabilities against the new MiG-23 and MiG-25 and the conclusion was it would not had stand a chance against them, and it was inferior in dogfights, this helped Boyd`s theories
The F-111B was cancelled because it was overweight, underpowered, and because the prospects of a new aircraft looked better and better all the time, as Grumman had been looking at alternatives. The F-111B was never intended to be a fighter at any rate, and as such was not designed for nor was intended to be in dogfights; the USN had the F-4 for that, the F-111B being intended to mount patrols and take out inbound targets, specifically AS-4 type weapons and their launchers, at long range.
[the revelation of new Soviet fighters at the Moscow Air Show in July 1967. The existence of new generation Russian fighters, combined with the renewed appreciation for the importance of maneuverability and dogfighting gained from air combat experience over Vietnam, led the Navy to argue convincingly for the need for a specialized Navy fighter optimized for carrier-based fleet air defense. The Navy soon awarded a contract to Grumman for a study evaluating the F-111B’s capabilities in combatagainst the new Soviet fighters. In October, Grumman reported that the F-111B would not be able to cope with the new Russian fighters in a dogfight. More importantly, Grumman submitted an unsolicited design proposal, based on company design studies under way since 1966, for a totally new fighter that could meet the Navy’s fleet air defense needs. Shortly thereafter, two other historic Navy fighter developers LTV (Vought) and McDonnell-Douglas also submitted design proposals, as did a seasoned Air Force fighter developer, North American Rockwell. All these companies, with the exception of LTV,were also active participants in the Air Force F-X design studies. At around the same time, the Navy informed General Dynamics that the F-111B did not meet requirements and initiated a new study of alternatives.The Navy campaign to cancel the F-111B and develop its own fighter gainedmomentum at the end of 1967 when OSD appointed the Air Force as the executive agent for the development of a single new engine for a joint F-X/VFAX. By this time, both the Navy and Air Force were fully committed to developing their own fighters uncompromised by mission requirements from the other service, and the Navy now saw the Air Force as getting the upper hand in the OSD-supported F-X/VFAX program. The Navy campaign finally succeeded sixmonths later in July 1968 when Congress agreed to terminate the F-111B program. That same month, the Navy sent out RFPs to industry for a new VFXfighter, developed solely under Navy auspices and optimized for the fleet air defense mission. In addition to Grumman, North American, LTV, and McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics also submitted design proposals.As noted earlier, by late 1967 when Navy officials had ratcheted up their campaign to cancel the F-111B, the lighter, more maneuverable Blue Bird F-X hadgained widespread acceptance in the Air Force. At this time, however, Boyd, Sprey, and other members of the Fighter Mafia intensified their efforts to influence the F-X configuration toward an even smaller, less complicated, moremaneuverable LWF. By the spring of 1968, they had formulated a new “RedBird” F-X concept, which called for a lower-cost, even lighter fighter with lower However, Grumman proposed retention of a swing-wing design and many F-111B systems.
That “specialized navy fighter” was to have been the VFAX. Not the F-111B; VFAX initially did not have the Fleet Defense interceptor role attached to it.
SOCI see your point, but in the 60s the technology was not at hand. An engine-system capable to go Mach 3 or cruise at subsonic was not in sight.
If I am correct in assuming that you are looking for a 1960’s engine capable of Mach 3 cruise and efficient subsonic cruise, then you have obviously ignored the J-93…
SOCSOC
The F-111 and YF-12 are early 1960s aircraft
OK.
in fact when they made their respective first flights the4 Soviets did not have any MiG-23 or MiG-25
I think the YF-111A’s first flight was a few months after that of the Ye-166, for the record.
the USAF was fighting MiG-21s and MiG-17 in Vietnam
Yeah, we started sending combat troops in more than just an advisory role in 1965. The F-12 and F-111 had already flown by then, so how exactly were MiG engagements in Vietnam having any bearing whatsoever on their design.
Oh wait, they didn’t, as neither aircraft was ever intended to get into a turning fight with anything. They were pure interceptors outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts as they dealt with mission types that he was not talking about.
the F-111 was considered a fighter bomber and an Inteceptor
It was a USAF low-level strike fighter, and a USN interceptor.
both the YF-12 and F-111 represented the concept where a manned high flying fast flying aircraft armed with long range missiles would have been a real success killing targets at long distance
The F-111A et. al. was intended to penetrate Soviet airspace at high speed and LOW level. The F-111B wasn’t intended to speed around at Mach 2.5 all the time; the high-speed was a by-product of some of the USAF’s requirements. It would have mounted CAPs and conducted intercepts of inbound weapons like the AS-4. Where you are getting the idea that the F-111B was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor in the vein of the F-12B is beyond me, but you are dead wrong. In fact, the concept for the naval interceptor was to provide a platform with long loiter capability (there goes your high-speed argument) and longer-range weapons than were available on the F-4.
Hell, USAF F-111’s didn’t even get a self-defense AIM-9 capability until the early 1980’s. Prior to that, it was a 100% pure strike aircraft, so explain to me just what Boyd’s ACM tactics and doctrine would have had to do with a strike aircraft that had no air to air capability anyway.
the F-4 has the same philosophy
No, it doesn’t.
however when the USAF started seeing the need for a dedicated fighter, the unreliability of guided missiles at the time and scalating cost were menacing both programs that the USAF changed its policies and the F-15 was borned
Which again has absolutely not a single thing to do with the Navy’s F-111B, as the USAF’s F-111A (etc) was not an aerial combat machine, but a tactical low-level strike aircraft.
And it also had not a thing to do with the F-12B, as that was not an aerial combat machine either, but a straight-line interceptor for strategic air defense.
If the idea of a fast aircraft armed with missiles would had not been replaced by Boyd`s theories and the F-111 and YF-12 would had ended as fighters as planned i can assure you
No they wouldn’t. By that logic the interceptor which ended up filling the F-12B’s role, the F-106A, would have ended up as a fighter. It didn’t, it remained a bomber interceptor its entire career.
they would had fought as the F-4 did, yeah as medium range and short range dogfighters, however science and technology defeated politics
Get real, there is absolutely no way that either the F-12B or the F-111 were ever going to be used as dogfighters. There were other programs and other aircraft for those tasks, the F-111B and F-12B programs had absolutely and unequivocally nothing to do with them. The F-15 for example was spawned out of a requirement to counter the MiG-25, which was believed to be a maneuverable air superiority aircraft, not as part of the TFX program (the F-111). It was the result of the FX program.
You need to actually figure out what Boyd is talking about before you come back with more untruths and unsubstantiated statements.
And for the record, there is a book available on the F-111B that details the TFX program, the F-111B program, and the design and nature of the F-111B itself.
SOCTo question your use of sarcasm, when your arguments are patently based upon little study and ignorance is not an insult. Neither is my stating that your point of view seems based on shaky foundations, or that you appear confused, insulting your intelligence.
I wasn’t referring to you, you’re not the person to whom my sarcastic reply was directed. And at any rate what is wrong with the concept of an orderly, civil debate? I was willing, and then I was chastized for not toeing the acceptable party line. Believe whatever you want to, but recall that I have the right to do the same without being the target of inappropriate or uncalled-for criticism. So on that note:
:rolleyes:
For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth
Just an FYI, they are still moving.
Of course I realise that. And the connection between The Times and Fox is ….? Supply the missing name, hint: begins with R.
Fine, here’s the same story posted by a British news source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml
Happy now? It seems to me like you don’t want to accept the data that is being presented, which, if you had even bothered to read the article, NASA climatologists have admitted is accurate as they have admitted there was a flaw in their system. Are you more credible than NASA climatologists?
Sorry but the diagrams alluded to do not cover a period since 1990. I have entered parameters in the input dialogue to find one for that period and all it proves is that climate is shifting with an upward trend in many places. How you can deduce anything else given your first example is open to question.
You didn’t notice the areas of higher-than-average temperature have greatly subsided in the last graph when compared to the first?
To be sure with a complex topic such as this, just as with evolution, there are many undecideds. What should not be in dispute, for both topics, is that the basics are now understood enough for us to build testable models WRT climate change and these are used both to predict future and to confirm past climate trends. What is happening is that these models are becoming ever more accurate.
And I never said I disagreed with the fact that the climate is changing, did I.
Here’s a few more interesting facts:
-The snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is receeding despite decades of cooling in Kenya, due to both regional land use and atmospheric moisture changes. Doesn’t fit the snow/ice/glaciers are receeding, because the Earth is warming theory.
-Sea levels were rising well before the current warming trend in the latter half of the 20th Century began.
-There were hundreds of temperature monitoring stations, many of them in Siberian Russia, which were shut down in the early 1990’s. What do you think that’s going to do to the data set collected thereafter? Here’s the answer: LINK
-December 1, 1997, The Heartland Institute, “Study says scientific consensus on global warming treaty is just hot air: “An analysis carried out by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) shows that fully 90 percent of the ‘scientists’ who have signed a letter frequently cited by Clinton-Gore administration officials as evidence of scientific consensus on global warming are not qualified to be called experts on the issue. The letter, circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action, offers the names of some 2,600 alleged experts on climate change-only one of whom is, in fact, a climatologist…among these so-called experts on global warming are a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven linguists, and even one person whose academic background is in traditional Chinese medicine.”
-According to the UN’s panel for climate change, the CO2 levels in the Northern and Southern hemispheres are nearly identical. Yet, the temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are projected to be 1 degree warmer in 2179.
-The Vostok Ice Core showed that temperature levels at the end of the Eemian period were at their lowest, before the high CO2 levels ever began to subside.
-What’s wrong with blindly accepting the Milankovitch theory (which is an amusing theory as it asserts that extraterrestrial forces can affect climate change, yet if you use the phrase solar cycle you get chastized): LINK
That’s all for the moment.
SOCTo question your use of sarcasm, when your arguments are patently based upon little study and ignorance is not an insult. Neither is my stating that your point of view seems based on shaky foundations, or that you appear confused, insulting your intelligence.
I wasn’t referring to you, you’re not the person to whom my sarcastic reply was directed. And at any rate what is wrong with the concept of an orderly, civil debate? I was willing, and then I was chastized for not toeing the acceptable party line. Believe whatever you want to, but recall that I have the right to do the same without being the target of inappropriate or uncalled-for criticism. So on that note:
:rolleyes:
For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth
Just an FYI, they are still moving.
Of course I realise that. And the connection between The Times and Fox is ….? Supply the missing name, hint: begins with R.
Fine, here’s the same story posted by a British news source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml
Happy now? It seems to me like you don’t want to accept the data that is being presented, which, if you had even bothered to read the article, NASA climatologists have admitted is accurate as they have admitted there was a flaw in their system. Are you more credible than NASA climatologists?
Sorry but the diagrams alluded to do not cover a period since 1990. I have entered parameters in the input dialogue to find one for that period and all it proves is that climate is shifting with an upward trend in many places. How you can deduce anything else given your first example is open to question.
You didn’t notice the areas of higher-than-average temperature have greatly subsided in the last graph when compared to the first?
To be sure with a complex topic such as this, just as with evolution, there are many undecideds. What should not be in dispute, for both topics, is that the basics are now understood enough for us to build testable models WRT climate change and these are used both to predict future and to confirm past climate trends. What is happening is that these models are becoming ever more accurate.
And I never said I disagreed with the fact that the climate is changing, did I.
Here’s a few more interesting facts:
-The snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is receeding despite decades of cooling in Kenya, due to both regional land use and atmospheric moisture changes. Doesn’t fit the snow/ice/glaciers are receeding, because the Earth is warming theory.
-Sea levels were rising well before the current warming trend in the latter half of the 20th Century began.
-There were hundreds of temperature monitoring stations, many of them in Siberian Russia, which were shut down in the early 1990’s. What do you think that’s going to do to the data set collected thereafter? Here’s the answer: LINK
-December 1, 1997, The Heartland Institute, “Study says scientific consensus on global warming treaty is just hot air: “An analysis carried out by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) shows that fully 90 percent of the ‘scientists’ who have signed a letter frequently cited by Clinton-Gore administration officials as evidence of scientific consensus on global warming are not qualified to be called experts on the issue. The letter, circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action, offers the names of some 2,600 alleged experts on climate change-only one of whom is, in fact, a climatologist…among these so-called experts on global warming are a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven linguists, and even one person whose academic background is in traditional Chinese medicine.”
-According to the UN’s panel for climate change, the CO2 levels in the Northern and Southern hemispheres are nearly identical. Yet, the temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are projected to be 1 degree warmer in 2179.
-The Vostok Ice Core showed that temperature levels at the end of the Eemian period were at their lowest, before the high CO2 levels ever began to subside.
-What’s wrong with blindly accepting the Milankovitch theory (which is an amusing theory as it asserts that extraterrestrial forces can affect climate change, yet if you use the phrase solar cycle you get chastized): LINK
That’s all for the moment.
SOCBoyd was against aircraft like the F-111B and the YF-12, Why? simple Boyd was a voice in the desert claiming a light fighter like the F-16 was what the USAF needed
The key word there is USAF…the F-111B was a USN aircraft. Also the F-12B would have technically been an Air Defense Command interceptor. Again, not a fighter, and not what Boyd was talking about.
Mc Namara was the political and technological trend behind the YF-12 and the F-111, this was in part a by product of rising costs and improved electronics.
McNamara CANCELLED the F-12B.
