2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

Post by Henry J Cobb
After only six attempts I finally got Global Security to fix the B vs C
confusion on their Joint Strike Fighter page.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
But the pic they picked to show the three variants raises a question.
Will the F-35A and F-35C have 2D thrust vectoring (like the F/A-22) or not?
-HJC

Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Henry J Cobb

2004-03-03 02:58:31 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
Will the F-35A and F-35C have 2D thrust vectoring (like the F/A-22) or not?

Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Too late for that.

The Marines are about to get the best dogfighter in the world.

How fast can it go and still use the roll nozzles? (Or does the lift fan
have to be open to use those?)

-HJC
And does this mean that the F/A-22 can use shorter runways than the F-35A?

Thomas Schoene

2004-03-03 03:22:30 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
The Marines are about to get the best dogfighter in the world.

In fact, the Air Force seems to have set the most demanding maneuverability
requirements of the three versions.

Post by Henry J Cobb
How fast can it go and still use the roll nozzles? (Or does the lift
fan have to be open to use those?)

I seriously doubt that STOVL attitude puffer jets will provide much control
authority at any speed much above the hover, comapred to the real control
surfaces. If they could, you'd see suggestions to add puffers to non-STOVL
planes. If such proposals exist, I've not seen them.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Pete Schaefer

2004-03-03 06:30:22 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
The Marines are about to get the best dogfighter in the world.

Nope. No VIFFing on this one. If you could even open all the doors on the
lift system at high speeds, they'd probably just tear off anyway.

Post by Henry J Cobb
How fast can it go and still use the roll nozzles? (Or does the lift fan
have to be open to use those?)

Speaking to the X-35B.....The roll posts don't get thrust from the lift fan,
but the system is mechanized to not use roll posts in conventional flight.
Aero moments are way bigger than thrust in roll above like 90kts, and thrust
rolling moments are comparatively negligible at 150.

Post by Henry J Cobb
And does this mean that the F/A-22 can use shorter runways than the F-35A?

Depends on the weight condition.

Thomas Schoene

2004-03-03 03:19:41 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.

I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force might
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Boomer

2004-03-03 04:18:28 UTC

The Russians developed a "round" TV nozzle for thier Flankers as have the
Indians, so it is at LEAST a possibility for the future.
I believe the nozzles on the F-22 and F-35 are too far to the rear to make
any real differance in T/O distance or landing roll, but the massive thrust
may get them to speed more quickly.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.
I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force might
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Lyle

2004-03-03 11:02:50 UTC

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

i already assumed that the JSF will have a good radar system in it
since it has to replace the F-16 in US and allied inventories. but the
question that im wondering is if the two or more F-22 can work as
Hunter/Killers, could the F-22 also work with a JSF as a Hunter/Killer
team.Basically the Hunter F-22 would lock a target or targets and
track it passing the information to the shooter(Killer) aircraft that
is radar silent and 20mi ahead of the Hunter aircraft and the Shooter
would fire the missle. All the while the Target was locked on, or
trying to lock on to the Hunter aircraft. Basically if follows the
golden rule, what you dont see will kill you..

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-03 17:53:04 UTC

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s), the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired, and
how does it fair in the manueverability dept.? Sure you can add
external weapons but then there goes your stealth. Then when the
politicians start screaming because the F-35's cost is going up and
service date is getting pushed back so the required changes can be
incorporated. . .

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-03 17:56:18 UTC

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

We can hope the F-35 folks will stand their ground.

Grantland

2004-03-03 18:10:22 UTC

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

I used to despair.. Bradley, Sgt. York, Osprey, Crusader, The F-22
selection disaster.. - Oh Hell, they're falling like the Brits.. But
now I rejoice. DIE Commanche! DIE Raptor. May you blunder in your
rotten moral failing forever. May all your thumbs be left. May F-35
be interminably cursed by your obese, contemptible innate rottenness..
I turn away, I turn away in promise to the fast rising and glorious
East.. I turn away, and behind me..may the rotted Whore of Babylon die
soon! Rotted, rancid and befouled, forever.

Grantland

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-03 18:44:05 UTC

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?

Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

Brooks

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-03 18:56:46 UTC

Post by Kevin Brooks
Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.

No matter wht the outcome of the F-22 procurement, the F-35 will have to
fill part of the F-15 role. The 200 figue was a 180 figure 12 months ago
and it is decreased by the 17 FSDs, at the very least. A capable F-35 is
one issue, but at this point configuration control is a necessity of risk
management.

Grantland

2004-03-03 19:00:56 UTC

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.
I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force

might

Post by Lyle

Post by Thomas Schoene
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?
Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.
Brooks

What you need is an upscaled F-23 Bomber-Fighter Ultrastealth with 60
or more internal sbds or internal 14 RAMRAAMS. A fucking fleet.

Grantland

Grantland

2004-03-03 19:06:33 UTC

Post by Grantland

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

Or they didn't want to pay the weight penalty in an aircraft designed for
strike over air-to-air.
I recently suggested that if the F/A-22 were canceled, the Air Force

might

Post by Lyle

Post by Thomas Schoene
look at an air-to-air version of JSF. An axi-symetrical thrust vectoring
nozzle would be high on the list of desirable modifications for such an
aircraft, I suspect.

