If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
Tiger wrote:
Dan wrote: Dan wrote: Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: :See: : :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS : : :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF rocurement? : :Or something else? : My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half. Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2 Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater capability earlier for less money. Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be available. Ouch. Do you have any idea How Dangerous those things (AV-8B) are to OUR guys? Dan Oops. I forgot a couple of words. Dan No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to get that dangerous label. You may want to look at the safety records before you make such statements... Dan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
USAF Joins Navy in Warning of 'Fighter Gap'
See: http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3472033&c=AME&s=AIR Looks like the USAF is going to have problems similar to the Navy's. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
Tiger wrote:
an wrote: : Dan wrote: : : Fred J. McCall wrote: : : wrote: : : :See: : : : :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS : : : : : :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF : rocurement? : : : :Or something else? : : : : My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half. : Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2 : Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it : fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater : capability earlier for less money. : : Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had : some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see : how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want : given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would : cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start : cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be : available. : : : Ouch. Do you have any idea How Dangerous those things (AV-8B) : are to OUR guys? : : Dan : : : Oops. I forgot a couple of words. : : Dan : :No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to :fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to : get that dangerous label. : I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
wrote:
:USAF Joins Navy in Warning of 'Fighter Gap' : :See: : :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3472033&c=AME&s=AIR : :Looks like the USAF is going to have problems similar :to the Navy's. : Not surprising and I'm not sure what they can do about it under the current plans. They're not going to be able to keep the F-16s going. They're flying the life out of those airframes. They've already been looking for ways to extend the life of some of the F-15 fleet by selecting low-air-time airframes for retention (the 'Golden Eagle' program). My suggest would be to terminate the F-22 program ASAP and accelerate the USAF buy of F-35A. They could take up the production slack left by USN reducing their buy to get more SuperBugs, instead. Cancel F-35C entirely (as the most structurally different of the three variants). This leaves USN with the opportunity to initiate its own new fighter program in a decade or so, with some hope of actually getting what they want (since it would start off with a carrier-capable design). Then they could strip out the extra weight for carrier capability and make USAF start buying it on the back side of the F-35 buy (which leads us back to a situation like the old F-4 Phantom). If you want a multi-service airplane, you should start with a USN design and lighten rather than starting with a 'light fighter' design and then trying to beef it up for carrier ops. I wish there was something to do about the F-35B, but I don't see a viable alternative course. Maybe go back to Boeing with a bid for the 'REALLY Big-Wing Harrier'? -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
On Apr 10, 12:45*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tiger wrote: an wrote: : Dan wrote: : : Fred J. McCall wrote: :: wrote: : : :See: : : : :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS : : : : : :What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF : rocurement? : : : :Or something else? : : : : My personal opinion? *Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half. : Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2 : Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it : fields, and are available NOW. *You wind up with equal or greater : capability earlier for less money. : : Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had : some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. *I don't see : how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want : given the price tag of the things. *I have to wonder what it would : cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start : cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be : available. : : : Ouch. *Do you have any idea How Dangerous those things (AV-8B) : are to OUR guys? : : Dan : : : Oops. *I forgot a couple of words. : : Dan : :No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to :fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to : *get that dangerous label. : I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. *They don't seem particularly terrified at the prospect. *The AV-8B isn't particularly more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to * * live in the real world." * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden Well, for NASA, the navy, and the Air Force, our answer to that has always been: "Making rockets is for history's cranks who don't have the intelligence, the inspiration, the imagination, the talent, or the money to make robots and lasers". |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
Fred J. McCall wrote:
I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. Except when hovering, wouldn't you say? -- sjs |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
"St. John Smythe" wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : : I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem : particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly : more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. : :Except when hovering, wouldn't you say? : No, I wouldn't say. I would say that the AV-8B isn't particularly more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. Period. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"St. John Smythe" wrote: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : : I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem : particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly : more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. : :Except when hovering, wouldn't you say? : No, I wouldn't say. I would say that the AV-8B isn't particularly more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. Period. Evidently, the people actually involved did not agree with you, though they have made great strides recently: "A decade ago, the AV-8 Harrier was the most accident-prone plane in America’s arsenal. After a series of deadly accidents killed 45 of his fellow Marine pilots, engine program manager Lt. Col. Robert Kuckuk of the Marines’ Harrier program office helped redesign both its engine and its maintenance program. That program now takes 25 man-hours per flight hour, but accident rates plunged. At the same time, the AV-8 has found its niche amidst the urban operations that have characterized Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the Harrier’s most recent engine redesign overhaul, serious accidents dropped from 39 every 100,000 flight hours to 3.17 per 100,000 flight hours in 2001. In Iraq, Harriers have now flown nearly 11,000 hours without a mishap since May 2004." I based my original statement on history. I will, however, stand corrected about the current situation. Mr. McCall should not base his knowledge on the opinions of people who, for obvious reasons, HAVE to believe in the equipment and also believe "it can't happen to me." Dan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'
"Dan" wrote in message
... Evidently, the people actually involved did not agree with you, though they have made great strides recently: "A decade ago, the AV-8 Harrier was the most accident-prone plane in America’s arsenal. After a series of deadly accidents killed 45 of his fellow Marine pilots, engine program manager Lt. Col. Robert Kuckuk of the Marines’ Harrier program office helped redesign both its engine and its maintenance program. That program now takes 25 man-hours per flight hour, but accident rates plunged. At the same time, the AV-8 has found its niche amidst the urban operations that have characterized Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the Harrier’s most recent engine redesign overhaul, serious accidents dropped from 39 every 100,000 flight hours to 3.17 per 100,000 flight hours in 2001. In Iraq, Harriers have now flown nearly 11,000 hours without a mishap since May 2004." I based my original statement on history. I will, however, stand corrected about the current situation. Mr. McCall should not base his knowledge on the opinions of people who, for obvious reasons, HAVE to believe in the equipment and also believe "it can't happen to me." My wife, a retired Flight Surgeon, had some stuff on the AV-8 she received at a conference a few years back. IIRC there was a BIG difference between the A and B models. The A's were "Lt. Eaters" but the B's were as safe as an aircraft that operates in that mileau are going to be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Navy pilots thank plant with tours of fighter jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 13th 05 01:50 AM |