Older airframes

[Jim]

This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this
newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see
with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments.

This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for
combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
airframe and what would that be?

Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30?
Avionics? Engine? FCS?



***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 6/16/04 6:16 PM, in article ,
"Jim" > wrote:

> This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this
> newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see
> with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments.
>
> This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for
> combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
> formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
> airframe and what would that be?
>
> Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30?
> Avionics? Engine? FCS?
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
> Anti-spam measures in action.
> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>
> ***********************************************

Interesting question. I choose A-6E with new avionics. We could use a JDAM
bomb-truck in the Navy.

[nafod40]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 6/16/04 6:16 PM, in article ,
> "Jim" > wrote:
>
>
>>You will return with a version of the model you
>>formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
>>airframe and what would that be?
>
> Interesting question. I choose A-6E with new avionics. We could use a JDAM
> bomb-truck in the Navy.
>

C-2 greyhound, but with the accoutrements to turn it into a gunship
(side firing howitzer, mini-gun,...)

[Pechs1]

chief-<< You are recalled to active duty for
combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
airframe and what would that be? >><BR><BR>

A-4F+, with a great radar. 4 SW, guns.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Charlie Wolf]

S-3B - with new and improved ISAR and imaging.
Regards,

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:16:43 GMT, Jim > wrote:

>This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this
>newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see
>with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments.
>
>This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for
>combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
>formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
>airframe and what would that be?
>
>Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30?
>Avionics? Engine? FCS?
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
> Anti-spam measures in action.
> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>
> ***********************************************

[Mike Kanze]

I'd go with a very stripped-down version of the A-6, maybe even something
like the proposal Grumman made for a light attack variant back when the
Thalidomide Crusader (A-7) was chosen for the role.

(Grumman proposed a single-seat two-engine bird that otherwise had all the
other classic A-6 characteristics. If folks thought the two-place A-6
looked strange, this single-place "thing" was strange-squared. I believe
someone in r.a.m.n. posted a link to an illustration of this bird recently -
if so, could we please see a repost?)

Like Woody I agree it should be a JDAM dump truck. In addition, it should
be an outstanding tanker. Unlike Woody, I'd dispense with a nice avionics
suite in favor of "just enough" to do the mission and get back to Mother.
With more and more of the smarts now in the weapon, vice the carriage, this
puppy might even be a (gasp!) UAV.

In other words, a bird with the simplicity of the early A-4s and the deep
strike / fuel-hauling / gas passing capability of the A-6.

Unfortunately however, no role in such a bird for an old, broke-dick A-6A
B/N like me.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

"Dear Abby: My cousin has been paying a psychiatrist $50 an hour, every week
for two and a half years. He must be crazy."

- "Dear Abby" letters that never saw print


"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this
> newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see
> with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments.
>
> This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for
> combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
> formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
> airframe and what would that be?
>
> Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30?
> Avionics? Engine? FCS?
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
> Anti-spam measures in action.
> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>
> ***********************************************

[John Carrier]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> chief-<< You are recalled to active duty for
> combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
> formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
> airframe and what would that be? >><BR><BR>
>
> A-4F+, with a great radar. 4 SW, guns.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

A couple minor mods. A system to lock the slats up or nudge them out (put
it on the throttle grip like the F-8 droops). A flying tail. Inlet mods to
improve transonic performance. My favorite jet.

R / John

[John Carrier]

> Like Woody I agree it should be a JDAM dump truck. In addition, it should
> be an outstanding tanker. Unlike Woody, I'd dispense with a nice avionics
> suite in favor of "just enough" to do the mission and get back to Mother.
> With more and more of the smarts now in the weapon, vice the carriage,
this
> puppy might even be a (gasp!) UAV.

Current avionics are compact and theoretically cheap. An integrated
GPS/Inertial is the size of a loaf of bread. Mass produced, (they aren't)
cockpit displays are cheap. I see no reason why if Joe S. Ragman can have a
full-up GPS nav in his Cessna for a couple thousand, the military must pay a
million for less capability. Of course, we do. Excuse me, they do.

R / John

[WaltBJ]

Airplanes I flew to go against a MiG29 or SU30? Even though I flew the
F104A/J79-19 and the F4E I have to say 'no thanks'. The 104's too
small to mount a good radar and RHAW gear; the F4E could carry both
but even with F100 engines is too big a radar target. What you've got
with AMRAAM and AIM9X is a stand-off BVR engagement, his Pk against
yours. It can carry plenty of ordnance and with turbofan engines would
have good endurance. Listen, troops, that's why we're (supposed to be)
buying the F22. I'd really like to have the bogey ID'd outside his
F-pole and inside mine . . . . maybe if Kelly Johnson was still around
to produce a 21st century Lancer . . .
Walt BJ

[Joe Delphi]

EA-3B with a state-of-the-art GPS navigation suite. It was a nice bird, we
just never knew exactly where we were.


JD


You are recalled to active duty for
> combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
> formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
> airframe and what would that be?

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "John Carrier"
> wrote:

> > Like Woody I agree it should be a JDAM dump truck. In addition, it should
> > be an outstanding tanker. Unlike Woody, I'd dispense with a nice avionics
> > suite in favor of "just enough" to do the mission and get back to Mother.
> > With more and more of the smarts now in the weapon, vice the carriage,
> this
> > puppy might even be a (gasp!) UAV.
>
> Current avionics are compact and theoretically cheap. An integrated
> GPS/Inertial is the size of a loaf of bread.

Smaller than that actually. I just finished working on one.


> Mass produced, (they aren't)
> cockpit displays are cheap. I see no reason why if Joe S. Ragman can have a
> full-up GPS nav in his Cessna for a couple thousand, the military must pay a
> million for less capability. Of course, we do. Excuse me, they do.

There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements.
I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last
25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation
and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil environment,
it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the worst
possible time for you, the pilot.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Harry Andreas
> wrote:

> In article >, "John Carrier"
> > wrote:
>
>
> There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements.
> I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last
> 25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation
> and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil environment,
> it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the worst
> possible time for you, the pilot.

The commercially based MFD's in the Prowler were put in as a "rapid"
change to fix the ADI failing with no off flag problem and they are
pretty unsat. Lots of display overheat lights and pretty impossible to
see from the right seat with the sun overhead or behind. They really
don't get dim enough for my taste at night either. Don't know what the
survivability at the boats been.
Allen

[Ogden Johnson III]

Jim > wrote:

>This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this
>newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see
>with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments.
>
>This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for
>combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
>formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
>airframe and what would that be?
>
>Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30?
>Avionics? Engine? FCS?

Brings new meaning to DACM. ;->

We end up with one old fart lead in his upgraded F-8J with an old
fart wingman in his upgraded F-4J [F-8J leads because he was
senior on retirement 40 years ago] taking on the a section of the
evil empire's MiG-29s. I love it. ;->

[I'd prolly still bet on the F-8J/F-4J, but I'd want some good
odds to take that side of the bet. Particularly since by the
rules, you've limited them to one change only.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[John Carrier]

SNIP

> There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements.
> I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last
> 25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation
> and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil
environment,
> it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the
worst
> possible time for you, the pilot.

Undoubtedly true, but the fact remains that "milspec reliability" comes at a
ridiculous premium in cost.

R / John

[Errol Cavit]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> chief-<< You are recalled to active duty for
> combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you
> formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which
> airframe and what would that be? >><BR><BR>
>
> A-4F+, with a great radar. 4 SW, guns.

The radar is decent rather than great, but check out the A-4K Kahu upgrade -
probably coming to the US once the fine print on the contract is sorted out.


--
Errol Cavit | | "If you have had enough, then I have
had enough. But if you haven't had enough, then I haven't had enough
either." Maori chief Kawiti to Governor George Grey, after the Battle of
Ruapekapeka 1846.