Not very hot. It's pricey, but not too hot. Top speed is a sluggish Mach 1.2. The poor old F-102 of 50 years ago was that fast. Max altitude is 40,000 feet, again, not much. the U-2s of the 1950's could do 70,000 feet. Peak maneuver load is limited to 5.6 G. The long obsolete F-106 could pull 8 G back in the 1960's. Figures come from Aviation Week. Oh yeah, and the internal gun won't work until the next software upgrade, sometime in the future. And it can only handle two air to air missiles. The old F-106 carried five.
The F-35 people claim these restrictions will go away after the next software upgrade. They are currently flying software block 2B. Block 3F, promised sometime in the future, will at least make the gun work. The G limitation is caused by weakness in the engines. Pull more than 5.6 G and the engine flexes under the G load enough to let the compressor blades rub on the engine casing, with disastrous results, like engine fires.
And, to add insult to injury, the Russians have developed a new radar said to pick up F-35's despite the stealth design of the aircraft.
From the sounds of it, we might do better going back to the old Viet Nam war F-4 Phantom.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
Is this what killed top 40 radio?
According to this, the labels rammed thru a law that prohibits playing anything later than 1972 without paying copyright. If true, that accounts for hearing nothing but goldie oldies on the radio.
Which is why the CD business is going to pot. Used to be, air play drove record sales. The labels used to bribe DJ's to spin their singles. Payola it was called. Now that we have no airplay, we have no CD sales.
The entire music business would be better off going back to the old system, radio stations can play any thing over the air copy right free.
Sounds like the kinda idea a buncha suits would have.
Which is why the CD business is going to pot. Used to be, air play drove record sales. The labels used to bribe DJ's to spin their singles. Payola it was called. Now that we have no airplay, we have no CD sales.
The entire music business would be better off going back to the old system, radio stations can play any thing over the air copy right free.
Sounds like the kinda idea a buncha suits would have.
Legacy Weapons Systems
The Economist, at the end of a piece commenting upon Ashton Carter as new US defense secretary, said this. "To fund new weapons and technology Mr. Carter will need to axe legacy weapons systems (such as the A10 tankbusting aircraft). "
The A10 is old enough to be bought and paid for. It works. Should we desire to push the Russian tanks out of Ukraine, a couple of squadrons of A10's could do the job handily. Keeping the A10 flying is a bargain compared to the pricey, new, not-paid-for F35. The Air Force, run by a fighter pilot mafia, wants to dump the A10, largely because it is no match for a real jet fighter. They see themselves at the stick of an A10, and helpless against a MIG. The answer, is to create US air superiority over the battle field, and make sure the A10 squadrons have fighter escort. To be a good ground attack aircraft, the A10 has to fly low and slow so the pilot can see his targets and get close enough to hit them. You cannot fly between the trees and under power lines at Mach 2.
Plenty of potential US enemies have lots of tanks. Few of them have jet fighters that compete with ours.
The A10 is old enough to be bought and paid for. It works. Should we desire to push the Russian tanks out of Ukraine, a couple of squadrons of A10's could do the job handily. Keeping the A10 flying is a bargain compared to the pricey, new, not-paid-for F35. The Air Force, run by a fighter pilot mafia, wants to dump the A10, largely because it is no match for a real jet fighter. They see themselves at the stick of an A10, and helpless against a MIG. The answer, is to create US air superiority over the battle field, and make sure the A10 squadrons have fighter escort. To be a good ground attack aircraft, the A10 has to fly low and slow so the pilot can see his targets and get close enough to hit them. You cannot fly between the trees and under power lines at Mach 2.
Plenty of potential US enemies have lots of tanks. Few of them have jet fighters that compete with ours.
Cannon Mt Ski Weather. 8 Below this morning
Mountain is is fine shape. We got a sprinkling of new snow yesterday. Sun is out this morning, and it's COLD. Snow is forecast for the weekend.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
How do you combat a Littoral?
Beats me, but the US Navy has been messing around with something they call a "Littoral Combat Ship" for some years now. It's gotten beyond the paper study phase and we actually have two or three of them at sea right now. They are smallish surface vessels, with claims to awesome top speed, something in excess of 30 knots.
According to Aviation Week the Navy is not satisfied with the program so far and wants to redesigate the class as "frigates". That's an old and honorable name for a warship class, going way back into the days of sail. The name died out in the sail to steam conversion, the steam warships that picked up the sailing frigate duties were called cruisers. The name fell out of use in navies until WWII when it was applied to a new class of small anti submarine vessels. Since then frigate has meant a mini-destroyer. Looks like a destroyer but is smaller and cheaper.
The Littoral Combat Ship idea was born after a number of nasty confrontations with small fast missile boats in the Persian Gulf. The idea was a very fast ship that could run the pesky missile boats down and blow them out of the water. This works in the Persian Gulf where the water is calm and smooth enough to get up to speed. It does not work offshore where you have surf and swell. Trying to drive thru even moderate waves at 45 knots will smash the ship apart in a few minutes.
So, the Navy is talking about dropping the high speed requirement on the new Frigate/ex Littoral Combat Ship class. It reduces the size and weight of the engines, leaving more room on board for all the stuff every captain wants to have more of (rations, ammo, fuel, weapons, etc). Aviation Week speculates that the development of small very effective auto cannon systems has solved the missile boat problem. I doubt that. Was I skippering a Navy ship and the missile boats came after me, I'd order up my helicopter. Chopper is twice as fast as anything on water, and carries 5 inch rockets that will turn anything afloat into kindling wood.
The other discouraging thing in the Aviation Week article, is the total lack of any discussion of mission. What is the frigate/ex littoral combat ship supposed to do? Show the flag? Chase subs? Provide gunfire support to an amphibious landing? Missile aircraft? Escort carriers? Just be cheap enough so we can have a lot of 'em? Not a word about any of this.
According to Aviation Week the Navy is not satisfied with the program so far and wants to redesigate the class as "frigates". That's an old and honorable name for a warship class, going way back into the days of sail. The name died out in the sail to steam conversion, the steam warships that picked up the sailing frigate duties were called cruisers. The name fell out of use in navies until WWII when it was applied to a new class of small anti submarine vessels. Since then frigate has meant a mini-destroyer. Looks like a destroyer but is smaller and cheaper.
The Littoral Combat Ship idea was born after a number of nasty confrontations with small fast missile boats in the Persian Gulf. The idea was a very fast ship that could run the pesky missile boats down and blow them out of the water. This works in the Persian Gulf where the water is calm and smooth enough to get up to speed. It does not work offshore where you have surf and swell. Trying to drive thru even moderate waves at 45 knots will smash the ship apart in a few minutes.
So, the Navy is talking about dropping the high speed requirement on the new Frigate/ex Littoral Combat Ship class. It reduces the size and weight of the engines, leaving more room on board for all the stuff every captain wants to have more of (rations, ammo, fuel, weapons, etc). Aviation Week speculates that the development of small very effective auto cannon systems has solved the missile boat problem. I doubt that. Was I skippering a Navy ship and the missile boats came after me, I'd order up my helicopter. Chopper is twice as fast as anything on water, and carries 5 inch rockets that will turn anything afloat into kindling wood.
The other discouraging thing in the Aviation Week article, is the total lack of any discussion of mission. What is the frigate/ex littoral combat ship supposed to do? Show the flag? Chase subs? Provide gunfire support to an amphibious landing? Missile aircraft? Escort carriers? Just be cheap enough so we can have a lot of 'em? Not a word about any of this.
Internet is working fine
So why does Obama want to take it over? Lotta reasons come to mind, none of 'em good. The can squeeze "campaign contributions/bribes" out of internet providers. They can shut down talk that they don't like. They can raise rates and reduce service. They can reward their friends and punish their enemies. They can lay taxes on it. Crony capitalists love it.
The "net neutrality" argument the Administration uses is a smoke screen. Nobody knows what "net neutrality" actually means. So they can take over the Internet and do pretty much anything they like, and it's all for "net neutrality".
I'm positive that government takeover will raise my rates, degrade my service, and threaten me for stuff I post on my blog.
The "net neutrality" argument the Administration uses is a smoke screen. Nobody knows what "net neutrality" actually means. So they can take over the Internet and do pretty much anything they like, and it's all for "net neutrality".
I'm positive that government takeover will raise my rates, degrade my service, and threaten me for stuff I post on my blog.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
Obama wants one to deal with ISIS/ISIL/IS what ever you want to call them. It's the modern declaration of war, only it allows a lot of hedging, like no ground troops, quit fighting after 3 years. The good old fashioned declaration of war, like we used on the Japanese in 1941, doesn't allow hedging. Which was a good thing. War is so terrible, so costly, that you want to get it over with quickly. Which means hitting the enemy as hard as you can to knock him out as soon as possible. Diddling around just gets more people killed.
We ought to just declare war. If we can't bring ourselves to do that, then the AUMF ought to say "all means, including ground troops and nuclear weapons may be employed at the commander in chief's discretion. Military force will continue to be applied until victory is achieved."
And we need language to define the enemy. Otherwise ISIS/ISIL/IS just changes it's name again and the AUMF is useless. Something like "All armed groups in the Middle East and North Africa who are not part of a UN recognized government, and, any UN recognized governments that fails to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. "
Frankly, I think Obama wants restrictions in the AUMF, so he can blame Congress when he fails to win to war. Obama doesn't want to deal with Islamist extremists in the Middle East. He knows he has to do something lest he get impeached or loose all credibility with the voters. He hopes that having the Air Force put on a fire works display will satisfy his critics.
We ought to just declare war. If we can't bring ourselves to do that, then the AUMF ought to say "all means, including ground troops and nuclear weapons may be employed at the commander in chief's discretion. Military force will continue to be applied until victory is achieved."
And we need language to define the enemy. Otherwise ISIS/ISIL/IS just changes it's name again and the AUMF is useless. Something like "All armed groups in the Middle East and North Africa who are not part of a UN recognized government, and, any UN recognized governments that fails to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. "
Frankly, I think Obama wants restrictions in the AUMF, so he can blame Congress when he fails to win to war. Obama doesn't want to deal with Islamist extremists in the Middle East. He knows he has to do something lest he get impeached or loose all credibility with the voters. He hopes that having the Air Force put on a fire works display will satisfy his critics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)