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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote: A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across. I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter by any stretch. Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the F-22 to conclusion. Right now, other than cancellation, there's nothing really forcing their hand, and (whether you agree or not) IMO cancellation at this late stage is improbable, and they know it. 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 and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C already in the works with maybe a modified F-16 update as well. already in the works These would allow continuity of already deployed systems with the supporting infrastructure--engines, avionics, training, qualified weapons, simulators. etc. etc. Not a single factor that I can think of would aim any decision maker toward F/A-18 for USAF as a substitute for F-22 or F-35. Just curious, what is your recollection of the debate surrounding USAF's buy of the F-4 ? I will, however, agree with Walt (as I almost inevitably do) that had the program remained on timeline and operational airframes been delivered a decade ago, the unit cost would be lower, the avionics would be more mature and the politics would be irrelevant. Agree. But someone bit off more than they could chew. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message news On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:20:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote: The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. Walt BJ While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than -23. There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production. Dem-Val ended in Fall of '88 and FSD commenced leading to the selection two years later. The program phases were pretty clearly spelled out in the RFP and again in the selection contract. Asserting "there was no FSD, only Prototype and Production" seems to be little more than an opinion and not in consonance with the readily apparent sequence of past events. Unfortunately for your memory Ed, there was no FSD for the F-22; only prototype and production. Although the F-22 has produced 17 different airframes that would have been the FSD birds for any previous fighter, they are under a production contract. Skipping the FSD phase was supposed to save money, but all it did was drive an already out of control configuration to even greater extremes. Fortunatel;y for the program, management was sacked last year and the configuration was finally frozen. Was probably pretty good that airframes were airborne in '90, but avionics were still mostly conceptual. Will definitely agree that the decade of the '90s really showed a slow-down in development. I'll agree with Walt that the airplane needed to be delivered a decade ago. A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across. I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter by any stretch. I was led to understand that the F/A-22 is the new mission. 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 and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C with maybe a modified F-16 update as well. The F-15 is in Gephard's district and the USAF opertunity to have a Super Eagle is past. These would allow continuity of already deployed systems with the supporting infrastructure--engines, avionics, training, qualified weapons, simulators. etc. etc. Not a single factor that I can think of would aim any decision maker toward F/A-18 for USAF as a substitute for F-22 or F-35. I believe the F/A-18E would provide an object lesson for the USAF fighter mafia in how to comply with USAF reliability and acquisition changes. Once that point is across somone might be able to explain to the USAF fighter mafia how space based sensors are the future, as envisioned by USAF. I will, however, agree with Walt (as I almost inevitably do) that had the program remained on timeline and operational airframes been delivered a decade ago, the unit cost would be lower, the avionics would be more mature and the politics would be irrelevant. Politics are the only thing keeping the raptor alive. (ie Georgia pork) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: A few USAF F/A-18s should get the point across. I don't understand your fascination with USAF F/A-18s. It is most assuredly a non-stealthy airframe and one not dedicated or even very well suited to the air dominance mission. IOW, it isn't an A/A fighter by any stretch. Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the F-22 to conclusion. Right now, other than cancellation, there's nothing really forcing their hand, and (whether you agree or not) IMO cancellation at this late stage is improbable, and they know it. Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve to be humiliated. 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. Keep in mind that all aviation is politics. 1) Consider for a moment some people in control of a flight research center black balled from funding by USAF for falsifying flight test reports. 2) Consider also some people in control of a flight test research center who are the children of NAZI rocket scientists. One has the option of seeking funding outside that service, but the second is a non-starter under a competitive system. The Super eagle has about as much chance of being produced as Gephardt has of being Vice President. and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C already in the works Too late. Please choose an option that is still on the table. with maybe a modified F-16 update as well. already in the works Real likely, should the F-22 falter. GD may end up wishing they had kept the Ft Worth line. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:17:30 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:46:05 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "WaltBJ" wrote in message . com... ess (phil hunt) wrote in message g... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:55:05 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote: What is needed, clearly, is a revised approach to aircraft development. SNIP: No mierda, Dick Tracy. One of Kelly's aids to success was that no one stuck their fingers in his pies. He knew where he was going, herded his troops in the right direction, overrode (mostly) the impediments (Viz. A11 security) and got the job done in an outstanding manner. Now every swinging SOB sticks his nose in the tent and stirs the pot - it's a wonder anything gets done, and all the while Congress is both slowing things down with investigations and continuing pressures to build something/anything 'in my district' and meanwhile the overhead keeps piling up day after day, year after year, and it's all added to the cost of the airplane. The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. And by 1998 the F-22 should have been cancelled as obsolete. As compared to what? The Avro Arrow is probably the only fighter program to be so long in the tooth prior to delivery. You didn't mention what the F-22 is obsolete in comparison to. The Rafale? Typhoon? What? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Could be wrong, but I think his point is that threatening USAF with the F/A-18 would insult them sufficiently that they would force the F-22 to conclusion. It would if the F-15 weren't readily available. IF their only choices were the Hornet and the F-22. Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve to be humiliated. "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. 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. Keep in mind that all aviation is politics. 1) Consider for a moment some people in control of a flight research center black balled from funding by USAF for falsifying flight test reports. 2) Consider also some people in control of a flight test research center who are the children of NAZI rocket scientists. One has the option of seeking funding outside that service, but the second is a non-starter under a competitive system. The Super eagle has about as much chance of being produced as Gephardt has of being Vice President. and an update of sensor/weapons suite on F-15C already in the works Too late. Please choose an option that is still on the table. It's still available. with maybe a modified F-16 update as well. already in the works Real likely, should the F-22 falter. GD may end up wishing they had kept the Ft Worth line. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:50:52 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message news On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:20:09 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote: The 22 should have been in service test in 1990. Walt BJ While what you say is esssentially correct, the 1990 date is a bit excessive. I left ATF at Northrop in mid-'88 and at that time metal-bending was just commencing for FSD. The only real full-scale mock-up was plywood. Gotta assume that F-22 wasn't that different than -23. There was no FSD, only Prototype and Production. Sometimes they do that. They did it with the Tomcat and they did it with the F-16. The F-15 and -18 had FSD aircraft with different paint jobs but that was about the only difference; that and maybe some electronics stuff. The original F-15 had a few differences from the following aircraft but that's really no different than what they do in any flight test program. The chief difference with the F-22 is all the time they're taking to do it. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote: Much of the money is already spent and the F-22 is a fine slab of Georgia pork. If the USAF fighter mafia won't get the job done, then they deserve to be humiliated. "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. To put "Fighter Mafia" in context, it really relates to the cadre of tactical types that collected in the Pentagon basement requirements shop that recognized in the sixties that the future of the USAF would be better served by a flexible tactical force than by the entrenched leadership that had remained in control after WW II from the bomber force--LeMay, Brown, et. al. These were guys like Moody Suter and Boyd who first articulated concepts of tactical force employment. They evolved into the advocates of a modern force that worked the compromises between high tech and high airframe numbers. They developed the thinking for high/low mix when faced with choices for MiG-17 style volume fighters (think F-5A) and force-multiplier high cost/high tech systems like F-15. The true Fighter Mafia built the force that has prevailed globally over the last 30 years and as a corollary supplanted the SAC generals with guys like Jack Chain, Joe Ralston, Ron Fogleman, Mike Ryan, Chuck Horner, etc. Today, with the consolidation of operational types in Air Combat Command, the concept of a "fighter mafia" is passe. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |