No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin
wrote:

What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft
development. SNIP:

No mierda, Dick Tracy.
One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in
his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right
direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and
got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB
sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything
gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with
investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything
'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after
day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane.
The 22 should have been in service test in 1990.
Walt BJ

While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit
excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time
metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale
mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than
-23.

There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production.

Was probably pretty good that airframes were airborne in '90, but
avionics were still mostly conceptual. Will definitely agree that the
decade of the '90s really showed a slow-down in development.

I'll agree with Walt that the airplane needed to be delivered a decade ago.

A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:20:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

The 22 should have been in service test in 1990.
Walt BJ

While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit
excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time
metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale
mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than
-23.

There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production.

Dem-Val ended in Fall of '88 and FSD commenced leading to the
selection two years later. The program phases were pretty clearly
spelled out in the RFP and again in the selection contract. Asserting
"there was no FSD, only Prototype and Production" seems to be little
more than an opinion and not in consonance with the readily apparent
sequence of past events.

Was probably pretty good that airframes were airborne in '90, but
avionics were still mostly conceptual. Will definitely agree that the
decade of the '90s really showed a slow-down in development.

I'll agree with Walt that the airplane needed to be delivered a decade ago.

A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across.

I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most
assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very
well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter
by any stretch.

If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a
better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of
F-15E and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C with maybe a
modified F-16 update as well. These would allow continuity of already
deployed systems with the supporting infrastructure--engines,
avionics, training, qualified weapons, simulators. etc. etc. Not a
single factor that I can think of would aim any decision maker toward
F/A-18 for USAF as a substitute for F-22 or F-35.

I will, however, agree with Walt (as I almost inevitably do) that had
the program remained on timeline and operational airframes been
delivered a decade ago, the unit cost would be lower, the avionics
would be more mature and the politics would be irrelevant.






Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across.

I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most
assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very
well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter
by any stretch.

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion. Right now, other than cancellation, there's nothing
really forcing their hand, and (whether you agree or not) IMO
cancellation at this late stage is improbable, and they know it.


If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a
better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of
F-15E

Being actively considered, with upgrades

and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C

already in the works

with maybe a modified F-16 update as well.

already in the works

These would allow continuity of already
deployed systems with the supporting infrastructure--engines,
avionics, training, qualified weapons, simulators. etc. etc. Not a
single factor that I can think of would aim any decision maker toward
F/A-18 for USAF as a substitute for F-22 or F-35.

Just curious, what is your recollection of the debate surrounding
USAF's buy of the F-4 ?

I will, however, agree with Walt (as I almost inevitably do) that had
the program remained on timeline and operational airframes been
delivered a decade ago, the unit cost would be lower, the avionics
would be more mature and the politics would be irrelevant.

Agree. But someone bit off more than they could chew.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across.

I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most
assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very
well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter
by any stretch.

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion. Right now, other than cancellation, there's nothing
really forcing their hand, and (whether you agree or not) IMO
cancellation at this late stage is improbable, and they know it.

Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia
pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve
to be humiliated.

If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a
better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of
F-15E

Being actively considered, with upgrades

The super eagle is as dead as Gephardt's political career, but a transfer of
F/A-18E avionics might be possible from the other St Louis Congressional
District.

Keep in mind that all aviation is politics.

1) Consider for a moment some people in control of a flight research center
black balled from funding by USAF for falsifying flight test reports.

2) Consider also some people in control of a flight test research center who
are the children of NAZI rocket scientists.

One has the option of seeking funding outside that service, but the second
is a non-starter under a competitive system.

The Super eagle has about as much chance of being produced as Gephardt has
of being Vice President.

and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C

already in the works

Too late. Please choose an option that is still on the table.

with maybe a modified F-16 update as well.

already in the works

Real likely, should the F-22 falter. GD may end up wishing they had kept
the Ft Worth line.

Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the
F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the
F-22 to conclusion.

It would if the F-15 weren't readily available. IF their only choices
were the Hornet and the F-22.






Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia
pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve
to be humiliated.

"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.







If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a
better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of
F-15E

Being actively considered, with upgrades

The super eagle is as dead as Gephardt's political career, but a transfer of
F/A-18E avionics might be possible from the other St Louis Congressional
District.


If by saying "super eagle" you mean this thing with the new wing and
various stealths mods you're right. Building a Stirke Eagle with the
latest electronics and an APG-63 (or even 77) AESA and HMS is
completely doable though and a far better choice than any Hornet. Put
in a couple of those -132s the Block 60 F-16s get and it would be even
better.






Keep in mind that all aviation is politics.

1) Consider for a moment some people in control of a flight research center
black balled from funding by USAF for falsifying flight test reports.

2) Consider also some people in control of a flight test research center who
are the children of NAZI rocket scientists.


One has the option of seeking funding outside that service, but the second
is a non-starter under a competitive system.

The Super eagle has about as much chance of being produced as Gephardt has
of being Vice President.

and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C

already in the works

Too late. Please choose an option that is still on the table.


It's still available.






with maybe a modified F-16 update as well.

already in the works

Real likely, should the F-22 falter. GD may end up wishing they had kept
the Ft Worth line.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia
pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve
to be humiliated.

"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.

To put "Fighter Mafia" in context, it really relates to the cadre of
tactical types that collected in the Pentagon basement requirements
shop that recognized in the sixties that the future of the USAF would
be better served by a flexible tactical force than by the entrenched
leadership that had remained in control after WW II from the bomber
force--LeMay, Brown, et. al.

These were guys like Moody Suter and Boyd who first articulated
concepts of tactical force employment. They evolved into the advocates
of a modern force that worked the compromises between high tech and
high airframe numbers. They developed the thinking for high/low mix
when faced with choices for MiG-17 style volume fighters (think F-5A)
and force-multiplier high cost/high tech systems like F-15.

The true Fighter Mafia built the force that has prevailed globally
over the last 30 years and as a corollary supplanted the SAC generals
with guys like Jack Chain, Joe Ralston, Ron Fogleman, Mike Ryan, Chuck
Horner, etc.

Today, with the consolidation of operational types in Air Combat
Command, the concept of a "fighter mafia" is passe.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of
Georgia
pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they
deserve
to be humiliated.

"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.

To put "Fighter Mafia" in context, it really relates to the cadre of
tactical types that collected in the Pentagon basement requirements
shop that recognized in the sixties that the future of the USAF would
be better served by a flexible tactical force than by the entrenched
leadership that had remained in control after WW II from the bomber
force--LeMay, Brown, et. al.

In essence the purpose of the USAF fighter mafia is to create more pilot
slots by having fighters do bomber's work. That is why we may get 160 F-22s
intead of 50 conventional B-2s.

These were guys like Moody Suter and Boyd who first articulated
concepts of tactical force employment. They evolved into the advocates
of a modern force that worked the compromises between high tech and
high airframe numbers. They developed the thinking for high/low mix
when faced with choices for MiG-17 style volume fighters (think F-5A)
and force-multiplier high cost/high tech systems like F-15.

A cheap readily manufacturable fighter is a must and then a high end air
dominator might be added to the mix. The problem right now is that there is
a war right now that could use the $30 billion for an air dominant F-22; as
opposed to the already air dominant F-15.

The true Fighter Mafia built the force that has prevailed globally
over the last 30 years and as a corollary supplanted the SAC generals
with guys like Jack Chain, Joe Ralston, Ron Fogleman, Mike Ryan, Chuck
Horner, etc.

Today, with the consolidation of operational types in Air Combat
Command, the concept of a "fighter mafia" is passe.

No, seats for pilots is not passe. Consider the number of astronauts
holding engineering slots at NASA pre-Columbia disaster. Robots are now the
space explorers of choice, thanks JPL.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.

The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It
doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork
when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt
was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:34:04 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .


"Fighter Mafia" is generally associated with the group that promoted
the Light Weight Fighter back in the day. As far as the F-22 being
pork, it's only pork if it's the *politicians* fighting for the
program against the will of the services. Well I guess that could be
"pure pork" vs different degrees but so far I've not seen anywhere
where the USAF has said they DIDN'T want the F-22.

The F-22 defines the careers of many senior grade officers in the USAF. It
doesn't get much more political than that. The F-22 became Georgia pork
when a certain California congressman tried to cancel it in '98. When Newt
was first out it was actually possible to end the mysery.


There are going to be politicians out there who are going to fight the
cancelation of ANY weapon system because it's being built in their
domain. The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel"
is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so
they keep those jobs and get those votes. There are quite a few that
fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using
it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to
the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The
simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it. If
the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be
called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power
to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the
politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s.
The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep. Did the Air
Force want it? Nope.

In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote:

If (and this is a very big IF), the F-22 should collapse, then a
better choice for all-wx, day/night ground attack is another buy of
F-15E

Being actively considered, with upgrades

The super eagle is as dead as Gephardt's political career, but a transfer of
F/A-18E avionics might be possible from the other St Louis Congressional
District.


If by saying "super eagle" you mean this thing with the new wing and
various stealths mods you're right. Building a Stirke Eagle with the
latest electronics and an APG-63 (or even 77) AESA and HMS is
completely doable though and a far better choice than any Hornet. Put
in a couple of those -132s the Block 60 F-16s get and it would be even
better.

The USAF will NEVER buy Block 60s.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur