Question about the changes in Naval aviation over the last 20 years.

[Schnugg]

For Catmando:

 

[WEGL12]

Why would we reopen the line for a modernized 1970 Chevy Caprice when for the same price we could have a new designed Chevy Impala? (And realistically we don't have the $$ for either)

Good point, in the end it comes down looking at if it is worth building a new airframe/modify an existing plane into a sole tanker roll or using the F-18. On a cost side of things it isn't practical to design a new plane from the ground up but modifying an old/existing may end up be cheaper. In the end it's unlikely the Navy adopts a sole tanker aircraft due to all the cutbacks.

 

[zipmartin]

Posted this before in the Skyhawk thread, but BzB never gets tired of A-4 pics.

 

[Swanee]

Good point, in the end it comes down looking at if it is worth building a new airframe/modify an existing plane into a sole tanker roll or using the F-18. On a cost side of things it isn't practical to design a new plane from the ground up but modifying an old/existing may end up be cheaper. In the end it's unlikely the Navy adopts a sole tanker aircraft due to all the cutbacks.

It isn't. The people who designed that airplane, the machinery, the tools and dies, the factories, the drawings, the experience behind that airplane are all gone. You would be reverse engineering an old (1950s, so ancient) aviation technology. It would still have to go through the modern design and testing process. The cost would bloat and we would end up getting something that is marginal for what we pay for and wouldn't save us any money.

 

[WEGL12]

It isn't. The people who designed that airplane, the machinery, the tools and dies, the factories, the drawings, the experience behind that airplane are all gone. You would be reverse engineering an old (1950s, so ancient) aviation technology. It would still have to go through the modern design and testing process. The cost would bloat and we would end up getting something that is marginal for what we pay for and wouldn't save us any money.

Fair enough, if looking at it from a pure manufacturing side the easiest way to go is build a E-2D without the dome and avionics and add the required components for a tanker roll. That way you aren't using an old design and I would imagine it would be fairly cheap because the removal of avionics cuts a big part of the overall airplane cost. Still have the issue with flight speed compared to jets that would have to be addressed.

 

[pilot_man]

Doesn't TOPGUN cover many of these issues along with current strategies in air to ground tactics? I guess this would be more the "hands on" training for the pilots but I don't know if they develop new strategies there or not. TOPGUN has always been sort of a mystery to me so I am not sure exactly what takes place there.

You missed his point. Now TOPGUN isn't such a mystery anymore.

Not to piss off the senior "been there done that" crowd and their platforms, who I have great respect for, but I'll take an APG-79 Super Hornet over a Phantom or Tomcat any day. Maybe Iran will give me that chance someday. There is more to the Rhino than just 2 canted vertical stabs.

To the A-6 argument: why load an A-6 with 30 JDAMs when you could load a B-2 with 82 and the chances of that thing getting shot down are way less.

A 5 wet Rhino has plenty of give and does just fine at giving gas away. To the ASW piece, I don't even know what that shit is. Shouldn't some fat kid be doing that sort of thing.

 

[Brett327]

This entire conversation is hurting my brain. Stop the insanity. WEGL, go stand facing the corner until someone tells you it's OK to speak.

 

[Jim123]

This entire conversation is hurting my brain.

We could put a KC-130 on each CVN. After all, it's been proven that those can land on a carrier. I think there is even a video of it... has anyone seen it? Amazing!

I think I can actually hear Brett yelling at his computer

 

[Renegade One]

... I'll take an APG-79 Super Hornet over a Phantom or Tomcat any day.

Wise choice. Lucky for you, your Navy and your nation agreed…long ago. Can't speak for anyone else in the senior "been there done that" crowd, but I agree too.

To the ASW piece, I don't even know what that shit is. Shouldn't some fat kid be doing that sort of thing.

Poor choice of words. Unless, of course, you know more than most about that whole "watertight integrity" thing that only exists several levels and decks below your universe.

 

[Fog]

. . . and I'd take an F-4 or F-14 w/ an APG-79 over an F-18 any day. Just sayin' . .

 

[nittany03]

But the development of highly effective AA radars & SAM missiles made sub-sonic attack a/c obsolete (e.g., Bekaa Valley). .

This is why the SEAD package is there.

 

[BusyBee604]

Not to piss off the senior "been there done that" crowd and their platforms, who I have great respect for, but I'll take an APG-79 Super Hornet over a Phantom or Tomcat any day.

Meh, what's to be pissed about? If it wasn't an improvement over it's predecessors, the multi-billions of $$$ wasted could have been better used to bolster the cell phone giveaway, and food stamp programs.
BzB

 

[OUSOONER]

We may be decent at what we do but even our best crews aren't that good at ASW compared to those guys who got to do it constantly during the cold war (nothing beats real life experience and we don't get a ton of that these days). P-8 will solve part of the reliability problem for a while, and eventually capability will increase but BAMS isn't going to change any of that and takes money away from manned assets that could be used in ASW.
As much as the community hates to admit it, we're not the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to ASW. Treating us as such without acknowledging our limitations will only continue to set the stage for disappointment for those who think we are.

Great points and I agree with all of them to a point. However, 7th fleet deployments are becoming very ASW heavy. Crews are getting some good experience on station. I don't know how things used to be, just from my experience. It's nice to get back to doing what we were created for. Sure we'll always take on the ISR role as well..but I think what's going on in 7th fleet is very good for our community.

 

[WEGL12]

We could put a KC-130 on each CVN. After all, it's been proven that those can land on a carrier. I think there is even a video of it... has anyone seen it? Amazing!

I think I can actually hear Brett yelling at his computer

Solves the problem in every aspect. On a serious side note I worked for the pilot of the C-130 that landed on the USS Forrestal and he said it was the scariest thing he did in his entire career. He had some pretty awesome stories to tell about it. Other than that I will go face that corner Brett was talking about.

 

[pilot_man]

. . . and I'd take an F-4 or F-14 w/ an APG-79 over an F-18 any day. Just sayin' . .

Fog, I loved the Phantom. It's a big reason I am where I am today. I stand by my statement though. You could take all of the avionics upgrades from the Rhino and put them in a F-4, and I'm still choosing the F-18.