WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Naval Aviators should be getting the biggest badest toy, if they are to be the first to fight.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

USAF F-117's were the first to drop em in baghdad this time.

And I believe F-15's (correct me if I am wrong) were the first in during Gulf I.

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

F-35 won't be cancelled.........It can do to much for so little, its the most flexiable program of the three mentioned, besides we are not the only ones investing our future in it. The Royal Navy is already committed to the program as well.



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

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

USAF F-117's were the first to drop em in baghdad this time.

And I believe F-15's (correct me if I am wrong) were the first in during Gulf I.

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

no it was the F-117's in the first war too. They were the only Aircraft allowed into baghdad air space for the frist few months of the war.

"the closer we are to danger the father away we are from harm."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
USAF F-117's were the first to drop em in baghdad this time.

And I believe F-15's (correct me if I am wrong) were the first in during Gulf I.

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

After the Tomohawks where fired............
And some aircraft has to provide maritime air superiority for those ships.........

I am not cutting down the USAF, just stating that the USN is always foward deployed.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I agree.

I think in a perfect world we could have scrapped the F-22 and instead made a new plane for the Navy to take over the F-14 role, kept the F-35 for American Marine harrier replacement and to sell to allies, while we upgrade the 15 program.

I think phasing out the 16 in exchange for the 35 would have been best.

But hey, what do I know <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>?

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

hang on to your neck brace chad LOL. The Superhornet was/is a stopgap for the cancellation of the A-12, the navy wanted something ANYTHING with some stealth (this may well have been for bragging reasons too) to operate in a "first day" scenario. The SH's survivability over the battlefield will be precisely ZERO in another 10 years in all likelyhood. For the strike mission at leaste the USN needs the F-35 for it's stealth due to internal carriage of weapons. I suspect the F-35 will be able to do most or all the things the SH will do in the air defense role. I just wish the timing would have allowed us to pass over the SH for $$ reasons but the cold war was still percolating and the JAST program was in it's infancy at best back when those desicions were made. Chad wants the F-14, I want the F-18, but the west NEEDS the F-35 pretty much no matter what.

"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>

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

Fellas, it was ARMY Apache's that fired the first shots of ODS.

"Sniper, I thought you hated the F-18E/F? And now Im to understand better engines solves all this? I must be way behind on this."

I do hate it, because it is not worth the money for what it gives. But, it IS here, and it IS in production, and that is always the hardest part to make happen, regardless of service, period.

Equipped with two uprated GE F424 motors with 3d axiometric vectored thrust The F-18F would be more than a match for the SU series since it will carry AIM-9X, AMRAAM, and has the AESA radar. However, with the current motors, it is in deep, deep shiit in a WVR energy fight.


"This is the first Ive heard of outright cancellation of the JSF."

It was A-10 Stress's idea. He feels that it is impossible for JSF to live up to the hype, and that once the congressional spotlight hits it that it's costs will soar due to congressional meddling. He is almost certainly right IMO.

Besides, the JSF is ALREADY 20% overwieght, and it isn't even equipped with any of the real goodies yet. So remember, you heard it here first.

BTW, the Harrier III proposal would cost a whole lot less and still maintain integral CAS capability for ARG's.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

"hang on to your neck brace chad LOL. The Superhornet was/is a stopgap for the cancellation of the A-12, the navy wanted something ANYTHING with some stealth (this may well have been for bragging reasons too) to operate in a "first day" scenario. The SH's survivability over the battlefield will be precisely ZERO in another 10 years in all likelyhood."

I have ran across some info that suggests that the F-18E/F is MUCH stealthier than is commonly thought. Is it true?

I dunno.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

"Chad wants the F-14, I want the F-18, but the west NEEDS the F-35 pretty much no matter what."

I don't see that at all. What i do see is that the USAF NEEDS the F-22, and the US Army NEEDS the A-10.

They are the real NEEDS that i see.



"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I have ran across some info that suggests that the F-18E/F is MUCH stealthier than is commonly thought. Is it true? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

yup, till you start hanging weapons on it, bombs arnt so bad (actually fairly stealthy)but the missles have too many retro reflectors (fins, vents, connectors, clips etc). The SH is actually quite a bit stealthier than the heralded Rafale.

"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>

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

Not surprising the weight growth. The F-35 cost estimate has grown to 79M(from DOD) already double the original estimate. IMHO Lets get the new engines on the F-18E/F pronto. The F/A-22 204M(DOD)others go as high as 260M. F18E/F 89M(from DOD)and other sources agree. So the F-35 and F/A-22 have already more than doubled in price. The F18E/F is 50% over. By contrast again from DOD the F-16 doubled and the F-15 quadrupled in cost. The F-14 also had serious cost escalation. I dont have any figures at hand for it.

I'm fine with the crazy high price tag of the F-22. You actually get an aircraft that can singlehandedly splash 8 Flankers BVR on every sortie. Looking at the cost of 8 Flankers vs 1 F-22, suddenly it is a bargain. The F-22 will also be the cat's pajamas for SEAD/DEAD when using the powered variant of the SDB. I don't mind ridiculously high prices when we're talking about an aircraft that will revolutionize air combat and one that outperforms everything else in the sky in every concievable category that matters.

The A-10 is also an aircraft that is head and shoulders above the pack when it comes to CSAR, CAS and FAC(A). So to me, that needs to be fixed and modernized.(I view it in the same light as the B-52).

So we need money to keep them both, and we need money to make sure we get enough F-22's.

The easiest way to make that happen is for JSF to go bye-bye.

Introduce a block 70 Viper, an up-engined 'super hornet', and the Harrier III.....and we can. Using the composite JSF for CAS missions is like using a sewing needle as a center punch....far less than optimum.
JSF's greatest strength to me is ACM, and yet it was foolishly designed without a bubble canopy.

Based on the nonsense that goes on with just about EVERY major weapons program, i'd just as soon cancel it now while the investment is minor, and incorporate some of it's features and lessons learned into follow on blocks of the F-18 and F-16.

We can feed all the services legacy systems for years with the money saved. If i was in charge, that is exactly what we would do.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Good point on the bubble canopy or rather the lack thereof. So this A/C isnt going to be a dogfighter/ Air Superiority aircraft as Ive seen touted as part of its future mission. Its certainly not a CAS aircraft. Its internal wepons bay isnt very large although its avionics are certainly optomised for air to ground attack. Just like the F/A-22 if you start hanging stuff off of them there goes your stealth. Well, Well, Well another aircraft thats supposed to be able to do everything and it looks like it cant do much of anything. Ive heard nothing but good things about this aircraft it appears Ive been lulled to sleep by the praises. The F/A-22 is in trouble at the moment but Im just waiting for the USAF to crank up their vaunted PR machine and then everything will be OK, although the # to be procured may well drop precipitously.

I still think that everyone should take a lesson from the IAF. They take every single airframe they're given, and not only do they make them MUCH deadlier and much more efficient than the makers ever imagined, but they do it at a normal price. Plus, the IAF's airplanes are kept in such pristine condition that at any given moment, over 95% of all the airframes are able to takeoff an fly/fight with less than half an hour's notice. Add to that the IAF's well-documented refueling/rearming process, which takes less than 10 minutes, and can safely be continued for days on end. PLUS, the IAF uses modified Sparrows with almost twice the range, Shafrir's, Sidewinders, and the new rafael Python-IV, with 90 degrees off boresight. And the main force behind all this mighty power is one simple thing: desperation. If it doesn't go like this, then we're screwed! Being that no other country in the world really has to worry as much as we do, this is what makes the UAF the best Air Force in the world.

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

The Jewish lobby is the second most powerfull lobby in the United States, BigRoss............Where do you think the money for your military comes from? Aside from technology (that we must monitor) Israel's biggest export commodity is "concrete".........Look at the demographics of Israel.

Lets dispense with the B.S. part of the reason we cannot afford to equip our military as needed, is because we are funding Israel's and a few other country's............So taken this lessson from a military that can thank us for its existance is bull. I am not trying to fan a "jihad" or argument, but what I type here is back and white.

F-14 program cost overuns...........They where horriable, the Soviets would have purged the program managers had it been their project. The F-14A in 1971 was penciled in at just over 13 million per copy fly away cost........That was with the derivative of the PWF-100 powerplant, by 1973 the cost nearly doubled, with the PWTF-30........The only thing that really saved the program was Iran fronting the money for the purchase of some 80 aircraft. So yes, it sucked........The F-14 has always been a high maintence, expensive, system.....Why do you think the Navy used it so much in Hollywood........lol

I still feel axing the JSF will compromise the future of Naval Aviation...........We need the F-35, now. Unless cutting the JSF would free up funding for a navalized F-22, I would be, and most people that realizes the peril NAVAIR is in would oppose the JSF cancelation. From my viewpoint, the less critical of the three is the F-22. The F-35 can achieve air dominance, first day of the battle..........after that upgraded F-16's and F-18's as well as A-10's can mop up. The F-35, though not completley optomized for air dominance, can achieve it. Its already developed for joint-service use, where as the F-22 is not. One more thing, the F-22 will not always be in a position to sharpen its claws, the global political situation is to the point where the USAF often cannot participate from a tactical standpoint, untill weeks after the conflict started. Turkey would not allow us to use their bases in our last fist de cuff, nor would Saudi. It makes more sense to have a complete air dominance system for USN and USAF use, for that very reason........Carriers move, Carriers are immune to political agenda's..........USAF instaltions can not, and are not. Also the F-18E/F with bigger engines.......has anyone thought about what that could do to its already iffy combat radius?? May help it, may curtail it, but none of the aformentioned posts have addressed that........The F-35 promises to have impressive range, and reach. Not a bad thing when its air base does as well.

Eliminating the F-35, from my viewpoint makes no sense.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I understand the range issues for the F/18E/F are only at full-load(which again my understanding is about 4- 5 times greater albeit assuming neither the F/A-22 or F-35 carry any external stores). Is that correct? If so an up-engined F/A-18 E/F in just the air to air role may well be quite capable. Anyone out their that can clarify these issues for me?

