• 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

TOPGUN and WTI: similarities / differences

Randy Daytona said:
Thanks for the link. Helos I know, when talking fighters I ask.

Several questions:
1) Why would the F-16 carry drop tanks for the test?
2) Is the compromise of the F-35 design around a lift fan in the fuselage a major problem? (I understand the only the USMC version has the actual fan.)
3) Any thoughts on the F-15 Silent Eagle that Boeing has been trying to sell? Seems like an intriguing concept.
Click to expand...

1 - Good question, Wlawr is probably on to something though.

2 - I think the Marines insistence for a VSTOL version has cost the program enormously in terms of extra money and a bit in terms of capabilty and in the end isn't worth it. We have a former aircraft design engineer in my office who used to work for Boeing and he says the JSF would be in frontline service in strength by now had it not been for the VSTOL design.

3 - I think it is a marketing ploy to keep the F-15 line open. While it has a few improvements to the basic design overall they are a minor facelift on a 40 year old design (a very good one but still......).
 
If the VSTOL was just a Marine requirement then DoD probably would have told the Corps to "pound salt". But to get the foreign buy in, it was also a Royal Navy requirement to get Briton back into the carrier game.
 
MIDNJAC said:
In short, yes, but not often. There have been both USAF as well as USN double patches (USN SFTI and USAF WIC), but in a pretty serious minority. More common is the USMC WTI and TOPGUN patch. Marines typically go through the course during their first JO tour, towards the middle/end (vs USN types who go through post JO tour). WTI is normally a shore tour or even later gig. So they have the timing to make that happen in many instances. About the only double patches on the Navy side are VX-9 folks who first go through TOPGUN SFTI/blue training before they show up, and then less commonly, also go to TPS later on. Since on the Navy side, a blue patch requires both an SFTI shore tour, as well as a Training officer tour (in place of disassociated), you are right into DH tour when your patch related obligation is up. So the folks who do other schools are typically due to uncommon circumstances.
Click to expand...

For those of us keeping score at home: blue patch = USAF weapons school?
 
jmcquate said:
If the VSTOL was just a Marine requirement then DoD probably would have told the Corps to "pound salt". But to get the foreign buy in, it was also a Royal Navy requirement to get Briton back into the carrier game.
Click to expand...

The number of their buy is insignificant, even when totaled up as a percentage of the international purchases. They would have sucked up and drove on without the B and they almost went with the C anyways a few years ago after the B's were flying.

The USMC is by far the biggest buyer of the B and by far the main reason it is being built. Don't underestimate the Marine lobby, we are the only country in the world with three seperate air arms with the full range of aircraft in significant numbers and all three have significantly different equipment. The MV-22, CH-53K, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and AV-8B are all very expensive weapon systems unique to the Marines, it is thanks to the USMC's political power that they aren't flying UH-60's, CH-47's and AH-64's.
 
Point taken Flash. But isn't the RN's new shiny carrier dependent on the Bs? as far as I know it doesn't have a cat or arresting gear.
 
Don't underestimate the Marine lobby, we are the only country in the world with three seperate air arms with the full range of aircraft in significant numbers and all three have significantly different equipment. The MV-22, CH-53K, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and AV-8B are all very expensive weapon systems unique to the Marines, it is thanks to the USMC's political power that they aren't flying UH-60's, CH-47's and AH-64's.


This. Of note, these aircraft do not seem to attract Foreign Military Sales in the numbers that Army and Air Force aircraft do
 
azguy said:
For those of us keeping score at home: blue patch = USAF weapons school?
Click to expand...
Blue course refers to the traditional TOPGUN course whose graduates become Strike Fighter Tactics Instructors (SFTIs). This is not to be confused with the Red course, also taught at NSAWC, that teaches aircrews the art of threat simulation and presentation and whose graduates move on to become Adversary pilots.
 
What wrlaw said. The TOPGUN course itself includes blue students, a smaller handful of red students, and then a half dozen ish AIC students (both E-2 NFO's as well as enlisted controllers of various flavors and services). Like the Marine blue studs, USN E-2 folks are mid JO tour. Their actual "weapons school" is CAEWS, also at Fallon, and also a post JO tour gig. I don't know (though I should) if a TOPGUN AIC patch is a prerequisite for CAEWS, but all the grads I know wear both patches. But re original discussion, blue, red, and AIC all go through the course concurrently playing their respective roles.
 
jmcquate said:
Point taken Flash. But isn't the RN's new shiny carrier dependent on the Bs? as far as I know it doesn't have a cat or arresting gear.
Click to expand...

They switched their choice to C's for a short time before going back to B's after figuring out adding cats to their carriers (actually just one of the two) was going to cost an extra 1 billion pounds or so.
 
Flash said:
The number of their buy is insignificant, even when totaled up as a percentage of the international purchases. They would have sucked up and drove on without the B and they almost went with the C anyways a few years ago after the B's were flying.
Click to expand...

There's a market for V/STOL fixed wing strike beyond the Marines and RN. There are a lot of Harrier Carriers out there. Italy's going to buy some B's for Cavour if they ever get their country out of the pawn shop (likewise Spain for Asturias), and the Sings are interested because they like landing on highways. Japan has several big-decks that are "we don't have aircraft carriers, they're just aircraft-carrying ships" which could be modified for V/STOL and they're in a build-up kind of mood these days, what with their unruly neighbor.
 
Uncle Fester said:
There's a market for V/STOL fixed wing strike beyond the Marines and RN. There are a lot of Harrier Carriers out there. Italy's going to buy some B's for Cavour if they ever get their country out of the pawn shop (likewise Spain for Asturias), and the Sings are interested because they like landing on highways. Japan has several big-decks that are "we don't have aircraft carriers, they're just aircraft-carrying ships" which could be modified for V/STOL and they're in a build-up kind of mood these days, what with their unruly neighbor.
Click to expand...

It is a minuscule market and hardly with the trouble. The Italians have 16 Harriers and the Spaniards have 17, and those are the only other operators of the AV-8B. So 33 aircraft, that is it. As you have already mentioned neither country is in great fiscal shape right now, especially Spain who just retired the Austrias (they still have the Juan Carlos though). Both carriers are really vanity objects though and have only done real operational work sporadically.

As for the 'Sings' and the Japanese, there are proposals and then there are contracts tempered by political and fiscal realities. The Singaporeans may have the bright Ida to get some B's but that hasn't translated into an order yet. The Japanese, that would be a huge political step with outsized international impact. That would make even the Japanese think hard before buying. You forgot the Aussies, they are getting two LHA's of an improved Juan Carlos class. One thing you are forgetting though is that these ships will need modifications, some possibly significant, to accommodate the B unless they have been built with it in mind already which is pretty doubtful.

So as it stands right now only the UK is buying the B and they have agreed to only 48 so far from what I can tell. So to say there is a 'need' out there is stretching it a bit, actually a lot. Without the USMC the B would not have been built, period. There might be some international orders but the total will be tiny and frankly I don't believe worth the developmental costs for an aircraft whose main reason for being seems to be to justify the USMC's tactical air arm and not much else.
 
Last edited:
Kind of difficult for the Marines to deploy with the ESG/MEU if they can't land on the ship, right - hence the need for the B model? Am I missing something here? What's the alternative?
 
Brett327 said:
Kind of difficult for the Marines to deploy with the ESG/MEU if they can't land on the ship, right - hence the need for the B model? Am I missing something here? What's the alternative?
Click to expand...
There is no alternative. Blaming the B for the performance of the A and C is a bit simplistic. It was never intended to have eye watering performance. This link provides some insight to they arrived at the F-35. It's interesting to see their assumptions and projections from the mid 90's. Especially interesting is where they assess that advanced off bore sight missiles make generational leaps in aircraft aerodynamic performance only marginally better in survivability. The F-35 is what they designed it to be.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR719.pdf
 
Brett327 said:
Kind of difficult for the Marines to deploy with the ESG/MEU if they can't land on the ship, right - hence the need for the B model? Am I missing something here? What's the alternative?
Click to expand...

Will the world end of the Marines don't deploy with tacair support with a MEU/ESG?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top