Warthog Territory Forums :: View topic - State of The US Navy

Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/

State of The US Navy http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2559	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 03 Feb 2003, 20:42 ]
Post subject:
The following is an exerpt of I paper I wrote for a certain weekend gig I have........ I know it will ruffle some feathers. I am biased towards where I came from and what I am doing now, and this represents tunnel vision from my Navy perspective. There is some truth in my bias, just like there is truth in Luke's supplements and his bias. This is exactly why we entrust decesion makers to make viable decesions based on the perspective of Americas fighting men and women, and this also illustrates how harmfull those decesions can become if not thought out. I am a "liberal arts soft science major", not a "hard science" major like Mudd or Luke, thus they are better equipped to explain the physical dynamics of their beliefs, where I tend to gravitate more to political reasoning. (lol if that isn't a oxymoron) Present and future threats to freedom throughout the world can only be met with a strong and flexible United States Navy leading the way. The late 1980’s and early 1990’s saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war; while victory over the communist menace was being celebrated; an old threat to grew stronger and evolved from a primitive means to serve a fanatical religious aim, to a clear and present danger to the United States of America and all she stands for. The recent tragedy involving the space shuttle Columbia shows the world what America is committed to. The gallant crew of the Columbia came from a diverse and culturally rich global background committed to achieving and creating a better future for humanity. The 1990’s saw a rapid advance of technology the likes of which the world has never seen. The 1990’s should have been a transition period for the United States military instead of a period of erosion from its cold war strength of the 1980’s. The U.S. Navy suffered the most from this state of decline. The state of the U.S. Navy in the 1980’s was one of almost invincibility, far sighted procurement programs were assuring the continuation of this dominance, while short term programs were being updated and modified to deal with an ever changing global environment. The U.S. Navy of the 1980’s was truly the mobile, hostile, flexible, business end of American foreign policy, capable of meeting any threat, anywhere, on any terms to not only deter that threat, but eliminate it. Momomar Khadaffi is an example of one such threat that is no more. The fact that Libya is no longer considered a state that sponsor’s terrorism, and Khadaffi is now considered a great humanitarian by not only influential leaders in Africa, but by members of the U.S. government illustrates how a threat can be eradicated and deterred by the presence and ever continuing threat of a U.S Navy aircraft carrier battle group. When one looks back throughout history in the latter part of the 20th century, it becomes very obvious that in the scope of warfare, the single most influential weapon to determine the outcome between victory and defeat is airpower, and the ability to unleash that airpower on to the enemy. The ability to unleash the destructive capability of airpower is determined by the proximity of it to the adversary. World War II was a war of aircraft carriers, whether those aircraft carriers were ships, islands in the Pacific Ocean, or the country of Great Britain, they all had one factor in common, all of these sources of airpower were able to use the sea as a standoff barrier to wage war. The situation in the Gulf of Tonkin was no different. Aircraft from carrier battle groups on Yankee station bore the brunt of this ability, with Guam and the Philippines providing the stand off resources for the USAF. After Saigon fell in 1974, the shifting political sands in South Vietnam and Thailand prevented the USAF from being a major force in that region. The U.S. Navy is the only military force in the world with the mobility and capabilities to meet current and future threats globally. The backbone of this force is U.S. Naval Aviation. Naval aviation is not dependent on foreign counties and their ever changing foreign policies; it is not hamstrung by the leadership bureaucracy of shifting economical and regional unions. It is a stand alone force, fully capable of taking the battle to any threat, anywhere, at anytime. It can do this alone if need be, or as a member of a joint alliance such as NATO, and complementing their maritime and amphibious military capabilities. This capability of the 1980’s has eroded into a fictitious theory today when it is needed the most. It took two decades of implementation, and eight years of leadership under the Reagan administration to build a six hundred ship Navy that composed of