2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional
"if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22". I just don't see how we could maintain the degree of
superiority we've enjoyed without it. IT probably wouldn't be the
disaster that I see it being but it's dismaying to see so many cutting
edge programs cancelled and the idea of hoping the F-35 would be far
superior to the latest Chinese Flankers. . .well my money wouldn't be
on it.

Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well. As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?


I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited
numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after
the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.


I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply
using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A
hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even
more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.


I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start
replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost
for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal" version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB. Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Brooks

Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well.


I agree.



As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking. As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them. Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.






I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited
numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after
the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?



I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply
using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A
hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even
more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.


I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start
replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost
for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal" version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.



Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm
just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s,
and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

,snip agreeable type stuff


As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about
Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot
training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

Begging the question of how much value *any* of the landbased tactical
fighters would be in such a scenario--I don't see us likely to base fighters
on Taiwan proper. That places under the the gun of the complete threat
envelope, including TBM's, cruise missiles, SOF attack, etc. IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

I believe you are minimizing the requirements to solve that problem. They
would have to finally completely do away with their "mass is the answer"
approach (they have admittedly made progress in that direction, but they are
not there yet, and won't be in the immediate future), and they have a
problem with their basic foundation (i.e., tactics/techniques/procedures,
qualified instructors and doctrinal developers, and last but not least, the
PLA's historical mistrust of individual initiative). That is a lot to have
to contend with before they even *start* developing a world class fighter
force.

Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.



I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited
numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue
after
the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version.
The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced
when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled? the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.



snip

I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple
of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start
replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit
cost
for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what
we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal"
version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to
accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.

Yeah, good analogy.

Brooks



Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as
the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes
within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second
crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:03:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

,snip agreeable type stuff


As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about
Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot
training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

Begging the question of how much value *any* of the landbased tactical
fighters would be in such a scenario--I don't see us likely to base fighters
on Taiwan proper. That places under the the gun of the complete threat
envelope, including TBM's, cruise missiles, SOF attack, etc.


My point is that regradless of where we strike from those Flankers
will be able to be on station without tanking at enough distance that
we'd still have to run the gauntlet to deploy our weapons. Air
delivered that is. I wasn't implying US fighters would be stationed
on Taiwan but then the further away you station the fighters from
where they are needed the more useful supercruise becomes.



IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

Today that is the case. Nothing stays the same forever and China has
already tried to get real AWACS capability from Israel. True they
didn't get it this time but even 80's technology AWACS is nothing to
dismiss.


As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

I believe you are minimizing the requirements to solve that problem. They
would have to finally completely do away with their "mass is the answer"
approach (they have admittedly made progress in that direction, but they are
not there yet, and won't be in the immediate future), and they have a
problem with their basic foundation (i.e., tactics/techniques/procedures,
qualified instructors and doctrinal developers, and last but not least, the
PLA's historical mistrust of individual initiative). That is a lot to have
to contend with before they even *start* developing a world class fighter
force.

Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go
IMO. Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the
answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the
skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it
out, it's just a matter of time.




Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.

Not on hand. How hard would it be to invite in some Israeli pilots to
get advice on how China ought to train it's airforce? Or from
somewhere else. The talent is out there and if China ever does put
the pieces together they will be a force to rekon with. Just because
they don't today doesn't mean they never will.




Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled?

No. That's not what I'm saying. They've got the cap in place and
whatever they can buy with it would likely be sufficient to deal with
the China scenario. I only mention China, not so much because I think
that it's going to happen, but that it's the biggest threat on the
horizon from an air to air perspective. As I pointed out in another
thread, in Desert Storm there were suprisingly few F-15Cs tasked for
patroling air to air in comparison to how many the USAF has. Even the
180 number that has been kicked around would likely be enough. The
fact is though it's apparently been decided that the cost cap that has
been given to the F-22 program is affordable. They should just let
the USAF do with it what they can rather than cancelling the program.
To sum up I don't think MORE is what we need but we do need SOME.



the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.

I agree. I'm saying that we shouldn't cancel the F-22. I'm not
saying we need 500 of them :-) Troops are getting wounded and killed
almost every day and they definitely need to solve that problem. The
talk of "let's be transformation and kill heavy armor" scares me
though.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


My point is that regradless

Little spell flame monkey.