backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 132 comment(s) - last by Tomcatter.. on Dec 10 at 8:53 PM

Lockheed's F-35A Lightning II
Lockheed's F-35 program isn't exactly proceeding as planned

Earlier this week, DailyTech reported that the Pentagon is trying to sweep some money under the rug to pay for additional Lockheed F-22 fighter planes. Increased concerns over the reliability and structural soundness of the 30-year-old F-15 have lead to the calls for more of the $132 million USD F-22s.

It appears that the old F-15 isn't the only aircraft in the U.S. arsenal that is having problems. The F-35 program is facing setbacks of its own. The F-35 program suffered a serious setback on May 3 when a critical electrical system failure occurred while the jet was traveling 500 MPH at 38,000 feet -- the prototype plane, which was on its 19th test flight, had to be brought down for an emergency landing by the pilot and subsequent test flights were cancelled. The plane hasn't flown since and a scheduled flight for December 4 was scrubbed at the last minute.

Defense Industry Daily reports that the electrical system failure was attributed to a problem with the new 270 volt power supply that is used to control the aircraft's electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs).

"This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity -- not hydraulics," said F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the EHA system now has to be redesigned to prevent further incidents.

In addition, the F-35C naval version suffers a design flaw in its power generator which in turn means that the gearbox for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has to be redesigned -- the redesign won't be complete until the close of 2009. The Pratt & Whitney F135 faced another setback in October when the engine overheated and blew up during bench testing.

But these are the least of the F-35's problems. The F-35 is being built and will be flown in conjunction with the help of a number of allies. European countries, which are eager to get their hands on the F-35, may not have fully functional, multi-role aircraft until 2016. The problem is due to the fact that software modules required to make the plane a competent air-superiority fighter are not yet complete and won't be until 2016 at the earliest.

As a result, the F-35 will be restricted to mainly ground-attack bombing runs.

There is the issue that the number of F-35s to be produced has been reduced from 3,500 to as little as 2,300 -- effectively raising the cost per plane -- and Australia's decision to go with the F/A-18 F Block II Super Hornet as a stopgate measure until the F-35 is ready.

The rising costs for the F-35 are looming over the entire program. "Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," remarked Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Tom Burbage to the Star-Telegram.

Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor.

The F-35 program mechanical/electrical/avionics problems, delays and cost overruns are becoming burdensome to all nations involved. Many countries are looking to the F-35 to replace their aging fleets because the United States wants to keep its premier F-22 fighter to itself.

"If they're barred from buying the F-22, the question is, where do they go?" said Forecast International aerospace analyst Ray Jaworoski.

The F-35 will be produced in three variants: F-35A, F-35B and F-35C. The F-35A will be used by the United States Air Force to replace the F-16 and A-10, while the F-35B will take the place of the Marine Corps' AV-8 Harrier. The F-35C will be used by the Navy to replace the F-18A/B/C/D.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Electric
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 12:15:36 AM , Rating: 3
You know when I think of a fully electric jet I also think of that article about a microwave emitter for Police cruisers to disrupt and shut down the electrical systems of fleeing cars.

I wonder if that would work on multi-million dollar aircraft.




RE: Electric
By rqle on 12/6/2007 12:20:11 AM , Rating: 1
How are US AirPlane names? I wish they designated Air-Superiority fighter like the F15 and F22 in a different class then "FAS" class then just F+number. It makes it sound like the F16 > F15E but in reality its F22 > F15 > F18 > F16 in air superiority.


RE: Electric
By Goty on 12/6/2007 12:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or has the F15 not been the country's best air superiority fighter since... ohh, I don't know, the early 80s (i.e. the introduction of the F/A-18)?


RE: Electric
By IcY18 on 12/6/2007 12:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15 is the Air Superiority fighter designed to engaged any and all threats in any weather.

The F-16 was the winner in a competition against the F-18 for the Air Force's air combat fighter to complement the F-15.

So the Navy picked up the F-18 to compliment the F-14 the way the F-16 compliments the F-15.

So basically F-15 = air force, F-18 = Navy.


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:24:57 AM , Rating: 3
The F-16 did not compete against the F-18 it competed against the F-17. It looked similar to the F-18, but was very different. It was a much smaller plane and much lighter than the F-18. The F-18 was 10,000lbs heaver than the F-17. It was also produced by a Northrop/Douglas team. Latter the F-18 was offered to the Navy as a lower cost plane to supplement the F-14.


RE: Electric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
If we want to get super technical, it was the YF-16 vs the YF-17 ;)


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Very true. Also to fill in the sequence of the numbers for the latest generation of fighters (30 years or so). There was the F-20 Tigershark, a derivative of the T-38/F-5 series. There was the F-21 Lion which was a plane built by Isreal (Kfir)and lease to the US. They were used in training roles. There was the YF-23 which competed against the F-22 and lost, though a very pretty airplane. And for the gap to the F-35, well that came as a surprise to Lockheed as they expected F-24 and probably was the result of the X-35 designation transferring to the fighter designation.


RE: Electric
By marvdmartian on 12/6/2007 9:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
I also remember, back around 1984, seeing a video where they talked about the development of an F-19 fighter. Don't remember if it was just an updated design of something else, or an all new design, but remember that the "cool" feature of it was the fact that it could be sitting on the tarmac (or in a revetment/hangar), a pilot could run out to it, flip a few switches, punch a button, and a minute later it'd be taxiing for takeoff. It had some sort of quick-start system for emergencies, which was being looked at to save fuel (you didn't have to have alert aircraft sitting idling, burning fuel on the tarmac), and to make it so if you were surprised by a sneak attack, you could get your fighters in the air quickly to defend your base.

The only downside is that once you used that quick start system something like 6 or 8 times, you had to replace the engine, since it put such a strain on it.

Oh, and let's not forget that long before it assumed a multiple role, the F-14 was the navy's air superiority fighter, likely equal to or exceeding the F-15 (imho).


RE: Electric
By inperfectdarkness on 12/6/2007 9:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
you'd better pray that you're wrong. (trust me, you are).

i say that, because the ONLY country flying the 14 is iran. if our "air-superiority" fighter can't stand up to it, we're in deep doo-doo.

trust me, the f-15 is far superior to the f-14 in every way. especially in maintaince costs. that was the reason for the inception of the super-hornet program. do a search on the % of mission readiness for the different airframes.


RE: Electric
By maverick85wd on 12/6/2007 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
i say that, because the ONLY country flying the 14 is iran.


that doesn't matter... anyone can get the air frames, it's the EW systems that are important. If you have an air frame and your electronics are crap it's just a fast plane


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 3
Well said. When you're talking over-the-horizon stand-off capability, it's all about the weps and software.

The only other countries on the face of the planet who are able to even remotely compete with the US anymore on that front are Russia and Israel. Russia because of all the legacy tech they had from the cold war, yet they fall further and further back each year. Israel out of pure necessity. India's making a charge, but they have quite a ways to go.


RE: Electric
By Cattman on 12/6/2007 11:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt be to concerned about Irans F-14's the weapons systems are non functional and they dont have any spare parts. They are sitting in storage somewhere quite harmlessly.


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
We said that in the '80s as well. We believed that and so did the Iraqiis. Unfortunately for them, the Iranians did buy into the story and used their F-14s to swat Iraqii jets like flies. Got the AIM-54s to work as well.


RE: Electric
By Chernobyl68 on 12/6/2007 1:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
The F-18 itself was designed to be a lower maintenance fighter. A driving force behind the Super Hornet version was the desire to have a longer range attack craft, which was lost when the A-6 was retired. No naval attack craft can compete with the Intruder for range.


RE: Electric
By cheetah2k on 12/6/2007 11:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
If the F15 is still the US's air superiority multi-role jet fighter, why not just take the F15 design and tweak it?

In the case where the F15 has been grounded due to fatigue, the US could be building more F15's now, and at half the price of 1 x F-22 or 1 x F35?

Two for One sounds like a deal to me!

I also just dont understand - "when it works - why change it?"


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from the age of the airframes, the excellent F-15 is no match for what's coming off the lines today. Typhoon, Rafale, probably Gripen, SU-27 and especially the SU-30 outmatch it. We have experience where F-15s have bounced Typhoons that hadn't yet been cleared for full maneuvers. Still, the Typhoons were on the Eagles' tails in less than one turn and could not be dislodged until the fight was called off. Look up Cope India 2004 and see how Eagles fared against SU-30s (and those weren't even the thrust vectoring ones).

In the case of F-22, although highly maneuverable, the tactic they use that has proven most effective so far is to supercruise at their normal altitude (which is 20-30,00 feet higher than that of most fighters) taking advantage of their stealth and "firing" down on their foes. In most cases the other fighters don't even realize the Raptors are even there until they're informed they've been killed.

We're going to always be outnumbered


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that was the F-20, where they got the idea to use the same cartridge system designed for airstarts after a flameout to light the engine on the ground for a scramble intercept (the aircraft having been prepositioned and the switches already set except for Master On). It didn't take a minute to get ready to taxi on an alert bird. Once you flipped Master ON and hit the start button, a minute later you were at 10,00 feet or so.

Using the cartridge didn't overstress the F404, it is a Great engine (as is the F110). But, using the cartridge was "dirty" which increase maintenance somewhat, plus unless you were on strip alert with a jet that was already "set up" it didn't gain you anything extra, so outside of that situation it wasn't used.


