Air War - Proof Readers Needed!

[gumboot]

Hi folks,

I've finished the first step in writing my final NORAD/FAA paper titled "Air War". At this stage I have covered everything up to the sequence of events on the day itself, which I'm still not sure how to actually present. Categories covered are:

THE ELEMENTS IN THE SYSTEM
-The Federal Aviation Administration
-The North American Aerospace Defense Command
-The Continental US Radar Network
-At-sea Operating Areas

THE SYSTEM IN PEACE AND WAR
-Peace time responsibilities and procedures
-Aircraft Piracy
-Active Air Defense Missions and Air Defense Emergencies

CASE STUDY – The Intercept of N47BA

THE SYSTEM ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11
-Assets in play
-Wargames

I'm after anyone who is willing to read through the first completed sections and offer some proof reading and fact checking for me.

Currently I also don't have any references logged in, mainly because I'm not sure how I want to manage my references either (quotes and links as I go along, or footnotes?).

So some feedback generally on the document, some feedback on how you think I should use references/quotes and some feedback on how you'd like to see the timeline of the day itself laid out would be appreciated.

Any takers?

The document is a 1.9MB PDF so best bet is going to be if I email it to people, so maybe PM me if you want to help out. Currently sitting at 32 pages and 14,000 words.

 

[Reheat]

I'll help, Gumboot. Let's do the arranging by PM.

 

[Gravy]

Hey, cool. Sign me up for that, if you like. nyctours(at)gmail.com

 

[ElMondoHummus]

PM'd you about this.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I'll be glad to help, too; I was thinking of making some proofreading suggestions on the excerpt you posted. I have a B.A. in American and European history, and minored in English, so this is right up my alley. Plus I know more about British/Commonwealth English than probably 99.9% of Americans. I'll PM you my email.


ETA: I also read aircraft and other accident reports for "fun" (for lack of a better term), so I'm fairly conversant with ATC operations, for an amateur.

 

[LashL]

Count me in as another volunteer proofreader if you like, gumboot.

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

Gumboot - Love to help, I'm an Air Force logistician but with more than a rudimentary knowledge of NORAD/FAA command relationships and ROE.

 

[gumboot]

Thanks everyone I'm sending them out now.

Just a note, obviously I'm a New Zealander so we use proper spelling... However I don't want to change spelling if I'm naming an actual organisation etc, so I've decided to keep things simple and much as seeing all those z's makes me feel unclean, I'll be going with American spelling throughout the document.

Currently I think it's a bit of a mix of American and regular English spelling.

 

[gumboot]

I think I have enough general proof readers now, however I'm still happy to pass the document along to anyone with specific experience in the subject matter for fact checking and so forth - so anyone with FAA or DOD experience.

Much of the document is of course my interpretation of the references I have available, and if people more knowledgeable than me can spot errors in that interpretation that's the sort of errors that need cleaning up!

Also I've been trying to determine a fuel consumption rate for a fighter at cruise speed, but it's not coming across. I would guess (perhaps incorrectly) that cruise speed is achieved by setting a certain % throttle, but does the specific fuel consumption rate scale back linear? - So that 80% throttle would consume fuel at 80% of the full dry thrust rate. Or would 80% throttle use the same specific fuel consumption rate as full dry, but the total pounds thrust produced is only 80% effectively resulting in an 80% reduction in fuel consumption.

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

Gumboot - I still have several contacts on the F-15 weapon system team at Air Combat Command, I will see what I can find out. It will be F-15 specific but we might be able to extrapolate to the single-engined F-16.

- USAFMXOfficer

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot - I still have several contacts on the F-15 weapon system team at Air Combat Command, I will see what I can find out. It will be F-15 specific but we might be able to extrapolate to the single-engined F-16.

- USAFMXOfficer

Thanks. They both have the same engine but the F-16 has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.898 while the F-15 is 1.12. I assume that's in slick configuration.

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

F100 engine SFC rates

From Wikipedia:

Military thrust: 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) (77.5 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 1.94 lb/(lbf·h) (197.8 kg/(kN·h))

That's 0.76 lbs fuel consumption per 1 pound thrust per hour.

