WT Forums

In all reality, all any of us can do is speculate on the future. Some of a select few on this forum are actually in the know, in regards to what changes are going to take place in the next five years. Everyone here, however has the ability to fight. The F-14 Tomcat, was the first cold war weapon to be axed.......The A-6E then followed, the A-10 soon could see the same result. What do all these airframes have in common? At the time all of these aformentioned aircraft where single purpouse, cold warriors......The A-6E was getting dated, and the Tomcat could have stepped into the huddle for the aging Intruder very nicely. Looking back ten years later, both programs are either long gone........or in the verge of. Grumman Aerospace, and the Navy to a degree really made a mistake in not looking past the cold war.

The A-10 should not be a causalty of the same hooded executioner. While the F-14 Tomcat community could go to congress with the signatures of hundreds of avaitors, and flight officers.........The A-10 community is huge......How many soldiers would oppose the early retirement of the A-10? How many downed airmen saved by the combat persistance of the A-10 in a CSEAR profile, would oppose it? How many USAF personal, how many pilots? The A-10 like the B-52 is proof that some ideas can be made better with upgrades, not replacements...........You guys have a powerfull voice, and a equally impressive service record to make a strong argument for the old war horse...........Use it, before its to late.

Get your voice out............

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

I say give the Hog to the Army, they'll at least appreciate it.

So what if the A-10 doesn't want to lose the $$$ associated with the CAS mission.

If we can get the money for new A-10 airframes, good. Otherwise, I don't know how economically-viable it'll be to keep hanging high-tech stuff on a tired airframe.

I vote to reopen A-10 production. Might not be realistic, but it's the only realistic way to preserve the aircraft, IMO.

[quote]
. The F-14 Tomcat, was the first cold war weapon to be axed.......The A-6E then followed, -------

A-7s and A-6s are long gone. Tomcats and Vikings are about to be parked at the boneyard.

Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon and the Critters aren't interested in what works. They just love the pork and their post retirement gigs in the MIC.

Cold War started directly after WW2 and we have retired many weapons systems since then.

The first ABM deployed lasted about half a year and they quietly retired it. Similar to the nuke powered warships other than carriers. They parked those with another 15-20 years worth of life on them.

Rummy & Company are doing it their way.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I say give the Hog to the Army, they'll at least appreciate it.

So what if the A-10 doesn't want to lose the $$$ associated with the CAS mission.

If we can get the money for new A-10 airframes, good. Otherwise, I don't know how economically-viable it'll be to keep hanging high-tech stuff on a tired airframe.

I vote to reopen A-10 production. Might not be realistic, but it's the only realistic way to preserve the aircraft, IMO.


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

"tired airframe" I know its old...but the B52 is over 50 years old...it may not be easy to keep old airframes going (and believe me, you should see some of the F-15A models that are coming through depot <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>) but I wouldn't consider the A-10 a tired airframe...I to would love to see a new production A-10...but just like the C-130J, it wouldn't live up to the original...everyone I have talked to here at Depot isn't looking forward to working on the 130J, the "computer" is relied upon way to much...and A-10 that totally relied on a computer would be just as useless at tree-top level as the f-35 or F/A(-22...

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator...

If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

Yeah, I hear you Jack.....I should have been more specific. I was refering to the 90's cutpacks after the Soviet Unions economy went to hell, and weapon systems that were still in their prime that were chopped. I still believe in the capabilities of the F-14D.

This is about the A-10 though...........I think that it has its place, and should be an exception rather than the status quo when it comes to "jointness" and mulit-mission combat aircraft......

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>
I say give the Hog to the Army, they'll at least appreciate it.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No damn it! USAF just needs some brains on the hill.

But, I agree. Open up A-10 production and get some engineers looking at small ways to improve the great base it already has.

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

Anyone got an idea on what the average fleetwide airframe time is on the A10 ? Most of our jets in Mass are pushing 7000 hours. 80-166 has 7250 on it. I imagine that Popes and DM's have got to be getting real high.
On the F14 subject I gotta chime in. The navy guys (myself included) really helped piss that airframe away. When the Air Force was developing the Strike Eagle the Navy had talk about the strike version of the F14. This was in the 80's and it eventually came through but way to late. The cultures between FITWING and MATWING in the 80's were worlds apart and neither would have anything to do with the other. The fighter guys were fighter guys and no self respecting Tomcatter would dare speak about hanging eggs on their jet. I would have shuttered at the thought of my jet with bombs on it in 1985. I think that is another reason there is so much animosity between the F18 and F14 community. Or I should say that there was a lot of animosity when I left the navy in '91.If the FITWING community had given a little bit in the 80's you could very well have seen a new F14 nstead of just re-engined F14A's with upgraded avionics. I think that the possibilties would have been endless given Reagans seeming willingness to let John Lehman build the 600 ship navy of the 80's. Maybe I am way off base but its just a personal observation.

"Damn the torpedoes............Full speed ahead"

_________________
YGBSM !

"Open up A-10 production"

With what tooling, and in what factory?

Quite impossible i'm afraid.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

[quote]
I think that the possibilties would have been endless given Reagans seeming willingness to let John Lehman build the 600 ship navy of the 80's. Maybe I am way off base but its just a personal observation.
------------

SecNav Lehman was the only dual designated Aviator/NFO in the Navy. He was part of the problem. He brought back BBs and their 50 year old powerplants. The A-12 went up in smoke at the cost of 5 billion taxbucks and we ended up with a damn plastic model only. 600 ship Navy was a pipedream.

Lehman didn't think much and loved to party hearty at NAS Oceano in his term.

As the Force decided to go with a Srike Eagle as a backup, the Navy blew it's chance of a BombCat.

I flew with some Naval Aviators that had started as NFOs in Nam and upgraded to the front seat. Some of them saw combat from both seats. They were more than pissed off when SecNav Lehman could be dual designated.

Sexy airframes and weapons systems sell on the Hill. Especially pricey ones.

Jack

I agree with alot of what Jack is saying...I myself liked Lehman, and thought he was a stand-up SECNAV for the most part. The "600 ship" Navy was a rush sortie type job, mothballed crates were re-commed to make it happen in a hurry. Lehman "piped Rickover, over the side" which was a long time in comming. My biggest gripe was the total lack of foward thinking, beyond the cold war threat of the USSR. I remember a big deal being made of the Soviet's Super Carrier force on the horizon...But, the failure to look beyond Ivan is what is costing the Navy today. Look at the programs, the A-12 was a joke, and a total waste. Lehman himself was a A-6 FO, thus he was not about to phase out the best medium strike aircraft in the world, what stinks about the whole deal is both Grumman and the Navy knew that the F-14 could aquire the deep strike role, and eventually with upgrades be better than the A-6. Why that was not explored earlier is absurd, but the jet had all the built in creature comforts to be the best strike fighter on the planet, even into the next 10 years.

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

Hawg your also right about the communities...No self respecting VF jockey would want to morph into an VFA, we had the VF, and the VA.
Now it looks like in 5 years all we will have are VFA squadrons...I was pretty pissed when the proud VF-102 "Diamondbacks" became the VFA-102...Jeeze to think that the Jolly Rodgers will someday do that to.

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

ATTENTION: The Nazi moderator is a BIG TIME BB supporter, so no cheapshots at MY Iowa's.

Hehehe.

In all honesty, we should NEVER have retired the BB's, because right now the sum of our NGFS is a few 5" pop guns.

It's quite pathetic actually.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

I like the BB's..I just they went through a more complete overhaul/refit before they were brought back, maybe if they were not rushed back so hard, they would still be in service today.

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

As usual, it was, and always will be....about the $$$$.

If the cold war had lasted just 4 more years they would've been equipped with VLS, Aegis, and Saboted 13"/16 laser guided RAP shells with a 60 mile range.

Timing is everything.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

[quote]
My biggest gripe was the total lack of foward thinking, beyond the cold war threat of the USSR. I remember a big deal being made of the Soviet's Super Carrier force on the horizon...But, the failure to look beyond Ivan is what is costing the Navy today---------

The Navy and the rest of the forces mainly look for what's best for them and their budgets. I use to fly AIRLANT and CINCLANT out of NAS Norfolk in the early 80s. Never heard the staff mention squat about a Bombcat. At the time Grumman was pumping out a Tomcat and an A-6 every month or so. I told the staff lets crank up production and cut costs by 50%. Excess aircraft we just park them and bag them until needed. S-3 production was completed that way.

One of the big problems with the A-12 was the lack of interaction from the F-117 group.

IMO, Lehman will go down in history as one of the worst SecNavs. Kinda of sad in a way, because he really could had done some real good for the Navy. He was CO of his reserve squadron of A-6s while SecNav. Lehman was the golden boy in the DOD also.

Regarding BBs. Another classic FU. Old powerplants and old powder are a very bad combination. Very labor intensive ships to run.

Lots of stories on Rickover and most folks were happy to see him depart. Till this day, the Navy doesn't reveal any nuke problems.

Jack

There is nothing wrong with the powder bags for the Mk7 guns, and there is nothing to prevent further production of newer bags.

BTW, the 'old' plants of the Iowas will outrun ANYTHING in the fleet.

"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> Till this day, the Navy doesn't reveal any nuke problems.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Just cause they don't reveal them don't mean they ain't there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> BTW, the 'old' plants of the Iowas will outrun ANYTHING in the fleet. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I got two things to ask. First, is it true that the CVAN (Later CVN) 65, the USS Enterprise really had/has eight reactors? And second, Would an Iowa class ship be able to outrun the Enterprise?

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

I dont know much about the powerplants on the boats. But I can say this, I spent 4 years in VF-14 ( God save all Tophatters ! ) and did 2, 7 month deployments on the JFK CV-67. I was a kid but I was blown out of the water by the speed. Absolutly unbelievable. In '85 when the boat left Hampton Roads for the coast of Lebanon, it stacked the hangar bay, went to max tiedown for all the birds on the roof, left only the watch standers outside and made it from 'Ol Virginia to the far eastern end of the Med in 4 days flat. You do the math. And yeah the Big-E does or at least did have 8 reactors when they built it. I believe the props are about 28 ft in diameter. The best place to get info on the boats if at www.fas.org under conventional weapons and US Navy ships.

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Just cause they don't reveal them don't mean they ain't there. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That was Jack's whole point BR...

Jack, you know I have been a Lehman supporter for a long time, but I am starting to see your point. The Navy of today is a direct result of the decesion making then, the 80's were high times for the Navy, and the decesion makers rode those times, not thinking about the future a whole lot. F-14 Bombcat should have been a reality in 1986...

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

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 04 2003 2:06 PM

BILLY I FORGOT YOU WERE A SQUID"RE-BORN"<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
WE HAVE SOME OLD SEADOG'S HERE AND SOME MARINES WHO JUMPED TO THE USAF TOO.
SO YOUR IN COMPANY WHEN YOU TALK "TOMCAT"!

YOUR TALKING HOURS THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT 0166'S HOURS SHE HAD JUST BROKE OUT OF THE 3,000 HR SLOT,LIKE 3100HRS .
ALOT HOURS SINCE THEN!



PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The Iowa class BB's have an unclassified max speed of 33.5 kts, but have exceeded 35 knots in trials. They are as fast as anything in Navy haze grey, particularly in rough seas.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Naw man.....Fast Attacks, and Nuke Carriers leave the Iowa's in the dust...plus max speed as cool as it is, is irrevelant, its how much it costs to steam to point "A" to point"B" with the CVBG...and the Iowa's as cool as they are, cost mucho dinero to do that, the new gas turbined CG's and DDG's are extremely efficient...

I know you like Iowa's...I like them to Snipe, the the BB"s cost bucks...I wish they were modernized a bit more so they didn't get chopped, they bring alot of "cheap" firepower to the CVBG, and even more so, in today's "Littoral" Navy.

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

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 04 2003 2:04 PM

A nuke carrier will not outrun an Iowa on the open seas.

Go over to Warships1 and ask all the fleet sailors that post there.

BTW...the Iowas have massive range, and the capacity to bunker for it's entire escort screen at the same time.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

A Nuke Carrier wont outrun a Iowa class BB? Your way off on that one dude.

Your also missing the point about the Iowa's class BB's....Gas turbine poweplants efficient. Iowa's 50 year old bioerls were not. Doesn't matter your fuel capacity, you either efficient at using it, or your not, what your cpacity is not a facter. The Iowa's are obsolete...........and unless they under go a more complte overhaul and refitt, they always will be.

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

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 04 2003 8:38 PM

A Nimitz class CVN has a unclassified speed of 30+ knots. The nuclear propulsion of a CVN allows it to sustain this speed for almost unlimted dashes...The FLANK speed of an Iowa class BB is 33 knots, thats the flank speed, and it lacks any endurance comparable to the dash speed of a Nimitz class CVN. Steaming a CVBG from Norfolk, to the Persain Gulf...Or from Everett or San Diego to the Yellow Sea in a hurry requires powerplant endurance, the Iowa's have an impressive fuel cpacity, and at the time were designed to also be able to bunker for its escort......In the 1940's then upgraded in the 1960's. Navy powerplant technology has changed alot since then. The gas turbines and nuclear technology we use today is completley different, and optomized for flash point politcal situations around the globe and getting the CVBG's there in a hurry.

The Iowas cleaner hull design and lower water displacment does allow for faster aceleration, but its the ability to suatain that speed in an efficient and sustained manner that dictates how fast a CVBG steams from point A to point B..........The Iowa's dont sustain that speed with as much endurance, or as efficient.

Look at the USS Abraham Lincoln CVBG.........It was re-deployed on its way to homeport, thus a nine month deployment.....An Iowa class BB would have been hard pressed in that situation to not monopolize the oilers, or have hit the port more frequently.

A 1970 Hemi-Cuda with a 426 Hemi is bad to the bone..........But would it keep up cross country with your Porsche??? You know ala Cannonball Run....

Just food for thought.

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