Without a bubble canopy isnt the F-35 limited in the air to air role? Despite my understanding that it will be only inferior to the F/A 22 in this role.

Are escalating costs a true problem? Or just a smoke screen for other agendas?

As you see all these aircraft are being billed as do-everything multi-role aircraft. Is that practical, reasonable and realistic to expect? Do we not need CAS? It seems to me its given short thrift across the joint warfare spectrum. Or am I missing something?

I have no particular grievance with either the F/A-22 or the F-35. The limitations of the F-18E/F have been argued ad nauseum. But all three programs are very expensive and the first two are likely to continue increasing. For that matter trying to fix the limitations of the F-18E/F may not be cost effective. But IMHO theres a 99.9% that all three of these programs wont be fully funded. Where will the axe fall?

Sorry for so many questions. But Im not particularly clear on all the issues involved.



Edited by - rickusn on Jun 01 2003 7:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As you see all these aircraft are being do-everything multi-role aircraft. Is that practical, reasonable and realistic to expect? Do we not need CAS? It seems to me its given short thrift across the joint warfare spectrum. Or am I missing something?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In my opinion, no. Your perfect bomber will not do shit for AA. Similarly your perfect AA will not do shit for bombing. Same goes for CAS and REC What they try to do (or should) is decide which is more important for this plane and build to that. Problem is they want to have their cake and eat it too, which ends up wasting alot of time and money in the long run.

CAS is vital to the survival and domination of any forward unit case closed. I think CAS should be the third point in my trinity of warfare: Ground Forces, High Alt. bombing, Close Air Support.

Seems to me the best route would be of the old WWII days of escorting bombers and CAS with fighters in and out of their routes. I figure a fleet of 4 B-52's and 16 F-16's (armed AMRAAM or BVR ordinace only) in waves would be pretty devastating while saving money on dual purpose planes. You can leave the super strategic bombing up to the B2's and 117's, and for CAS; keep the 10...Just keep it nice and fresh, maybe get a little better view for the pilot.

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

"I understand the range issues for the F/18E/F are only at full-load(which again my understanding is about 4- 5 times greater albeit assuming neither the F/A-22 or F-35 carry any external stores). Is that correct? If so an up-engined F/A-18 E/F in just the air to air role may well be quite capable. Anyone out their that can clarify these issues for me?"

This is one of those depends who you ask questions. I have seen F-18C pilots report that they "Outran, ourflew, and outgassed" F-18E's, and i have seen one F-18E test pilot claim good range, so who knows?
About the only thing that is certain is that the F-14A+/D definitely has better range than the F-18, any variant.

"Without a bubble canopy isnt the F-35 limited in the air to air role?"

IMHO, yes.

"Despite my understanding that it will be only inferior to the F/A 22 in this role."

Well, that's how it's advertised. Then again, the F-111 was going to be the world beater interceptor, and we know how that turned out.
Time will tell.

"As you see all these aircraft are being billed as do-everything multi-role aircraft. Is that practical, reasonable and realistic to expect?"

IMO, no. The F-35 is a utility infielder...so is the F-18/16 for that matter. The A-10 is a stud at it's one mission.

"Where will the axe fall?"

Unfortunately, it looks like right on the A-10.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

IMHO Not enough money to be saved there but cant say Ive seen any figures.

2 billion is a pretty safe bet.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The A-10 is a stud at it's one mission.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

and THAT'S where I think this all sucks. I think CAS is maybee the only role that HAS to be a specialist aircraft due to the NEED for armor and all the performance penalties that ensue from the extra weight. Stealth or not the thing has to be a flying tank to do the mission properly, to get low, see who's shooting at who (and NOT relying on which end of a GPS co-ordinate is correct) and just slug it out. I dont think you can do that from 10,000ft. And yeah it doesnt hurt to have something big and ugly zooming around thier heads to put the fear of god into the bad guys and give them something else to focus on.

"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>

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

IMO, we can't keep upgrading the existing A-10 fleet; if we want to keep the Hog in the inventory, we'll need new airframes. Putting upgrades on a tired airframe is akin to dumping $$$ dressing up your old, beat up Ford pickup.

We need the A-10 and it's capabilities, but we need it in new A-10s. I'm just afraid that there's no $$$ to do that. The F-22/35 need the funding.

M21, piggy-back to you mentioning dumping $$$ into the F-35.......I think far worse is being done regards the V-22 Osprey. How many $$$ have been dumped into that program?

Additionally, we just got an e-mail today from the WG/CC talking about not speculating about Hog retirement, etc. It even had an attachment with an op/ed article written by General Hornburg to the NYT (about their article) "clarifying" what M/G Deptula was actually doing.

IMO, Hornburg's reply is fairly vague, and doesn't really specifically support the A-10.

How much money on the V-22?

TOO MUCH!

I <i>think</i> it's something like 20 billion or so.

Ouch.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

The MV-22 seems more and more like a disaster looking for a place to happen forever. Sniper, whered you get the $2B savings figure for the A-10 decom or was I misunderstanding? And is that money available immediately? And at this point its only 8 aircraft as compared to how many a-10s? Dont doubt you just checking.