I don't know if it is a linear relationship between throttle setting (i.e. cruise vs military vs full afterburner), I will check tomorrow at work.

BTW, the F100 is a pig, at least the early version the F100-PW-100. Maintainers spend many hours on this engine keeping it in commission. The follow-on -220 and -229 (in the F-15E) are much more maintainer-friendly.

If you ever get a chance, you need to see an F-15 full afterburner takeoff at night. Incredible. I'll try to find a couple pictures.

 

[TjW]

Just to nitpick: It shouldn't matter. Draggy or clean, it will weigh the same. Draggy or clean, it should produce the same thrust.

 

[Reheat]

Also I've been trying to determine a fuel consumption rate for a fighter at cruise speed, but it's not coming across. I would guess (perhaps incorrectly) that cruise speed is achieved by setting a certain % throttle, but does the specific fuel consumption rate scale back linear? - So that 80% throttle would consume fuel at 80% of the full dry thrust rate. Or would 80% throttle use the same specific fuel consumption rate as full dry, but the total pounds thrust produced is only 80% effectively resulting in an 80% reduction in fuel consumption.

The % 80 RPM is simply a throttle setting related to % 100 RPM. It has nothing at all to do with fuel consumption or thrust produced. Cruise speed would vary depending upon mission requirements. i.e. Simply going from point A to point B would be at a recommended cruise speed. Usually, however, there is a TOT to meet or a target to intercept which might dictate the speed. Typical cross country cruise would normally be in the high % 80 range for most fighters. Most of the modern fighters will reach supersonic speeds with Mil Power (% 100 RPM).

Fuel consumption/thrust produced is not linear and will vary with the specific aircraft. Although I have flown the F-16 I don't remember details like that, not even close.

I don't know if it is a linear relationship between throttle setting (i.e. cruise vs military vs full afterburner), I will check tomorrow at work.

I can assure you it isn't linear.

Just to nitpick: It shouldn't matter. Draggy or clean, it will weigh the same.

What? With weapons or fuel tanks the aircraft weighs the same as it does in a clean configuration? "Slick" means no weapons or fuel tanks, it does not necessarily mean no drag devices. That must be the confusion.

Draggy or clean, it should produce the same thrust.

Correct, but obviously the resulting speed will be different.

 

[TjW]

Okay. I was thinking flaps, wheels, etc.

 

[gumboot]

For anyone who is interested, I got my engine specs from here.

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

Gumboot - Wow! Great site! The table is a little hard to read (wish it was excel so you could freeze panes), but great info!

Thanks,

 

[Wildy]

If you still need people to read you can count me in. Hopefully I will be able to understand Kiwi .

 

[Reheat]

Folks, as Gumboot indicated above he does not need English Majors to critique his paper. He is an excellent writer and needs no help at all in this area.

He needs TECHNICAL CRITIQUE from folks familiar with FAA/ATC Procedures, DOD stuff, NORAD, aircraft stuff (fighters), etc. or those willing to research these areas for verification of existing information, errors and suggestions to make it better.

 

[gumboot]

Thought I might as well use this to share interesting updates.

I've uncovered a draft Department of Transportation plan from July/August of 1997 which details plans by the FAA to completely decommission all internal CONUS primary surveillance radar sites.

While the purpose of the paper in itself is interesting - in that it reinforces the idea that US air defense was in a process of "winding down" after the Cold War - what's really interesting is that as part of the paper they detail the findings of an FAA impact study that details the affect of deactivating all primary radar.

Not surprisingly, the paper makes no mention whatsoever of hijacked airliners being used as weapons.

The only real concern they have is that they won't be able to help aircraft is distress as effectively, and that they won't be able to track transponder failures.

To both problems they determine that failures are rare and almost exclusively occur in small aircraft flying at low altitudes, thus primary coverage often can't pick them up anyway. In the extremely rare cases of Class A Airspace failure, they suggest merely that non-radar separation rules are applied, resulting in a decrease in service.

What is most telling here is that prior to 9/11 the FAA obviously felt no concern whatsoever at having no primary coverage at all.