Epiphany?

Instead of tagging this one on the end of the other post, “The Air Force and OODA,” I thought this could go in its own place.  I’ve wondered if there was any way that my learning Biochemistry for four years could possibly have anything to do with competition theory, i.e. OODA.  I believe I’ve come up with something, which may be mindless garble, and I think that there may be a parallel in both human anatomy as well as chemical rates of reaction.  Stand by for possible idiocy (my version of a disclaimer that this could all be crap.)

After reading a lot about how OODA actually is meant to be understood, my view of what Boyd and his associates deemed to be the ideal way that OODA is run is through the fusion of Observation and Orientation, leading implicitly into Action.  While observations themselves are important, it’s not until they are paired with Orientation until they have context and meaning.  This not only allows for the creation of possible actions, but leads one to implicitly choose the best one.

I’ll start with the most obvious parallel I’ve found between Boyd’s OODA, “Loop,” and my limited experience in the biochemical realm (Shameless Plug!).  Everyone’s had this experience (or something very similar) at some time in their lives.  Let’s take, for example, a hot stove, and a careless passer-by, who fails to notice where they are about to place their hand.  Apon touching the stovetop, said person immediately jerks their hand back, realizes what happened, and maybe curses at how stupid they are.  A fairly simple scenario, which I’m going to make all the more complicated, just for the sake of being difficult.

Since birth, all of us have been pre-programmed with what are commonly called, “knee-jerk reactions,” or reflexes.  While the brain is responsible for cognitive thought and higher level learning, the spinal cord has this reflexive type of processing power.  Instead of waiting for the nerve impulses to travel the entire way back to the brain for a decision, the spinal cord holds responsibility for reacting to potentially life-threatening dangers.  So when we put our hand on the stove, the spinal cord automatically sends back messages to the muscles to immediately retract it.  The signal continues on to the brain in the form of pain, but by that time, the appropriate action has already been taken.  As I see it, these are the perfect biological demonstrations of the most efficient version of Boyd’s OODA, “Loop.”  According to Col. Chet Richards’ many presentations and diagrams, to operate at the fastest tempo we must be able to appreciate what’s happening, know what to do (Observe and Orient), and be able to do it (Action), all the while learning from the situation (Decide).  Looking back to the scenario, the person’s nervous system has the ability to accomplish the desired task (pull the hand away) without, “conscious,” thought.  Actually, by the time the person looks at their hand, it has already been pulled back, leaving the only time-consuming step (Decide) to be reflected on after the action has happened, rather than be deliberated as the hand remains on the stove.  The body implicitly knows what needs to be done, and does it, leaving the brain to learn not to do that anymore.

The chemical side is a little more in depth.

In looking at an OODA diagram as a chemical reaction, Observation and Orientation can be viewed as reagents; alone they are pretty useless, but put together they can yield some crazy stuff (pardon the technical jargon.)  These are followed by Decision, an intermediate, and Action, the product.  Apologies for outlining OODA as a linear process, let’s just assume this version is for learning, in which case a decision is needed, and is therefore the most time-consuming.

The parallel here lies in our desire to speed up both our OODA, “Loops,” and chemical reactions.  In the case of OODA, we want to be able to be as quick and therefore unpredictable as possible so as to create and exploit opportunities as our competitor makes mistakes.  In the chemical realm, it really boils down to, “we don’t want to wait so long for products.”  In a nutshell.  In that case, we look to the rate of the reaction as the means by which we speed things up.  And there are a few ways that I think can relate to OODA.  Three things usually speed things up chemically, those being heat, reagent concentration and catalysts.  In the case of OODA, I suggest that heat can relate to stress, concentration can relate to the number of inputs into OODA, and the catalyst of OODA is simply the implicit feed forward from Observation and Orientation straight into action.

Think about it this way: when the situation is more stressful (or the reaction is heated), a decision may be quicker in coming, or else risk mental collapse under the additional mental burden.  This is easily seen in enzyme activities, where most have a certain temperature at which they are the most efficient, beyond which they greatly drop off in activity and eventually denature (break down).  When the number of inputs into a situation increase (or we increase reagent concentration), we may also be able to make quicker decisions because we have much more information on the subject.  Not only that, but we can do it with increased confidence.

Possibly the quickest and easiest way to increase speed is to add a catalyst.  Normally, a catalyst is a very small, seemingly insignificant addition to a reaction that permits it to proceed rapidly to completion by lowering the energy of activation (Ea) for the particular reaction.  The easy relation to OODA is simply the implicit path leading from the Observe/Orient fusion straight into action.  If we can parallel the Decision with a chemical reaction’s Ea, then the path of implicit guidance and control from Orientation seems to be the fabled, “perfect catalyst,” by eliminating the obstacle of Ea altogether.

One final idea stirring around that I’ve been thinking about is the possible connection between OODA and Le Chatelier’s principle of chemical equilibrium.  This asserts that every reaction is in fact an equilibrium between reagents and products, the concentrations or amounts of each being dependent on the environmental conditions.  Furthermore, it states that any change to the environment will affect the concentrations of the reaction until it reaches a new equilibrium.  Some define it roughly as, “Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.”  Isn’t this the nature of OODA entirely?  When we have an understanding of the environment in which we are competing, can’t we implicitly know whether to act?  Wouldn’t different environments then lead us to change our equilibrium in order for us to thrive?  Isn’t it our goal to purposely change our competitor’s environment, thereby forcing them to adapt their equilibrium to what we want them to see?  If we change the environment rapidly enough, will they then break down?

Woah.  I just blew my own mind.  Until next time.

The Air Force and OODA

It’s finally here!  I said I’d make it and I’ve officially started.  This will probably start as bullets as thoughts pop into my head and perhaps gain elaboration in the future.  Perhaps not.  Pretty standard for this weblargh.

Here we go…

I was first introduced to the concept of the OODA, “loop,” back around 2003-2004, in my freshman year of college.  The assignment in my ROTC class at the time was to pick one officer, past or present, and do a briefing on him/her, max length of five minutes.  I didn’t want to do any of the most commonly known, (Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, Jimmy Doolittle, etc.) but I knew I wanted to report on a fighter pilot.  I found a biography by Robert Coram on the late Col. John Boyd, and was stunned I had never heard of his accomplishments in my short time in the AFROTC.  But I made one horrible mistake: I only read the first two sections in the book. It wasn’t until the second time I read Boyd that I finished it and was intoduced to his development and implementation of the OODA, “loop.”

Long story short, I don’t by any means consider myself an expert on the subject, I’ve only been learning about the subject offhand for roughly 5 years.  The real experts do this stuff for a living.

So it came time for me to go to ASBC (Air and Space Basic Course) this past November, and it was there that I got a better understanding of what the Air Force thinks OODA is.  I say, “thinks,” because it was apparent to me that they didn’t, “know.”  We were given a briefing on AFSO21 in one of our last days, and the briefer introduced to us a new “8-step Problem Solving Process.”  On the next slide, in a seemingly obligatory reference to John Boyd, he somehow, “grafted,” OODA onto this new process.  The first few steps he considered to be Observation, the next few Orientation, one or two steps were the Decision, and the final steps were the Action.  He then said something to the effect of, “and since the OODA loop is the fastest decision making process we know of, this new program will work really well.”  Finished, he looked out at the audience with an expression of self-satisfaction.

Such is the Air Force’s severe misunderstanding of OODA.  It is not a circular step-by-step process, where upon reaching the final step, we simply repeat, much like cheap shampoo.  What the briefer did reminds me of skin grafting, where although you can use, say, skin from your back to put on your face, it’s not really meant for your face.

Stay with me here.

OODA can technically be used as a problem solving, “process,” but that’s not what it was designed for.  The Air Force’s model of the 6-step problem solving process (or 8-step, you pick) is rigid, sequential, and predictable.  Try using those words with anyone familiar with OODA, and you’re likely to get slapped.

There are three (possibly more as I think of them) reasons off the top of my head why OODA cannot be lumped in as just another problem solving process.  First, PSP’s must be completed from step one to step X, and then repeated.  By their nature, they are checklists, and as such are rigid and sequential (I already said that.)  OODA on the other hand, is the essence of flexibility.  There are paths and correlations that feed into each other, providing options, actions, and feedback all at the same time. If one or more elements need to be skipped, or done more than once (implicitly we wouldn’t even notice this anyways) OODA allows for it, and then feeds back into future iterations.  This leads into the next point:

Second, OODA is a learning machine.  PSP’s assume nothing, and take no previous experience into account until the, “List Possible Solutions,” stage.  In the Air Force’s 6-step PSP, that’s #3.  So, in a reference I made to a room of 2LT’s, if you were to encounter a problem today and solve it using the 6 Step PSP, and if tomorrow you encountered the same problem, you would still have to go through all 6 Steps to come to the same solution again.  There is no place for learning in PSP’s, each step must be completed whenever a problem is presented.  OODA learns the entire time it is being operated (I’m making it sound like a process, but it’s a simplification for comparison, apologies).  There are constant feedback loops from each, “step,” allowing for implicit guidance and action based on previous experience.  So in the example used previously, when that same problem is addressed the next day, we already know what to do based on our previous experience, which is part of the Orientation component.

Finally, PSP’s are strictly for Problem/Solution relationships.  Meanwhile, the entire existence of OODA stemmed from the desire to understand competition.  It takes into account that competition is comprised of, at the most basic level, two or more intelligent, learning, and ever-changing entities competing for similar yet opposite goals.

There’s not much in the way of elaboration there, and my brain’s starting to hurt, so we’ll pause here for now.

Oklahomans Can’t Drive

If you think this post is somewhat out of place, you’re right!  Which is why it fits in this weblargh perfectly, if that makes any sense.  So, without any further ado, a few reasons why it’s pretty obvious that driver’s education is completely absent in Oklahoma.

Hold on, a little more on the introduction.  First, most of these observations are observed on highways, but similar qualities of them are seen on just about every road around here.  Yes, these are stereotypes, and I don’t care.  So here we go.

Speed Limit of DOOM: Apparently to most Oklahomans, the speed limit is an unapproachable barrier from which no man has ever returned alive upon crossing.  Just to be safe, they’ll stay at least 5mph below it at all times to prevent eternal damnation.  The problem is, most of them don’t read speed limit signs anyways, seeing as how when it changes, nobody seems to react to it.

BRAKES!!! Instead of easing on of brakes at a good distance behind traffic, the average Oklahoman’s philosophy is, “well, since I’m braking, might as well put that shit through the floor.”  I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to follow suit as a number of cars in front of me decided to make their vehicles do handstands.

Merging Isn’t Rocket Science: But for some reason the intricate details of it seem to elude Oklahoma drivers.  While most normal drivers will use an onramp to speed up to traffic (y’know, what it’s there for), the Oklahoman uses it for anything ranging from examining one’s teeth in the rearview mirror, to dialing someone on a cell phone.  Meeting the faster moving traffic is dealt with by divebombing in headfirst at a breathtaking 40mph.  This of course causes those on the highway already to use their BRAKES!!!

No-Reason Traffic: Ever suddenly hit traffic on the highway, think maybe there was a legitimate reason for it (accident, major construction, etc.) and then all of a sudden traffic opened back up as if nothing had happened?  Probably because nothing had happened.  If not, don’t worry, it’s rare in most places.  But not here in Oklahoma!  The combination of the last two problems makes no-reason traffic a commodity that is dealt with every day by anyone not originally from this place.

Common Courtesy: Unheard of among Oklahoma drivers.  These “Unwritten Rules of the Road,” apparently need to be written, put in a book, and knocked across the skulls of some of these people.  Quick rundown: no turn signals, no knowledge of 4-way stop procedures, refusal to yield the right lane to merging traffic, refusal to yield to faster traffic in the fast lane (keep in mind the speed limit issue, and then put one of them in the fast lane), using the entrance to exit gated communities, and a lot of blocking in of people needing to exit a parking lot.  And those are just things I see every day, nevermind the weird ones.

