james_davis_nicoll | When it all went wrong

When it all went wrong

From a previous comment on my LJ:

I thought there was a significant contingent of politicians who feel most of the developments since [The development of agriculture/the Industrial Revolution/The Great Depression/Women's Lib/Etc (Pick one)] have been mistakes and that if only we could set the clock back, everything would be fine.

Or at least better than it is.

A Canadian example of a When It All Went Wrong (WIAWW) moment is the Avro Arrow, something that many Canadians are still bitching about (Mind you, Canada is a nation with a province whose motto is "Je me souviens," but none with the motto "No Use Crying Over Spilled Milk"). In fact, my father used to complain bitterly about the cancellation of the Arrow and not only was he not Canadian (until just before he died) but I don't think he was in Canada when the decision was made and he didn't work in aerospace. Complaining about the Arrow decision unites Canadians in one great mopey If Only.

Ken MacLeod chooses Sputnik as a moment when everything went wrong.

Is there any chance someone could offer up some links for Ken to use in his alt-history of space development that don't require him to cite a James P. Hogan essay? Yes, I saw the disclaimer in MacLeod's essay.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Complaining about the Arrow decision unites Canadians in one great mopey If Only.

Not just Canadians though. It's part of a bigger pattern. The British equivalent was the TSR.2, a highly advanced aircraft which was cancelled for political reasons in favor of the "cheaper" F-111, which turned out to be a relative failure, never living up to its design promises and never becoming capable of the rôle the TSR.2 was designed for (supersonic terrain-following deep-penetration strike missions).

Not just Canadians though. It's part of a bigger pattern.

Canada is like St. Mary Mead, a small community [1] whose history can sometimes be useful as a model of the greater world.

1: I am sad to see wikipedia toned down its description of St. Mary Mead.

I see I quoted it in 2006:

"Miss Marple is able to solve difficult crimes not only because of her shrewd intelligence, but because St. Mary Mead, over her lifetime, has put on a pageant of human depravity rivaled only by that of Sodom and Gomorrah."

Of course paper aircraft are always extraordinarily successful in their designed role. Especially when they are 'highly advanced'.

Yet somehow the fact that real aircraft, especially 'highly advanced' ones, rarely do, escapes most people.

The TSR.2 was not a "paper aircraft". If you look up the TSR.2, you'll find it was proceeding very well on its test schedule when it was killed by the Labour government. From their point of view, in fact, it was proceeding embarrassingly well. At the point it was killed, two flying prototypes were ready, the first of which had already gone supersonic over the Irish Sea.

Likewise the Blackburn Buccaneer, the English Electric Lightning, and the Avro Vulcan performed brilliantly (to name but a few). The Vulcan, at its operating altitude, outperformed most fighters of the day when it entered service; and the Lightning still held several time-to-altitude records as late as 2002. (Some, but not all, of its records were broken by the MiG-25 Foxbat in the late 80s.) Just a few months ago, a privately-owned Lightning in South Africa set a new time-to-altitude record of 70 seconds from start of its take-off roll to 6000 meters. The US was also rather startled on the occasion a Lightning successfully intercepted a U-2 at 89,000 feet.

So, in general, I find your skepticism unfounded.

It wasn't in service, it hadn't completed prototype testing - let alone operational evaluation, etc. It was a paper aircraft.

WRT other aircraft the performed 'brilliantly' - so what? In the same time frame, you'll find multiple British aircraft that didn't fare so well.

My skepticism is based on fact, and actually studies of aerospace history. Where you have introduced nothing to the discussion but irrelevancies and cheerleading. (Hint: Time-to-altitude isn't a useful measure of combat capability. Nor is the holding of records.)

My skepticism is based on fact, and actually studies of aerospace history. Where you have introduced nothing to the discussion but irrelevancies and cheerleading.

Well, thank you for that cavalier and completely baseless dismissal. I now know the value of your opinion to me: which is to say, very little.

By the way: the word you want is "actual".

How is my dismissal baseless? Either there exists evidence that the aircraft would have performed well in its designed role, or there does not. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. Or their absence.

Since you fail to introduce evidence that it would have performed well in its designed role... (And there cannot be any such evidence, as the aircraft was never tested in that role.) Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

Since the aircraft you laud aren't the aircraft under discussion... Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

And frankly, I don't care the value of my opinion to you. You've proved yourself an ass with zero to contribute to an adult discussion.

