Forum: Program and politics

maus92 wrote:

neurotech wrote:

As commented in the other thread, current scuttlebutt seems to confirm movement around somebody buying additional Super Hornets. One possibility is that the RAAF might buy factor built EA-18s from Boeing, saving $10-20m in upgrade costs. Another possibility is that the RAAF will buy a Block III jet with improved capabilities, and less expensive upgrade to full Growler capability. A Block III jet could be delivered in 2-3 years to the RAAF.

Australia buying Block III Super Hornets would fantastic for the USN, especially if the Brazilians opt for the Supers as well. With other buyers sharing the cost of the Block III / IR version upgrades, it makes a strong case for the Navy to continue buying Super Hornets, and not wasting money SLEPing older legacy Hornets. And if the Canadians go with the Super Hornet, it gets even better.

When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.

Delusional, absolutely delusional.

F-16.net Sponsor

gtx wrote:

And pigs may fly...

Sorry, they retired the F-111 "Pig". That is the only flying pig that I know of.

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.

Delusional, absolutely delusional.

That is a little arrogant isn't it? None of us can be 100% what will happen in 7-10 years down the track with a program.

Having plans to cover delays/shortfalls is smart. If that means another 12 Super Hornets, so be it. SLEP programs are not cheap, remember that.

Part of the issue with the F-35 program is that the focus seems to be on "combat coded" birds. Newsflash, training doesn't require fully combat coded and ready aircraft. 12 F-35s would be enough to outfit a training squadron, and later jets could go to a front line squadron, problem solved.

neurotech wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

maus92 wrote:

When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.

Delusional, absolutely delusional.

That is a little arrogant isn't it? None of us can be 100% what will happen in 7-10 years down the track with a program.

Having plans to cover delays/shortfalls is smart. If that means another 12 Super Hornets, so be it. SLEP programs are not cheap, remember that.

Part of the issue with the F-35 program is that the focus seems to be on "combat coded" birds. Newsflash, training doesn't require fully combat coded and ready aircraft. 12 F-35s would be enough to outfit a training squadron, and later jets could go to a front line squadron, problem solved.

I'd agree with you Neuro, but I think its tiresome to listen to certain posters who come here with utterly dubious claims and fanciful scenarios like this one. I think most posters on here fully acknowledge the risks involved with the F-35 and are hopeful for its future. I can fully understand why Australia would buy 12 fighters going forward and its affect on the overall F-35 program.

However I think posts like that illustrate the frustration some feel at those certain parties who have the arrogance to continually argue that the military is making a terrible mistake with the F-35 and should go with upgraded F-35s or F/A-18E/Fs. Almost all the views they post are just to attack the program, without any discussion of the context or alternative views.

hb_pencil wrote:

However I think posts like that illustrate the frustration some feel at those certain parties who have the arrogance to continually argue that the military is making a terrible mistake with the F-35 and should go with upgraded F-35s or F/A-18E/Fs. Almost all the views they post are just to attack the program, without any discussion of the context or alternative views.

Upgraded F-35s?

I'm not one to call the program a "terrible mistake". Lets not forget that the F/A-18 was basically created because the YF-16 won the LWF competition, but wasn't viable as a Navy jet. Does that make the LWF competition a mistake.. hell no.

Similarly, the F-14 was created out of the unsuccessful F-111B program. Does that make the F-111B program a failure? Nope.. The F-14 leveraged a significant part of the F-111B design.

Calling the F-35 program a "terrible mistake" is down right stupid. The fact is that if LM imploded and the USAF buys Block III++ Super Hornets, you can bet your a** they'll use technology from the F-35 program to improve the design in fairly short order.

The F-14 didn't leverage any part of the F-111's design. The only thing it had in common was swing wings and two crew...that's it.

Engines, AWG-9 fire control system, Phoenix missiles

checksixx wrote:

The F-14 didn't leverage any part of the F-111's design. The only thing it had in common was swing wings and two crew...that's it.

Grumman played a major role in converting the F-111A design to F-111B for carrier operations. The F-111B and F-14A use the same engines, same radar. There is also some avionics commonality as well.

Design does not equal equipment.

If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.

johnwill wrote:

If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.

So now your saying that the engines (made by P&W) and the radar and AIM-54 (made by Hughes), had something to do with the design of either aircraft?? Or that I'm wrong in saying the F-14 was not a follow-on design of the F-111B? I don't think so bud...

You said the F-14 was born from the design of the F-111B..which is flat out wrong. They may have designed it to hold some of the same systems and equipment, but the designs were not common in the way an engineer would think. There was no alteration of the F-111B design...the F-14 was a different design altogether.

Not sure why you changed to 'leverage the 111B design' instead of the other way around...maybe typing too fast?

checksixx wrote:

Design does not equal equipment.

The point is that the F-14 was designed after the F-111B was cancelled. They were not designed in parallel, and the F-14 avionics being based on the F-111B probably saved months, if not years in development.

neurotech wrote:

checksixx wrote:

Design does not equal equipment.

The point is that the F-14 was designed after the F-111B was cancelled. They were not designed in parallel, and the F-14 avionics being based on the F-111B probably saved months, if not years in development.

So you agree with me then...thank you.

checksixx wrote:

johnwill wrote:

If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.

So now your saying that the engines (made by P&W) and the radar and AIM-54 (made by Hughes), had something to do with the design of either aircraft?? Or that I'm wrong in saying the F-14 was not a follow-on design of the F-111B? I don't think so bud...

Firstly, that comment was actually from johnwill. Secondly, they DO design the airframe around the engine and mission systems. Have you ever looked at the nose of a Su-27 series jet and compared it to a F-15? The Su-27 has a huge nose and sometimes canards because the radar is so damn heavy.

I used the word "leverage" for a reason. The F-14 isn't a follow-on in the same way the F-15D and F-15E share commonality. The program was a follow-on, not the design itself.

For 4th gen or newer fighters, the avionics and mission systems is a significant part of the "design". If the F-111B had been a resounding success, do you think the Navy would have said to Grumman "Okay, now build us a F-14 for dogfighting?" I don't think so.

No, sixx, don't agree. Why don't you get some sleep and tomorrow, read what you have just written. Makes no sense to me. How about you, neurotech?

Forum: Program and politics

Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters