PDA

View Full Version : F-35B Sea trials



Boz330
01-03-2012, 10:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE


Bob

MakeMineA10mm
01-03-2012, 11:38 AM
Very nice - Passing that link on to a former USMC Aviation buddy.

GabbyM
01-03-2012, 11:51 AM
We have a lot of eggs in one basket with the F-35.
One of the first things Obama did was to cancel production of the F-22.
Back a couple months ago news released there are issues with the 35 that will cost billions to remedy.

Reload3006
01-03-2012, 12:01 PM
I am sure a lot of my opinion is sour grapes but I think there was too much political influence in the selection of the F35 for Lockheed. I think the SVTOL version using a fan is stupid. That is the best thing I can think of to say. It doesn't take much of a mechanic to figure out that all the drive train to run a fan is going to be a maintenance nightmare.

bowfin
01-03-2012, 12:15 PM
There has been an ongoing debate between the Navy and Marines on whether they should spend their money on the F-35B, which is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant, or the F-35C, which is a carrier version that doesn't have the STVL capabilities. Both sides know that someone's piece of the pie is going to be cut down considerably, and it could possibly be both.

The U.S. Navy has been starved for new aircraft of any kind, partly because they have had so many cancelled. The F-14D, A-6F, A-12 Avenger all went by the wayside for one reason or another, and no suitable backup for the multitask S-3 Viking airframe was ever envisioned.

The S-3 airframe was used for fixed wing anti-submarine warfare, aerial refuelling, maritime patrol, and a host of other jobs requiring on board space and ability to stay airborne for more than a few hours.

The F-18 Hornets and F-18E Super Hornets are slower and have less range than the Tomcat, have shorter range missiles, and have no dedicated carrier refueling aircraft to mitigate that shorter range.

So the U.S. Navy definitely needs some new aircraft, but how many and what kind is at the mercy of the budget crunch.

wallenba
01-03-2012, 12:24 PM
Videos like this reinforce my pride in America and what we can do. I see a lot more small carriers in our Navies future. Excellant photography.

MakeMineA10mm
01-03-2012, 12:26 PM
There has been an ongoing debate between the Navy and Marines on whether they should spend their money on the F-35B, which is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant, or the F-35C, which is a carrier version that doesn't have the STVL capabilities. Both sides know that someone's piece of the pie is going to be cut down considerably, and it could possibly be both.

The U.S. Navy has been starved for new aircraft of any kind, partly because they have had so many cancelled. The F-14D, A-6F, A-12 Avenger all went by the wayside for one reason or another, and no suitable backup for the multitask S-3 Viking airframe was ever envisioned.

The S-3 airframe was used for fixed wing anti-submarine warfare, aerial refuelling, maritime patrol, and a host of other jobs requiring on board space and ability to stay airborne for more than a few hours.

The F-18 Hornets and F-18E Super Hornets are slower and have less range than the Tomcat, have shorter range missiles, and have no dedicated carrier refueling aircraft to mitigate that shorter range.

So the U.S. Navy definitely needs some new aircraft, but how many and what kind is at the mercy of the budget crunch.


Videos like this reinforce my pride in America and what we can do. I see a lot more small carriers in our Navies future. Excellant photography.

Yep, combine these two posts, and it's kind-of predictable isn't it?

lbaize3
01-03-2012, 01:53 PM
Go NAVY!

Dang, but videos like that bring a tear to an old sailor's eyes.

Boz330
01-03-2012, 02:26 PM
I posted this because I thought it was impressive not to start a political debate.

But when you look at how long an aircraft design might stay in the inventory once the bugs are worked out the money spread out over the years isn't all that bad. The B-52 has been in service for 60 years now. Getting to this point and scrapping the design really gets expensive. Most companies can't afford to eat the development cost it takes to bring one of these modern marvels to fruition.

Bob

Three-Fifty-Seven
01-03-2012, 02:45 PM
I don't know much about planes . . . but that must be some really strong hinges on that flap behind the cockpit!

bowfin
01-03-2012, 04:28 PM
Vertical landing on a naval ship most of the times isn't really vertical. The ship is almost always moving forward, so the plane must match the ship's speed to give the appearance of dropping straight down.

That being said, that sure was a nice touchdown and a nice looking airplane, and what is even more impressive is that every amphibious ship can now embark some of the most lethal aircraft in the world, and not just the Nimitz size carriers.

Norbrat
01-03-2012, 07:28 PM
Reminds me of the British Hawker Harrier

Roundnoser
01-03-2012, 07:35 PM
THIS is the kind of thing I don't mind paying my taxes for!!!

MtGun44
01-04-2012, 12:10 AM
Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

Norbrat
01-04-2012, 12:52 AM
Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

One would hope with a further 50 years of aviation engineering!

Bret4207
01-04-2012, 07:18 AM
Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

What the Harrier was meant for and what it got used for seem to be 2 different things.

MakeMineA10mm
01-04-2012, 10:24 AM
What the Harrier was meant for and what it got used for seem to be 2 different things.

Great point Bret. The Harrier was a bomb truck with pre-computer targeting system, but it stayed in the inventory so long that demands kept being made that it "do-this and do-that." in it's original role, and using conventional take-off and landing (to compare apples to apples), it is right up there with other attack planes, such as the A-7 and A-10. The A-10 has done OK due to its effectiveness and ability to be upgraded, and the Harrier's effectiveness has been fine as well, which is why the Marines have kept it so long and even ordered a "B model". I'm not really sure why Bill is saying they weren't effective? They did have a bad number of crashes of the A-model when the Marines first made them operational in the early- to mid-70s. The Harrier is one of the best light attack planes going...

I think the problem is Obama is anti-military AND he is pushing things so he can claim a "Peace dividend" and reduce the military even more, including cancelling programs (like the F-22). The Navy will get fewer F-35s, because Obummer is going to reduce the number of carriers. They could also reduce the number by keeping the Super Hornets in inventory longer. The Marines will also likely get fewer than they want, because their aviation budget is out of line for the size of their force. This is the second very expensive program they've simultaneously been involved in over the last 20 years. (V-22 being the other.). I'm guessing with the cancellation of the F-22, the Air Force will be the winner, as they need to replace the F-16 in huge numbers, and these JSFs will also replace some F-15 positions apparently.

China's saber-rattling and the position the next President takes on defense will determine a lot. (Sorry to the OP about included political comments but procurement and a program's life is closely related to politics...)

BulletFactory
01-04-2012, 01:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_popout&v=27qdB1D0s9M

MakeMineA10mm
01-04-2012, 04:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_popout&v=27qdB1D0s9M

Meh... It's a commercial for Sukhoi - Of course they're going to say they can beat the F-22 and F-35! The linked video has 3 minutes of "reports" about the F-35 being "beaten" by the Sukhoi, and then there's 7 minutes of patriotic music with video of Sukhoi's flying around. (Nice plane BTW...)

Here's a little counter-point / dose of truth about the war games and study by RAND:


Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combatexercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj.Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges. "The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey. "It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."


The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combatconfiguration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4thgeneration aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Spreyrecall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors orarmament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios andmaneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrustequivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventionalversion of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 andF/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods andweapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacyaircraft equipped with a similar capability.

When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participatein the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in additionto its four internal stations.

External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.

The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5thgeneration stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to addthis stealth to fourth-generation fighters.

The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities willtransform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission.The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important informationis built into the F-35, along with stealth.

F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacyprograms, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, alreadyflying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantagesof developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flightand maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-testinstrumentation.

Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development riskthrough the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integratedfull-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable inhours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it willreplace.

The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraftaround the world - F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 andTornado - flown by 14 air forces.

In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fullyinstrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.


As far as the Sukhoi T-50, it looks like a very limited program. 250 for Russia and 200 for India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA

As far as the F-22 being "bad" or vulnerable, here's a great example of the political distortions of the truth (kind-of a nice way of saying propoganda...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrwwtq8gnww

No "bias" there, now, eh?? Can't even begin to want to tear apart her "report" point by point. It so wrong there's outright lies in it, let alone the distortions and misrepresentations...

JeffinNZ
01-04-2012, 05:35 PM
Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

Proved its worth in the Falklands. Maggy Thatcher would have been in a grim situation without the Harrier. The Spitfire of the 1970/80's.

perotter
01-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Proved its worth in the Falklands. Maggy Thatcher would have been in a grim situation without the Harrier. The Spitfire of the 1970/80's.

There wasn't have been any other plane that could have did what the Harrier did there, it only took a few weeks to convert cargo ships into carriers for them.

MtGun44
01-04-2012, 11:49 PM
My nephew was a Harrier pilot and despised and distrusted them. LOTS of crashes due to
engine failures.

Short legs, minimal bomb load. the theory was that they would be at fields really close to the action
for close air support. Didn't work out in real life very often. Limited usefuless in real life. Very
impressive in air shows. They used to practice with them a NOB Norfolk near our house when I
was in college. Very neat plane, cool technology, just not a very effective weapon and they crash a lot.

F18 is 10 times as useful. F14 was 25 times as useful as the Harrier, but are gone. The regular
F35 should be pretty good, I don't have enough info on the VTOL F35 version, yet but they are
calling it STOVL for shot take off vertical landing, which shows that they have learned that a vertical
TO with any bombs means a VERY short combat radius and near zero loiter time. STOVL mode may
work far better. Also, the F35 has a large diam cold air fan, so may be a lot more efficient making
lift than the Harrier.

Not too dissimilar to the F16 in that way. Gen Horner of the Air Force, the guy in charge of the
entire air war in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) said that the most dissappointing aircraft in that
war was the F16. He said it in an Aviation Week interview after the war was over. Same issue,
no fuel for decent range, no significant weapons loads. A friend was a Wild Weasel pilot in Des
Storm, and they were strapping a pair of HARM missiles on the racks of F16s and making them
dumptruck wingmen for F4 Phantom Wild Weasels. The F16 could launch a HARM, but not guide
it, so they would fly alongside the Phantom and launch when ordered, with the Phantom's systems
picking it up and guiding it to the radar sites. Getting some use out of a near useless platform.

The public image of many aircraft are a far sight from what they can really do in a war. F16 would
be a really incredible plane to fly, high G rating, lots of thrust, great visibility. Fun. No fuel, so no range,
carries only two short range missiles much of the time, needs to use some of the limited hard points for fuel
tanks which slow it terribly and keep it from being a useful air-to-air platform until you dump them. GD tried to
fix all this with the Cranked Arrow version with a much larger wing and internal fuel. Would have been a
world beater with 85% parts commonality to the F16. AF rejected it. Most F16s could not use the
Sparrow missile, only the short range heat seaker Sidewinder. Some later F16s have been wired for
the AMRAAM, but it is unclear what percentage can use this much longer range missile. Basically, the F16
was designed for a fight that never happened when it was in the field - the close in turning air-to-air
fight. Of course, a whole lot of F16s would have been blown away by medium range air to air missiles
before they even got into range with the short range 'Winders and their 20 mike-mike.

In a way - the Harrier was designed for a very limited application that never happened, either. The best
aircraft are the most flexible designs because nobody is really great at predicting how the next war will
be fought and what the capabilities that will be the most useful. Narrow designs are not good ones.

The Brits in the Falklands struggled because their lefties had been closing down the military and little
capability was left. They had sold their carriers to the Aussies, IIRC, and had to delay delivery to fight
the war. The Harrier allowed them to use small carriers reasonably effectively. The Brit soldiers and
sailors and pilots did a heroic job far from home with limited and aging equipment. Heroes for sure, but
that doesn't make the Harrier a great airplane. Unique, interesting, special, etc. but very limited capability.

Bill

MakeMineA10mm
01-05-2012, 02:20 AM
While I respect and appreciate your nephew, the statistics disagree. The Harrier has an accident rate of around 11.44 incidents per 100,000 hours of flight. In 31 years, the Marines have lost around 45 pilots and have had a total of 143 incidents. Planes with worse records include the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, and a few other "Great Planes." So, yes, it has the worst record of US planes in current service, but it's far better than other past (including very recent), succesful aircraft.

As far as capabilities, the AV-8B has a max bomb load of 13,200lbs and a combat radius of 350 miles, while the FA-18 has a payload capacity of 13,700 lbs with a combat radius of 440 miles. So, the Harrier has similar payload and trades 25% range for STOVL capability, a trade-off that was known up front and fit with its primary role of heavy air support over a beach assault...

As much as I like and appreciate first-hand information AND statistics, the truth is usually somewhere in-between. (Statistics don't explain operational and "human-factor" issues, and due to perceptions and opinions, people are not always as accurate as they think.)

Bret4207
01-05-2012, 07:26 AM
I don't know about the Brits Harriers but the Marines Harriers did pretty well in their expected role of close air support from non-traditional runways. It was never a fighter or long range aircraft. But it's still lots faster than a helo and can lay down fire on a position for far longer than normal fixed wing ac. I understand what you are saying Bill, but it's not a GP airplane, it's a specialized airplane, just like your F16.

Truth be told the Marines were happy with the A6 but the airframe was ancient.

GabbyM
01-05-2012, 01:50 PM
In the Falklands War the only reason the Argentine Air force didn’t totally destroy the British fleet was they ran out of Exocet missiles. The much marveled Harrier had near zero effect on stopping the Mirage Exocet attacks. Harriers did get lucky and ambush a couple but it’s not like they were ever going to intercept one. After the Mirage fired off those missiles they had over twice the top speed of the attack plane.

Harriers never did have an F in front of there name for good reason.

Britton’s navy that went to the Falklands was designed to operate close to home in the North Atlantic on ASW missions. Under an umbrella of land based aircraft. They had nothing on board that could come close to stopping a Soviet TU-95 or even a short twenty mile range Exocet fired from a little fighter plane.

The new plane in inventory I like is the P8 Navy Patrol Bomber with it’s complement of UAV surveillance drones. Any weapon you want to haul and plenty of them. Overnight delivery anywhere in the world.

Reload3006
01-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Think I know a little about the B model Harrier as I worked on manufacturing them for a good portion of my career. The B model had a larger engine and upgraded avionics mostly to compensate for ground effect blast that caused a lot of pilots to assume they had touched down when in reality they were still several feet in the air. also a lot of composites were added.

JeffinNZ
01-05-2012, 05:25 PM
Bill: My understanding of the Harrier is that due to the age of design and the technology they were REAL tricky to fly. You had to be the sort of person who could pat their head, rub their belly and do maths equations all at the same time. You are 100% right about short legs and light load though. Four wing plyons and two always have to carry fuel. Not smart. That RR fan is THURSTY also. We have a GR3 Harrier in a local air museum. It is ex Falklands then spent time in Belize. Basically a BIG fan with wings.

All that said, given the task they were given at short notice in the South Atlantic, they did a remarkable job. Sidewinders just love a hot engine against a really cold background.

bowfin
01-05-2012, 06:03 PM
Gen Horner of the Air Force, the guy in charge of the
entire air war in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) said that the most dissappointing aircraft in that
war was the F16. He said it in an Aviation Week interview after the war was over. Same issue,no fuel for decent range, no significant weapons loads.

How did Horner ever get to be a general???

There was a reason the put an "F" in front of the -16 and not a "B". It wasn't designed to be a bomb truck, it was designed to dogfight Migs and the like.

I think what General Horner wanted was an F-16XL:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/artsmom/F-16XL_loaded_with_500lb_bombs.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/artsmom/101.jpg

The F-16XL could carry twice the bomb load twice as far as the F-16C.

Where the F-16 excelled was getting ordnance where it was needed fairly fast. Often, having one or two 500 pound bombs placed in a timely manner is more important than ten tons of bombs five minutes too late. Al Zarqawi's planned demise was switched from a house raid to a bomb strike at the last minute when a big group of bad guys went in the house, and a loitering F-16 scooted on over and dropped 2 500 lb. smart bombs in time.

Bret4207
01-05-2012, 06:33 PM
Think I know a little about the B model Harrier as I worked on manufacturing them for a good portion of my career. The B model had a larger engine and upgraded avionics mostly to compensate for ground effect blast that caused a lot of pilots to assume they had touched down when in reality they were still several feet in the air. also a lot of composites were added.

I used to deliver parts to the AV8 squadrons at Cherry Point. The main landing gear was something that they went through a lot of when the trainer squadrons got some noobies in. I was stout enough back then to lift one of those into a truck by myself. I think they were around 300 lbs.

The guys loved to to tell the story about the Air Farce jockey that came to train on the Harrier. Broke 4 airplanes in a week, mostly landing gear. Must have been that ground effect blast you mentioned.

Another time while engaged in training off the NC coast some Navy type put sea water in the Harrier instead of fresh water, I understand the engine uses water to cool it when hovering. When he got back they spent hours having crash crew spray fresh water towards the airplane to flush the salt water off. Weird- a water cooled jet airplane!

MtGun44
01-06-2012, 02:27 AM
The Cranked Arrow is what they called the prototype F16 you are calling the XL in your pix. It would
have been a better fighter AND a better bomber than the one we have with the tiny wings
and very little internal fuel. IIRC the Cranked Arrow F16 could carry something like 5 or 6 times the
bombs twice as far or maybe even better, it was a very long time ago, going on a leaky
memory.

I understand that the F16 was not intended for the missions that were needed in Desert
Storm. The problem is that it was ONLY a good close-in fighter for air to air mission. The
aircraft is, frankly, a neat peacetime toy, and in a modern battlefield, too specialized to be
of very much use. The adversaries that we had envisioned never happened. I still think that
in a US-Soviet big fight they would have been slaughtered by long and medium range missiles
before they ever even engaged with their only weapons - Sidewinders and 20mm. The Sparrow
was tested, but I do not think fielded in any way. I have read that the AMRAAM is usable and
has been tested, but apparently on a few have been set up to actually use them. This may
have changed in the last 5-10 yrs when I have not been paying as much attention.

I do not have the numbers in front of me, but if you are looking up max bomb load and max
range you can be certain that the two do NOT occur at the same time. I is my understanding
that with a STO the Harrier (AV-8B) bomb load and combat radius, AND time on station were
far inferior to the F14 and much less than the F18. With a VTO, you either carried nearly nothing
in the way of weapons or you carried weapons but had VERY short legs and no loiter at all.
Of course all of them lost out to the A6. Sadly, we spent hundreds of millions putting brand
new all carbon fiber wings on the entire fleet of A6s and then scrapped them all a few years
later. I never understood that one.

The F-4 and F-14 and F-15 were also designed as fighers purely for the air-to-air role. BUT
they had enough flexibility to work very well indeed in the air-to-sand mission. As a matter
of fact the F14 never dropped a bomb until it was about 30 yrs old. The F15E added conformal
fuel tanks and a back seat WSO to make a really excellent bomber. A good friend's younger
brother was a WSO on 15 Echoes and was part time on Horner's staff during Desert Storm,
and was where I first heard how dissappointed the planners were in the F16, and how much
Horner came to see it's very limited role in that type of war. Wrong kind of war for what the
F16 can do.

As to the Falklands, the Harriers did a magnificent job in a situation that they should never
have had to be in. The Winders (AIM-9L IIRC) had a nearly 100% success rate, IIRC only
one failed to hit and it guided all the way but the shot was out of range and it fell off, out
of glide. The British pilots, sailors and soldiers did a really impressive job, but the sad truth
is that the British government has been closing down the military and the cupboard was
very nearly bare when they were called upon to fight in the Falklands. They had very nearly
totally given up the ability to project power that way. Not the fault of the troops, but of the
politicians. The troops made up for the lack of equipment with pure guts. They literally went
to a junkyard to recover the aerial refueling systems from their bombers so that they could
reinstall them and get ONE Vulcan to the Falklands for one stick of bombs with something
like 17 Victors tag team refueling each other to get the fuel far enough out there to refuel the
Vulcan to make it to the Falklands and back. Heroic for sure, but sad that they had to do it
that way.

As to that Harrier crash rate, IIRC they lost several due to engine failures from immediately
before my nephew started and during his training. He was never one to like that airplane
very much. Bret is right that they use water to keep from melting the engine during hover.
The early Boeing 707s used water injection the exact same way. They called them the
"water wagons" and they smoked amazingly on takeoff for long range flights when they
needed the extra thrust and used the water injection.

Back to my original comment, which I stand by:

I hope the F35 STOVL USMC version is a more effective aircraft than the Harrier was/is.

Bill

Russel Nash
01-06-2012, 03:15 AM
The Air Force did try to make the F-16 into a ground attack aircraft with the A-16 version. I think there is a FLIR just below the cockpit windshield in this picture:

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/pitcairn/155/a16fightingfalcon.jpg

I would imagine that the F-16 and the F-15 were both initially designed at a time (the early 1970's .... or...heck! maybe even the late 1960s) when we thought we were going to send fighter bomber packages over the north pole to drop nukes on the then Soviet Union.

And/or...they were designed as an intercept type of plane to shoot down the Russian bombers coming our way to drop bombs on the continental U.S.

the F-117 was never a fighter. never had a gun on it. and IIRC, it never carried any air to air missiles. it was meant strictly to be a bomber. I think the "F" designation was meant just to throw people off.

When I was at Eglin once for a TDY with a fighter squadron, the F-15 pilots obviously didn't like bomb training and they called it the "b-word".

I remember General Horner speaking to us. He came across as a down to earth "awww...shucks" kinda guy. He said that the problem with the A-10 was that it could take a whole lot of damage and keep on flying. Then he compared it to the F-16. He said that was a better aircraft to have because it was meant more or less to be disposable, and it couldn't take a whole lot of damage.
Yeah, I know weird.

Twenty years later his comments still have me scratching my head.

Maybe he was being sarcastic.

Or maybe he was pissed that the PTB had decided on that aircraft instead.

I think there were some shenanigans going on with the light fighter competition back in the 1970's.

If McDonnel-Douglas had put more powerful engines in their then YF-17, I think the Air Force would have bought it. The YF-17 went on to become the F-18.

Just an interesting side note of history...Israel was about to buy some Mirage fighter jets off the French, I think it was. That deal fell through, and Israel bought our F-16's instead. This was the early 1980's, if I remember right. I think it was Iraq was working on a nuclear reactor at the time that would also let them make nuclear material for a bomb. The Israel's flew like low level the whole way to the boonies of Iraq...over I guess Syria and Iran...I would have to look at a map. Blew up the nuclear reactor. Then flew back to Israel totally undetected.

Pretty dang ballsey!

The lead guy for that mission went on to become a NASA astronaut, and died a few years back on the space shuttle Colombia I think it was ??? when it blew up on re-entry.

Getting back more on topic....

I am not too caught up in this F-22 vs. F-35 issue....or that we need a whole new fighter right now, period.

These other nations might be able to put out a better fighter, but I think their tactics and training regimens both suck.

Besides that, I am thinking that they don't have the infrastructure in place as far as force multipliers go....aerial refueling for one...electronic/radar jamming (yeah, I know the EF-111's were retired, by I think we still have EA-6B's), the better skilled ground forces that could laser designate a target if they have to, AWAC's airborne command centers, and unmanned drones.

