WT Forums

"You're right, it is the current USAF thinking. I can understand the need to protect the F-22, but we can't make the mistake of betting everything on the pass line on it by letting other stuff fall by the wayside. We still need the other weps systems to retain their capabilities. And again, I'm not touting the 117 horn, it's got it's niche that it's good at, but money is getting tight allocation-wise, and even now, our ability to do our primary mission is getting affected. The clowns in the upper echelons of the corporation better wake up."

Well we know the F-15Cs days are numbered, and that modernizing it would cost a ton of money, and that the R&D/production facilitie costs of the F-22 are already spent and gone.

So the F-22 is pretty much an absolute neccesity for the role of air dominance, so the question becomes, what do we cut?

My take: The F-35A.



<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Well we know the F-15Cs days are numbered, and that modernizing it would cost a ton of money, and that the R&D/production facilitie costs of the F-22 are already spent and gone.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats right Sniper, and thats exactly the direction the Navy went with retiring its Tomcats earlier than they where planning. The F-18E/F is here to stay, and as sad as it is to be loosing the best tactical strike fighter in the fleet. *depending on your POV, but as far as performance so far a very accurate statement. But, if thats the direction, then we might as well get on with it. The same should be true with the F-15C, being that air dominance is a mission that the F-22 was designed for.

I also agree with your position on the F-35A. Give the USAF the F-18E's for that requirement, or let them have USN F-35C's. Its a new jet, and thats what they need. If the USAF has the F-22, does anybody really need the F-35 in any variant? You may agree, or disagree, but the job can be done from a tactical sense, with F-22's and F-18E/F's, but only if we have the F-22 in force numbers, meaning 400. Just my opinion, not trying to piss anyone off.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>does anybody really need the F-35 in any variant? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Anybody operating the Harrier (US Marines, Italy, Spain, England)in any form needs the F-35B. The USMC could PROBOBLY do without it, but they'll never give up fixxed wing from ships without a huge fight. Navy needs the F-35C, the idea that we can sweep the land of ground based defences is pretty clearly dead. F-35A can definatly be done without, but both of the other versions are more expensive. AF says they want some F-35Bs, maybee they could take a modified B with the lift fan changed out for a fuel tank to go along with the V/STOL B versions, at leaste they would still have some parts commonality.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The F-35B is a spectacular disaster.

If it ever sees service it will be at nowhere near the original projected price, and certainly not at the original performance specifications or weights.

Anyone relying on the F-35B should be looking for alternatives.

And of course the difference between the USN letting the F-14D go and the USAF letting the F-15C goe is that one service accepted a design that was in many ways inferior, whereas the other service is getting what is by all accounts the most dominating multirole fighter ever devised...

<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Anyone relying on the F-35B should be looking for alternatives<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Name one.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

A CTOL carrier instead of a ski jump carrier is one.

An 'improved' Harrier "III" is another.

And removing themselves as a nation from carrier aviation is yet another.

See that....there's three viable options. I'd suggest those nations start seriously considering them.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers, and targets.</b><img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

Have VTOL aircraft ever made a significant tactical impact? Ever?

You could make the case of the Sea Harrier during the Falklands Campaign. But, despite the fact that the Sea Harrier and British pilots performed brilliantly, The Royal Navy in my opinion dodged a huge bullet. Had Argentina exploted their standoff capability with the Exocet better, the Brits would have been in serious trouble, for most the maritime strike was conducted with A-4's and Super Entendards on the deck slinging dumb ordanance. The Brits still got roughed up some. I doubt the Sheffield would have been sunk had the Brits retained their convential carriers and had F-4's flying BARCAP.

Of course the aluminum superstructure of the Sheffield had as much to do with its sinking as anything. The same type of missile struck the USS Stark in the 80's. Though it was later stricken, it made it back to port.

Back to the topic at hand.

Even in more recent conflicts, the need for VTOL has been questionable. STOL and advancing rotary technology is the way to go, IMHO. The F-35B is just a money pit.

We are now rolling Super Hornets off the production line, along with F-22's...Lets use what we got, even if the F-18E/F's are not what everybody wanted. Hornets can be the bomb trucks, after all they are supposed to be very survivable in todays SAM enviornment, let the Raptors handle the first day of war air dominance and strike needs. All we need are more Raptors.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
A CTOL carrier instead of a ski jump carrier is one.

An 'improved' Harrier "III" is another.

And removing themselves as a nation from carrier aviation is yet another.

See that....there's three viable options. I'd suggest those nations start seriously considering them.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers, and targets.</b><img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Those are POSSIBLE options, none of them are viable.

Fleets cant be protected these days without air cover, no carriers mean your a brown water navy and those countries arnt even slightly likely to accept that.

Even the UK is flagging on wheather they are going to go with a CTOL option, just too expensive for most nations.

Most people on this site also seem to think the Harrier is a disaster that goes nowhere and does nothing. Harrier II+ already has a composite wing, RADAR and survivability upgrades. No real room for growth. Anything terribly differant and your looking at a whole new airplane again $$$$$$$$

I dont know if VSTOL has made a contribution but the USAF is moving towards that tech rather than away from it. They see it as a way to make forward basing easier and more flexible and it's probly the only way they can replace the fuel sipping A-10 and still have any useful loiter capability.

JSF/F-35 WILL go through wheather the thing works or not, too much profit to be made on what the metal benders and thier suppliers see as possibly be the last major manned combat platform. UAVs are struggling to be sure, but other than intercontinental bombers (large or small) no-one has proposed another manned aircraft except maybee the ones left out of the JSF program.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
A CTOL carrier instead of a ski jump carrier is one.

An 'improved' Harrier "III" is another.

And removing themselves as a nation from carrier aviation is yet another.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

These are good options. The first one is the one for nations who really want flexibility and capability, including decent airborne early warning. The second one is really a new airplane of the same configuration (single non A/B fan engine with rotating nozzles) as the Harrier (Kestrel) but scaled up (again). It would not be supersonic and would need bigger ships because it will be bigger. The third option is what most nations do. They make the observation that big decks are the only effective option, so let the USA take care of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I dont know if VSTOL has made a contribution but the USAF is moving towards that tech rather than away from it. They see it as a way to make forward basing easier and more flexible and it's probly the only way they can replace the fuel sipping A-10 and still have any useful loiter capability.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The USAF got its arm twisted to accept STOVL. If they didn't the whole JSF program (all models) was in jeapardy, since the cost of the STOVL was out of control. They tried to recover by larger production run economies of scale. The AF leadership bought into that in order to keep the A model going (live to fight another day). I don't think your assumption about loiter is right. If you are not talking about "ground loiter" then the CTOL could be based more than 200 miles further away and still have 30 min more time over the battle area when compared to the STOVL. As I have said before, I do not view forward basing as a plus, especially "ground loiter". Why would you want to be closer to the enemy mortars when your operation could be 200 miles further away in a secure area?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>JSF/F-35 WILL go through wheather the thing works or not, too much profit to be made on what the metal benders and thier suppliers see as possibly be the last major manned combat platform. UAVs are struggling to be sure, but other than intercontinental bombers (large or small) no-one has proposed another manned aircraft except maybee the ones left out of the JSF program.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If the F-35B doesn't work it will be scrapped, possibly taking the other models with it. The other side of the coin that comes from AF buy-in is that they have no one that has his career riding on it. They won't champion the cause when they can get twice as many CTOL's for the same money. The main reason no one has proposed another miltary aircraft program is that there is no money now or in the out years. (For some reason I am pessimistic about the prospects of this global strike jet we are working on, the so called FB-22.) If the JSF runs into trouble and is stopped, there will be many new starts proposed.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Why would you want to be closer to the enemy mortars when your operation could be 200 miles further away in a secure area?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You'll have to ask the USAF, wasnt my idea. They did some forward basing in Iraq as I recall, building some temporary strips.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The USAF got its arm twisted to accept STOVL. If they didn't the whole JSF program (all models) was in jeapardy, since the cost of the STOVL was out of control. They tried to recover by larger production run economies of scale. The AF leadership bought into that in order to keep the A model going (live to fight another day)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
And if JSF fails do you think there is money for a "do-over"? Course not, they will MAKE F-35 work no matter how many numbers they have to change to bring it to fruition. One reason the F-35 looks like it does was so that they could glean LO research from F-22 on the cheap. Any new design would be DOA on cost alone.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The third option is what most nations do. They make the observation that big decks are the only effective option, so let the USA take care of it. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
True enough but other than Japan I'm not sure there are any nations that have given up CVs of one sort or another. The opposit is happening with Spain and Italy getting on board in the late 70s early 80s and India in the late 50s early 60s with various conversions from the US and the UK. India seems intent on going bigger with former Soviet CVs. But for the near future F-35 is the only thing that will work for Spain, Italy and probobly England.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<i>Well we know the F-15Cs days are numbered, and that modernizing it would cost a ton of money, and that the R&D/production facilitie costs of the F-22 are already spent and gone.</i>


How long do you propose that the Eagle will still be around? 2020 with a 6.5G OP Limit?

In the meantime, I have an Eagle just waiting to be flown!

http://users.zoominternet.net/~JData/15MSIP.wmv

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>JSF/F-35 WILL go through wheather the thing works or not, too much profit to be made on what the metal benders and thier suppliers see as possibly be the last major manned combat platform. UAVs are struggling to be sure, but other than intercontinental bombers (large or small) no-one has proposed another manned aircraft except maybee the ones left out of the JSF program.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The A-12 Avenger II had billions poured into its development before it was scrapped. People where literaly laid off mid-shift at the factory, when it got the axe. Nothing is ever a done deal within the military industrial complex. see: Comache, Crusader

If we have the F-18E/F to compliment the F-22, then why build a single F-35? If we had so much confidence in the F-35, then why did the USN not place the F-14 into a SLEP, untill the F-35 arrived? The F-18E/F is a new build aircraft, giving it a letter after its nomenclature for series lineage is a stretch to say the least.

Isn't the Super Hornet's designation something like:

F/A/K/E-18E/F/G?

SH is an interim aircraft, it wont be survivable in attack roles in 10 years either. A-12 didnt have 3 services and multiple foreign sales waiting for it to happen, at BEST the AF might have bought some to replace F-15E. Avenger died because someone wanted it killed ( wonder who? )and it couldent put up a fight cause it was failing to meet the ever changing objectives. McD wanted it, Navy wanted SOMETHING stealthy for attack not sure if they cared what that something was, but no-one else cared and would be just fine if that DOD money were freed up for one of thier projects, the Euros certainly couldnt have cared less.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

"And if JSF fails do you think there is money for a "do-over"? Course not, they will MAKE F-35 work no matter how many numbers they have to change to bring it to fruition. One reason the F-35 looks like it does was so that they could glean LO research from F-22 on the cheap. Any new design would be DOA on cost alone."

The F-35B is anything but a sure thing. Don't be shocked if it gets flushed for cost overruns and technical problems(of which it has no shortage). The USAF HAS sclaed way back on it's F-35B buy figures. The article was posted here 3-4 months ago.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

" SH is an interim aircraft, it wont be survivable in attack roles in 10 years either."

One of the most damning statements i've ever seen WRT the F-18E/F.

From one of it's biggest supporters.

GO FIGURE...

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

IMO the USAF should do like they did before with the F-4....adopt the F/A-18 for USAF use, already a proven design. Would be a good complement to the F-22.......and keep the F-22 where it belongs best: air-air dominance.

Frankly i see no need to procure the F-18E/F for the USAF.

The Block60 F-16 is a fine compliment for the F-22 IMO. Just replace F-16s as they wear out with new build Block60s.

Or the USAF could even order a new "Block 62" variant with increased 'stealthing', or whatever else they wanted on it.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Frankly i see no need to procure the F-18E/F for the USAF.

The Block60 F-16 is a fine compliment for the F-22 IMO. Just replace F-16s as they wear out with new build Block60s.

Or the USAF could even order a new "Block 62" variant with increased 'stealthing', or whatever else they wanted on it.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The AF could order the Block 60, but they seem to be done with procrument of the F-16, at least for now. The UAE Block 60 flies out of Holloman here, and it's an interesting bird to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"And if JSF fails do you think there is money for a "do-over"? Course not, they will MAKE F-35 work no matter how many numbers they have to change to bring it to fruition. One reason the F-35 looks like it does was so that they could glean LO research from F-22 on the cheap. Any new design would be DOA on cost alone."