fifteen carrier battle groups, this Navy and its Marine Corp amphibious assets was the most powerful combined arms force ever known to mankind. It has taken near sighted administrations that were more concerned with re-election and political survival ten years to reduce this force to an undermanned, over worked, over tasked, ill-equipped shadow of its once proud self. The United States is now at war, and with threats such as Iraq and North Korea on the horizon, the possibility of not only a two theatre war, but a three theatre war exists. The complacently of our governing administrations during the 1990’s have created a situation now, where there are very few options and the price of freedom is being paid with the red blood of our fighting men and women, and fellow Americans. The time has come for changes, and those changes must come now. The A-12 procurement debacle almost destroyed U.S. Naval Aviation. It must be said and noted that the A-12 program was not only a Navy program, but one also intended for the USAF as well, as a replacement for the F-15E. The USAF has not suffered budget cuts as a result of this gross mismanagement; the U.S. Navy has taken a knockout punch. As a result, the Navy today even with its “littoral” doctrine is now unable to stand alone and take the fight to the enemy anytime, anywhere. Its short ranged aircraft are dependent on outside tanking assets, and its battle groups are not enough in number to fight a multiple theatre war to eliminate current and future threats. In short the force most relied upon the most, is the most anemic. The coattails from the 600 ship Navy of the 1980’s are now becoming frayed and worn, they can no longer be counted on to preserve freedom. The F-22 must be scoped down further, and be procured in very limited numbers, if the Navy is to carry the fight to the enemy in a situation that is the first day of war with a second rate airframe, funds must be allocated to give the Navy proper logistical support to avoid making this shortcoming a terminal flaw in doctrine. Eliminating the F-22 would help do this. The A-12 was presented to congress as part of his major aircraft program review by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1990 as a “model procurement program” nine months later he radically reversed his position and pulled the plug on the A-12. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin of the Clinton Administration did the Navy or the F-18E/F Super Hornet no favors by wiping out the A-6E, and KA-6 tanker. Short sighted aircraft cancellations with no redundancy and over budgeted “gold plated” weapons, such as the F-22 and OV-22 need to be chopped, and now. The F-18E/F Super Hornet is here to stay; now it is up to the Navy to make the most of this limited airframe. It was done before with the F-4F Wildcat, and the “Thatch Weave”, it can be done again. An organic tanking platform with endurance is essential for the F-18E/F to be an effective stand alone strike fighter. The F-35 must be procured with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corp receiving priority in delivery and increased numbers. Older conventional aircraft carriers must be reactivated and upgraded along with the Iowa class battleships and Salem class cruisers. The 600 ship Navy is needed now. Force retention is critical in both the enlisted and commissioned officer sectors. The U.S. Navy must be the top priority for quality of life improvements, and billet structure enhancement. The USAF was given priority in the late 1940’s and 1950’s due to the strategic nature of their mission of nuclear deterrence, and the growing threat of the Soviet Union. That threat is now gone, that mission is now gone. The global situation has changed to a situation where the Navy must take the fight to the threat, and eliminate it, thus should be funded accordingly. The F-18E/F will represent the state of the art in terms of flexibility ant maintainability. It will provide the U.S. Navy an aircraft comparable with that of the Euro Fighter and Rafale. The Super Hornet has very obvious flaws, which can be relieved to a degree with increased logistical support. F-18C’s could be eliminated and the F-18E/F could take on the swing role. The F-14 has been killed, the program tooling has been destroyed, however older retired airframes could be refurbished updated and brought to F-14D Super Tomcat standard and upgraded to give the Navy the worlds premier medium strike aircraft until the F-35 is available in viable numbers. A carrier strike package composed of two squadrons of updated F-14D’s, three squadrons of F-18E/F’s and one squadron of updated S-3 Vikings, would represent the best of both worlds in terms of strike capability, flexibility, and independence. With this strike package complimenting fifteen carrier battle groups, the U.S. Navy can very effectively and efficiently take the fight to the threat. This would make the most of research and development