First, you have to accept the conditional that Tom put forward--"if the
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left* with as a
potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C? Only three options are
really open to consideration-- (a) buy newer F-15's, something along the
line of the F-15K (unlikely IMO), (b) buy offshore (i.e., Typhoon)
(unlikely, and yet to be proven significantly superior to option (a)--hold
the catcalls, please), or (c) develop a more capable version (in air-to-air
terms) of the F-35 series. Of course, you could just start a whole new
program to produce a new air superiority fighter...but that would be a
non-starter. IMO, Tom's option (c) would be the most likely outcome.
Maneuverability? Apparently it will be a quite nimble aircraft; very similar
layout to the F-22, and with the thrust vectopring postulated here...
Internal weapons load? Yeah, two AIM-120's would be marginal, but if you are
going to make versions primarily AAW oriented, there is lots of room in each
bay to accomodate another AIM-120 in lieu of the bomb that would also be
carried in the current versions) if they developed a new internal bay
configuration, and four AIM-120's would be nothing to sneeze at. That
thrust-to-weight ratio also looks a bit better with the deletion of 4000
pounds of internal bomb carriage in the air-to-air role--it should be around
the 1:1 ratio in that scenario. It already will have a pretty good AESA
radar, and presumably the required LINK 16 capabilities. So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two AIM-120's and a
couple of big bombs would require such significant rework as to be delayed
at much greater cost?
Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be purchased,
albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its current guise, with a
decent possibility of more production in the form of a strike optimized
version.
Brooks

What you need is an upscaled F-23 Bomber-Fighter Ultrastealth with 60
or more internal "little bombs" or internal 14 RAMRAAMS. A fucking fleet.
Grantland

Plus gun and internal sidewinders, of course. Of course.

Grantland

Thomas Schoene

2004-03-03 19:50:34 UTC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
[big snip]

Post by Kevin Brooks
So why do you think
optimizing the weapons bays to carry four AIM-120's vice two
AIM-120's and a couple of big bombs would require such significant
rework as to be delayed at much greater cost?

Thanks for the assist Kevin. We seem to be thinking along the same lines
here.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased, albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its
current guise, with a decent possibility of more production in the
form of a strike optimized version.

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-03 20:05:55 UTC

Post by Thomas Schoene
[big snip]

Thanks for the assist Kevin. We seem to be thinking along the same lines
here.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Personally, I don't see any of this happening--the F/A-22 will be
purchased, albeit probably only in the 200 aircraft figure in its
current guise, with a decent possibility of more production in the
form of a strike optimized version.

Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to happen,
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.
I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A hybrid
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.

I believe you and I discussed the F-35A vs. F-35C issue before over in SMN,
IIRC. I have long wondered why the USAF did not take the larger wing of the
C model, as well. They could delete the wing fold requirement, thus shaving
a few pounds from it, and get that increased range you mention. The only
cost I can think of would be in maneuverability, but that would not be
critical in the strike role. But F-35 users that don't have the luxury of
having a more capable/dedicated AAW platform in addition to their F-35's
(unlike both the US and UK) would likely prefer retaining the smaller wing
and its improved maneuverability. Maybe what we really need is a fourth
version--the current A model for those international users described here,
the STOVL version for the US (both USMC and USAF), the CV version for the
USN, and your A-version-with-C version wings for the USAF CTOL
requirement... Not that there is a chance in hell of that happening, of
course.

Brooks

Post by Thomas Schoene
--
Tom Schoene

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-03 21:03:47 UTC

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22". I just don't see how we could maintain the degree of
superiority we've enjoyed without it. IT probably wouldn't be the
disaster that I see it being but it's dismaying to see so many cutting
edge programs cancelled and the idea of hoping the F-35 would be far
superior to the latest Chinese Flankers. . .well my money wouldn't be
on it.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply using
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A

hybrid

Post by Thomas Schoene
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.

Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-03 21:31:57 UTC

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of the
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.

<snip of completely unqualified opinion>

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 20:58:41 UTC

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional

"if"

Post by Thomas Schoene
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

As determined by Splapsy.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 21:14:12 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional

"if"

Post by Thomas Schoene
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

As determined by Splapsy.

As defined by your lack of any connection to the discussion at hand, Ferrin.

Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should have
died in '98. The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 21:21:37 UTC

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:14:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big

conditional

Post by Tarver Engineering
"if"

Post by Thomas Schoene
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of

the

Post by Tarver Engineering
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.
<snip of completely unqualified opinion>

As determined by Splapsy.

As defined by your lack of any connection to the discussion at hand, Ferrin.

Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

Post by Kevin Brooks
The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 21:40:30 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:14:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big

conditional

Post by Tarver Engineering
"if"

Post by Thomas Schoene
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Yeah I got it. I think I was overwhelmed by the spots in front of my
eyes and the onset of tunnel vision at the thought of "cancelled
F-22".

Even if the USAF gets the 160 F-22s, the F-35 will have to pull much of

the

Post by Tarver Engineering
F-15's current duty. It is not as though the F-35 with a high level of
capability is optional.
<snip of completely unqualified opinion>

As determined by Splapsy.

As defined by your lack of any connection to the discussion at hand, Ferrin.

Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms. The airplane is already on the wrong
side of the 2000 mil-spec procurement break.

Post by Kevin Brooks
The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

Gephardt is retiring, the USAF's options have been reduced.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 22:15:05 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

The impression I got from the other thread is that you were going to
refrain from sniping at people and grow up. My mistake.

Post by Tarver Engineering
Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should

have

Post by Tarver Engineering
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms.

*IF* they get the full 277 they will have more than enough. From an
air to air perspective go read up on how many F-15Cs were used in
Desert Storm. You also have to keep in mind that *reliable* and
*effective* are not interchangable. An F/A-18E would be virtually
useless in delivering LGBs or JDAMs against an S-300 site. Yes, I'm
aware that's why they'd use JASSMS or JSOWS *but* we're talking air to
air here. That same F/A-18E with AIM-120s fighting a Su-30 with a
competent pilot and AA-12s and possibly KS-172s in the future would
NOT be in for a fun time. So is requiring three or four F-18Es to do
the job of one F-22 cost competitive? Remember you have to add in the
cost of maintaining and manning those three or four Hornets in
addition to the fuel and aerial tanking they'd use. It's not simply a
matter of saying "the Super Hornet is cheaper and it's reliable, let's
buy it instead."

Post by Tarver Engineering
The airplane is already on the wrong
side of the 2000 mil-spec procurement break.

Post by Tarver Engineering
The F-35 is going to have to do the job, outside some USAF
F-18E buy.

The USAF would buy more F-15s before they'd buy any "Super" Hornets.

Gephardt is retiring, the USAF's options have been reduced.

The F-15 is still in production. There are still those in the USAF
who are smart enough not to go NEAR the Super Hornet when they've got
the choice (the USN didn't) so it doesn't matter if Gephardt is
retiring.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 22:32:40 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
Well so much for Tarver being "reformed". You lasted what, four or
five days? I guess it was too much to expect for you to turn over a
new leaf.

I never made any claim that I was going to reform.

The impression I got from the other thread is that you were going to
refrain from sniping at people and grow up. My mistake.

Did you expect that somehow your ignorance would now go unchallenged?

Snipping out the 2/3 of your post that were without basis was intended to be
instructional for you in the future.

Post by Tarver Engineering
Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should have
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms.

*IF* they get the full 277 they will have more than enough.

There is no 277, Ferrin and even that "full 277" is less than the "full 336"
of 2 years ago. The number of likely production F-22s is now well south of
180.

Post by Scott Ferrin
From an
air to air perspective go read up on how many F-15Cs were used in
Desert Storm. You also have to keep in mind that *reliable* and
*effective* are not interchangable.

Why would I have to keep that in mind? It is the weapons themselves that
need to be effective. Wasting money on flash is of little real utility.

A reliable airborn weapons platform is what is required, the F-22 does not
address the issues of today's warfare, let alone tomorrow's.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 23:30:10 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
The impression I got from the other thread is that you were going to
refrain from sniping at people and grow up. My mistake.

Did you expect that somehow your ignorance would now go unchallenged?
Snipping out the 2/3 of your post that were without basis was intended to be
instructional for you in the future.

"Sniping" not "snipping" dumbass. As for ignorance, who are you to
make that distinction? If we need input on splaps, optical nukes, and
strakes on the F-22 feel free to chip in. Otherwise you're no more
qualified then you are implying I think *I* am. You'd think from all
of the abuse you've gotten here you'd have figured it out by now but I
guess that's giving you too much credit.

Post by Tarver Engineering
Any way the F-22 program turns out now, I will have been correct in my
agreement with the Congressman for California that the program should

have

Post by Tarver Engineering
died in '98.

*massive eye roll* No matter how it turns out huh? Well I'm glad you
are happy in that little fantasy world you've constructed for
yourself.

They are not enough F-22s to be cost competitive in an era of reliable
airborn weapons delivery platforms.

*IF* they get the full 277 they will have more than enough.

There is no 277, Ferrin and even that "full 277" is less than the "full 336"
of 2 years ago. The number of likely production F-22s is now well south of
180.

Well I'm glad you at least know that 277 is indeed less than 336. As
for not being enough how about at least attempting to back up your
claim? If you can't find any facts how about at least giving us your
"expert" opinion?

Post by Scott Ferrin
From an
air to air perspective go read up on how many F-15Cs were used in
Desert Storm. You also have to keep in mind that *reliable* and
*effective* are not interchangable.

Why would I have to keep that in mind?

Because you seem to be confusing the two.

Post by Tarver Engineering
It is the weapons themselves that
need to be effective. Wasting money on flash is of little real utility.

What good is the weapon if you can't get in a position to deploy it?

Post by Tarver Engineering
A reliable airborn weapons platform is what is required, the F-22 does not
address the issues of today's warfare, let alone tomorrow's.

A blimp would be a reliable platform. Fat lot of good it would do you
in a dogfight.

