Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I wonder, is it because most of you guys in the US are so used to having 1000 B-17s vs half a Gruppe of Bf-109s that you don't realise how huge stuff like 180 F-22s, 11 Supercarriers, 12 Amphibious Assault Ships etc etc(probably more capable than most carriers in other nations)are compared to the rest of the world?

I mean, I hear guys screaming about the PLAN and their plans to build like 2 carriers (which probably won't be that capable given their zero experience in naval aviation) but how is that going to stack up against 11 Carrier Battle Groups and the supporting cast. I mean, the casualty figures in Afghanistan and Iraq already exceed what would probably be the casualty numbers if all-out non-nuclear air/sea warfare against the PRC was to take place right now, so shouldn't the budget be spent there instead of the fancy Overtechnology Silverbullets? You already got enough Super Star Destroyers, maybe the $ is better spent on a better Stormtrooper helmet or something.

Just me rambling but I really wonder.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[eugimon]

I wonder, is it because most of you guys in the US are so used to having 1000 B-17s vs half a Gruppe of Bf-109s that you don't realise how huge stuff like 180 F-22s, 11 Supercarriers, 12 Amphibious Assault Ships etc etc(probably more capable than most carriers in other nations)are compared to the rest of the world?

I mean, I hear guys screaming about the PLAN and their plans to build like 2 carriers (which probably won't be that capable given their zero experience in naval aviation) but how is that going to stack up against 11 Carrier Battle Groups and the supporting cast. I mean, the casualty figures in Afghanistan and Iraq already exceed what would probably be the casualty numbers if all-out non-nuclear air/sea warfare against the PRC was to take place right now, so shouldn't the budget be spent there instead of the fancy Overtechnology Silverbullets? You already got enough Super Star Destroyers, maybe the $ is better spent on a better Stormtrooper helmet or something.

Just me rambling but I really wonder.

you need to realize that the US military budget stopped being about what the military needed or wanted sometime between "we" and "the people".

[Vifam7]

If given the option between 300 MRAPs or one F-22 which would you chose? Or better yet, 2.5 F-35s? In many ways the F-35 is more valuable for the USAF, given that it will actually operate regularly over places like Afghanistan at a lower cost than F-22s.

I really don't think F-22s or F-35s are cost effective aircraft for places like Afghanistan.

I think the worry with some is that, should the US ever have to fight a country with a well equipped air force, they might not have enough F-22s or F-35s to make up for the difference in numbers. I guess more worrying if the opposing force has the potentially cheaper PAK-FAs or capable gen4.5 fighters and the F-35s aren't as good as LM advertises.

BTW, why do the Marines need a STOVL jet (the F-35B)? I mean, have they ever had to operate from rough airfields that require STOVL? Desert Storm? Just been wondering if the F-35B is a waste of money.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Vifam7

[David Hingtgen]

Re: STOVL. Above all else---forward deployed for rapid CAS. Plus, amphibious assault ships (or as I like to call them "Harrier carriers")

You don't find Marines TOO often on the super carriers. They like to be self-sufficient.

[Ghost Train]

You already got enough Super Star Destroyers, maybe the $ is better spent on a better Stormtrooper helmet or something.

That makes perfect sense to me. Given that the bulk of US Force's commitments are so heavily reliant on infantry, some sort of genetically modified super soldier program with advanced shielded armor is in order. This will also help prepare our country for the coming Alien Nibiru Mayan Zombie Apocalypse Invasion of 2012 - where these super-soldiers will be the last hope for humanity. Their leader's armor will be green.

[Noyhauser]

I really don't think F-22s or F-35s are cost effective aircraft for places like Afghanistan.

We use F/A-18E/Fs, F-16s and F-15Es over afghanistan on a daily basis where they provide critical FAC support.. The maintenance costs of these aircraft are significant and their shortcomings evident. The F-35 is more fuel efficient and as a newer airframe, has lower maintenance costs save for maybe the Super Hornet.