JeffinNZ
01-06-2012, 03:42 AM
AIM-9L is correct. Nine Lima's they called the Sidewinders Bill. There is some good footage of a Harrier putting one right up the tail pipe of an A4.

Cap'n Morgan
01-06-2012, 04:41 AM
I am not too caught up in this F-22 vs. F-35 issue....or that we need a whole new fighter right now, period.


Seems you're not the only one:

http://takimag.com/article/the_golden_dodo_bird_in_the_sky

Bret4207
01-06-2012, 07:09 AM
Just to add another angle to the discussion- http://www.theblaze.com/stories/check-out-the-super-tucano-counterinsurgency-fighter-plane-in-action/

bowfin
01-06-2012, 12:11 PM
The problem is that it was ONLY a good close-in fighter for air to air mission. The
aircraft is, frankly, a neat peacetime toy, and in a modern battlefield, too specialized to be
of very much use.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/artsmom/Aircraft/800px-F-16netz002.jpg

This F-16 has been pretty useful.

Those markings are seven aerial victories and the odd one is for bombing the Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak.

Reload3006
01-06-2012, 12:22 PM
The F15 has never lost an aerial combat to another aircraft. But it is a very old design. 1968 The F22 is far superior. but it was IMO an inferior choice to the YF-23 but once again politicians did the picking. The F35 is far superior to anything in is class. But I still thing the B version is a piss poor choice for maintenance reasons. they could have done the same thing with thrust vectoring and no mechanical drive train as is in the B model which I believe is a huge cost disadvantage as well as maintenance issues. The Harrier has a far superior vertical lift and hover capability. All the above being said They are a very expensive aircraft and in my opinion tasked with too many roles to be superior at any of them. The program needs killed

felix
01-06-2012, 12:55 PM
It seems to me they all are toys anymore. Gotta' keep the employment up. The existing planes are good enough using constantly updated mechanicals, but mainly the electronics for all functions on and off of the plane. Gas mileage is poor on all of them, even with the A10, my favorite because of ease of use (according to the pilots living around here who are usually checked out in a bunch of models, including C130s). ... felix

Artful
01-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Besides that, I am thinking that they don't have the infrastructure in place as far as force multipliers go....aerial refueling for one...electronic/radar jamming (yeah, I know the EF-111's were retired, by I think we still have EA-6B's), the better skilled ground forces that could laser designate a target if they have to, AWAC's airborne command centers, and unmanned drones.

Don't we have the EA-18G coming on board to replace the EA-6B's and EF-111's ?

But I agree for Felix the manned fighters are all due to be replaced by cheaper unmanned fighters in the future.

MakeMineA10mm
01-06-2012, 04:29 PM
Bill,
Your right about discrepencies in data, but these (the comparisons I posted above) are pretty close comparisons:

FA-18C:
Combat radius: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-to-air mission
9 external hardpoints with a capacity of 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) payload.


AV-8B:
Combat radius: 300 nmi (350 mi, 556 km) (Doesn't mention if it's air-to-air or air-to-ground, but it does say this is with a 1000' STO.)
6 external pylons holding up to 13,200 lb (5,988 kg) of payload. (My guess is this is a max with a conventional, long runway take-off.)

Source: Great Book of Modern Warplanes, edited by Mike Spick (my copy is from 1996, so it pre-dates the Super Hornet.)

Also, bear in mind the US has never operated the Harrier as a VTO aircraft, except at airshows and in Europe to try and persuade the Soviets their anti-runway bombing plans were a waste of time (propoganda).

Here's an interesting read that proves both of us are right:
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/av8b-harrier-finding-success-in-iraq-0256/

:D

felix
01-06-2012, 05:10 PM
That is indeed true, Art! The A10 pilot here (next door neighbor) has been a computer pilot for 2 years, which is becoming a typical maximum rotation span. The job is easier than the typical airport traffic controller's job by far, and is very much like what the airline pilots I know say about their long range routes. Extreme boredom with absolute moments of terror! The terror with the drones is about collateral damage inflicted for the most part. ... felix

bowfin
01-06-2012, 05:49 PM
The existing planes are good enough using constantly updated mechanicals

The F-35 and F-22 are "stealthy", while the F-16s and variants of both the F-18s and F-15s are not.

I vote for the best possible over good enough when lives are at stake.

felix
01-06-2012, 06:02 PM
That is called robots/drones/mercenaries. ... felix

Reload3006
01-06-2012, 06:06 PM
Don't we have the EA-18G coming on board to replace the EA-6B's and EF-111's ?

But I agree for Felix the manned fighters are all due to be replaced by cheaper unmanned fighters in the future.

you are correct there is now an operational squadron of EA-18Gs and they are to replace the EA-6bs I dont think that the Air Force is on board with the EA-18s we have been working on an electronic attack for the B52 for the Air Force. I would imagine Lockheed will intro an electronic attack version of the F35

JeffinNZ
01-06-2012, 07:42 PM
I don't know about unmanned fighters. Remember the faith the US put in air to air missiles to the point the original F4's had no cannon?

bowfin
01-07-2012, 12:06 AM
But I agree for Felix the manned fighters are all due to be replaced by cheaper unmanned fighters in the future

The possibility that Iran either jammed or hacked an advanced drone of ours and snatched it might cause some rethinking of the above.

Great Britain decided 45 years ago that missiles had made manned fighters and aircraft carriers obsolete. Then the Falklands War happened...

Russel Nash
01-07-2012, 12:29 AM
bowfin wrote:


The possibility that Iran either jammed or hacked an advanced drone of ours and snatched it might cause some rethinking of the above.

To be frank, I think that is the most bull poop laiden story, ever.

Look at this pic...why hang banners off the leading edges of the wings?

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/iran-exhibits-captured-US-drone.jpg

because it is a mockup sitting on wooden sawhorses.

the Iranians have been known to fake stuff in the past, too:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/01/science/0709-lede-IRAN.jpg

Russel Nash
01-07-2012, 12:34 AM
The F-35 and F-22 are "stealthy", while the F-16s and variants of both the F-18s and F-15s are not.

I vote for the best possible over good enough when lives are at stake.

Didn't somebody already that the F-35 or the F-22 doesn't come with a cannon, and you would have to hang a cannon off a hardpoint....

doesn't that negate any stealthy characteristics if you have to start hanging stuff off of hardpoints?

Reload3006
01-07-2012, 12:38 AM
if you hang ordnance off of external hard points it will diminish the stealth ability of the aircraft.

MtGun44
01-07-2012, 01:51 AM
Great to hear that they got the engine failure situation under control. For a while the Harrier was
very unreliable, and they lost a lot of pilots. The examples of Harriers using roads and keeping
the range from "airport" to target short is something that only the Harrier can do. Good to hear
that they were able to use it. I don't think it is working that way in Afghanistan. I had heard that
the "Bombcat" (F-14) was one of the most effective aircraft because of very long loiter time.

Has a US F16 EVER made an air-to-air kill?

I have no doubt that if the battle is short range air-to-air right over the F16 base (not literally,
but close) so external fuel is not necessary, then the F16 is an excellent solution. This sounds
like Israeli, air-to-air situation.

BUT, if you need to send a group of 4 F16s against a group of 4 Sukhoi 27s and the Sukhois
have AA-12 missiles with 20-30 nm range, about half of the F16s will not even survive to the
merge, yet they did not (and probably still do not have, in most instances) have any long range
capability to attrite the Su-27s before the merge. Sorry, in a serious air-to-air large scale battle,
having no medium/long range air-to-air capability is a critical deficiency.

Definitely something fishy about the Iran drone story. It probably had an engine failure and crashed
and they patched it up a bit and put it on sawhorses and hung banners to make it look intact. Experts
have said that the theoretically just barely possible GPS spoofing that the Iranians claim the did is
impossible in real life. IF they had ANYTHING to do with the drone's crash, I would think it is nothing
more than creating enough electrical noise to drown out the control signals. A strong transmitter
close can always drown out a far away transmitter.

Bill

Russel Nash
01-07-2012, 02:32 AM
from Wikipedia:


The AMRAAM was used for the first time on 27 December 1992, when a USAF F-16D shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 that violated the southern no-fly-zone. Interestingly enough, this missile was returned from the flight line as defective a day earlier. AMRAAM gained a second victory in January 1993 when an Iraqi MiG-23 was shot down by a USAF F-16C.
The third combat use of the AMRAAM was in 1994, when a Republika Srpska Air Force J-21 Jastreb aircraft was shot down by a USAF F-16C that was patrolling the UN-imposed no-fly-zone over Bosnia. In that engagement at least 3 other Serbian aircraft were shot down by USAF F-16C fighters using AIM-9 missiles (see Banja Luka incident for more details). At that point three launches in combat resulted in three kills, resulting in the AMRAAM being informally named "slammer" in the second half of the 1990s.

so, yeah, you can put an AMRAAM on an F-16, and yes, the F-16 in USAF hands has shot down planes in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

MtGun44
01-07-2012, 11:57 AM
Good to hear. For a long time the F16 had zero capability longer than the Sidewinder. I
wonder what portion of the fleet has been upgraded. Last report I heard on the AMRAAM
on the F16 was years ago, and they only had a small number modified to operate with
the AMRAAM. Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate, says "some" can use the Sparrow,
and "more recent" models can use the AIM-120 AMRAAM. I hope that by now it is
all of them, they really need that capability.

I've always considered lack of long range capability one of the key weaknesses of the
aircraft. If they have fixed that across the fleet, then the plane is far more capable than
it was previously. Too bad it took 20-25 yrs to do this.

A quick look at online lists shows 4 AMRAAM kills and 3 Sidewinder kills for USAF F-16s.
Ironic that the majority kills were with a weapon type that the original design rejected
conceptually. I am still convinced that the concept of a light fighter that intentionally
completely gives up medium or long range missile capability to maximize the capability in the
close in turning air-to-air fight is wrong headed. In certain situations it can be very effective,
but the lack of ability to engage beyond Sidewinder range is like a soldier with only
a pistol as a weapon. Israel is a great fit for the original F16 capabilities, a very small country so
short range is not a problem for self defense missions and fewer large, long range fighter group against
fighter group missions. More short range swirling dogfights, where the F16 is absolutely superb.
Credit where credit is due, they did build an awesome close-in air to air fighter, no question.

But this is like a Grand Master IPSC shooter. Against 4 guys in a space like a square range,
the outcome is predetermined, the extremely skilled pistolero can deliver A hits so fast that
it is difficult for most to imagine. Against a squad of riflemen starting at 300 yds, not so good.

Adding the medium range missile capability is a HUGE improvement for the effectiveness of the
aircraft.

Leaving off the medium range capability for the F16 was just as dumb as leaving the gun off of the
F4. In either case, the aircraft capability was narrowed critically by small minds that thought that
all future battles would fit into some neat box of what "future war" was going to be like.

You need a rifle AND a pistol.

Back to the original thread point - The F35; it will be able to carry AIM-120s, Sidewinders and the new
short range replacement for the Sidewinder, and it has a gun. It should be well armed.

Bill

Recluse
01-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Bill,

Keep in mind that the F-16 was never designed, nor developed to be a long-range interceptor, but rather a rapid-response air-superiority fighter. The AAMRAM (Slammer) was still on the drawing board when the F-16s were being delivered to Hill Air Force Base and the famed 388th TFW.

For what it's worth, the F-15, without external drop tanks and air-to-air refueling also has a limited combat range. The Eagle has the same engine as the Falcon, only two of them, with the aircraft's gross weight almost double that of the Falcon.

