The Tomcat Legacy; 35+ years from Fleet Air Defender to Recce to Precision Strike

[vegita1220]

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles.asp

In that section's the article you may have been referring to nit. It's not really about "hotrodding" the Su, but that's also where the $7M estimate came from. It's called Russian Fighters for the US or something like that.

And in kev's defense, the author of that article is not related to the Discovery Wings Channel. The authors are a retired admiral who was in aviation and a former Grumman engineer. Generally, admirals are supposed to know things that are "military." Generally, aerospace engineers are supposed to know things you can and cannot do with airplanes. Who knows how reliable they are and how truthful they're being, but that's what their credentials are for, so that ppl can decide for themselves.

Anyway, any incorrect info flying around here is stuff that will be clarified for those who get their gold wings, and as for the rest? It doesn't matter since they'll be civilians who don't need to know accurate military information anyway, right?

And as for my two cents on this, I personally don't like the idea of flying the same aircraft opposing nations may fly in the future. It'll prob make visually IDing bogeys a pain in the ass.

 

[HornetDrvr]

Wow, apparently we didn't read that article very well as well as the fact that we seem to be overlooking some pretty obvious facts. Did we miss the fact that the SuperHornet in that particular "fact sheet" was not optimally configured? The load in the "fact" sheet was 2 1000lb bombs when in fact there are 3 more weapon stations available for use. By my math that is 3 2000lb bombs and 2 500lb bombs (MORE A/G ORDNANCE) than the F-14 can carry. That is only with ordnance parent racked. I would be willing to bet a case of beer that I can monster rack at least one of those stations for one more 1000lb bomb. Did we also miss the fact that the mighty F-14 has a greater range by a whole 12 miles. WOW!!

How about the fact that the F-14 software wise can support less than half of the weapons that the SuperHornet can support. Should I go on? As to the SU arguement, again you are dealing with only half of the facts and those that you are presented are half heresay themselves. Go back and read that pilot's impression of the flight again. There was an argument in here about the Russian's providing updated avionics. The displays may look and be digital but the processor power behind them is the equivalent of the 1970s technology that we were putting in the Eagle. I stand by my statement.

The price tag for an SU is ludicrous. Sure we may buy an airframe for that amount of money. The money is spent in modifying is where the rubber meets the road. We would spend 4-5 times that amount of money installing the proper avionics in the airframe. Not to mention the finish of the overall product. Ever sat in a Russian airplane? I have. They are shoddily made. By that I mean parts don't fit together very well or form nice edges. I have no doubt that the thing is rugged but it "fits" together poorly. Talk to any guy trying to maintain a Mig-29 these days. You can't just take one panel off of your hangar queen jet and stick it on one out on the flightline. Why? Because they are so poorly made that each panel is UNIQUE to that airframe! The SU is the same. Oh there have been improvements but not enough to justify a buy of the things.

Finally, one last thing to point out. Look at who the article was written by. RADM Gillcrist (a former Tomcat pilot) and a Grumman engineer responsible for the F-14 project. We are certainly not selling anything here are we.

Check out this link for another side of the story www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm

 

[nittany03]

Yowch! Didn't realize quality control on the Russian jets was *that* bad but I suppose I'm not entirely surprised. Like I said, it *sounds* cool at first glance. But I'm not surprised to hear someone who knows what they're talking about waving the BS flag at its mention either. I'll bow to those who have the credentials

.

 

[vegita1220]

Whoa, I'm not disagreeing w/you HorntDriver, and nit's point on the economics/politics behind the Super Hornet has me more than convinced.

I'm just saying Corky didn't have to jump down kevin's throat just b/c he disagrees with him.

And i'll be straight up too. Yeah Adm Gillcrist was a Tomcat pilot, and Kress was not only a Grumman engineer, but the CHIEF engineer on the Tomcat. That's why I put up the article, which also lists their credentials, so that ppl don't just go believing everything they read in it.

Also, thanks for the Super Hornet article, it supports your argument even further.

 

[lvgravy]

Off the topic a little but...
I went to Eastern Russian twice last year, it was like stepping back in time, there were junked airplanes all over the place, looked like they just pushed them off the runway. The place we landed at is supposed to be a sort of hub for the east, but the runway was in almost as bad of shape as the planes. Base ops and the pax terminal looked as though they would fall over any minute....I'm thinking their aviation budget is somewhat small.

 

[kevin]

hornetdrv: thanks for the info. you definitely have a good counter to what the others are saying. i still maintain it could be a good idea, although im less qualified to say so...but 35mil to udate avionics? that seems a little exagerated.

corky: you probably have a small penis. by the way, as to producing new f15s:
www.cdi.org/mrp/fa22.cfm (Christopher Hellman- Senior Analyst [that's what you do,right?] CDI)
it's too bad you posted a whole lot of fact filled **** in your post, since it sounds like you probably have some really good information to offer. come back when you can actually make a level-headed statement. my "B.S." is based off of analysts and professionals who are qualified to make statements of the sort, not from doing acid in wonderland.

 

[kevin]

by the way, hornetdrv that 4-5X the 7mil to update avionics is more than the entire jsf costs, is the only reason i was doubting you on that statement. but as cock....sorry, corky....said, what do i know?

