2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:14:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely
to
happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big
conditional
"if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of
my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much
of
the
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level
of
capability is optional.

snip of completely unqualified opinion

As determined by Splapsy.

As defined by your lack of any connection to the discussion at hand,
Ferrin.


Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should
have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms. The airplane is already on the wrong
side of the 2000 mil-spec procurement break.

The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

Gephardt is retiring, the USAF's options have been reduced.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

The impression I got from the other thread is that you were going to
refrain from sniping at people and grow up. My mistake.




Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should
have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms.

*IF* they get the full 277 they will have more than enough. From an
air to air perspective go read up on how many F-15Cs were used in
Desert Storm. You also have to keep in mind that *reliable* and
*effective* are not interchangable. An F/A-18E would be virtually
useless in delivering LGBs or JDAMs against an S-300 site. Yes, I'm
aware that's why they'd use JASSMS or JSOWS *but* we're talking air to
air here. That same F/A-18E with AIM-120s fighting a Su-30 with a
competent pilot and AA-12s and possibly KS-172s in the future would
NOT be in for a fun time. So is requiring three or four F-18Es to do
the job of one F-22 cost competitive? Remember you have to add in the
cost of maintaining and manning those three or four Hornets in
addition to the fuel and aerial tanking they'd use. It's not simply a
matter of saying "the Super Hornet is cheaper and it's reliable, let's
buy it instead."




The airplane is already on the wrong
side of the 2000 mil-spec procurement break.

The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

Gephardt is retiring, the USAF's options have been reduced.

The F-15 is still in production. There are still those in the USAF
who are smart enough not to go NEAR the Super Hornet when they've got
the choice (the USN didn't) so it doesn't matter if Gephardt is
retiring.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

The impression I got from the other thread is that you were going to
refrain from sniping at people and grow up. My mistake.

Did you expect that somehow your ignorance would now go unchallenged?

Snipping out the 2/3 of your post that were without basis was intended to be
instructional for you in the future.

Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should
have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms.

*IF* they get the full 277 they will have more than enough.

There is no 277, Ferrin and even that "full 277" is less than the "full 336"
of 2 years ago. The number of likely production F-22s is now well south of
180.

From an
air to air perspective go read up on how many F-15Cs were used in
Desert Storm. You also have to keep in mind that *reliable* and
*effective* are not interchangable.

Why would I have to keep that in mind? It is the weapons themselves that
need to be effective. Wasting money on flash is of little real utility.

A reliable airborn weapons platform is what is required, the F-22 does not
address the issues of today's warfare, let alone tomorrow's.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm
just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s,
and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's
application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.



Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The
USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an
F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

I am not claiming there is any ethical problem with the F-15's management.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

,snip agreeable type stuff


As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about
Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot
training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

Begging the question of how much value *any* of the landbased tactical
fighters would be in such a scenario--I don't see us likely to base fighters
on Taiwan proper. That places under the the gun of the complete threat
envelope, including TBM's, cruise missiles, SOF attack, etc. IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

I believe you are minimizing the requirements to solve that problem. They
would have to finally completely do away with their "mass is the answer"
approach (they have admittedly made progress in that direction, but they are
not there yet, and won't be in the immediate future), and they have a
problem with their basic foundation (i.e., tactics/techniques/procedures,
qualified instructors and doctrinal developers, and last but not least, the
PLA's historical mistrust of individual initiative). That is a lot to have
to contend with before they even *start* developing a world class fighter
force.

Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.



I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited
numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue
after
the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version.
The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced
when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled? the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.



snip

I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple
of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start
replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit
cost
for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what
we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal"
version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to
accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.

Yeah, good analogy.

Brooks



Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as
the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes
within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second
crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.