If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that goFAR - FAST - and HIGH
Ski wrote:
You all seemd to me to have hit the main issues with the USN right now - somehow the Navy has thrown away its good sense and started chasing courses of action that will reduce its ability to deal with the world threats in only from a defensive nature. (1) New big carriers go fast, protect themselves better, and sustain more everything but they can't start costing $10 billion plus each (2) The F/A-18E/F/G has re-written the maintainability and sortie generation books but it is no more then a more capable A-7 and not even an A-6 and surely not an F-14 despite the maintenance nightmares. (3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning a super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric Tomcat. (4) If we drop JSF STOVL and force only one configuration CTOL and then slide the whole program to include a decade or so development the JSF could absorb the UCS/UCAV and work to have manned - unmanned variants which makes more sense and helps preserve the stealth if it works to keep the internal weapon design (say maybe include something laser by then) - but this alone could pay for the new Tomcat and a crash program it could be (5) Now like it or not, the move from battle ship to carrier will have another shift down the road and that may be sub-surface so the Navy may really find that under-sea ops will be its big hitters and the whole surface world may have to look again at what it is and should be. But whatever it is - the present Navy is not it Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R* Has any these "Futuristic Flying Machines" ever been "Battle Tested", against OTHER nations futuristic and costly Flying Machines... BS? God's Creator! (I am Life & Death) 8-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Todays U.S. Holy Oil Wars News: http://www.antiwar.com http://icasualties.org/oif/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
SNIP
(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning a super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric Tomcat. The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep (emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable (if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet. The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is not even close. R / John |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
In message , John Carrier
writes The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep (emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to deliver them. For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late (desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a difference had there been Bombcats in 1991. What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late and being too expensive to support. -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
Paul J. Adam wrote: In message , John Carrier writes The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep (emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to deliver them. For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late (desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a difference had there been Bombcats in 1991. What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late and being too expensive to support. No. When every other Cat 4 fighter was being modified, modernized, the F-14 was not. The F-14A+, except for the enigines, was essentially identical to the F-14 first delivered. A-6 type flight controls, tube technology avionics. For the F-14 to survive as a viable platform(like the F-15 has), it needed modernization early on, like in the 80-s. 1991 was too little, way to late. If the F-14 strike was made, same time frame as the F-15E, the F-18F probably wouldn't exist. -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that goFAR - FAST -
John Dallman wrote:
Just to agree some mo that route for the JSF programme also wastes a large fraction of the money that's been spent so far, "money that's been spent so far" Another term for that is "sunk costs" (or writeoff), which is not a good analytical justification for continuing with any project. Political justification, certainly, but it is similar psychology to holding on to a bad investment (hoping it will eventually turn around). If a project is a dud, there really is no sense going on with it no matter how much money has been spent or how close it is to being complete. Please not I'm not commenting on the JSF, I'm commenting on the thinking that can be behind budget decisions. Of course budget processes are far too complicated to explain in two paragraphs |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
OK Paul, not one but two guys that've been there, done that.
R / John "qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message ups.com... Paul J. Adam wrote: In message , John Carrier writes The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep (emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Sure, but in the same way that the Tornado proved adaptable from an excellent strike/interdiction platform into a decent North Sea interceptor: a variable-geometry aircraft designed to haul tons of air-to-air missiles out a long way, loiter a while, then either come home or sprint to engage was a good option for a strike aircraft required to cruise a long way with tons of PGMs before sprinting in to deliver them. For sure its (very effective) air-to-ground capability was a late (desperate?) addition to the Tomcat repertoire - it might have made a difference had there been Bombcats in 1991. What killed the Tomcat seemed from here to be its primary mission disappearing, and its significant strike capability arriving too late and being too expensive to support. No. When every other Cat 4 fighter was being modified, modernized, the F-14 was not. The F-14A+, except for the enigines, was essentially identical to the F-14 first delivered. A-6 type flight controls, tube technology avionics. For the F-14 to survive as a viable platform(like the F-15 has), it needed modernization early on, like in the 80-s. 1991 was too little, way to late. If the F-14 strike was made, same time frame as the F-15E, the F-18F probably wouldn't exist. -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
"John Carrier" wrote:
:SNIP : :(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working :sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which :is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning :a :super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we :have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric :Tomcat. : : The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that : being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed : with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, : there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. : :Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet :defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth :capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet. The Strike Eagle was started on MDAC internal money as a technology demonstration. No such thing was ever done with the F-14. Regardless of that, the D and B Upgrade aircraft were converted into quite capable deep strike platforms (4x2000lb JDAM) with better range/payload combinations than the Super Bug. :The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important :driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could :have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is :not even close. It would have been a new airplane. All the avionics would have to be replaced and it would probably have had to be re-engined. It sure was a pretty airplane, though... -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
Fred J. McCall wrote: "John Carrier" wrote: :SNIP : :(3) Since there is not a Naval F-22, hardly can't see the Typhoon working :sensibly, and we do not want to deal with the French for the Rafale (which :is the best Naval fighter around today) - then going back and redesigning :a :super-Tomcat is not a bad idea and since now with the F-15E and F-14D we :have the right engines around - go for the digital improved all - electric :Tomcat. : : The Tomcat was a very specific answer to a very particular question, that : being "How do we deal with a regiment-plus of Badgers or Backfires armed : with supersonic high-diving carrier-killing ASMs?". Lacking that threat, : there's no urgent requirement for a Tomcat or replacement. : :Actually pretty flexible answer to a number of problems. While its fleet :defense capability was unique, the airframe was easily adapted to the deep emphasis DEEP) strike roll. Had the Navy invested in the airframe's growth :capability (as the USAF did with the F-15), it would have had a most capable if not THE most capable) carrier strike aircraft on the planet. The Strike Eagle was started on MDAC internal money as a technology demonstration. No such thing was ever done with the F-14. Regardless of that, the D and B Upgrade aircraft were converted into quite capable deep strike platforms (4x2000lb JDAM) with better range/payload combinations than the Super Bug. :The F-18 is maintainable in spades and this certainly is the most important :driver in the shipboard environment. I don't know whether the F-14 could :have ever been developed sufficiently in this regard, my educated guess is :not even close. It would have been a new airplane. All the avionics would have to be replaced and it would probably have had to be re-engined. It sure was a pretty airplane, though... Yep, just like a whizbang Phantom would have been keen as well. SELDOM can an old, existing airframe be brought up to snuff with engines and Avionics(can't think of one-tried in the F-20, F-8). The airframe(FUGLY if ya ask me, and I flew for 2 squadron tours), was old, old technology(ala A-6), the $ to make it flybywire would have been more than a new aircraft. The 'D' model was laughable, considering the old technology of the day that existed at the time in the genuine cat 4 fighters(think F-15/16/18). The only way the F-14 would have survived was if the knuckeheads spending the $ on fighter modernization, would have done it as planned, to make the 'B' model early in the 80s. Didn't happen, the Turkey was doomed to obscurity. Gotta remember the F-14 was not anything more than a fix to the F-111 debacle, an airframe to wrap around the Hawg-9/Phoenix wunderweapon. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
New Carriers - Old refurbishments - New Navy Fighters that go FAR - FAST - and HIGH
In message , John Carrier
writes OK Paul, not one but two guys that've been there, done that. R / John Well, I come here to learn as well as lecture -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Mountain flying instruction: McCall, Idaho, Colorado too! | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 11:24 PM |
FA: WEATHER FLYING: A PRACTICAL BOOK ON FLYING | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 5th 03 12:07 AM |
the thrill of flying interview is here! | Dudley Henriques | Piloting | 0 | October 21st 03 07:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |