No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
ess (phil hunt) wrote in message
...
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.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:37:10 +1000, John Cook wrote:

That would be nice, but it appears that *nobody* has that kind of cash
around; ISTR that earlier projected Eurofighter Typhoon production estimates
have been reduced over the years,

The Eurofighters order number (620) have been stable since about
1996, so far that is!!! Tranche 2 negotiations may yet hold some
surprises, but all governments have restated their commitment to the
full numbers.

I dion't know if this is a true story, but aparently in the 1990s
the British were concerned that the Germans were lacking in
enthusiasm for the project so they inserted big penalty clauses in
for any nation that reduces its order. So if there was a British
cut now, it would be embarrassing, to say the least.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

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?

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:52:29 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:


An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high
manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also
needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to the
enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform and
possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot.

The sensor suite for US operations is increasingly space based with
Global
capability.

Only as long as the birdies above don't sustain interference
or attack. What then? You still need the traditional means
of reliably delivering the weapons to the target. Hotshot
fighter jocks could probably still succeed with a grease pencil
mark on the sight glass, and memorizing a set of direct bomb
tables... but must we resort to WW I tactics every time Ivan,
Mustafa, or Won Hung Lo geek out a way to scramble the RF?

If they start jamming communications it won't matter if the information is
space based, or comming from an AWACS. In order to make any kind of
comparison you would ahve to compare to what is done today.

Who is "they" and when did they develop a frequency agile comm-jamm
capability? Millimeter wave for intra-flight data sharing?

A reliable airborn weapons platform with data link capability
is what is needed.

Sure. As long as you never transmit the good stuff in the clear
until you REALLY need it in a war. Wipe out the other guy within
the first ten days or so, and you're home free; after that, he'll
be turning your displays into masses of grass...

I don't believe there is much support in the system for the lone wolf
fighter pilot scenerio. There may be soem of that inside the F-22
community, but that space is not the rocking chair career booster it onece
was.

Tactically you seem to be out of step with the last fifty years of
fighter operations. There hasn't been a "lone wolf fighter pilot
scenario" in any plans since pre-Korean war. What is being discussed
is the ability to survive on Day One, to go where you need to and then
to dismantle the command/control/communications and the defensive
reaction capability without attriting yourself. There's no "lone wolf"
involved. Colin Powell spoke of putting out their eyes in DS. That's
part of the big picture. The F-22 allows intrusion of a mature IADS
and dissection of it. It isn't about "career booster" it's about
winning wars. That takes people at the pointy end.


The USAF airplane procurement cycle is too slow and bogged down
with politics to produce tech advantages in individual manned
airborn equipments.

Not to mention the scads of college boys writing code
to do things they don't understand - and feel (erroneously)
that the GIs - from E-1s to generals - can never understand.
Libraries, libraries, libraries; if it doesn't work as spec'd
with existing, just add others to bog it down some more.

Yes, that kind of thing even comes to the fore in the commercial World.
Tremble spent a fortune trying to be in the aviation avionics business, only
to find that their softhead small GA pilots could not follow a
specification.

Dare I suggest that comparing GA to military tactical aviation is a
bit of apples/oranges? Dentists will continue to kill themselves in
Bonanzas while fighter pilots will develop new ways to de-fur the
feline.




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

On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
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.
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.

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.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:52:29 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess
(phil
hunt) wrote:


An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high
manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also
needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to
the
enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform
and
possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot.

The sensor suite for US operations is increasingly space based with
Global
capability.

Only as long as the birdies above don't sustain interference
or attack. What then? You still need the traditional means
of reliably delivering the weapons to the target. Hotshot
fighter jocks could probably still succeed with a grease pencil
mark on the sight glass, and memorizing a set of direct bomb
tables... but must we resort to WW I tactics every time Ivan,
Mustafa, or Won Hung Lo geek out a way to scramble the RF?

If they start jamming communications it won't matter if the information
is
space based, or comming from an AWACS. In order to make any kind of
comparison you would ahve to compare to what is done today.

Who is "they" and when did they develop a frequency agile comm-jamm
capability? Millimeter wave for intra-flight data sharing?

I don't believe there is a they, but John T makes a good point that there is
some possible vulnerability to jamming.

A reliable airborn weapons platform with data link capability
is what is needed.

Sure. As long as you never transmit the good stuff in the clear
until you REALLY need it in a war. Wipe out the other guy within
the first ten days or so, and you're home free; after that, he'll
be turning your displays into masses of grass...

I don't believe there is much support in the system for the lone wolf
fighter pilot scenerio. There may be some of that inside the F-22
community, but that space is not the rocking chair career booster it
onece
was.

Tactically you seem to be out of step with the last fifty years of
fighter operations. There hasn't been a "lone wolf fighter pilot
scenario" in any plans since pre-Korean war. What is being discussed
is the ability to survive on Day One, to go where you need to and then
to dismantle the command/control/communications and the defensive
reaction capability without attriting yourself.

Sure.

There's no "lone wolf"
involved. Colin Powell spoke of putting out their eyes in DS. That's
part of the big picture. The F-22 allows intrusion of a mature IADS
and dissection of it. It isn't about "career booster" it's about
winning wars. That takes people at the pointy end.

The only target for the F-22 is Europe and killing Eurofighters is it's only
sold mission.

The USAF airplane procurement cycle is too slow and bogged down
with politics to produce tech advantages in individual manned
airborn equipments.

Not to mention the scads of college boys writing code
to do things they don't understand - and feel (erroneously)
that the GIs - from E-1s to generals - can never understand.
Libraries, libraries, libraries; if it doesn't work as spec'd
with existing, just add others to bog it down some more.

Yes, that kind of thing even comes to the fore in the commercial World.
Tremble spent a fortune trying to be in the aviation avionics business,
only
to find that their softhead small GA pilots could not follow a
specification.

Dare I suggest that comparing GA to military tactical aviation is a
bit of apples/oranges? Dentists will continue to kill themselves in
Bonanzas while fighter pilots will develop new ways to de-fur the
feline.

Well now, Trimble still sells to the military.

"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.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 13 Apr 2004 11:48:15 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
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.
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.

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.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:25:19 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:37:10 +1000, John Cook wrote:

That would be nice, but it appears that *nobody* has that kind of cash
around; ISTR that earlier projected Eurofighter Typhoon production estimates
have been reduced over the years,

The Eurofighters order number (620) have been stable since about
1996, so far that is!!! Tranche 2 negotiations may yet hold some
surprises, but all governments have restated their commitment to the
full numbers.

I dion't know if this is a true story, but aparently in the 1990s
the British were concerned that the Germans were lacking in
enthusiasm for the project so they inserted big penalty clauses in
for any nation that reduces its order. So if there was a British
cut now, it would be embarrassing, to say the least.

Thats one of the rumours floating around, a cancellation results in
such penalties that its a not an option to save any money...

That said, the other option is to screw the companies producing the
aircraft for as much capability as possible for the price...hence the
dealy???

Tranche 2 negotiations shold have been finished by now, some long lead
items are being produced for tranche 2 now due to addition funding
granted by Governments purely due to the Tranche 2 delay.

Best guess would be a signing in the next 3 months or other funding
may be needed to stop a break in production.

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

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.

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.

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. 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 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.






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