Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'

[[email protected]]

See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS


What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?

Or something else?

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> See:
>
> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>
>
> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
> procurement?
>
> Or something else?

gap vs who?

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:See:
:
:http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
:
:
:What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
:procurement?
:
:Or something else?
:

My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
capability earlier for less money.

Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
available.

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

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> See:
>>
>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>
>>
>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>> procurement?
>>
>> Or something else?
>
> gap vs who?
>
>
Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

[BlackBeard]

On Apr 7, 10:25*pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> >> See:
>
> >>http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>
> >> What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF
> >> procurement?
>
> >> Or something else?
>
> > gap vs who?
>
> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
>
> Andrew Swallow

I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
OP subject and Attack Subs?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> See:
>>>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>>> procurement?
>>>> Or something else?
>>> gap vs who?
>> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
> OP subject and Attack Subs?
>
> BB

Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
fight the last war but not the next one.

The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.

Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

Andrew Swallow

[John D Salt]

Andrew Swallow > wrote in
:

[Snips]
> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
> vs bottom gun.


"'Twas on a Wednesday morning, the choppers should have dunked,
But they got their balls in a twist and the sorties would have flunked,
When someone shouted "801 - they've never known defeat"
So they called upon a Buccaneer with its underwater seat."


Everyone remember the story of how they were going to re-task Seacat fro
the anti-submarine role?

All the best,

John.

[Fred J. McCall]

Andrew Swallow > wrote:

:Ray O'Hara wrote:
:> > wrote in message
:> ...
:>> See:
:>>
:>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
:>>
:>>
:>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
:>> procurement?
:>>
:>> Or something else?
:>
:> gap vs who?
:>
:
:Try the Chinese attack submarines.
:

Oh, don't be silly! How the hell can there be a 'gap' between non-ASW
aircraft and submarines?

The 'gap' being discussed is between retirement dates for F/A-18C/D
airframes and the fleet entry of F-35C to replace them. Without some
action the F/A-18C/D aircraft have to retire, as they are getting too
many flight hours and cat/trap cycles on them to retain without doing
something. Without some sort of procurement there will be no
airframes to replace them with for several years after they are gone.

I don't see how accelerating F-35C buys is possible, since neither the
money nor the aircraft will be available.

Trying to recondition high flight time airframes is probably a
non-starter, since that would probably cost as much as buying them
new. Except you can't buy them new because the C/D line is closed.

To me it makes sense to trade off some or all of the projected future
JSF buy to buy more capable F/A-18E/F airframes at half the price of
buying F-35C.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Andrew Swallow > wrote:

:BlackBeard wrote:
:> On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
:>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
:>>> > wrote in message
:>>> ...
:>>>> See:
:>>>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
:>>>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
:>>>> procurement?
:>>>> Or something else?
:>>> gap vs who?
:>> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
:>>
:>> Andrew Swallow
:>
:> I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
:> OP subject and Attack Subs?
:>
:
:Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
:fight the last war but not the next one.
:
:The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
:submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
:previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
:submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
:
:Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
:longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
:its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
:the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
:
:So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
:vs bottom gun.
:

That's not a 'fighter gap'.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, putting large ASW
aircraft aboard US CVNs would enlarge the air group and such aircraft
would be in addition to current airframes, not replacing them.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Tiger]

Andrew Swallow wrote:

> Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
> fight the last war but not the next one.
>
> The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
> submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
> previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
> submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
>
> Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
> longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
> its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
> the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
>
> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
> vs bottom gun.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Good point. The retirement of the S-3 And the slow new production of a
P-3 replacement does leave a real gap in capability. While low and slow
and boring, ASW is a need part of Nav air that a F-18 can't fill.

[Tiger]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>See:
>>
>>http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>
>>
>>What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>procurement?
>>
>>Or something else?
>
>
> gap vs who?
>
>

Not a Who, vs Time. Arround the 2016 thru 2025 the F-18's will be at
retirment age. That is the Gap. Right now the JSF may not show up till
then...

[Tiger]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :See:
> :
> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
> :
> :
> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
> :procurement?
> :
> :Or something else?
> :
>
> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
> capability earlier for less money.
>
> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
> available.
>

REstart a Line? IN this economy, not going to happen. Big $$$ for short
term work = DOA. Besides Boeing Has other military contracts to fill. A
P-8, There half of the V-22, Perhaps a Tanker, Not to mention upgrades
on current planes or Fixing the F15 problem.

[Fred J. McCall]

Tiger > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> wrote:
:>
:> :See:
:> :
:> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
:> :
:> :
:> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
:> :procurement?
:> :
:> :Or something else?
:> :
:>
:> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
:> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
:> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
:> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
:> capability earlier for less money.
:>
:> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
:> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
:> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
:> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
:> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
:> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
:> available.
:>
:
:REstart a Line? IN this economy, not going to happen.
:

It could if it turns out to be cheaper than buying F-35B by a good
bit.

:
:Big $$$ for short term work = DOA.
:

What 'short term'? We're not talking about significantly fewer
aircraft than they built the first time around.

:
:Besides Boeing Has other military contracts to fill. A
:P-8, There half of the V-22, Perhaps a Tanker, Not to mention upgrades
:on current planes or Fixing the F15 problem.
:

And of those all, only the F-15 is even built at the same facility.
Why do you think there will be money for an F-15 problem fix? This is
MUCH more 'short term work' than restarting a line and building new
aircraft.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 4:01*am, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> >> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>> > wrote in message
> ....
> >>>> See:
> >>>>http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
> >>>> What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF
> >>>> procurement?
> >>>> Or something else?
> >>> gap vs who?
> >> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
>
> >> Andrew Swallow
>
> > I must admit I am lost here. *How does one find relevance between the
> > OP subject and Attack Subs?
>
> > BB
>
> Know thy enemy. *Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
> fight the last war but not the next one.
>
> The planes and submarines are enemies. *The Chinese attack
> submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. *See
> previous posts on sci.military.naval. *There may be sufficient
> submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
>
> Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
> longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
> its aircraft for defence. *So what ever aircraft are purchased for
> the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

That's not the way the navy buys carriers, though.
They buy nuclear reactors plus dock time plus a half dozen
DDG's, CGs, and P3's to go with them.
Since the fighter jets are always doing something else.




>
> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
> vs bottom gun.
>
> Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dan[_9_]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :See:
> :
> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
> :
> :
> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
> :procurement?
> :
> :Or something else?
> :
>
> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
> capability earlier for less money.
>
> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
> available.
>

Ouch. Do you have any idea those things (AV-8B) are to OUR guys?

Dan

[Dan[_9_]]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>>>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>>>> procurement?
>>>>> Or something else?
>>>> gap vs who?
>>> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
>> OP subject and Attack Subs?
>>
>> BB
>
> Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
> fight the last war but not the next one.
>
> The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
> submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
> previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
> submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
>
> Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
> longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
> its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
> the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
>
> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
> vs bottom gun.
>
> Andrew Swallow

All very interesting, but what has that interesting trivia to do with
fighter gaps?

Dan

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Tiger wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>> Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
>> fight the last war but not the next one.
>>
>> The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
>> submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
>> previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
>> submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
>>
>> Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
>> longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
>> its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
>> the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
>>
>> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
>> vs bottom gun.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Good point. The retirement of the S-3 And the slow new production of a
> P-3 replacement does leave a real gap in capability. While low and slow
> and boring, ASW is a need part of Nav air that a F-18 can't fill.
>

The mixture of aircraft will need thinking through. Assuming the enemy
is going to be Arabs and Chinese.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>>>>> What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>>>>> procurement?
>>>>>> Or something else?
>>>>> gap vs who?
>>>> Try the Chinese attack submarines.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>> I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
>>> OP subject and Attack Subs?
>>>
>>> BB
>>
>> Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
>> fight the last war but not the next one.
>>
>> The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
>> submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
>> previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
>> submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
>>
>> Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
>> longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
>> its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
>> the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
>>
>> So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
>> vs bottom gun.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> All very interesting, but what has that interesting trivia to do with
> fighter gaps?
>
> Dan

Everything - your fighters have the wrong armaments and sensors.

Andrew Swallow

[Dan[_9_]]

Dan wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> :See:
>> :
>> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>> :
>> :
>> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>> :procurement?
>> :
>> :Or something else?
>> :
>>
>> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
>> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
>> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
>> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
>> capability earlier for less money.
>>
>> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
>> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
>> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
>> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
>> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
>> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
>> available.
>>
>
> Ouch. Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B) are to OUR guys?
>
> Dan

Oops. I forgot a couple of words.

Dan

[Tiger]

Dan wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> :See:
>>> :
>>> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>> :
>>> :
>>> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>> :procurement?
>>> :
>>> :Or something else?
>>> :
>>>
>>> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
>>> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
>>> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
>>> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
>>> capability earlier for less money.
>>>
>>> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
>>> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
>>> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
>>> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
>>> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
>>> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
>>> available.
>>>
>>
>> Ouch. Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B)
>> are to OUR guys?
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> Oops. I forgot a couple of words.
>
> Dan

No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to
fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to
get that dangerous label.

[Dan[_9_]]

Tiger wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> :See:
>>>> :
>>>> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
>>>> :procurement?
>>>> :
>>>> :Or something else?
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
>>>> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
>>>> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
>>>> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
>>>> capability earlier for less money.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
>>>> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
>>>> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
>>>> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
>>>> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
>>>> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ouch. Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B)
>>> are to OUR guys?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Oops. I forgot a couple of words.
>>
>> Dan
>
> No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to
> fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to
> get that dangerous label.
>

You may want to look at the safety records before you make such
statements...

Dan

[[email protected]]

USAF Joins Navy in Warning of 'Fighter Gap'

See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3472033&c=AME&s=AIR

Looks like the USAF is going to have problems similar
to the Navy's.

[Jack Wang]

On 4/9/08 11:05 PM, in article
,
" > wrote:

> USAF Joins Navy in Warning of 'Fighter Gap'
>
> See:
>
> http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3472033&c=AME&s=AIR
>
> Looks like the USAF is going to have problems similar
> to the Navy's.

They have only themselves to blame. Nobody forced them to build those
expensive fat ass "next-gen" fighters/bombers/transporters/attackers, etc.
Why is everything coming out of Pentagon and American defense contractors so
damn expensive? Good luck with 181 F22s that are tasked to fight adversaries
ranging from old and new superpower like China and Russia or ragtag
guerillas who can barely afford a AK47.

[Fred J. McCall]

Tiger > wrote:

:Dan wrote:
:> Dan wrote:
:>
:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>
:>>> wrote:
:>>>
:>>> :See:
:>>> :
:>>> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
:>>> :
:>>> :
:>>> :What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
:>>> :procurement?
:>>> :
:>>> :Or something else?
:>>> :
:>>>
:>>> My personal opinion? Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
:>>> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
:>>> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
:>>> fields, and are available NOW. You wind up with equal or greater
:>>> capability earlier for less money.
:>>>
:>>> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
:>>> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. I don't see
:>>> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
:>>> given the price tag of the things. I have to wonder what it would
:>>> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
:>>> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
:>>> available.
:>>>
:>>
:>> Ouch. Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B)
:>> are to OUR guys?
:>>
:>> Dan
:>
:>
:> Oops. I forgot a couple of words.
:>
:> Dan
:
:No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to
:fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to
: get that dangerous label.
:

I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem
particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly
more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:USAF Joins Navy in Warning of 'Fighter Gap'
:
:See:
:
:http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3472033&c=AME&s=AIR
:
:Looks like the USAF is going to have problems similar
:to the Navy's.
:

Not surprising and I'm not sure what they can do about it under the
current plans. They're not going to be able to keep the F-16s going.
They're flying the life out of those airframes. They've already been
looking for ways to extend the life of some of the F-15 fleet by
selecting low-air-time airframes for retention (the 'Golden Eagle'
program).

My suggest would be to terminate the F-22 program ASAP and accelerate
the USAF buy of F-35A. They could take up the production slack left
by USN reducing their buy to get more SuperBugs, instead. Cancel
F-35C entirely (as the most structurally different of the three
variants).

This leaves USN with the opportunity to initiate its own new fighter
program in a decade or so, with some hope of actually getting what
they want (since it would start off with a carrier-capable design).
Then they could strip out the extra weight for carrier capability and
make USAF start buying it on the back side of the F-35 buy (which
leads us back to a situation like the old F-4 Phantom).

If you want a multi-service airplane, you should start with a USN
design and lighten rather than starting with a 'light fighter' design
and then trying to beef it up for carrier ops.

I wish there was something to do about the F-35B, but I don't see a
viable alternative course. Maybe go back to Boeing with a bid for the
'REALLY Big-Wing Harrier'?

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

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 12:45*am, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> Tiger > wrote:
> :Dan wrote:
> :> Dan wrote:
>
> :>
> :>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>>:>>> wrote:
>
> :>>>
> :>>> :See:
> :>>> :
> :>>> :http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
> :>>> :
> :>>> :
> :>>> :What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF
> :>>> :procurement?
> :>>> :
> :>>> :Or something else?
> :>>> :
> :>>>
> :>>> My personal opinion? *Buy more Hornets and cut the F-35C buy in half.
> :>>> Super Hornets are cheaper than JSF (can probably buy at least 2
> :>>> Superbugs per JSF), more capable now than F-35C will be when it
> :>>> fields, and are available NOW. *You wind up with equal or greater
> :>>> capability earlier for less money.
> :>>>
> :>>> Looking at the difference in price, I'd bet USMC is wishing it had
> :>>> some replacement alternative for AV-8B other than F-35B. *I don't see
> :>>> how they afford the number of replacement airframes (320) they want
> :>>> given the price tag of the things. *I have to wonder what it would
> :>>> cost to have Boeing restart the AV-8B production line and start
> :>>> cranking out updated AV-8's and how much before F-35B they'd be
> :>>> available.
> :>>>
> :>>
> :>> Ouch. *Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B)
> :>> are to OUR guys?
> :>>
> :>> Dan
> :>
> :>
> :> Oops. *I forgot a couple of words.
> :>
> :> Dan
> :
> :No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to
> :fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to
> : *get that dangerous label.
> :
>
> I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. *They don't seem
> particularly terrified at the prospect. *The AV-8B isn't particularly
> more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation.
>
> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> * * live in the real world." * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Well, for NASA, the navy, and the Air Force, our answer
to that has always been:

"Making rockets is for history's cranks who don't have the
intelligence,
the inspiration, the imagination, the talent, or the money to
make robots
and lasers".

[St. John Smythe]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem
> particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly
> more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation.

Except when hovering, wouldn't you say?
--
sjs

[Fred J. McCall]

"St. John Smythe" > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem
:> particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly
:> more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation.
:
:Except when hovering, wouldn't you say?
:

No, I wouldn't say. I would say that the AV-8B isn't particularly
more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. Period.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Dan[_9_]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> I know a number of folks who fly the AV-8B. They don't seem
> :> particularly terrified at the prospect. The AV-8B isn't particularly
> :> more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation.
> :
> :Except when hovering, wouldn't you say?
> :
>
> No, I wouldn't say. I would say that the AV-8B isn't particularly
> more dangerous than any other aircraft of the same generation. Period.
>

Evidently, the people actually involved did not agree with you, though
they have made great strides recently:


"A decade ago, the AV-8 Harrier was the most accident-prone plane in
America’s arsenal. After a series of deadly accidents killed 45 of his
fellow Marine pilots, engine program manager Lt. Col. Robert Kuckuk of
the Marines’ Harrier program office helped redesign both its engine and
its maintenance program. That program now takes 25 man-hours per flight
hour, but accident rates plunged. At the same time, the AV-8 has found
its niche amidst the urban operations that have characterized Operation
Iraqi Freedom.

