On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:30:35 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:27:14 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


The idea back in the day was that with the Tomcat 21 they would have
made improvements to the maintanance aspects similar to the Super
Hornet. It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as
the Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet.

Dude, Tomcat's numbers suck, get over it.

"It would have been essentially a "clean sheet" Tomcat much as the
Super Hornet was a clean sheet Hornet."

The Tomcat is not an electric FCS airplane. What you are suggesting is back
to the future.

Which part of that did ya miss? They wouldn't have been simply
sticking new sensors on a D. It would have been essentially all new.
New engines, new avionics, new and redesigned airframe, etc. It would
have incorporated a lot of "lessons learned" from a maintainability
standpoint. Would it have been exaclty as good as a Super Hornet re.
maintianability? Who knows. It would have been a hell of a lot
better than a D's though.

Why?

US missiles finally worked through a lot of hard work at RPL and later
Phillips to get the propellent mixes right for the first Gulf War.

And this has *what* to do with what we've been talking about?



Sensor
and guidance technology has made an additional leap since then. Technology
has changed the nature of war and if the best you can do is apply the F-22
to some war with China, you need to join us in the new millenia.

Would you share with us the technology that makes a non stealth
aircraft safe from double-digit SAMs and advanced fighters? Saying
"bomb them all with UCAVs" won't even come CLOSE to cutting it until
there are hundreds in service if then. And you can take to the bank
that the first time one accidentally drops on a populated area all the
politicians will line up to complain about the need for a man in the
loop. And I'd hardly call a country with hundreds of Flankers and
counting, J-10s in the pipline, defenses equipped with SA-10s and
-12s, and at last count 500 tactical ballistic missiles pointed a
Taiwan (who we've promised to protect) a trivial threat. Of course we
could always pull an Iraq and say "uh, that's too hot for US to touch.
Good luck to ya". Or maybe you could explain how these F-15s we have
are going to last another thirty or forty years without falling apart.

Or better yet, explain how we're going to maintain any fighter
building expertise by continuing to churn out 30 year old designs
(that's thirty years TODAY). The fact that the F-22 and F-35 are
experiencing the problems they are suggests we've already started
losing it. Someone pointed out "but the F-22 and F-35 are much more
complicated that aircraft of yesterday". No doubt they are, but then
again our tools are much better than those we had back in the day. Is
an F-22 really THAT much more difficult to build TODAY than a YF-12A
was in 1960? And I don't mean difficult because we've lost all of our
talent to retirement or because the perishable skills have perished.
I mean based on current state of the art is it as far ahead as the
YF-12A was in it's day?



The end of
mannned flight is near.

I would not be at all surprised if in the end that line of reasoning
looks as premature as saying the dogfight was history back in the day
of the original F-4.

A few questions:

1. How do you do CAS with a UCAV?

2. How do you protect your high value assets like airborne command
posts, tankers, and recon with UCAVs?

3. How do you CAP with UCAVs?

4. If you keep a man in the link how do you keep that link from
getting jammed or just plain going tits up?

5. If you take the man out of the loop how do you IFF?

6. Soldiers are on the ground and the only thing close enough is a
UCAV with no man in the loop. How do you help the troops?


No matter how hard they try they will never be able to duplicate the
flexibility of a human in the cockpit. UCAVs will always stay niche.