HOLY SHIT, TURNS!!! Yes, Oklahoma, your roads have turns in them.  The speed limit doesn’t change, so it’s a mystery to those of us who went through driver’s education as to why everybody slams BRAKES!!! when the highway lazily curves to the left or right.  Gradual direction change is a good thing, there’s no need to panic.

And that’s really all I have to say on the subject for now.  Until next post, I’ll be wading through the idiocy in my car.  Won’t you join me?

…I wouldn’t either, no worries.

UPDATE!!! So my wife found out that in order to get a driver’s licence in Oklahoma, you have two choices: have a learner’s permit for one year, or take driver’s ed soon after you get one.  So basically driver’s ed is optional.  That explains a lot.

An Aerodynamic Comparison

The more I watch videos of the F-16 and the F-22, the more the aerodynamic differences stand out. I’ll address three separate issues: the wing root vortices generated at high angles of attack, flaperons versus ailerons, and the control surfaces located on the leading edges of the wings (what are those called?). These are just observations, with a general, “why’d they do that,” on a few things.

1)  Wing Root Vortices

The F-16’s leading edge strakes generate wing root vortices at high angles of attack that extend the length of the fuselage, due to its blended body design.  These in fact increase its stability at such angles by preventing wing root stalling, and I’ve also heard that they help maintain the relative lift capacity of the wings in the same situations.

The F-22 lacks such leading edge strakes because of the positioning of the intakes (which also impede the pilot’s visibility when looking down and back).  Vortices are still formed at high AoA, but the most glaring difference is how fast they dissipate in comparison to those formed by the F-16.  While those on the Viper extend the length of the entire airframe, those on the Raptor are broken up just behind the cockpit.

2)  Flaperons/Ailerons

The F-16 was the first fighter jet to use computer-driven control surfaces, or “fly-by-wire.”  Instead of using ailerons to roll the airframe, it instead did away with them altogether and substituted “flaperons” on the inboard trailing edges of the wings.  By using a combination of these and the horizontal stabilizers, the Viper rolls.

While the F-22 also uses a fly-by-wire system and rolls similarly to the F-16, it still has ailerons.  That’s all I have on this one, just wondering why that is.

3)  Leading Edge Thingies

Pardon the highly-technical jargon, but I don’t know the official name of them.  Anyways, when the YF-16 was unveiled, its wings were unique in that the leading edges automatically changed their pitch based on pilot input.  This changed the camber of the wing, increasing the lift of the wings, and thus making it able to pull much harder turns.  On the F-16, the leading edge surface area accounts for roughly 9% of the total wing surface area.

The F-22’s leading edge surfaces account for about 3%.

That’s it, that’s all I wanted to comment on.  Since this is about as far as my education in aerodynamics extends (i.e. stuff I read on the internet) any more expert opinions are appreciated.  Laters.

Another Reason Why Vista Should Burn

At this point, it’s like sand off a beach, but here’s my story about an experience with the latest “issue” (a euphemism at best) with Windows Vista:

So I packed up my computer in Florida on May 27th, the day before I left for Washington.  It had been working “fine” (read my previous post “Windows Vista: Pile of Crap”) for the year that I was in Mexico Beach, specifically regarding my wireless connection to my roommate’s router which was upstairs.  I got out to Oklahoma City on the 27th of June, and as soon as I was able to get my computer connected again, it immediately froze solid at the login screen, forcing a hard reboot.

I had not touched anything since it was packed in my car a month earlier, so what the hell was this?  After numerous restarts in safe mode, I was able to narrow down the root of the problem, which at first I pinpointed the Extensive Authentification Protocol (EAP) service that ran at startup.  When it was enabled, my computer froze at the login screen, when disabled, it ran “fine” again.  Great!  I’ve solved the problem.

And then the cable guy came over to connect my cable and internet.  I found that I got internet when I was hardwired to the jack, but as soon as I tried to get a wireless signal, my computer couldn’t find anything.  When asked to diagnose the problem, it responded that the Windows Wireless service was not running.  Ah, so the EAP service must be a requisite.  Entering the service module, I quickly enabled the EAP service again, fingers crossed, and found that the computer continued to run.  Weird.  Well, maybe it sorted itself out.  The computer diagnosed the problem again, and asked me if I wanted to start the Windows Wireless service.  I clicked yes, the window came up saying the problem was solved, and the computer locked up into another irrecoverable situation.

I laughed to myself because of the irony staring me right in the face.  I find myself now connected to the internet via a cable running across my bedroom, because no forum online has faced this problem quite like I have.  They should have called this crap Microsoft Osprey: a horrible idea that somebody said was good to go and released to the public with more problems than solutions.

Any Microsoft staff responsible for this crap’s release without proper QC has a free ticket for a ride down a flight of stairs off my foot, redeemable anywhere.  Thanks.

I’m Baaaaack…

Oh what, you thought I forgot about my Weblargh? Piffle! I’ve just been busy packing, traveling across the country to get beat up, and then moving out to Oklahoma. Fun.

And yet I’m bored out of my mind, which is usually the root cause of my contributions to my own page. I just got all my stuff moved in from two states, and this place isn’t quite big enough to hold it all. Waiting for the 26th when I get married and drag my new wife out here so we can find a house.

So loyal reader(s?) we’ll get back down to business soon, probably later today if this stupid computer keeps acting up. I’m about ready to punt it out the window. Stick around! I’m going to stop being really lazy for a little while, but that usually doesn’t last long.

The Anniversary

On the first anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech, I thought it would be appropriate to re-publish the note I wrote at midnight that night in my dorm room on campus:

“It was just like any other Monday, minus the fact that it was in the 30’s, snowing, and windy in the middle of April. The Corps went out as usual for formation at about 0720, the flag went up, and we were inside by 0730. I sat around in the room for a while, played some video games or something, and then went off to Cinnabon (attached to Owens on the campus map) with two of my buds for some breakfast before our 0905 AFROTC class in the Military Building. We hadn’t heard anything about the first shooting that happened at 0715 in West Ambler Johnston, and we had no idea about the second shooting in Norris until after class ended and both the Air Force and Army staff were closing off the hallways.

My roommate and I decided to book it back to our room in Brodie, which actually overlooks the grassy area in front of Norris, Holden, and McBryde, where we watched crowds of people run out of Norris and McBryde into Torgerson, guided by a couple of our fellow cadets enlisted by the police officers on sight to help guide evacuated students in the right direction (and to light a fire under their asses too). We went back inside Brodie, and tried calling people to let them know we were ok, but phone lines were already jamming up. We tried for a while before we were able to contact everybody we felt necessary to talk to, and went down the hall to our friend’s room to look down on the situation.

There were cops everywhere. Not only campus police, but Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, Botetourt County, Virginia State Police, and the FBI all parked in between Torgerson and McBryde. We watched a few cars speed off as fast as they could, we were later told that they had done a “grab and go” where wounded people had simply been picked up and put in the car to go to the hospital, which was faster than waiting for an ambulance. The national guard and S.W.A.T. teams showed up, and a K-9 unit to top it off. They had an announcement playing every five minutes telling people to get inside and stay there. We had the perfect vantage point, one of my friends was snapping pictures of all the activity, and actually got on the phone with CNN.

Preliminary reports told us that there had been between one and five casualties, and only one of them was fatal. But the news just kept getting worse, next we heard there were seven or eight fatalities. Then 22. There had to be some mistake, maybe the police chief said 22 casualties and the news had spun it to mean deaths. But much to the dismay of everybody in the room, there had been no error, and we were suddenly very quiet. One young lady walked out of the room with her head in her hands, when not five minutes earlier had been joking with us about how she was so disappointed that her test was cancelled. The mood changed drastically after that first press conference.

We all went to Shultz for lunch/dinner, where we were greeted with between 15 and 20 state troopers armed with M4’s and a K-9 unit on the scene as well. They were there for security, so nobody felt unsafe, but it certainly added to the gravity of an already stressful situation.

Everybody in the Corps was trying to get accountability, trying to figure out who was where, and if they had checked in with their chain of command. It took about 30 minutes, but eventually all companies and ROTC’s had either checked in, or knew the whereabouts of their people.

Except for one.

