Pfft, all you need is this: http://www.gog.com/game/f117a_nighthawk_stealth_fighter_20
-
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
V-22 Chosen to be the new COD
- Thread starter lowflier03
- Start date
That's one perception.
You can't tell me that the V-22 is justified as a superior replacement for the current COD. Shorter range, less internal space, lower operating altitude, more expensive to buy, more complex/higher failure rate, and more expensive per hour to operate. Sounds to me like the Navy kicked the can down the road (Like with many programs) by pretending that the C-2 wasn't going to need a replacement. Then after significant lobbying from the Marines "suddenly" realized that they needed to field a C-2 replacement in 3 years....
This writeup is a year old now, but strangely relevant.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ma...one-of-its-most-important-planes-1fcfab7e77df
edit: fixed the link
This writeup is a year old now, but strangely relevant.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ma...one-of-its-most-important-planes-1fcfab7e77df
edit: fixed the link
Last edited:
the link appears to be inop.
Not quite as well as an F-111.
Which should get Flash back on his soap box. Aside from the fact the Air Farce would like to call everything a fighter, the F-117 was no more a fighter than the A-10 or A-7, from which I heard many of the cockpit components came from.
That one I can actually excuse to some degree since there was a counter-intel point to it as it would be a bit confusing to whoever saw it referenced as such. Sure fooled Testors!
It's justified because it's better than nothing.
There aren't any. The Osprey OBOGS can only support the crew. We're altitude limited per OPNAV with pax on board.
Sorry man, couldn't disagree more with you and that article. You cannot argue cost against a thing that doesn't exist. The "COD replacement" doesn't exsist. It's a SLEP'ed wing and a prayer NAVAIR drops big bucks. Ask the -53 community what extending beyond service life indefinitely gets you. Or the JSF program office about how "estimated costs" go.
The v-22 gets you in the ballpark and there's lots of places to go with it, plus it's already being built and has engineering resources. If the Navy pays for some conformal fuel tanks and cabin pressurization, you're most of the way there. Ass and trash will still get to mom.
Also, any article that calls the Osprey a death trap is suspect. It's operational safety record is stellar.
Just to clarify, NAVAIR doesn't own the checkbook. The checks are cut by OPNAV, N98 in this case.
"NAVAIR's mission is to provide full life-cycle support of naval aviation aircraft, weapons and systems operated by Sailors and Marines. This support includes research, design, development and systems engineering; acquisition; test and evaluation; training facilities and equipment; repair and modification; and in-service engineering and logistics support.
NAVAIR is organized into eight "competencies" or communities of practice including: program management, contracts, research and engineering, test and evaluation, logistics and industrial operations, corporate operations, comptroller and counsel. NAVAIR provides support (people, processes, tools, training, mission facilities, and core technologies ) to Naval Aviation Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and their assigned program managers, who are responsible for meeting the cost, schedule, and performance requirements of their assigned programs.
NAVAIR's affiliated PEOs are:
- PEO for Tactical Aircraft Programs, PEO(T)
- PEO for Air ASW, Assault and Special Mission Programs, PEO(A)
- PEO for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, PEO(U&W), and
- PEO for Joint Strike Fighter, PEO(JSF), (which alternates service lead with the U.S. Air Force)"
I thought that pressurization was not an option for the osprey because of the fuselage design
Someone payed attention to their level 1 acq CBTs.
I thought the Hawkeye line was still open? Producing an upgraded C-2 seems like a good alternative, or even opening it up for some offers from manufacturers.
Maybe actually planning for the end of life replacement of an airframe shouldn't be left up to hopes and dreams. Its our broken process and broken leadership that ignores these glaring problems, and we end up with -53's indefinitely extended, subs with no replacements, CG's that are rotting from the bottom up, etc.
To me the "its better than nothing" argument is absurd. Its that line of thinking that gets us the overpriced, underperforming equipment, that arrives behind schedule, and ultimately limits our capabilities. How about minesweeping with a MH-60S? Or how about according to the Navy our new surface combatant is going to be an "upgraded" LCS that is magically going to be lighter, faster, better armed, have better armor, be reliable, oh and don't forget they think its going to cost less than current LCS. Give me a break. I hate to say this, but I agree with Sal that this is going to all catch up to us in about 5-10 more years.