start making the ST21, AST21, ASF-14 and A-12 Flying Dorito!

Ski wrote:
You all seemd to me to have hit the main issues with the USN right now -
somehow the Navy has thrown away its good sense and started chasing courses
of action that will reduce its ability to deal with the world threats in
only from a defensive nature.

(1) New big carriers go fast, protect themselves better, and sustain more
everything but they can't start costing $10 billion plus each

(2) The F/A-18E/F/G has re-written the maintainability and sortie generation
books but it is no more then a more capable A-7 and not even an A-6 and
surely not an F-14 despite the maintenance nightmares.

(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working
sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which
is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning a
super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we
have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric
Tomcat.

(4) If we drop JSF STOVL and force only one configuration CTOL and then
slide the whole program to include a decade or so development the JSF could
absorb the UCS/UCAV and work to have manned - unmanned variants which makes
more sense and helps preserve the stealth if it works to keep the internal
weapon design (say maybe include something laser by then) - but this alone
could pay for the new Tomcat and a crash program it could be

(5) Now like it or not, the move from battle ship to carrier will have
another shift down the road and that may be sub-surface so the Navy may
really find that under-sea ops will be its big hitters and the whole surface
world may have to look again at what it is and should be.

But whatever it is - the present Navy is not it




Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*



Has any these "Futuristic Flying Machines" ever been "Battle Tested",
against OTHER nations futuristic and costly Flying Machines... BS?



God's Creator!
(I am Life & Death) 8-)


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Holy Oil Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/

In article ,
(Paul J. Adam) wrote:
writes

(4) If we drop JSF STOVL and force only one configuration CTOL and
then slide the whole program to include a decade or so development

In half a sentence you lose most of the customers. The STOVL variant
was added because there was a user requirement (US-led and then
others bought in) and if you "slide a decade" then you lose your
export sales, who didn't sign up for an extra ten-year gap.

Just to agree some mo that route for the JSF programme also wastes a
large fraction of the money that's been spent so far, and leaves the
USMC with no Harrier replacement. Frankly, it gives BAe, Boeing and
Rolls-Royce a fine chance to produce a better Harrier, which is
perfectly possible, given enough market to pay for the engine
development - and there might be stuff to be lifted from JSF for that.

Maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all, actually... if you're
someone other than the USA.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

SNIP

(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working
sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which
is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning
a
super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we
have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric
Tomcat.

The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.

Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
(emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth
capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable
(if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet.

The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important
driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could
have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is
not even close.

R / John

In message , John Carrier
writes
The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.

Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
(emphasis DEEP) strike roll.

Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an
excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea
interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of
air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come
home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft
required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to
deliver them.

For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late
(desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a
difference had there been Bombcats in 1991.

What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission
disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late
and being too expensive to support.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , John Carrier
writes
The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.

Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
(emphasis DEEP) strike roll.

Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an
excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea
interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of
air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come
home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft
required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to
deliver them.

For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late
(desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a
difference had there been Bombcats in 1991.

What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission
disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late
and being too expensive to support.

No. When every other Cat 4 fighter was being modified, modernized, the
F-14 was not. The F-14A+, except for the enigines, was essentially
identical to the F-14 first delivered. A-6 type flight controls, tube
technology avionics. For the F-14 to survive as a viable platform(like
the F-15 has), it needed modernization early on, like in the 80-s. 1991
was too little, way to late. If the F-14 strike was made, same time
frame as the F-15E, the F-18F probably wouldn't exist.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

John Dallman wrote:
Just to agree some mo that route for the JSF programme also wastes a
large fraction of the money that's been spent so far,

"money that's been spent so far"

Another term for that is "sunk costs" (or writeoff), which is not a good
analytical justification for continuing with any project. Political
justification, certainly, but it is similar psychology to holding on to
a bad investment (hoping it will eventually turn around). If a project
is a dud, there really is no sense going on with it no matter how much
money has been spent or how close it is to being complete.

Please not I'm not commenting on the JSF, I'm commenting on the thinking
that can be behind budget decisions. Of course budget processes are far
too complicated to explain in two paragraphs

OK Paul, not one but two guys that've been there, done that.

R / John

"qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , John Carrier
writes
The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question,
that
being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires
armed
with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that
threat,
there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.

Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its
fleet
defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the
deep
(emphasis DEEP) strike roll.

Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an
excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea
interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of
air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come
home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft
required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to
deliver them.

For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late
(desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a
difference had there been Bombcats in 1991.

What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission
disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late
and being too expensive to support.

No. When every other Cat 4 fighter was being modified, modernized, the
F-14 was not. The F-14A+, except for the enigines, was essentially
identical to the F-14 first delivered. A-6 type flight controls, tube
technology avionics. For the F-14 to survive as a viable platform(like
the F-15 has), it needed modernization early on, like in the 80-s. 1991
was too little, way to late. If the F-14 strike was made, same time
frame as the F-15E, the F-18F probably wouldn't exist.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

"John Carrier" wrote:

:SNIP
:
:(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working
:sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which
:is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning
:a
:super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we
:have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric
:Tomcat.
:
: The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
: being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
: with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
: there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.
:
:Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
:defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth
:capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable
if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet.

The Strike Eagle was started on MDAC internal money as a technology
demonstration. No such thing was ever done with the F-14. Regardless
of that, the D and B Upgrade aircraft were converted into quite
capable deep strike platforms (4x2000lb JDAM) with better
range/payload combinations than the Super Bug.

:The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important
:driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could
:have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is
:not even close.

It would have been a new airplane. All the avionics would have to be
replaced and it would probably have had to be re-engined.

It sure was a pretty airplane, though...

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"John Carrier" wrote:

:SNIP
:
:(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working
:sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which
:is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning
:a
:super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we
:have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric
:Tomcat.
:
: The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that
: being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed
: with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat,
: there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement.
:
:Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet
:defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep
emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth
:capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable
if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet.

The Strike Eagle was started on MDAC internal money as a technology
demonstration. No such thing was ever done with the F-14. Regardless
of that, the D and B Upgrade aircraft were converted into quite
capable deep strike platforms (4x2000lb JDAM) with better
range/payload combinations than the Super Bug.

:The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important
:driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could
:have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is
:not even close.

It would have been a new airplane. All the avionics would have to be
replaced and it would probably have had to be re-engined.

It sure was a pretty airplane, though...


Yep, just like a whizbang Phantom would have been keen as well. SELDOM
can an old, existing airframe be brought up to snuff with engines and
Avionics(can't think of one-tried in the F-20, F-8). The airframe(FUGLY
if ya ask me, and I flew for 2 squadron tours), was old, old
technology(ala A-6), the $ to make it flybywire would have been more
than a new aircraft. The 'D' model was laughable, considering the old
technology of the day that existed at the time in the genuine cat 4
fighters(think F-15/16/18). The only way the F-14 would have survived
was if the knuckeheads spending the $ on fighter modernization, would
have done it as planned, to make the 'B' model early in the 80s. Didn't
happen, the Turkey was doomed to obscurity. Gotta remember the F-14 was
not anything more than a fix to the F-111 debacle, an airframe to wrap
around the Hawg-9/Phoenix wunderweapon.

In message , John Carrier
writes
OK Paul, not one but two guys that've been there, done that.

R / John

Well, I come here to learn as well as lecture

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk