WT Forums

This got a little bit in the F-111 thread, but I figured I'd get more detail here, where we won't go off topic.

The F/A-18 got redesigned into the Super Hornet. Basically, they took an airframe and made it better. The result of that particular project, and how worthwhile it was, is debatable, but that's not the main point here. There are several other airframes that have been proven to still be fighting machines even after thirty-plus years. Thier main problem is that the antiquated systems used, shortage of parts, etc., are making them less than ideal.

Would it be cheaper/easier to start an assembly line back up, but doing things differently, say using BRUs instead of MAUs, etc.? The gist is that some platforms in some areas are jsut so well designed, it would be difficult to make something better, and if you did get something out of it, it would probably be similar.

I'm gonna get creamed for this, but I'll use the A-10 for an example. The airframe is good, and the gun has demonstrated itself to still be viable. You just have 60's technology in there that breaks all the time, and the spare parts are another issue altogether. Let's say, take the MAU-40s out and put in something a little more modern. New avionics and such, so the stuff isn't breaking all the time, and the replacement parts haven't been sitting on a shelf or in the desert for decades. New engines is obvious. Stuff like this, combined with new planes, would make for sharper tusks. The AF doesn't seem to want to keep a dedicated CAS plane, so the likelyhood of this happening is open to debate, the big question is, would doing this be cheaper than designing a whole new plane, from scratch, to replace the thing?

"Some pup"
Nickname by Fenderstrat72

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.

Refer to any of the thread in the Hog section reguarding PE, new Engines, Avionics Upgrades, or Hog UP for the A-10.

I think your question would be better put torward an older airframe like the F-111 or F-4. When we sold those airframes oversees they both received major upgrades. The cost benifit is there; but IMHO its hard to find old airframes that the airframe alone isn't beat to death with ungawdly flight hours/stress hours.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>but IMHO its hard to find old airframes that the airframe alone isn't beat to death with ungawdly flight hours/stress hours. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> That's why you include the upgrades and such in a new production run. The airframe itself can recieve upgrades as well, if nessecary(read intake redesign etc. on the Hornet).

"Some pup"
Nickname by Fenderstrat72

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.

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

The F/A-18 got redesigned into the Super Hornet. Basically, they took an airframe and made it better. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Taking an airframe and making it better understates what was done to make the SH. Taking a concept (low end lighweight fighter) and making it more useful is more accurate. Nothing significant is common between F-18C and E, not even the basic aerodynamics. It's not even a straight scale-up. Sorry to nit pick. I realize it has nothing to do with your point. I'll go now.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

I think they need another 'redesign' of the airframe featuring a wider fuselage with twin F-135 engines with a recess in between for 8 AMRAAMs or 4 2,000lbs bombs on a rack system, bigger wings that are actually useful something and won't break off, Multi-role version of the APG-77 radar, can actually perform deep strike and fleet defense missions without a tanker hovering around the battlefield. and congress wouldn't have to worry, It's not a new aircraft, it still has the angled twin vertical tails.

BV must you bring up your dislike of the JSF in every thread? except for the Parlor trick b model, I don't see much of a problem with the F-35. especially the C when compared with the A/f 18 E/F varients.

You look as lost as a bastard child on Fathers day.



Edited by - Stinger on Jun 30 2004 2:30 PM

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

"And of course there is the great debate about what the USN should have done with the F-14's. I still say they pull the molds out of storage in the desert and start building F-14D's again but that likely isn't cost effective."

There are no molds to bring out of the desert. Cheyney ordered all the F-14D tooling destroyed in 1991, and it was.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I need to concur with what Snipe said Vette...

Tomcat tooling is gone, and Northrup Grumman has publicly acknowledged that. There may have been second thoughts to the 14D program after the Bombcat has proven so effective, but that was a few years down the road. I am afraid the F-14 program reached the point of no return in 1991, Super Hornet was only a concept then...

What are we refering to as "the tooling"? Is it the final assembly jigs, detail form blocks for sheet metal, NC machine programs for bulkheads, autoclave bonding tools, electron beam welding jigs, what? Don't forget all the pieces/parts bought from vendors as small as bolts and as big as landing gear. About 90% of the vendors are not operating anymore. I don't know what happened to "the tooling" for making F-14s. I don't think anyone as high up as SECDEF would decide on destruction of "the tooling", and Dick didn't wonder about disposition of production assets. The Grumman works on Long Island sold off almost all assets and cleared out of the final assembly/flight test facility they used 20 years ago. The most likely happenstance is that if there is no funding for it, no one in government or industry will store objects like that, and they just get scrapped as surplus. A complete set of drawings would be tough to obtain at this point. By now, different materials/manufacturing methods would be employed anyway so adaptation of the old design to new methods would be required. That effort would dwarf the cost of new final assembly tooling. Bottom line...We don't know how to make F-14s any more.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Vette...Damn dude, I thought I was passionate about the F-14 fiasco.

You have to understand Vette, and stress is much more qualified than I at explaining this, but...The F-14 program pushed the envelope in many ways. One of them was inventing new ways to constuct an airframe out of some of the exotic composities and titanium used. Grumman in effect had a special factory designed specificaly for building the F-14, which no longer exists...So as Stress said, we simply don't have the means to build that great fighter again. The capital that would have to be invested to "fire back up" a comparable facility would be enormous. Its not a matter of old "67" GTO parts hid in the desert to cherry out a vintage hotrod, its much more elaborate than that.

I am equally adamant that it's time for the USMC to say bye-bye to the fixed wing game altogether.

It's a useless redundancy, and takes away from their primary mission of Amphibious assault.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I will be at D-M for 3 weeks starting the 6th.....I will take the tour and ask questions about the tooling. My guess it would be some of the jigs and fixtures necessary for crash damage repair and not the production tooling......that would have to be one hell of a hangar to house all of that!

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

That's fucking ridiculous Vette.

You can trust ANY US combat pilot to do his best regardless of branch of service. You on the ground would tell no difference whatsoever if a cluster bomb was dropped by a USMC, USN, or USAF pilot.

FAC(A) can be flown with an F-35C just as well as it can with a stupid hornet. Better in fact. It's a smaller target that don't readily show up on radar. The OA-10A has one seat i'll remind you.

The USMC has no need whatsoever for organic fixed air, it is a tremendous drain on their budget, and because of it their entire land combat element is using outdated and obsolete equipment, as is their helo force.

Organic fixed air in the USMC is just plain stupid. Highly capable A2A capable USMC aircraft is even MORE stupid.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I agree with Snipe Vette...
Some things have to change with progress. The US Army Air Corp gave way to the USAF, and the USAF have been providing air support to the Army in a proficient manor in every conflict since the Korean War, the USMC should yieled its fixed wing capability to the USN in the same regard. USMC pilots by the way are called "Naval Aviators, just like their USN brethren...