I think the worry with some is that, should the US ever have to fight a country with a well equipped air force, they might not have enough F-22s or F-35s to make up for the difference in numbers. I guess more worrying if the opposing force has the potentially cheaper PAK-FAs or capable gen4.5 fighters and the F-35s aren't as good as LM advertises.

The problem is that there isn't a single potential adversary in the next 15 years that could overwhelm 180 F-22s. Only China could and they have far more effective weapons that can wreak far more damage on the United States than a couple of 5th gen fighters (They are called T-Bills.)

[Ghost Train]

The problem is that there isn't a single potential adversary in the next 15 years that could overwhelm 180 F-22s. Only China could and they have far more effective weapons that can wreak far more damage on the United States than a couple of 5th gen fighters (They are called T-Bills.)

China is doing a lot to undermine US Hegemony in Asia, but buying US debt instruments is not one of them.

Japan recently overtook China as the #1 holder of US Debt (again), yet this event received little or no press coverage. Perhaps Japan has an ulterior motive too lol ?

Countries invest their treasuries much the same way people invest their own savings - you can either put it under your mattress which only assures that your money looses value over time, or invest it. For the longest time, US Treasury Bills were considered the safest investments in the world, but the near catastrophic meltdown of the economy has challenged this traditional view.

Perhaps I'm crazy to say this - but when you look at the National Debt comparatively, it's neither a unique problem, nor one that will sink the whole country tomorrow. The US' debt as a % of GDP is roughly 59%. The government borrows 59 cents to do whatever it needs to do for the economy as a whole to produce $1. This is far from good, but when stacked against other countries it's actually not that bad. By contrast, Japan's debt is a crushing 200% of its GDP - yet the world has not ended.

Almost every industrialized country has an unhealthy balance sheet, I could go on about why this is the case but then I remind myself that this is a thread about aircraft.

If T-Bills were the effective weapon all the alarmists claimed they were, every single special interest group in the US would have stockpiled them iin large numbers by now, which has not happened.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Ghost Train

[Warmaker]

I wonder, is it because most of you guys in the US are so used to having 1000 B-17s vs half a Gruppe of Bf-109s that you don't realise how huge stuff like 180 F-22s, 11 Supercarriers, 12 Amphibious Assault Ships etc etc(probably more capable than most carriers in other nations)are compared to the rest of the world?

I mean, I hear guys screaming about the PLAN and their plans to build like 2 carriers (which probably won't be that capable given their zero experience in naval aviation) but how is that going to stack up against 11 Carrier Battle Groups and the supporting cast. I mean, the casualty figures in Afghanistan and Iraq already exceed what would probably be the casualty numbers if all-out non-nuclear air/sea warfare against the PRC was to take place right now, so shouldn't the budget be spent there instead of the fancy Overtechnology Silverbullets? You already got enough Super Star Destroyers, maybe the $ is better spent on a better Stormtrooper helmet or something.

Just me rambling but I really wonder.

Commitments around the world.

Simple as that.

What nation makes a large chunk of the military power of NATO? We also have the continued military commitment to our European allies. Alongside older commitments with units in South Korea and Japan. Operations in Africa, i.e. Horn of Africa, but that usually makes no headlines. Commitments for years in Iraq and Afghanistan. And during all this time with combat operations in OIF & OEF, we still help maintain the watch in Europe and watching what China and North Korea do.

The aircraft carriers are a big example. SecDef Gates wondered why the US Navy needed the amount of carriers that it currently has, when in comparison to other navies that at best have 2 with many wishing they had even 1. But he was trumped when told that the military has all these commitments around the world and is still expected to handle these demands. Those carriers have traditionally been in very high demand by the Presidents to go to hot spots ASAP, despite having regular rotations to exercises and deployments around the world. Not to mention they do require downtime for high level maintenance. As long as the US has a strong enough need to capably fulfill these worldwide military commitments, you need the strong force. Either that or downsize and sacrifice what the military force can actually do and scale to what the US wants to commit to.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Warmaker

[David Hingtgen]

That fact is often overlooked---for really high-end ships such as carriers and boomers, there may be as much as a 2:1 ratio of "in service" to "deployed/operational". The UK rarely had 2 Invincible class active at once---it was normally one out in the water, one in ready reserve (would take months to get ready), and one in refit (taking years to get ready). The US carrier fleet as a whole has higher availability, but at any given time, you can figure that at least a few are completely out of service. We need ~12 just to ensure we ALWAYS have 6 ready and hopefully 9 ready.

