WT Forums

This just continues the trend of the past 50 years. In 2025 there will be one tactical fighter in the U.S. inventory used on alternate days between the Navy and the USAF. The Marines will get it on Feb 29 leap year days.


<b>Legacy fleet pays the price:</b> The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request, as expected, left the US Air Force’s prized new fighter programmes – the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor and F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) – intact, but that restraint packed a surprising cost. One-quarter of the US Air Force’s existing fighter inventory will be phased out as the so-called fifth-generation fleet is ushered into service over the next two decades, the service has announced. A 25% reduction amounts to the elimination of roughly 800 current fighters. The air force is hoping the advanced capabilities of the F-22, F-35 and upgrades to a small core fleet of existing fighters will be enough to offset the loss in numbers. (Flight International)



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

I know that most of you here are probably not into sailing, however, this puts me in mind of the McGreggor Company.

McGreggor used to buil a really nice little trailerable sailboat. Some years ago, they realized that most people were buying powerboats because they are easier to operate and you could go fast and pull skiers. So, in their infinite wisdom, they redesigned their boat to be a "Hybrid". A 26' cabin cruser sail boat that was trailerable, and you could put a 100 hp aux. outboard on the back and tow a skier and go really fast. Looked good on paper.

The problem is that the hull shape needed for a good sail boat, and the hull shape needed for a good power boat are two vastly different animals. So they comprimised the shape to be one that niether sail nor motors very well. I've out performed them in my little 22' boat under sail, and seen small power boats with half the hp out perform them under power.

So now, the Government in their infinite wisdom is trying to come up with a new fighter that can do any job on the battle field. The similar problem though, as I'm sure most of us know, is that the airfoil and airframe shape needed for "Low and Slow" is radically different than what is needed for "High and Fast."

I don't care how many computers and GPS guided munitions you come up with, an aircraft moveing at over 600mph is not going to be able to perform CAS as accurately and effectivly as an aircraft that can fly low and slow. You just can't see where the targets are at those speeds.

It is just as impossible for an F-22 or 35 to do CAS, as it is for an A-10 to do Air Superiority.

Or is it just me who thinks this is a really stupid move?

"Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow"

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

I vote stupid.

Fender

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

are you saying a super cruise fighter can loiter, take punishment, and oh drop a meaningful bomb load. lol Now if McNamara was around could you imagin the stuff he'd have the f-22 doing.

No Matt that is not what I am saying, he said "Or is it just me who thinks this is a really stupid move?" and I said I vote stupid, meaning I agree with his accessment of the situation. That is if you are talking to me, if not forget I said anything and erase this post from your mind.LOL



Fender

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Ice Pirate I don't want to hijack this thread, but lets talk sailing on another topic. My father has a US Yachts 22, rigged with a spinaker. Mostly sail fresh water in the upper Columbia River Gorge...

Jack of all trades master of none has never really seemed to work, though it could be argued that had the F-14 been properly used, it could have come close to meeting that role with a large degree of effectiveness durring the cold war. I know we have mixed opinions of that aircraft on this forum, but thats my humble opnion. Aside from its lack of "stealthiness" it had the ability to achieve a multitide of mission profiles and still fly a very strong aircraft in those various profiles, again my humble opinion as an armchair enthusiast.

I do ask this question, with the current technology that non western air superiority systems posses today, and in the near future. Is the doctrin that stress posted realistic with our proficient training and high tech weaponry?

<img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle>...can I say something. here....

...This whole thing of tech vs Numbers is such bullshit...

U figure 800Hrs, and you got a Dude you can count on. Mission Qualed. Can plan, can lead...etc

so lets say we minimise the fleet to say 2 wings vs 5.

So that is 2 wings, say 3 Squadrons each, roughly 60 aircraft.


How the hell is 60 Aircraft going to sustain itself for 2 years in 2 seperate theaters?

The maintainers and pilots need a break....Not broken

Expecting more for less Doesnt work very well.

So if the aircraft are busted, and god forbid we over fatigue and loose pilots.

How will replacement aircraft and pilots be fullfilled? Your looking at 4 Years Minamum with a Captenent. Sure there may be a squared away kid with 300hours in a jet... But don't mean hes a Tiger.

It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it.
The cost of living has gone up another dollar a quart.Somebody left the cork out of my lunch.

Lots of stupid.

The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security.
Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

my only comment was sarcasism at the politics of trying to get jack of all trade planes--that are speedy and sexy. Oh and way too expensive to risk getting shot up with a little flack.

Not to get into the secrete but how much punishment do you believe the f-22 can take. THE A-10 was designed with the understanding it would get hit and have to get the pilot home. I doubt the f-22 engineers had getting down and dirty in mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I know that most of you here are probably not into sailing, however, this puts me in mind of the McGreggor Company.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I was into sailing in a previous life. I'm looking to get into it again. I had a sweet set up on Long Island with a canal behind my house where my Father and I kept our boats. I had a 23' sloop and he had a 33' cabin cruiser. We had fun in the Great South Bay and cruising around the area, mostly east end and Long Island Sound (Conn., R.I.). This was the boat I had. Wave back to my brother-in-law.

<img src="http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL702/3046559/6177620/129515785.jpg" border=0>

I remember the MacGregor company. It was a last ditch move to try that hybrid and ill advised. It was doomed because it actually alienated rag sailors and stinkpotters alike, and it is hard to get them to agree on anything. The only people who might be interested are new to boating and most of them won't understand the concept. I like the analogy to the do-all fighter though. You get something that is good for nothing.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

Well, uh, ok, I stand corrected. I guess there are some sailors out here. Great! I'll crank a new one in Gen Chat.

It's also good to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks the Aero-Space Engineers and Administration need to pull their heads out.

Mattlott, you make a great point. Can the F-22 or 35 take hits and still keep dishing it out? Can they protect to pilot to be able to fight another day? Or are they just going to rely on stand off weapons so they don't bend their pretty lawn dart? Yeah, Stand-off Weapons are really the best for CAS, I'm sure.<img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow"

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mattlott, you make a great point. Can the F-22 or 35 take hits and still keep dishing it out?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?e ... toryid=225

<b>F-22 undergoes live fire test</b> Thursday, August 30, 2001
by Hugh Griffis
Aeronuatical Systems Center Engineering Directorate
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio (AFMCNS) The successful F-22 Raptor live fire test here Aug. 22 completed one more objective toward the operational deployment of the Air Forces newest fighter aircraft.

F-22 program officials here said the test evaluated the aircrafts structural design by simulating having an anti-aircraft artillery round hit it in flight. Computer controlled hydraulic jacks pushed against the wings to simulate a maneuvering airplanes flight loads. A battery of jet engines blew high-velocity air across the wing and the fuel tanks were filled with fuel.

Glenn Miller, F-22 System Program Office deputy director, said he was very pleased with the test.

The F-22 performed as we expected, Miller said. We use these tests to confirm the ability of the F-22 to withstand combat-induced damage. Survivable designs mean reduced loss of aircraft and more importantly our pilots in combat.

The test facility looked like a combination of a science laboratory and Hollywood movie set with cameras and banks of lights. High-speed photography captured the results of the high-explosive incendiary round hitting the aircraft.

Test team members viewed in slow motion to see the detailed effects of the exploding round. Testers also collected numerous other measurements to help understand the test results.

With the wings loaded with fuel, flight loads and airflow applied, lights and cameras came on and the round fired and exploded within the wing fuel tank, test officials reported. The explosive bullet generated a shock wave that traveled through the fuel and imparted loads on the wings skin and internal structure.

A portion of the wing skin deformed into the air stream and then ripped off, officials said. The damaged wing remained largely intact due to unique features of the F-22 wing design. This limited structural damage would allow a pilot to fly the airplane home.

Additional tests will be conducted in the next several weeks to determine the damaged wings remaining flight capability, officials added. These tests will apply even higher flight loads.

A joint government and contractor team led by the F-22 SPO at the Aircraft Survivability Research Facility here conducted the test. The test team consisted of members of the 46th Test Wing Detachment, assisted by the Raptor prime contractor, Lockheed Martin and Boeing who designed and built the Raptor wings.

The Raptor has completed several live-fire tests since the being of the F-22 design phase. Prototypes of portions of the airplane were shot with explosive bullets.

These tests provided Lockheed and Boeing designers with data needed to refine usage of new materials and construction techniques. These earlier tests led to several design changes. This test demonstrated the effectiveness of some of these changes.

After completing its flight tests last year, Raptor 4001, the first flight-test aircraft, flew here to prepare for live-fire testing.

The airplane was installed in the Aircraft Survivability Research Facility in April 2000. Since then, the government and contractor team has been preparing the test facility. (Aeronautical Systems Center Public Affairs contributed to this article.)






Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

stress question do the new carbon and other materials used in these aircraft retain the ability to be repaired in the field. Also since a completely intact skin surface is required for stress can these repairs be done without eliminating the aircrafts stealth advantage in the field. I ask this in theoretical sense because it the aircraft have to be pulled from service with every scratch and so few are purchased how will you generate the necessary combat ready aircraft during war of attrition with say Iran that has a lot of powerful AAA which can damage the aircraft if not necessarily destroy them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
stress question do the new carbon and other materials used in these aircraft retain the ability to be repaired in the field.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes and no. There is a whole group here that is responsible for designing generic battle damage repairs. The composite materials can be repaired, but the options are not as varied as the metals. There are different categories of repair ranging from fully mission capable (restored strength and signature) to one time ferry flights. Some of them can be done "in the field" and some need controlled facilities.

As an aside, metal construction is easier to design for battle damage because the material has yield capability, that is, it can stretch a lot more before failure. Composites are linear to failure and brittle, so they are not tolerant of impact and shock. We had to add some titanium spars in the F-22 wing to satisfy battle damage requirements. Without the metal spars, the whole top of the wing blows off if a round explodes in the fuel tank. The titanium "superspars" contain the damage. AV-8B's do not have that type of damage control feature, contributing to their vulnerability.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

Edited by - a10stress on Feb 17 2006 11:11 AM

_________________
????