Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

On Dec 22, 7:25*pm, wrote:

Not sure if this was a joke post but:

What was "wrong" with the F-4 airframe that the F-15 airframe had to be
designed?

Pilots couldn't see much out of the F-4 and it didn't like corners. So
the F-15 was designed with a much better view and dogfighting
abilities.


What was "wrong" with the F-15 airframe that the F-16 airframe had to be
designed?

The F-15 cost a fortune back in the day; the lightweight single-
engined F-16 didn't. The fact fly-by-wire and an unstable design made
it a brilliant dogfighter was a nice bonus.


What was "wrong" with the F-16 airframe that the F-22 airframe had to be
designed?

Because it has a *huge* radar cross-section in comparison. A Su-27
could lock, launch, and destroy an F-16 before it even knew it was
there. An F-22 is practically undetectable, so can live with the
Su-27. As a bonus it's internal weapons bays have the same capacity as
the F-117, so bingo, the latter is redundant and can be scrapped.


What was "wrong" with the F-22 airframe that the F-35 airframe had to be
designed?

The F-22 costs a fortune; the lightweight single-engined F-35 does
too, just not quite as much. The fact it has bigger bomb bays, a
larger fuel fraction, and a better elec/op sensor suite making it a
better strike platform is a nice bonus. Just so long as nothing flies
up behind it.



What's the problem with designing the airframe once for the current
role of fighters, which hasn't changed much in about 40 years?

Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably be
scrapped for UAVs long before.

Opposition fighters would be better countered with an airborn equivalant
of the missle frigate; an aircraft loaded with radars, IR sensors, UV
sensors and a pile of air-to-air missles.


LOL have not seen the new Russian AWACs killers? They'd make mincemeat
of such an aircraft. The idea didn't work with the B-17 and it doesn't
work today either.

I doubt there is a 60's era fighter that given current sensors and
missles that wouldn't be perfectly adequate today.

Actually the only point you make that has a grain of truth. A lot of
poorer countries are refitting their older aircraft with modern
sensors and weapons, e.g. the MiG-21 2000. However you can't escape
the high maintenance costs, the poor fuel efficiency, small fuel
fractions etc. etc. of old aircraft. If you remanufacture them (e.g.
Nimrod MR4A) it costs almost as much as new build, but you end up with
a piece of crap compared to a new fighter.

For air-to-air combat the fighter hasn't been much more than a missle
launch platform for many decades.

Ah, but what a difference there is between "platforms". The
Eurofighter, for example, will rely on the long-range Meteor missile
for "first shot/first kill" against the Su-27 and derivatives. The
F-22 will get up close and use medium range AMRAAMs without the Su-27
ever knowing about it. The latter's stealth also means it can
penetrate defences the Eurofigher could not, e.g. Belgrade (only
stealth aircraft visited), or indeed Tehran. Both use sensor fusion
and system automation so the pilot can concentrate on the air battle
rather than flying the plane (something an F-15 driver can only dream
of).

The Su-27, btw, depends on simply having a really big radar and really
fast missiles. Quite a lethal combination when all said and done.



Dan

Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably be
scrapped for UAVs long before.

This from AvWeb today:
************************************************** *****************************
AIR FORCE CUTTING PILOT TRAINING
The U.S. Air Force will train about 925 new pilots in 2008, a decrease
of about 12 percent from the 1,100 that will graduate this year, the
Air Force Times is reporting. The Times says there will be a slight
bump in trainees in 2009 to about 1025 that is expected to remain
constant for several years. The newspaper says the reduction is
directly related to the decline in the number of aircraft and will be
particularly felt in the fighter pilot ranks. "If the Air Force did
not slow down pilot production, the service's fighter squadrons would
be overwhelmed by first-assignment pilots who could not get adequate
training because there wouldn't be enough jets or instructors," the
newspaper reported.
************************************************** *****************************
They go on to say that 200 pilots have already been reassigned to
other duties, simply because we have no aircraft for them to fly.

This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
designs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote in
:

Worth noting that both the F-22 and the F-35 (and the Eurofighter for
that matter) have 40-year design lives, though they'll all probably
be scrapped for UAVs long before.

This from AvWeb today:
************************************************** *********************
******** AIR FORCE CUTTING PILOT TRAINING
The U.S. Air Force will train about 925 new pilots in 2008, a decrease
of about 12 percent from the 1,100 that will graduate this year, the
Air Force Times is reporting. The Times says there will be a slight
bump in trainees in 2009 to about 1025 that is expected to remain
constant for several years. The newspaper says the reduction is
directly related to the decline in the number of aircraft and will be
particularly felt in the fighter pilot ranks. "If the Air Force did
not slow down pilot production, the service's fighter squadrons would
be overwhelmed by first-assignment pilots who could not get adequate
training because there wouldn't be enough jets or instructors," the
newspaper reported.
************************************************** *********************
******** They go on to say that 200 pilots have already been
reassigned to other duties, simply because we have no aircraft for
them to fly.

This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
designs.


What, no mindless POV of your own?


Bertie

This train of events reinforces your point (USAF going to UAVs) as
well as the point that we should have stuck with older, less expensive
designs.

Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. (I have no opinion as to what that is). If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. *If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. *(I have no opinion as to what that is). *If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
"scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
and had more of 'em.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote in
:

Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. *If it
is
to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big
picture) works best for this. *(I have no opinion as to what that
is). *If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
"scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
and had more of 'em.
--

Oh brother.


Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote:
Depends on what you consider the primary job of the air force. ?If it is to defend the country, then it should stick with whatever (in the big picture) works best for this. ?(I have no opinion as to what that is). ?If it is to train pilots, then you are clearly correct.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

IIRC, the ones that did finally scramble weren't even armed. It was
1941 all over again. (Not that anyone would have known what to do if
they *had* intercepted them, but that's another thread...)

I'm sure steps have been taken to speed things up -- but if we don't
have the planes or pilots anymore to do the intercepting, no amount of
"scramble speed" will help. And ground-based missiles are not capable
of "taking a look" before attacking -- at least not yet.

It's really not hard to imagine a scenario where a rogue foreign power
devises a plan to take advantage of this weakness. Which brings us
back to Jim's (?) point -- we should've stuck with the old designs,
and had more of 'em.

My point had to do with the economics of gee-wiz fighters.

Your post reminds me of the Simpson's episode where a bear wanders
into town for the first time in many years and the response is 24
hour bear patrol, which lasted until everyone got the tax bill to
pay for it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Jay Honeck wrote:

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
was done.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
of aircraft launched from US soil. *And look at how little actual damage
was done.

Agreed. But NORAD's response time also highlighted how porous our air
defenses had become with the post-Cold War draw-down in our Air Force.

I'd be willing to bet that war planners all over the world took
notice. Hopefully NORAD has responded accordingly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Jay Honeck wrote:

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air. Just look
how long it took to scramble *any* aircraft to intercept those rogue
airliners, even after NORAD was fully alerted.

9/11 illustrated how vulnerable we were to attack by air from a handful
of aircraft launched from US soil. And look at how little actual damage
was done.

9/11 illustrated what a bunch sheep airline passengers had become
until the second airplane hit.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.