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 10:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but I didn't make it clear that my post below was actually in response to this post by marvdmartian (and he's right about the F-14 being more maneuverable):

quote:
I also remember, back around 1984, seeing a video where they talked about the development of an F-19 fighter. Don't remember if it was just an updated design of something else, or an all new design, but remember that the "cool" feature of it was the fact that it could be sitting on the tarmac (or in a revetment/hangar), a pilot could run out to it, flip a few switches, punch a button, and a minute later it'd be taxiing for takeoff. It had some sort of quick-start system for emergencies, which was being looked at to save fuel (you didn't have to have alert aircraft sitting idling, burning fuel on the tarmac), and to make it so if you were surprised by a sneak attack, you could get your fighters in the air quickly to defend your base.


quote:
Actually, that was the F-20, where they got the idea to use the same cartridge system designed for airstarts after a flameout to light the engine on the ground for a scramble intercept (the aircraft having been prepositioned and the switches already set except for Master On). It didn't take a minute to get ready to taxi on an alert bird. Once you flipped Master ON and hit the start button, a minute later you were at 10,00 feet or so.


RE: Electric
By theapparition on 12/6/2007 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
The YF-23 was pretty slick. Very manuverable.


RE: Electric
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/6/2007 10:35:58 AM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is even more so, thats why it won...


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 12:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
It was as much a political decision as a technical one. The YF-23 had some advantages over the YF-22, and vice versa.


RE: Electric
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
The decision to pick the F-22 (and the F-35 for that matter) had more to do with the commercial viability of Lockheed as a Defense Contractor than the actual quality of the aircraft. Don't get me wrong - if the F-22/35 weren't airworthy, they wouldn't've been chosen, but Lockheed was chosen because if they hadn't been, they would've gone bankrupt. Boeing wasn't chosen because the majority of their revenue comes from Commercial Aircraft, and they could always sell off IDS to Lockheed if it came to that.


RE: Electric
By wrekd on 12/6/2007 8:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly, didn't the loss of the JSF contract contribute to McDonnell Douglas being bought out?


RE: Electric
By theapparition on 12/6/2007 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not true.

The YF-23 was more manuverable, and overall I belive was faster. The 22 had higher supercruise capability and a higher combat ceiling and payload capacity. (I'm going off of memory for much of this). The 22 as delivered was also complete, where the 23 only had simulations for weapons deployment.

The aircraft were given points and in the end, it was a very close battle. One thing that decided the outcome was that Lockheed had a substantially better history of delivering than Boeing. There is speculation that Lockheed's "lobyists" had more to do with the design win than anything else. On a technical perspective, both were very close, though.


RE: Electric
By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
The YF-23 was meant to be more manouverable at high speeds (I personally have my doubts).

The YF-22 was undoubtedly much more manouverable at low speeds, it also had carefree handling (I also doubt the YF-23 had this capability).


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
During the competition AF said that as long as the proposed planes met the minimum requirements, relative performance would not be a deciding factor in the selection. Both designs met or exceeded AF requirements.

The consensus of what little data was published and has leaked out since was that the YF-22 was superior in extreme AoA maneuvering (although both aircraft exceeded AF's requirements), especially at the slowest speeds. Reportedly the YF-23 was better at almost everything else. It was faster (the USAF even classified its supercruise speed with the GE engines), stealthier (especially in IR), had a lighter structure, may have had greater range/endurance and could carry a larger internal weapons load due to its enormous main bay and weight reserves.

Boeing wasn't involved with the YF-23 and is in fact Lockheed's partner on the F-22. Northrop was paired with McDonnell Douglas on the YF-23. The speculation about history of delivery may be accurate, along with the lobbyist thoughts...


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 got its name because at one of the press conferences announcing the winner, the Gov't official was asked what it's designation would be. Rather than admit he didn't have the knowledge to answer the question and seeing the demonstrator was designated "X-35", he just made up "F-35" on the spot. Bureaucracies do not like to admit error, so they simply officially called F-35 ever after.


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 11:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Navy/Marine Corps picked up the F/A-18 because it had two engines, vice one, which is a standard prereq for carrier deployment. Nobody in their right mind wants to launch off the pointy end of the boat with only one engine available ;).

Really makes me wonder what the 50 lb heads up in the huge five-sided structure were thinking when they decided to go with the F-35 in the first place. TACAIR off the boat needs two engines.


RE: Electric
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 12:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
err...Harriers don't have two powerplants...and, IIRC - they are the premier Marine Carrier aircraft (particularly for amphibious assault ships).


RE: Electric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/6/2007 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody in their right mind wants to launch off the pointy end of the boat with only one engine available ;).


What about the A-7 Corsair II, A-4 Skyhawk, F-11 Tiger and F-8 Crusader?

Granted, those are all designs from the late 50s, but the A-4, A-6 and F-8 all flew well into the 1980s.


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and lessons learned from those aircraft led to two engine designs. Twin engine became the mantra and studies have shown that there have been a considerable number of mishaps avoided simply because of engine redundancy. Aircraft are simply too expensive to replace nowadays.

And the Harrier ain't what it was supposed to be. Went through TBS with a few guys that became Harrier drivers, and they say that their flight envelope has become so restricted that it's almost ridiculous. A trend that has been intensifying since the first day that platform was fielded. Don't bank over a certain number of degrees at a certain airspeed, ya-da, ya-da. I think you'd be amazed at how little payload they have delivered over their lifespan vis-a-vis the Hornet. I can recall the entire Harrier fleet being grounded for months and months at a time due to engine problems. A simple ball bearing in that Rolls engine caused us to lose quite a few, say 10-12 aircraft and pilots, IIRC. During transition from horizontal to verticle flight, the thing would become unbalanced, flip over and drive itself right into the ground. During one CAX, we had to take over their ORD alotment because one had flipped and killed a test pilot right up the road at China Lake, a personal friend of my then XO's. BAM, FLEET GROUNDED! The Brits have made it work because they had no other choice. We had the Hornet.

And Harriers do not operate off the ship in the same manner that a Hornet does. A Harrier doesn't take a cat shot or trap. Additionally, they do not carry nearly the payload either. You can ground the Hornet squadron on an amphib and it doesn't really detract from overall MEU-SOC mission capability. It's sad, because the concept of VSTOL is very alluring...but we just can't seem to make it work in an efficient and effective manner.


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 2:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can ground the Hornet squadron on an...


PIMF.

Should read "Harrier squadron...".


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a trivial statistic for you, on payload.

If it weren't for the aerodynamics and size issues, the Hornet could carry a Harrier as payload.


RE: Electric
By josmala on 12/7/2007 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
Here's a trivial statistic for you, on payload.

If it weren't for the aerodynamics and size issues, the Harrier could carry a Harrier as payload.

;)


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but a Harrier can carry 7,500 lbs. out of a 300 meter strip (which is the reason for its existence), whereas a Hornet can't even carry itself out of such. :o


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 9:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Navy/Marine Corps picked up the F/A-18 because it had two engines, vice one, which is a standard prereq for carrier deployment. Nobody in their right mind wants to launch off the pointy end of the boat with only one engine available ;).


The Navy picked the F/A-18 because they were ordered to pick one of the two LWF aircraft as the basis for an F-14 complement (they really wanted more F-14s) and an A-7 replacement (which actually didn't need to be replaced). Of the two designs, the F/A-18A/B was more capable (although this advantage would go away with the C/D versions of both aircraft) and it had one other fairly significant advantage: In six revisions of their design, GD had yet to come up o with a design that it could guarantee could operate from a carrier.


RE: Electric
By Cygni on 12/6/2007 1:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15A-D is designed as an Air Superiority Fighter. In this role, it is more capable than the F/A-18. Afterall, the F/A-18 was not designed to be solely an Air Superiority Fighter like the F-15... its meant to be a split role / multi role aircraft. Hence the 'F/A'.

For all intents and purposes, the F-15 was the worlds best front line Air Superiority Fighter... until the F-22 units came online in the last few years and began supplanting the venerable plane in that title.


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 11:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15 can still haul the bacon. While the Hornet, due to it's cantilevered vert stabs, can come pretty close to halting in mid-air at super high AOA, it doesn't have the overall speed of any of the other platforms, and in ACM, speed is life. Not to mention having to fly double or triple bubble off the carrier, further slows down the Hornet.

Besides, what really matters are the weps systems and avi software suites. That's what made the 14 a viable TACAIR platform. In the air, the thing is a pig in ACM. Fast, yes, but not very maneuverable at all compared to, well, just about everything else, heh. But Phoenix and later upgrades kept it worthy, though the maint manhours per flight hour were astronomical.


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 12:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
After they limited the airframe to 6Gs it obviously limited manueverability. When they were new, the F14 could and did out manuever the F15. Joys of a variable sweep. Didn't have quite the top speed though.

I remember seeing the articles in the 70s, where the demonstrated that the F14 had a slower landing speed than a Piper Cub. When you consider that the fleet was using F4 before that, it was a big deal.


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:42:04 PM , Rating: 1
I am sorry sir, but your information is inaccurate. The piper cub has a stall speed of around 35 mph (not a Super Cub, but a regular Cub) and therefore the approach speed would be around 40-45 mph depending on the intended landing type (wheel or three point). If your F-14 could do this, that would mean that if a sprinter were on the deck of the carrier, it could out sprint the F-14 while landing. The plane would be approaching at slower than 40 mph and the carrier would be doing around 20 kts into the wind of say about 10 kts. The sprinter probably would only have to jog, not to mention that at that speed, the plane would not need an arrestor hook because it could stop itself in the distance of the deck.

As for the F-14 being more maneuverable than the F-15, of course you would need to be model specific (a F-15c is much lighter than a F-15e) but I think that you would still be inaccurate. The F-15 was designed to be an offensive air interceptor, where as the F-14 was designed to be a long range fleet defender. The F-15 thrust to weight ratio was much higher till the later models of the F-14 when it began to close the gap. The F-15 was the start of a trend to design for maneuverability. I forget the generals name, but he literally wrote the book on the topic and was dismayed about the performance of the F-11 and the F-14. He began to consult on the F-15 program, and was heavily involved with the F-16 program. All one needs to do is watch Top Gun and watch the footage and see how the F-14 flies compared to a Skyhawk to know that it is a pig.


RE: Electric
By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 3:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Eagle drivers have to avoid getting slow with the Tomcat ('specially the B or D versions) - in a slow turning fight the -14 will beat the -15, and they know it.

Are you talking about Boyd's energy manouverability?


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 3:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to dig through 70s era Popular Mechanics to find the article. It is possible that they were combining carrier speed and cub approach speed to make the stat.

Any comparison between an A4 and an F14 is meaningless. A sopwith camel is also more manueverable. If you ran a dogfight between the A4 and and F15/etc, you would see the same thing. You're talking about a plane that weighs less than the payload of an F14/15.

The F15 has been updated many times since it went operational and doesn't have the maintenance and fatigue issues on the wing box etc that the F14 had. Today I'll grant you the F15 is better at anything but BVR. In the 70's/80s, I'd stick with the 14 for a classic dogfight. Not a speed run, not a climb rate, just the dogfight.


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 10:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to break this into multiple posts because of length.

quote:
I am sorry sir, but your information is inaccurate. The piper cub has a stall speed of around 35 mph (not a Super Cub, but a regular Cub) and therefore the approach speed would be around 40-45 mph depending on the intended landing type (wheel or three point).


This is correct. F-14s initially tended to approach at 115-123 knots and would trap at a little less than that (weight, of course could change everything. As weight grew, so did minimum speed). They could "fly" slower than 45 knots- as can a number of fighters, by flying at very high AoA and holding themselves up with a combination of lift and thrust, but that's mostly an airshow maneuver (Mig-29s, SU-27s F-22s could then be said to have a stall speed of 0) and you'd better be riding on F110s and not TF30s when you tried it. That's not what most people think of as "Stall speed"


RE: Electric
By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 10:55:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As for the F-14 being more maneuverable than the F-15, of course you would need to be model specific (a F-15c is much lighter than a F-15e) but I think that you would still be inaccurate. The F-15 was designed to be an offensive air interceptor, where as the F-14 was designed to be a long range fleet defender. The F-15 thrust to weight ratio was much higher till the later models of the F-14 when it began to close the gap. The F-15 was the start of a trend to design for maneuverability. I forget the generals name, but he literally wrote the book on the topic and was dismayed about the performance of the F-11 and the F-14. He began to consult on the F-15 program, and was heavily involved with the F-16 program. All one needs to do is watch Top Gun and watch the footage and see how the F-14 flies compared to a Skyhawk to know that it is a pig.


Well, aside from the credibility of "Top Gun" as a technical source, you have to remember that those stripped, up-engined) Skyhawks also gave F-15s a run for their money.

A little background: The F-14 was always designed to be an air superiority fighter. In fact, the ability to carry Phoenix was desired, but not an absolute requirement for the VFX competition. The maneuverability requirements were designed around a loadout of four AIM-7s and two AIM-9s.

Most comparisons have been made between other fighters and the F-14A. Although more of those were built than any other version, it was not originally planned that that version would go into production. This version was only planned to number 13 to 69 aircraft, to develop the aircraft and get into service while awaiting the arrival of the (original) B model which would feature the actual production configurations and lower maintenance features and especially the PW401 engine, which would be a more powerful naval derivative of the Advanced Technology Engine, which would appear in USAF service as the F100. However, USAF accepted their version at a level of reliability that was unacceptable to the Navy and the USN couldn't afford to bring their version up to an acceptable level alone, so they chose to stay with the awful TF30 used in the A model and not do the enhancements of the original B.

The F-14 airframe was always designed around use of two 27,000 lb thrust engines. The TF30 only put out 20,900 lbs. This causes even more problems than what appears at first glance; a 23% drop from expected thrust hurts a design far more than an extra 23% would enhance it. Consider the impact on Raptor if its engines only put out 27,000bs of thrust instead of 35,000. The tunnel area between the Tomcat's engines has some unusual benefits. The fuselage of the F-14 acts much like a lifting body as airflow is channeled between the two widely separated engines. In fact the F-14 can be thought of as a lifting body with three nacelles (2 engines and crew/systems nacelle) attached, plus wings. The 565 ft2 of the wings is augmented by an additional 443 ft2 of the lifting body for a total effective lifting area of 1008 ft2. This extra lift is available in all flight configurations, but is most effective when the wings sweep back, and in a sense lowers the wing loading to a value less than would be expected than by just looking at the regular wing area. The problem is the TF30s don't have enough thrust to fully exploit, so the tighter turns facilitated by the lifting body can't be sustained in the A. Although the A accelerates and climbs real well, it's nowhere near as good as what the plane would be cable of with the right thrust.

Additionally, the TF30s were a disaster. In air combat maneuvering, the pilot not only has to fly the plane, he has to monitor the engines to insure they aren't going to quit. He also has to move the throttles carefully, otherwise the TF30s might quit. Finally, maneuvers that might prevent air from flowing down the intakes smoothly (high AoA, rapid changes in direction) have to be handled with care so the TF30s don't quit. Of course, they don't always quit when exposed to these flight regimes--sometimes they blow up. As a result, A models had to be "held back" from using their full agility lest they become gliders or worse. With the arrival of the superb F110 engines, the limitations no longer apply, the engines can be flown with abandon, and the Tomcat has the thrust for which its airframe was designed. In addition, with the incorporation of the Digital Flight Control System which replaced the original system, the Tomcat could now maneuver at the high AoAs of which it was capable. There wasn't much point in spending too much on this before since attempting to maneuver at high AoAs with the TF30s could end badly.

The Tomcat wasn't more agile at everything, but no aircraft is. At comparable thrust to weight ratios, its always turned tighter than the F-15, but couldn't sustain the performance before the F110s. (Side note: In the Iranian flyoff, the Tomcat pilot kept burning fuel on the ground until his thrust/weight matched that of the F-15 and then outflew it.) It accelerates/decelerates very fast. It out turns the F-15 and F/A-18, has better high AoA capability than the F-15 and -16 (but nobody of its generation beats the Hornet at low speed/high AoA). Thanks to the VG wing and fuselage, the Tomcat can outturn other aircraft at supersonic speeds and at most transonic speeds as well (it turns inside an F-5E, for example). I believe a D will out-accelerate all the others over a large airspeed range. Multiple close-in "fights", both sanctioned and spontaneous between F-16s and Tomcat B/Ds tend to come out as draws. With the A, although it outmaneuvered all previous fighters, unless the Falcon pilot made a mistake, close-in the F-16 almost always won.

Sensorwise, the Tomcat always held the edge, although again, it was 20 years before it got an upgrade there (in the D). The TCS was great and the combination of it, the IRST and the APG-71 in the D put it way ahead of everyone else.

A note on maintenance: Again, most compariosn have been made with the not for production A, and they are valid as long as you keep that in mind. The D, which was what the Tomcat was always meant to be, required Much less maintenance than the A . It still needed more than the Hornet, but not as much more as has been posted. when Dick Cheney (not the Navy) canceled Tomcat production, it was left with only 57 Ds. With a unique aircraft, support was harder than what what would have been required if the planned totals had been built. Plus maintenance priorities were reserved for the Hornet. As the Tomcat got within sight of its retirement, more parts went out of production or started disappearing from the supply system. Back in the early 1990s, when parts were plentiful, the F-14D averaged 17 maintenance manhours per flight hour (and would have gotten even better), not as good as the Hornet, but a better point of comparison than the 50 hours required at the end of its career when parts had to be scrounged from wherever they could.

One of the other reasons you didn't hear much over the years about what the Tomcat could do was because of the strong Hornet lobby within naval aviation. It's no accident that at its last public appearance at NAS Oceana the F-14 was restricted from demonstrating its prowess and was only allowed to make a few passes- always accompanied by Hornets, nor was it an accident that at its retirement ceremony, the Tomcat was flanked by two Super Hornets and was only allowed to takeoff and fly away, no demo, no last "beat up" of the airfield.

The General you're thinking of is John Boyd, a great man, and he also didn't like the F-15 design.


RE: Electric
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 1:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, and thanks for the info. The 70s were one decade before my time.

