Forum: Program and politics

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Complain complain.. sometimes there are reasons to complain. The JSF is hardly better than a SH I'm sorry, especially than an upgraded SH with new engines, radar, etc.. Basically they have the same capabilities, same kind of range, speed, manoeuvrability, etc.

The only thing the F-35 brings is a reduced RCS, in the order of 20 times less apparently, which would cut detection range in half. Not worth spending 10 billion of R&D - about 30 million per aircraft for 300 aircraft - for that and end up with a fighter that costs twice as much.

The F-22 would have added really new capabilities and would have complemented the SHs very well. The $ 15 billion battle group would have been better protected.....

Would an F-22N have been feasable? I don't know, but that's not impossible at all.

F-16.net Sponsor

Weren't you just saying in another thread that the Navy needs to bring on the JSF as a replacement for the SH quickly? Shrug

The object of a battle group is not to go around from place to place protecting itself. Thats fairly circular logic. As far as defending a battle group......, are you familiar with the AEGIS ships?

If the Navy thought that it needed a jet that could do everything a Tomcat could do, it would have built a big Mach 2+ interceptor that could haul lots of big missiles many many miles and kill lots of things. But they realized that they did not need that capability anymore for whatever reason, be it the reduction of threat or the capabilities of the AEGIS ships - whoever really knows for sure isn't going to say, it's gotta be classified. They decided (rightly in my opinion) that they no longer needed what a Tomcat could do, and that the replacement (JSF) was too far away and needed something to "fill the gap" and then some. The SH does that very well, being able to do both the fleet defense and strike roles almost as well as the F-14/A-6. It's going to complement the JSF very well, but the HUGE advantage in every single air combat arena that a stealth a/c brings is worth the extra money. Bottom line: the Navy needed the SH, and now it's going to need the JSF.

I don't know about a "navalized" F-22, but I'm sure somebody has looked into it and decided it wasn't really feasible, or that it wasn't going to give a great enough capability leap over the JSF - besides, the AF will be around to save their a$$ if it gets too hot Wink

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The JSF is better than the SH, but not so much better. They have virtually the same range, speed, performance overall, load capability. It's pretty much the same capability in a lower RCS airframe.

The difference of RCS does not justify the additionnal cost. If you include the R&D cost, the JSF is going to cost about twice as much as a production SH. GRanted an F-22N would have cost even more, but it would have been unmatched in a/a and would have provided even better stealthy strike capability.

The F-22 is more stealthy than the F-35, better radar, supercruise and all the rest. Not comparable to a SH.

guppygoshawk wrote:

Weren't you just saying in another thread that the Navy needs to bring on the JSF as a replacement for the SH quickly? Shrug

The object of a battle group is not to go around from place to place protecting itself. Thats fairly circular logic. As far as defending a battle group......, are you familiar with the AEGIS ships?

AEGIS is a non-starter in carrier air group ability. AEGIS ( re: the SAM portion of it, is defensive... the offensive part ( Tomahawk ) is expensive per round and not always a total solution for strike warfare. For years we have been able to reach out at distance from the battle group and hit something or more important... keep the enemy way out of arms reach of the battle group. Yes more times than not a carrier battle group works as part of a joint team. There are other mission sets though when on short notice, it is the only resource around. Having such long gaps in ability ( .."oh we will wait several years and patch up x lack of ability that we had before ..")... is dangersous and dumb. We should be at this time working on a 2 engine long range multi-role ( FAST, stealth jet ) that can dominate an airspace away from the carrier. The fact that nothing like this seems to be on the R&D pipeline, shows that USN has driven off the known map of reality when it comes to keeping carrier air, without peer ( re: range, area domination and strike range ). NO admiral wants any part of putting their carrier battle group into a situation where you have to fire up the SAMs off of the AEGIS screen. Popular to common belief also, it is very very very hard to find a carrier out in deep blue water when you start getting 500 miles away from it, when a carrier battle group goes into combat / econ mode.

Does anyone have video clips of the super hornet, because i use to have a really good one. I think it was an airshow at avalon or something but the site doesn't work anymore.

http://www.stevesairshow.com/2004shows/ ... ideos.html

It has a demo of a F/A-18F at oceana. Great site, lots of vids of SH and other planes (incuding the Viper Devil

) from different airshows.

I think the Boeing site may have some, but it's not wotking for me right now..

Excerpt from Aviation Week...

U.S. Navy's New Chief Eyes Review Of Fighters, Helos, UAVs
10/17/2005 09:46:22 AM
By Marc Selinger

Quote:

The U.S. Navy's new top military officer intends to have the service conduct an extensive review of its fighter aircraft, helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicle plans.

The Navy, which decided several years ago to more closely integrate its fighter force with the Marine Corps', will conduct a new review of that effort to ensure it is proceeding as planned, said Adm. Mike Mullen, who became chief of naval operations in July. The integration is supposed to allow the two services to cut their purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from 1,089 jets to 680.

Although JSF is the Pentagon's most pricey acquisition program and is often rumored to be a potential cancellation target, Mullen reiterated the Navy's commitment to the F-35.

"The Navy needs it," he said. "I need the range, I need the stealth. It's a very important program to me."

Mullen said the Navy will also examine whether it is "positioned right" with helicopters, which are often in high demand. Future capability needs will be the focus of the helicopter review, with one "point of discussion" being potential increased integration with Marine helicopter forces.

The Navy also will assess its need for UAVs, which are increasingly important for such things as monitoring oil platforms in the Persian Gulf to ensure security, said Mullen, who spoke with reporters Oct. 13 to discuss his new CNO Guidance for 2006.

What do they really intend to do? Cut the SH? Or the F-35? We might see soon.

Aren't most of the F-18E/F buys already in the budget ( payed for )?

Forum: Program and politics

JSF for Navy?