Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:05 pm, wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.
In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mao charlie will soon be the next boogie man..don't close those Lock-
Boe-Northrop factories yet...JG

How much of your money are you willing to contribute in the form of
taxes to counter what is currently a minimal threat?

Building stuff now means it will most likely be worn out and need
replacement by the time (if ever) it is needed not to mention
the money down a rat hole.

The Chinese have their own problems and little interest in things
outside of Asia other than sales.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Originally Posted by John Godwin

rotor&wing wrote in
:

You have obviously never served in the military, and don't have a
clue to the various missions of each branch, much less the
capabilities of their respective aircraft.

I see, you know for a fact that he doesn't have a DD-214?

--

Honeck never served in any branch of the military. He just likes to pretend he's an "expert" in military aviation.

Originally Posted by Jay Honeck

Clearly your contention is that the grounding of the P-3s and F-15s
was unnecessary. On what do you base this assessment?

That was not my contention. You started this thread off by stating P-3's were "antique" airplanes "built" in the 50's. I pointed out that all current P-3's were built in the mid 70's.

So by using your logic, your 30+ year old Cherokee is an "antique" and should be replaced.

BTW, I've flown missions aboard P-3C's and EP-3E's, and worked with the maintenance end of the squadron. What is your experience with ANY military aircraft, other than what you have read on the internet?

wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

That is pure BS. Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.


Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

And with MANY other aircraft.


Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.

Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

That is true. A modernized A-10 would likely be far more valuable overall.

Matt

Bob Moore wrote:
rotor&wing wrote
Honeck never served in any branch of the military. He just likes to
pretend he's an "expert" in military aviation.

At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
silly internet name.

Classic, Bob. If that is your real name. :-)

Matt

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
46.128...

At least, we know who Jay really is. He doesn't hide behind some
silly internet name.


How do we know that's his real name?

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

That is pure BS. Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.

Point totally missed.

While during the service life upgrades are made, when the services
want a "new" fleet of aircraft it is almost always a clean sheet design.

If this weren't true, most of the USAF fighters after the F-4 wouldn't
exist.

Yet we have had F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117, and the A-10
among a slew of others.

There are really only two "jobs" for a fighter style aircraft; air-to-air
combat and ground support.

That means the AF needs at most two fighter models at this point in
history.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

And with MANY other aircraft.

Name some.

The C-130 and CH-47 are the only exceptions I know of.

The services went out for bid for "new" aircraft and wound up with
a major revision and update of an old, existing design.

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 22, 11:55*am, wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.

In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. *Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...

The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.
That is pure BS. *Many aircraft have had many avionics and weapons
systems upgrades over the years including the B-52, U-2, F-15 and many
others.

Point totally missed.

While during the service life upgrades are made, when the services
want a "new" fleet of aircraft it is almost always a clean sheet design.

If this weren't true, most of the USAF fighters after the F-4 wouldn't
exist.

Yet we have had F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117, and the A-10
among a slew of others.

There are really only two "jobs" for a fighter style aircraft; air-to-air
combat and ground support.

That means the AF needs at most two fighter models at this point in
history.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.
And with MANY other aircraft.

Name some.

The C-130 and CH-47 are the only exceptions I know of.

The services went out for bid for "new" aircraft and wound up with
a major revision and update of an old, existing design.

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Maybe share the F-18 with the Navy? which has been upgraded over the
years.

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.

I seem to remember General Dynamics radically updated the F-16 with
new materials and a completely different wing (a delta/canard
arrangement, IIRC), along with engine and avionics upgrades. It was
billed as a proof of concept aircraft, but could easily have been used
by the military at a much smaller cost than the new F-35.

The Air Force didn't buy it. Anyone know why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote

There is no real reason the USAF couldn't have done the same with
fighters as the innovations over the years haven't been in basic
airframe design, they've been in engines, weapons, avionics, and
materials.

You have to be kidding. The new airforce fighters are a totally different
concept in airframe, and also conceal weapons in some of them. That
certainly qualifies as a new airframe design, since you could not have
concealed weapons in the older airframes.
--
Jim in NC