Did the maiden pump on the Truman with VMFA-312. Was up on the flight deck whe the outgoing CAG got to do his final fly-by and watched him go supersonic right over us. Sounded like God slapping a wet sheet on the kitchen table.

Always liked the Tomcat. Was sad to see it go.

Mark my words: the Marine Corps will follow suit on the E/F variant of the Hornet before it ever gets it's first JSF.


RE: Electric
By stburke on 12/6/2007 12:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea how it works. Year introduced maybe? With a bunch of F*cked up X-17-21 aircraft in between.

What nauseates me is the F-22's maiden flight was 17 years ago. And we're just seeing it integrated. I've had 3 cars within then.


RE: Electric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/6/2007 12:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's always puzzled me as well.

The F-15 went into production within 4 years of the first flight
The F-16 went into production within 4 of the first flight
The F/A-18 went into production within 5 of the first flight

Earlier fighters like the F-4 and F-14 had even shorter cycles IIRC.


RE: Electric
By stmok on 12/6/2007 12:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
Given how the US system of acquiring new weapons work, I'm surprised they're able to get anything through the process!

But the time delay between first flight to production is about right.

Its not just the plane alone. There are bugs and problems to iron out. Lots of testing to be done. On top of that, training of ground personnel and new support equipment.


RE: Electric
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/6/2007 1:04:49 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, a 4-5 year time lapse seems normal, but 15+ years just reeks of incompetence... or bureaucratic bull****... or possibly both.


RE: Electric
By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
There is some bureaucracy involved, but things that were integrated into the F-22 were 3rd generation stealth technology, supercruise technology which allows for supersonic cruise without afterburner, thrust vectoring technology, and numerous weapons systems upgrades. This technology takes time to develop. The development cycle now is to develop the airframe, then use that to develop the high technology to go with it.


RE: Electric
By Cygni on 12/6/2007 1:38:47 AM , Rating: 4
It all comes down to funding. The F-16, F/A-18, F-15, etc are all cold war, blank check projects. If you fund it, it will come. The F-22 and F-35 projects are peace time projects, and they quite simply fit the mold. Absurdly long development time, huge political struggles over cost and 'pork' placement of jobs and subcontractors, etc.


RE: Electric
By Noya on 12/6/2007 2:37:14 AM , Rating: 3
Cygni said it all, COLD WAR. The Russians are coming!!

Without an eminent (and viable) threat on the horizon we've kept the current planes so long they're junkers, akin to an older cutting edge sports car that requires so much maintenance it's best sold as parts/scrap. The F-15 was a fantastic aircraft, I recall the climb rate at 50,000+ feet a minute with an intercept load. Though the F-18 SuperHornet is MUCH better than the F-18 Hornet, with a 25% larger airframe, engine and avionics (AESA radar) upgrades...it was considered a new fighter. It entered service in 1999.


RE: Electric
By alifbaa on 12/6/2007 4:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the concept of the F/A-22 is based upon a cold war mission. It was designed to fit inside of the HAZ-3 hangars in Germany that were built for the F-15 and fly a fairly short ranged, purely counter-air mission. It was only a few years ago that it picked up the ground attack role.

I personally know of several experts within the Air Force who were advocating for the project to be scrapped in favor of a new design that would give a longer range and abandon the hangar size requirement completely.

Don't get me wrong, the F-22 is a great plane. It is without a doubt the best fighter on the planet and is more than ready to penetrate the best defenses out there in the strike role. My point is only that it's core design concept is still heavily based upon a cold war mission. After a lot of work, we've adapted it to other things.


RE: Electric
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 12:50:03 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with what you are saying in principle, but just because a design is constrained does not mean it is not excellent. Could Lockheed really "put on a show" with no design requirements? Absolutelich. But the fact that there are constraints doesn't mean that - as you pointed out, the F-22 is not fantastic as is.


RE: Electric
By iFX on 12/6/2007 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
And those planes were no where near as sophisticated.


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 12:45:31 PM , Rating: 3
lol, it's because software is more and more involved. Everyone knows software guys can meet schedules.


RE: Electric
By rcc on 12/6/2007 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
er.... can't meet schedules


RE: Electric
By stmok on 12/6/2007 12:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
Currently, they name them after "birds of prey". (Well, the USAF does, not the Navy).

Eagle
Fighting Falcon
Raptor


RE: Electric
By spluurfg on 12/6/2007 1:19:01 AM , Rating: 4
They have a roulette wheel that goes up to 200, with one of the pockets labeled 'random letter + extra spin'


RE: Electric
By Spotacus on 12/6/2007 1:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
Go here for some explanation of the current system:

http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html#1962

It looks like they restarted numbering over at 1 in 1962. So then prototypes were named YF-(#) in order over the years. And the fighters generally took the number from the prototype. So the naming more comes from the order in which they were built.

F22, F-15: Air Force air superiority fighters
F-16: Air Force multirole
F-18: With the Super Hornet, basically multirole for the Navy


RE: Electric
By Cygni on 12/6/2007 1:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
They go roughly in chronological order, with some exceptions. For example, the internal project name of the F-35 was 'F-24', and Lockheed was actually surprised that the F-35 numeration was selected.

In general, low numbers come before high numbers. Thats the way its been in Aviation... and well, everything mechanical. Tank Model 5 comes before Tank Model 6.

Its not a rating system. 'The F-22 has 22 units of Fighter!' Its just a sequential naming system.


RE: Electric
By djc208 on 12/6/2007 9:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe it similar to the Navy's setup recently where they keep nubering all the new designs XX-21 on account of them being the first of the "21st century" designs.

Of course they usually change the naming/numbering scheme later or decide to abandon it completely but then naming a ship is a little more political than an airplane.

But the same thought process may apply, maybe the break was to split this out as a next generation type thing.

Either that or like the blackbird there are a handfull of "other" planes running around out there with 24-34 that we will either never find out about or see once they are retired from service in 20 years.


RE: Electric
By tuteja1986 on 12/6/2007 2:08:33 AM , Rating: 1
These are the plane that our stupid goverment but order over the F22 :( . Australia Airforce wanted F22 but the stupid idiot at parliament responsible approval chose the F35 saying it had a secrete technology that public didn't know about that would make it better a Multi-role Fighting aircraft.


RE: Electric
By Noya on 12/6/2007 2:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think so. If I recall, the US stated it would not sell them to anyone for the forseeable future.


RE: Electric
By alifbaa on 12/6/2007 4:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
You're correct. Congress mandated that the plane would not be exported as part of their funding. There are some very advanced manufacturing technologies incorporated into the aircraft, and the Air Force didn't want it to get out.

A few months ago, Japan formally requested the US allow it to purchase the F/A-22, and the Aussies and British would like to buy it as well, so the law may wind up being changed.


RE: Electric
By Heidfirst on 12/6/2007 6:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
The Brits don't want to buy Raptors as we already have Typhoon (probedb, Typhoon is not only already in service but is already deployed abroad on operations).
From what I've heard the Raptors like to work out against the RAF Typhoons in the US as it gives them a chance to go up against a credible threat (something that the F-15 no longer can do especially as the A-Ds are grounded again).

We are the no.2 investor after the US though in the F-35 programme so this isn't good news for us.


RE: Electric
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 1:08:05 PM , Rating: 3
How are US AirPlane names? I wish they designated Air-Superiority fighter like the F15 and F22 in a different class then "FAS" class then just F+number.

The DoD assigns each project a designation number, based on a sequence which was "re-started" when the naming scheme was reorganized in 1962 (Fighters are now "F", Attack aircraft are now "A", Bombers are now "B", Cargo/Transport are now "C", Trainers are "T").

Each project is assigned a number, but the Pentagon usually only choses one or two projects for each "generation" of craft (this is particularly more common nowadays). The F-15 Eagle was assigned a program number of "15", the first test aircraft was deignated YF-15, and then the service aircraft was designated "F-15". The same is true for the F-16. Skipped numbers are most likely the result of programs which were cancelled before the left the top-secret phase (See: F-117, Stealth Fighter).

Projects do not necessarily come to fruition at the same time, and while all "Fighter"-role aircraft are given F- designations, that does not necessarily mean they are destined for an "Air Superiority" (the traditional notion of a fighter) role. The F-14 Tomcat, for instance, is considered an "Interceptor" and would likely only see air combat in a Carrier Air Defence role, however it had extensive Electronic/Intelligence capabilities which were hoped/used even moreso than its Air Superiority capabilities.

It makes it sound like the F16 > F15E but in reality its F22 > F15 > F18 > F16 in air superiority.

The F-16 is what I would consider a "light" figher, the F-15 is a "heavy" fighter. The -16 is cheaper than the -15 is, at the cost of reduced capabilities and strength. I don't necessarily agree with the characterization of the F-16 as inferior to the F-15; depending on the role and the pilot.


RE: Electric
By Chernobyl68 on 12/6/2007 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
The F-15 in Air Superiority missions most commonly is armed with 8 missiles, 4 AIM 120 AAMRAM and 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders. The F-16 generally only carrier 4-6 missiles in Air Superiority.

The F-15 also has a much higher weapon/fuel load (40,000 lbs compared with about 24,000 lbs). It also has nearly 3 times the combat radius of the Falcon.


RE: Electric
By inperfectdarkness on 12/7/2007 9:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
make that 6 by 2 by guns.

