Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.

That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.


The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.


In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)

Generally I found that the military is quite rational about what they
want. SAC wanted an intercontinental bomber that could bomb any target
in the world and the FB-111 couldn't do that, although the performance
of the airplane was, in some sense, really good - hands off flight
from Edwards AFB, in California, to Eglan AFB, in Florida, at
supersonic speed and 100 feet off the existing terrain.

The techno-weenies all have "feature creepism". It is why you
can't get "just a cellphone", software which just types up letters and
reports, cars without "onboard entertainment systems", fighter
aircraft which are optimized for that role, Windows 8, etc, etc.

The Air Force main mission is to fly aircraft any where they want
to go. Purpose designed aircraft - like the F-16, A-10, the B2 -
work. Trying to modify fighters so that they can also do CAS makes as
much sense as trying to modify the A-10 so that it can intercept
fighters.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:04:00 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l73IyO1Qdqo


The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/26/2014 12:57 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


For pete sake, guy.
That was Robert Mcnamara's doings.


Initially, the basic policies outlined by President Kennedy in a message
to Congress on March 28, 1961, guided McNamara in the reorientation of
the defense program. Kennedy rejected the concept of first-strike attack
and emphasized the need for adequate strategic arms and defense to deter
nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. U.S. arms, he
maintained, must constantly be under civilian command and control, and
the nation's defense posture had to be "designed to reduce the danger of
irrational or unpremeditated general war". The primary mission of U.S.
overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, was "to prevent the steady
erosion of the Free World through limited wars". Kennedy and McNamara
rejected massive retaliation for a posture of flexible response. The
U.S. wanted choices in an emergency other than "inglorious retreat or
unlimited retaliation", as the president put it. Out of a major review
of the military challenges confronting the U.S. initiated by McNamara in
1961 came a decision to increase the nation's "limited warfare"
capabilities. These moves were significant because McNamara was
abandoning President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive
retaliation in favor of a flexible response strategy that relied on
increased U.S. capacity to conduct limited, non-nuclear warfare.

....

During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in
South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from 900
to 16,000.[22] U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin
incidents in August 1964, involving an attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer
by North Vietnamese naval vessels.[25]

But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that
McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by
withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific
Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing
Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president’s
constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]
McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and
the public as justification for escalation of the war against the
communists. The Vietnam War came to claim most of McNamara's time and
energy.

....

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/25/2014 10:53 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:09:00 PM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
On 8/25/2014 8:11 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short


time ago.




I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go


around in circles and argue with you.




You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.




So plonk him, already!




The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to


reason with him.




David






+2 for David, Ed.


I doubt David R. Bitch can count that high.



Aw. come on jon.

Ya put the ball in the hoop, ya get the points.

If one had to be able to count as well, the game would be played
by considerably shorter people.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/25/2014 10:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:09:00 -0500,
wrote:

On 8/25/2014 8:11 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short
time ago.

I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go
around in circles and argue with you.

You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.

So plonk him, already!

The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to
reason with him.

David


+2 for David, Ed.


All right, all right. I'm not going to plonk him, but I will ignore
him as much as possible. I just don't want to miss it when his head
explodes. d8-)



LOL.
Really...





  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/25/2014 10:48 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 6:11:15 PM UTC-7, David R. Birch wrote:
On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short

time ago.



I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go


around in circles and argue with you.




You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.




So plonk him, already!



The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to

reason with him.



David


Thank goodness I and others shut David R. Bitch up with his bull**** on Solidworks. He hasn't said a word about SolidWorks since. David R. Bitch has no clue how to use SolidWorks.




Yeah, well, neither do I...
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:04:00 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l73IyO1Qdqo


The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ


Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong. Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:57:57
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.


The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.


In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


Point taken and I will admit, my main point: The Army - or the
Navy - no longer makes their own stuff, so they have to go through the
Civilians to get it made. And the civilians over in the DOD get
enamored of the nifty neato. While the Army knows it is going to have
to use this thing in less than optimal conditions.

Generally I found that the military is quite rational about what they
want. SAC wanted an intercontinental bomber that could bomb any target
in the world and the FB-111 couldn't do that, although the performance
of the airplane was, in some sense, really good - hands off flight
from Edwards AFB, in California, to Eglan AFB, in Florida, at
supersonic speed and 100 feet off the existing terrain.


Very useful; if you wanted to bomb Florida from a base in
California.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:04:00 PM UTC-7, jon_banquer wrote:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l73IyO1Qdqo




The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ




Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong. Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.



Sorry but I could not agree less.

Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and make decisions.

The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never really wanted it.

The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.



  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:07:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:


The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ


Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that
much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong.
Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.


Sorry but I could not agree less.

Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe
what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to
understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and
why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and
make decisions.

The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never
really wanted it.

The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.


Yeah, but the idea is still that what's being shot at the A-10 at the end of the Vietnam war (when it came into service) like projectiles moving at Mach 5 or so is not the best of what it has to face now (stuff like laser beams that can melt/blast/vaporize to hell stuff at over 60 miles away - possible from several modern industrialized nations).

Don't believe me? Lets look at the never-ending conflict on the Israeli border. Do you realize what the Israeli military is using when the say the phrase "iron dome" ?? Jon, there is also use of a computer controlled .3006 inch, 7.62mm mini-gun like ground-to-air assembly that can not only shoot down enemy in-coming rockets, mortars, cannon-shells, etc..., but has also suceeded in shooting down OTHER 7.62 millimeter rounds.

Can you believe that? A computer that can shoot another bullet down with the same type of bullet? Its also backed up with ground-to-air missiles and computer controlled laser technology. Its possible to shoot down an armored ballistic missile at over 60 miles away - I mean vaporize it, with it moving at speeds of over Mach 10.

Now. With stuff like that, you couldn't even FIND the leftover debris of a lumbering 300mph 1970's era A-10.

That's why the Air Force is backing away from this thing and replacing it and the Harrier Jump Jet with the F-35.

It carries just as much firepower, but it can land vertically making radar detection by stuff like this tougher. It can rise back up into the air and attack almost like a helicopter against this kind of stuff.

A-10s need too much room to land and take back off for that.

(its just a matter of physics - but the A-10 Thunderbolt II has to go. Sorry)


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:02:42 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 12:57 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


For pete sake, guy.
That was Robert Mcnamara's doings.


Initially, the basic policies outlined by President Kennedy in a message
to Congress on March 28, 1961, guided McNamara in the reorientation of
the defense program. Kennedy rejected the concept of first-strike attack
and emphasized the need for adequate strategic arms and defense to deter
nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. U.S. arms, he
maintained, must constantly be under civilian command and control, and
the nation's defense posture had to be "designed to reduce the danger of
irrational or unpremeditated general war". The primary mission of U.S.
overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, was "to prevent the steady
erosion of the Free World through limited wars". Kennedy and McNamara
rejected massive retaliation for a posture of flexible response. The
U.S. wanted choices in an emergency other than "inglorious retreat or
unlimited retaliation", as the president put it. Out of a major review
of the military challenges confronting the U.S. initiated by McNamara in
1961 came a decision to increase the nation's "limited warfare"
capabilities. These moves were significant because McNamara was
abandoning President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive
retaliation in favor of a flexible response strategy that relied on
increased U.S. capacity to conduct limited, non-nuclear warfare.

...

During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in
South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from 900
to 16,000.[22] U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin
incidents in August 1964, involving an attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer
by North Vietnamese naval vessels.[25]

But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that
McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by
withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific
Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing
Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president’s
constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]
McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and
the public as justification for escalation of the war against the
communists. The Vietnam War came to claim most of McNamara's time and
energy.

...

Everybody needs a hobby.

McNamara's was killing American kids.


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:07:12 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/25/2014 10:48 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 6:11:15 PM UTC-7, David R. Birch wrote:
On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short

time ago.



I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go

around in circles and argue with you.



You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.



So plonk him, already!



The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to

reason with him.



David


Thank goodness I and others shut David R. Bitch up with his bull**** on Solidworks. He hasn't said a word about SolidWorks since. David R. Bitch has no clue how to use SolidWorks.




Yeah, well, neither do I...


Neither does JonBoi


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/26/2014 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the world
that had the capability.



And that has to be the scariest roller-coaster ride ever made.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/26/2014 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in
South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from 900
to 16,000.[22] U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin
incidents in August 1964, involving an attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer
by North Vietnamese naval vessels.[25]

But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that
McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by
withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific
Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing
Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president’s
constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]
McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and
the public as justification for escalation of the war against the
communists. The Vietnam War came to claim most of McNamara's time and
energy.

...


Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)


Yup. And still is...


But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.


Yup, and still is...
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:07:12 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
On 8/25/2014 10:48 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

On Monday, August 25, 2014 6:11:15 PM UTC-7, David R. Birch wrote:


On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:




ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short




time ago.








I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go




around in circles and argue with you.








You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.








So plonk him, already!








The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to




reason with him.








David




Thank goodness I and others shut David R. Bitch up with his bull**** on Solidworks. He hasn't said a word about SolidWorks since. David R. Bitch has no clue how to use SolidWorks.










Yeah, well, neither do I...


I seriously doubt you would make the dumb mistakes and complaints David R. Bitch made about SolidWorks.

David R. Bitch is as clueless as they come even after receiving expensive SolidWorks dealer training.

I and several others couldn't believe the bull**** David R. Bitch posted and we corrected him on it.





  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:05:04 PM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:07:12 -0500, Richard

wrote:



On 8/25/2014 10:48 PM, jon_banquer wrote:


On Monday, August 25, 2014 6:11:15 PM UTC-7, David R. Birch wrote:


On 8/25/2014 7:53 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:




ll****. Slow Eddy lied when he said he put me in his killfile a short




time ago.








I never said you were in my killfile. I just said I wasn't going to go




around in circles and argue with you.








You're a childish, insulting idiot, Jon. That's the bottom line.








So plonk him, already!








The only time I see his drivel is when others waste their time trying to




reason with him.








David




Thank goodness I and others shut David R. Bitch up with his bull**** on Solidworks. He hasn't said a word about SolidWorks since. David R. Bitch has no clue how to use SolidWorks.










Yeah, well, neither do I...




Neither does JonBoi





"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,

miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,

demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.

Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

PJ O'Rourke




Perhaps liar Mark Wieber can explain why SolidWorks founders have endorsed my SolidWorks skills. It's right there on my LinkedIn profile page.

Does Mark Wieber ever stop lying?

  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:18:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:07:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:




On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:




The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ




Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that


much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong.


Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.




Sorry but I could not agree less.




Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe


what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to


understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and


why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and


make decisions.




The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never


really wanted it.




The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.




Yeah, but the idea is still that what's being shot at the A-10 at the end of the Vietnam war (when it came into service) like projectiles moving at Mach 5 or so is not the best of what it has to face now (stuff like laser beams that can melt/blast/vaporize to hell stuff at over 60 miles away - possible from several modern industrialized nations).



Don't believe me? Lets look at the never-ending conflict on the Israeli border. Do you realize what the Israeli military is using when the say the phrase "iron dome" ?? Jon, there is also use of a computer controlled .3006 inch, 7.62mm mini-gun like ground-to-air assembly that can not only shoot down enemy in-coming rockets, mortars, cannon-shells, etc..., but has also suceeded in shooting down OTHER 7.62 millimeter rounds.



Can you believe that? A computer that can shoot another bullet down with the same type of bullet? Its also backed up with ground-to-air missiles and computer controlled laser technology. Its possible to shoot down an armored ballistic missile at over 60 miles away - I mean vaporize it, with it moving at speeds of over Mach 10.



Now. With stuff like that, you couldn't even FIND the leftover debris of a lumbering 300mph 1970's era A-10.



That's why the Air Force is backing away from this thing and replacing it and the Harrier Jump Jet with the F-35.



It carries just as much firepower, but it can land vertically making radar detection by stuff like this tougher. It can rise back up into the air and attack almost like a helicopter against this kind of stuff.



A-10s need too much room to land and take back off for that.



(its just a matter of physics - but the A-10 Thunderbolt II has to go. Sorry)


The F35 is a lemon.

Stealth doesn't work.

I've already posted proof of both. I can post more.
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:43:04 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:57:57
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.

The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.


In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


Point taken and I will admit, my main point: The Army - or the
Navy - no longer makes their own stuff, so they have to go through the
Civilians to get it made. And the civilians over in the DOD get
enamored of the nifty neato. While the Army knows it is going to have
to use this thing in less than optimal conditions.


I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-) But the
concept of "cost effective" seems to make pretty good sense, although
as a friend who was EWO on a B-52 said, "It certainly doesn't give one
much confidence, going to war in a device that was built by the low
bidder"

Generally I found that the military is quite rational about what they
want. SAC wanted an intercontinental bomber that could bomb any target
in the world and the FB-111 couldn't do that, although the performance
of the airplane was, in some sense, really good - hands off flight
from Edwards AFB, in California, to Eglan AFB, in Florida, at
supersonic speed and 100 feet off the existing terrain.


Very useful; if you wanted to bomb Florida from a base in
California.
--


It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the world
that had the capability.

pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:02:42 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 12:57 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


For pete sake, guy.
That was Robert Mcnamara's doings.


Initially, the basic policies outlined by President Kennedy in a message
to Congress on March 28, 1961, guided McNamara in the reorientation of
the defense program. Kennedy rejected the concept of first-strike attack
and emphasized the need for adequate strategic arms and defense to deter
nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. U.S. arms, he
maintained, must constantly be under civilian command and control, and
the nation's defense posture had to be "designed to reduce the danger of
irrational or unpremeditated general war". The primary mission of U.S.
overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, was "to prevent the steady
erosion of the Free World through limited wars". Kennedy and McNamara
rejected massive retaliation for a posture of flexible response. The
U.S. wanted choices in an emergency other than "inglorious retreat or
unlimited retaliation", as the president put it. Out of a major review
of the military challenges confronting the U.S. initiated by McNamara in
1961 came a decision to increase the nation's "limited warfare"
capabilities. These moves were significant because McNamara was
abandoning President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive
retaliation in favor of a flexible response strategy that relied on
increased U.S. capacity to conduct limited, non-nuclear warfare.

...

During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in
South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from 900
to 16,000.[22] U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin
incidents in August 1964, involving an attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer
by North Vietnamese naval vessels.[25]

But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that
McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by
withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific
Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing
Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president’s
constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]
McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and
the public as justification for escalation of the war against the
communists. The Vietnam War came to claim most of McNamara's time and
energy.

...


Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:43:04 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:57:57
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.

The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


Point taken and I will admit, my main point: The Army - or the
Navy - no longer makes their own stuff, so they have to go through the
Civilians to get it made. And the civilians over in the DOD get
enamored of the nifty neato. While the Army knows it is going to have
to use this thing in less than optimal conditions.

I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)


Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


But the
concept of "cost effective" seems to make pretty good sense, although
as a friend who was EWO on a B-52 said, "It certainly doesn't give one
much confidence, going to war in a device that was built by the low
bidder"

Generally I found that the military is quite rational about what they
want. SAC wanted an intercontinental bomber that could bomb any target
in the world and the FB-111 couldn't do that, although the performance
of the airplane was, in some sense, really good - hands off flight
from Edwards AFB, in California, to Eglan AFB, in Florida, at
supersonic speed and 100 feet off the existing terrain.


Very useful; if you wanted to bomb Florida from a base in
California.
--


It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the world
that had the capability.

pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.


The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:43:04 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:57:57
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.

The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)

Point taken and I will admit, my main point: The Army - or the
Navy - no longer makes their own stuff, so they have to go through the
Civilians to get it made. And the civilians over in the DOD get
enamored of the nifty neato. While the Army knows it is going to have
to use this thing in less than optimal conditions.

I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)


Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:27:26 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the world
that had the capability.



And that has to be the scariest roller-coaster ride ever made.


It was quite an accomplishment at the time and the Detachment
Commander had the A.C. give a little talk about the ride. I remember
him saying that when approaching the Rocky Mountains at Mach 1+ and
100 feet up in the air it was damned hard to keep his hands off the
controls and rely on the autopilot to pitch up at the right time :-)

Shortly after this flight there was a big mod carried out on the
terrain following radar and autopilot as it worked too well and pulled
too many G's on pitch up so the system was modified to pitch up much
earlier and more gently.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:43:04 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:57:57
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.

The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)

Point taken and I will admit, my main point: The Army - or the
Navy - no longer makes their own stuff, so they have to go through the
Civilians to get it made. And the civilians over in the DOD get
enamored of the nifty neato. While the Army knows it is going to have
to use this thing in less than optimal conditions.

I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)


Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Did "Navy Yards" build ships? I thought that all navy vessels were
built under contract. Portsmouth Navy Yard, in New Hampshire didn't
built ships but did do maintenance. The U.S. Army Arsenals may have
made small arms but certainly never in the necessary quantities to
support a war. Or, at least in every war since the Revolution the Army
has obtained small arms from outside sources.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to
McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the
ship and thus responsible for everything that happened. The lying,
cheating, back-biting and stealing that went on there between the
various branches of the military and governmental and non-governmental
organizations was amazing.


The Air Force's number one enemy was the Navy Aviation. The
commies came in after the number two enemy - Army Aviation.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


If you were referring to Vietnam I can't even remember the Navy's A.F.
being mentioned when I was there, but there was considerable friction
with the Army over the helicopters. Apparently there was some sort of
agreement that the Army was supposed to be the only force with armed
helicopters and when we built a couple with miniguns the Army
complained to MACV. The A.F. argued that they were for "Base Defense"
and got to keep them.
--
Cheers,

John B.



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Did "Navy Yards" build ships? I thought that all navy vessels were
built under contract. Portsmouth Navy Yard, in New Hampshire didn't
built ships but did do maintenance. The U.S. Army Arsenals may have
made small arms but certainly never in the necessary quantities to
support a war. Or, at least in every war since the Revolution the
Army
has obtained small arms from outside sources.
--
Cheers,
John B.


The Portsmouth Navy Yard most certainly DID build submarines until
1969, in 1958 I watched the Growler slide out of the construction shed
and into the river, drenching us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Naval_Shipyard
Afterwards I toured a Diesel boat and decided not to join the Navy.
Now they only refurbish them at dockside. On their 200th anniversary
Open House I walked through the boomer USS Maine.

The Army made service rifles at the Springfield Armory until McNamara
closed it.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/index.htm

The government armories weren't large enough to quickly supply an
all-out war because officially our peacetime policies prevented the
next one.

-jsw


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:27:26 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the
world
that had the capability.



And that has to be the scariest roller-coaster ride ever made.


It was quite an accomplishment at the time and the Detachment
Commander had the A.C. give a little talk about the ride. I remember
him saying that when approaching the Rocky Mountains at Mach 1+ and
100 feet up in the air it was damned hard to keep his hands off the
controls and rely on the autopilot to pitch up at the right time :-)

Shortly after this flight there was a big mod carried out on the
terrain following radar and autopilot as it worked too well and
pulled
too many G's on pitch up so the system was modified to pitch up much
earlier and more gently.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Ddn't they make it look further ahead instead of climbing over every
boulder?



  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,025
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)


Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.

--
Let no man imagine that he has no influence. Whoever he may be, and
wherever he may be placed, the man who thinks becomes a light and a power.
-- Henry George
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot cheaper.


I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:30:55 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:18:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:07:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:


On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:


On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:


The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ


Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that


much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong.


Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.


Sorry but I could not agree less.


Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe


what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to


understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and


why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and


make decisions.


The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never


really wanted it.


The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.


Yeah, but the idea is still that what's being shot at the A-10 at the end of the Vietnam war (when it came into service) like projectiles moving at Mach 5 or so is not the best of what it has to face now (stuff like laser beams that can melt/blast/vaporize to hell stuff at over 60 miles away - possible from several modern industrialized nations).


Don't believe me? Lets look at the never-ending conflict on the Israeli border. Do you realize what the Israeli military is using when the say the phrase "iron dome" ?? Jon, there is also use of a computer controlled .3006 inch, 7.62mm mini-gun like ground-to-air assembly that can not only shoot down enemy in-coming rockets, mortars, cannon-shells, etc..., but has also suceeded in shooting down OTHER 7.62 millimeter rounds.


Can you believe that? A computer that can shoot another bullet down with the same type of bullet? Its also backed up with ground-to-air missiles and computer controlled laser technology. Its possible to shoot down an armored ballistic missile at over 60 miles away - I mean vaporize it, with it moving at speeds of over Mach 10.


Now. With stuff like that, you couldn't even FIND the leftover debris of a lumbering 300mph 1970's era A-10.


That's why the Air Force is backing away from this thing and replacing it and the Harrier Jump Jet with the F-35.


It carries just as much firepower, but it can land vertically making radar detection by stuff like this tougher. It can rise back up into the air and attack almost like a helicopter against this kind of stuff.


A-10s need too much room to land and take back off for that.


(its just a matter of physics - but the A-10 Thunderbolt II has to go. Sorry)


The F35 is a lemon.


Not perfect planes yes, I agree. But, both it and its slower predecessor the Harrier can duck out of sight at will, though. And that is needed more than the A-10, today.

Stealth doesn't work.


Usually, not. And if you notice, only the US seems to be making "stealth" aircraft. That means the other great powers on the face of the earth seem to agree with you. And they are making more thorough radar assembly all the time - which makes things even worse for aircraft.

I think the idea is that stealth technology works unpredictably. Sometimes it can accidentally be seen, sometimes not.

I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most notoriously, the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of the water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy or not. Its a roll of the dice.


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 992
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:31:17 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:02:42 -0500, Richard

wrote:

On 8/26/2014 12:57 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the


F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD


that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted


that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think


about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)


For pete sake, guy.


That was Robert Mcnamara's doings.


Initially, the basic policies outlined by President Kennedy in a message


to Congress on March 28, 1961, guided McNamara in the reorientation of


the defense program. Kennedy rejected the concept of first-strike attack


and emphasized the need for adequate strategic arms and defense to deter


nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. U.S. arms, he


maintained, must constantly be under civilian command and control, and


the nation's defense posture had to be "designed to reduce the danger of


irrational or unpremeditated general war". The primary mission of U.S.


overseas forces, in cooperation with allies, was "to prevent the steady


erosion of the Free World through limited wars". Kennedy and McNamara


rejected massive retaliation for a posture of flexible response. The


U.S. wanted choices in an emergency other than "inglorious retreat or


unlimited retaliation", as the president put it. Out of a major review


of the military challenges confronting the U.S. initiated by McNamara in


1961 came a decision to increase the nation's "limited warfare"


capabilities. These moves were significant because McNamara was


abandoning President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy of massive


retaliation in favor of a flexible response strategy that relied on


increased U.S. capacity to conduct limited, non-nuclear warfare.


During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in


South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from 900


to 16,000.[22] U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin


incidents in August 1964, involving an attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer


by North Vietnamese naval vessels.[25]


But declassified records from the Lyndon Johnson Library indicated that


McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by


withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific


Commanders. Instead, McNamara issued the strike orders without informing


Johnson of the hold calls, constituting a usurping of the president�s


constitutional power of decision on the use of military force.[26]


McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and


the public as justification for escalation of the war against the


communists. The Vietnam War came to claim most of McNamara's time and


energy.


Yup. The illustrious McNamara. And General Dynamics was a Texas
company :-)


I don't know. The Wall Street Journal has a bad habit of doing that too, I think. Ascribing a location like where its headquarters is with the company itself. I've always felt that unless most of the company's controlling executives, board and other owners all live in that city as well, then how can you associate the company name with the place its in?

Like with Sony Pictures. If most of its owners live in California or someplace, then how can you say its a Japanese company?

But, I'm not sure how much blame actually should be attributed to

McNamara personally, other than of course he was the captain of the

ship and thus responsible for everything that happened.


Personally, he summed the whole effort up himself by writing in his 1995 memoir "In Retrospect" that it was: "Wrong, Terribly Wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
-- http://content.time.com/time/special...913022,00.html
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot
cheaper.


I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress


Skippers' memoirs mention the assigned crew helping complete the
construction work on new submarines, but they don't say how much of
that doubled as hands-on training to repair the machinery.

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

-jsw


  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:53:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:53:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:57:03 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:02:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Wed, 27 Aug 2014
08:31:17
I don't know that the Military ever "made their own stuff" :-)

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.

Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds

Didn't they use soldiers and sailors to build those, keeping the
troops in shape and busy during times we were not at war? Take the
labor fees away from building a ship and it gets a whole lot
cheaper.


I didn't realize you were such a fan of socialism, Larry. In fact,
you're really nudging toward communism there.

But that isn't the way it was. My grandfather was a civilian panel
carver at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, carving the mahogany filagree
around the hatches of officers' quarters on submarines during WWI.
Those were civilian workers.