Since the aircraft you laud aren't the aircraft under discussion... Your cheerleading can be summarily dismissed.

See, and there you go again. You know precisely nothing of my knowledge or background in aerospace or aviation, but you've chosen to simply dismiss anything I have to say as "cheerleading", simply because you consider yourself an expert and I have the temerity to disagree with you. I cited several brilliantly successful examples of the British aircraft industry, and all you could say was that time-to-altitude is irrelevant to combat effectiveness, thus proving that you understand nothing whatsoever about the design role of the aircraft being discussed at the time and the requirements of its mission. I repeat: "Cavalier, baseless dismissal." Next time, if you don't want to sound like a complete idiot, at least make the minimum effort to do some background research.

And frankly, I don't care the value of my opinion to you. You've proved yourself an ass with zero to contribute to an adult discussion.

Pot. kettle. Black.

I have no further time to waste on you. Enjoy your sense of moral superiority.

It's interesting that once more I bring up the issue the TSR2's flight testing - and once again you go off on a tangent. I don't care what your background is - because, like the aircraft you cite, it is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. (A topic which you studiously avoid actually discussing once I insisted it be placed on a factual basis..)

> It wasn't in service .... It was a paper aircraft.
Nice backpedalling.

> Hint: Time-to-altitude isn't a useful measure of combat capability
Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft#Point_defense

It's not backpedaling, it's the plain and brutal truth. The aircraft never flew in it's designed role, even in testing. Thus any claims as to its suitability in that role are nothing but groundless assumptions.

Hint: 'Point defense interceptors' (using the defenition cited) don't exist - because outside of a scant handful of Nazi designs, no aircraft was ever designed to 'take off and climb to altitude as quickly as possible, destroy the incoming bombers, and then land'. (Well, not one that reached service anyhow.) The list of 'point defense interceptors' they provide is arrant nonsense.

First, it's not a paper aircraft if it is flying. Yes, it may not have gone through OPEVAL and reached IOC. But that doesn't mean that they did not have a chance to judge its performance at the earlier stages of the test plan. A full performance appraisal may not be possible, but claiming this means it's a "paper aircraft" says more about your ignorance than the plane's capability.

Second, there are a lot of people who fly (or flew, in the case of the Lightning) point defense interceptors who would be really surprised to discover that they don't exist. The point [sic] about point defense interceptors, as opposed to area defense interceptors, is that they are deployed to defend specific targets, which means they launch when a specific target is under threat and are usually recalled (to rearm, refuel, and reset) when the threat goes away. This may or may not involve flying CAP for some period of time -- that "launch / attack / land" profile mentioned is very general and by no means implies a brief flight. And in that scenario, time to altitude (either from the ground, or from patrol altitude to higher altitude, if the plane's radar performance against low-level targets requires it to stay low while on patrol) is very definitely a (but not the sole) measure of combat capability.

Merely flying isn't enough. Merely going through a limited test program isn't enough. (Especially when the test enviroment is utterly unlike the intended operational enviroment.) It's actual performance it its intended role is completely and utterly unknown. Period. You can't claim the TSR2 was an 'outstanding bomber' - because it never bombed anything, even in tests. Period.

All the handwaving and cheerleading and ad hominiem attacks in the world won't change these simple brutal facts. It's a paper aircraft. Period.

And having repeated myself multiple times, it is now obvious you are incapable of understanding that point.

I'm hardly cheerleading for the TSR2, as I have no idea about the specifics of that aircraft. I jumped in only because I happen to know a little bit (professionally, I might add) about this field, and because I saw some completely illogical statements being made.

What I do know, though, is that if the aircraft has already gone supersonic in a test flight, they have some idea how the aircraft performs. So you might not be able to tell whether it would have passed all of its OPEVAL milestones (or what mods would have to be made in the process), but you can tell if it's a dog or not. Dismissing anything short of a completed OPEVAL program by calling such an aircraft a "paper aircraft" is ludicrous.

As for ad hominem attacks: you've been consistently unwilling to listen to any opinions that don't fit with your distorted view of the world. Given that you insist of referring to an aircraft that has broken the sound barrier as a "paper aircraft," we shouldn't be surprised that pointing out your errors is an "ad hominem attack."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

When it all went wrong

no subject

no subject

Wikipedia on St. Mary Mead

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

What color is the sky in your world?

Re: What color is the sky in your world?

Re: What color is the sky in your world?