6 amraams
2 sidewinders

i have to memorize Standard Combat Loadouts for my job. ;)


RE: Electric
By logaldinho on 12/6/2007 10:41:24 AM , Rating: 1
you can be my wingman anytime.


RE: Electric
By TETRONG on 12/6/2007 3:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
Greetings,
First post here, but have been coming to anandtech for many years.

Fascinating topic to be sure.

Hopefully some of you can help me to understand the way things work. Please keep in mind that I know nothing about any of this, and my questions are intended earnestly.

1. Since the second "world war" haven't we spent over a trillion dollars on defense of this nation?

2. What is the average yearly amount allotted to defense(offense) since WWII? I would imagine that since the 1970's it's probably somewhere on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Please chime in with more precise estimates.

3. What has happened to the items that were purchased with this money? More specifically, for the amount of money spent why would the Air Force have to settle for anything less than the best? Why would they have to fly planes(F-15's) that are structurally unsound? One gets the impression that all military equipment, planes,aircraft carriers, etc... vanish at the end of the year like cinderella, and need to be repurchased anew.

4. I find it hard to believe that during the last 20 years this nations defense has relied upon planes that were designed in the 1970's, and popularized during the 1980's.
Are we meant to believe that with the advent of microprocessors, CAD modelling, finite element analysis, advanced materials, MEMS, and ancillary advances in technology the Pentagon has been content to rely on this old-school approach? Wouldn't everything developed prior to 1980 of been completely obsolete by the mid 1980's?

5. At the end of the 1980's weren't there sightings, and suggestions of a new generation of planes that were so technologically advanced as to result in complete U.S. dominance of the skies and space?
I'm speaking of what was referred to as Aurora during the early 90's. Can anyone give an approximate estimate of the top speed and g-loading that a cutting edge top secret aircraft is capable of achieveing? You know, one that has been designed in the late 90's, built in the 21st century with a blank check, and every available(hidden)advance in technology?
Wouldn't placing a warm "body" in such a craft limit it's potential? What would be the point of having a human inside of said craft? I'm imagining that modern pilots would expect to control a plane from a cozy bunker on U.S. soil. Is this not common by now?

6. Hasn't the Air Force recently announced it's intentions to make sub orbital spaceflight for rapid marine deployment, and satellite protection a more common occurence? Didn't I read this in popular mechanics or something?

7. Here in San Diego we are privvy to some interesting aerial displays due to the close proximity of Lock.M., and North.G.. Are my eyes deceiving me, or do I see planes the size of large bombers taking off like the space shuttle, and hauling literal ass across the sky routinely? Going from horizon to horizon in approximately two minutes.
Also, there are slightly smaller planes that seem to be going much(emphasis)much faster. If you look far ahead of the planes trajectory you will notice a greenish-blue beam with no perceptible drop in coherence of the beam extending indefintely. It seems to be cutting through the atmosphere like a laser through butter. Anyone know what this could possibly be?

8. Whatever happened to Viktor Schauberger, and his ideas about implosive vortices? Didn't the SS, and then the U.S. develop Mercury Vortex engines? Or is that just crazy conspiracy crap?

9. Can someone please explain why planes commercial and otherwise are dumping literal tons of chemicals on the public at large. I was out at my friends farm several months ago, and we saw planes repeatedly dumping vast amounts of chemicals in an X hatch pattern right over our heads. When it came raining down, and blanketed the area several hours later we all became violently ill. It feels alot like having fiberglass in your lungs, and upper passageways. I still have not fully recovered, several elderly neighbors had to be taken to the hospital.

What is the purpose of this? Is it intended to beef up our immune systems in case of a biological attack. Is it to kill off the elderly? Is it to make us sick so people will have to increasingly rely on the medical community(industry)?

Have the people running this country forgotten that they need our consent to dope us? Given a choice, I would have taken my chances with a biochemical attack, instead of what has been perpetrated here.

Asymptotically,
Ryan Dean - An increasingly pissed off citizen


RE: Electric
By InsaneGain on 12/7/2007 1:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you look far ahead of the planes trajectory you will notice a greenish-blue beam with no perceptible drop in coherence of the beam extending indefinitely.


Could this be Boeing's Airborne Laser? It is a modified 747 with a huge laser mounted on the nose that tracks and shoots down ballistic missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

quote:
we saw planes repeatedly dumping vast amounts of chemicals in an X hatch pattern right over our heads.


This sounds like the 'Chemtrail Conspiracy" which believes that the government or some other entity is deliberately spraying harmful substances from aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangesk...


By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 1:11:09 AM , Rating: 5
To be honest, this is probably one of the worst stories about aviation that I have read in a long time. It shows the lack of knowledge by the author about the aviation development process. It is flawed in a number of particular areas. I will seek to bring these to light so that this does not turn into an F-35 bashing item.

When everyone saw the prototypes fly, many though that the aircraft was completed in its almost final form. In fact this was nothing more than the basic airframe and systems to get the thing off the ground and prove that it could fly and meet the performance requirements, and to validate electronic models. Military aircraft, especially of this nature are in development for very long periods of time. One might be surprised to know that even the old F-16 is still in development. There are always new modifications to systems and flight control logic. Avionics are replaced, new parts are designed with advanced materials, but because it looks the same on the outside, everyone thinks that it has not changed since its creation.

What you have with the F-35 is a group of armed forces across many nations that are trying to get their say in what should be included in the aircraft. The design was in the final design configuration, but probably had not reached production level on many of the components. This will probably be the case for the first 10-20 units. The fact that the gearbox needs to be redesigned, is an unfortunate event, but the blame may not be with the engine maker. It may be because the generator itself was specified by the customer and they had to design to it. Now they are being told that there is a new specification and now they have to design to that. As for the electrical system, these things are very hard to ensure that they behave properly till they are built and tested in a fully integrated manner. Electrical components are not like mechanical components in that if a mechanical component fits and it is made of the proper materials it will work. Electrical components can change due to unforeseen interactions with other components that were not anticipated due to the fact that there should have been no interference. All one has to do is look at the last couple of big aviation designs to see that it has almost always been the electrical system that has slowed the development and moved back delivery dates. As for the electrical system having to be "completely" redesigned, I doubt that this is the case. I think that it would be better stated that the supplier needs to reanalyze the electrical system and redesign a substantial portion of the control activation system. If I had to bet, I bet that the problem is a current harmonics issue which is causing the actuators to not respond properly, which could ultimately lead to a loss of the aircraft. From the sound of this article, it sounded like the generator was the problem and now the system needs to be setup to take the new generator.

As for the cost increase, welcome to aviation. Though the increased cost of acquisition is not that bad, and is almost inline with inflation. As for the cost of this aircraft being twice that of an F-16, I hope that the author was not trying to say that this was an unreasonable figure, though, sadly I think that this was the case. This is like saying, well my new truck that I use for work cost 400% more than my first car (a 3 door, hatch-back Geo Metro). The capacity to do work of the truck to the Geo does not even compare despite the much higher cost. The same is the case with the F-16 vs the F-35. While both are single engine fighters, in a head to head combat situation, the F-16 would be dead before it even was able to determine that an attack had been made on him. In fact, I know that the F-35 would be able to fly against multiply numbers of F-16 and defeat all of them. To relate this back to fighter terms, it would be like an F-86 taking on an F-16. Even an F-104 vs an F-16.

The last major issue is the comment regarding the purchase made by Australia of of the twenty something F-18 hornets as a sign of no confidence in the F-35 program. This is not accurate. The F-18s were purchased to replace aging F-111 bombers. These aircraft performed poorly to begin with, and were overweight and had poor maneuverability. This aircraft was intended to also be used by the US navy for their air superiority fighter, but was such a heavy aircraft and poor performer, that they choose to cut their looses and design the F-14. The purchase of the F-18 allows them to loose a poor performing aircraft and replace it with one that can operate as a fighter/bomber instead of the bomber only role. It is also worthy to note that the comment about the F-35 initially being delivered as a bomber/ground attack airplane is also misleading. The F-16 can act as a fighter, but commonly is employed in the ground attack role (light bomber). The air superiority is typically left to the F-15 aircraft. Noting this, it would make sense to deliver the aircraft configured as a ground attack capable. The air superiority capacity can easily be added at a later date with little or no modification to the airframe.




By retrospooty on 12/6/2007 10:42:00 AM , Rating: 4
Hey now, there are crazies on both sides to the extreme left and extreme right. Both are midguided in many many ways. Most sane people live in the middle.


By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 9:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
Well, at least since the defense industry realized there really was no one to defend against. No reason to rush things along... when taking it slow and making a few mistakes along the way... can make so much more money.

That in a way raises a very good point.

The military-industrial complex in America has far too much power, power over spending, acquisition, even doctrine. President Roosevelt warned against this, but it seems he has been ignored.


By Ringold on 12/6/2007 5:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
President Eisenhower, you mean.

Roosevelt was too busy trying to placate Uncle Joe, and Truman setting Cold War policy. Eisenhower, with his military background, was the first to raise a flag.


By Jedi2155 on 12/6/2007 7:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't it Eisenhower? Or did they both warn of it?


By Solandri on 12/7/2007 5:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
While I don't entirely disagree with the military-industrial complex conspiracy theories, U.S. spending on military is not that far out of line with the rest of the Western would.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_g...

