No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

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

"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)

"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.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

Just curious, what is your recollection of the debate surrounding
USAF's buy of the F-4 ?

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

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.

Never liked the smoke, the second seat and the lack of a gun. When I
got in the airplane in '72, it finally had a gun (that came in '68),
but still smoked.

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.

I don't know what was going on across town in Burbank, but at
Hawthorne, I was appalled by the lack of accountability in the
program. A lot was falling through cracks, but I've got little to
compare it to in terms of total industry standards. I do know that the
simulation program was going well, the cockpit displays/symbology was
a thorny problem and the trade/off work was incredibly complex. The
interface with the customer, however, was ongoing and very productive.

The SPO officers were regular visitors and flew a lot of the
simulation stuff with the Northrop staff. They ranged from Captains to
B/G's, all operationally experienced tactical aviators, so they had a
tight hand in defining the requirements.



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's nice to have an interpreter aboard. Occasionally the terseness at
the end of the long repeated, multiple-entry threads leaves me
confused. Might be an age thing.

There is a lot of data in this thread.

Just curious, what is your recollection of the debate surrounding
USAF's buy of the F-4 ?

Not an age thing, I guess. I'm not as old as you accuse me of being!

OK then, but I have a question for you about when dinosaurs ruled the Earth
....

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?

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.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:35:39 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

It's tough to say. With the Cheyenne they had ten built and in
testing at cancelation. Or they could pull a B-2 "we'll let you build
a total of 30 F-22s and then we're canceling the program. Enjoy."

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.

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