rob@hhb.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) (12/28/84)
[prop wash]
Hello, there, flying netters (or netting fliers),
I was reading in the Dec. 24 1984 issue of TIME magazine
(on p 14) about the recent test flight of the Grumman
X-29A reverse-swept-wing aircraft.
Says TIME,
"The Pentagon and Grumman Corp. are gambling $130 million
that the design will eventually give U.S. pilots an
advantage in future dogfights."
and yet
"...it is so unstable that no pilot can react fast enough
to keep it from dropping out of the sky ... three built-in
computers check all flight control surfaces 40 times a
second, automatically making adjustments to keep the plane
airborne."
The aircraft is designed to be inherently unstable, so
that maneuverability can be enhanced.
However, sophisticated fly-by-wire computer control is
necessary to maintain flight.
Now, you've probably all heard of the controversy about
the vulnerability of any fixed-wing non-VTOL
warplane when it is on the airfield.
So I'm not even going to bother discussing the
wisdom of building yet another expensive
and hard to maintain plane of that type.
What I do question is the wisdom of building
such a plane as the X-29 in the light of what
is known about nuclear warfare.
To kill a 'conventional' plane, one must
achieve a fairly direct hit with a missile.
However, it would seem to me that, unless the X-29's
control systems are effectively shielded,
merely a nearby detonation of a nuclear missile not
even intended for it would cripple the plane via
the EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) effect.
The planes would magically drop from the sky if
caught in flight near an explosion.
If they were on the ground, they could be rendered
useless by a nearby burst which didn't even destroy
the runway.
And it might take longer to repair the electronic system
of the X-29 than it would take to get, say, a Harrier or
F-16 repaired after similar exposure.
What say you?
Is this plane, interesting as it is, destined to be
another boondoggle?
Or has EMP been designed against?
How effective is such shielding? It is one thing to lose a
target acquisition computer, quite another to suddenly lose
all control of the aircraft.
What about serviceability?
How do you feel on the whole question of warplane design -
VTOL vs conventional, a few sophisticated vs many simple?
Please respond via Email, as I seldom have access to the net.
rob
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!philabs!hhb!rob
I in no way represent my employer in this matter.josh@topaz.ARPA (01/03/85)
> I was reading in the Dec. 24 1984 issue of TIME magazine > (on p 14) about the recent test flight of the Grumman > X-29A reverse-swept-wing aircraft. > ... > What I do question is the wisdom of building > such a plane as the X-29 in the light of what > is known about nuclear warfare. > > To kill a 'conventional' plane, one must > achieve a fairly direct hit with a missile. > However, it would seem to me that, unless the X-29's > control systems are effectively shielded, > merely a nearby detonation of a nuclear missile not > even intended for it would cripple the plane via > the EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) effect. > > The planes would magically drop from the sky if > caught in flight near an explosion. a) EMP is easy to shield against in a small, self-contained piece of circuitry (as opposed to a power grid with hundreds of miles of exposed wire acting as antennas). b) EMP only occurs in a sea-surface burst or an air-space interface burst, not with any random airburst. Don't take the Magical Car Hex in The Day After too seriously... --JoSH