No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:06:24 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

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."

Sounds like the Calvin Coolidge concept of an Air Force---"why not buy
one airplane and let the aviators take turns flying it?"


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

"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.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
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.

In essence the purpose of the USAF fighter mafia is to create more pilot
slots by having fighters do bomber's work. That is why we may get 160 F-22s
intead of 50 conventional B-2s.

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.

A cheap readily manufacturable fighter is a must and then a high end air
dominator might be added to the mix. The problem right now is that there is
a war right now that could use the $30 billion for an air dominant F-22; as
opposed to the already air dominant 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.

No, seats for pilots is not passe. Consider the number of astronauts
holding engineering slots at NASA pre-Columbia disaster. Robots are now the
space explorers of choice, thanks JPL.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:06:24 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

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."

Sounds like the Calvin Coolidge concept of an Air Force---"why not buy
one airplane and let the aviators take turns flying it?"

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

Reliability-Availability-Revenue

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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!

LOL. I did remember however that they were fairly new to the fleet
at about the same time you must have been in UPT.


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.

This bears no relation to the F-35, which is purpose-built from the
get go to be a multi-service a/c.

snip good stuff

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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.

Contracts in hand argue otherwise.


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.

Was there last month. The Ft Worth line is doing just fine.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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.

"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.

"Availability" implies "can do all of the jobs we need them to do."
Even near-future USVs aren't going to be air combat capable, as we
currently need it to be (the ones that can execute reasonable combat
missions like ground attack are going to be *really* vulnerable to
air-to-air interdiction.

"Revenue," maybe, if you include "a lot cheaper" as part of that revenue
stream. But even that part is no guarantee, as we're finding out with
the bigger UAV models.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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. 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.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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.

Contracts in hand argue otherwise.

It is the build that I question.

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.

Was there last month. The Ft Worth line is doing just fine.

Yes.