Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'

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
rocurement?
:
: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

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.

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.

Tiger wrote:

an 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
: rocurement?
: :
: :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

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

On Apr 10, 12:45*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Tiger wrote:
an 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
: rocurement?
: :
: :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".

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

"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

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

"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.