Just a Random Fly By

Jared Workman wrote: shirtless thread chopping fighter pilots.

Do we get aviator RayBans and our own club emblem?

"You don't have time to think up there...(clicks his pen while deep in thought)...If you think, you're dead."

Ken Cangi wrote: James, Now you are being condescending. There is no need to break down your argument for me. I am having no problem understanding you. The question is simple: Why were fighter aircraft created? There is plenty of historical documentation stating that is was developed to kill the enemy. You insist that I am wrong, so prove it with more than your opinion and a philosophical journey back to the beginning of time.

Too save time I'll state flat out that I will not look up historical or empirical evidence in support of my statement as I don't believe they are relevant. The evidence you speak of is inherently flawed because it relies on the use of human observation which is clearly fallible. I think I have offered cogent reasoning to support my claim that stands on its own, independent of historical and empirical observation.

James M Schroeder wrote: Too save time I'll state flat out that I will not look up historical or empirical evidence in support of my statement as I don't believe they are relevant. The evidence you speak of is inherently flawed because it relies on the use of human observation which is clearly fallible. I think I have offered cogent reasoning to support my claim that stands on its own, independent of historical and empirical observation.

If you say so.

James M Schroeder wrote:I think I have offered cogent reasoning to support my claim that stands on its own, independent of historical and empirical observation.

Hmmm. I seem to recall that the roots of the current US military-industrial complex lie in the second world war. Its buildup was in response to threats abroad and ultimately at home. That is, the initial response and buildup were essentially defensive in nature. The deterrence part came later. (First cause?)

Your logic may be independent of historical and empirical observation (although I don't agree with that), but if you expect your argument to be anything more than a mental pug-pull, you had better keep your feet firmly planted in the messiness that is the real world.

Back on topic for just a minute (i promise and then back to the obligatory tangent). When climbing on the East Stronghold areas, we frequently see C-130s come through there banking it hard and low through the pass. So awesome to see that monster just hanging there and moving so slow. It's amazing how hard they can bank those sleds; it just seems to defy physics because of the size of that plane. I've never flown one so i'm speaking out of complete ignorance on the subject but i can relate to how cool it is to watch something like that while not at an air show or some event like that.

You are right about C-130s, they are impressive how maneuverable they are given how slowly they appear to be moving. I'd imagine their wings are designed to provide massive amounts of lift, in stark constrast to the fighter aircraft whose wings are more like control surfaces on a missile or something. If their engines cut out, they are just going to fall out of the sky (or go down in a flat spin, headed out to sea).

I too must apologize to any aeronautical engineers out there I just made wince. I am a private pilot, but that's like saying just because you can drive a car you can design an engine for it.

Richard,

James' argument partakes of the real world plenty. But he's letting Ken get away with too much on a main point in their debate.

Ken you haven't offered the documentation you demand of James, not close.

You quoted sources that described jet functions, and at most their tactical purpose: gaining "air superiority." The excerpts didn't use your preferred phrase: "kill people" and they were silent on the strategic purpose served by air superiority. The authors of those excerpts were providing information about the physical performance of the jets, not answering broader questions about why a society wants to build or maintain them.

"Purpose" depends on the level of generality that is helpful to the discussion at hand.

It's like the old story about some brick layers. A passerby asks what they are doing. The first guy says "I'm laying bricks." The second says "I'm erecting a wall for a building." The third says, "I'm building a cathedral for worshiping God." They're all right and deciding who is "righter" takes a philosopher not a linguist.

Your hidden assertion is that the military function of a plane is identical to society's purpose for the plane. That's a flimsy assertion. You haven't cited any documentation to establish it.

Ken, on reread, I see your excerpts refer to destroying enemy aircraft. That just states a chicken and egg question. Is America's "purpose" for the planes that they see such action? Or is it that the planes reduce the need for such action in the first place?

Plane specifications, technical information from "Jane's All the World's Aircraft," and all the scholarly articles in the world won't answer that question.

Shawn Mitchell wrote:Your hidden assertion is that the military function of a plane is identical to society's purpose for the plane.

Perhaps (I know you're speaking to Ken here). But I guess the real question is what IS society's purpose for the plane? Defense (kill people)? Sometimes. Deterrence (muscle flexing)? Sometimes. Causing hapless climbers to shit their pants (giggles)? Sometimes, for those who are lucky. It all depends on historical context which James seems to be dismissing.

I agree with you precisely as to the real question, Richard...which I just happened to send milliseconds before you did in my second comment to Ken :)

I forgot to include an additional purpose which is not really as new as some of you might like to believe: Preemption.

Enough about that.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Kirra, are you mental? You've given all the MP terrorists access to the secrets behind the F15! Now Nelson's gonna build one in his basement and do a fly-by over your house!

Just takin a quick break from buildin my plane..
The real question is when are we gonna see Hank's wing-suit in action?

I'd pay good money to see it in Dvr Mtn Par...oh nevermind

Mark Nelson wrote: Just takin a quick break from buildin my plane..

When it's operational, I hope you're gonna take out all the shirtless, free-soloing sport bolters who post anonymously. That'll make a great photo for the MP calendar!

Mark, when you get that thing up and flying, forget about Kirra. Just go take out the Bihedral. You'd make a lot of people real happy.

Damn Shawn. We must be on the same wavelength today. Scary.

To be clear, I meant the wing suit; I'd never take a fully armed & operational craft into Dvr Mtn Par...oh nothing.

Boulder Canyon? What the hey, I could use some training practice

Richard Radcliffe wrote:Damn Shawn. We must be on the same wavelength today. Scary.

I fear to ponder which of us is influencing the other. But to play it safe, Marc, please redirect. Take out Richard :)
EDIT: Dang...I mean Mark. Must be the Horan effect.

Was once working a fire just north of Nellis and Tonapah. Two stealth fighters went less than a hundred feet over over us on a ridgeline, upside down...and right through the TFR (temp.flight.restriction) we had in place. After I put my molars back in and cleaned my skivies....I could only think one thing.

GOD FU@#$%NG BLESS AMERICA!

YMMV.

Shawn,

This is James’ first post on the topic:

James M Schroeder wrote:I want to clarify something here. The only purpose of "those jets" (and by extension the military as a whole) is not "to kill people". The biggest and most important purpose of "those jets" is to merely exist. The simple existence of "those jets" and the others like them creates far more peace than it does war, they are a huge deterrent to anyone who would mess with our country.

There are several assertions here that I dispute, although I think James is clear about what he is trying to say – that the main purpose of fighters is merely to exist as a deterrent to war.

I disagree. His assertion presumes that one is not likely to challenge another’s superior air power. History demonstrates, time and again, that this isn’t true. The under-manned, out-gunned Mujahideen were relentless in confronting Russia’s airships. U.S. fighters continually sprayed napalm in Vietnam, which didn’t deter the North Vietnamese from standing up to us, and our air power definitely didn’t dissuade a handful of Muslims from commandeering our commercial airliners - while knowingly being tracked by our radar – and flying them into the most high profile buildings in America.

My point is that our air power doesn’t not deter our enemies from attacking us, which I’m pretty certain is not secret to our military leaders. We build these aircraft to gain superiority over our opponents in battle.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: It's like the old story about some brick layers. A passerby asks what they are doing. The first guy says "I'm laying bricks." The second says "I'm erecting a wall for a building." The third says, "I'm building a cathedral for worshiping God." They're all right and deciding who is "righter" takes a philosopher not a linguist.

None of the bricklayers is correct, unless they know the intention of the building’s developer or owner. The bricklayers could erect every inch of the building and never know its intended purpose.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Your hidden assertion is that the military function of a plane is identical to society's purpose for the plane. That's a flimsy assertion. You haven't cited any documentation to establish it.

This is the classic strawman. You fabricate a hidden assertion, on my part, and then call it flimsy. What is this – debating 101? Give me a break, Shawn. I have been adamant in my explicit assertion that fighter planes were created to destroy enemy aircraft. And if the purpose is to destroy a manned aircraft, then it is safe to conclude that it is a pretty safe bet that you will also kill that aircraft’s pilot in the process.