--
Ed Huntress


Skippers' memoirs mention the assigned crew helping complete the
construction work on new submarines, but they don't say how much of
that doubled as hands-on training to repair the machinery.

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

-jsw


The Navy Yard was a major civilian employer in Portsmouth. And, of
course, the Bath Iron Works, which built hundreds of Navy ships, was
the big employer in Bath, ME.

--
Ed Huntress


  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:30:55 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:18:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:




On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:07:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:




On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:




On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:




The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ




Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that




much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong.




Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.




Sorry but I could not agree less.




Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe




what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to




understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and




why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and




make decisions.




The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never




really wanted it.




The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.




Yeah, but the idea is still that what's being shot at the A-10 at the end of the Vietnam war (when it came into service) like projectiles moving at Mach 5 or so is not the best of what it has to face now (stuff like laser beams that can melt/blast/vaporize to hell stuff at over 60 miles away - possible from several modern industrialized nations).




Don't believe me? Lets look at the never-ending conflict on the Israeli border. Do you realize what the Israeli military is using when the say the phrase "iron dome" ?? Jon, there is also use of a computer controlled .3006 inch, 7.62mm mini-gun like ground-to-air assembly that can not only shoot down enemy in-coming rockets, mortars, cannon-shells, etc..., but has also suceeded in shooting down OTHER 7.62 millimeter rounds.




Can you believe that? A computer that can shoot another bullet down with the same type of bullet? Its also backed up with ground-to-air missiles and computer controlled laser technology. Its possible to shoot down an armored ballistic missile at over 60 miles away - I mean vaporize it, with it moving at speeds of over Mach 10.




Now. With stuff like that, you couldn't even FIND the leftover debris of a lumbering 300mph 1970's era A-10.




That's why the Air Force is backing away from this thing and replacing it and the Harrier Jump Jet with the F-35.




It carries just as much firepower, but it can land vertically making radar detection by stuff like this tougher. It can rise back up into the air and attack almost like a helicopter against this kind of stuff.




A-10s need too much room to land and take back off for that.




(its just a matter of physics - but the A-10 Thunderbolt II has to go.. Sorry)




The F35 is a lemon.




Not perfect planes yes, I agree. But, both it and its slower predecessor the Harrier can duck out of sight at will, though. And that is needed more than the A-10, today.



Stealth doesn't work.




Usually, not. And if you notice, only the US seems to be making "stealth" aircraft. That means the other great powers on the face of the earth seem to agree with you. And they are making more thorough radar assembly all the time - which makes things even worse for aircraft.



I think the idea is that stealth technology works unpredictably. Sometimes it can accidentally be seen, sometimes not.



I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most notoriously, the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of the water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy or not. Its a roll of the dice..


No argument with what you wrote on stealth.

As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the orders for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make a plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:53:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

The Navy Yard was a major civilian employer in Portsmouth. And, of
course, the Bath Iron Works, which built hundreds of Navy ships, was
the big employer in Bath, ME.

--
Ed Huntress


Both are still very active and major civilian employers.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Yard-Build.../dp/0060929634





  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:

I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most notoriously,
the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of the
water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern
non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy
or not. Its a roll of the dice.


No argument with what you wrote on stealth.

As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the orders
for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make a
plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious
vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.

==========

Which foreign government is paying you to fish for classified data
with disinformation as bait?



  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,797
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7,

wrote:



I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most notoriously,


the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of the


water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern


non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy


or not. Its a roll of the dice.




No argument with what you wrote on stealth.



As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the orders

for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make a

plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious

vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.



==========



Which foreign government is paying you to fish for classified data

with disinformation as bait?



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

"He is a critic of the F-35. He asserts that despite its 200 million dollar price tag per plane, it is less agile than the F-16, and flies at altitudes and speeds too high and fast to replace the A-10. Compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it operates) he characterized the F-35 as overweight and dangerous, stating "It's as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That's how unsafe this plane is..." and "full of bugs". He asserts the plane is too heavy (nearly 30,000 pounds heavier than a fully loaded F-16). Most of all, the plane's wings are too small to give the fighter maneuverability in combat."
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7,

wrote:



I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most
notoriously,


the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of
the


water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern


non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy


or not. Its a roll of the dice.




No argument with what you wrote on stealth.