Cadet Matt LaPorte was killed in Norris Hall. He lived one floor below me in Brodie, and although I didn’t know him very well, he was one of our brothers following in the same footsteps as many of us. He was in the Air Force ROTC, and was progressing through the ranks of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets just like so many of us already have done. We’re all really shaken by the news, I mean some of us were bracing ourselves for the worst, but there’s nothing you can do to prepare yourself for when it’s actually confirmed. All our hearts and minds are with him and his family, as well as the families of the rest of the victims in this senseless tragedy.

People keep asking me if I have any news that’s not on TV, and honestly I can’t say that I do except for the stories from my friends that were there. One of them is currently in stable condition in the hospital after taking three bullets, one in his shoulder, one that broke his femur and lodged in his knee, and one that struck him in the hip and lodged in his pelvis. He’s going in for surgery soon, but he’s awake and in good spirits considering what he’s been through. We’re visiting him tomorrow. One of my other friends was in the room directly above the shooting, heard the noise and thought it was construction workers until he smelled the gunsmoke. After being held back from going down there himself, he and some other classmates locked themselves in an office and waited until the police busted the door down. I’ve heard other stories that shouldn’t be put on a public website, but basically the guy knew what he was doing, and had planned this out. He chained the doors to the building shut from the inside to keep people in, and the police out.

Other than that, what you see is what you get on TV, but don’t start buying into the media pointing fingers at people. They’re such assholes, attacking the police chief and President Steger when they’re just trying to get out any pertinent and appropriate information that wouldn’t interfere with investigations. I’ll go off on that tirade if you ask me personally, but really, think about it. If you had the information they had at the time (forget about what we know now) what would you have done differently? Do you really think it would have worked any better than what was done? Are you the one with years on a police force or are you just an uppity little shit that needs the ratings so you don’t have to go look for a new job with your useless English degree? I didn’t think so. Shut up.

Anyways. Thanks to everybody, I just wanted to put this out there so everybody knows I’m doing fine but things are still developing. Any specific questions I’m always glad to answer. You’re all awesome.

-Mike”

One year later, the media are still assholes, by the way.  And I still hate that nobody can say, “Virginia Tech,” without mentioning the shootings.  And one year later doesn’t help much with everyone missing their friends and family taken from us too soon.  Rest in piece, fellow Hokies, we all live for the memory of 32.

We are Virginia Tech.

Thrust Vectoring

This will be a quickie because there’s not really much to talk about. I keep looking around trying to find more information on thrust vectoring and how it really affects performance/maneuverability, etc. Here’s what I’ve found as well as what I think about it:

While we know that TV is a very interesting concept, what does it actually do? According to a lot of people, it makes seemingly impossible maneuvers possible and makes any fighter jet without it obsolete. Some speculate it is there for supersonic cruise purposes as well, which makes sense for reasons found here in a press conference with Col. Everest Riccioni. I’ve also read that it gives the advantage of maneuvering without moving the control surfaces, thereby avoiding the drag induced by doing so.

But one thing I’ve noticed that I wanted to comment on that nobody else has is the fact that today’s aircraft that use TV to gain high AOA maneuvering capabilities are using it as a crutch. Take a look at all those that have it, the F-22, Su-35, etc. All of them are flying dump trucks!!! The fact of the matter is that all of them are obscenely heavy and would be the most sluggish fighters if not for the magically redeeming qualities of vectored thrust. Even with it, it’s easy to see that fighter jets decades older are still much more agile. Have a look at the quickness that each plane does the Cobra maneuver in these two videos. Then try to guess which one has/needs TV to do it.

