Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".


CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
space for them will be available, both of which were in short supply last year.
In 1991, because we had access to Saudi and Turkish bases, the USAF was able to
put 350 tankers on just 5 airbases. Last year, they only had 200 tankers (plus
100 for the airbridge; others were supporting ops in Afghanistan and the Horn of
Africa), and had to scatter them on 15 airbases. Because of the lack of ramp
space, the marines graded a FOB in the northern Kuwaiti desert with a parallel
pair of 6,000 foot dirt runways, where they based many of their KC-130s and
helos. In addition, they offloaded the helos, men and equipment from two
LHA/LHDs, operating each of them with a full AV-8B squadron, just so they
wouldn't take up space on an airfield in Kuwait that was needed by the CTOL
aircraft.

The USAF weren't the only ones with tanker problems. From an article in the
April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, "Lessons Learned", pg. 26, by AvLeak's correspondent at
a Marine airbase in Kuwait:

"Its air campaign has been shaped to a large extent by the fact that the service
has only 24 KC-130 tankers in the region, a relatively small number compared with
the number of strike aircraft it has assembled. What further complicated the
tanker issue is that most KC-130 sorties were dedicated to transporting fuel for
helicopters, as well as tanks and other ground vehicles, to forward areas. It is
a "rare occurence" for a Marine F/A-18 or AV-8B to be refueled in the air, said a
senior Marine Air Group 13 representative, who described the tanker shortage as
'huge'. Problems the USAF has had with its own tankers -- such as poor
availability because of the age of the KC-135s -- have exacerbated the dilemma,
Marine Corps officials asserted. 'Tanking was very limited,' one Royal Air Force
Harrier pilot noted . . . .

"Without refueling, fixed-wing a/c operating from here can only fly over Baghdad
or points north for a few minutes before having to return to base. Pilots from
Harrier squadron VMA-214 noted that without aerial refueling, they had little
time to find targets in the 30 x 30-mi. 'kill boxes' set up around Baghdad.

"The Marines hope to mitigate the problem by establishing forward operating bases
for AV-8Bs and potential F/A-18s. For its helicopter force, the Marines have
already built an extensive series of [FARPs]. So far, the Marines have built
more than 10 FARPs and have even closed down the first few that are no longer
tactically relevant."

They definitely established a Harrier FARP and were sitting ground alert and/or
turning AV-8Bs at an airfield east of the Euphrates that the marines had captured
on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut.

Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.

Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
USMC brethren?

Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping
to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring
that the STOVL version doesn't get axed.

And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to
operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good
thing?

I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

Brooks


What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid
of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like
flies.

Guy

Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
familiar with I have the AvWeek writeups somewhere. I used this (among
others) as 'don't do this - think it out first' safety talks with my
av students. The one I'm talking about is the Air France A320 chief
pilot giving a group of disabled kids a ride during a demo flight in
the new airplane. He made a low slow 'silent' pass with engines at
idle, and got too slow, started sinking and couldn't get the engines
spooled up before the tail of the fuelage hit the trees and of course
then not being able to rotate any higher and with the engine FADECs
taking their own sweet time to spool up - crashed, killing some of the
kids and injuring the others. And he was a graduate of the FAF test
pilot school, too. Great example of complacency and hubris.
Walt BJ

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(John Alger) wrote:

The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
power.


This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
there?...
--


The CVR transcript is on line at
http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_acf296.shtml

Keith

Thanks Keith...
--

-Gord.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
are
interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models
as
well.

It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...



They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!

COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
department
and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
believe.
The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.

(WaltBJ) wrote:

Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
familiar with I have the AvWeek writeups somewhere. I used this (among
others) as 'don't do this - think it out first' safety talks with my
av students. The one I'm talking about is the Air France A320 chief
pilot giving a group of disabled kids a ride during a demo flight in
the new airplane. He made a low slow 'silent' pass with engines at
idle, and got too slow, started sinking and couldn't get the engines
spooled up before the tail of the fuelage hit the trees and of course
then not being able to rotate any higher and with the engine FADECs
taking their own sweet time to spool up - crashed, killing some of the
kids and injuring the others. And he was a graduate of the FAF test
pilot school, too. Great example of complacency and hubris.
Walt BJ

I don't think that there's two Walt...your description sounds
like the one we're discussing here...I seem to be gathering that
he expected the autothrottle syst to apply TOGA and when it
didn't (because he was too low - and had selected it off anyway)
he was too late in applying it manually. I believe he applied it
only five seconds before he contacted the trees. You might read
Jerry Grasso's descriptions here, he seems to have a good handle
on it (plus he teaches a very similar system I believe).
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
(WaltBJ) wrote:

Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am
There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one
discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a
mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the
automation was a factor.

On 2/28/04 6:42 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


Kevin, it's funny how you conveniently snipped the part of my post you
couldn't defend.

That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL
version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two
versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's
with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have
postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because
the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any
*reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few
billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want?


It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice
with the USMC. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most
definitely buy CV versions in reduced numbers, still driving up the unit
costs. Secondly, I never said the USAF didn't want the STOVL version.
They've realized during OIF that CAS and their TACP program is essential to
warfare, and they see STOVL and forward basing as a way to get on board.


Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks


Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?

When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection
from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned
to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was
on a roll.)

According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few years
back, pilots across the TACAIR spectrum with 500 hours or less accounted for
29% of the general pilot population but were at the controls of 46% of the
"Skill Based Error" mishaps. If you split out the AV-8B community, the
percentage of less than 500 hours is 36% and they're responsible for 67% of
the mishaps. Conclusions: (1) experience counts. (2) the Harrier is a
more difficult aircraft to fly. This doesn't account for material failures
etc.

I don't know the actual rates, but the Harrier's have consistently been
higher than fleet average.

Then there's common sense. Slow an F-35 down to near stall while
simultaneously opening an upper intake door and engaging a power take-off
that activates a lift fan. Meanwhile rotate the exhaust nozzle in the back
of the jet through two axes. Any one of these single components fails, and
there's going to be trouble.

These opinions of mine were not generated in a vacuum. They were formed
through years of operating TACAIR aircraft--occasionally around Harriers...
when they weren't falling out of the sky around me. (Sorry, more rant...
and attempted dark humor.)

There's little doubt in my mind that the F-35 STOVL will be a better
platform than the AV-8B, but any slight gain in flexibility of use is still
not worth the risk and the cost when compared to a less risky CV or CTOL
version.

Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine
aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have decided
not to put an internal gun on their version.

--Woody

On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
wrote:

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".


CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats
on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around
al-Kut.

There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the
demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF
is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it
(OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood
sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and
the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and
the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not
been around to help out.

Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging
your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle.

SNIP
And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able
to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a
good thing?

Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is
jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
about.

SNIP
What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get
rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping
like flies.

Guy

Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and
can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them?

--Woody

On 2/29/04 12:03 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
SNIP
They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!

COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
department
and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
believe.
The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.



Not familiar... Got a reference link? I'm interested.

--Woody

Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF
is
jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
about.

Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to
mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far
smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy
them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using
for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is
hard to argue with them.

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

Build some new A-10s with state of the art avionics and new engines. I know
that's not going to happen, but indeed it would make perfect fighting sense.
I still look in wonder at the costly "stealth" features incorporated into
the Rhino, and then you load the poor thing over with a bunch of
hanging-ons, canted outwards, that make it look like a Xmas tree on any
half-decent scope...
_____________
José Herculano