time and costs already invested, and prove to be the best use of tax dollars in a recessed national economy. As stated before the OV-22 Osprey program must be eliminated, research and development dollars poured into the project can be salvaged with continual research with the future in mind. The Osprey represents future technology, and needs to be utilized then, presently the most glaring need is to update the aging fleet of U.S. Navy and Marine Corp rotary wing assets. The theme of this thesis is damage control. The near sighted decisions and complacently of the 1990’s cannot be changed, the damage though immense can be relieved to a degree, but this will take bold and unpopular action amongst the other services today. The U.S. Navy must be given priority now, the USAF is still a well oiled machine, that can soldier on in homeland defense and theatre war management that is static in nature, it posses the capabilities today. But the first day, of the first battle must be fought by a mobile, flexible force, and only the U.S. Navy can provide that force. The battle for freedom is global, and the 600 ship U.S. Navy will meet it at any time, at any place, in any situation If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Author:	luke [ 03 Feb 2003, 23:29 ]
Post subject:
Well, I know you are fishing for comments....here goes... First, very well written... Second, you mentioned navy quality of life needing priority over the other services. Quality of life is something the service itself has to take care of. Quality of life is something the Air Force prides itself on (and becomes the butt of many jokes because of...). On both the officer and enlisted side of the air force retention is the key word in 'recruiting and retention'. Recruiting goals are WAY less than the army and navy but retention is a HUGE goal and part of the way that is done is quality of life. There are tons of examples of this but I will stick with just one - housing. I am at Sheppard AFB. We have pretty nice housing here. In fact there are E-4s here that have nicer houses than captains and majors up at the Army's Fort Sill just 45 minutes north of here. The navy bases I have been to (we fly to a lot of them for weekend trips and I stayed at Pensacola for a week for air crew water survival) leave me with the opinion that if you are below O-5 you are a piece of crap and your's and your families quality of life are not important at all to the navy. If you are below O-6 you are just a little bit smaller piece of crap. Now.....I know, I know....of course this is my own take on limited information so have a few grains of salt handy...but the Air Force sets aside large funds specifically for quality of life. I have a better feeling than I would in any other service that if I were gone for an extended period of time my family would be comfortable and taken care of. Not that the other services do not care - it just does not seem to be as high a priority. If the navy wants higher priority for quality of life they have to do it themselves. As for cutting the F22 because the air force can do without it, then giving that money to the navy so they can get a kick ass plane. That is just plain jealousy. If the state of naval aviation is so poor right now (and I agree entirely with your assesment of its decline - I would put the start of that decline even earlier but that is neither here nor there) then it does need damage control but not at the expense of the other services. The F22 is needed. Are there any F15C crew chiefs here who can illuminate the state of affairs of the eagle? (any crew chiefs except a certain one from Kadena who had the fling with that pilot) As for the JSF....right on. However, I still think the weakest link and biggest threat to that entire program is the navy. Maybe it is just past actions blinding me (the new T6 trainer being one example) but it still scares me because the navy pulling out could kill the whole program...Glad to hear that Navy dudes really are looking forward to that plane. One more point then I am done....about tankers....the F14D needs them. The planned but ditched super/super tomcat21 thing would have needed them. The SH needs them. The JSF will need them. The A12 would have needed them. Until we just find some magic source of power it is a FACT of fighter aviation. Since the Navy cannot (for obvious reasons) carry around large tankers they will just have to continue to rely on air force tankers. You know who else needs air force tankers (other than the whole world)? USAF heavy bombers. B1s, B2s, and B52s carry out a large portion of the air war nowadays and can get there even quicker than a carrier can. They need tankers too and they have some killer legs on them. So to eliminate the need to rely on outside services for gas the navy better hire Burt Rutan to build some planes that can fly around the world without refueling or put some wheels up on the carriers to get REAL close.