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-03 23:49:24 UTC

Post by Thomas Schoene
Agreed. I wasn't putting this forward as something that is likely to

happen,

Post by Thomas Schoene
just what might happen if the Raptor program was terminated.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I pointed out the big conditional "if"
in your post; not sure Scott caught that.

Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well. As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

hybrid

Post by Thomas Schoene
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even more
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal" version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB. Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Brooks

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 21:16:06 UTC

Post by Kevin Brooks
Some of the cutting edge programs, like Commanche and Crusader, *deserved*
to be cut. Toss the old Navy A-12 Avenger program ionto that same hopper,
along with the Seawolf SSN; if the USAF had been successful in killing Have
Nap ca couple of years ago when they wanted to, it would have fit in there
as well.

I agree.

Post by Kevin Brooks
As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot training?

If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking. As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them. Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited

numbers,

Post by Thomas Schoene
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after

the

Post by Thomas Schoene
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

Post by Thomas Schoene
I'm not entirely convinced about the FB-22 or other strike-optimized
version. It would have to have a lot of range to justify not simply

using

Post by Thomas Schoene
an F-35 derivative, IMO. Again, a possible variant comes to mind: A

hybrid

Post by Thomas Schoene
with the F-35A fuselage and the F-35C big wing ought to yield even

Post by Thomas Schoene
range than the 700+nm radius of the C version.

ISTR that being discussed here before. I'd have thought the USAF
would jump on that too but I guess not.

It was discussed before. Again, the only reason I can see for *not* doing
that would be a bit less maneuverability with the larger wings.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start

replacing

Post by Thomas Schoene
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost

for

Post by Thomas Schoene
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 21:26:12 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's application
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 22:01:19 UTC

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 22:02:52 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 22:16:42 UTC

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's

application

Post by Tarver Engineering
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 22:34:50 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:02:52 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:26:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

You make an excellent case for the reliable airborn weapons platform
designated F/A-18E. The USAF could do well by tabbing to USN's

application

Post by Tarver Engineering
of AFRL's parts and software reliability technology. I wonder if the
pirates at China Lake could make the F/A-18x weapons data port USAF
compatable rapidly.

The F/A-18E is a reliable platform true, but I'd be surprised if there
is a pilot out there who wouldn't rather be in an F-15K or I if they
had to go air to air.

The F-15's politics have taken a serious turn for the worse.

I know I bitch about political stupidity a lot myself, but fortunatley
politics aren't the be-all and end-all.

All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Michael Zaharis

2004-03-04 22:49:09 UTC

Post by Tarver Engineering
All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The USAF
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an F/A-18x
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-04 23:01:58 UTC

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

I am not claiming there is any ethical problem with the F-15's management.

Michael Zaharis

2004-03-04 23:22:27 UTC

Post by Tarver Engineering
All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The

USAF

Post by Tarver Engineering
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an

F/A-18x

Post by Tarver Engineering
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

I am not claiming there is any ethical problem with the F-15's management.

Then why is the F-15 in worse shape, politically, as mentioned in your
earlier post? Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

Michael Zaharis

2004-03-04 23:23:14 UTC

Post by Tarver Engineering
All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The

USAF

Post by Tarver Engineering
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an

F/A-18x

Post by Tarver Engineering
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

I am not claiming there is any ethical problem with the F-15's management.

Then why is the F-15 in worse shape, politically, than the F/A-18, as
mentioned in your earlier post? Not disagreeing, just trying to
understand.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-05 00:12:30 UTC

Post by Tarver Engineering
All aviation is politics and the F-15 survives on Gephardt's vote. The

USAF

Post by Tarver Engineering
has less options than they did last Summer. I personally believe an

F/A-18x

Post by Tarver Engineering
buy would be symbolic of why dishonest management leads to humble pie.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he F/A-18E/F managed by the same people
that manage the F-15? Aren't they both built in St. Louis?

I am not claiming there is any ethical problem with the F-15's management.

Then why is the F-15 in worse shape, politically, than the F/A-18, as
mentioned in your earlier post? Not disagreeing, just trying to
understand.

Sen. Dick Gephardt of Missouri also expressed his concern on the possible
closure of Boeing's F-15 production line.

http://www.clw.org/atop/newswire/nw072601.html

``The production line of F-15 will have no option but to shut down if Korea
does not select F-15,'' Gephardt was quoted as saying in the U.S. Senate
Armed Services Committee held on Feb. 27 to confirm the appointment of Paul
Wolfowitz as U.S. deputy defense secretary.

http://www.iamaw.org/publications/fall2003/cover_story.htm

The demonstration of support and enthusiasm for Gephardt's presidential bid
lasted for fifteen minutes. The sustained applause mixed with popping
flashes as photographers sought to capture the moment.

By the time Gephardt exited the room, those who would vote on the
endorsement knew the score: 90,000 IAM members had lost their jobs since
January 2001.

http://www.house.gov/akin/release/20010801.html

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-04 23:03:52 UTC

"Scott Ferrin" <***@xmission.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

,snip agreeable type stuff>

If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

Begging the question of how much value *any* of the landbased tactical
fighters would be in such a scenario--I don't see us likely to base fighters
on Taiwan proper. That places under the the gun of the complete threat
envelope, including TBM's, cruise missiles, SOF attack, etc. IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

As far a pilot quality goes all it

Post by Scott Ferrin
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

I believe you are minimizing the requirements to solve that problem. They
would have to finally completely do away with their "mass is the answer"
approach (they have admittedly made progress in that direction, but they are
not there yet, and won't be in the immediate future), and they have a
problem with their basic foundation (i.e., tactics/techniques/procedures,
qualified instructors and doctrinal developers, and last but not least, the
PLA's historical mistrust of individual initiative). That is a lot to have
to contend with before they even *start* developing a world class fighter
force.

Look what

Post by Scott Ferrin
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.

Post by Thomas Schoene
I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited

numbers,

Post by Thomas Schoene
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue after

the

Post by Thomas Schoene
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version. The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled? the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.
<snip>

Post by Kevin Brooks
I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start

replacing

Post by Kevin Brooks
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit cost

for

Post by Kevin Brooks
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.

Yeah, good analogy.

Brooks

crewmember...?

Post by Kevin Brooks
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-04 23:54:48 UTC

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:03:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"

Post by Kevin Brooks
,snip agreeable type stuff>

Chinese

Post by Kevin Brooks
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot

training?

Post by Scott Ferrin
If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

My point is that regradless of where we strike from those Flankers
will be able to be on station without tanking at enough distance that
we'd still have to run the gauntlet to deploy our weapons. Air
delivered that is. I wasn't implying US fighters would be stationed
on Taiwan but then the further away you station the fighters from
where they are needed the more useful supercruise becomes.

Post by Kevin Brooks
IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

Today that is the case. Nothing stays the same forever and China has
already tried to get real AWACS capability from Israel. True they
didn't get it this time but even 80's technology AWACS is nothing to
dismiss.

Post by Kevin Brooks
As far a pilot quality goes all it

Post by Scott Ferrin
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go
IMO. Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the
answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the
skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it
out, it's just a matter of time.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Look what

Post by Scott Ferrin
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.

Not on hand. How hard would it be to invite in some Israeli pilots to
get advice on how China ought to train it's airforce? Or from
somewhere else. The talent is out there and if China ever does put
the pieces together they will be a force to rekon with. Just because
they don't today doesn't mean they never will.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled?

No. That's not what I'm saying. They've got the cap in place and
whatever they can buy with it would likely be sufficient to deal with
the China scenario. I only mention China, not so much because I think
that it's going to happen, but that it's the biggest threat on the
horizon from an air to air perspective. As I pointed out in another
thread, in Desert Storm there were suprisingly few F-15Cs tasked for
patroling air to air in comparison to how many the USAF has. Even the
180 number that has been kicked around would likely be enough. The
fact is though it's apparently been decided that the cost cap that has
been given to the F-22 program is affordable. They should just let
the USAF do with it what they can rather than cancelling the program.
To sum up I don't think MORE is what we need but we do need SOME.

Post by Kevin Brooks
the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.

I agree. I'm saying that we shouldn't cancel the F-22. I'm not
saying we need 500 of them :-) Troops are getting wounded and killed
almost every day and they definitely need to solve that problem. The
talk of "let's be transformation and kill heavy armor" scares me
though.

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-05 00:13:28 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
My point is that regradless

Little spell flame monkey.

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-05 01:34:09 UTC

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 16:13:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

Post by Scott Ferrin
My point is that regradless

Little spell flame monkey.

Shouldn't that be:

"Little Spell

-Flame Monkey"

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-05 03:46:41 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:03:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"

Post by Kevin Brooks
,snip agreeable type stuff>

Chinese

Post by Kevin Brooks
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot

training?

Post by Scott Ferrin
If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

They have one heck of a learning curve to master.

Post by Kevin Brooks
As far a pilot quality goes all it

Post by Scott Ferrin
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go
IMO.

But neither does committing a larger chunk of resources than is justified by
that particular threat scenario. Firstly, as much as I believe in honoring a
threat (we have to address both the most likely and most dangerous threats,
but not to the *same* degree in terms of resource allocation), China is in
reality a decreasing threat for us, and the more their populace gets plugged
into capitalism and the information age, coupled with their ever increasing
economic ties to Taiwan, the likelihood of this scenario ever playing out
grows ever more dim. Even *if* it were to happen as you are positing here
(China overcomes all of its training and doctrinal shortcomings, buys a
bunch of AWACS and learns how to integrate them into the battle in record
time, etc.), then IMO there is still no real justification for buying more
than 200 or so F-22's. That would be what, maybe seven squadrons worth plus
attrition spares and training birds? Worst case it and you surge up to four
squadrons of F-22's into the AO--maybe they are going to fly long range
operations out of Okinawa and the PI. The F-22 is supposedly so much better
than all comers (including your PLAAF Su-30's) that we don't have to plan to
acheive anything close to a 1:1 parity in terms of raw numbers; plus you
have to toss in the USN contribution (figure a couple of CAW's minimum, with
their Super Bugs and later F-35C's), and you can't forget the Taiwanese
contribution of both F-16's and Mirage 2000's. Those combined forces alone
are enough to swat the PLAAF a rather nasty blow--coupled with the *fact*
that the PLAN/PLA are just not capable of executing and supporting the
required assault operation into Taiwan, I don't see this a very concrete
example of why we need to buy umpteen *more* F-22's for the air dominance
role.

Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the

Post by Scott Ferrin
answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the
skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it
out, it's just a matter of time.

During which time the PRC as an offensive military threat will continue to
diminish (while the PRC as an economic competitor continues to grow).

Post by Kevin Brooks
Look what

Post by Scott Ferrin
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.

It takes more than just a few trainers. It will take the PLAAF developing an
entirely new paradigm regarding how they operate, from the individual pilot
level all the way up through their air division's and beyond. And that is
going to take some serious time to come together.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled?

You must have misunderstood my earlier comments--I have not advocated
cancellation of the F-22. Indeed, I believe in the "silver bullet" approach
to their inclusion in the force structure; that 180-200 figure sounds plenty
sufficient to me.

I don't think transformation is directed at merely killing heavy armor. In
fact, a lot of the Army's initial transformational effort has been directed
at the light and medium fighters (i.e., improving personal communications,
battlespace awareness, and individual weapons for the light guys, and of
course the new Stryker BCT's in the medium weight arena). In fact, IMO we
have (rightfully) moved further away from the Cold War focus on armor
killing, as witnessed by the deaths of so many anti-armor systems over the
past few years (SADARM, MLRS with scatterable AT mines, etc.).

Brooks

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-05 06:08:42 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
Today that is the case. Nothing stays the same forever and China has
already tried to get real AWACS capability from Israel. True they
didn't get it this time but even 80's technology AWACS is nothing to
dismiss.

They have one heck of a learning curve to master.

Okay lets take AWACS out of the picture for the sake of arguement. In
the China/Taiwan scenario we'd STILL have to take out a lot of ground
based radar if we don't want to get shot at my SAMs or have
interceptors directed at our aircraft. Until those radars are down we
need something that can cope with Flankers and SA-10s.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go
IMO.

As long as they keep the hardliners and cranks out of power I'd agree.
Right now you still have those in power who would like to get Taiwan
back under their thumb and then start looking ar other terrain they
claim is theirs.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Even *if* it were to happen as you are positing here
(China overcomes all of its training and doctrinal shortcomings, buys a
bunch of AWACS and learns how to integrate them into the battle in record
time, etc.), then IMO there is still no real justification for buying more
than 200 or so F-22's.

We pretty much agree on the number of F-22s though I hope they get the
full 277. The thing is the F-22 will be our top of the line aircraft
for 25-30 years assuming it gets purchased. A lot can happen in that
time. If you take the change in China's military over the last ten
years and then extrapolate it out another 20 or 30. . .

Post by Kevin Brooks
That would be what, maybe seven squadrons worth plus
attrition spares and training birds? Worst case it and you surge up to four
squadrons of F-22's into the AO--maybe they are going to fly long range
operations out of Okinawa and the PI. The F-22 is supposedly so much better
than all comers (including your PLAAF Su-30's) that we don't have to plan to
acheive anything close to a 1:1 parity in terms of raw numbers; plus you
have to toss in the USN contribution (figure a couple of CAW's minimum, with
their Super Bugs and later F-35C's), and you can't forget the Taiwanese
contribution of both F-16's and Mirage 2000's. Those combined forces alone
are enough to swat the PLAAF a rather nasty blow--coupled with the *fact*
that the PLAN/PLA are just not capable of executing and supporting the
required assault operation into Taiwan, I don't see this a very concrete
example of why we need to buy umpteen *more* F-22's for the air dominance
role.

We're pretty much agreed on the numbers though I'd add that when
they've finally got the couple hundred they want that they keep the
line open and trickle them out to account for attrition and to keep
the line running at reduced capacity so we don't end up screwed if we
end up wanting more of them. The USAF has been kicking around the
idea of buying more Strike Eagles and the reason they can do that is
because the line has stayed open. The Navy couldn't by any Tomcat 21s
if they had the money because the production line and tooling no
longer exists.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the

Post by Scott Ferrin
answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the
skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it
out, it's just a matter of time.

During which time the PRC as an offensive military threat will continue to
diminish (while the PRC as an economic competitor continues to grow).

Possibly. It's definitely going to become an economic competitor and
if they keep in mind that keeping good relations with the US makes
economic sense then I'd agrre about the thret diminishing.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Look what

Post by Scott Ferrin
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does

not.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Not on hand. How hard would it be to invite in some Israeli pilots to
get advice on how China ought to train it's airforce? Or from
somewhere else. The talent is out there and if China ever does put
the pieces together they will be a force to rekon with. Just because
they don't today doesn't mean they never will.

They've got time. I'm not trying to say they could do it over night.
I'm saying that if they're smart they'll get there eventually.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure

against a

Post by Scott Ferrin
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled?

Yeah somewhere lines got crossed.

Post by Kevin Brooks
I don't think transformation is directed at merely killing heavy armor. In
fact, a lot of the Army's initial transformational effort has been directed
at the light and medium fighters (i.e., improving personal communications,
battlespace awareness, and individual weapons for the light guys, and of
course the new Stryker BCT's in the medium weight arena). In fact, IMO we
have (rightfully) moved further away from the Cold War focus on armor
killing, as witnessed by the deaths of so many anti-armor systems over the
past few years (SADARM, MLRS with scatterable AT mines, etc.).
Brooks

I meant killing heavy armor as in there was talk going around of doing
away with it in the future. When the time comes to retire the M-1 it
won't be replaced by a heavily armored vehicle. They want to go with
"active defenses" and cut way back on the armor for speedier
deployment. Dumb idea in my opinion. Armor isn't going to go tits up
at inopportune times and isn't going to get spoofed or overwhelmed by
numbers. Anyway, that's another rant.

Henry J Cobb

2004-03-05 03:48:47 UTC

Post by Scott Ferrin
If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking. As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them. Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it?

-HJC

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-05 04:47:08 UTC

Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

Trust Henry to jump in a day late, a dollar short, and with his skivvies on
fire. We do have one such base in Okinawa, looks to be close to the five to
six hundred mile range. Of course, the PI are a possibility, and they have
no great affection for the PRC, either.

Post by Henry J Cobb
What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

While I sympathize with your position here (and indeed believe the USAF
fighters would likely be a minor contributor in this particular scenario),
you seem to have forgotten some platforms that do indeed have the range to
ensure that the "US Air Force shows up"--B-1, B-2, B-52, Global Hawk,
KC-135/10 (which your USN folks *do* appreciate when they can get them),
etc. And how far was it from the Gulf states to Afghanistan?

Post by Henry J Cobb
Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it?

But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships,
which will still be enroute after it is over...

Brooks

Post by Henry J Cobb
-HJC

Henry J Cobb

2004-03-05 04:53:10 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

See the bit above about permission slip.

Post by Henry J Cobb
What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Post by Henry J Cobb
Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it?

But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships,
which will still be enroute after it is over...

Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may
well end up that way.

Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy
where it can be put to some use.

-HJC

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-05 05:15:58 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.

Post by Henry J Cobb
What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC
(like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict,
we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary
across the 12-mile limit.

Post by Henry J Cobb
Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it?

But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships,
which will still be enroute after it is over...

Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may
well end up that way.
Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy
where it can be put to some use.

Ah, good ol' Henry, firmly convinced he is the only one with a clue--those
danged folks who actually wear the uniform being rather stupid and all, of
course. Go back to SMN and tell everbody again how the LCS has to be able to
change out mission modules at sea, and anything over what, 20 knots is
wasted effort? And how it should have an armament suite that would make an
Iowa BB blush and run in fear, of course. While operating a vertiable fleet
of helos from each one...

Brooks

Post by Henry J Cobb
-HJC

Henry J Cobb

2004-03-05 05:53:12 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

Post by Henry J Cobb
How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Like the Korean war?

-HJC

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-05 06:16:26 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after
kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep the base
there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our being essentially
a visitor in SA.

Post by Henry J Cobb
How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Like the Korean war?

That would be the place where we learned NOT to do that again. Sorry, Henry,
but you are about fifty years out of date.

Brooks

Post by Henry J Cobb
-HJC

Thomas Schoene

2004-03-05 12:26:57 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.

Post by Kevin Brooks
Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after
kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep
the base there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our
being essentially a visitor in SA.

More importantly, Japan has a similar relationship to Taiwan as the United
States does. Officially it discourages independance, but it has quietly
developed defense ties and would very likely assist in the defense of
Taiwan. They might not actually thrown in combat forces, but Japanese ports
and bases would almost certainly be available, and they might even provide
logistical support.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Ron

2004-03-05 21:45:50 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.

Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-05 21:51:03 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

Ron

2004-03-05 22:05:59 UTC

Post by Ron
Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as

Post by Ron
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be

some

Post by Ron
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where,

but a

Post by Ron
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Tarver Engineering

2004-03-05 22:11:39 UTC

Post by Ron
Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive

ways

Post by Ron
as

Post by Ron
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be

some

Post by Ron
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where,

but a

Post by Ron
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq.

The

Post by Ron
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan.

It is a different thing to fly from Jordan, than to fly from Saudi. The
comparison of Jordan supporting the democratization of Iraq is a little
different from Saudi doing so. There is also the issue of the US staying
too long on Moslem Holy Land and the need to get out of Saudi. If the
previous Administration had made some move to get out of Saudi, there would
not have been so much co-operation with America's enemies by other Nations.

John Keeney

2004-03-06 06:31:22 UTC

Post by Ron
Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive

ways

Post by Ron
as

Post by Ron
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be

some

Post by Ron
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where,

but a

Post by Ron
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq.

The

Post by Ron
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan.

Then tell us "a certain country [WEST] of Iraq".
Had me going for a while what you were talking about...

Steve Hix

2004-03-06 01:25:27 UTC

Post by Henry J Cobb
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.

Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be
some time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but
a certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

??

Japan? Long commute.

(Jordan is west of Iraq.)

Magnus Redin

2004-03-03 20:36:26 UTC

Hi!

Post by Kevin Brooks
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left*
with as a potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C?

F-18E?

Best regards,

--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Kevin Brooks

2004-03-03 23:53:10 UTC

Post by Magnus Redin
Hi!

Post by Kevin Brooks
F/A-22 were cancelled". If you do that, then what are you *left*
with as a potential air-to-air fighter to replace the F-15C?

F-18E?

I seriously doubt that. ISTR it has a bit of a range problem, and in the
air-to-air environment, the Eagle could probably still best it.

Brooks

Post by Magnus Redin
Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Thomas Schoene

2004-03-03 19:27:16 UTC

Post by Lyle
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:19:41 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"

Post by Scott Ferrin
Nope. The X-32 would have but not the 35. My guess is they could
have but maybe Lockhhed didn't want it competing with the F-22.

I'd think they'd have to make quite a few changes to make it good
enough to be the primary air to air fighter. Internal weapon load is
tiny (2 -120s)

But the bays also have space for a pair of 2,000-lb bombs. If you can't
find a way to get another AMRAAM in each bay, you're not trying. Two more
in each bay would be harder, but seems doable. A total load of four AMRAAM
woudl be small, but acceptable. A toal of six would match the F/A-22.

Post by Lyle
, the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired,

The F135 is officially a "40,000-pound class" engine, against a max-fuel
weight of just under 50,000 pounds. Depending on how much rnage that thrust
actually covers, the plane has a max-fuel thrust:weight of around 0.8:1 to
0.9:1. With less fuel (say partway through a flight) it might approach 1:1.
(And as Kevin says, taking out the bomb rakcs would help a lot)

As a real widlcard, Rolls Royce says the F136 can put out 56,000 pounds of
thrust. If that number is even remotely close to right, there's a lot of
surplus power potential there. Might have to rethink the inlet design, but
that's not impossble for a dedicated air-to-air variant (certainly cheaper
than a new plane).

http://www.paksearch.com/br2002/Jul/27/New%20US%20fighter%20to%20have%20huge
%20thrust.htm

Post by Lyle
and how does it fair in the manueverability dept.?

(Fare)

The Air Force says its instantaneous and sustained g capacities are already
comparable to an F-16. They don't say which version of the F-16 or under
what loads, but it's a hint that maneuveravility are not too bad.

Post by Lyle
Sure you can add external weapons but then there goes your stealth.

Well, there are degrees of stealth here. Wingtip AIM-9Xs might not impose
horrible RCS penalties.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Scott Ferrin

2004-03-03 21:16:13 UTC

Post by Thomas Schoene
But the bays also have space for a pair of 2,000-lb bombs. If you can't
find a way to get another AMRAAM in each bay, you're not trying. Two more
in each bay would be harder, but seems doable. A total load of four AMRAAM
woudl be small, but acceptable. A toal of six would match the F/A-22.

I was thinking more about the cost to make the changes. I suppose it
would matter WHEN the F-22 got cancelled so they could make the
changes upfront.

Post by Scott Ferrin
, the thrust to weight leaves a lot to be desired,

The F135 is officially a "40,000-pound class" engine, against a max-fuel
weight of just under 50,000 pounds.

Is that with no external stores?

Post by Thomas Schoene
Depending on how much rnage that thrust
actually covers, the plane has a max-fuel thrust:weight of around 0.8:1 to
0.9:1. With less fuel (say partway through a flight) it might approach 1:1.
(And as Kevin says, taking out the bomb rakcs would help a lot)
As a real widlcard, Rolls Royce says the F136 can put out 56,000 pounds of
thrust. If that number is even remotely close to right, there's a lot of
surplus power potential there. Might have to rethink the inlet design, but
that's not impossble for a dedicated air-to-air variant (certainly cheaper
than a new plane).

Yeah I've been hoping that's more than a pipedream on RR's part.
Apparently they say they're real numbers though. I know the X-32's
engine hit 52k in max AB.

Post by Scott Ferrin
and how does it fair in the manueverability dept.?

(Fare)
The Air Force says its instantaneous and sustained g capacities are already
comparable to an F-16. They don't say which version of the F-16 or under
what loads, but it's a hint that maneuveravility are not too bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were downplaying it either. Back in
the early days of the F-16 they didn't exaclty encourage comparisions
to the F-15 for fear of not being able to buy all the F-15s they
wanted.

Post by Scott Ferrin
Sure you can add external weapons but then there goes your stealth.

Well, there are degrees of stealth here. Wingtip AIM-9Xs might not impose
horrible RCS penalties.

Hard to say. In Ben Rich's Skunk Works he related an incident where
one screw not completely tightened down made the difference between
not being detected and EASILY being detected on Have Blue. ISTR the
screw protruded 1/8". And that's with late 70's radar. Then again
there were some pretty glaring goofs in the book so who knows?

Pete Schaefer

2004-03-03 06:21:35 UTC