vegita1220
User
kevin...pal i believe the word you're looking for is "strategist"
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Tomcat Legacy; 35+ years from Fleet Air Defender to Recce to Precision Strike
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
vegita1220
User
ah i see. I gotta catch up on my "Bushisms."
Remind me again why the JSF is "a piece"?
And as far as the Air Force getting all the good stuff, look at their portion of the defense budget compared to the Navy! Same ole' song and dance! You should try being a Marine for awhile! As a grunt, we were using pine cones to simulate handgrenades! I worked in supply for a couple of weeks and was in charge of crawling into these 6x6 boxes full of Army gear that they had thrown away and finding what WE termed "serviceable" and keeping it to issue to our new guys (including cammies...as long as there wasn't too much glue on the sleeves from their goofy assed patches!)! You're preaching to the choir!
And as far as the Air Force getting all the good stuff, look at their portion of the defense budget compared to the Navy! Same ole' song and dance! You should try being a Marine for awhile! As a grunt, we were using pine cones to simulate handgrenades! I worked in supply for a couple of weeks and was in charge of crawling into these 6x6 boxes full of Army gear that they had thrown away and finding what WE termed "serviceable" and keeping it to issue to our new guys (including cammies...as long as there wasn't too much glue on the sleeves from their goofy assed patches!)! You're preaching to the choir!
HornetDrvr
Registered User
I am just curious as to where you guys are getting your information that the JSF is a piece of crap or "filler" as some have put it. I would hazard to guess that I know a lot more about the thing than most on this forum and I certainly don't see where the bad rap is coming from.
The SuperHornet is the right airplane for what the Navy needs. Why? Look at what the Navy was working with coming into the program. You have the Air Force fielding a weapon system in the F-22 that has a budget so hugely bloated from what it was supposed to be that it can no longer fill its original role. It was to be the 15C replacement but guess what? We can't afford to buy enough of them to replace all of the F-15Cs. You see the Air Force having to change its designator AND invent a new 250lb bomb to make it work as an attack platform to justify the ones that they are buying. The Navy was coming off of the fiasco with the A-12, was watching the F-22 program falter and took a hard look at what exactly we needed in a new platform. The F/A-18E/F was on time,under budget, and under weight. You can't argue with that and the bottom line is that we can afford to buy enough of them to make a difference. There are some on this forum that have argued in favor of upgrading the Tomcat along with the claim that it can carry more ordnance. Wrong! It only has four weapon stations suitable for carrying air to ground ordnance. The SuperHornet has 7. Gross weight carried aloft? Right except for the fact that most of that weight is not weapons. Different types of weapons that can be carried? SuperHornet wins.
There are also some dudes floating around here that seem to be very fond of the SU-37. Nice airframe but who cares if the avionics don't support the platform? More and more today it is not about the airframe but the computing power, situational awareness, ease of use and weapon systems, that you can pack into the airframe. The SU-37 has avionics comparable to 1970s U.S. Aircraft and weapon systems (except for the Archer) buried in the 70's as well.
That is what makes aircraft like the F-22 so incredible. Sure it has supercruise and stealth etc but its real ace in the hole is the situational awareness that the pilot has as well as the weapons available for him to employ. The SuperHornet is the same way. It also has an AESA radar (in flight test now), datalink capability on par with the F-22, unparalleled situational awareness and with the ATFLIR, an unmatched tarteting pod.
Heck, I would rather fly a Hornet Classic model than a SU-37 for the avionics and weapon systems alone. Quit buying all of that Russian marketing. They are trying to sell the things afterall!!
The SuperHornet is the right airplane for what the Navy needs. Why? Look at what the Navy was working with coming into the program. You have the Air Force fielding a weapon system in the F-22 that has a budget so hugely bloated from what it was supposed to be that it can no longer fill its original role. It was to be the 15C replacement but guess what? We can't afford to buy enough of them to replace all of the F-15Cs. You see the Air Force having to change its designator AND invent a new 250lb bomb to make it work as an attack platform to justify the ones that they are buying. The Navy was coming off of the fiasco with the A-12, was watching the F-22 program falter and took a hard look at what exactly we needed in a new platform. The F/A-18E/F was on time,under budget, and under weight. You can't argue with that and the bottom line is that we can afford to buy enough of them to make a difference. There are some on this forum that have argued in favor of upgrading the Tomcat along with the claim that it can carry more ordnance. Wrong! It only has four weapon stations suitable for carrying air to ground ordnance. The SuperHornet has 7. Gross weight carried aloft? Right except for the fact that most of that weight is not weapons. Different types of weapons that can be carried? SuperHornet wins.