Author:	fenderstrat72 [ 04 Feb 2003, 04:50 ]
Post subject:
Tomcat just to back up the Quality of Life things Luke said look at this quote from the Air Force website yesterday. "The budget is divided into four categories: people, readiness, infrastructure and modernization. The largest portion of the Air Force budget, 34 percent, is focused on people and quality-of-life initiatives because it is a retention-based force. "We recruit airmen but retain families," the senior military budget official said. http://www.af.mil/news/ I also read on there that Pres Bush is thinking of leasing tankers instead of buying them. Tankers are one of the most crucial links in our ability to sustain airpower over any part of the world. Fender In war there is no prize for runner-up. -- Omar N. Bradley

Author:	sgtgoose1 [ 04 Feb 2003, 14:40 ]
Post subject:
ALL I CAN SAY IS THEIR HAS BEEN NIGHT AND DAY CHANGES TO QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE USAF SINCE I LEFT, AND FOR THE BETTER! BUT AS LUKE SAID,AND EVEN BY MY OWN TDY'S TO OTHER BASE'S NAVY AND ARMY, IT WAS ALL CRAP!!!!!!! FORT HOOD IS A PRIME EXAMPLE,ALOT OF THEIR HOUSING DONT EVEN MEET MINIMUM HUD STANDARDS,MORE LIKE "SLUM LORD STANDARDS" AND THE NAVY BASE'S HOUSING NOT MUCH BETTER! AND DONT EVEN TALK ABOUT THE BARRACKS ------------------ YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE NEW TOYS YOU WANT,BUT YOU STILL NEED HAPPY PEOPLE RUNNING THEM PRESS TO TEST

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 Feb 2003, 15:41 ]
Post subject:
A-10Stress! Wow, kill the JSF? That will leave the USMC totally pooch screwed and force the navy to a CAW of ALL F-18's. Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 04 Feb 2003, 16:38 ]
Post subject:
I did not intend to open Pandora’sbox regarding the F-22. For the record, I am a huge supporter of that program; the jet should be in active TFW’s today and not still being touted as the future of the USAF. My concern is immediate needs………. And the situation in Naval Aviation is more pressing. Luke mentioned that my remarks concerning the F-22 are ones of being jealous……..Damn right, and resentful to boot. I do not think the USAF should have to eliminate its vital programs for the collective good of Naval Aviation, however I am concerned at the decision making process of certain governing agency’s and the flawed logic that accompanies them. The F-22 should have been a continuation of its original vision that draws its beginnings in the late 1970’s as a joint force ATF. The ST-21 though impressive and an improvement over the new 18E/F, would represent 4 ½ generation technology when current and future threats call for 5th generation advances. The F-22 should have been procured as the F-35 is now. There is roughly 80% of commonality between the USAF, and USN/USMC variants, that translates into cheaper maintenance costs for everyone. The R&D for a navalized variant would be comparable to the R&D costs of the 18E/F, not including the wing drop surprise. The Navy would be getting what it needs, which is a next generation evolvement over the venerable F-14, and so would the USAF. More planes translate into a lower flyaway cost per unit. With the advances in engine effiencey and reliability an F-22 can achieve loiter and CAP station persistence without variable geometry or a large increase in size other than the equipment needed for carrier operation. The capabilities of the APG-77 are right out of Firefox, and stealth and passive IRST tracking speak for themselves.Sounds nice…………..But it is a pie in the sky. Do Naval Aviators have the right to be bitter? Talk to one. The F-35 is much anticipated, and will bring back a medium strike capability that was lost with the A-6E. And never really explored with the F-14 to its full potential; funding, funding, funding………….. The immediate situation is different. Navy aircraft are falling apart, literally. F-14B & D’s have restrictions on tapping the afterburner. F-14A’s are being flown as carefully as possible to squeeze whatever life is left until the 18E/F is ready to take over for them. But the Navy can only do so much, carrier aircraft slam down on a pitching CV deck, they tailhook going from 120 knots to zero in a matter of seconds. Saltwater is a constant and never ending corrosion battle. Even a pampered Navy aircraft gets the hell beat out of it. We are talking about airframes that were designed to have a 6500 hr lifespan that are on 7000-8000 hrs. Some F-18C’s are not even reaching their designed lifespan. The USAF (correct me if I am wrong) can do more to preserve their aircraft. I am spitballing here, but from what I have seen is that USAF tactical aircraft have a longer lifespans and age better than their Naval cousins. As far as the quality of life issues. You guys are correct. I froth at the mouth at any opportunity to serve TDY at a USAF facility, or go on a USAF run joint opp. I have always been impressed by the organization, endless supply of good equipment, and quality people. Thanks for the input guys………..It is helping my editing process immensely If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 Feb 2003, 22:05 ]
Post subject:
"Are there any F15C crew chiefs here who can illuminate the state of affairs of the eagle? (any crew chiefs except a certain one from Kadena who had the fling with that pilot)" I certainly am not a crew chief, but i can remember a few of the crew dogs here stating that the F-15C fleet had been heavily cannibilized. LOL, better close the turkey feathers luke- i see a Kadena crew chief coming. Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 Feb 2003, 22:11 ]
Post subject:
BTW- the Army has em all beat for quality of life issues- y'all priorities are just screwed up. Where else can you spend the night with a good buddy in a 3 foot by 5 foot by 4 foot deep hole in a swamp- all in the freezing rain? Three MRE's a day- near frozen of course- MmmmmMmmm good. LOL, Sissies I think the Army Spent $27 dollars on quality of life initiatives last year. Up from $14 dollars in FY01. Now THAT's progress! Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	prkiii [ 05 Feb 2003, 04:27 ]
Post subject:
I can't say to much about the F15s at each base, but I can talk Depot...I work at the F15 depot. The F15Cs (and A thru D models also) have parts canned off of almost every acft that arrives there so we can get the next one delivered back to the owning unit on time. "E" models aren't as bad, but are getting that way... The A thru D models have some other issues that I won't discuss on the board, but lets just say some ACFT have some MAJOR work to keep them air worthy. Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator... If you can't go fast...go Ugly