The F-35B is anything but a sure thing. Don't be shocked if it gets flushed for cost overruns and technical problems(of which it has no shortage). The USAF HAS sclaed way back on it's F-35B buy figures. The article was posted here 3-4 months ago.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Note: that was screwed up, my post disappeared.

The Marines are having to cut their order almost in half in order to have ten squadrons ready for carrier duy. When it comes down to it, I think they'll be given a choice between the F-35B and the MV-22. There's no room for both of them on a LHA/D and in the budget.






"Nobody ever won a war dying for their country. You win wars by making the other son of a bitch die for his." - George S. Patton.
My motto: pacis per vires

Edited by - benroethig on Apr 30 2005 05:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>SH is an interim aircraft, it wont be survivable in attack roles in 10 years either. A-12 didnt have 3 services and multiple foreign sales waiting for it to happen, at BEST the AF might have bought some to replace F-15E. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

From what I read, the A-12 was concieved by both the USN and USAF. It was a big, big program. While you are correct in that there probably would be no export sales, the A-12 was going to flesh out the needs of both the USAF and USN. Replacing the A-6/F/A-18 and F-15E/F-111/F117 etc. Make no mistake it vwas to be a "joint" venure. As far as your 10 year interm aircraft, its pretty spendy for that, and would be the shortest service life of any USN tactical aircraft since the Brewster Buffalo, that being the case. The already in fleet Tomcats could of probably lasted another 10 years with work. My attitude is I really wasn't a fan of the F-18E/F, but we have it now so we might as well utilize it, and learn to fight with it the best that we can. You are right though, Cheney had much to do with the A-12 debacle. I see this topic has been discussed here before at great length.





<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Frankly i see no need to procure the F-18E/F for the USAF.

The Block60 F-16 is a fine compliment for the F-22 IMO. Just replace F-16s as they wear out with new build Block60s.

Or the USAF could even order a new "Block 62" variant with increased 'stealthing', or whatever else they wanted on it.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats a fair statement, and I do not know what the perfoamnce difference would be between the two aircraft you mentioned. It makes sense to me from a economic standpoint because it would reduce the cost of the total program, and perhaps be a better vaule in the long term because of the possiability that three services would be using the F-18E/F. Just a logical thought without researching the pros and cons much.

The obvious impetus behind the USAF sticking with the F-16 over the 18E/F is that the F-16 is already operated by the USAF in massive numbers.

Therefore the entire infrastructure for supporting that airframe is already in place. The USAF doesn't have ANY infrastructure to support the 18 whatsoever.

The USMC(god bless their souls) have indicated absolutely no interest in the 18E/F.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
" SH is an interim aircraft, it wont be survivable in attack roles in 10 years either."

One of the most damning statements i've ever seen WRT the F-18E/F.

From one of it's biggest supporters.

GO FIGURE...

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I've always said the SH was a stopgap after the A-12 disater, Navy wanted some stealth, SH proposals ( which were in the works in various forms as soon as the A/B Hornets were worked out ) were the only thing avaiable and affordable.

F-14 and F-16 wont be viable strikers over any <u>modern</u> battlefield ( read NOT Afdirtistan) for much longer if they are even now. The double digit SAMs are apparently violently effective. SH can strech that out for a few more years but it will have to become a stand off missle chukker too after that. F-16 has already been "stealthed" about as much as possible( conductive canopy, intake treatments), only newer coatings can lower it's db much if any.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The block60 -16 is the most stealthy F-16 yet. As materials technology improves it is only logical that the RCS can be lowered still further.

And of course, before long, active stealth will be a lot more feasable. Once that's perfected, a B-52 could be 'stealthed'.



<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
" SH is an interim aircraft, it wont be survivable in attack roles in 10 years either."

One of the most damning statements i've ever seen WRT the F-18E/F.

From one of it's biggest supporters.

GO FIGURE...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

At least its in the same boat as the Rafale and eurochicken. I doubt it's very survivable now without fighter support which the carriers don't have at the moment.

"Nobody ever won a war dying for their country. You win wars by making the other son of a bitch die for his." - George S. Patton.
My motto: pacis per vires