It's only about 4% of our GDP, which puts us far from the top. Most of our European allies spend around 2%-2.5% (which is about the global average if you exclude the U.S.). Personally I attribute most of the difference to U.S. squeamishness at losing lives, its widespread overseas military presence (NATO, by treaty with Japan, and now the Middle East), and an irrational desire to have "the best". I would put political corruption as a distant fourth.

People love to quote the U.S. military budget in raw dollars for its shock value, completely overlooking the fact that the U.S. economy accounts for about 20% of the world's economic productivity (used to be 25% before China modernized). Pretty much everything the U.S. spends money on dwarfs that of any other nation.


By Ringold on 12/7/2007 3:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People love to quote the U.S. military budget in raw dollars for its shock value,


Maser Kenobi said, before he had wrinkles, that only Sith Lords speak in absolutes.

Leftists speak in absolute dollar values rather then relative ones, therefore

Amiga = Sith Lord!


By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 11:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's only about 4% of our GDP, which puts us far from the top. Most of our European allies spend around 2%-2.5% (which is about the global average if you exclude the U.S.). Personally I attribute most of the difference to U.S. squeamishness at losing lives, its widespread overseas military presence (NATO, by treaty with Japan, and now the Middle East), and an irrational desire to have "the best". I would put political corruption as a distant fourth.


There's another reason other countries spend a smaller percentage of GDP on defense--We're spending for them. Like it or not, and we've been complicit in letting this happen, look at how many nation's defense policies have in the past basically boiled down to: "Try and hold the line until the US can get here". For example, in the '90s the Bosnia and related interventions. Whether you think our involvement was right or wrong, how did what was happening there affect us? Yet, there we were. Why did they need us to provide transport for their forces and logistics? Shouldn't they have had the capacity to do such a thing, especially since it was all overland?

Regarding an irrational desire to have the best, a wise Soviet Admiral once said, " 'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough'", (this can actually be taken two ways).


By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 7:51:00 AM , Rating: 1
To be honest, this is probably one of the worst stories about aviation that I have read in a long time. It shows the lack of knowledge by the author about the aviation development process. It is flawed in a number of particular areas. I will seek to bring these to light so that this does not turn into an F-35 bashing item.

Actually, I see nothing factually wrong with the article.

The JSF has:

1. Wiring/Actuator issues (the things are actually shorting on the frame - so the clearances between components are being re-examined and redesigned as necessary)
2. Generator issues
3. Serious software issues regarding A2A capability

All these points were made in the article. It is also clear that problem 3 is far and away the most serious as even if everything in the rest of the program were to go right from now on - if the Dutch, the Danish, the Royal Navy or whoever were to buy the JSF to replace F-16s/Harriers/Whatever - they have a clear capability gap in terms of A2A operations.

That capability gap will force those nations to look at alternatives like the Saab Gripen (what I regard as the true F-16 replacement), the EF-T, the Rafale, and dare I say it the MiG-35. I've heard rumours the Royal Navy have been having serious looks at the Rafale recently.


By Heidfirst on 12/6/2007 10:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
The RN has no carriers capable of using Rafales atm (neither do the French as theirs is in drydock ;) ) & the 2 that are due to be built currently aren't planned to have catapults (although space has been left for future addition).


By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 12:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Correctamundo.

Don't forget that the JSF purchases won't arrive till post 2010 anyway.

When is the expected IOC of the carriers anyway?

Oh, and you can bet your house they'll have catapults - CATOBAR offers soooooo much more than STOBAR in terms of launch payloads.


By Heidfirst on 12/6/2007 5:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to enter service in 2014, HMS Prince of Wales in 2016.

If they do have catapults added they are likely to be electromagnetic rather than steam.


By inperfectdarkness on 12/6/2007 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
my $.02

the f-15E is a capable ground attack aircraft, as well as an air superiority fighter. arguably more capable than the f-22...at least in the arsenel it can wield & its range. this will change in the very near future. for now, the strike eagles are the best "jack of all trades".

the f-22 (hasn't been the f/a-22 for a few years) conversely, has better radar, et. al. i can't get too into specifics.

you can't blame the development timelines and costs on the contractors or the DOD. the f-22 & f-35 are our first 5th generation fighters. whereas the f-15, 16, 18, 15E, 18e/f, & 14 were all 4th gen. do a wiki search if you want to know all the differences. being on the bleeding edge of technology is expensive. and as former USAF chief of staff, General Jumper had once said, pairity is lethal. we don't want to win 50-49, we want to win 100-0. we haven't had a threat that approaches our air force power/capability since vietnam. now is NOT the time to start.

the gripen is a 4th gen fighter, just like the f-16. hardly a substantial upgrade...especially when you're talking about block 40/block 50. the mig-35, su 33, etc are all "relatively decent" planes...but do you really want to be flying the same thing the FSU and china are? remember what happens with pairity?

the MOST advanced planes available now are the typhoon, the rafale, and the raptor. of those, only the raptor is a true born & bred air superiority fighter. and that is the very same reason the US want's to keep it to itself for the foreseeable future. the f-35 will be a competent fighter in its own right...but unable to match the f-22.

please remember that the f-22 and f-35 are designed as highly superior to their predecessors. they are not designed to replace the outdated airframes on a 1:1 basis. we're going to have about 1/2 as many f-22's as we did f'15's...maybe as low as 1/4th. i'd prefer at least 2/3rds of what we had in 15's...but we don't have the $$$.

the f-35 is slated to replace 3 airframes. the a-10, the f-16, and the f-117. while the f-16 and f-117 make sense, it's doubtful if the a-10 will fully be supplanted...and indeed, there is a modernization program underway for a sizeable chunk of the fleet. but in dollars and cents, if you take away 1 f-117 and 1 f-16 for ever f-35 coming online, the costs are going to be very, very close to the same (maintaince, etc)--and will likely be lower; since the premise of the f-35 was to create an "affordable" 5th gen fighter.

if anything, we need accelerate the aim9-x > f-22 development program. and we need to develop a ramjet variant of the amraam for increased range. our missiles are rapidly approaching pairity with our enemy's. if only you knew how poorly the last generation of aim9 performed against the aa-11, and the python-4.

you have to pay to play folks. that's why china is such a huge threat. unless we can stop buying toxic pieces of plastic from them...our money will eventually find its own way into their military r&d. expect serious threats from them--ones as capable as our own assets--to emerge in the next 20 years.

p.s. what do i know, i'm just the guy will be flying on an awacs in another year.


By jajig on 12/6/2007 10:29:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
p.s. what do i know, i'm just the guy will be flying on an awacs in another year.


Is that your way of saying you're in the chairforce? ;)


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/6/2007 10:47:03 AM , Rating: 1
Fairy Force


By Redfoot on 12/6/2007 12:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Different point, but take it as you will.

The U-2 Aircraft was developed near 50 years ago, delivered on time and under budget. Still being flown today. That is what happens when you let civilians bid for the job, and then get out of the way. However, like all systems, it is still being developed today. Better SIGINT, Imagery, and Block 20 upgrades. DOD red tape does little to help things. There was a story that I cannot confirm about the AF taking a civilian aircraft other than the C-21 to turn it into a VIP jet. Of course, no one wanted lowly enlisted walking past a General, so the 1st class cabin was redesigned to the rear of the aircraft. Result? An aircraft that can fly with a full crew and passenger compliment, a fuel fuel load, but not both at the same time. Let the civilian brainiacs do their jobs.

BTW, "gonna be an AWACKER" does not mean much to anyone on this board, nor in our Beloved Chairforce ;-).

http://chairforce.com/fun/awacker/awacker.htm


By inperfectdarkness on 12/7/2007 9:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
those who don't understand that a fighter's radar has about a 60 degree FOV around the nose (and a range of < 100 miles)....don't understand why the awacs is such a pivotal airframe. seeing for a few hundred miles, IN ALL DIRECTIONS, can't possibly add that much to our air capabilities... lol!

i suppose next you're going to tell me that the jstars does absolutely nothing to force-multiply our air>ground capabilities. i'm sure that's why the army hates it so much. rofl!


By Amiga500 on 12/6/2007 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
AIM-120 D is well underway, and is your RAMjet missile.

The Gripen is a fully net-centric F-16 equivalent. Stick a more powerful motor in it and you have the true 5th gen low-end aircraft (a la the original F-16A - only with BVR).

All of the teen series were cutting edge technology back then too - that is no excuse for program slippage in this day and age - especially with the advances in modelling techniques.

Aside from electronics, I feel the JSF is not a big advance over the F-16 (in terms of kinematics), I think its not suited to carrier ops because of the single engine, I know that it will be vulnerable to the latest SAM designs, and I believe many prospective customer countries will end up going elsewhere for their next fighters.

Today Australia are back on the F-22 bandwagon, and pressing for congress to allow exports (with the -15A-D problems, congress just might to ensure an open production line for future issues).


By inperfectdarkness on 12/7/2007 9:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
gripen superior to the block 50 f-16 HOW?


By Tomcatter on 12/10/2007 8:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AIM-120 D is well underway, and is your RAMjet missile.