Author:	boomer [ 05 Feb 2003, 11:46 ]
Post subject:
the JSF is about the ONLY project I would say is cast in stone, it aint goin nowhere!! But I'm afraid congress is going to look at F/A(puke, I hated the /A when they added it to F-18)-22 and say "we can get 80-90% of F/A(gag)-22 capability with JSF, lets just buy more JSFs" and then try to cancell F/A(splarf)-22 with only a token "silver bullet" production of Raptors (which would actually be worse $$ wise than cancelling Raptor altogether) "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

Author:	wayne2010 [ 05 Feb 2003, 15:00 ]
Post subject:
Quote boomer “the JSF is about the ONLY project I would say is cast in stone, it aint going nowhere!!” That only because the project has not soaked up enough billions yet for it to be on the radar screen of the disarm American group yet! My two cents on the rest of the posting! Looking in hindsight you know Monday morning quarterbacking and pointing out I was always opposed to this high/low mix concept. F14/F18 and F15/F16 the last time I felt really good about things is when there were F4s in the Navy, Marines, and Air Force. The F-111 and like the V-22 were great idea but for technical and political reasons they just did not work in hindsight I would have like to have seen about 3000 F-14 in the Navy, Marines, and Air Force. I would have like to have seen the A-12 project being more a NF-22 type aircraft for all of the services and a production run of around 3000 or more to get the cost down to say 50 million each. Spending un-toll billions and getting 95% of the R&D done then canceling the project has to stop before there is no nation to defend! For the most part we are going to fight this next war with what is left form the ‘80s. I really agree with ‘a10stress’ about spending billions and getting nothing if there ever was a conspiracy theory it is the one to keep Americans working and never to build a defense. Right now I’m see the JSF as being too far in the future to do anybody any good the JSF and the V-22 should be canceled or put off for five or ten years and the money used to accelerated both the F-22 and the F-18. The F-18 because that is the only navy plane we have. We need to fix today not the year 2020! As for the Marine Aviation could we not bring back two or three of the Forrestal class carriers for the Marines to use F-18s form and what is left of there AV-8Bs, which then could deployed to shore. Plus I feel the Air Force needs to recognize the fact the carriers are the better then runways if the Air Force could deploying to carriers first than to land bases we would need fewer Americans on foreign soil. Sorry but I feel we are going to pay in blood for what has happened in the past ten years! And the “bitch” of it is just a few dollars more or some real planing would have prevented all of this. Well that is my two cents oh just for the record I am 58 and has seen a lot of this over the years some days we spend money on defense and other days we just spend money.

Author:	luke [ 05 Feb 2003, 20:25 ]
Post subject:
My bet for a project killer for the JSF is the navy. The air force is pretty much committed and so is the navy but it has happened before. This time it could kill the whole thing. Overall though, the JSF has a good chance of making it. Export potential looks huge. Unlike the eurofighter and gripen, many countries are jumping on board (for a price of course) before the program is really done. A lot of the viper euro countries are already on board and several have dropped the eurofighter entirely. Some of these countries will run out of money and either get another MLU for the f16 or just drop their fighter air force entirely (watch belgium in coming years). I think the JSF has a pretty damn good chance of making it without the price going too ballistic...and it will be a kickass plane. Maybe war will change enough in the next couple decades where a dedicated platform like the A10 will not be needed but I doubt it. But at all the other stuff the JSF will excell.

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 05 Feb 2003, 22:58 ]
Post subject:
If you want my honest opinion A-10.......USN and USAF aircraft are apples and oranges for obvoius reasons. It is also obvious that the Navy is going to have to live with what they can get, because they have no other choice. Robert McNamara's TFX concept in the 1960's was absurd........Technology has made that concept today a reality, there are still vices. But in this day and age, it is the reality of what the Navy can get. The issue isn't what the Navy doesn't have, the issue is what they are going to get, and how they are going to utilize the proper tactics to fight effectively with it. The 80% commonality figure was one I have heard from Lockheed/Martin. You seem pretty well versed on the matter, so I won't debate that. If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right! Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 05 2003 10:01 PM

Author:	boomer [ 06 Feb 2003, 11:39 ]
Post subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Export potential looks huge<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> that's really all that needs to be said. The JSF will <font size=6>CRUSH</font id=size6>the European fighter industry. They are already putting off orders for other planes to see what happens with JSF, the dominoes are falling for a paper airplane. Remember the JSF is basically Raptor Light, and draws much of it's tech from that program. The JSF will be one of he lowest risk programs we've had in a while. Off board sensors will probly be the only real risk in the program. And the IR based "Transparent Aircraft" tech (if they go through with it) will SKYROCKET the pilots SA. last time I looked the F-111 did just fine for what 25 years or more? "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 06 Feb 2003, 13:38 ]
Post subject:
Well, A-10 stress, i surely respect your informed opinion, but i can honestly say i HOPE you are completely wrong about JSF Time will tell. Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 06 Feb 2003, 14:24 ]
Post subject:
A-10 stress, I more than understand your pesimistic attitude. You being with Grumman Aerosapce durring the the time frame mentioned, you know first person what hand of cards the Navy was dealt. Maybe you can answer this for me..........Why the the F-14 not utilized as a multi mission platform sooner?..........Like circa 1982... the Strike Eagle should have been an indication of what future could have been for the F-14. I know the A-6 was great, but the hand writing on the wall regarding the future of the A-6 was obvious even to an outsider such as myself, the A-6F and TRAM had some interesting features, but the Tomcat had the size, crew, and growth potential to be better than even the Strike Eagle. It would be in service today, not in limited numbers such as 37. Naval Aviation would still be the sharp end of America's foreign policy spear, and the JSF would have time to evolve........ And best of all, no Super Hornet's allowed through the roped off gate. Navy would have told the little guys to go home before bedtime. If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right! Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 06 2003 1:27 PM