There are also some dudes floating around here that seem to be very fond of the SU-37. Nice airframe but who cares if the avionics don't support the platform? More and more today it is not about the airframe but the computing power, situational awareness, ease of use and weapon systems, that you can pack into the airframe. The SU-37 has avionics comparable to 1970s U.S. Aircraft and weapon systems (except for the Archer) buried in the 70's as well.
That is what makes aircraft like the F-22 so incredible. Sure it has supercruise and stealth etc but its real ace in the hole is the situational awareness that the pilot has as well as the weapons available for him to employ. The SuperHornet is the same way. It also has an AESA radar (in flight test now), datalink capability on par with the F-22, unparalleled situational awareness and with the ATFLIR, an unmatched tarteting pod.
Heck, I would rather fly a Hornet Classic model than a SU-37 for the avionics and weapon systems alone. Quit buying all of that Russian marketing. They are trying to sell the things afterall!!
vegita1220
User
What made the idea appealing was the thought of buying the Su-37s...then replacing their avionics and any other part we deem needing conversion to US standards. And supposedly it could be done cheap as well...starting price of 7 mil per airframe, then you add the price of avionics conversion. But to be honest I can't really see it ever happening.
Dave Shutter
Registered User
Hornetdrvr...I like your argument, especially about the SU-37. The TV show that was on about modern fighters that showed the variable-thrust Sukhoi doing the little airshow bit was impressive, but it's obvious the producers were just slapping together footage and writing the commentary as they went along, calling that version of the SU-37 "the master of the sky". I quess no one told them there were only about 5 of those models and only about 2 guys who could do those maneuvers. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Russians (or Chinese) had numerically superior fleets of next-gen SU-37's with ordnance and avionics comparable to the F-22 or F/A-18 E/F. I don't know how effective they'd be in the hands of pilots who get about 30 hours a year besides their simulator time that's about as realistic and in-depth as Atari. They'd still probably lose horribly to ANG guys in A model F-16's.
Ryoukai
The Chief doesn't like cheeky humor...at all
Hornetdrvr...you make a good case for the Super Hornet. All capabilities and such aside, we both know that the Tomcat just looks better. I mean, I'm well aware of the strengths of the Hornet over the Tomcat and all that but looks-wise you just can't beat the Tomcat. Before any of you get on my case about liking the Tomcat's looks...shut up you asshats, nobody cares.
I don't know what anyone else's opinion on this is but the only thing that bothers me about the new superhornets is that relatively speaking they are incredibly slow. All the new fighters are seem to be getting faster and faster while we progressed from Mach 2.3 to 1.8 from that Tomcat to the Hornet C. This is part of why some of us are so unimpressed with the F-35 which is continueing this trend. Heck, by the time that thing is ready, they will have technology that doesn't even use radar anymore. Everything except for speed looks pretty good on the Super Hornets. That is why everyone likes the F-22 because it seems to have it all... and the speed. From what it seems, the Super Hornet is similar just without stealth or speed. Weapons systems and everything else seem comparable from F-22 to F-18. (Although I don't know how the F-22 rates in manueverability). Hey if the AF has such complaints about the F-15C's being to old, I'm sure that the Navy or the Marines wouldn't mind taking it off their hands, then maybe it'll see some real combat...LOL
kevin
Registered User
hornetdrv: obviously i can appreciate your comments, since youre there actually "doing it". as regards to your points..i think that's why the af is talking about reproducing f15c's...cause the numbers keep going down for the f22. although it's thrust vectoring obviously enhances maneuverability, apparently it's not as impressive as it should be since the airframe was designed around stealth, not maneuverability.
that aside, im one of the few on this forum who's said the jsf is crap....most people are excited about it. it is "filler"....it's been described as such from the beginning. "a stealthy fighter to supplement the impressive f22". that sounds like filler to me. except with the navy, it's not "supplementing" anything. as far as it's performance, only some test pilots have flown it thus far, and from what ive heard (through the grapevine, since i dont personally speak to test pilots) it's underpowered and unimpressive in flight. and consider the price tag...when congress is railing the military about budget (well, ok, everybody BUT the af), it's cheap in comparison to the f22, but a 2000lb bomb doesnt pack much punch compared to a nuke, so what's the point.
as for the su37...i for one love the aircraft obviously, but dogfighting capability, thrust vectoring, etc and the like aside....the arguments made for it (not just by me but by some officials who know their ****) is what you would get for the price tag. at 7 mil a piece (as vegit said) you get an aircraft that has massive payload, lots of external stores, and the ability to carry it deep into enemy territory even without external fuel load (an obvious benefit). i dont think the problem pointed out about the f18e/f is its payload, but how far it can carry it. as for avionics...the su27 had beyond 1970's avionics, and the su37 has another generation ahead of that although i dont know the exact details. but it's been made over...track 24 targets fire on 8 simultaneously...rearlooking radar and ability to fire missiles to the rear from rotary stores. and as just mentioned, the idea was to buy the su37 airframe with base stuff and then put some "american made substance" into it....still a hell of a lot cheaper than the jsf, and better. will this ever happen....probably not because it requires thinking outside of the box, as well as putting ego aside as well as politics....but a boy can dream. not to mention that it would help out the russians financially (and then maybe they'd cut down on selling **** to iraq and china). and not to open another can of worms, but all this focus on stealth stuff seems short sited to me. just a personal opinion, who knows if stealth will even be possible in the next couple decades. with the talk of new "radar" being developed that picks up air "wake" as opposed to radar, etc, who's to say what will happen in the next 10-30 years. look at air combat 50 years ago...do you think anyone accurately predicted what the situation would be in 2000? who's to know what it will be in 2030. then again, the sun might go supernova by then and it wont matter anyway.
that aside, im one of the few on this forum who's said the jsf is crap....most people are excited about it. it is "filler"....it's been described as such from the beginning. "a stealthy fighter to supplement the impressive f22". that sounds like filler to me. except with the navy, it's not "supplementing" anything. as far as it's performance, only some test pilots have flown it thus far, and from what ive heard (through the grapevine, since i dont personally speak to test pilots) it's underpowered and unimpressive in flight. and consider the price tag...when congress is railing the military about budget (well, ok, everybody BUT the af), it's cheap in comparison to the f22, but a 2000lb bomb doesnt pack much punch compared to a nuke, so what's the point.
as for the su37...i for one love the aircraft obviously, but dogfighting capability, thrust vectoring, etc and the like aside....the arguments made for it (not just by me but by some officials who know their ****) is what you would get for the price tag. at 7 mil a piece (as vegit said) you get an aircraft that has massive payload, lots of external stores, and the ability to carry it deep into enemy territory even without external fuel load (an obvious benefit). i dont think the problem pointed out about the f18e/f is its payload, but how far it can carry it. as for avionics...the su27 had beyond 1970's avionics, and the su37 has another generation ahead of that although i dont know the exact details. but it's been made over...track 24 targets fire on 8 simultaneously...rearlooking radar and ability to fire missiles to the rear from rotary stores. and as just mentioned, the idea was to buy the su37 airframe with base stuff and then put some "american made substance" into it....still a hell of a lot cheaper than the jsf, and better. will this ever happen....probably not because it requires thinking outside of the box, as well as putting ego aside as well as politics....but a boy can dream. not to mention that it would help out the russians financially (and then maybe they'd cut down on selling **** to iraq and china). and not to open another can of worms, but all this focus on stealth stuff seems short sited to me. just a personal opinion, who knows if stealth will even be possible in the next couple decades. with the talk of new "radar" being developed that picks up air "wake" as opposed to radar, etc, who's to say what will happen in the next 10-30 years. look at air combat 50 years ago...do you think anyone accurately predicted what the situation would be in 2000? who's to know what it will be in 2030. then again, the sun might go supernova by then and it wont matter anyway.
The issue I have heard (from a Hornet Driver) with the two-seater hornets is that you take an aircraft that already has a minor fuel problem and then remove more of the fuel to add a second seat. Just adding in my hear-say of a pilots two cents.
As a side note are you sure SR stands for Strategic Reconnaissance? I read somewhere that the orginal designation for the SR-71 was actually the RS-71 but an officer in charge thought it sounded better the other way so it was changed. (Also the SR-71's are being allowed to fall into disrepair, such a sad time)
Kobyra
As a side note are you sure SR stands for Strategic Reconnaissance? I read somewhere that the orginal designation for the SR-71 was actually the RS-71 but an officer in charge thought it sounded better the other way so it was changed. (Also the SR-71's are being allowed to fall into disrepair, such a sad time)
Kobyra
Whew! Long thread. I suppose I'll belatedly chime in. My $.02 on a big-picture level is:
Taxes are paid by the American people, never forget. Most of whom have other demands on their budget. Thus, for instance, every dollar which the government takes away from the average soccer mom is a dollar she cannot use to buy and brand-new luxury SUV, forcing her to settle for a minivan, which greatly irks her, limiting the amount which she will let the government take (even if it goes to starving children in Iraq, remember she has her own children to buy Playstations for Christmas) before she votes someone else into office who takes less. (pardon the editorial on American materialism)
Thus, there is a finite pool of money for politicians to spend on governing the people, assuming they want to stay in office. This must be split between defense, healthcare reform, and a million and one other things. Add this to the fact that a politician has a sitting end and a thinking end, and since his livelihood depends on his seat, there's not always much reason to bother with the other end.
What does this have to do with the military? Well, as an institution it's reaping the benefits of getting jack **** from the Clinton Administration and still doing its job. Now most people in the public (most of whom, statistically, do not know a serviceperson personally or thus really have a clue about what they do) AND in congress (most of whom have never served in uniform) think that the Clintonian budgetary levels are more or less perfectly fine, that the Boys in Blue (and green) can go conquer various tinpot dictatorships at the whim of the President and the Congress, and they can still drive their Range Rovers to soccer practice. What a deal! We don't have to give up anything! The fact that we're now sending the Army and Navy on 9-month-to-year-long deployments hasn't really registered in the collective consciousness because, as I mentioned before, the average American does not even know a serviceman or woman. That's the job you sign up for, though, ours is not to question why, etc., but off that tangent before I get myself in trouble.
What does this mean for buying jets? Well, in order to push any new airframe through a (highly politicized) procurement process you have to strike a compromise between capability (which is expensive) and affordability, which lets you buy enough airframes to make said capability worth it. Plus you need to buy a plane with the right capabilities for the mission, how good does it do air-to-air versus air-to ground, etc. So when you don't have a definite air-to-air threat or impending nuclear war, like now, Tomcats and Intruders (both incredibly good specialists) are supplanted by Super Hornets (cheaper and reasonably good enough at everything). If today's geopolitical situation occurred in the 70s, would we have Eagles and Tomcats? Hell no. Why? Well, good enough is good enough, while perfect costs too much and too much of that gets politicians voted out of office when they have to raise taxes. It's what you have to sacrifice with civilian control of the military and no Soviet Union waving nukes around to scare everybody (what Korea will do to that mentality is anybody's guess). Don't forget too that all these programs (Hornet E/F, JSF) are holdovers from the pre-Sept-11th days when shark attacks were all the big news. Not as much of a military threat then, which is why Clinton got away with pandering to the soccer moms (and banging their daughters when they weren't looking
) like he did. In short, you never get what you want, you get what the people of this fine country issue you.
Anyhow, just two cents (more like a buck fifty actually) from an opinionated A-pool Ensign with way too much time on his hands. Corrections and ad hominiem attacks always welcome. And no, I don't have anything against minivan-driving soccer moms, after all I'm the son of one.
I do have to admit that the "hot-rodding" the Su-37 idea does sounds pretty damn cool though
. There was an article on the WWW about it somewhere awhile back, but I can't find it now.
Taxes are paid by the American people, never forget. Most of whom have other demands on their budget. Thus, for instance, every dollar which the government takes away from the average soccer mom is a dollar she cannot use to buy and brand-new luxury SUV, forcing her to settle for a minivan, which greatly irks her, limiting the amount which she will let the government take (even if it goes to starving children in Iraq, remember she has her own children to buy Playstations for Christmas) before she votes someone else into office who takes less. (pardon the editorial on American materialism)
Thus, there is a finite pool of money for politicians to spend on governing the people, assuming they want to stay in office. This must be split between defense, healthcare reform, and a million and one other things. Add this to the fact that a politician has a sitting end and a thinking end, and since his livelihood depends on his seat, there's not always much reason to bother with the other end.
What does this have to do with the military? Well, as an institution it's reaping the benefits of getting jack **** from the Clinton Administration and still doing its job. Now most people in the public (most of whom, statistically, do not know a serviceperson personally or thus really have a clue about what they do) AND in congress (most of whom have never served in uniform) think that the Clintonian budgetary levels are more or less perfectly fine, that the Boys in Blue (and green) can go conquer various tinpot dictatorships at the whim of the President and the Congress, and they can still drive their Range Rovers to soccer practice. What a deal! We don't have to give up anything! The fact that we're now sending the Army and Navy on 9-month-to-year-long deployments hasn't really registered in the collective consciousness because, as I mentioned before, the average American does not even know a serviceman or woman. That's the job you sign up for, though, ours is not to question why, etc., but off that tangent before I get myself in trouble.
What does this mean for buying jets? Well, in order to push any new airframe through a (highly politicized) procurement process you have to strike a compromise between capability (which is expensive) and affordability, which lets you buy enough airframes to make said capability worth it. Plus you need to buy a plane with the right capabilities for the mission, how good does it do air-to-air versus air-to ground, etc. So when you don't have a definite air-to-air threat or impending nuclear war, like now, Tomcats and Intruders (both incredibly good specialists) are supplanted by Super Hornets (cheaper and reasonably good enough at everything). If today's geopolitical situation occurred in the 70s, would we have Eagles and Tomcats? Hell no. Why? Well, good enough is good enough, while perfect costs too much and too much of that gets politicians voted out of office when they have to raise taxes. It's what you have to sacrifice with civilian control of the military and no Soviet Union waving nukes around to scare everybody (what Korea will do to that mentality is anybody's guess). Don't forget too that all these programs (Hornet E/F, JSF) are holdovers from the pre-Sept-11th days when shark attacks were all the big news. Not as much of a military threat then, which is why Clinton got away with pandering to the soccer moms (and banging their daughters when they weren't looking
Anyhow, just two cents (more like a buck fifty actually) from an opinionated A-pool Ensign with way too much time on his hands. Corrections and ad hominiem attacks always welcome. And no, I don't have anything against minivan-driving soccer moms, after all I'm the son of one.
I do have to admit that the "hot-rodding" the Su-37 idea does sounds pretty damn cool though
Kevin,
I may not be super smart, but I can tell when I've stepped into a pile of bull****. How do I know you're full of it?
1. I am an Air Force Contractor
2. I work at the Pentagon
3. My job title contains both "military" and "analyst"
4. I am paid to analyze output from models and simulations of theater air campaigns for anticipated conflicts 5, 10, and 15 years out
5. I am intimately familiar with what weapons platforms and systems the Air Force will and will not have available in future years
6. I have access to some very classified documents produced by the National Air Intelligence Command (NAIC) detailing the performance of all adversarial aircraft
So now you know what I do. Here is what I don't do: watch Discovery Wings Channel and consider it gospel, pass off second, third, and fourth hand info as if it came from Sec. Rumsfeld himself, and act like a subject matter expert in areas I'm not (such as medical research).
Here's the bottom line - you have NO idea what you are talking about. None. Please stop for the sake of all the little Air Warriors floating around in cyber space.
The Air Force has NEVER discussed reproducing F-15C's.
The F-35 is NOT filler. Well, unless your definition of filler is 30-40 years.
Your information on the SU 37 and its capabilities compared to US assets is way off.
Your economic arguments for purchasing the SU 37 and then modifying it are very Alice in Wonderland and are based in no sound economic theory or reality.
$7 million won't buy you ANY tactical aircraft? Maybe in Bizarro World.
Then again, what do I know?
I may not be super smart, but I can tell when I've stepped into a pile of bull****. How do I know you're full of it?
1. I am an Air Force Contractor
2. I work at the Pentagon
3. My job title contains both "military" and "analyst"
4. I am paid to analyze output from models and simulations of theater air campaigns for anticipated conflicts 5, 10, and 15 years out
5. I am intimately familiar with what weapons platforms and systems the Air Force will and will not have available in future years
6. I have access to some very classified documents produced by the National Air Intelligence Command (NAIC) detailing the performance of all adversarial aircraft
So now you know what I do. Here is what I don't do: watch Discovery Wings Channel and consider it gospel, pass off second, third, and fourth hand info as if it came from Sec. Rumsfeld himself, and act like a subject matter expert in areas I'm not (such as medical research).
Here's the bottom line - you have NO idea what you are talking about. None. Please stop for the sake of all the little Air Warriors floating around in cyber space.
The Air Force has NEVER discussed reproducing F-15C's.
The F-35 is NOT filler. Well, unless your definition of filler is 30-40 years.
Your information on the SU 37 and its capabilities compared to US assets is way off.
Your economic arguments for purchasing the SU 37 and then modifying it are very Alice in Wonderland and are based in no sound economic theory or reality.
$7 million won't buy you ANY tactical aircraft? Maybe in Bizarro World.
Then again, what do I know?