Stupid questions about the Rhino (Super Hornet)

[HeyJoe]

Hornet "Flight Plan"

I dunno, maybe I'm reading way too much into all this

Yes, you are a lot more moving parts to those programs and other things that did or did not happen to sum them up that way.

The "Flight Plan" is NOT as you say. That was brainchild of Captain "BD" Gaddis who had been an N88 RO (my handpicked relief after my tenure as AAM RO under Dunleavey...I echo accolades that he is cream of crop when it comes to leadership and being a standup guy...he was last Naval Aviation 3 star "Baron"). "BD" was a savvy RO who ended up as F/A-18 PMA and the flight plan was something entirely new in regards to all encompassing approach to the F/A-18 Roadmap and it drew upon his knowledge of how things had to be packaged and detailed to be comprehensive and obtain buy-in from Dunleavy's successor many times removed, RADM Clingon. Clingon talked about it at the CoC for Gaddis last year. Note: Gaddis was architect to get Growler/Shocker into production and into fleet so quickly.

BTW - Guess what Gaddis is doing now? He was just brought in to fix Presidential Helo. Since PMA billets are 4 year assignments (or milestone to milestone), this is remarkable to get two Major programs back to back, but Presidential Helo has a lot of scrutiny (and issues) so they needed someone up to the task. Not bad for a Tomcat RIO.

 

[bert]

Okay, so the general consensus to the original question is that it would cost less to design and build a whole new untested, un-researched, thrust vectoring aircraft, then it would be to take an airframe that has already had exhaustive done research done on the system and improve off of the existing design, especially when a major focus of the body of work published afterward was this specific scenario...

Simple difference of opinion on the costs of creating a whole new aircraft with unknown variables, than incorporating existing extensive research into a proven platform...

A Method for Integrating Thrust-Vectoring and Actuated Forebody Strakes With Conventional Aerodynamic Controls on a High-Performance Fighter Airplane

Incorrect. The general consensus is that you have no idea how the design and construction (let alone the procurement) of military aircraft works.

If you can limit yourself to "thrust vectoring rocks," then we would all more or less shrug in general agreement (regardless of how applicable we think the technology would be). If you post links to research papers that you don't understand and then try to use poorly formulated conclusions from them to condescendingly suggest that you are right and we (actual procurement professionals actively engaged in the contracting, design, and production of military aircraft) are wrong, then we will tell you that you are out of your depth.

 

[bert]

BTW - Guess what Gaddis is doing now? He was just brought in to fix Presidential Helo. Since PMA billets are 4 year assignments (or milestone to milestone), this is remarkable to get two Major programs back to back, but Presidential Helo has a lot of scrutiny (and issues) so they needed someone up to the task. Not bad for a Tomcat RIO.

We can't help it; everytime we hear people talking about "fixing" VH-71 we get a mental image of a vet instead of a mechanic....:icon_tong

 

[Nose]

Good lord, I hope that either:

1) That jet is turning to join a tanker

or

2) There is an airfield underneath him. (couldn't be a boat, he'd be below bingo already...)

PS Nice blue stripes.


Nose 2:14-16

 

[HeyJoe]

Good lord, I hope that either:

1) That jet is turning to join a tanker

or

2) There is an airfield underneath him. (couldn't be a boat, he'd be below bingo already...)

PS Nice blue stripes.


Nose 2:14-16

I was the RO when Hughes (now RAYCO) brought in that picture and we commented on the blue stripes. A week later, thye were back with yellow and brown stripes (courtesy Photoshop or whater was in vougue in 1993). They also stripped the background and had one with a carrier substituted. vvv

 

[raptor10]

Incorrect. The general consensus is that you have no idea how the design and construction (let alone the procurement) of military aircraft works.

The original question was whether or not it would be more costly to adapt thrust vectoring technology into a future F/A-18 variant, than it would be to design an aircraft from the ground up that would have thrust vectoring capabilities. I haven't seen any arguments that would show how if I was a purchaser of aircraft (which I am not and as you have pointed out have no experience in) that it would be cheaper to reinvent the wheel, than to retread it...

If you can limit yourself to "thrust vectoring rocks," then we would all more or less shrug in general agreement (regardless of how applicable we think the technology would be).

I haven't been trying to advocate thrust vectoring, when I referred to the program earlier it clearly laid out the disadvantages and advantages of the system... My only dog in the hunt was whether or not some hypothetical future aircraft would cost less than an "Engineering Change of Proposal" to the Super Hornet that incorporated Thrust Vectoring into the system...

If you post links to research papers that you don't understand and then try to use poorly formulated conclusions from them to condescendingly suggest that you are right and we (actual procurement professionals actively engaged in the contracting, design, and production of military aircraft) are wrong, then we will tell you that you are out of your depth.

It wasn't my intent to be condescending, my apologies, my only point was that nine times out of ten, if you want some fancy new piece of technology it'll probably be cheaper to build off an existing airframe than to contract, design, and produce a new aircraft to incorporate that into; that goes for AESA, ICAP III, TNTT, MUOS etc, etc...

Also "actual procurement professionals" came up with this genius idea

 

[invertedflyer]

Maybe we should talk to the Russians about a low-cost option.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su35.htm

From what I have seen and read, it doesn't seem that putting thrust vectoring on existing aircraft is extremely complex or costly (I'm looking at the Russians here, not VISTA - The SU-33 didn't have vectored thrust). Again, this is coming from someone with 0 experience, but I can at least agree with raptor that it would be less costly than an F-22-type airframe.

 

[jarhead]

F-18 A-D with a combat load carried less ordinance than an A-6 (Go ahead, make the Pk/jet to DMPI ratio argument, I'll counter that too) ...

ok, I'll bite ...
division of hornets, (2) 1k# JDAM's a piece, 8 DMPI's, one pass, thru the goo, 8 shacks
division of hornets, (4) 500# JDAM's a piece, 16 DMPI's, one pass, thru the goo, 16 shacks

 

[HeyJoe]

Clarification of term

My only dog in the hunt was whether or not some hypothetical future aircraft would cost less than an "Engineering Change of Proposal" to the Super Hornet that incorporated Thrust Vectoring into the system...

An ECP is a Engineering Change Proposal that once approved gets a specific number for tracking and funding purposes (ie ECP 583 which was of critical importance to USMC and their early Lot Hornets)

 

[jarhead]

Just because it says deep strike doesn't mean that is what you'll use it for. Deep Strike also yields persistence/time on station, which is significant attribute in GWOT. Those hypersonics will provide shortened response to call for fire, but they can't loiter. Some Tomahawks can, but they don't have much bringback!

my understanding of deep strike is go in, drop on your DMPI, and get out ... no loitering around. Loitering = on call CAS, TCT, armed recce, etc.

 

[HeyJoe]

my understanding of deep strike is go in, drop on your DMPI, and get out ... no loitering around. Loitering = on call CAS, TCT, armed recce, etc.

Concur and if it wasn't clear, I am saying Deep Strike "capability" in an airframe by nature allows you to trade range for loiter so don't get caught up in the name. But you can also get increased loiter without it, so question that differentiates Deep Strike is how far do you need to go without tanking?

 

[HeyJoe]

The Navy is the one with the money...so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

True, but not true. All Marine Corps Aviation* is funded by so-called Blue dollars "resourced" in OPNAV N88. The Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Air is dual-hatted as N88M so Lieutenant General Trautman has a big say in where the Blue Dollars go. Every Branch in N88 has Marine Corps aviators serving as Requirements Officers for USMC programs (MV-22, H-1 Upgrades, etc.) and alongside Navy aviators on programs that include both Navy and Marine aircraft (F/A-18, EA-6B, etc.). Importantly, the N88 budgeting folks always include Marines to watch the dollars and for years including a senior 0-6). DC Air also has APB/APW shops developing the Marine Aviation Plan. They know and keep track of exactly what they want and how much it costs. Although the overall Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) gets updated annually before presentation to Congress, the Marines know how much they have to work with related to their share of the Total Obligational Authority allocated to N88. Once N88 sends its Program Objective Memorandum (POM) inputs through the wickets in OPNAV before SECNAV approves the overall Navy POM input to OSD, Marines play in the Assessment process and ultimately CMC sits besides CNO in front of SECNAV before it is sent to OSD. One year, CMC protested that OPNAV had taken funds from 4BN/BW (became H-1 Upgrades) so SECNAV on the spot directed that funding be restored. So don't think Navy makes any unilateral decisions on Marine Aviation...they quite simply can't...Marines have super reputation on the hill and with OSD as far as knowing what they want and justifying it. usually, they get even more than they ask for by time President signs what Congress approves in the Defense bills (how about those C-130Js?).

*Except Green-dollar funding C2 and Air Defense

 

[montellv]

Keep you thrust vectoring and give me:

Straight pylons,

Bigger motors,

ATFLIR on centerline,

IRST of some kind (maybe stollen from a Tomcat).

Who am I to talk though, my Tiger II has no need for any of those things!

 

[Nose]

ok, I'll bite ...
division of hornets, (2) 1k# JDAM's a piece, 8 DMPI's, one pass, thru the goo, 8 shacks
division of hornets, (4) 500# JDAM's a piece, 16 DMPI's, one pass, thru the goo, 16 shacks

(I don't really want you to answer this here--->) What is your unrefueled combat radius with that load? What if you have to turn to honor a threat? What if the mission is scrubbed, can you bring any of it back?

BTW, 4 jets (of any flavor - still trying to show that I'm not a hater) 16DMPIs is great on paper. Ever seen it really done, 100%? Between potential finger fires, buttonology issues, hangs, etc, I'm thinking you are being pretty optimistic. I'm certainly not trying to bad-mouth anyone - but I'd be willing to bet a friendly beer against good BHA/BDA on all 16 DMPIs.

 

[jarhead]

Concur and if it wasn't clear, I am saying Deep Strike "capability" in an airframe by nature allows you to trade range for loiter so don't get caught up in the name. But you can also get increased loiter without it, so question that differentiates Deep Strike is how far do you need to go without tanking?

rgr, I see what your getting at.