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 06 Feb 2003, 18:33 ]
Post subject:
Thats not to bad, especially for comming off of the cuff. John F. Lehman did have a bias towards the A-6, because he himself was a Naval Flight Officer in the Navy Reserve, and was in the A-6 community. Grumman I felt was getting a bit to greedy, and arroagnt considering that at any given time untill about 1986, 80-90% of all aircraft on CV's were a Grumman product. The Shah of Iran had a almost unhealthy obsession with military weapons, and he can be credited for saving the F-14 program. As for the engines....Deputy Secretarty of Defense Packard (Nixon Administraion) gave the Navy a choice........Engines, or AWG-9/Pheonix.......The Navy choose to keep the AWG-9 and soldier on with the TF-30P312's, Pratt & Whitney did try very hard to improve the engines, the PW-30314's were better, but in the end the powerplant/airframe combination was one of the worst since the P-51 flew with its original Allisons. The GE-F110 made the Tomcat what it was always supposed to be. Not unlike what the Rolls Royce Merlins did to the P-51.......... The F-14 program was successfull to a degree, but the 14D and Bombcat variants are illustrating what it always should have become, but to late. The F-18 has an extremley powerfull lobby, the design shines on paper in terms of flight hour cost, and maintainability, but is not the right plane for the job, and will never be. Good lineage discription Stress..... If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 06 Feb 2003, 19:05 ]
Post subject:
Welcome Wayne. I liked alot of your ideas. The procurment process is flawed to a degree. Navy aircraft should come first, and variants of Navy designs then procured by the USAF. Its easier to shed weight than add it. The USAF did this with alot of success with the F-4, and a light weight F-14 could have been more than adequate for the USAF's needs. A USAF variant say F-14C with a APG-63, no Pheonix capability and lighter arresting gear, with PW-F100's would have done the job, maybe even better than the F-15C.......plus no extravegant airframe design changes for an attack variant. The F-15E is an almost completely different aircraft than the F-15A/C and should be called the B-15, or BF-15. The F-14 could have done the job for all three services very well, a natural evolution from the F-4 Phantom. Hindsight is 20/20...... The reactivication of the Forrestal Class CVA's would provide the USMC with its littoral Navy, the USN could provide the maratime air superiority/medium strike falling back to its "foward from the sea/blue water doctrine" The F-111 was sucessfull as a EW/Penetration bomber........but would have failed dismaly as a joint strike fighter (TFX circa 1960's) Luke, you are absolutely correct when you state that the biggest threat to the cancelation of the F-35 is the US Navy. But the Navy cannot be blamed when the Pentagon has a USAF first procurment process, then tries to make a carrier aircraft out of a USAF design. I just don't see the logic. The F-4 illustrated the advatages of reversing the process. If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right! Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 06 2003 6:06 PM

Author:	luke [ 06 Feb 2003, 19:22 ]
Post subject:
Tomcat, I agree completely. The plane is first developed for the USAF with full up capabilities as advertised. After that all other variants have to make compromises. The STOVL version gives up a LOT of performance to gain its neat capabilities. The carrier version also gives up a lot in terms of weight, maneuverability, and possibly stealth. But if it meets the goals the navy has set for it then what is wrong with that? I disagree with the items in the past though. The F14 was the right plane for the navy but not for the AF. The F15 was right. The neat thing about those two airplanes is that they were 2 seperate programs that helped both services. The cost is higher for 2 programs though. The only thing your F14 scenario would have done is make the F14 last a bit longer (which I am sure is why you like that idea so much <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> The F16 was definitely not the right choice for the navy but it has done an outstanding job in the air force. Sometimes tailor made aircraft are better. For the JSF it would just end up being a game in reverse. You say it is easier to strip weight but really we would end up with the same 3 aircraft with the cost being the same and the capabilities being the same...each service has 3 distinct sets of requirements for the aircraft and right now it seems they are being met.

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 06 Feb 2003, 22:11 ]
Post subject:
A-10 Stress, if i am reading you right, i think what you would like to see is the USAF F-35 buy cancelled, and all freed USAF funds diverted to the F-22. The F-22 looks SO good i have a hard time disagreeing. It would screw the Navy, but would totally F the USMC, who is fighting hard already to keep the F-35B STOVL alive. For the USAF though, i think axing JSF would serve them best. Cancelling USAF's participation in JSF could go a looong way to freeing up the cash in the USAF budget to make a big Raptor fleet possible. Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	wayne2010 [ 06 Feb 2003, 23:11 ]
Post subject:
Thank y’all I’m glad to see I am not totally alone on my opinion on a high/low mixes. Please let me be honest with y’all I am not an expert but an older person who is opinionated. I remember in my teens the TFX program and how some thought that Boeing should have got the contract over General Dynamics that the Boeing’s plane was what would have been the real all-purpose plane for both the Air Force and the Navy. I would be interested in any ones opinion here on that? But I do know that the F-111 turned out to be a great plane once billions were spend however it was never the all-purpose plane that was wished for at the time. I do wish we still had F-111 in the force and not like the one sitting on the side of Interstate 30 ten miles west of were I live. Now it seen the same thing my have happened again with the F-22/F-23 since it looks like the Navy is taking some interest in the F-23. Was there any debate here over the selection of the F-22 over the F-23? I personally like the F-23. Yes I do think the JSF threatens the European aerospace industry and they will back out when the time comes. All the want now is the technology which I think we give away to freely but at lease they are having to pay for some of what they are getting. And yes the JSF is a threat to the F-22 since the JSF can be made V/STOL they is no reason that we could not make a small number of VF-22 heck the planes almost look a like! Also I am Air Force bias but once the F-14 was fitted with the GE-F110 engine as it should have been in first place the difference between the two planes in my personally opinion was marginal. Plus as I have suggested before the Air Force needs to rethink their opposition on landing on carriers and the F-14 would have helped towards a new strategy of working with the Navy instead of fighting them. My opinion again but I think the Air Force, Navy, and the Army fight each other with more intensely then any enemy we have every faced. I guess compromise was never meant to be a military word. What scare me right now is that there are so many systems at the end of their useful live and no replacement in sight for most. Plus transformation is a great idea but do we have the ten years to implement it? I fine a great amount of expertise in this group I’m glad we are on the same side thank you.

Author:	Tomcat Tweaker [ 06 Feb 2003, 23:50 ]
Post subject:
I hope the JSF does wreck the European Aerospace Industry........The only European Aerospace firm I ever had respect for was SAAB. The Viggen/Grippen series is very foward thinking and formidable.......Now that General Motors owns SAAB, it all comes this way anyhow. If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 07 Feb 2003, 09:05 ]
Post subject:
Cerrently the F-35 is supposedly priced at 35-40 million per, depending on price. This price of course RELIES on a 2000 aircraft order. As that number creeps DOWN(and it will), the price will creep up. This is all so predictable- and seemingly inevetible. Just for the record though, i think the F-35C(Naval fighter) is everything the F-18E/F is not. Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Author:	boomer [ 07 Feb 2003, 11:59 ]
Post subject:
I think the F-35C will be a BIG improvement over SH because it will (supposedly) be the stealthiest of the 3 versions (of JSF) and will carry something along the order of 19,000lbs of fuel!! IF it supercruises that will give a HUGE range increase!! Dittos on the SAAB Gripen TT, I've mentioned before that it is one of my favorite fighters, especially with the datalink the Swedes like to use, and it's ability to operate from road systems. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

Author:	tritonal [ 07 Feb 2003, 12:07 ]
Post subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Just for the record though, i think the F-35C(Naval fighter) is everything the F-18E/F is not.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Oh, what a surprise coming from you. Perhaps, however it won't replace it. They will work together. And don't be surprised to see many modifications on the Hornet airframe to go past 2020. I don't know if anyone else thnks this but it is real hard to put your finger on the next naval fighter. Sure the Air Force will always be in the air dominance role but depending on how the threat evolves for the fleet you don't know if your getting a Fleet defender or a multi-role jet. Does anyone think in 30 years the "Big Stick" of navair will be the solely the JSF? OT: Look at the top 5 threads; General Aviation should be changed to-Future of Naval Air. Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 07 2003 11:39 AM

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/