MiG-29 OVT

J-35 Draken

To elaborate on why slow speed maneuvering is pointless in my mind I leave you with a couple observations. First, all of it has to be done in full afterburner unless the plane is diving because of the weight of the plane and the amount of thrust needed to keep it up in the air. This does two things: put out a huge heat signature, and waste all your gas. So if enough of it is done, you’re either taking a heater up the tailpipe or running home because you need to refuel. Second, what many people still don’t understand is that it’s not how fast you can turn that wins dogfights, it’s the speed at which you can change the situation so that the enemy can’t cope with what you’re doing. It’s the rate of fast transients, how fast you can dump and regain energy, and from what I see, TV can only help you dump it. Post stall, you either have to dive or ride your afterburners to get your energy back which takes a painfully long time from what I’ve seen, giving a more agile opponent plenty of time to pop a heater right up in there. Anyways, enough of my ranting, I leave you with an afterthought:

Does anyone know what John Boyd meant by “flat-plating the bird”? I’m leaning towards the Cobra maneuver, but I’m not sure. I’ve heard that F-105’s could kind of pull a variant of it, if anyone knows send me a line.

That is, if anyone reads this.

X-Plane

I’ve often been harassed by claiming that I could design a better fighter jet than the F-22. Perhaps what I meant was I could design one that doesn’t completely ignore the history of air combat and exactly what it is that makes a fighter jet win. To that extent, I’ve scribbled down some criteria that I think would make the most badass fighter jet we’ve seen. This is solely for air-to-air and none of that fighter/bomber bullshit. All numbers are assumed to be with a full load on takeoff.

• First, the weight. Since we know that weight is a bad force when flying, let’s keep it low. Instead of an 80,000lb monstrosity (ehem, Raptor), I’m keeping this one under 30K. Lighter if at all possible.
• To give it the advantage in range, I’m putting the floor of the fuel fraction at .35. The lift/drag should be nice and high as well.
• As for the thrust/weight, I’m shooting for a 2.
• The sensors are where I’m a little unsure. While I would prefer it to have an emphasis on passive sensors, I know nobody would even touch it if it didn’t have a decent radar on it. That’s why I’m thinking AESA, just because they can get a decent amount of power into a smaller device. Hopefully that should save on weight.
• I’ve been really intrigued by the X-29 and the results of forward swept wings with vortex flow control. High angle of attack capabilities without thrust vectoring? I like it.
• Of course it’ll have a bubble canopy, and the agility will be incredible.

So for anyone who knows anything about fighter design, what do you think? I don’t really put any emphasis on stealth or top speed or service ceiling but all those are inherent in the design so long as it is kept small, quick, and isn’t aerodynamically sloppy. The Raptor is none of those things, so I’m already a step ahead. Plus, the cost of this fighter will be much less and therefore allow more of them, another key ingredient to winning in an air-to-air battle. So long as it’s not polluted by the current process of acquisition we have running, this would destroy anything flying today in an even cost analysis.

Real fighter pilots probably just had their wet dreams come true.

Air Tactics Pt. 2

I decided to wait until after we got through with our OCA sims to really have a good grasp on how we thought about conducting a full air war.  Turns out, there’s not much actual thinking involved.  It’s still the same 2nd generation attritionist mindset: destroy everything the enemy has and he’ll stop fighting you.  There’s little to no discussion at the tactical level as to what the best course of action may be, and if there is, it doesn’t really matter since the ATO comes out long before the mission takes place anyways.

Granted these were only sims, and designed to give us just an idea of what an actual OCA mission would be like, but I’m still irritated by the lack of consideration of the mental and moral aspects of war.  It’s all about getting bombs on target on time, hey diddle diddle straight up the middle.  The worst indication that our OODA loops are consumed by the ATO was on the last day, where in this particular scenario, our “intel report” declared our communications compromised and that the enemy was aware of our incoming strike.  In my head, this was a great opportunity to be unpredictable (heck, maybe we leaked the info to make the enemy think we were striking) and do exactly the opposite of what the enemy thought we were up to.  Hey, we could throw up all kinds of feints and deceptions to make them react inappropriately and then take advantage!  Unfortunately, I found myself once again correct about our mentality.  The word from above was basically, “deal with it, we’re not changing anything.”

…

I wanted to pull a Boyd and start poking people in the chest and yelling my lungs out about how stupid this was.  We had the knowledge of what the enemy was expecting, what they were planning to do about it, and we did nothing about it!  I calmed myself down for a short while thinking that this may have been a sim-ism and they were just using this as an excuse to challenge us until our instructor informed us that this sometimes happens in the real world.

I just don’t know what to say anymore.