F-16.net

The Navy version only handles 7.5 Gs!? Wow, there are gonna be a lot of unhappy people in the AF if this decision gets approved...

-Aaron

F-16.net Sponsor

The 35 won't get axed, it's way too international / political to cancel. What are they going to do? Refund all that R&D money paid by the international partners and say, "Sorry, just kidding"? The A version might go away but that'll put a damper (but won't kill) export orders. The Rafale and Typhoon are very capable but they aren't stealth, which IS the big point of this aircraft. Also, it wouldn't be the first time the AF has had to use a Navy plane. They'll do it, but man will they wank about it!

The F-35C can handle 9g's just fine, but the Navy decided they'd rather trade longer aircraft life for that extra 1.5g (sorta like detuning a motor to make it last). From the rumors I heard, the Air Force's big fight for their variant was 1) has to be a 9g plane, 2) has to have an internal gun, and 3) the Navy version can't have better toy's than the AF version. Go Viper mafia!

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 58 Status: Offline

Funny that in modern day advancement of technology u cant even get a decent sized fighter with the range requirments that pulls 9G's..even after 250 billion in money investments...

I'm no expert on acquisitions (sp?), but it doesn't make much sense to me that cutting the A model is going to save any appreciable amount of money. The R+D is done and the production is going to be very similar, if not cheaper than the C model without the heavy landing gear and bigger wing. I guess there would be a separate OT+E cost that the AF would have to foot, but that's relatively minor when you're talking about buying so many jets.

Can anybody with some good numbers help me out here and let me know how this might actually save money?

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 58 Status: Offline

No one would prob the exact no. however i seiouslty doubt that such a move would be succesfull in even getting past the Sec. defence's office.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Wow. Someone in the Pentagon that isn't completely bought and paid for by the military industrial complex, ( MIC )is actually thinking outside the box.

Thing is if you saw any USAF briefings on unit budgets ( pick any topic from airplanes to maintenance to the other 90% of the USAF that supports all of that ) You would have known for some time now that there is very limited money for spending. Pretty hard to believe that, when you see news reports of out biggest defense budget in history. Problem there is that there are things in the budget we don't need like JSF, V-22, Stryker, C-130J to name a few dumb spending ideas and yet we have dumb stuff like a shortage of proper small arms ammo to conduct training or give as base field issue to grunts in the field. The bankers and industrialists are making the money and occassionally some of it dribbles down and gets into the hands of a Marine, Soldier, Airman, or Sailor. Add to that is we Always pick our civilian secretary of the Army, Navy, USAF and Sec Def...... right out of industry leadership. Who do you think these people call/email when they want something done? Laughing

( as shown by Former Hon. Sec USAF Mr. Roche { I liked Roche but if you or I did what he did, We would be court martialed } )

Projects Dragging and/or in fallow because of stupid weapon systems buys and the war in Iraq:

-Sensible tanker roadmap
-C-5 upgrades that IMPROVE mission up times
-B-1 upgrades that IMPROVE mission up times
-E-8 Replacement
-X-45 UCAV ( mucho progress on this and it has done well )
-Flying hours ( we robbed flying hours to pay for the above mentioned stupidity )
-R&D for FB-22, B-3, hyper sonic air to surface weapon a la the test of off the B-52 sometime back.
-Various / numerious base sustainment and people issues. Example: I would rather give a $50,000 check to each of the company grade officers that we are forcing out due to our own stupidity than see any of the moronic big ticket purchaes we are doing.
-The above mentioned things are just a SHORT List.

Folks, unless China lets us borrow the credit card again, There is NO money for big ticket weapon systems that we do not need. MIC does not care. They only want to make the next sale.

As for the Navy who I want to see succeed. They need to stop going after dumb stuff like the DDX and instead farm R&D into a REAL long range high performance multi-role deck aircraft on par with F-22 performance.

Now specific JSF stuff. If "Joint" is the word. We need the C before we need a A or even a B. Wow. All the sudden the more common production method of the Ugly girl that showed up to the JSF competition looks really tempting. Laughing

If it can't fly off of a carrier deck it doesn't provide any use. As for USAF. As I said all along, We will be able to do ALL of our air plan, and never miss the JSF. BTW USN is going to go out and by another batch of F-18SH. I hate it. But with what we have learned, it is a good enough bomb truck. I would rather see that in the hands of someone that knows how to use them to kill hardcore ( USMC ). Give the USMC some F models and you will see them do good things. Funny isn't it? Many crow about how important a jump jet is, yet, we crash Harriers at a super high rate, yet, REFUSE to spend enough money on them to keep them from crashing. Why is that? It's not new and the job of MIC is to make the next sale. Not to give us anything we want. Take the jump jet from our ability and we will still win wars.

Someone also mentioned the V-22 is good for another thread. I am ready anytime for that ill begotten POS. Laughing

My unrestricted warfare against moronic weapon systems, is not going to stop. Laughing

I do not like seeing war winning platforms we already have, being bled white on sustainment issues, just because some congressman is bought and paid for by industry.

Last edited by TenguNoHi on Nov 21, 2005 - 06:15 PM; edited 1 time in total

I agree with you on the V-22 Elp. But talk about over expenditures, the FB-22, useful? Nah..... Or a B-3? nope not seeing it... our inventory now should last us untill the UCAV era...

As for the distributions of small arms; the problamatic thought in that anyways is we already give everyone terrible small arms to begin with.

-Aaron

Edit: Oh yeah, and I most certainly think a high performance front line fighter like the F-22 for the navy is a waste of money! Now that the AF charges all air operations what does the Navy need it for? You dont really need stealth for fleet defense. In fact it would be a deterrant if the enemy knew you were coming up for them. I agree the SH and F-35 dont fit the role to replace the F-14 but all you really need is something that can turn in a knife fight and has a strong enough avionics suit and a2a missile to fight it out with the rest of them.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

TenguNoHi wrote:

As for the distributions of small arms; the problamatic thought in that anyways is we already give everyone terrible small arms to begin with.

The standard issue M16 is still an excellent weapon is`nt it? If US forces are still issued with it? The SAS use them so they can`t be all bad Cool

lol...*gets finikity* the SAS use the G-36 (dumped the M-4 in favour of it)... the M-16 is a good weapon in temporal climates... reports from Iraq are saying its very unreliable in desert conditions. The replacement for the M-16/M-4 is the XM-8 which is a G-36 mechanism in a different plastic body.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 87 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

TenguNoHi wrote:

.
As for the distributions of small arms; the problamatic thought in that anyways is we already give everyone terrible small arms to begin with.

-Aaron

The standard issue M16 is still an excellent weapon is`nt it? If US forces are still issued with it? The SAS use them so they can`t be all bad Cool

If it was that good, the special ops folks would not have bothered inventing the 6.8mm SPC.

As for JSF, USAF can live with the carrier variant if it has an internal gun, they might even be willing to go with the USN probe-and-drogue refueling, but they'll want a standard boom and receptical if they can get it. They are already on record as stating that they want a few hundred STOVL versions IF it has an internal gun. And naturally, they'd be willing to give up on JSF entirely if they could get 6-800 F/A-22.

-MArk

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

TenguNoHi wrote:

I agree with you on the V-22 Elp. But talk about over expenditures, the FB-22, useful? Nah..... Or a B-3? nope not seeing it... our inventory now should last us untill the UCAV era...

As for the distributions of small arms; the problamatic thought in that anyways is we already give everyone terrible small arms to begin with.

-Aaron

Edit: Oh yeah, and I most certainly think a high performance front line fighter like the F-22 for the navy is a waste of money! Now that the AF charges all air operations what does the Navy need it for? You dont really need stealth for fleet defense. In fact it would be a deterrant if the enemy knew you were coming up for them. I agree the SH and F-35 dont fit the role to replace the F-14 but all you really need is something that can turn in a knife fight and has a strong enough avionics suit and a2a missile to fight it out with the rest of them.

We spend giga dollars on carriers. Just because we go to sea doesn't mean the threat profile changes. We need a long reach big stick that can beat up large Su's. As a deterrent. Large Su's that are in numbers. i.e. China. F-18E/F by itself on the carrier ( JSF is not going to reach the carrier for some time ) Puts those carriers at risk. They can't do more than they could.... they now do less. The F-14 was old and a maintenance hog, but when it burned fuel, it had contempt of engagement. F-18E/F has NO contempt of engagement vs. a big Su. Given that something of JSF form will reach the aircraft carrier. That still does not solve the problem. It isn't long range, it isn't fast. Take a JSF and an F-22 and lets say both of their RCS is compromised while flying a mission due to enemy ESM activity. The F-22 has speed and the ability to run from a big SU and re setup. The JSF ..... does not. We are NOT going to stop R&D. If R&D is to be used wisely.... We still need to protect Navy admirals from their own stupidity and R&D a jet that will occupy about 10-12 slots on the carrier air wing roster and that has similar performance to the F-22.

Elp I wont start cause I think there is already a thread floating somewhere about a fleet defense fighter but I dont think something as hansome as the F-22 is neccessary.

-Aaron

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 28, 2004 Posts: 24 Status: Offline

This wouldn't be the first time that the AF bought a Navy plane, but hopefully it will have a gun.....

elp wrote:

We still need to protect Navy admirals from their own stupidity

I'm afraid that is a tough task to accomplish.

I'm biased toward the U.S. Air Force for obvious reasons. If the navy wants to continue with their road map to airpower, so be it.

*I'm harsher on them than probably most due to past history* Very Happy

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Well, I think carriers are as important to our airpower as anything else. When used right, they are extremely powerful. I belive in the USN. It pains me greatly to see the carrier air wing thinking being brought down to a mediocre performance goal on what a carrier can do... what a carrier should be able to do... and what it could do in the future. We should just bite the bullet and put a no-peer-group air domination weapon of F-22 standard on the carrier deck. I don't even need a lot of those, just some. Let the F-18E/F and UCAV x-47 do the rest of the important bomb truck work. But no. Lets instead let the Navy go after DDX. Rolling Eyes

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

AF JSF Cancellation