AIM-120D has a revised internal layout, an improved computer, better navigation and less susceptibility to acoustic effects prior to launch. It may have greater range than earlier AMRAAMs, but it is not a ramjet. USAF has consistently opposed development of such a missile, arguing that with the F-22 there's no need for longer range, claiming that Raptor will be able to approach undetected to well with the existing launch envelope. Of course, there could also be the consideration that six ramjet AIM-120s might not fit in the F-22's weapons bay, a problem that would have been shared with the USN's canceled AIM-152 (which was about the size of AIM-7, which also won't fit in the bay).

Raytheon has proposed a ramjet version, which was offered to Europe as part of their competition for a long range missile with more terminal maneuverability. This was sometimes referred to as FMRAAM (Future Medium Range Air to Air Missile). This was won by the Meteor missile. There were some hints in the press years ago that brassboard ramjet AIM-120s were built and allegedly flown during the Gulf War I timeframe, but USAF wasn't interested. This may have been a leak to give Raytheon's proposal to Europe credibility, showing that they had the technology.


By rcc on 12/6/2007 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This aircraft was intended to also be used by the US navy for their air superiority fighter, but was such a heavy aircraft and poor performer, that they choose to cut their looses and design the F-14


Untrue, or at least, inaccurate. The Texas Gooney Bird (F111) was intended by politicians to be a Navy aircraft. The Navy fought them tooth and nail as it was totally inappropriate for any naval role. Go find the video of the carrier trials for the F111, they are entertaining, you almost expect the carrier's bow to come up when the F111 hits the fantail. I had the opportunity to see the F111, F14, and x29 in a hanger at the Grumman Ironworks. The F14 fit under the F111s wing, and the X29 was tucked in under the F14s.

In any event, the F14 was designed by Grumman on largely corporate funds to provide the Navy the alternative to the F111 that everyone knew would be necessary, except the politicians, of course. Once the total unsuitability of the F111 was proven by the Navy, they were allowed to purchase the F14.


By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 11:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he Texas Gooney Bird (F111) was intended by politicians to be a Navy aircraft. The Navy fought them tooth and nail as it was totally inappropriate for any naval role. Go find the video of the carrier trials for the F111, they are entertaining, you almost expect the carrier's bow to come up when the F111 hits the fantail. I had the opportunity to see the F111, F14, and x29 in a hanger at the Grumman Ironworks. The F14 fit under the F111s wing, and the X29 was tucked in under the F14s.


Actually have to stick up for politicians here (I can't believe I'm saying this!). The villan who rammed through the F-111 was the worst Secretary of Defense we ever had, Robert McNamara. By the way, he was the one who ordered the Blackbird (SR-71/A-12/F-12) production tooling destroyed when USAF refused to order the F-111 as an interceptor. It was Congress who canceled the F-111B and allowed Navy to proceed with the VFX competition which resulted in the superb F-14. Too bad they couldn't get it a good engine 20 years sooner.

Of course, after Congress got the F-14 going, they then started messing with the F-14 program and loused it up, so at least things were back to normal.


By Tomcatter on 12/9/2007 11:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be honest, this is probably one of the worst stories about aviation that I have read in a long time. It shows the lack of knowledge by the author about the aviation development process. It is flawed in a number of particular areas


onesole currently flying (AA-1) vehicle's, whole reason for existence is to find out things that are not right before we have to fix them on a bunch of already produced aircraft. It not only does not reflect production configuration, it does not even reflect the configuration of the later development aircraft that will fly next! It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, discovering problems. Duh!

Second, regarding the fact that the air superiority capabilities won't be fully exploited and it'll enter service mostly as a strike aircraft-- The F-35's main role is a strike aircraft! Air superiority is a secondary role, so not surprisingly they're working on that second. In Europe, Typhoon was exactly the reverse. So, the author is complaining because they're developing the plane the way they always said they'd develop the plane. Duh!


Wrong plane?
By kidsafe on 12/6/2007 3:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Frankly it looks like we went with the wrong contractor. Yes, the X-32's delta wing was scrapped. Yes the VTOL system wasn't as powerful, but I can't help but think about the things I noticed during the development of both JSF prototypes.

The X-32 could spin on a dime in mid-air without so much as a wobble. The F-35 can't even hover without stuttering. The F-35 is ridiculously large for a cheap multirole aircraft. The F-35B is even larger than the F-35A. The X-32 was one size fits all.




RE: Wrong plane?
By Rebel44 on 12/6/2007 6:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well if I had to choose winner I would scrap F-32/F-35 which costs 100M (and isnt finished) and buy more F-22 for 135M.....


RE: Wrong plane?
By FITCamaro on 12/6/2007 7:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
Defense contracts often come down to politics.

And to me this is what happens when a plane is being funded by more than one government. The US should stick to developing its fighters on its own. Then if our allies want to buy them, they can after we've got them.


RE: Wrong plane?
By derubermensch1 on 12/6/2007 1:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
One thing to remember is that the plane itself is being designed and funded jointly. However, key aspects of the weapons systems are designed independently by each government so in effect there really isn't a downside to jointly developing the fighter itself. It doesn't matter how long it takes to complete this project as long as it is perfect in the end. How many of us have purchased computer equipment only to be so frustrated that the drivers are horrible or you got something from a "bad batch", or there was lack of support. I don't see too many people prancing around lauding their Ageia PhysX cards :) To take a line from id software, it will be done when it's done :) It may be expensive but the war in Iraq costs billions of dollars a month so the r&d for this jsf is pennies in the long run when it comes to other government spending


RE: Wrong plane?
By PlasmaBomb on 12/6/2007 8:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
It was the X-32 which had problems hovering due to hot air recirculation back into the engine.


RE: Wrong plane?
By kidsafe on 12/9/2007 6:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
But it was the X-35 that rolled off the test platform completely during one of the last vertical take-off qualifications tests.


AeroPlane
By TETRONG on 12/6/2007 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Greetings,
First post here, but have been coming to anandtech for many years.

Fascinating topic to be sure.

Hopefully some of you can help me to understand the way things work. Please keep in mind that I know nothing about any of this, and my questions are intended earnestly.

1. Since the second "world war" haven't we spent over a trillion dollars on defense of this nation?

2. What is the average yearly amount allotted to defense(offense) since WWII? I would imagine that since the 1970's it's probably somewhere on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Please chime in with more precise estimates.

3. What has happened to the items that were purchased with this money? More specifically, for the amount of money spent why would the Air Force have to settle for anything less than the best? Why would they have to fly planes(F-15's) that are structurally unsound? One gets the impression that all military equipment, planes,aircraft carriers, etc... vanish at the end of the year like cinderella, and need to be repurchased anew.

4. I find it hard to believe that during the last 20 years this nations defense has relied upon planes that were designed in the 1970's, and popularized during the 1980's.
Are we meant to believe that with the advent of microprocessors, CAD modelling, finite element analysis, advanced materials, MEMS, and ancillary advances in technology the Pentagon has been content to rely on this old-school approach? Wouldn't everything developed prior to 1980 of been completely obsolete by the mid 1980's?

5. At the end of the 1980's weren't there sightings, and suggestions of a new generation of planes that were so technologically advanced as to result in complete U.S. dominance of the skies and space?
I'm speaking of what was referred to as Aurora during the early 90's. Can anyone give an approximate estimate of the top speed and g-loading that a cutting edge top secret aircraft is capable of achieveing? You know, one that has been designed in the late 90's, built in the 21st century with a blank check, and every available(hidden)advance in technology?
Wouldn't placing a warm "body" in such a craft limit it's potential? What would be the point of having a human inside of said craft? I'm imagining that modern pilots would expect to control a plane from a cozy bunker on U.S. soil. Is this not common by now?

6. Hasn't the Air Force recently announced it's intentions to make sub orbital spaceflight for rapid marine deployment, and satellite protection a more common occurence? Didn't I read this in popular mechanics or something?

7. Here in San Diego we are privvy to some interesting aerial displays due to the close proximity of Lock.M., and North.G.. Are my eyes deceiving me, or do I see planes the size of large bombers taking off like the space shuttle, and hauling literal ass across the sky routinely? Going from horizon to horizon in approximately two minutes.
Also, there are slightly smaller planes that seem to be going much(emphasis)much faster. If you look far ahead of the planes trajectory you will notice a greenish-blue beam with no perceptible drop in coherence of the beam extending indefintely. It seems to be cutting through the atmosphere like a laser through butter. Anyone know what this could possibly be?

8. Whatever happened to Viktor Schauberger, and his ideas about implosive vortices? Didn't the SS, and then the U.S. develop Mercury Vortex engines? Or is that just crazy conspiracy crap?

9. Can someone please explain why planes commercial and otherwise are dumping literal tons of chemicals on the public at large. I was out at my friends farm several months ago, and we saw planes repeatedly dumping vast amounts of chemicals in an X hatch pattern right over our heads. When it came raining down, and blanketed the area several hours later we all became violently ill. It feels alot like having fiberglass in your lungs, and upper passageways. I still have not fully recovered, several elderly neighbors had to be taken to the hospital.

What is the purpose of this? Is it intended to beef up our immune systems in case of a biological attack. Is it to kill off the elderly? Is it to make us sick so people will have to increasingly rely on the medical community(industry)?

Have the people running this country forgotten that they need our consent to dope us? Given a choice, I would have taken my chances with a biochemical attack, instead of what has been perpetrated here.