[Noyhauser]

China is doing a lot to undermine US Hegemony in Asia, but buying US debt instruments is not one of them.

*SNIP*

Uhh, nice tangent but its off the mark. I never said that China was aiming to using T-bills as a weapon. Its a deterrent for both sides as they are heavily invested into a global trade architecture. My general point is that war is unlikely in any realistic scenario, and the costs of that war would be far more grievous than losing a couple of high end fighters. I really don't think the Chinese are actually doing alot to undermine US hegemony; in reality its just exerting its influence into areas the United States has left open for the better part of 15 years. If anything, the growing links with Vietnam and India constitute the United States exerting greater influence into this area than China.

What nation makes a large chunk of the military power of NATO? We also have the continued military commitment to our European allies. Alongside older commitments with units in South Korea and Japan. Operations in Africa' date=' i.e. Horn of Africa, but that usually makes no headlines. Commitments for years in Iraq and Afghanistan. And during all this time with combat operations in OIF & OEF, we still help maintain the watch in Europe and watching what China and North Korea do.[/quote']

And how many of those commitments actually require a F-22 buzzing around? Operations off of Nigera, Somalia and Sudan certainly don't need them. Neither do Iraq or Afghanistan. The Japanese and Koreans barely want us there, and our current and projected capabilities level will meet the threat for the next 15 years.

The aircraft carriers are a big example. SecDef Gates wondered why the US Navy needed the amount of carriers that it currently has' date=' when in comparison to other navies that at best have 2 with many wishing they had even 1. But he was trumped when told that the military has all these commitments around the world and is still expected to handle these demands. Those carriers have traditionally been in very high demand by the Presidents to go to hot spots ASAP, despite having regular rotations to exercises and deployments around the world. Not to mention they do require downtime for high level maintenance. As long as the US has a strong enough need to capably fulfill these worldwide military commitments, you need the strong force. Either that or downsize and sacrifice what the military force can actually do and scale to what the US wants to commit to.[/quote']

If this was all true, then why was the Navy so insistent to decommission the Kitty Hawk and the Enterprise? Secretary Gates is probably one of the most strategically minded Secdefs in recent memory, probably equal to or better than Perry. I doubt he wondered why they needed all the carriers they did, rather his office studied the issue and concluded 10 is sufficient for our current threat level at this time.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Noyhauser

[Ghost Train]

Uhh, nice tangent but its off the mark. I never said that China was aiming to using T-bills as a weapon.

Only China could and they have far more effective weapons that can wreak far more damage on the United States than a couple of 5th gen fighters (They are called T-Bills.)

Words have meaning.

[Noyhauser]

Words have meaning.

Yeah, just because they have it as a weapon, doesn't mean they intended to be one or will use it as such. The overall point I'm trying to make here (and have several times) is that any war will cause untold damage and is unlikely to ever happen.

That fact is often overlooked---for really high-end ships such as carriers and boomers, there may be as much as a 2:1 ratio of "in service" to "deployed/operational". The UK rarely had 2 Invincible class active at once---it was normally one out in the water, one in ready reserve (would take months to get ready), and one in refit (taking years to get ready). The US carrier fleet as a whole has higher availability, but at any given time, you can figure that at least a few are completely out of service. We need ~12 just to ensure we ALWAYS have 6 ready and hopefully 9 ready.