As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the
orders

for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make
a

plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious

vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.



==========



Which foreign government is paying you to fish for classified data

with disinformation as bait?



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

"He is a critic of the F-35. He asserts that despite its 200 million
dollar price tag per plane, it is less agile than the F-16, and flies
at altitudes and speeds too high and fast to replace the A-10.
Compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it
operates) he characterized the F-35 as overweight and dangerous,
stating "It's as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid
in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That's how
unsafe this plane is..." and "full of bugs". He asserts the plane is
too heavy (nearly 30,000 pounds heavier than a fully loaded F-16).
Most of all, the plane's wings are too small to give the fighter
maneuverability in combat."

====

The F-22 is the dedicated super-agile air superiority fighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eiskRcC2ys

The F-35 is a more generalized mud-moving improvement on the subsonic
Harrier, to send in after the F-22 has sufficiently reduced the enemy
first-line fighter threat. Its independently-designated or GPS-guided
standoff weapons eliminate(?) the need for the A-10's protection
against ground AA fire and man-portable (thus short-ranged) missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154...tandoff_Weapon

Compare them to Mustangs and Spitfires which owned the skies, and
Thunderbolts and Typhoons which beat up the Wehrmacht beneath their
protection. Experience proved that neither pair could do the others'
job as well. Heavily armed and armored planes lack superior agility
and vice versa.

Sprey's highly opinionated faction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia
"The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include
any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary
ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15."

Their motto was "not a pound for Air-to-Ground".

It opposed the "Missileer" faction that declared that electronics had
made human pilots obsolete.

Neither side has clearly proven their case, and won't until WW3.

-jsw


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,584
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On 8/27/2014 8:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 8/27/2014 3:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Once upon a time, there were Army Arsenals, and Navy Yards, where
the work got done.


Indeed there were.

It was not all contractors and bids and slush funds


OTOH, we had Springfield Arsenal pushing their own designs when there
were better ones available. The trapdoor Springfield was a scandal long
before the Litle Big Horn, the Krag was redesigned and ended up a weaker
action with an inferior round to the Norwegian original, and the only
thing new and good about the M1903 was the introduction of the 30'06
round. We would have been better off licensing the M98 Mauser.

The Garand was finally a rifle for the next war instead of the last one,
but they still hadn't worked out the bugs by 1940 and it was never an
easy rifle to build. Which is why we built a lot of M1 carbines, easy to
make for a lot of manufacturers and to carry by those who weren't
primarily riflemen.

Then we got the M14, which Congress approved after Springfield lied
about being able to reuse Garand tooling to save costs. And that put us
back to using a rifle for the last war, not the next one.

I won't address the MANY issues of the M16 and its inadequate
descendents...

David



I'd take an M24 any day.
I just can't afford to buy one.

  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default How The A-10 Warthog Became 'The Most Survivable Plane Ever Built'

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:57:36 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:27:26 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 8/26/2014 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

It was a test of the terrain following radar and linked auto-pilot
system and at the time was, perhaps, the only airplane in the
world
that had the capability.



And that has to be the scariest roller-coaster ride ever made.


It was quite an accomplishment at the time and the Detachment
Commander had the A.C. give a little talk about the ride. I remember
him saying that when approaching the Rocky Mountains at Mach 1+ and
100 feet up in the air it was damned hard to keep his hands off the
controls and rely on the autopilot to pitch up at the right time :-)

Shortly after this flight there was a big mod carried out on the
terrain following radar and autopilot as it worked too well and
pulled
too many G's on pitch up so the system was modified to pitch up much
earlier and more gently.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Ddn't they make it look further ahead instead of climbing over every
boulder?


That was in essence what they did. As I said, it pitched up earlier
and less violently.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Angle of Sharpening Plane on hand plane jloomis[_2_] Woodworking Plans and Photos 6 February 26th 12 08:55 PM
built in or built under single oven? benpost UK diy 4 January 25th 08 07:37 PM
Router plane vs Plough plane nautilus Woodworking 1 January 17th 07 07:02 PM
Plane ignorant person needs some plane advice. Modat22 Woodworking 20 June 2nd 05 11:55 PM
Darwin Awards: Man rails against seatbelts, then killed in survivable rollover. Bruce L. Bergman Metalworking 78 January 23rd 05 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"