Both fighters were designed for external drop tanks and/or air-to-air refueling upon launch. In 1979, we did some scenarios at Red Flag in which we tried to simulate some old SE Asia missions where KC-135s weren't always available, and just like in Vietnam, the missions were a failure.

When the missions were altered and the -135s added, along with the EC-135s, a whole nother picture emerged.

The primary weapon of the F-16 was the AIM9J and AIM9L, both effective for the airplane's mission. The cannon was obligatory because the AF learned their mistake with the prototype F4. I'm trying to recall if an Eagle or a Falcon has EVER fired their cannon in a real air-to-air situation. Strafing runs, yes, but air-to-air I don't think so.

Upon entering service, the early operational plans for the -16s were to fly HA (high altitude) cover for F-15s. In this combination, the two planes were simply incredible. We flew unbelievable sorties at Red Flag in which we would even "ambush" the Eagles and Falcons with 3:1 and 4:1 bogey advantages and every single time, the Eagle/Falcon combinations would prevail handily.

The Falcon was never designed to be a bomb truck. It was designed to be extremely low maintenance (which it is), fast off the ground, quick into the fray, shoot 'em in the lips, then come back home. Likewise, it was also designed to be an effective patrol fighter when using air-to-air refueling support and external tanks.

Air-to-air kills? The F-16 has 'em. I remember in April 1981 we were in Israel when the idiot Syrians (redundant) got frisky and donated several more smoking holes in the desert courtesy of the Israeli F-16s. The F-16s did well in Bosnia while enforcing no-fly zones (patrol operations), etc.

The Falcon was designed as a true dogfighter (ie, the 9.5 G capabilities, 30 degree inclined seat, etc) at a time in which aerial combat advantages and scores were barely working out to our favor. Keep in mind our less than stellar record in Vietnam, thus the design and entry into service of the Eagle and the Falcon.

Today, dogfighting rarely exists. It's "take off, tank, whisper to the AWACS, acquire target, release missiles, RTB." No wonder we're going to more mindless drone delivery systems. . .

In its day, the F-16 was a heckuva bargain, too, at just a shade over $10 million off the production line. I saw a lot of the world while in the AF when we traveled to all the NATO countries that had purchased them (albeit with the J79 GE engines rather than the PW100s) and trained their pilots and air crews.

I'm not sure the AF, today, can even conceptualize a plain old horizontal stab that costs less than $50 million. . .

The -16 is a good aircraft when used within its operational designs and concepts. Problem is, too many ringknocker generals have clean hands and no clue how to properly use the tools in their toolbox, and worse yet, they rarely listen to those who do.

:coffee:

bowfin
01-07-2012, 02:12 PM
To be frank, I think that is the most bull poop laden story, ever.

Perhaps, but the issue of jamming and hacking stands, whether the Iranians did it or not.

Once you send signals through the air, if, where, and how they end up is always a concern. That's why I hate the idea of our big shots wanting to hook their Blackberries and laptops up to our network wirelessly.

MtGun44
01-07-2012, 05:32 PM
recluse,

I have read and very much respect Boyd and his theories. There is nothing at all wrong with
the F-16 NOW for air-to-air, but all fighters eventually become bombers, even the mighty
Tomcat, that never carried a bomb in it's first 20+ yrs in the fleet. Making the F-16
incapable of using the Sparrow when it first flew was extremely foolish. Giving a fighter pilot
NO capability beyond about 15-18 miles AIM-9 range is critical if the opposition has medium
range air-to-air weapons available. If half of your forces are destroyed prior to getting into
into weapons range, this is devastating.

All modern fighters have enough thrust to keep their energy up in extreme maneuvering,
and can be controlled at extremely high angles of attack due to strakes and other aero
innovations. Boyd's concepts are integrated into the program now, but -- we do not have
many adversaries now that actually have any significant air-to-air capability. A number of
the F16 kills were 1960s vintage very low performance trainers being used as bombers.
Not much of a challenge. Nothing much air-to-air in Iraq, zero in Afghanistan.

Dependence on air superiority for drones to work is foolish. The idea that your air force
(drones) depend on the enemy having no air-to-air capability at all AND no capability to
jam signals is like believing in the tooth fairy. It can work against adversaries with no
technology beyond an AK-47 and RPG, but nobody else.

The limited detection range of the stealthy F35 will help protect it from medium range weapons
since it can't be detected at beyond visual range. This is the biggest difference between the
last generation of fighters and the coming/new generation. Stealthy handicaps long range
weapons against them a huge amount.

Bill

GabbyM
01-07-2012, 08:18 PM
Dependence on air superiority for drones to work is foolish. The idea that your air force
(drones) depend on the enemy having no air-to-air capability at all AND no capability to
jam signals is like believing in the tooth fairy. It can work against adversaries with no
technology beyond an AK-47 and RPG, but nobody else.

Bill

I agree.

Just a bit of FYI. Several types of computer jamming go back to the seventies at least. Essentially every since we’ve had computer controlled combat systems.
Our US Navy goes to great measure to prevent it’s ships combat systems from exposure to enemy jamming. I’m not talking about the signals sent back and forth I mean the computer itself inside the box. I don’t have a clue how they’d manage this on a fiber cloth drone aircraft.

Bret4207
01-07-2012, 08:30 PM
Bill and all, I'm not up on the latest and greatest stuff, but I do recall an interesting story. Back in the late 70's I was TDY to Yuma for some sort of Red Flag/Top Gun type deal, I forget what it was called. At that time the hot USMC airplane was the Phantom with A4s (M's I think) being the back up. I don't know who was flying them, but our guys had to go up against what they referred to as "cheap little toy airplanes"- F-5s. I had never even seen an F-5 before and knew zilch about them. I guess our guys hadn't either 'cuz they all came back "DEAD"! Quite a shock I heard.

Another airplane that "killed" a couple of our young tigers was an OV-10 Bronco. I heard that the chatter got kinda nasty and something unkind was said about "low and slow" and those who would try and call themselves pilots in such a hunk of junk. Next thing you know the Bronco was at tree top level doing about 60 mph and our guys lost them entirely until the air to air warning sounded! Maybe I got the terminology wrong, but a lock is a lock and our big mouths were "dead"!

I miss some of those guys. Carried a couple of them off a mountain in South Korea in pieces.

Reload3006
01-07-2012, 08:37 PM
Ya know the poor ole slow MC AV8-B gets a bad rap but has been a truck for the Corps and the Brits have done a lot with them. We have a tendency to look down our noses at them but have you ever considered how you would dog fight one? You had best shoot them from a distance with a fire and forget because if you try to dog fight one it will just stop one you then shoot you down. Wicked bird. I feel very privileged to have been involved in the manufacture if the B model until we completed the contract. a Brilliant bird I haven't met a MC pilot that had anything bad to say about them as well.

GabbyM
01-07-2012, 08:45 PM
Also with all this discussion about long range radar guided missiles.
One needs to take into consideration the ability of a missile antenna to pick up a radar reflection is range dependant upon how powerful the radar projector from an aircraft is.
AA missiles like the AMRAM will self guide the last leg of flight by transmitting there own radiation. That’s why you can fly one off a little F-16. Even then it’s best done with an assisting source of radiation. The old F-14 had a huge radar for a fighter planes. Plus they had an optical system that has not been replaced in service. Ships of the US Navy have tremendous Radar Power. This illumination can provide reflections off targets hundreds of miles away so the fighters have no need to even turn on there radar transmitters. Which gives away there position to foes TWS. This is why you don’t see planes from lets say Libya in the past days flying into a 6th fleet carrier battle group. Back in the day the Sparrow missiles had poor performance out over Hanoi with the little F4 radar. But over the fleet area of operation you never saw a Mig get inside. They were like deer caught in the head lights.

Even with AMRAM the little planes need a source of radiation greater than there nose radar to target. We have that with ships and AWAC type aircraft.

Much of the program cancellations have been a direct reflection of arms treaties with Russia and suck up behind the scenes to China. They do not want us to have any aircraft like the old A6. Which was task for decades to fly off the sixth fleet carriers one way to Russia with two MK 48 nuke bombs. So now we can sail in far away waters with our carriers since we’ve nothing on board to threaten them with. Just like little floating Wal-Marts. Defending middle east oil so tankers can keep floating it to China. After all how else would those godless slime under bid my hourly labor rate.

Eisenhower knew what he spoke.

MtGun44
01-07-2012, 08:53 PM
A Harrier can do things in a turning fight that are impossible for a conventional aircraft. They
use their thrust vectoring - called VIFFing for Vectoring In Forward Flight. You would not
want to get into a tight turning fight with a clean, light Harrier where the pilot had a clue or
two.

Bret- you're right. The F-5 and A-4 as adversary birds were formidable when driven by
experienced pilots. My brother flew F4s and F14s and he said the A4 Top Gun aircraft (two seaters
with larger than normal engines) and the F5s were pretty difficult in a turning fight, mostly
because they were very hard to see. Again, the trick with something like an F14 would be to
take out the adversary beyond his short range missile's max range. OTOH, a good F14 driver
could win against an F-5, but had to be careful. The F-14 had the Phoenix (AIM-54) which
could kill out to over 100 miles, but it was very rare to get weapons free beyond visual range
due to fear of shooting one of our own.

As to the Bronco - my Dad flew in the Navy and in WW2 he got jumped (stateside, just for
fun) by a P-38, when he was flying an FM-2 Wildcat (bigger engined F4F Grumman Wildcat
made by GM). He out turned the P-38, who came screaming by with full flaps and shuddering
on the edge of a stall trying to turn with the FM-2. Dad then rolled back into him and formed up
on him. The P-38 was trying to fight him and he just flew formation on him. Of course the problem
is that you have a tiger by the tail. The FM-2 (or Bronco) cannot decide that the fight is over and
the faster aircraft can disengage and reengage at will, make multiple slashing hit and run attacks
until he gets hits.

The trick is that the lower wing loading aircraft can create angle rates that make a nearly
impossible gunfire solution for an attacker by turning hard into him when the attacker is just
out of range. You can play this game for a long time, and even occasionally the slower guy
may get a gun solution, and could win. Definitely dangerous for a complacent hotshot guy
in the faster plane, but the pucker factor for the slower guy is VERY high, and he cannot
afford to make any mistakes. There was a SBD Dauntless that got jumped by half a dozen
Zeros in WW2 when he was all by his lonesome. By doing this last second turn into the
Zekes, he managed to avoid getting hit and shot down two of them with his two .50 cal
cowl guns. His rear gunner kept trying to help but kept getting knocked unconcious by
the pilot pulling 9 Gs (diver bombers can do it, but they are slowing down when they do)
and wasn't much use. Eventually the Zeros decided it was not any fun any more and left
and the SBD cruised on home. Beware of the skilled guy with inferior equipment that knows
what he is doing.

There was a Skyraider A-1 that killed a MiG in 'Nam this way. The Skyraider is massively out
classed by the MiG, far slower, but can turn MUCH tighter if the weapons load is low due to that
huge bomb hauler wing. Combine that with 3 or 4 20 mike-mikes in each wing and when the
Skyraider cranks around headon to the MiG and the leading edges start winking at him - it could
be bad. My guess is that the MiG driver was just a bit complacent. IIRC, the Spad driver was a
fighter pilot in WW2 or Korea that had rotated into an Attack Squadron later, so he had a good
idea of what to do in an air-to-air fight. Surprise! You're dead.

Bill

GabbyM
01-07-2012, 09:08 PM
Ya know the poor ole slow MC AV8-B gets a bad rap but has been a truck for the Corps and the Brits have done a lot with them. We have a tendency to look down our noses at them but have you ever considered how you would dog fight one? You had best shoot them from a distance with a fire and forget because if you try to dog fight one it will just stop one you then shoot you down. Wicked bird. I feel very privileged to have been involved in the manufacture if the B model until we completed the contract. a Brilliant bird I haven't met a MC pilot that had anything bad to say about them as well.

Any modern aircraft in the last thirty years will out turn the ability of any pilot to stay awake. It's all in the missile you have on board and mostly the big slow planes or a ship setting you up for a shot at your enemies back side. When you hear BS like it’s a small plane that’s hard to see call out BS. I can see a button weed in a soy been field a mile away from the air.

We need air superiority fighter like an F22. Which is out of production. Then Attack aircraft to deliver the goods.

There may be more to these new planes than is advertised. Our elected Congress are the only ones who have the security clearance to hear the issue then decide where to spend OUR money. Problem I have is Congress is populated by a pile of scum.

F22 was canceled because Russia and China didn’t like the idea of us having a defense for us sending in our bombers. P3, P8, B52 , B1, B2 . Into their area. With no escort we can’t send them. An arms race is avoided and our competitors on the world manufacturing market need not spend money on defense. In this way they can underbid my labor. Thus keeping me in a slave status to the dirt bags that run this world. Thus we end up with a neutered military.

In case any of you have never considered why we have a military. And why societies for the last ten thousand years have had militaries. It’s so we can improve our standard of living in a competitive world. UDH.
Now we have the new world order. hurrah.

Bret4207
01-07-2012, 10:34 PM
Much of the program cancellations have been a direct reflection of arms treaties with Russia and suck up behind the scenes to China. They do not want us to have any aircraft like the old A6. Which was task for decades to fly off the sixth fleet carriers one way to Russia with two MK 48 nuke bombs. So now we can sail in far away waters with our carriers since we’ve nothing on board to threaten them with. Just like little floating Wal-Marts. Defending middle east oil so tankers can keep floating it to China. After all how else would those godless slime under bid my hourly labor rate.

Eisenhower knew what he spoke.

I remember when I first got to Cherry Point and was assigned to an A4 Squadron (VMA223) in the same hanger as a Phantom squadron. Man, I was just beside myself with those big ol' sexy airplanes! Then I saw my first A6. If there is an uglier airplane in the world, other than the Guppy, I haven't seen it. I made the mistake/had the good fortune to open my mouth about that subject in front of an older Gunny who proceeded to offer up about 2 hours of lecture on just how great the A6 had looked to him dropping bombs and other nasty stuff on VC a few years before. Then an older mustang Captain (great guy!) got into it and then a pilot or 3 that used to fly the A6 got involved, Before long they had half the squadron standing there transfixed listening to gruesome and flamboyant war stories. It was great! I went to the base library that night, got out the Janes books and found out a whole bunch of stuff on our airplanes. I also figured out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and "low and slow" is the Marines best friend when it's dropping ordnance on the other guys.

Took me a while to figure the EA6B out. I was a hick kid from Podunk NY where they really did roll the streets up at 9PM. I almost thought they were serious when they said it had started out as a 3 seater, but you needed 4 seats for a good game of poker. I did find out that when the Gunny said "DON'T-TOUCH-THAT" it was because "THAT" had about 27 thousand bazillion volts running through it and would fry my tender young self into a cinder in nothing flat.

God invented Gunnery Sgts to keep morons like me alive long enough to become Gunnery Sgts ourselves, maybe...someday.:drinks:

Reload3006
01-07-2012, 10:49 PM
Gabby your preaching to the choir. I am an employee of McDonnell Douglas Boeing for the last 30+ years. I have had the good fortune to work on all the said aircraft. I agree that politicians have done the picking for more than foreign treaty reasons the party in power uses these contracts to pad their states budgets. Working voters are usually happy voters. Since the politicians dont have to sit in the seat of these aircraft they really dont care if they are the best option or not. Look at John McCain flying around in Airbus airplanes bad mouthing Boeing ... I didnt get it i suppose he would rather employ French than Americans. I have nothing against our French friends. But one would think that a US Senator would prefer US companies to European.

Bret4207
01-07-2012, 11:09 PM
What makes you think the French are our friends?

Reload3006
01-07-2012, 11:17 PM
Well I am not to crazy about them .. but they have the best mil surp rifles ... never fired and only dropped once :-D

MtGun44
01-08-2012, 01:13 AM
You can call BS all day, you're wrong. I have talked to multiple pilots that have done mock
air to air combat against F5s and A4s and they all agree that they are easy to lose visually and
hard to find when you are in a hard turning fight. The head-on aspect is the worst.
The F4 Phantom had the significant disability that the J79 engines were smokers and they
were easy to find - they were at the front of that long smoke trail.

Also, you can't be a Navy pilot if you don't have superior vision. I wanted to do it but had glasses
and that was the end of that idea.

Bill

MtGun44
01-08-2012, 01:16 AM
Bret - I have heard great stories about the A6, too. Seems like there was a NV bridge that
the AF attacked with dozens of aircraft for a week or so, never took it out. The Navy sent in
a few (seems like 2 or 4) unescorted A6s at treetop level and they took out the bridge.

Bill

Recluse
01-08-2012, 02:28 AM
recluse,

I have read and very much respect Boyd and his theories. There is nothing at all wrong with
the F-16 NOW for air-to-air, but all fighters eventually become bombers, even the mighty
Tomcat, that never carried a bomb in it's first 20+ yrs in the fleet.

Actually, from the outset the F-16 was a very reliable bomber. I spent a lot more time over and at the Wendover range in western Utah (aka Spider City) than I certainly cared to, and the sole purpose of that range and those exercises and sorties was to explore the F-16's expanded role as a ground support bomber.

The F-16 was also, I believe, the first fighter in the USAF inventory to carry FLIR pods and bombs, which was the precursor to the LANTIRN system we used in Desert Storm. The FLIR system at the time utilized the REO screen, which sat directly in between the pilot's knees. The SMS (weapons system management) sat up and to the left of the REO and you could select your weapons store from either the throttle controls or using your left hand (taken off the throttle) where you could manually punch in your selected weapons. Bombs were always programmed into the SMS and locations were always programmed into the INS (inertial navigation system).

Also remember that one of the best bombs we had was carried routinely by the F-16 and that was the AIM-65 Maverick, both the infrared and the TV/optical guided. And again, both guidance systems utilized the REO and its crosshair navigation system which allowed you to "drive the bomb right in the front door."

I think the Air Force didn't really know how to fully or best utilize the little hot rod airplane that could do so much, so typical of the Air Force and military in general, they underutilized it in the first Block one through five models when most improvements and additions/design changes are made in USAF inventory aircraft. The TOs (technical orders) also reflect the lack of changes. What changes there were primarily dealt with the wiring matrixes, EPU, and giving the sidestick controller a bit more play.

The original Block One F-16's sidestick, when hydraulics were up and at pressure, had less than 1/16" total movement. This was TRULY an airplane where when you "think turn, it turns. When you think climb, it climbs." If you recall, we made a lot of smoking holes in the Utah desert out of those early Block One models, too. By the time the Block Ten (one, five, ten is how the incremental design changes went) became operational in 1981, the stick had between 1/4" and 1/3" inch movement and was MUCH more agreeable to fly.

This increased controlability (sp?) also significantly aided in better and more accurate bomb/ordinance placement, but by then. . .


Making the F-16
incapable of using the Sparrow when it first flew was extremely foolish. Giving a fighter pilot
NO capability beyond about 15-18 miles AIM-9 range is critical if the opposition has medium
range air-to-air weapons available. If half of your forces are destroyed prior to getting into
into weapons range, this is devastating.

Bill

Agree. Agree. Agree and agree some more.

No idea why the Sparrow wasn't incorporated into the initial design, but was told by engineers on site at Hill AFB when we took delivery that the absence of the Sparrow was at the specific request of the Pentagon.

Again, ringknockers whose flying days were well behind them, and even then, most had never seen air combat. I do know and remember well that there were tremendous politics involved with not just weapons systems on USAF aircraft back then, but with the actual ordinance themselves. I think most of us lost count the number of briefings we used to have to sit through from the ordinance factory weenies, and I know for a fact we got tired of seeing them at the bomb ranges and Red Flags.

Now also keep in mind, as far as range and the such goes, that this was a first-response fighter designed specifically for bases like Pusan in Korea, where the famed 4th TFW, aka the Wolfpack, flew and patrolled the 38th parallel. We also sent F-16s to bases like Torrejón Air Base (Spain) and Hahn AFB (Germany) that had strategic proximity to counterpart fighter/bomber bases in the Soviet Union.

This was all back in the good old days of SAC, TAC and MAC when you had to jump through the turf hoops to get SAC to shake loose with tankers and MAC to shake loose with -130s or -141s (talk about your dogs!) for support transport.

As I understand from today's AF folks, ACC (Air Combat Command) has consolidated a lot of that mess and streamlined the missions. If only we could've had that back in our day. . .

Worldwide, the F-16 has over 65 confirmed air-to-air kills with, not surprisingly, the Israeli Air Defense Force owning over 45 of those kills.

Having worked with them and trained them back in 1980 at Hill, and then again at Romon IAFB in the Negev, my own opinion as to the large number of kills they claim (besides the obvious--they're always fighting for survival) boil down to the following:

1. They are **** hot pilots. Sorry for the censored word, but in military pilot lingo, that's what they're called. Period. And they live up to it.

2. The Israeli pilots are far, far less unencumbered by the political BS and "collateral damage" worries that are pilots are.

3. This is perhaps most relevant of all. . . The Israelis utilize the F-16 the way it was designed to operate. Low, in close, shoot you in the lips, drive bombs in your front door, use the incredibly low-profile of the aircraft to avoid visual detection, and they fly an awful lot of B models (two-seaters) so that the backseater can acto both as a weapons officer, but more importantly, a second set of eyes.

Yes, the kills were/are often against older technology, but same can be said for the majority of the Tomcat, Eagle and Hornet's kills as well.

The thing about the Israeli kills, however, is in April 1981, as we witnessed firsthand while over there, the Israelis are often jumped by opposing forces and face a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio in terms of one Israeli F-16 or F-15 against three or four (sometimes more) MiG21s or 23s.

The F-16's biggest problem in today's military is overcoming the institutional prejudice against single-engine aircraft. Because of that, it was--and is--often treated as a second class citizen.

It's been said the only thing worse than not having a second powerplant is not having the ability to go supersonic, thus the staggering prejudices against the A-10. The prejudices that exist against both proven aircraft simply reinforce my contempt for 98% of all USAF generals and USN admirals.

Odd thing is, whenever there is a crash of either airplane, those same damned flag officers can't heap enough praise on the aircraft in question and turn the blame to the "incompetent junior officer misflying that outstanding tool of war that we procured hundreds of millions of dollars to build and buy."

Flag officers. You can have them. All of them.

:coffee:

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 02:52 AM
AGM-65....

Aaa

Geee

eeMMM

air to ground missile 65

and it, as you already know is called HOTAS....hands on throttle and stick. yeah from a human factors perspective, they did add a little more movement to stick on the F-16.

as far as flag officers, I think it is a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" sorta thing with Generals approving or recommending a particular weapons platform especially in a certain congressional district BECAUSE!!! the generals get confirmed for their first star, and for every star after that, by the U.S. legislators.

I don't doubt that there is this "Hey, Brigadier General Smith, this is Congressman Doe, if you give the green light for the XYZ Program, my constituents certainly would be grateful for having more work in our district....I hear you'll be eligible for your second star soon....." wink wink nod nod.

conversely, with the BRAC base closures, I am sure there are some power plays involved there also.

anywhooo....

I have to wonder now if the F-22 or F-35 are equipped with anything blood pressure wise or EEG wise that sends a signal to the plane's computers to "straighten up and fly right" if the pilot does suffer from a G induced loss of consciousness.

oh...yeah...there was a documentary that came out in 1992 about wiring chaffing issues with the F-16 that resulted in a few fatal crashes, that like you said, the flag officers just through the junior pilots reputations under the bus.

on a much...much different note...

why is it that we don't ever hear much about the B-1 bomber anymore?

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 03:33 AM
as far as the ringknocker comments go....I think you overestimate the influence of USAF Academy grads.

I went here:

http://www.af.mil/information/afchain/index.asp

and looked at all the bio's of the 29 general officers listed there.

of those 29, only 12 are USAF Academy grads. so, less than half.

it's not like the good ol' boy's club/frat house that everybody thinks it is.

Recluse
01-08-2012, 04:27 AM
as far as the ringknocker comments go....I think you overestimate the influence of USAF Academy grads.

I went here:

http://www.af.mil/information/afchain/index.asp

and looked at all the bio's of the 29 general officers listed there.

of those 29, only 12 are USAF Academy grads. so, less than half.

it's not like the good ol' boy's club/frat house that everybody thinks it is.

When I say "ringknockers," I'm not giving the Zoo an exclusive. Canoe U and that Army place on the Hudson are in there as well, and I think no place in the military may be worse than Annapolis as far as "the Admirals Gestapo" goes in terms of those folks taking care of each other.

Of the three (military) academies, I found the Colorado Springs grads to be far less obnoxious than the other two. Maybe it's because the Air Force is the newest of the three branches or maybe because when it comes to actual flying, you either "can or you can't" and there's virtually nothing to hide behind in the sky and nobody to throw under the bus--especially if you're a fighter jock.

I knew way too many sailors who despised their Captain/XO because if ANYTHING went wrong, there was an entire ship's city worth of sailors and junior officers to toss overboard. Likewise in the Army with the exception of the Cavalry.

Most humble of all, I suppose, were the ground-pounder officers from Colorado Springs. Some of the brightest officers I ever met.

Nonetheless, though, thirty plus years ago I simply saw too much fraternal academy hand-holding after the RIFs of the Carter (disaster) years.

And that wire-chafing you mentioned that splashed a number of Block Ones and Fives? That was a known issue even upon delivery of the birds to HAFB. The LTC maintenance commander for AGS (Aircraft Generation Squadron) was aware of it, ignored the TOs on it, and everytime another Falcon splashed out at Wendover, or sometimes over the Great Salt Lake, the few surviving pilots were admonished for pilot error, and the dead pilots gently remembered as "being brave to venture into a new age of fighter aircraft, knowing full well the risks" blah blah blah.

Coincidentally, the day of his Big Twenty, he was already packed up and already had a residence in Fort Worth (home of General Dynamics F-16 assembly plant). Less than two weeks into his tenure, he was invited to a BBQ "Welcome to Texas" lunch, where one of the surviving family members of a dead Falcon driver this LTC excorciated in the post-briefing inquiry proceeded to beat the ever living hell out of this newly retired LTC.

Police were called, and interestingly enough, Air Force OSI became involved. Some sort of a deal was reached. The family member had all charges dropped, and GD quietly terminated the LTC's employment and sent him back home to Philly. All the Block Fives and Tens got "circle red x'd" and subsequently got brand new muxbus wiring matrix bundles from the sidestick controller to the FCC (Flight Control Computer).

The politics that were involved in the entire F-16 program were nauseating. And for some, fatal.

:coffee:

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 05:32 AM
recluse wrote:


Nonetheless, though, thirty plus years ago I simply saw too much fraternal academy hand-holding after the RIFs of the Carter (disaster) years.

I am ASSuming that all Service Academy grads from the late 70's and early 80's were still getting Regular commissions. Whereas, their ROTC and OTS/OCS counterparts were getting reserve commissions. So by law, the guys who came from the reserve officer training corps got/get the axe first.

Typically, though, at least in the Air Force, to pin on Major (O-4), meant that everybody got a Regular commission regardless of commissioning source. And at least at that time, everybody had to have a Master's degree, usually an M.B.A. and...AND! they had to be married.

So, if I recall correctly, a RIF usually only affected those reserve Lt's, and Captains. It sucks. But that is how the cookie crumbles. I think..... I think if you made it to major you were pretty much in the clear....until of course some quota came out for light colonel, and then usually by that time Mama Blue gave you a financial incentive to either retire early or to jump ship entirely....kinda like a severance package.

The Navy seems to have been quite cannibalistic the last couple of years when it comes to getting rid of ship captains.

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 05:35 AM
in addition to not hearing much about the B-1, I am curious as to why the F-117 got retired so early???

weird.

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 05:37 AM
Recluse wrote:


Coincidentally, the day of his Big Twenty, he was already packed up and already had a residence in Fort Worth (home of General Dynamics F-16 assembly plant). Less than two weeks into his tenure, he was invited to a BBQ "Welcome to Texas" lunch, where one of the surviving family members of a dead Falcon driver this LTC excorciated in the post-briefing inquiry proceeded to beat the ever living hell out of this newly retired LTC.

:drinks:

good! glad to hear it!

Artful
01-08-2012, 08:58 PM
in addition to not hearing much about the B-1,
I am curious as to why the F-117 got retired so early???

weird.


Stealth fighters fly off the radar
AEROSPACE
The last F-117A Night Hawks in the U.S. arsenal get a low-profile send-off before being mothballed.

April 23, 2008|Peter Pae | Times Staff Writer

Not everyone missed out on Tuesday's top-secret passing of one of the world's most mysterious aircraft.

Gareth Goetz, an Anaheim mortgage broker, was one of 100 cheering aviation buffs who gathered in Palmdale at a makeshift viewing spot just outside the gates of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s defense plant.

Many in the crowd drove hours to catch a view of the last four F-117A Night Hawk stealth fighter jets in the nation's arsenal as they made their final flight before heading off for mothballing at a desert base in Nevada.

Because the F-117A's stealth technology is still considered classified, the public was not allowed to attend a private retirement ceremony inside the base.

The Pentagon attempted to keep even the last flight top secret, much the way the plane has flown since it was conceived 30 years ago.

So the crowd employed a stealth maneuver of its own and met just outside the western edge of the complex to catch a peek.

"That was incredible," said Goetz, who drove two hours to watch the less than one-minute takeoff. "I have some free time these days, so I wanted to see the last flight. It's historic."

In an early afternoon ceremony, the crowd looked on in silence as the black kite-like planes took off one by one, led by a jet whose undercarriage was painted with the American flag. Each fighter flew over a throng of about 100 cheering aviation buffs who had gathered at a makeshift viewing spot just outside the base. In formation, the planes then circled back and flew overhead before heading east to their final resting spot.

The send-off began shortly after 1,000 former and current employees of Lockheed Martin's famed Skunk Works held a tribute to the aircraft they had developed, built and maintained, virtually all shrouded in secrecy.

Beginning in 1981 and until 1990, Lockheed assembled 59 Night Hawks, most of them in total secrecy, in a hanger next to the Burbank airport. Later, Lockheed continued to upgrade the fleet at its complex in Palmdale. The Air Force did not acknowledge the program's existence until about a decade after the jets began flying.

The single-seat F-117 was the first plane that could evade radar detection. It was designed to fly into heavily defended areas to knock out radar installations and anti-aircraft missile batteries, clearing the way for other fighters and bombers. It was also used to destroy military command and communication centers. During its development, the F-117 flew only at night to avoid prying eyes and Soviet spy satellites, thus its name: Night Hawk.

"It's now time to say farewell, farewell to an old friend," said George Zielsdorff, Lockheed's vice president for the F-117A program, as employees signed their names on the bomb-bay doors of the four planes parked in front of Building 601. Inside sat the next generation of stealth fighter jets, F-22 Raptors. With the introduction of the F-22, the Pentagon decided to retire the F-117As in 2006. The retired fleet will be housed at a high security base about 140 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Of course we are not building anymore F-22 Raptors now either. [smilie=b:

F-22 Raptor Program Cancellation: Will we learn from it?
Published by David Crane in Aircraft Systems, Featured on May 29th, 2009
By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

May 29, 2009

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to halt production of the costly Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor low-observable/stealth fighter aircraft is perhaps not the best long-term strategic decision he could have made, it’s certainly understandable. Given the U.S. government’s–and thus DoD’s–current money crunch vs. the program’s high cost and lack of current combat-utility in Iraq and “Stan” (Afghanistan), cutting the Raptor program’s reported $3.5 billion per year cost certainly has some logic to it. Some programs simply have to go, and we might as well start with the expensive ones that don’t have any seeming immediate tactical or strategic utility for the two wars we’re currently fighting, right? Let’s face it, air superiority is not exactly an issue right now in either theater. We’ve got the air, and we don’t need F-22s to maintain it.

So, what’s wrong with cancelling the Raptor? Well, for one thing, we finally got the production cost down to approximately $143 million per aircraft. If they cancel the F-22 program at 187 total aircraft–56 aircraft short of the 243 aircraft the U.S. Air Force had stated as its requirement–the F-22 Raptor will really come in somewhere around $350 million apiece, with the last four aircraft coming off the line at an estimated cost of approx. $200 million per, due to the $147 million “end-of-production expenses” that will be rolled into their procurement price. Understand that the Air Force originally wanted 750 aircraft, but they wittled that number down to 442 aircraft, then 381, then 243, and then 183, before bring that number back up to 187.

This leads us to the second reason why F-22 Raptor program cancellation is a bad idea. Strategically, 187 F-22 Raptors simply isn’t an adequate number for a future war against China and/or Russia, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also made by Lockheed Martin, simply doesn’t have the Raptor’s air-to-air combat capability, so it can’t fulfill the same air-superiority role against the latest Russian fighters, let alone their Gen-5 fighters that are currently either under development or on the drawing board–and Russia likes to export their fighters. DefenseReview would therefore feel much more comfortable with a quiver of at least 1,000 Raptors–preferably half of them in two-seat “Super Raptor” form–for a war against the Dragon and/or the Bear. Both countries (China and Russia) are currently developing low-observable, supermaneuvarable 5th Generation fighter aircraft–like the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA, for example–and Russia’s latest 4th-Gen. Sukhoi and MiG aircraft currently being manufactured and exported to other countries are arguably superior to our latest F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft in a number of aspects.

But having stated the above, do we have any sympathy for the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing? No, and here’s why. First, it’s their own fault. They brought this situation on themselves. The fact is that the F-22 Raptor took WAY too long and cost WAY too much money to develop, period, end of story. There is simply no reasonable explanation for it to have taken almost 16 years for the F-22 to have entered service from the time of contractor selection. Actually, it really took about 19.5 years if you start the clock from the Air Force’s request for proposal (RFP) in July of 1986, which resulted in the YF-22 and YF-23, and over 24 years if you start the count from the inception of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program in 1981.

There is simply no justifiable reason why ANY new tactical fighter aircraft, or any new combat aircraft of any kind, for that matter, should take longer than 5 years to develop from initial concept to combat (production and procurement). And it definitely shouldn’t take longer than 5 years for any aircraft system to go into production from the time the Air Force selects a contractor. Don’t agree? Well, here’s our retort, consisting of four examples:

1) The North American Aviation (NAA) P-51 Mustang, the most advanced piston-engined fighter aircraft of World War II (WWII) was developed in approx. 120 days. That’s 4 months, folks. Wikipedia provides more specifics: “The prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed — an incredibly short gestation period.”

2) The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe (Swallow), the world’s first operational jet fighter aircraft and the most advanced fighter aircraft of WWII went operational within 5 years from the start of development. This was a truly revolutionary aircraft for its time, and was arguably more revolutionary than the F-22 relative to contemporary aircraft of both models.

3) The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird was brought from concept to production by Lockheed Skunk Works as a black project within 5 years. The SR-71 and its precurser aircraft (the A-12 and YF-12A) were truly revolutionary aircraft in a number of ways (design aspects, speed, capability, materials, manufacturing requirements, maintenance requirements, etc.), every bit as revolutionary as the F-22 Raptor, if not more so, relative to their contemperary aircraft.

4) The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle, our most advanced and capable 4th-Gen. fighter aircraft (and a very large leap ahead of the F-4 Phantom), went into production within 5 years of contractor selection.

So, what happened with the ATF and subsequent F-22 Raptor programs in the 1980′s, 1990′s, and 2000′s? In a word, racketeering. In another word, corporatism. Here’s one more: corruption, as in corruption of military industrial complex (MIC) and the U.S. military procurement system. Somewhere along the line, someone (or a number of people) somewhere in the U.S. military industrial complex and military procurement system, respectively, discovered that they could accomplish a number of objectives by dragging system (including aircraft) development time out over many more years, instead of developing and fielding a finished product as quickly as possible. The private sector/contractors figured out that they could make a lot more money, squeezing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from the Department of Defense (DoD) before ever going into production. After all the development money, the actual production contract was just a bonus, the icing on the cake, if you will. And, the public sector/military folks realized that they could safeguard or prolong careers and create a more advantageous public-sector-exit/private-sector-entry strategy for themselves. Synergy. Of course, you can apply this to pretty much all areas of current U.S. military procurement.

And so went the F-22 Raptor, which has cost the U.S. government approx. $11 billion–that’s “billion” with a “b”–for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) alone, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). That’s before you even get into production! According to GlobalSecurity.org, “as of 2002, DOD had [already] spent $26 billion of the $69 billion planned for the F-22 program.” $69 billion…for an aircraft program.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the F-22 program’s suppression of evolutionary 4th-Gen. figher aircraft design concepts. The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) is a perfect example. What, you think Boeing just came up with Silent Eagle in the last few months? Anyone reading this who doesn’t think that significant capability and performance upgrades haven’t been available for the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet–including low-observability/stealth upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, and upgraded flight software and systems, (for supermaneuverability), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), integrated flight and fire control (IFF) and ramjet missiles with tail control, just to name a few–for the last 20-25 years while the F-22 Raptor has been ravenously and rapaciously eating taxpayer dollars, well, let’s just say I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you. All of a sudden, just as the Raptor is getting cancelled, here it is (Silent Eagle)! As the Church Lady might say, “Well…isn’t that convenient!”

Of course, the F-15 Silent Eagle is only the latest in succession of F-15 and F-16 upgrade/improvement/modernization concepts. It’s been preceded by the F-15 ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles), F-15 S/MTD (Short Takeoff and Landing/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator) a.k.a. STOL Eagle, and the AFTI F-16, just to name a few. “AFTI” stands for “Advanced Fighter Technology Integration”, by the way.

Note: DefenseReview has been informed by an aerospace insider that an even lower-observable/stealthier F-15 than the Silent Eagle was flown across the continental United States without detection by radar during the 1980′s, and that it’s possible to make an F-15 just as low-observable/stealthy as an F-22. Since we only have one source and no confirmation or documentation on this ’80′s-era low-observable F-15, we have to consider it as an unconfirmed/unverified report for now, no matter how trustworthy our source is (but this source is very trustworthy). If anyone out there has any more information on this unconfirmed low-observable F-15 project, we’d love to hear from you on it.

The bottom line is that we could have had F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s with low-observable design upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, conformal fuel tanks, IFF, better missiles etc. a long time ago had these types of upgrades to our 4th-Gen fighter aircraft not been considered a threat to our 5th-Gen fighter program (F-22 Raptor) and therefore suppressed. In other words, F-22 Raptor program survival trumped viable upgrades that would have brought our 4th-Gen. aircraft into flight-capability parity with the latest Russian Sukhoi and Mikoyan fighter aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI Flanker-H and Su-35 Flanker-E, and Mikoyan MiG-29OVT, and MiG-35 Fulcrum-F.

So, while Defense Review likes the F-22 and thinks we should build more of them (again, at least 1,000) to help ensure U.S. air dominance even if China and/or Russia become a serious military threat or enemy in the future, we’re not going to cry about it. The fact is, the Air Force and contractors (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) could have developed the F-22 much more quickly and at significantly lower cost. If they had done it the right way, we could have had operational Raptors by the 1996-1997 time frame and had the full compliment of 750 aircraft–or possibly even DefenseReview’s desired 1,000. Let this be a lesson to the United States Air Force. Do it right, do it better, next time.

Think about it. If another country can develop a next-gen fighter in 5 years, but it takes us 15-25 years to develop one, that puts us at an obvious and very significant deveopment-cycle and cost disadvantage, and potentially a strategic warfighting disadvantage, as well, since the technology might be obsoleted by other countries’ tech by the time development is done. So, U.S. Air Force, give us an operational next-gen aircraft (fighter, CAS, tanker, transport, whatever) within five years. That’s 5 years from concept to combat. We need to be able to do that, and we can do that. After all, we’re still the United States of America, at least for the time being.

Source: DefenseReview.com (http://s.tt/13fzD)
http://www.defensereview.com/f-22-raptor-program-cancellation-defensereview-weighs-in/

Russel Nash
01-08-2012, 11:32 PM
cool!

thanks!
:drinks:

Tom-ADC
01-08-2012, 11:48 PM
Just read an article that the F35C which the Brits want has failed 8 out of 8 carrier landings due to the placement of the tailhook, seems its to close to the main landing gear.

Mtgun44 the smoky F4's used the J79-8 engines with J79-10's had smokeless cans big improvement.

My time was in C1A Traders & C2A Greyhounds I have a little over 100 landing and take off's in them and between 69-71 made at least one take off and landing on every carrier we owned except the USS Lexington. A trap or catshot is an "E" plus ride. But never made a night landing or take off.

MtGun44
01-09-2012, 01:50 AM
All the F4s my brother and father flew (how weird is that!) had a 2 mile black string trailing
behind them. Dad flew from the very beginning, brother flew them in late 70s. I never saw
one that had a clean exhaust. Not saying it never happened, just that it must have been
pretty late in the US career, or maybe only for the RF-4s that the Marines flew, or German
or Isreali aircraft.

As to the P-51 being "developed in 120 days", yes, true. But "Here's the rest of the story".

Originally it had the US designed and built Allison engine and it was a dog. Sorry, but it
was. Useless above about 20,000 ft, USAAF used them as the "A-36 Apache" DIVE BOMBER
because they would have been **** as a fighter. Brits flew them as a fighter, but found
them really wanting, esp at altitude. After a year or so, some Brit genius said "HEY - we
need to put the Roll-Royce Merlin out of the Spitfire into the "Mustang" (Brit name, not US
name, originally). They cobbled up a motor mount and built a new cowling. . . . . . and HOLY
cow!! Now, we're in business, exept that RR is already cranking out as many Merlins as they
can and there are none available for Mustangs.
The US Gov't talked to Packard, who had experience and more importantly the correct machines
to bore cases for V-12s. RR sent the drawings, and ultimately Packard produced a bunch
more Merlins than RR did. BTW, my father-in-law has 2.5 kills in P-51s in WW2. He is still
a healthy man at 92 years of age.

NOT ALL FLAG OFFICERS are jerks. I have known more than a few and some are total
buttheads, but many are talented, hard working, the best and the brightest and do remember
what it was like when they had 2 or 3 stripes.

Bill

Tom-ADC
01-09-2012, 10:44 AM
Bill, my last assignment in the Navy I was in charge of the Jet Shop 78-79 time frame we were doing the conversions then involved new style burner cans, it was easy to see a tell if the F4 was regular a navy F4 at a distance or a reserve F4 the reserve F4 still have -8 engine and the long trail of smoke out the back. The F14 took care of the F4's smoking engines.
Tom

Reload3006
01-09-2012, 11:24 AM
Note: DefenseReview has been informed by an aerospace insider that an even lower-observable/stealthier F-15 than the Silent Eagle was flown across the continental United States without detection by radar during the 1980′s, and that it’s possible to make an F-15 just as low-observable/stealthy as an F-22. Since we only have one source and no confirmation or documentation on this ’80′s-era low-observable F-15, we have to consider it as an unconfirmed/unverified report for now, no matter how trustworthy our source is (but this source is very trustworthy). If anyone out there has any more information on this unconfirmed low-observable F-15 project, we’d love to hear from you on it.

with out a complete redesign of the inlets this bird will never be totally stealth. We can reduce is signature a long ways but the box inlets are radar Giants. We did a lot of work on both the F/A 18 and the F15E to make it stealthier ... and that is about the limit that can be talked about

Tom-ADC
01-09-2012, 01:18 PM
Here's the article I got in via email.


U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship
January 8, 2012 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.



CF-1 takes off on its first flight on June 6, 2010. Pilot for the 57 minute flight was Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Jeff Knowles. Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."

Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.

The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.

An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."

He also points to well known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.

When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren’t, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.

He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of “form over substance” and “a total indifference to what is real” being hallmarks of the program – “Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program” being but one example.

It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.

Other F-35 program problems identified in the QLR Report included the helmet visual cueing which is seriously affected by design issues and airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.

An August 2011 DOD F-35 program briefing revealed that the engineers will have to be reorganized because they were not getting access to all the information/data they needed for design nor, it would appear, were organised and structured in an environment that was being properly managed and transparent. This reorganisation should complete in 2012.

The program's pilot training program was supposed to start at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida in 2011 after previous delays. With the design issues mentioned above, pilot training is effectively grounded due to safety concerns. There is no known date when pilot training can start. This along with the aircrafts engineering defects strongly suggest that it will be a long time until military services see any F-35 variant in a go-to-war configuration.

MakeMineA10mm
01-11-2012, 11:11 PM
I was reading somewhere about the F-35C and read that the tailhook was ripped right off the plane... That's not going to result in an "OK" from the LSO! :)

MtGun44
01-11-2012, 11:45 PM
I heard that it did not hit the deck properly to catch a wire, not that it ripped off.

Any way - the loads on the hook are UNREAL. I have seen airplanes LITERALLY
snatched out of the air flying by the hook catching early, before the wheels even touch
and that is amazing.

They'll get it sorted out.

Bill

Artful
01-12-2012, 06:44 AM
I have seen airplanes LITERALLY snatched out of the air flying by the hook catching early, before the wheels even touch and that is amazing.

Bill

Bill, maybe you should forward that for just SOP for the F35C carrier landings. :kidding:

MtGun44
01-12-2012, 02:31 PM
See if you can find a video somewhere of the Whale (EA-3) landing on the carrier.

They call it "The Whale Dance" and it is something to behold. They brought those
beasts aboard ship for about 35 years and it was an amazing thing every time.

Bill

Artful
01-12-2012, 04:14 PM
Wonder if they could just have a telescoping tail hook - down and then elongate to catch wire then after landing - up and back in.

