tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post8427287269837920551..comments2024-01-03T05:18:54.650-05:00Comments on CDR Salamander: Is today's Hornet yesterday's F2A Buffalo?CDR Salamanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05981221786954902349noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-11345640160356425902010-12-09T07:29:38.000-05:002010-12-09T07:29:38.000-05:00We're not going to get what we want out of the...We're not going to get what we want out of the JSF in either performance or numbers. The Navy is going to be flying Rhinos for a long time and needs to work on some of its glaring weaknesses.<br /><br />Fuel and legs. Not enough and short. Conformal fuel tanks are a must.<br /><br />Speed. The Rhino is slow. So slow, and can't fly high. The Rhino needs engines that will allow it to perform like an F-15C, which will make it an air superiority machine. It also won't hurt in the strike role to be able to go in high and fast and get out of there the same way.<br /><br />This appears to be a Navy trend. Put all the money in the avionics and accept poor basic airframe performance. <br /><br />The Rhino does have some nice avionics. That and slow speed performance. Rhinos have beaten Raptors in 1v1 BFM, so as always the man is more important than the machine. That means flight hours for training. Cut flight hours and you needen't bother with new airplanes. Guys who suck lose, and guys who don't train suck. Simulators are poor or partial training at best.<br /><br />Sooo. When JSF fails to live up to expectations and we get half as many of them as we need, hopefully someone will have long ago figured out that we need to fund flight hours to have decent aircrews, give the Rhino longer legs and lots more speed and altitude performance and we'll be good.<br /><br />It'll never happen.GIMPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-31407118487524103142010-12-08T19:51:45.000-05:002010-12-08T19:51:45.000-05:00What I meant was the F-15 Eagle for carrier duty. ...What I meant was the F-15 Eagle for carrier duty. Even though I'm just funnin' here and it will never happen. But I've got to believe it's a better pure fighter than the F-18 Super Hornet.Wharf Ratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-26971333371381442932010-12-08T11:37:50.000-05:002010-12-08T11:37:50.000-05:00Mea Culpa, I should have been more specific. I hi...Mea Culpa, I should have been more specific. I hit reply to the Sidewinder post, and it went to the bottom, my apologies, I can see where error was inevitable, there.SCOTTtheBADGERnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-8947233497606182222010-12-08T10:37:12.000-05:002010-12-08T10:37:12.000-05:00http://www.amazon.com/Scream-Eagles-Dramatic-Accou...<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Scream-Eagles-Dramatic-Account-Fighter/dp/0743497244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291822031&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Scream-Eagles-Dramatic-Account-Fighter/dp/0743497244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291822031&sr=8-1</a><br /><br />Paper back for about 6 bucks...well worth the investment. It's not the full Ault report but it talks a lot about what caused the report to be done, what was in it, how the aviators developed the information and most importantly how Top Gun got shoved down the throat of Naval Aviation.Byronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-61760871632026519162010-12-08T10:00:32.000-05:002010-12-08T10:00:32.000-05:00<span>Not at $201.00 a copy I'm not.<...<i><span>Not at $201.00 a copy I'm not.</span></i><br /><br />Just to clarify, thats for the book about Sidewinders above, <a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-25.htm" rel="nofollow">and not the actual Ault Report that I linked from the NHC...</a>sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-29232626381510534172010-12-08T03:47:15.000-05:002010-12-08T03:47:15.000-05:00Yes, USN Naval Aviation and the Aeronavale have ex...Yes, USN Naval Aviation and the Aeronavale have exercised together quite a bit, which makes sense since France is the only NATO level ally that operates CATOBAR carriers.USAF Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-53379339080886938012010-12-08T03:15:51.000-05:002010-12-08T03:15:51.000-05:00wasnt there exercise with Rafales operating from N...wasnt there exercise with Rafales operating from Nimitz class while Hornets took off from Charles De Gaulle?<br />BTW, gotta love old Crusaders still in service by 1990s...ewok40knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-20303798916900485432010-12-08T01:31:25.000-05:002010-12-08T01:31:25.000-05:00Well for a while before ADC was decomissioned they...Well for a while before ADC was decomissioned they were looking at the F-14 to replaced the F-106. There was thoughts of using its long range radar combined with SAGE to patrol the northern reaches and stand of from the US Coastline in places like Maine or Alaska. Then using the AIM-54 to rip into Soviet bombers as they came over the poles. They had even thought of modifying the tunnel pylons to provide conformal tanks for additional gas, but ADC was started to be downgraded and the costs assoicated with the F-14 wasn't there for the USAF. At least according to Paul Gilchrist's book on the history of the plane. I use to have a picture of a mock up someplace when Grumman was trying to sell it to the USAF.Southern Air Piratenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-15410838880420766322010-12-08T01:02:31.000-05:002010-12-08T01:02:31.000-05:00Check the date of publication. The APA paper and ...Check the date of publication. The APA paper and the matters/issues it addresses precede the F-35 COD issue by some degree.<br /><br />Though, the latter was not unexpected given the size and weight of the F135 engine; taking up around 3 times the volume of a F414-GE-400 (bare, let alone on its trolley) and weighing in at (wet) - drum roll plus cymbals - 6,444 lbs. Who could have thunk this?Hordenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-92135913001245135402010-12-08T00:20:48.000-05:002010-12-08T00:20:48.000-05:00More correctly, you need to shift the CG back to w...More correctly, you need to shift the CG back to where it was before the modification. The calculation isn't difficult, just tedious. Lotta moment arms to check. I would think a newly minted aeronautical engineer could do it. I seem to remember there are a lot of them sitting around waiting for flight school seats in July or so. Or make it a class project for a class of 'em at a government school. That way you could get multiple checks on the solution. Maybe you could have the AFA do the work and the USNA check it. Get the moment arm calculations right you could have the modified plane lighter and more stable. Maybe.Grandpa Bluewaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-33661374842675244422010-12-08T00:14:23.000-05:002010-12-08T00:14:23.000-05:00"<span>And I've got to believe the ..."<span>And I've got to believe the newest built fighters are still some of the best in the world. Love to have someone respond."</span><br /><br />Depends on what you want to do. The Block 60 F-16s (which the USAF isn't buying any of, by the way...but the UAE sure is) and the F-15K Slam Eagle for the ROK (not to mention the F-15SE concept, assuming it was ever developed to fruition) are very capable fighters for their designed mission. Of course, they don't have stealth, but depending on your mission stealth may not be essential, and both of those aircraft are a damned sight cheaper than the (not so) stealthy JSF.USAF Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-80660366552469409572010-12-08T00:06:56.000-05:002010-12-08T00:06:56.000-05:00Thanks. Purchasing regs and computer development ...Thanks. Purchasing regs and computer development speed have been mismatched for 30 years, at least. Solution: Change the regs, for computers. Just because it's been stupid for too long doesn't you shouldn't fix it asap, standby...mark. NOW.Grandpa Bluewaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-46009471302672656822010-12-08T00:00:36.000-05:002010-12-08T00:00:36.000-05:00Yes, back in the '70s when the -15 and -14 wer...Yes, back in the '70s when the -15 and -14 were coming on line, both were considered by the opposite service. Neither was considered acceptable, because in both cases the mission sets were too disparate (both were air supriority fighters/interceptors, yes, but both had considerably different mission profiles.) Additionally, and perhaps more significant to this discussion, the F-15 was found to be quite unsuitable for operation aboard a carrier for a variety of reasons (just like the F-14 would've had a serious performance hit operating solely from land, having been designed for carrier operations.)USAF Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-64142337718395139412010-12-07T23:49:55.000-05:002010-12-07T23:49:55.000-05:00While I agree with you on ACM (at least for now......While I agree with you on ACM (at least for now...bandwidth is the biggest limitation) AF Predators and Reapers perform CAS on a regular basis using a satellite uplink for communication/control.USAF Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-91268277088940289042010-12-07T23:22:24.000-05:002010-12-07T23:22:24.000-05:00Quick question - I know that the F-15 Eagle still ...Quick question - I know that the F-15 Eagle still is known as one of the best fighters in the world. I know they are still being built.<br /><br />If we need a true strike fighter, and I'm messing with you all here, isn't the F-15 about the same size as the F-14? And yes, I know the wings don't fold, yet.<br /><br />I've never heard this, but was the Eagle ever a Navy candidate? I can't believe it wasn't discussed.<br /><br />And I've got to believe the newest built fighters are still some of the best in the world. Love to have someone respond.Wharf Ratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-27759220579225423532010-12-07T23:07:59.000-05:002010-12-07T23:07:59.000-05:00Hey ... the Front Porch has great post ideas!Hey ... the Front Porch has great post ideas!cdrsalamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-23021339599636936442010-12-07T21:53:46.000-05:002010-12-07T21:53:46.000-05:00Quite honestly, it seems the Phib is scooping the ...Quite honestly, it seems the Phib is scooping the old Capt....F-35 COD problems here first, now this...xformednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-20329169033599642102010-12-07T20:55:14.000-05:002010-12-07T20:55:14.000-05:00That was a very interesting article and thanks for...That was a very interesting article and thanks for the link. What does Lex think about all of this?Therapist1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-54083068221979986972010-12-07T19:43:52.000-05:002010-12-07T19:43:52.000-05:00Not at $201.00 a copy I'm not.Not at $201.00 a copy I'm not.SCOTTtheBADGERnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-87583528261017307572010-12-07T19:41:53.000-05:002010-12-07T19:41:53.000-05:00Hence the need for the all new design FIGHTER. Not...Hence the need for the all new design FIGHTER. Not fighter-bomber, not attack plane that can go air to air if it has to, but a fighter. I would like to see Grumman, with more success than anyone at carrier fighters, make yet another Cat. Eric Browne one said that if you look at what the plane accomplished, not just it's performance specs, an argument could be made for the F6F Hellcat being the greatest fighter of all time. I hope, and believe they can do it again. Grumman is supposed to have a project going, that is using a lot of engineers, that they are not talking about. I fear it is a UACV, but maybe it's the Hellcat II.SCOTTtheBADGERnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-7921006845168772672010-12-07T18:58:26.000-05:002010-12-07T18:58:26.000-05:00You wouldn't want the F135. The desire of the...You wouldn't want the F135. The desire of the bosses in the USMC to go vertical has resulted in this engine being lumbered with a whole bunch of dead weight. It weighs some (wet) 6,444 lbs, for crisesakes! Then there is all that additional structure needed just to carry around all that dead weight, even worse if carrier suitablity loads have to be rolled into the mix. Steering well clear of this engine till it loses a fair bit of weight would be a good idea.Hordenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-67437666610778420112010-12-07T16:26:12.000-05:002010-12-07T16:26:12.000-05:00I'll add that UCAS/UCLASS will probably perfor...I'll add that UCAS/UCLASS will probably perform - but it will do what it was designed to do, not what the hordes of UAV-pushers who lack hands-on experience with large unmanned aircraft are trying to sell.<br /><br />It'll be find for high-risk strike (like SEAD) and recon missions. ACM or CAS? Don't make me laugh. The software gets a hell of a lot more complex, as do the bandwidth requirements.Mike M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-3379318227328664022010-12-07T16:17:25.000-05:002010-12-07T16:17:25.000-05:00Also to add on to your though. You either need to ...Also to add on to your though. You either need to go completly digital or completely analog. There is a major loss of data swapping back and forth tween the two. It gets even worst as you increase the number of converters in the line. Think of it like a photo copy of something, the more copies of the copy you make the harder it gets to understand and read the data. Same idea.<br />Final thing with regards to avionics is Moore's Law doesn't exactly work in the governmental field. Cause we are just now recieving in the governmental side electronics and computers that Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus have been installing into thier aircraft about a decade ago.Southern Air Piratenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-64443941429088747582010-12-07T16:13:22.000-05:002010-12-07T16:13:22.000-05:00Part 2...
p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }
<p>2...Part 2...<br /><br />p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }<br /><p>2010 and onward in the Pacific Rim is THE threat. Period. Dot. Some in D.C., better start thinking of what made WWII possible. That is, air power. Air power FIRST and then you can go ahead and do what ever contingency you want. The people that think we have this all wrapped up are people that are un-informed. You know... people like Gates, and his sycophants General Schwartz and the empty-suit of a Sec AF are just a few examples.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>Fix? Cancel the F-35. Remember the base version of the F-35 IS the F-35B STOVL because the other two variants A and C had to build around those requirements. Stop it. Kill it. Move on. Next the USN needs to buy (as a start) a squadron of wide-bodied air-refueling tankers. The USAF with its broken procurement system ain't going to deliver on this one. Next, we need at least one squadron on the carrier deck that is fleet air defense in the color of the old F-14 er but also a bombcat. FA-XX may be Super Hornet sized but with more guts. The Navy has to figure that one out. And, once the FA-XX does its job, the Super (ever useful) can still do a lot of work. Remember, it isn't just numbers with an FA-XX. It is also contempt of engagement. The enemy would have to actually stop it. For example 2 FA-XX every 2 hours around the clock dropping off 8 small diameter bombs some place. That is the potential of 8-16 targets taken out on 2 sorties. And there are a lot of targets that will go away when hit by an SDB. Even each carrying two small JDAMs is a pointy finger repeatedly hitting into the enemy's chest; every two hours +/- . And well the enemy has to stop them from doing that AND try and find a carrier. Still, not all that easy.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>I hope the Navy stops wasting money on stupid stuff like the LCS, JSF, EFV and so on. As Major “King” Kong from Dr. Strangelove would say (He is the patron-saint of all B-52 crews)- “It's time to get on the hump. We got some flyin' to do.”<br /></p>Eric Palmernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-71088789133555712472010-12-07T16:12:50.000-05:002010-12-07T16:12:50.000-05:00<p>The Super is the jet you want your son or...<p>The Super is the jet you want your son or daughter to fly because it is incredibly safe and anyone around that program will tell you so. You can even have one engine out or at idle and trap it. The Super is the jet you want your son or daughter to fly........in peacetime.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>A look at the performance chart gives you a snap-shot of where we are at.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/superfvseverythingelse.jpg<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>Note where the Super and F-35 are at. We do not want to be on that part of a chart. Also remember that the PAK-FA doesn't have to be super-stealthy. It only has to be stealthy enough to lower the PK of our single point of failure, the AMRAAM which only has a 50 percent PK againsts poor targets in combat. Re-living the PK of the Vietnam-era Sparrow is possible.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p> <br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>Send a carrier near Chicom waters in the coming years as a use of force and/or a political card? It is getting more risky.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>Today's carrier air wing is incredible because EVERY fighter can carry a JDAM. We can hit more targets per day in near any weather with today's carrier air wing than we could years ago with bigger air wings that had a majority of dumb bomb jets and only a few precision guided munitions jets. Imagine what the failed Kennedy cruise in '83 off of Lebanon would have been like had we had JDAM. It would have been an incredible success and—oh btw with JDAM you can contempt of engage trashfire, AAA, MANPADS, SA-8, SA-9, you know, all those Syrian threats on that cruise. I can touch you but you can't touch me. And with a sub 4-meter CEP weapon—that I can even set for airburst if I want.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><p>Yet, things didn't work out like we thought after the Cold War. In the 1990s we thought every future threat would be vs. a country with a few broken down MiG-29s or 1<sup>st</sup> gen Su-27. “Tooot !!!! Tooooot ! Super Power comin' through!!! Out of the way!” I guess funding the Chicoms via Walmart has consequences. Ooops.<br /><br />Continued in part 2</p>Eric Palmernoreply@blogger.com