Russian Stealth Fighter
01-30-2010 | 09:43 AM
#21
No one's home
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
As you hinted at in your post, the weakest part in our fleet is the tankers. Those are things we really need.
We do disagree, but this is not a new debate. Whenever new military equipment is introduced there are always those that think it is a waste and some that think it is vital. B-1A and M1A1 come to mind each with completely different results.
01-30-2010 | 09:50 AM
#22
No one's home
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Rhetorical but the remark was the ORIGINAL Hornet was very capable. It may have been but there were shortcomings. And if the original capabilities were sufficient, why redesign it to almost a completely new airplane?
Apparently someone thought there were design points that fell short or at least needed to be revised.
The F/A-18E/F aircraft are 4.2 feet longer than earlier Hornets, have a 25% larger wing area, and carry 33% more internal fuel which will effectively increase mission range by 41% and endurance by 50%. The Super Hornet also incorporates two additional weapon stations
01-30-2010 | 10:02 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
From: Walmart Greeter
Yes the original comment was 'Very Capable'. But in the grand scheme of things there is nothing the SuperHornet does that the Legacy Hornet doesn't do except give gas and a bit in the EW realm. I fly both of them routinely...The SH isn't so much about expanded capability as it was a step up in increased capacity, there's a stark difference. The other issue you're not even touching on is the gap in Strike Fighters that the SH virtually eliminates provided the buy of aircraft is sufficient. We have out and overflown our Legacy Hornets which drove the requirements for the cheaper SH that bridges the gap to JSF.
Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.
Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.
01-30-2010 | 01:07 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Box Pusher
Kass - those were direct questions, not confrontations. You have to plan using an ORM model - risk to reward. Of course, aircraft like the F-22 cost exponentially more than MQ-9's, but the risk (cost) of not being prepared for the war that the F-22 is designed for is exponentially more than the risk of not being prepared for the war the MQ-9 is designed for. The nation that only prepares for today's war will be woefully unprepared for tomorrow's war, and our nation has been guilty of that on numerous occasions.
For the record, I am not a proponent of the F-22 per se, I am a proponent of a robust air superiority capability (and 189 F-22's are not it). If yo had read any of the F-22 specific threads, you would have seen that I was more a proponent of upgraded F-15's and a smaller contingent of F-22's. Air superiority is not a "nice thing to have", it allows your offensive strike aircraft to operate at will, your ISR aircraft (so important now) to operate at will, and your ground forces to operate at will with no threat of attack by enemy aircraft. Air superiority is an incredible multiplier, so to say that the money could have gone towards better uses - I disagree.
The day before Katrina, it would have seemed a wise use of resources (for someone who could not evacuate) to buy water, food, and generators. Two days after Katrina, it wouldn't have seemed like such a good use when people with guns came and took all of the food, water, and generators. The day before, someone would have said "do you know how much more food and water you can buy instead of a $600 gun and $150 of ammunition?" Afterwards, they would "I wish we still had that smaller stockpile (minus the $750) instead of nothing at all." Same goes here - NO, I do not agree that the resources would be better used for a more imminent threat because I think 5-10 yrs down the road as well as towards tomorrow - even though I am currently actively fighting the war of today. We need to maintain a credible threat to keep potential enemies from piling on or using our distraction to pursue their national goals. And we need to make sure we don't roll from winning today's war into losing tomorrow's. These capabilities can't be built overnight.
For the record, I am not a proponent of the F-22 per se, I am a proponent of a robust air superiority capability (and 189 F-22's are not it). If yo had read any of the F-22 specific threads, you would have seen that I was more a proponent of upgraded F-15's and a smaller contingent of F-22's. Air superiority is not a "nice thing to have", it allows your offensive strike aircraft to operate at will, your ISR aircraft (so important now) to operate at will, and your ground forces to operate at will with no threat of attack by enemy aircraft. Air superiority is an incredible multiplier, so to say that the money could have gone towards better uses - I disagree.
The day before Katrina, it would have seemed a wise use of resources (for someone who could not evacuate) to buy water, food, and generators. Two days after Katrina, it wouldn't have seemed like such a good use when people with guns came and took all of the food, water, and generators. The day before, someone would have said "do you know how much more food and water you can buy instead of a $600 gun and $150 of ammunition?" Afterwards, they would "I wish we still had that smaller stockpile (minus the $750) instead of nothing at all." Same goes here - NO, I do not agree that the resources would be better used for a more imminent threat because I think 5-10 yrs down the road as well as towards tomorrow - even though I am currently actively fighting the war of today. We need to maintain a credible threat to keep potential enemies from piling on or using our distraction to pursue their national goals. And we need to make sure we don't roll from winning today's war into losing tomorrow's. These capabilities can't be built overnight.
It is similar to the B-1A program or even the XB-70. Large supersonic bombers that would be able to attack Russia well before any of their bombers could come within range of our allies. We were able to build them and demonstrate their capability, but in the end, the cost of the aircraft could not justify their use. We determined the ICBM and submarine programs were more cost effective.
The F-15 has a fantastic service record and is still a match for any plane out there. I think we would be better off if we created a new version (not an upgrade). It would probably be much cheaper and therefore we can build more. In the past, we have seen that when it comes down to it, it is the operator/s at the controls of the weapon platform that really make the difference.
01-30-2010 | 05:37 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
From: USAF
Yes the original comment was 'Very Capable'. But in the grand scheme of things there is nothing the SuperHornet does that the Legacy Hornet doesn't do except give gas and a bit in the EW realm. I fly both of them routinely...The SH isn't so much about expanded capability as it was a step up in increased capacity, there's a stark difference. The other issue you're not even touching on is the gap in Strike Fighters that the SH virtually eliminates provided the buy of aircraft is sufficient. We have out and overflown our Legacy Hornets which drove the requirements for the cheaper SH that bridges the gap to JSF.
Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.
Ask the Marines what they are doing and have done to bridge that gap.
01-31-2010 | 08:51 AM
#27
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,841
Likes: 653
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
High/Low fighter mix consisting of a smaller number of very expensive air superiority/supremacy fighters complemented by a larger number of less expensive fighters (usually attack optimized). It gives you that sharp performance edge if you go up against a high-end opponent, but still allows you larger numbers of switch-hitters for various circumstances such a low-tech foe with a crap-load of airframes.
It's a common strategy, this is what we did with the F15/16 and F14/18, and more or less what the russians have with the mig29 & flanker.
Other folks do it too.
It's a common strategy, this is what we did with the F15/16 and F14/18, and more or less what the russians have with the mig29 & flanker.
Other folks do it too.
01-31-2010 | 12:36 PM
#28
China Visa Applicant
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 16
From: Midfield downwind
What kind of experience do you have in this area? I don't happen to agree with that sentiment. It's a very capable airplane still, to be certain, but there are many limitations simply being a 30-year-old airframe.
01-31-2010 | 02:13 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Box Pusher
Also, in my post, I was saying that we need a new F-15. I know it is 30 years old, and that is why we need a new version. The fact that even 30 years after it left the plant it can still maintain the title of air superiority fighter is impressive.
Of course sometimes it is better to start fresh than limit yourself to a 30 year old design, my intention was to point out that we don’t always need to build the most high tech and expensive aircraft we can. I am sure that for $30 million (cost of an F-15) we can build a new fighter that is better than the current F-15s but still cheaper than the $83 million F-35.
01-31-2010 | 03:26 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 10
From: Petting Zoo
He didn't ask about your 'flight' experience, he asked about your experience. The fact that your step dad had a 1000 hours in it doesn't really equate to any expertise on your part.
I'm curious, you have some strong opinions, how did you arrive at them? I guess I'd ask, what is your experience in this area?
I'm curious, you have some strong opinions, how did you arrive at them? I guess I'd ask, what is your experience in this area?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