Damn that skywarrior is a big plane for carrier operations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHGp5wEuRAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OTEwjfg_QE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr7CJibs4hc

MtGun44
01-12-2012, 08:04 PM
The Whale often would bounce the mains and pitch fwd onto the nosewheel with the
mains in the air as the cable and hook stopped the aircraft, on some occasions literally
snatching it out of the air. If the pilot hit a bit to one side, the sideways movement
added to the pretty normal bounce onto the nosegear made the 'Whale Dance'.

I saw a video of this from a low angle, on the outboard side of the ship and it was quite
memorable. I asked my sister (Navy pilot) about that and she said "Wait, let me guess -"
and described what I had seen. She said it was pretty common and happened often
enough to be named the 'Whale Dance'. Very big, heavy aircraft, and it is very impressive
to see them operate, especially from the older, smaller carriers.

At the 5:40 mark in this video, one of the Whales does a small bounce onto the nose
gear, giving a bit of a hint of what the full 'dance' can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmx5NOe9mA

This is on the old Oriskany, one of the WW2 Essex class of carriers, originally a straight deck
design. She is a diving reef now, sad to say. But at least not cut up for scrap.

The landing at 0:50 on this one shows the aircraft being stopped in the air, all wheels off the
deck on the bounce as the cable comes tight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWXY2QbyZf0

Bill

MakeMineA10mm
01-15-2012, 04:13 PM
Interesting and short A-3 crash landing newsreel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHGp5wEuRAE&feature=related

I've heard the F7U Cutlass was a treat to land too.



Since we've gone so astray the original topic anyway, I wonder what everyone's take on the Navy going to more and more finite numbers/types of aircraft? Seems to me like we're narrowing capability rather drastically.

GabbyM
01-16-2012, 12:32 AM
Interesting and short A-3 crash landing newsreel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHGp5wEuRAE&feature=related

I've heard the F7U Cutlass was a treat to land too.



Since we've gone so astray the original topic anyway, I wonder what everyone's take on the Navy going to more and more finite numbers/types of aircraft? Seems to me like we're narrowing capability rather drastically.

I think it's nuts but then I’m not in the loop as to what the platform of the F35 can really do. More to the point. We see the obvious loss of long range capability as launched from carriers. What we do not see is what is in the loop to replace that. My thought is nothing but then when we had A6’s on the fleet we did not have a few dozen B2 bombers either. Simple fact is you can only kill your enemy once. With bombs that self guide you do'nt need a dedicated bomber just to haul tonnage. Any third world dirt bag can do it with an airliner. Just push them out the back of a cargo plane. Modern machines make killing on a mass scale about as easy as any other days work. Which is why I earlier posted my displeasure with Obama canceling the F-22 program. The United States of America has no air superiority fighter in current production. All of our enemies do. Cut to the bone and it’s that simple.

That little F35 may be able to take care of itself but it can not defend the fleet or defend our coast line. It's not even a fighter it's an attack aircraft.

How many of you know that since the day President Clinton signed the surrender with Russia we now have a political command on every USN ship that carries Nucks. This command has a hard room where they only can arm any major weapon systems. They are not under the command of the ships Captain or fleet Admiral. They also have a nuclear scuttle charge for the final say in any disagreement between the Navy and the White house. Say hello to Papa Joes’ ghost.

Would be nice to dream some papa is watching out for us with some black ops bird like the F117 but I’m not that gullible. We’ve been nurtured just like Jimmy Carter cut us.
I’m not worried about offensive power. After all we still have the boomers and ICBMs not to mention the free fall bombs and CM‘s . We could turn any enemy into a drifting dust cloud. But that’s not the threat as my simple mind sees it. Mutual assured destruction sucks when your enemy does not care about his own destruction. WE need a defense dumbo.

MakeMineA10mm
01-16-2012, 01:00 AM
You make some good points Gabby.

I guess I was sandbagging just a little, since I already have an opinion and was wondering what others thought. My opinion:

The over-concentration on Terrorism/Non-State Threats is leading to a loss of major war-fighting capability that leaves us open to an enemy like China or Russia. This has traditionally emboldened an enemy into thinking we'll sit by passively as they do stuff. (Look at pre-WWII Germany and appeasement/isolationism/unpreparedness.) While I appreciate and think essential are the SSBNs, MAD only works as long as no one uses them. In other words, as long as a war, even with a giant nuclear-armed enemy, stays conventional, the nukes make no difference...

Look at China today. As we weaken our major-war-fighting capability, they strengthen theirs and they start doing things like supporting No. Korea, threatening Taiwan, asserting control over the Paracel and Spratley Islands.

While I agree that the 20 B-2s give us global capability, it is a very small capability that is not flexible nor able to stay on-station for any length of time at all - it's a strategic strike platform, as are all bombers really - we don't have the numbers of them we did in the 40s and 50s to give them much tactical capability. <100 B-52s, <100 B-1s, and ~20 B-2s, even when all combined, barely give us a sustainable strategic capability and a significant portion of that has questionable survivability in a high-threat environment. This is where a medium- to long-range tactical strike aircraft capability for the carriers comes in. (A-6 is minimum capability in my mind. The A-3, A-6, and A-5 are all relatively large platforms which show that a large-ish aircraft is well within the capabilities of incorporation in a CVW.) Also, look at the threat environment in the Pacific. If it's not carrier-based, we're not going to have much capability available to us. Japan is too politically sensitive which makes it unreliable for basing. Philippines would probably be a workable ally. Taiwan, too close to China - base of operations inside contested airspace is unreliable. Same problem with So. Korea. Okinawa and Guam are about it, and they will be contested and have basing limitations of their own.

From what I've been reading in the open source material, there appears to be some developmental work on stealth drones for this mission, but they're years out at least. With the current budget picture, a more-realistic prediction is "years-out from a pro-defense President"...

I think the Navy chiefs are looking at the F-35 as a "do-it-all" aircraft. IFR and stealth gives it the legs to do the long-range strike mission. The dual-switch system (air-to-air vs. air-to-ground button) makes it an air-superiority fighter. By building it in numbers and cheaply, it's a tactical air-support "Attack" plane...

Part of the trouble with the above theory is that, we don't have a good CV-based tanker, and there's some serious self-defense weaknesses against a major player (like China), such as a lack of ASW/sea-control aircraft. (Interestingly, both of these missions were handily done by the S-3.)

GabbyM
01-16-2012, 02:07 AM
Drones sound like a solution until you realize that our enemies can produce them in at least as large a quantity as we could ever hope to.

I’m an old RC model airplane flier myself. Don’t think any major nation can’t make an RC plane. Just like at the start of WWII. While we had invented the carrier the Japanese had the most and actually used them . Not to mention had the best planes to fly off them.

Artful
01-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Agreed the technology of drones is off the shelf items - heck even the Palestinians made a drone attack on Israel.

I think most manned aircraft will be replaced by UAV fighter and bombers with stealth and cheaper to build airframes with greater performance - like it or not if you can get the human out of the airframe and use the full capability of the machine it will hand any conventional manned aircraft it's head on a platter as our current aircraft are limited to keep our pilots from over taxing their own fraile bodies.

The cheap UAV fighters will act more like anti-aircraft missiles; launch them and let the computers do the reacting faster than human can input manuvers. Trained UAV ground controllers are needed, but just for the input to confirm target approval. They are not bothered by long flights, fear, or G forces as they have fun playing nintendo for real.

The controller skills are not critical as most UAV dogfights will occur with pre-programmed maneuvers. The UAV controller can just click the "PURSUE AND DESTROY" button and let the UAV do the preprogrammed thinking of how to do it. If the UAV loses its data link, it follows a contingency programming of either "SEEK AND DESTROY" or "RETURN TO BASE."

Fighter UAVs will prove disastrous for modern air forces dominated by fighter pilots, and knights of the sky mentality, which explains why the US Air Force refuses to pursue these programs seriously and insist on pouring money into F-35. The development of fighter UAVs by other nations is just a matter of time as the technology is becoming wide spread.

Less sophisticated nations don't have the money, who once purchased top fighter aircraft for manned pilots, and they have learned they are no match for a sophisticated well-trained team of aircraft like those of the US Air Force currently flys. Plus look at Iran and other countries that have trouble maintaining it's fleet of foreign purchased aircraft.

If they can make a cheap home grown UAV fighter for say a 50th the cost of one of our sophisticated planes and it takes 10-15 UAV's to take out one F22 or F35 - they are way ahead - look for them to perform like WW2 wolf packs - swirling gang of killer bee's comes at your F35 and how may can you take out before they give you a fatal sting and take you out.

Look at the advantages, fighter UAVs in storage require no spare parts, no fuel for training flights (which will all be nintendo simulations), and no life will be lost during common training accidents. They can be stored in bunkers for wartime use decades in the future. While they may become "obsolete" over time, they can always be used in a future warfare since sending them aloft puts no one at risk, except enemy fighters and you already paid for them. And like our current designs you could design it to be upgradable. Always able to take more G's than a manned machine you could add rocket pods for burst of acceleration that would kill a human (mach 1 to mach 6 in 4 seconds sounds good doesn't it), you don't need expensive engines just pulse/ram jet simple to machine, off the shelf components in a fresh design. Maybe two high mach missles one IR one radar, if you don't just want to use the front of the UAV as a mobile high velocity shotgun/buzz-bomb.

I'm sorry I don't see the point of lots of this expense we doing - A UAV version of the A-10, F-22, and Tornado and leave the kiddies in their Airconditioned trailer fighting a war like it's the 21st century.

Closer than you think

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/usaf_mq-9_reaper_with_weapons.jpg
http://www.suite101.com/content/unmanned-aerial-vehicle-craziness-a210612
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSpOYZR0klA

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8164538&page=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZht4Qvjorg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/12/article-0-0A69FEDA000005DC-668_634x406.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294037/Taranis-The-143million-unmanned-stealth-jet-hit-targets-continent.html?ITO=1490

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav_a1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDrxxjff7D8

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/4296188
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/WV/uav_x47b_470_1208-mdn.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobrNcrdRxw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTNAfSMF-A0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dobrNcrdRxw

http://www.gizmag.com/mantis-uav-test-flight/13386/picture/105385/
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/mantis-test-flight-2.jpg
BAE Mantis

The largest fully-autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ever to be built in the UK has completed initial flight trials in Woomera, South Australia. Built by BAE Systems for the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) the Mantis is the company’s first genuine fly-by-wire, all-electric aircraft and is designed to execute its mission with a much-reduced need for human intervention by understanding and reacting to its environment. BAE said Mantis successfully completed a series of trials demonstrating its capabilities and the potential for large unmanned systems to carry out intelligence-gathering at long distances.
Behavior: All a soldier will have to do to send the self-piloted Mantis on a mission is push a button. From there, it can calculate flight plans, fly around obstacles, and check in with ground controllers when it spots something interesting, like smoke or troop movement. At the end of the mission, it flies home and lands itself. Mantis’s maiden flight went off without a hitch in Australia last October, an astoundingly fast development—it didn’t even exist in 2007. BAE Systems expects it to be ready for sale within two years and hopes to use it as a proving ground for systems in its forthcoming automated stealth bomber, the Taranis



The wiz-kids are pushing that way we just need to spend the money wisely.
http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=1930

Well like that's going to happen

bowfin
05-16-2012, 11:14 PM
That little F35 may be able to take care of itself but it can not defend the fleet or defend our coast line. It's not even a fighter it's an attack aircraft

Most experts say that the F-35 is better than almost all air superiority fighter flying, save the F-22.

Stilll, I think we need more Air Force F-22s and a carrier capable version. Having a "good enough" weapon is fine for deer hunting, but "good enough" when we can give our pilots "the absolute best" can lead to unnecessary deaths.