Aircraft VS super thread!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Well if its like that then the Navy and Air force will not have top of the line fighters. not saying that the super bug and eagle and falcon arent top of the line, what I am talking about is next gen super fighters. The F-22 is a giant leap of capability over the F-15. Sine the mid 80s the USAF has always been talking about how much the ATF was needed and tons of money was spent, I do not doubt its importance but what do you all think? Will rummy really can that project?

I imagine if he did, he would met much more resistance from the USAF than cheney and the USN when he canned the super tomcat and other advanced upgrades.

I can't picture the JSF as the air forces most advancd plane. YUCK.

The eagles are getting old, and they are not stealth, which is what the airforce certainly wants being that as of now they are the only branch to even have stealth aircraft(aside from UAV's)>

[Noyhauser]

again Shin you can't can the JSF project or you will demolish the US aircraft industry in one blow. Not just in military aircraft but in Civillian production. Confidence in US defence manufacturers would plummet and then when newer russian and Chinese fighters come on line (because I've said this before, the current batch is not a threat to the US) the US won't have a compeditive fighter industry to rely on. the F-22 is Not that needed. There isn't a major threat that requires a plane of such sophistication for the next 20 years.

I've said this before the only reason why a FB program is on the books is to keep US industry compeditive.... thats it... there is not enough research dollars available to keep the industry afloat as is.

Given the war on iraq the massive US deficit, military spending will be the first to go. There is no options. Here is an excellent article detailing why

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=3524771

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So in the place that the raptor DOES get canned, could the eagle be upgraded and stay in service for more years than originallyl planned? I do not know the planned retirement date for the mud hen and regular AA eagle, does anyone know the dates? The eagle is an awesome fighter, and I know the USAF has tons of them, if the raptor gets canned perhaps it will be upgraded and put into as much roles as its predecessor, the phantom.

[hellohikaru]

I think if anything should be canned it should be the walmart fighter F-35. If they didn't pour so much money into it, they would have purchased more Raptors at lower unit cost.

I doubt the USAF will do anything more than minor upgrades to a small portion of the F-15 fleet.

I heard some of the older F-15Cs are still using the old engines and spend alot of time in the shop. Lack of parts for the unreliable engines the cause i heard.

[Noyhauser]

If the Raptor does get canned I think there will likely be some sort of standby program that keeps essential elements of the program together in reserve until a next generation fighter program is launched.

The problem with the War in Iraq is that you will be seeing its effects for quite some time. Even if the deployments ended right now, you'd be paying for replenishing stocks of weapons, veterans pay outs, ect for at least the next 3 to 5 years.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Wouldnt the need for another next gen fighter not be put in place for another 10-20 years? The raptor is just entering service, I imagine it would be good enough for a while(with however many actually get produced.)

Any news on sukhois new fighter? I know they are building Russia's next gen fighter for appearance either next year or 2006.

[Noyhauser]

I think if anything should be canned it should be the walmart fighter F-35. If they didn't pour so much money into it, they would have purchased more Raptors at lower unit cost.

What is the most lucrative fighter program for the US defence industry? Its certainly not the f-22, it was the F-16 because of its massive foreign sales. When you have foreign sales your return is far more than if you build a fighter for yourself because you don't pay O&M costs. The F-35 will become the next F-16... everybody is buying into it. Moreover over 20% of its development costs have been paid for by other countries, so its not that large a drain on the Military budget.

If you kill the F-35 the development of the US military aircraft industry will be dead. You think that there are problems now with not enough f-22s, there will not be compeditive companies available 10 years down the line to design a new fighter when the real threat appears.

[mikeszekely]

I think if anything should be canned it should be the walmart fighter F-35. If they didn't pour so much money into it, they would have purchased more Raptors at lower unit cost.

What is the most lucrative fighter program for the US defence industry? Its certainly not the f-22, it was the F-16 because of its massive foreign sales. When you have foreign sales your return is far more than if you build a fighter for yourself because you don't pay O&M costs. The F-35 will become the next F-16... everybody is buying into it. Moreover over 20% of its development costs have been paid for by other countries, so its not that large a drain on the Military budget.

If you kill the F-35 the development of the US military aircraft industry will be dead. You think that there are problems now with not enough f-22s, there will not be compeditive companies available 10 years down the line to design a new fighter when the real threat appears.

The F-35 is also supposed to relatively cheap, with more off-the-shelf electronics componenets, easier access to areas that require frequent maintainance, and a lower R&D cost since it borrows some R&D for the Raptor program. Add that to the fact that there are supposedly a ton already on order for the USAF, the Marines, the Navy, and Britain's Royal Navy, with a lot of expressed interest from other countries as a potential replacement for their F-16s.

At this point, it's more or less impossible to can the F-35... but I think it's just stupid to can the Raptor. The R&D costs can never be recovered, and the fewer bought, the higher the per-unit cost, not to mention that US military forces will be relying on the 30-year old F-15 or Navy Super Hornets for air superiority, which as David already mentioned, isn't going to work when other countries are buying Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripens, and Super Flankers. Personally, I think the DoD should try to negotiate a better deal with Lockheed (on account of how many JSF's will be sold, perhaps by easing the export restrictions on the F-35), and try to come up with more money by nixing pet projects or privatizing NASA, and get the number of F-22's back up near 500.

[ewilen]

Shin, the F/A-22 is supposed to have strike capabilities, so your comment about that is partly redundant. Except that it's very much to the point, since the program actually overpromised on strike capabilities in order to stay alive when the air superiority threat disappeared. Did you read the GAO article I posted a link to? Here is it again (PDF format): http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391

(No, India isn't an issue, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed in previous threads. Similarly on the issue of individual aircraft abilities--Flanker-whatever--vs. numbers/infrastructure/training. I'd note that Chunx has also had some interesting comments about all the Flanker hype over at SimHQ.)

And if we do what the AF supposedly wants according to the articles, buying fewer F-35s, then we end up unable to meet our worldwide commitments as F-16's are retired.

I see once again the tired old saw about the USN wanting an upgraded Tomcat and being swatted down by bad old Dick Cheney. For the nth time--nope. The USN wanted the Super Bug; at most a faction wanted the ST-21/ASF-14, but the Navy as a whole made the decision.

[David Hingtgen]

Since we've known for a long time there weren't going to be enough F-22's to replace the F-15, they'be been planning some major upgrades for a while--"Golden Eagle" or somesuch. Don't really know what they plan to do. AESA radar is the main thing I think. JHMCS too.

One good thing about the F-15: it's so big there's lots of room for expansion. Anything (even radar) that'll fit inside a Super Hornet or Raptor will fit inside an Eagle.

Engines---well, as more and more F-16 B.42's get re-engined, more and more F-15C's get the old engines from the B.42's. Still, new F100-229's would be really nice, and there's a lot more F-15C's that need engines than there are B.42's to give them up...

:;edit:: Found this about F-15C testing/upgrades with a brief search:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/10184top.xml

[Noyhauser]

I just want you guys to see how deep the pentagon cost cutting is

One less carrier

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...80&section=news

and a whole lot less of other stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/p...30military.html

[hellohikaru]

Following Canada's lead i guess. At least some of the democrats will be happy.

At least keep one conventional aircraft carrier. Some countries(New Zealand for instance) don't allow nuclear warships to enter their ports.

[David Hingtgen]

We need/are building F-22's for some of the same reasons we're building new attack subs:

1. If you don't, you lose the capability to do so in the future. Factories close, techniques are lost, knowledge is no longer pooled. You can't just "stop" building an entire class of weapons for a decade or two and then expect to be able to quickly re-start factories and find people to design them, if at all.

2. In the future, when a threat appears, you can't design a new fighter/sub and have it in service in less than a decade. Or two, with recent trends...

PS--cutting the JFK, while we're building the GHW Bush, isn't exactly a reduction in carriers... And CVN-78 and 79 are still scheduled, AFAIK.

Edited December 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[hellohikaru]

They are naming the new carrier USS Bush ?!

And how bout the other one ? USS Carter or maybe USS Bill Clinton

[Coota0]

I'm still disgusted that the Navy would name a carrier the Thomas Jefferson.

If there was ever someone who didn't support the Navy, it was Jefferson and then the arrogant SOB sent the Navy (an ill equipped or prepared Navy) to fight the Barabry Pirates, losing several ships in the Atlantic crossing, and these were ships that were never designed for ocean crossings in the first place. Sorry rant over.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Also remember the the 22 is going to require a costly avionics upgrade for its next batch, because they ran out of 286 chips to equip the original avionics suite. They were going to adapt the JSF's avionics for the 22 but then you are going to have to test it and redesign the hardware/software. So if there was any time to cut the program, it is now.

You sure they using 286 chips on the 22?

Thats pretty surprising. I thought the processing power of the 22's electronics was way up there. How'd you do that with 286 chips?

[hellohikaru]

The use of 286 chips on the F-22 is hardly suprising. Planes usually have their whole avionic suite built around a certain model of hardware/software..so continous trying to play catchup wouldn't be very cost effective.

[Lynx7725]

Not to mention, if you are not building your system to multitask and whatnots (like a normal PC), and it's a dedicated system, you can actually squeeze quite a bit of performance from older chips.. and add on top the additional cooling factor, etc.

We have mutli-processor servers running off 500mHz chips at work here, individually the CPU isn't impressive, but collectively small chips can do a lot.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Well I know the shuttles were using the old 086 chips (cant remember XT or AT) but since the 22 was only finalised after 91, I thought they would have at least used 386's by then.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I know the USAF does not intend to replace every raptor with an eagle, even on a 1 on 1 basis, For years now numbers of raptor orders have decreased time and time again.

WHat I DO wonder is if the USAF will keep a lot of eagles for a while rather than retirement to make up for the lack of raptors. Anyone here know about the "golden eagle" david just brought up? Could the PE F1119 engines on the F-22 or the GE F120 engines be placed onto an F-15?> That would add a massive thrust increase and thrust vectoring on an already in production? engine.

We know horizontal stabs on hornets could be modded onto eagles just like the ACTIV and S/TMD. Is this a cheap mod? I imagine the massive amounts of legacy hornets over at the AMARC could be stripped of horizontal stabs for mods on eagles. Heck even try horizontal stabs off a super bug, bigger and perhaps more roll authority?

COuld the golden eagle be more than what is listed in the article David just linked?

An eagle with canards, F-22 TV engines, AESA radar, other imrpoved avionics, and perhaps dual palettes for AMRAAM,s on ALL 4 sidewinder launch rails could provide for a deadly combination on an old airframe. Breathing new life into it if you will. Heck ADD the CFT's onto the F-15C with all the other snazziness I just listed, and the engine thrust could probably compensate for the increased weight! IS thjis possible and could it be cheaper than a F-22 and JSF?

Also. JSf........is it possible in the future to upgrade it to the point where it is a deadly interceptor and knife fighter? I ask this since so many nations plan to eventually procure some and it is a role that the F-16 has fulfilled on seperate occasions many times. I know the JSF was not intended to dogfight much, my question is could possible future upgrades GIVE the JSF the ability to do so....

[ewilen]

Following Canada's lead i guess. At least some of the democrats will be happy.

I've noticed that with the exception of a certain non-American poster, the vast majority of people who are unable to read, understand, and/or follow the Macrossworld rules are those who make anti-Democrat cracks. Can we please drop the partisan politics?

[ewilen]

They are naming the new carrier USS Bush ?!

And how bout the other one ? USS Carter or maybe USS Bill Clinton

The Carter is already a nuclear sub, and appropriately so, since Jimmy Carter served seven years active duty in the Navy and was one of the pioneers of the nuclear submarine program.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Speaking of eagles.....

F-15E vs F-15S vs F-15I vs F-15K

Overall capabiliy. undoubtedly some have got to be better than the others, but which overall constitutes the best dual role eagle variant? We know the K model is great in A2A and the israeli's work their Ra'am pretty well, but how do they compare?

[ewilen]

The use of 286 chips on the F-22 is hardly suprising. Planes usually have their whole avionic suite built around a certain model of hardware/software..so continous trying to play catchup wouldn't be very cost effective.

Actually, the main processor in the F/A-22 is the i960MX, which is both underpowered for the full mission that the F/A-22 is ultimately supposed to perform, and no longer produced. So (a) we don't have enough processors to build more than ~155 F/A-22's with "baseline" capabilities, and (b) getting them to full capability will require additional costly development.

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor, which is used strictly for avionics processing. This microprocessor is based on 1990’s technology and has a 32-bit processor that operates at speeds of 25mhz. By today’s technology standards, the processor is considered obsolete and cannot support spiral developments beyond the Global Strike Enhanced.  In mid-2003, the manufacturer of the microprocessor informed the Air Force that it planned to permanently shut down the i960MX production line by January 2004 because the microprocessor was no longer a viable product for the company.

As a result, the Air Force decided in November 2003 to replace its computer architecture and avionics processors to support the F/A-22’s expanded capabilities. In December 2003, the Air Force purchased its last i960MX microprocessors when it bought 820 of the microprocessors. According to program officials, this quantity and previously purchased quantities are sufficient to support production of 155 F/A-22 aircraft. These officials believe that with some minor upgrades to improve processing capacity, these processors will be able to support the baseline aircraft and the developmental spirals—Global Strike Basic and Global Strike Enhanced. However, the Air Force plans for the remaining production aircraft to include a new computer architecture and avionics processor needed to support the final two planned spirals—Global Strike Full and Enhanced Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance.

(From the GAO report.)

Edited December 31, 2004 by ewilen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmmm Gues this is new!! Found this over at ARC., Hard to believe at first, but then I typed in "F-14 in Poland" in google as instructed, and voila!!

Tomcat Traveler

Posted: Dec 31 2004, 04:02 AM

Quote Post

Newbie

*

Group: Members

Posts: 2

Member No.: 3,903

Joined: 30-December 04

I spoke to a mate of mine that had the pleasure of attending a brief being given by the F-14 Program Manager for this effort just before Christmas and it appears that the US Department of Defense and the USN are in fact in the process of establishing a manufacturing effort to build specific Tomcat parts in Poland. These parts are earmarked for F-14B and F-14D aircraft. VF-213 is scheduled to receive the first Polish built hardware for deployment to the Gulf in the Sept/Oct 05 time frame. It also appears that the DoD boys are attempting to resurrect the ICBM busting capabilities that the F-14D put to practical use during the first Gulf War. Apparently the F-14D and IRST (infrared search and track) systems destroyed at least two and possibly three silkworm missiles that were earmarked to target the CVS battle groups during the first Gulf War. Only the F-14D has this sophisticated system on-board to this day.

To find out more about the manufacturing effort in Poland, go to Google and type F-14 in Poland.

NEver heard much of the tomcat's IRST use. Are silkworm's like SCUD's? I wonder what missle was used to nab those in the gulf. I have NEVER heard of missle destructions by tomcats during the gulf!~! Very interesting. Nice to know the B/D cats still have some roles to take up before retirement.

BTW anyone pick up the 1/18 P-51 or F-16 over break?

[hellohikaru]

Silkworm Anti-Ship Missile

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/c201.asp

[hellohikaru]

The Carter is already a nuclear sub, and appropriately so, since Jimmy Carter served seven years active duty in the Navy and was one of the pioneers of the nuclear submarine program.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

I was aware of that exception Ewilen, but the navy has a tradition of reserving presidents for aircraft carriers, cities for cruisers, states for battleships,etc.

The last 8 or so carriers were all named after presidents or secretaries of navy/defence, though some of the presidents were in fact army men.

Wonder will they ever give names like Ticonderoga, Midway, Coral Sea, Kitty Hawk.etc ever again.

[Nied]

The thing about the F-22 could be a blessing in disguise. As ewelien pointed out the F/A-22's avionics architechure is hopelessly outdated, and it as currently built it definetly wont live up to the /A in it's designation. The thing of it is that the Air Force still needs a new strike fighter and with a few tweaks the F-22 could easily be it (and be quite a bit cheaper than any other option). Streach the fuselage by a foot to make room for a bigger weapons bay, slap the JSF's chin gizmo on the nose along with it's databus architechure and you have a a brand new strike fighter for the price of a few minor avionics upgrades and structural modifications.

On the subject of naming aircraft carriers: I think it's horrible that we don't have an aircraft carrier named after Franklin Roosevelt. The man is responsible for ending the great deperssion and winning WWII, and he doesn't get a supercarrier named after him? George Bush gets a carrier named after him but one of the greatest preisdents of the 20th century doesn't, that's just wrong.

[Coota0]

Roosevelt is a sub, the Teddy Roosevelt (former under Secratary of the Navy and one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century) is an Aircraft Carrier. I don't think having two carreirs both namned Roosevelt would be wise.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Coota0

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

George Bush SR or the one who is president now?

NIed how do you feel about a dedicated WSo in a 2 seat F-22 with the avionics you mentioned? I think it would be GREAT for a mud hen replacement. Especially if it is just a stretched raptor body WITHOUT delta wing.

TAW is the best F-22 sim and you can see it decked out with all kinds of external weaponry. Pretty intimidating.

[Coota0]

George Bush SR or the one who is president now?

NIed how do you feel about a dedicated WSo in a 2 seat F-22 with the avionics you mentioned? I think it would be GREAT for a mud hen replacement.  Especially if it is just a stretched raptor body WITHOUT delta wing. 

George H. Bush (a former Naval Aviator) is the one with the carrier being named after him, George W. Bush is the President of the United States.

Not asked of me, but I think a backseater is always a good, thing, some aircraft need them, some aircraft can function without them, but I feel that almost all would be improved by a backseater.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Coota0

[David Hingtgen]

We did have an FDR carrier. CV42, sistership to the Midway and Coral Sea. However, unlike those 2, it was never upgraded and thus was retired decades earlier.

Heh heh--Shin posted the "Polish F-14 parts" before I could. However, there were no D's in Desert Storm. The B was brand new and uncommon then, and B's never have IRST, always TCS. TCS is standard for all B's and all late A's. Only a few squadrons in the late 80's/early 90's would have IRST.

PS---Silkworm: if you recall around March ~19-22 2003, there was quite a bit of footage shown of a mall in Kuwait that had been hit. IIRC, that was a Silkworm that struck. IIRC (again) the Silkworm is more like a "cruise rocket" than cruise missile---the accuracy is measured in miles, not feet. Just lob it in the general direction you want, little better than V-1/V-2.

[ewilen]

The Carter is already a nuclear sub, and appropriately so, since Jimmy Carter served seven years active duty in the Navy and was one of the pioneers of the nuclear submarine program.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm

I was aware of that exception Ewilen, but the navy has a tradition of reserving presidents for aircraft carriers, cities for cruisers, states for battleships,etc.

The last 8 or so carriers were all named after presidents or secretaries of navy/defence, though some of the presidents were in fact army men.

Wonder will they ever give names like Ticonderoga, Midway, Coral Sea, Kitty Hawk.etc ever again.

Actually, the traditions are totally f'd up, due partly to developing technology which has quickly made one class of ship the "star" of the Navy and then another, and partly due to Navy politicking and/or political meddling by the civilians. For a brief time we were naming guided missile cruisers after states (e.g. California) but last I checked we were giving states' names to Ohio-class (Trident) SSBNs. Previously, SSBNs were named after famous Americans (George Washington for example). Aircraft carriers originally picked up the naming tradition of famous frigates and sloops which in turn got their names largely from battles, but they started taking over the famous American names. The worst in my opinion is the Stennis which not only is named after a Senator that most of us have never heard of, but who was alive at the time the name was chosen. That was one of the first cases, if not the first, in which a USN ship was named after a living person; the trend has continued with the Reagan, the Carter, the Bush (plus a couple others I can't recall)--you'll know the Republic has really hit a lowpoint when they don't even wait for people to retire and start naming ships after sitting Presidents, their wives and children.

[ewilen]

Can't vouch for the accuracy of Silkworm, but it does have internal terminal guidance.

The Russian equivalent was used to sink an Israeli ship in the 1967 war.

This article discusses its capabilities while arguing that it's not exactly the "carrier killer" that it's often made out to be in the press. http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?foru...3&lp=1081185278 (But note that a lot of the press about the Silkworm has concerned, not a conflict with China, but its potential use against US naval units passing through the Straits of Hormuz, where it would be impossible to stay outside the range of Silkworm installations in Iran.)

[David Hingtgen]

Semi-OT rant:

Too many "Virginia's" lately. Let's see--nuclear powered USS Virginia, leader of the Virginia class. Soon after it's decommissioned--we get the USS Virginia, nuclear-powered leader of the Virginia class.

It's REALLY stupid IMHO to name a class of ships immediately after another class of ships. Whenever anyone talks about the USS Virginia, or the Virginia class, you have to ask "which one?" because both are recent and well-known.

They could have just made the new Virginia the SECOND ship of the class. (Name re-arranging happens all the time before comissioning) What's next, naming the next class of carriers the Enterprise class? (Because the Enterprise will probably be the next to be retired).