 

[CandKyMarine]

Kevin -
I think you need to be careful who you are attacking. Corky laid his credentials out in the open. As for his having "good information to offer," yes, he does. But as stated, his work is with the Air Force's CLASSIFIED modeling and simulations systems. Therefore, it is not information you'll find trolling around on the net or watching NOVA and Discovery Wings. Maybe you can stop for a second and wrap your narrow mind around the idea that the USAF isn't going to throw all their future plans out in the open for everyone to see.

And lay off the penis comments. You have no idea.

 

[jaerose]

Well, I got my GED and I think that we should just hurl men into the air and let them throw rocks at enemy planes. I mean, it works for 3rd world countries everywhere, so why not us? =)

JR

 

[Corky]

Kevin,
I will not debate anybody whose opening remark to me was "You probably have a small penis." Brilliant. I defer to your wisdom and expertise. How can I follow such a brilliant defense . . . oh wait . . . here's how.
When I first started reading your link, my first questions were who was Christopher Hellman and what is the Center for Defense Information. I continued to read, with interest, the entire testimony. As I got to the bottom, I noticed with great interest that his email ended with cdi.org. For those who don't know, that is a sure fire sign that he is in no way connected with the DoD. Basically, he sits in a cubicle somewhere within the beltway and rights papers based off of "open source" information. Open source information is the type of information you can get by just doing a basic Google search. A subscription to Jane's, too. Basically, he has no inside information and is not privy to what the Air Force is thinking. And furthermore, his testimony was in front of an obscure subcommittee.
So, who/what is CDI? CDI is the Center for Defense Information. Here is their website: http://www.cdi.org/index.cfm. Judge for yourself. There are literally hundreds of these firms in Washington DC. They, like the others, employ former DoD employees and senior military employees to write briefing papers and present them to decision makers in both the political and military realm. And if you think they must be a big player in DC because the have a few former ADM's and GEN's on staff , there are literally hundreds of retired flag officers in DC. They are a dime a dozen.
I've saved the best for last - Christopher Hellman's bio.
http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/ch.html
Does no military experience, a poli sci degree from Middlebury, 10 years as a staffer on Capital Hill, and two years of work for Policy Analyst for Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) qualify one to be a "Senior Military Analyst"? Companies can bestow whatever titles they would like. However, you may want to choose your subject matter experts more wisely next time.
Bottom line: Mr. Hellman is non-DoD employee who made an recommendation based on a few meaningless GAO reports. If you can show me an Air Force working paper recommending the same, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn more about my job.
I will pass on answering the other insults.

 

[kevin]

well, tamale, like i told momma, "he started it." unfortunately his qualifications dont entitle him to attack me anymore than mine do to him. and if he comes on here spreading false rumors about syphilis (since im highly qualified in the medical/biological area), im not gonna shove a stake up his ass for it, merely correct it.

"and lay off the penis comments. you have no idea." huh? i dont understand, is "he" a girl or something?

 

[kevin]

welcome back....incredible that you were able to write that last stuff with no reference to me. if that guy has no idea what he's talking about, that's his problem not mine. once again, i dont (and never did) claim to be an expert....simply basing opinions off of other (apparently) qualified people. no problems with admitting im wrong if it's the case and proven. however, you flame someone, expect to get flamed, it's just how it works...no hard feelings. in the meantime, i will not take your advice on "sparing everyone else" on this forum and will continue to post, thanks anyway.

 

[CandKyMarine]

Kevin -
First, his original post was not an attack on you, but a statement of fact. You must be pretty insecure to think of it as an attack. He never "shoved a stake up your ass," merely corrected you. And laid out his foundation for doing so.
You are obviously not an expert in the English/grammar area.
"Is 'he' a girl or something?" -- you must be oblivious.

 

[Corky]

Imagine if I went on an STD information message board and posted that it is impossible to contract an STD if you have sex in a swimming pool. As a medical researcher, wouldn’t that get your attention? Imagine if I continued to post it as fact and some gullible teenagers were taking it as gospel. Wouldn’t that piss you off a little and cause you to post a rebuttal? Now, I take it the wrong way, get ticked myself, and quote the source and provide a link to the article I got the information from. Being the good researcher you are, you don’t take the information as fact and you dig a little and find out that the article came from, “The Journal of the Hazzard County Medical Association” and was written by Bo and Luke Duke. Boy, don’t I look stupid.
Post all day if time allows. It’s none of my business. But please separate opinion from fact. If you think the JSF is garbage, than say it, but back it up with a few hard facts and not heresy and innuendo. It’s your opinion and you are entitled to one. However, if you claim the Air Force is not going to buy the JSF or is reproducing F-15C’s as fact, be ready to back it up with good sources.

 

[kevin]

oh tamale, please, youre gonna make me cry buddy. seriously. im just not a stable person. you have no idea.

"First, his original post was not an attack on you, but a statement of fact. You must be pretty insecure to think of it as an attack."

wow, you definitely got me there. go back and reread. quick, let me tuck my tail, run off and hide so as not to displease all the "little air warriors" (direct quote) running around here.