The whole idea behind the F-111 was a fast aircraft according to what the USAF tacticians thought (see the that the F-111 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft) the F-111B armed with AIM-54 would had been a real menace to the short range MiG-21s armed with short range AAMs AA-2 Atolls,
The F-111B wasn’t intended to mix it up with MiG-21s. It was a pure fleet defense interceptor, a follow-on to the Missileer project. Nobody intended to use that thing to dogfight, and if anything the USN did learn a few things and made the F-14 a far more maneuverable aircraft than the F-111B, incorporating weapons like the AIM-9 and the AIM-7, and an internal cannon, that to my knowledge the F-111B was never going to handle as it was strictly an interceptor.
the Russians knew it they designed a similar aircraft the MiG-25 and the Sukhoi T-4, the Mach 3 barrier was a concept that aircraft engineers thought was going to be the next barrier to break, enters the YF-12 and the F-107 Rapier,
Irrelevant.
however the Firefox design concept in the 1960s was unachieveable why? well thirsty engines and rising costs were one reason and the other were SAMs and ICBMs.
ICBMs and SAMs had absolutely nothing to do with the F-12B program. It wasn’t a nuclear bomber, and it wasn’t going to ever come near a SAM, except for a NORAD BOMARC.
Boyd`s ideas are not coincidence, are practical solutions to the uncapability of building cheap mach 3 fighters with excellent agility, a SAM kill fast aircraft even a SR-71 and the MiG-25 and MiG-31 can also do it.
You are correct here, a very fast aircraft moving at speed is by definition not going ot be maneuverable in that flight regime. I think the turn radius of the F-12 was around 80 miles at Mach 3. But that is completely irrelevant as the F-12B was to have one purpose: to serve as the new interceptor replacing the F-101B/F-102/F-106. None of which were ever intended for use in normal air combat, the asinine experiment with the F-102 over Vietnam notwithstanding.
If the americans never lost one is simply they never really put the SR-71 in such chance and they retired them when the MiG-31s and S-300 appeared on the scene.
Wrong. The S-300PT was accepted for service in 1979, and the MiG-31 was in the early 1980s. The Blackbird was retired in 1990. And there have been multiple occasions where MiG-25s or MiG-31s were scrambled to approach SR-71s. The Blackbirds didn’t turn back, and on at least one ocassion a MiG-31 got within visual range of the aircraft even.
however an F-16 can kill a MiG-25 with AIM-120, a fast aircraft is not a good dog fighter good and mediun range AAMs can kill an slugish MiG-25.
And?
try to think what would had happened if the F-111 and YF-12 would had been the 1970s USAF fighters and the F-15 and F-16 would not had enter production
They wouldn’t have been the USAF fighters. The F-111B was a USN-only project, and the F-12B was going to be a 93-aircraft fleet to serve as an interceptor, not a tactical fighter. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Outcome:if the MiG-23 would had had fought the F-111 over the bekka Valley or over the Sidra Gulf the MiG-23s would had ruled over the F-111s even armed with AIM-54s specially in dogfights reasons the Max overload in a F-111 is 6Gs, has practically no rear view vision and would had relied in ambush attacks limiting practically any success at medium or short range combat
Totally irrelevant, as the F-111B wouldn’t have been dogfighting with anything.
outcome over the gulf war: the YF-12 would had been outnumbered by the MiG-25s even otclassed in dogfights, reason well the YF-12 would had turned worst than any known fighter, limited numbers would had been available
Totally irrelevant, as the F-12B wouldn;t have been deployed outside NORAD and certainly was never intended to dogfight with anything.
You need to take a step back and reexamine your train of thought here, you are getting all sorts of things confused.
SOCMan i am just saying that the USAF had different philosophies about what was the best fighter in the 1960s
Then why bring up the Navy’s F-111B?
the F-111 was supposed to be a long range killer armed with AIM-54s and at the same time a good attack aircraft similar to what the Panavia Tornado is, the F-111 showed that Boyd was right and Mc Namara wrong
The F-111 was a perfectly fine attack aircraft. It was the Navy who screwed up by making it too heavy with the Phoenix system, basically making it very nearly carrier incapable in the process.
The YF-12 also was another MiG-25 type concept a fast long range interceptor however the aircraft showed it would not had been very successful
Weapon system testing showed it would have been very successful as an interceptor in the role chosen for it.
the SR-71 is an aircraft not designed to clash with missiles having a turn radius of several dozen miles, the YF-12 would not had standed a chance as a fighter however as a fleeing SR-71 was a good option.
What missiles were Soviet bombers going to be firing at F-12s? It was never going to meet any fighters as it was not going to be a fighter itself. It was a pure interceptor, outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts.
Sign In