Asymptotically,
Ryan Dean - An increasingly pissed off citizen




RE: AeroPlane
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 7:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is a strong candidate for "most bizzare post of the year" award.


RE: AeroPlane
By TETRONG on 12/6/2007 7:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the vote Sahrin.

I did my best impression of a normal person, and you still managed to see through my guise.

If you'd like to be entertained, I can direct you to some truly bizarre nuggets I've deposited elsewhere on the intertubes.


RE: AeroPlane
By FITCamaro on 12/6/2007 10:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can someone please explain why planes commercial and otherwise are dumping literal tons of chemicals on the public at large. I was out at my friends farm


Perhaps it was fertilizer? And you're not meant to breathe it you twit. And if it wasn't fertilizer(or was for that matter), why the hell would you freaking stand there and wait for it to come down on you?


RE: AeroPlane
By MagicSquid on 12/6/2007 11:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Heya.

1. We've spent 493 billion in 2007 alone, up 7% from last year. That's almost 1 trillion in the past 2 years alone.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defens...

2. It would be really tough to find the answer to #2, since inflation, cold war, Reagan's rayguns, etc. come in to play there quite heavily, and there's also so many black projects that they name something like "Patriot Fund" and shovel a few billion into and never tell the public what it's about or what it does, it's nearly impossible to tell what the real defense budget is, even if you did find a list of the budget year by year dating back to the beginning of the country.

I'm too lazy to tackle any of the others.


RE: AeroPlane
By spluurfg on 12/7/2007 2:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
I find it funny that you seem concerned over the amount the US sends on its defense budget, but are also concerned that we are using anything 'less than the best'. The Cold War ended a while ago. Massive quantities of ultra high tech aircraft, frankly, are probably not needed.

Also, the US spends significantly more than any other nation on defense (around half a trillion dollars a year), but less than many other nations as a percentage of GDP, and the percentage of GDP devoted to defense has decreased steadily since the end of WW2.

As for the second half of your post, I encourage you to watch more 'friends' reruns.


As an Australian...
By stmok on 12/6/2007 12:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
...We've invested quite a bit of time and money into the JSF (F-35). As time goes by, some of us wonder if the money spent would've been better off making our own fighter for our own needs.

What astounds me is the fact that the previous govt (Liberal) didn't bother to assess or evaluate other potential candidates for our requirements, they just blindly signed into the F-35 and Super Hornet deals. (There was supposed to be a presentation made by Dassault, but that never happened, to the surprise of the French folks).

What initially was a AUD$16 Billion dollar deal (F35 + support/training) turns out into a AUD$22 Billion dollar cluster f**k. (F-35 + Super Hornets + support/training for BOTH aircraft!)




RE: As an Australian...
By Noya on 12/6/2007 2:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As time goes by, some of us wonder if the money spent would've been better off making our own fighter for our own needs.


I don't think you could have made anything near the supposed performance of the F-35 for $22 billion. The F-35 uses R&D from the F-22 program. The best you probably could have done is something like the Grippen. The Euro fighter is made by a consortium and costs $122m each (similar to the F22).


RE: As an Australian...
By probedb on 12/6/2007 5:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
Lol :) Maybe we'll actually have Euro fighters in service before this ;) It's not like the RAF has no money or anything and our front line fighters are ancient.


RE: As an Australian...
By Merry on 12/6/2007 9:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the Eurofighter is already in service. In the UK at least.

As for the RAFs' other aircraft, the Tornado isnt that old. The Harrier, Nimrod, VC10, most of the helicopters, hell even the Queens BAE 146 on the other hand.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United...


RE: As an Australian...
By Heidfirst on 12/6/2007 10:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
Tornado is old & showing it although very capable.
Many of the Harriers are younger (the Sea Harriers were really young but got canned).
Nimrod is old but are being remanufactured (slowly).
We need more heavy lift ac & choppers though & some new tankers.
It's all down to the government squeezing the budget though - you can't have active ops all around the world for the same costs as a peacetime force.


Replace the A-10?
By badmoodguy on 12/6/2007 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 1
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the F-35 going to replace the A-10? Isn't the A-10 a big, slow, hard to shoot down frame surrounding a devastating gun?




RE: Replace the A-10?
By bespoke on 12/6/2007 1:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
The "Fighter Mafia" in the US Air Force has always hated the A-10 - it's not sexy, it doesn't go fast, and it's meant to play in the mud. These are not macho jets for those who aren't happy unless they're going Mach 2 with their hair on fire (to borrow a phrase from Top Gun).

Thus, we're going to replace a flying tank with flying Ferrari.


RE: Replace the A-10?
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 2:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
OOH-RAH HOG!!!!

Man I love that aircraft. Flies low and slow and can deliver heretofore UNHEARD of amounts of pain by steel rain!

"Fighter Mafia", heh. I hate those fu**ing guys. The only reason that aircraft exist is to support the grunt on the ground.

I say, give those acft to Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC)! We damn sure would make outstanding use of them.


RE: Replace the A-10?
By inperfectdarkness on 12/7/2007 10:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
i personally love the a-10. i said years ago there's no way a supersonic fighter can properly supplant the a-10.

i'd also like to mention that the x35 looked much sexier than the "bigmouth bass" of the x32. it's not the first time "sexiness" played into airplane selection. in order to overcome a "looks" deficit, you'd need to have a FAR superior airframe. the x32 didn't have that.

i'd also like to point out why we need to spend more $$$ than every other country:

NUMBERS.

we will never match china in military numbers. we have to beat them through superior firepower, technology, and integration. anything close to pairity will result with us losing--simply because they can quite possibly put up pilots in a 10:1 ratio against us. we'll run out of amraams long before they run out of pilots and planes.


RE: Replace the A-10?
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 7:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
One story I will always remember from talking to A-10 pilots at airshows is the one discribing the shells of the GAU-8 Avenger gatling gun. The shells are the size of milk bottles. They have delpleted uranium armor piecing shells and incendiary shells. The pilots can choose either in their loadout but most prefer to mix every other shell so that the armor piercing shell can lead the way through the armour while the incendiary shell follows right through the hole to do its business. The hog drivers affectionately call this combo: "The party mix."


Edits
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/6/2007 11:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, here we go again:

Paragraph One: One does not "sweep money under (a) rug" to pay for something. One sweeps something "under a rug" to hide it, metaphorically. These payments were not being hidden.

Paragraph Two: "Well, ..." Is that any way to start a paragraph? You write like a Pythonian pepper pot.
Paragraph Two: "the old F-15 isn't the only fighter in the U.S. arsenal that is having problems. The F-35 program..." The F-35 is not yet in the U.S. arsenal, so in fact the F-15 WOULD be the only fighter mentioned in this article having problems. Further, the "program" is not a fighter.
Paragraph Two: The "electrical system failure" was travelling at 500 MPH at 38,000 feet? How was it doing that?

Paragraph Four: Of course it does.

Paragraph Six: "International countries!?!"

Paragraph Eight: "On top of all this...!?!"

Yegads, and the hyberbole!




RE: Edits
By AlexandertheBlue on 12/10/2007 1:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
All that complaing and he missed the stopgate - stopgap gaff


RE: Edits
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/10/2007 8:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I do remember seeing that. With so many gaffs, one or two are bound to get through. We all make mistakes, just some of us more chronically than others. =)


Adapter?
By timmiser on 12/6/2007 6:33:59 AM , Rating: 1
OK I have to ask the obvious...

If this is an "Electric Jet" and it will be operated by many European countries, does that mean they will need to get one of those European electrical adapter gadgets at Radio Shack before they can plug them in to the European outlets?




RE: Adapter?
By djc208 on 12/6/2007 9:16:22 AM , Rating: 1
There's probably a little switch next to the aux power connector that you have to flip with a screwdriver once you have the right cable.


RE: Adapter?
By Sahrin on 12/6/2007 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 1
That and the metric conversion kit, and you're set. Pounds of fuel indeed...


RE: Adapter?
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 7:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, someone didn't like our little Euro humor!

We all got rated down for that one.


NEW PIC
By 1078feba on 12/6/2007 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
Brandon,
May I humbly suggest that you change the pic on this post to a nice face shot of the crusty, salty, red-headed, stogie-chommpin' wrench-turnin' Master Gunnery Sergeant in charge of maintenance on that venerable show, "Black Sheep Squadron".

...I just never thought he got his due...




RE: NEW PIC
By Ringold on 12/6/2007 5:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
Random plug: I'm reading Black Sheep One: The Life of Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, by Bruce Gamble.

Good read.


By Comdrpopnfresh on 12/6/2007 12:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Will the government take another look at northrop's offering? I thought it looked to be more superior- it had a more innovative design, and included a huge fan in the midsection for vtol usage.




By aeroengineer1 on 12/6/2007 2:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
These guys did not even make it to the "come and play" stage. That means that there design is only some fancy looking drawings on the computer and some sizing code iterations. Basically they would be so far behind that it would take 5-10 years till they got to this point where the F-35 is.


This line is incorrect...
By derubermensch1 on 12/6/2007 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
"The Pratt & Whitney F135 faced another setback in October when the engine overheated and blew up during bench testing"

The fan shaft that does half the lifting fractured presumably due to high temps. The line in question makes it seem like everything is back to square one and it was a grandiose event : )




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki