No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:05 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

What I meant was if the F-22 is cancelled one of the things that could
be put into new Strike Eagles are the -132 engines *that are in* F-16
Block 60s. Even better though would be the more powerful engines both
P&W and GE have tested with 3D nozzles. Still scratching my head as
to why they were both virtually ignored by any potential customers.

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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.

Contracts in hand argue otherwise.


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.

Was there last month. The Ft Worth line is doing just fine.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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.

Contracts in hand argue otherwise.

It is the build that I question.

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.

Was there last month. The Ft Worth line is doing just fine.

Yes.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

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

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

The USAF F-4 came on board in FY 62. The operational airplanes were
entering the inventory in CY '64, the same year I went on active duty.
I didn't know or hear much about the debate as lowly 2/Lt. I was just
happy to go to UPT at Willy and then get my first choice of assignment
and go to Nellis. At Willy, when I saw my first F-4 up close on the
transient flight line I was awed at its size. At Nellis, when I taxied
by the Weapons School flight line in my Thunderchief, it looked a bit
smaller.

Never liked the smoke, the second seat and the lack of a gun. When I
got in the airplane in '72, it finally had a gun (that came in '68),
but still smoked.

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.

I don't know what was going on across town in Burbank, but at
Hawthorne, I was appalled by the lack of accountability in the
program. A lot was falling through cracks, but I've got little to
compare it to in terms of total industry standards. I do know that the
simulation program was going well, the cockpit displays/symbology was
a thorny problem and the trade/off work was incredibly complex. The
interface with the customer, however, was ongoing and very productive.

The SPO officers were regular visitors and flew a lot of the
simulation stuff with the Northrop staff. They ranged from Captains to
B/G's, all operationally experienced tactical aviators, so they had a
tight hand in defining the requirements.



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

There is a lot of data in this thread.

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

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

OK then, but I have a question for you about when dinosaurs ruled the Earth
....

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

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

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

LOL. I did remember however that they were fairly new to the fleet
at about the same time you must have been in UPT.


The USAF F-4 came on board in FY 62. The operational airplanes were
entering the inventory in CY '64, the same year I went on active duty.
I didn't know or hear much about the debate as lowly 2/Lt. I was just
happy to go to UPT at Willy and then get my first choice of assignment
and go to Nellis. At Willy, when I saw my first F-4 up close on the
transient flight line I was awed at its size. At Nellis, when I taxied
by the Weapons School flight line in my Thunderchief, it looked a bit
smaller.

What I was getting at (viz using F/A-18'S for USAF ) was that the F-4
was the last Navy fighter to be bought by the Air Force. There must
have been a lot of "discussion" of using a Navy a/c in a force that
was essentially century series dedicated USAF platforms.
IIRC, the NIH factor was a component of the decision to buy another
solely USAF a/c, the F-15. How much of a component is still argued.

This bears no relation to the F-35, which is purpose-built from the
get go to be a multi-service a/c.

snip good stuff

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:52:01 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The USAF F-4 came on board in FY 62. The operational airplanes were
entering the inventory in CY '64, the same year I went on active duty.
I didn't know or hear much about the debate as lowly 2/Lt. I was just
happy to go to UPT at Willy and then get my first choice of assignment
and go to Nellis. At Willy, when I saw my first F-4 up close on the
transient flight line I was awed at its size. At Nellis, when I taxied
by the Weapons School flight line in my Thunderchief, it looked a bit
smaller.

What I was getting at (viz using F/A-18'S for USAF ) was that the F-4
was the last Navy fighter to be bought by the Air Force. There must
have been a lot of "discussion" of using a Navy a/c in a force that
was essentially century series dedicated USAF platforms.
IIRC, the NIH factor was a component of the decision to buy another
solely USAF a/c, the F-15. How much of a component is still argued.

From my perspective, I never heard the NIH argument, although it might
have occurred in some buildings without square corners. The real
"problems" didn't surface until well after purchase decision--the
issue of "missile-only platform" that was proving unsuitable in the
WVR fighting environment of SEA and the rapidly escalating
dissatisfaction of the PSO community without a clearly defined career
track.

As for "last Navy fighter" you probably are overlooking the A-7D
purchase.

Actually in both instances the AF got a lot of design input (not the
basic airframe geometry, but the systems). The F-4 got INS for example
and lots of bomb-carriage capability along with "special weapons"
wiring and control. The A-7 in AF livery came with a "death dot"
bombing system that was vastly superior to the A-7B of the USN.

In fact, as time droned on, both services can be said to have
benefitted from the development of the airplane in sister service use.

This bears no relation to the F-35, which is purpose-built from the
get go to be a multi-service a/c.

Well, in one sense, yes--but more like the F-84E/F/G than the
F-111A/B. In other words, separate but equal airframes that are
inherently different but similarly shaped.


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

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's tough to say. With the Cheyenne they had ten built and in
testing at cancelation. Or they could pull a B-2 "we'll let you build
a total of 30 F-22s and then we're canceling the program. Enjoy."

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:06:24 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

It's tough to say. With the Cheyenne they had ten built and in
testing at cancelation. Or they could pull a B-2 "we'll let you build
a total of 30 F-22s and then we're canceling the program. Enjoy."

Sounds like the Calvin Coolidge concept of an Air Force---"why not buy
one airplane and let the aviators take turns flying it?"


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:06:24 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

It's tough to say. With the Cheyenne they had ten built and in
testing at cancelation. Or they could pull a B-2 "we'll let you build
a total of 30 F-22s and then we're canceling the program. Enjoy."

Sounds like the Calvin Coolidge concept of an Air Force---"why not buy
one airplane and let the aviators take turns flying it?"

That is the theory behind UCAVs. One pilot can fly until he/she is tired
and then someone else can fly.

Reliability-Availability-Revenue