Yeah but serviceability cuts both ways and actually works to the US's favor. Its nice to believe that some upstart nation would buy 150 T-50s and instantly become an equal threat to the US's 150+ F-22s. In reality they won't all be serviceable at any one time and their pilots abilities will fare very poorly. US aircraft are all very well maintained and their pilots get almost double the flying hours than the Russians or anybody else.

[the white drew carey]

Uh-oh.

Iran takes to the water... then the air!

[Uxi]

That fact is often overlooked---for really high-end ships such as carriers and boomers, there may be as much as a 2:1 ratio of "in service" to "deployed/operational". The UK rarely had 2 Invincible class active at once---it was normally one out in the water, one in ready reserve (would take months to get ready), and one in refit (taking years to get ready). The US carrier fleet as a whole has higher availability, but at any given time, you can figure that at least a few are completely out of service. We need ~12 just to ensure we ALWAYS have 6 ready and hopefully 9 ready.

To put a different sense of perspective on it, even at the height of the surge, it was only about 1/3 of the US Army's Active Combat Brigades deployed to SW Asia. Then there's one, yes one, brigade in South Korea. That leaves the other 2/3 of the US Army's combat assets at home. Yet the continued deployments for nigh on a decade have indeed be straining the endurance. IIRC, there were never more than 4 reserve combat brigades (out of about 36 total). For reference, in 1987, the US Army had 55 Active and 57 Reserve combat brigades.

Though it should be noted that just about the entire Marine Corp combat power was there for OIF-1 (1st and 2nd MEF, not count a few MEU and the HQ/skeleton of 3rd MarDiv or the reserve 4th), then roughly half of it kept there at any one time for combat operations in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Relevence to this thread? As I mentioned quite a few pages back,if one thinks that 187 F-22 are sufficient... or that the F-35 can fulfill it's role, then they either think the USAF has too many F-15's or that F-16's should have been able to do the job of all those F-15's that now aren't going to be replaced. IOW, something is going to have to give in the USAF's mission until the F-22 replacement gets out of the planning stages.

[Nied]

China is doing a lot to undermine US Hegemony in Asia, but buying US debt instruments is not one of them.

Japan recently overtook China as the #1 holder of US Debt (again), yet this event received little or no press coverage. Perhaps Japan has an ulterior motive too lol ?

Countries invest their treasuries much the same way people invest their own savings - you can either put it under your mattress which only assures that your money looses value over time, or invest it. For the longest time, US Treasury Bills were considered the safest investments in the world, but the near catastrophic meltdown of the economy has challenged this traditional view.

Perhaps I'm crazy to say this - but when you look at the National Debt comparatively, it's neither a unique problem, nor one that will sink the whole country tomorrow. The US' debt as a % of GDP is roughly 59%. The government borrows 59 cents to do whatever it needs to do for the economy as a whole to produce $1. This is far from good, but when stacked against other countries it's actually not that bad. By contrast, Japan's debt is a crushing 200% of its GDP - yet the world has not ended.

Almost every industrialized country has an unhealthy balance sheet, I could go on about why this is the case but then I remind myself that this is a thread about aircraft.

If T-Bills were the effective weapon all the alarmists claimed they were, every single special interest group in the US would have stockpiled them iin large numbers by now, which has not happened.

Oh man don't even get me started on debt to GDP ratios, you think Japan's looks bad look at the US's after WWII. Then look at 1)How long it took to bring that ratio down, 2)the tax rates we used to bring it down (especially top marginal rates) and 3) what else the government spent money on at the same time. I could write a whole post about this but it'd waaaaaay off topic.

I think those worried about weakening US power need to think of it in relative terms. By 2020 our nearest closest peer in terms of airpower China, will have about 300-400 Su-27/J-11s of various types, 500-600 J-10s, and maybe another 500 or so retiring and entirely obsolete types like J-7s, and J-8s. They might also have a handful of J-XXs just entering service although to what extent (and of what capabilities) is unkown. In a conflict they'd be facing off against a US Air Force with more than 200 F-15Es, 180 upgraded F-15C/Ds, 180 F-22s, and some 400-500 F-16s remaining in service (likely upgraded as well), all backed up by nearly 1000 F-35s. So the USAF will come close to matching the PLAAF with it's legacy fleet alone, and outnumbers it close to 2-1 once you throw in the F-35 fleet. That's a huge edge over our most equivalent competitor both qualitatively and quantitatively, and I haven't even thrown in the Navy's air wing yet (or that of any allied air forces that would likely be drawn into the conflict). With other nations the advantage only grows larger.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So I thought of a VS topic...

A/F-X VS F-14D knife fight:

• AIM-9P
  
• No HMS for A/F-X
  

Both variables thrown in to make the fight on even terms, weapon-wise.

[reddsun1]

At the risk of oversimplification (okay, pretty much a sure bet):

I've felt that the US is following a dangerously similar path to that of WWII era Germany--STRICTLY MILITARILY SPEAKING!

The US military doctrine seems to be one of hedging their bets on superiority through advanced design. The Army, Navy et. al. field weapons that are certainly some of the most technologically advanced anywhere and second-to-none. But as a natural consequence, they are: very expensive; produced in relatively small numbers & at a slow rate; require high levels of training to operate and maintain.

True, Tiger and Panther crews could operate with the confidence that they were in some of the finest machinery in the world; sure, they could kick the sh*t out of the Shermans. But when the Shermans are coming at you in much greater numbers, AND they're going to be replaced much faster than your own when knocked out in combat?

It seems military strategists/planners are at risk of repeating the mistakes of history. One can only hope that the world will never again see a level of conflict requiring such massive commitment of men and machinery...

Dunno what's up with Japan and China lately though, over those fishing lanes. Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t, is what somebody needs to tell folks around the conference tables...

[Vifam7]

So I thought of a VS topic...

A/F-X VS F-14D knife fight:

• AIM-9P
  
• No HMS for A/F-X
  

Both variables thrown in to make the fight on even terms, weapon-wise.

Why AIM-9P? To negate the all aspect seeker? Might as well make it guns only.

Wasn't the A/F-X a 90's program that was cancelled but sorta provided a groundwork for the JSF (F-35) program?

[Nied]

At the risk of oversimplification (okay, pretty much a sure bet):

I've felt that the US is following a dangerously similar path to that of WWII era Germany--STRICTLY MILITARILY SPEAKING!

The US military doctrine seems to be one of hedging their bets on superiority through advanced design. The Army, Navy et. al. field weapons that are certainly some of the most technologically advanced anywhere and second-to-none. But as a natural consequence, they are: very expensive; produced in relatively small numbers & at a slow rate; require high levels of training to operate and maintain.

True, Tiger and Panther crews could operate with the confidence that they were in some of the finest machinery in the world; sure, they could kick the sh*t out of the Shermans. But when the Shermans are coming at you in much greater numbers, AND they're going to be replaced much faster than your own when knocked out in combat?

It seems military strategists/planners are at risk of repeating the mistakes of history. One can only hope that the world will never again see a level of conflict requiring such massive commitment of men and machinery...

Dunno what's up with Japan and China lately though, over those fishing lanes. Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t, is what somebody needs to tell folks around the conference tables...

I'd actually agree with this sentiment, there has been a move in US military circles over the past several decades to favor quality over quantity. I think in part as a response to the Soviet Union's clear quantitative advantage. That's part of why I've become a bigger supporter of the F-35 program, because it starts to break that paradigm. It may not stack up quite as well as other 5th generation designs in some areas, but the shear numbers of highly adaptable network enabled fighters we plan on deploying will easily overwhelm any potential foe we could face in the next few years. Russia is already hinting it may have to cut back on it's PAK-FA order, India just keeps getting closer to us by the year, and I already covered China's air force. Barring something truly bizarre like Japan or the EU suddenly becoming beligerent, we'll be able to roll over anyone with a wave of over a thousand "good enough" F-35s, the same way thousands of "good enough" Shermans rolled over Tigers and Panthers in WWII.

[Noyhauser]

At the risk of oversimplification (okay, pretty much a sure bet):

I've felt that the US is following a dangerously similar path to that of WWII era Germany--STRICTLY MILITARILY SPEAKING!

The US military doctrine seems to be one of hedging their bets on superiority through advanced design. The Army, Navy et. al. field weapons that are certainly some of the most technologically advanced anywhere and second-to-none. But as a natural consequence, they are: very expensive; produced in relatively small numbers & at a slow rate; require high levels of training to operate and maintain.

True, Tiger and Panther crews could operate with the confidence that they were in some of the finest machinery in the world; sure, they could kick the sh*t out of the Shermans. But when the Shermans are coming at you in much greater numbers, AND they're going to be replaced much faster than your own when knocked out in combat?

It seems military strategists/planners are at risk of repeating the mistakes of history. One can only hope that the world will never again see a level of conflict requiring such massive commitment of men and machinery...

Dunno what's up with Japan and China lately though, over those fishing lanes. Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t, is what somebody needs to tell folks around the conference tables...

There are several assertions which need clarification. For most of the war Germany never really had design superiority. Prior to 1942 with the introduction of the Pzkf IV Ausf F, the German Tanks were inferior in quality and numbers to their opposites in French British and Soviet service. German tanks were always hard to maintain; prior to 1942 their best tanks were Czech designs, the 35 and the 38. Tigers only arrived in early 1943 as a response to German tank squadrons getting mauled by their russian counterparts. Germans may have had a technical edge in 1943, but by 44 the Russians introduced the IS-2 and up-gunned T34s which wrestled back superiority. Its important to note that right up to the end of the war, the main german tank being produced was the Panzer IV, not the Tiger or Panther.

Throughout the war if there was one constant it was the the exceptional quality of German tactical and operational leadership. Platoon to division sized units were very good at carrying out operations, often under their own initiative. While not every german tank was a Tiger, it certainly felt that way to many allied tankers because of how effectively armor and infantry was employed. The problem was that by 1943 the Allies had developed strategies at the operational level to frustrate German envelopments, and had enough units so that they could overcome any qualitative advantage that the germans had on the ground. The Russians became adept at implementing deep envelopment maneuvers. If you look at Operation Bagration in June of 1944, Soviet forces basically carried out an operation comparable in size and scope to Barbarossa, against an opponent that knew full well an offensive was coming.

The technical quality of the USAF is unparalleled and yes there is a risk of technological hubris. However I think the US is very good at looking around the world at new developments and judging the threat they posed. This started after Vietnam, where the USAF and USN encountered severe difficulty against a relatively low-tech enemy.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Noyhauser

[Ignacio Ocamica]

Dunno what's up with Japan and China lately though, over those fishing lanes. Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t, is what somebody needs to tell folks around the conference tables...

At the risk of oversimplification

Counterbalance, and it works both ways The world is trying to shape a political balance of power.

I also believe that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, will be the single most important reason for the decline of any great power (China included).

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

At the risk of oversimplification (okay, pretty much a sure bet):

I've felt that the US is following a dangerously similar path to that of WWII era Germany--STRICTLY MILITARILY SPEAKING!

The US military doctrine seems to be one of hedging their bets on superiority through advanced design. The Army, Navy et. al. field weapons that are certainly some of the most technologically advanced anywhere and second-to-none. But as a natural consequence, they are: very expensive; produced in relatively small numbers & at a slow rate; require high levels of training to operate and maintain.

I disagree on this. If anything, the US is using BOTH technical superiority AND numbers. At no time is the USAF going to be only dependant on those 170 F-22s. They are being backed by 1000+ F-15s/16s and in future, the F-35. And the best C3 system in the world. And US Naval Aviation. And whatever the USMC and its Assault Ships can chuck in. There really is no country out there even close in terms of numbers or quality anytime in the forseeable future. You can't just always talk about "170 F-22s VS 400 Flankers/J-11s and 400 Fulcrums/J-10s and dream amounts of J-XX/PAK-FA" without considering all the other huge & significant US military assets.

You want to use WW2 to compare? Well, to me, its like going back to Dec 1944 and saying OMFG! We only got a handful of M-26s Pershings against several hundred Tigers/Panthers and soon hordes more of the King Tigers! We are in trouble! The US brass had been sooooo shortsighted!!! This is totally ignoring the gazillion Shermans, Wolverines, the Bajillion P-38/47/51 & B-17s/24/29s, RFC equppied BBs, dozens of CVs, many dozens more CVL/CVEs yadda yadda into the equation.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Vifam7]

I disagree on this. If anything, the US is using BOTH technical superiority AND numbers. At no time is the USAF going to be only dependant on those 170 F-22s. They are being backed by 1000+ F-15s/16s and in future, the F-35.

Assuming the US does indeed purchase that many F-35s. I wouldn't be surprised if they drastically cut the numbers down.

[David Hingtgen]

BTW, 124 more Super Hornets for the USN. About 50/50 standard/Growler.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Why AIM-9P? To negate the all aspect seeker? Might as well make it guns only.

Wasn't the A/F-X a 90's program that was cancelled but sorta provided a groundwork for the JSF (F-35) program?

Yep to negate all aspect seekers. A/F-X grew out of the ATA and NATF cancellations. With no true Tomcat replacement, and no A-6 replacement, the Navy needed something and decided to go for a stealthy A-6 replacement with fighter capability. Whereas NATF put emphasis on fighter with strike/attack 2nd, the A/F-X was the other way around. Plans were to incorporate the AIM-152 as a Phoenix replacement too. The A/F-X was also proposed as an F-111/117 replacement.

Design-wise, it pretty much grew out of the NATF.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Yep to negate all aspect seekers. A/F-X grew out of the ATA and NATF cancellations. With no true Tomcat replacement, and no A-6 replacement, the Navy needed something and decided to go for a stealthy A-6 replacement with fighter capability. Whereas NATF put emphasis on fighter with strike/attack 2nd, the A/F-X was the other way around. Plans were to incorporate the AIM-152 as a Phoenix replacement too. The A/F-X was also proposed as an F-111/117 replacement.

Design-wise, it pretty much grew out of the NATF.

Did the A/F-X go beyond paper requirements/studies? Given that there wasn't even a prototype, there isn't much basis to discuss it VS the F-14D.

[Nied]

Yep to negate all aspect seekers. A/F-X grew out of the ATA and NATF cancellations. With no true Tomcat replacement, and no A-6 replacement, the Navy needed something and decided to go for a stealthy A-6 replacement with fighter capability. Whereas NATF put emphasis on fighter with strike/attack 2nd, the A/F-X was the other way around. Plans were to incorporate the AIM-152 as a Phoenix replacement too. The A/F-X was also proposed as an F-111/117 replacement.

Design-wise, it pretty much grew out of the NATF.

Actually I was going to ask which AF/X were you looking at because there were several. Lockheed alone had four different proposals depending with different partners, two were with Boeing (with Northrup or General Dynamics being the third partner) were based off of Lockheed's original NATF proposal, and were thus very similar. While the third Lockheed offered alone and was a heavily upgraded F-117 with a bubble canopy, new wings and tail and possibly afterburning engines, and the fourth offered with Rockwell was a big pointed triangle with flip out swing wings. McDonnell Douglas got back together with General Dynamics to offer a simplified A-12, while also offering a new design with Vought. There were also several other proposals from various other team ups. The point is the AF/X was a bit of a "blue sky" program where the Navy after the death of the ATA and NATF went out to various manufacturers with some very vague requirements and got back some pretty far ranging proposals. The requirements were weighted heavily towards strike though and so were most of the proposals. The best air-to-air performers were only going to be roughly equal to an F-14, while the rest tried to be just good enough to make a defender think twice about engaging them. given that I doubt any of the AF/X contenders would have been able to do much better than a draw with an F-14.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Did the A/F-X go beyond paper requirements/studies? Given that there wasn't even a prototype, there isn't much basis to discuss it VS the F-14D.

The Lockheed/Boeing one went as far as wind tunnel testing with scale models.

Actually I was going to ask which AF/X were you looking at because there were several. Lockheed alone had four different proposals depending with different partners, two were with Boeing (with Northrup or General Dynamics being the third partner) were based off of Lockheed's original NATF proposal, and were thus very similar. While the third Lockheed offered alone and was a heavily upgraded F-117 with a bubble canopy, new wings and tail and possibly afterburning engines, and the fourth offered with Rockwell was a big pointed triangle with flip out swing wings. McDonnell Douglas got back together with General Dynamics to offer a simplified A-12, while also offering a new design with Vought. There were also several other proposals from various other team ups. The point is the AF/X was a bit of a "blue sky" program where the Navy after the death of the ATA and NATF went out to various manufacturers with some very vague requirements and got back some pretty far ranging proposals. The requirements were weighted heavily towards strike though and so were most of the proposals. The best air-to-air performers were only going to be roughly equal to an F-14, while the rest tried to be just good enough to make a defender think twice about engaging them. given that I doubt any of the AF/X contenders would have been able to do much better than a draw with an F-14.

Lockheed/Boeing, the one that had a short nose, swing wings, and was derived from NATF.

[Nied]

The Lockheed/Boeing one went as far as wind tunnel testing with scale models.

Lockheed/Boeing, the one that had a short nose, swing wings, and was derived from NATF.

Which Lockheed/Boeing? There were two as I said, one with General Dynamics and one with Northrup. The main difference was the nose of the Northrup version was much broader and almost triangular, while the GD version was more F-22-like. Neither would have been any great shakes against an F-14 since air-to-air wasn't supposed to be their specialty. They only had enough performance to take over the F-14's fleet defense mission, and to ward off anything that tried to get in the way of completing their strike mission. A good indication of what the A/F-X was intended for is the fact that even the two Lockheed/Boeing/X designs only had the afterburners as an option.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Which Lockheed/Boeing? There were two as I said, one with General Dynamics and one with Northrup. The main difference was the nose of the Northrup version was much broader and almost triangular, while the GD version was more F-22-like. Neither would have been any great shakes against an F-14 since air-to-air wasn't supposed to be their specialty. They only had enough performance to take over the F-14's fleet defense mission, and to ward off anything that tried to get in the way of completing their strike mission. A good indication of what the A/F-X was intended for is the fact that even the two Lockheed/Boeing/X designs only had the afterburners as an option.

General Dynamics. Just thinking maybe it would be better than the Tomcat in ACM..just speculating based on looks. Couldn't find any data based on the wind tunnel testing for AOA limits at low speeds, handling, wing loading, et al.

[Nied]

General Dynamics. Just thinking maybe it would be better than the Tomcat in ACM..just speculating based on looks. Couldn't find any data based on the wind tunnel testing for AOA limits at low speeds, handling, wing loading, et al.

Looks can be deceiving. The Navy didn't want, and Lockheed/Boeing/GD didn't design in much performance above the F-14's, if any at all. Remember the A/FX was supposed to do the job of the A-6 first and the F-14 second (and with a big watering down of the F-14's job description at that).

[buddhafabio]

Link to a neato f-22 pic

http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/galleries/2010/oct/01/2010-miramar-air-show/14096/

[Nied]

CF-01 finally gets a paint job. It already looked good flying around in primer, and with full coatings it looks fantastic! Can't wait to see it flying again in this paint scheme.

[Temjin]

CF-01 finally gets a paint job. It already looked good flying around in primer, and with full coatings it looks fantastic! Can't wait to see it flying again in this paint scheme.

New name: F35 Cheerleader

[David Hingtgen]

On jacks with the gear up, it looks like it's hovering.