After the Harrier’s most recent engine redesign overhaul, serious
accidents dropped from 39 every 100,000 flight hours to 3.17 per 100,000
flight hours in 2001. In Iraq, Harriers have now flown nearly 11,000
hours without a mishap since May 2004."


I based my original statement on history. I will, however, stand
corrected about the current situation.

Mr. McCall should not base his knowledge on the opinions of people who,
for obvious reasons, HAVE to believe in the equipment and also believe
"it can't happen to me."

Dan

[williamjkambic]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...

> Evidently, the people actually involved did not agree with
> you, though they have made great strides recently:
>
>
> "A decade ago, the AV-8 Harrier was the most
> accident-prone plane in America’s arsenal. After a series
> of deadly accidents killed 45 of his fellow Marine pilots,
> engine program manager Lt. Col. Robert Kuckuk of the
> Marines’ Harrier program office helped redesign both its
> engine and its maintenance program. That program now takes
> 25 man-hours per flight hour, but accident rates plunged.
> At the same time, the AV-8 has found its niche amidst the
> urban operations that have characterized Operation Iraqi
> Freedom.
>
> After the Harrier’s most recent engine redesign overhaul,
> serious accidents dropped from 39 every 100,000 flight
> hours to 3.17 per 100,000 flight hours in 2001. In Iraq,
> Harriers have now flown nearly 11,000 hours without a
> mishap since May 2004."
>
>
> I based my original statement on history. I will,
> however, stand corrected about the current situation.
>
> Mr. McCall should not base his knowledge on the opinions
> of people who, for obvious reasons, HAVE to believe in the
> equipment and also believe "it can't happen to me."

My wife, a retired Flight Surgeon, had some stuff on the
AV-8 she received at a conference a few years back. IIRC
there was a BIG difference between the A and B models. The
A's were "Lt. Eaters" but the B's were as safe as an
aircraft that operates in that mileau are going to be.

[Dave[_6_]]

IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when removed from the
pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for both models. It was
called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done in a hover, and
was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that accentuated some instability
in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.

YMMV.

Dave in Sandy Eggo

[John Carrier]

SNIP a lot

>>>> Ouch. Do you have any idea >> How Dangerous << those things (AV-8B)
>>>> are to OUR guys?
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> Oops. I forgot a couple of words.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> No more dangerous than the F4U, F7U or F8 were back in the day. Hard to
>> fly, but the rep is overblown. There have always been birds that tend to
>> get that dangerous label.
>>
>
> You may want to look at the safety records before you make such
> statements...
>
> Dan

While the F4U had problems initially with carrier landings (over the nose
visibility and strut bounce), I don't think it ever had a rep for mishaps.
The F7U was quite notorious, earned several monikers (Ensign Eater was one)
but I have no data. The F-8 had the highest mishap rate of any carrier
aircraft in the modern (angled deck) era. AIRPAC, never competitive with
AIRLANT in mishap rate, started publishing two numbers: Mishap Rate, and
Mishap Rate less F-8's (AIRLANT got out of the F-8 business several years
ahead of AIRPAC).

R / John

[williamjkambic]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when
> removed from the
> pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for
> both models. It was
> called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done
> in a hover, and
> was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that
> accentuated some instability
> in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.

Seems to me there was also a problem with "weathervaning"
under certain wind conditions that caused instability and
loss of control.

I've seen a couple of mishap videos where "airshow" type
manuevers caused losses.

[Fred J. McCall]

Dave > wrote:
:
:IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when removed from the
:pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for both models. It was
:called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done in a hover, and
:was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that accentuated some instability
:in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.
:

There were several flight regimes where overly-close tolerances
between the turbine blades would lead to a flameout of the engine.
When you only have one, that sort of sucks.

I'm only aware of one 'bow' crash and it didn't look like it was
caused by instability. It looked like an engine casualty, with a big
gout of flame and the aircraft shooting down into the water.

I have no idea if they still do this at air shows or not, but I
wouldn't be surprised if they do.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Dave[_6_]]

"williamjkambic" > wrote in news:1207884859_83242
@news.newsville.com:

>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>> IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when
>> removed from the
>> pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for
>> both models. It was
>> called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done
>> in a hover, and
>> was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that
>> accentuated some instability
>> in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.
>
> Seems to me there was also a problem with "weathervaning"
> under certain wind conditions that caused instability and
> loss of control.
>
> I've seen a couple of mishap videos where "airshow" type
> manuevers caused losses.

I recall at least three Harrier crashes from the "bow to the crowd" (one
over water, and two over land), and when I left AD (1989), it was no longer
a permitted maneuver. They may have relented on that since then.

The weathervaning may have been contributory to those crashes,

Dave in Sandy Eggo

[Brian Sharrock]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when removed from
> the
> pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for both models. It was
> called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done in a hover, and
> was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that accentuated some
> instability
> in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Dave in Sandy Eggo


AIUI; the 'harrier' a/c balances itself on four 'legs' of thrust; two from
the front of the engine and two from the back of the engine. The front
thrust legs are cold air while the rear thrust legs are hot exhaust gases.
The 'hover' methodology works fine when the a/c is 'horizontal' ; pitch and
roll axes = zero; but is prone to the phenomena of 'hot gas re-ingestion'
when the pitch is positive as the rearward hot plumes may be reflected up
and the engine ingests hot air into the compressors - leading to lack of
thrust and lift becoming less than weight. Early models (GR1/AV8A/Matador)
had an analogue JPT gauge where the tell-tale rise in JPT -indicating to
the pilot that hot gases were being ingested and thrust was about to
diminish - was a mere needles width (and almost impossible , given the
pilot's workload, to detect)

A very early 'mod' into USMC service was to replace these gauges with a
'Digital JPT Gauge - in this case the term 'digital' actually meant a
'odometer style ' set of digit wheels- this made it much easier for the
pilot to notice that hot gas re-ingestion was occurring and gave advance
warning permitting him to adapt the pitch angle prior to losing thrust.

The later a/c incorporated a 'Stability Augmentation System' which has finer
control of the pitch. roll, yaw axes thrusters than a 'mere' human -not that
any pilot will admit to that .

--

Brian

[Dan[_9_]]

williamjkambic wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>> IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when
>> removed from the
>> pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for
>> both models. It was
>> called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done
>> in a hover, and
>> was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that
>> accentuated some instability
>> in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.
>
> Seems to me there was also a problem with "weathervaning"
> under certain wind conditions that caused instability and
> loss of control.
>
> I've seen a couple of mishap videos where "airshow" type
> manuevers caused losses.

The problem is/was it is a horribly delicate piece of machinery to take
out to dangerous conditions, let alone war.

Evidently, after a large fraction of the fleet was scrap, people started
realizing that it wasn't all pilot error, and so design, maintenance, &
training were improved to the point that it is a reasonable craft.
Unlike the FBW craft, where it was realized that the weak point was the
wetware behind the stick, restraints weren't never put in place to keep
the inherently unstable vehicle within its operational envelope under
emotionally charged situations. Imagine an F-117 without computer
control...

Dan

[John Keeney]

On Apr 10, 10:43*pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
>
> :
> :IIRC, There was a specific non-combat maneuver which, when removed from the
> :pilot's repertoire, cut the accident rate in half, for both models. It was
> :called, among other names, "bow to the crowd". It was done in a hover, and
> :was a tip the nose down and return maneuver that accentuated some instability
> :in the hover, and caused several crashes over the years.
> :
>
> There were several flight regimes where overly-close tolerances
> between the turbine blades would lead to a flameout of the engine.
> When you only have one, that sort of sucks.
>
> I'm only aware of one 'bow' crash and it didn't look like it was
> caused by instability. *It looked like an engine casualty, with a big
> gout of flame and the aircraft shooting down into the water.
>
> I have no idea if they still do this at air shows or not, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if they do.

There was a Harrier in the show here Saturday (Thunder Over
Louisville) and I don't believe it bowed.
The hover portion of the routine was biased towards the crown on the
other side of the river though, so I may simply have not noticed it.