No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

Reliability-Availability-Revenue

...except that UAVs, for at least the next couple of decades, are going
to be missing the first and second parts of that chain.

That will be true for perhaps another ten years, but not beyond that.

"Reliability," in modern terms, means "all weather, day and night," as a
bare minimum. We have enough trouble keeping most of them in the air in
*good* weather. Until they get a decent self-piloting/return/defense
mode for when they lose their uplink, they're just big model airplanes.

The satellite sensors are in the que.

"Availability" implies "can do all of the jobs we need them to do."

Availability means they will fly at all.

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 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.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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.

Non-sequitur.

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.

All aviation is politics.

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.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you
being confused.

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.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same
as when Newt did it.

The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

Did the Air Force want it? Nope.

The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility of a
failed C-17 program.

Now there is an example the F-22 could strive for, a miracle like the C-17
turnaround. The new management will have had their year before the ax
falls.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

Reliability-Availability-Revenue

...except that UAVs, for at least the next couple of decades, are going
to be missing the first and second parts of that chain.

That will be true for perhaps another ten years, but not beyond that.

Nope. Some of the more-optimistic folks have claimed that, but all of
the current UAVs out there are showing just how weak that prediction is.
Heck, we had two of the current models crash in the same area, in the
same afternoon. Add in enemy jamming and other countermeasures (or even
a couple of guys in a light plane with shotguns), and UAVs stop looking
quite so nice.

They're great for loafing around in unchallenged airspace, but none of
the ones even in *development* are going to be anything near what we
need.

"Reliability," in modern terms, means "all weather, day and night,"
as a bare minimum. We have enough trouble keeping most of them in
the air in *good* weather. Until they get a decent
self-piloting/return/defense mode for when they lose their uplink,
they're just big model airplanes.

The satellite sensors are in the que.

They're already using satellite-based uplinks. As anyone with any
satellite receiving experience can tell you, that's not exactly a
guarantee of 100% uptime. If someone figures out where your ground
station is and knocks it offline for more than a few minutes, it can
kill the whole mission.

*Then*, you have to come up with software and hardware that will let
that same UAV fly in heavy weather, when the rain is so heavy the
uplinks fail right after launch, with 30 knot crosswinds. We are
nowhere *near* that sort of capability right now, and nobody is even
attempting to predict when that's going to happen in the near future.

On top of all that, you have to start considering in-flight failures of
UAVs in heavy use. If you lose a few of the important instruments on a
manned fighter, the pilot has a chance of bringing it in by hand. If
you lose that with a Predator, it crashes.

"Availability" implies "can do all of the jobs we need them to do."

Availability means they will fly at all.

Nope. If it flies, but can't do the job, it's not available for actual
use. Instead of "availability," use the term "mission capable."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:16:41 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Non-sequitur.

No, brush up on your Latin. That's a truism, but it definitely is not
a non-sequitur.

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.

All aviation is politics.

That would be called a baseless assertion. One could as easily say
that "all aviation is business". Or, maybe "all aviation is Freudian
penis-envy...." Nah, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke.

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.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you
being confused.

Every airplane has to be built in someone's district. And, let's agree
that the US is better served by domestic production of our weapons
than international consortium.

If the military is an active participant in the development program
and they decide that it meets requirements, than it is hard to argue
"pork." As mentioned if the military is ambivalent or in opposition,
then you've got "political" and "pork". Maybe a better example is the
years of forcing F-111s on the USAF because John Tower was Speaker.

And, when the F-16 was bought, lo and behold--same builder, same
plant, same district---but no longer pork because now the production
out of Ft. Worth was something we wanted and needed.

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.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same
as when Newt did it.

Dude, the F-15 went into production in that district before Gephardt
got elected to that seat. Ditto for the C-130 out of Marietta--except
that one predates Newt by about 25 years. Production started in the
'50s on the Herc line.

The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

High utility, relatively low cost, totally amortized development etc.


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

"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.

Non-sequitur.

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.

All aviation is politics.


Because you say so?






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.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand you
being confused.


I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by
the opinion of a wannabe.





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.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the same
as when Newt did it.


You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was
bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't
know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple.







The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective.
How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not?




Did the Air Force want it? Nope.

The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility of a
failed C-17 program.


The USAF didn't want it. Period. Which part of that don't you
understand? The C-17 is an obvious success yet the USAF was still
forced by politics to buy the J.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:16:41 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Non-sequitur.

No, brush up on your Latin. That's a truism, but it definitely is not
a non-sequitur.

It was non responsive to what I wrote.

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.

All aviation is politics.

That would be called a baseless assertion. One could as easily say
that "all aviation is business". Or, maybe "all aviation is Freudian
penis-envy...." Nah, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke.

That is a truism.

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.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand
you
being confused.

Every airplane has to be built in someone's district. And, let's agree
that the US is better served by domestic production of our weapons
than international consortium.

And that production is always a pork delivery, because it transfers money
into the District.

If the military is an active participant in the development program
and they decide that it meets requirements, than it is hard to argue
"pork." As mentioned if the military is ambivalent or in opposition,
then you've got "political" and "pork". Maybe a better example is the
years of forcing F-111s on the USAF because John Tower was Speaker.

I claim the two are identical from a political support perspective.

Some in USAF are so invested in the F-22 that cancelleation would be the end
of their careers. Instead of a golden parachute to Lockmart they would just
be done.

Once again, aviation politics.

And, when the F-16 was bought, lo and behold--same builder, same
plant, same district---but no longer pork because now the production
out of Ft. Worth was something we wanted and needed.

LOL

Have another drink, Ed.

"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.

Non-sequitur.

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.

All aviation is politics.

Because you say so?

Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics. From the choosing
of a vender all the way to operational missions, the aircraft is politics
driven. In the civilian world, every 747 crossing the Pacific is politics,
every Country allowing small GA is doing so for ploitical reasons.

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.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand
you
being confused.

I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by
the opinion of a wannabe.

I hadn't really elevated you to the level of wannabe, Scott; but a little
self deprecation is a good sign on your part.

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.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the
same
as when Newt did it.

You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was
bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't
know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple.

Pork barrel politics means reelection and perhaps a speakership.

The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective.
How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not?

I'd say the new engines are a disapointment without the new wing and the
derating provides little bang for the buck. The warbird eliminates a crew
member, which is at best a questionable tactic. The incompatability with
the fleet adds to the question of why anyone would replace their already
good C-130H.

Did the Air Force want it? Nope.

The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility
of a
failed C-17 program.

The USAF didn't want it. Period.

What you want and what you get are sometimes different things.

Which part of that don't you understand? The C-17 is an obvious success
yet the USAF was still forced by politics to buy the J.

There was no obvious success when the C-17's wing broke well below
specification, exactly as predicted by the Nyquist shake.

In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote:

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.

Sorry. I mis-read your statement.

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.

Probably money (acquisition cost) and money (lots of flight test hours)
Is flight test still $1M per flight hour? Last I heard it was.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur