StarDestroyer.Net BBS

starfury wrote:that and that the F-14D was only giving the plane the engines it was intially designed for.

Um, no. The F-14D had considerably updated electronics in addition to it's newer, beefier engines. It's airframe was slightly redesigned as well.

phongn wrote:

The Dark wrote: Oh, sure, replace the F110-GE-400s with F119-PW-100s. Lighter and more thrust, about 8,000 pounds extra per engine. Replace structural elements with lighter, stronger alloys. I would say dump the gun, but some pilots like it as a last-ditch weapon. Should end up with a faster, lighter, more fuel-efficient jet. Although it probably wouldn't be much quicker, since the aerodynamics wouldn't allow for much more speed. Endurance is what the Tomcat really needs, since it guzzles fuel at high speeds.

With that much redesign you may start getting into the price range of an entirely new aircraft design. Simply replacing the engines (and I'm not sure how well the F119 will integrate) is a non-trivial task, nevermind replacing the structural members.

I know, but as long as it's all dreams, might as well dream big . I would say just alter the structural members on new-build aircraft as a slightly simpler way of decreasing weight, since it could be flight-tested in a prototype and changed in the assembly line.

phongn wrote:

starfury wrote:that and that the F-14D was only giving the plane the engines it was intially designed for.

Um, no. The F-14D had considerably updated electronics in addition to it's newer, beefier engines. It's airframe was slightly redesigned as well.

I think what he meant was that because the engines prior to the -D were not what was supposed to be on it, it could have been a lot better at the -D stage if it had those engines on the originial model.

I have a question concerning re-opening manufacture of older aircraft.

Even if the dies and tooling have been smashed and the plant torn down.

Are'nt the blueprints still someplace and isnt it still cheaper to rebuild the plants than making a new plane from scratch? Assuming the old plane is acceptable.

Im asking cause its something Ive always wondered about but dont have the background to truely judge.

To rebuild the assembly line (for either the F-14D/"E" or A-6E/F) would be so expensive that it would almost be worth it to design an entirely new, more capable aircraft. On the other hand, you have the advantage of getting aircraft much more quickly.

With the conflicts we may be seeing, there's a few advocates who want the A-6 line restarted and damn the costs. The Navy really needs a bomb truck and can't rely on B-52 raids all the time.

phongn wrote:With the conflicts we may be seeing, there's a few advocates who want the A-6 line restarted and damn the costs. The Navy really needs a bomb truck and can't rely on B-52 raids all the time.

They need to, a B-52 just can't provide the kind of quick repsonce a carrier force can.

It irks me that they think the F-35 can replace the A-10? Pahleese. Bullshit right there. And it's not about the gun, it's about having a slow-moving, survivable, armored aircraft with a big payload to perform CLOSE air support. Unfortunately the USAF isn't in that business anymore. Just drop a JDAM from several km up ... yeah that'll do the trick

The Mig 21 has a more restrictive view from the cockpit, even with a bubble canopy, it's totally designed for speed, the IAF just wants to make money, it's only a viable solution for countries that already field Mig's and finally it exist's for over 30 years, everybody knows it's limitations and ways to take him down.

The Russian MiG-21 upgrade is far superior to that of the Israelis. All the Israelis do to a MiG-21 is jazz up the cockpit and the windshield and tack on some compatibility for Python missiles. The Russians have added a radar as standard, not an option, and BVR capability (R-27 ALAMO and RVV-AE ADDER missiles) as well as compatibility with the R-73 ARCHER.

Thats too bad, cause you're spewing horseshit. The electronic fit is not the only determining factor for fighter performace; IAI could put a Culture Mind in a MiG-21 and it would still turn worse than a F-16.

*picturing culture mind piloted aircraft ....*

Anyway, it depends on what the F-16 is armed with. If the fight gets within visual range and the F-16 is armed with older generation AIM-9s, and not the new AIM-9X, if the MiG-21 snaps off an R-73 with a helmet-moutned sight off boresight shot, it's dead. This is what would happen in a fight between India and Pakistan- the only realistic MiG-21 versus F-16 scenario.

While we're all sorry to see the F-14 go, the question really should be asked if American aircraft carrier's NEED a dedicated interceptor.

It's not the loss of the AWG-9/Phoenix combination that pisses me off, it's the replacement of a capable strike platform that is albeit expensive to maintain with an inferior model. The F/A-18E simply doesn't have the range. Sure, replace an old horse that's costing way too much money to keep alive, but replace it with something at least as good as what it's replacing!

Stormbringer wrote:

phongn wrote:With the conflicts we may be seeing, there's a few advocates who want the A-6 line restarted and damn the costs. The Navy really needs a bomb truck and can't rely on B-52 raids all the time.

They need to, a B-52 just can't provide the kind of quick repsonce a carrier force can.

I thought that is why the switched the Tomcat over to F/B duty. Doesn't the AN/AWG-9 radar work well against ground targets? That and its capacity for over 14,000 lbs of air ground weapons should make the Tomcat/Bombcat worthy of this mission.

Vympel wrote:While we're all sorry to see the F-14 go, the question really should be asked if American aircraft carrier's NEED a dedicated interceptor.

Yes, you've still got people out there capable of mounting an attack. We still need a dedicated interceptor although the need isn't as pressing.

Vympel wrote:It's not the loss of the AWG-9/Phoenix combination that pisses me off, it's the replacement of a capable strike platform that is albeit expensive to maintain with an inferior model. The F/A-18E simply doesn't have the range. Sure, replace an old horse that's costing way too much money to keep alive, but replace it with something at least as good as what it's replacing!

Never assume the bueracrats'll do anything right.

[quote="MKSheppard]BULLSHIT.....they cannot replace the Warthog in the CAS role with such
an exotic jet as the JSF....CAS involves flying low and slow enough to
make out what's going on the ground, and being shot at by LOTS of
triple A....[/quote]

The A-10 was designed to fight a war agaisnt soviet incursion in Europe, that is, against the soviet tank divisions.
Nowadays, that doctrine is over, there aren't any more tank divisions stomping around, in Iraq they had to face a sizable tank force for sure, and they resorted to tank-plinking with laser bombs, so as not to endanger the crews.
With the increased used of precision munitions, and the nature of future conflicts amounting to chasing around unindentifiable threats, the A-10 is becoming an anachronism.

Besides, the higher administrations never like it, it reminded them too much of Vietnam.

It irks me that they think the F-35 can replace the A-10? Pahleese. Bullshit right there. And it's not about the gun, it's about having a slow-moving, survivable, armored aircraft with a big payload to perform CLOSE air support. Unfortunately the USAF isn't in that business anymore. Just drop a JDAM from several km up ... yeah that'll do the trick

The Air Force has traditionally disdained the CAS role. The A-10 was an exception to the rule, but the Air Force brass for the most part dont really like the A-10.

Some lessons have to be relearned in every conlfict, some as mundane as having a good boot for the infantry to not enough airlift to move troops.

phongn wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.

It's quite a pity, but the Navy doesn't have the money to keep the Tomcat fleet, as much as we'd all like it.

I would have preferred this as a carrier's airwing: F-14E, F/A-18E, A-6F, S-3, ES-3 (opt.) EA-6B, KA-6D, E-2C, but there wasn't enough money in the budget to do that.

Well aside from the fact that a redesiegned Tomcat coudl probably save a lot of maintenance and upkeep costs (hell not having to replace all those dumped misiles would save millions per plane per annum) here's themake-up of the CAW I'd liek to see.

36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

It irks me that they think the F-35 can replace the A-10? Pahleese. Bullshit right there. And it's not about the gun, it's about having a slow-moving, survivable, armored aircraft with a big payload to perform CLOSE air support. Unfortunately the USAF isn't in that business anymore. Just drop a JDAM from several km up ... yeah that'll do the trick

The Air Force has traditionally disdained the CAS role. The A-10 was an exception to the rule, but the Air Force brass for the most part dont really like the A-10.

Some lessons have to be relearned in every conlfict, some as mundane as having a good boot for the infantry to not enough airlift to move troops.

As I recall, the Army is actually muttering dark threats about breaking their ban on fixed-wing aircraft and obtaining the A-10s for their own use. I'd also like to point out I never said the F-35 would be a GOOD replacement for the A-10, just that that's what the brass wants for it.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

phongn wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Oh I know, Phong and I have had this discussion many a time. It just pisses me off that we would give up the best damn interceptor out there for something that is slower, can't carry as much ordnance, cannot carry as long range ordnance, and doesn't have but half the legs. Really the only thing truly wrong with the F-14 was that its max landing weight exceeded the specs for most of the cable systems unless they came back unarmed to loading up the sukers with missiles meant ditching them on the way back, I would bet a mdoern redesing could save enough weight to make landing with white on the rails possible.

It's quite a pity, but the Navy doesn't have the money to keep the Tomcat fleet, as much as we'd all like it.

I would have preferred this as a carrier's airwing: F-14E, F/A-18E, A-6F, S-3, ES-3 (opt.) EA-6B, KA-6D, E-2C, but there wasn't enough money in the budget to do that.

Well aside from the fact that a redesiegned Tomcat coudl probably save a lot of maintenance and upkeep costs (hell not having to replace all those dumped misiles would save millions per plane per annum) here's themake-up of the CAW I'd liek to see.

36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C

Nitpick: the S-3 is able to fullfill the refueling task, they're mostly being used for that now, so you could cut the KA-6D and spare a few more EA-6B.

Warspite wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

phongn wrote: It's quite a pity, but the Navy doesn't have the money to keep the Tomcat fleet, as much as we'd all like it.

I would have preferred this as a carrier's airwing: F-14E, F/A-18E, A-6F, S-3, ES-3 (opt.) EA-6B, KA-6D, E-2C, but there wasn't enough money in the budget to do that.

Well aside from the fact that a redesiegned Tomcat could probably save a lot of maintenance and upkeep costs (hell not having to replace all those dumped misiles would save millions per plane per annum) here's the make-up of the CAW I'd like to see.

36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C

Nitpick: the S-3 is able to fullfill the refueling task, they're mostly being used for that now, so you could cut the KA-6D and spare a few more EA-6B.

Yes but I want the S-3 to be doing almost only ASW warfare in conjunction with my -60s while having the KA means I can always have a dedicated fueler airborne.

I understand, but remmeber that the S-3 was designed for a fast transit between the carrier and the patrol line, remaining on station for a long period of time, in which it most operate independently in defense of the battlegroup against submarine/surface threats, read safe passage of shipping. Nowadays, with the almost non-existent submarine threat to the battlegroup, that task can be done by the choppers abboard all vessels.

Anyway, it's all a personal taste. I like the A-6, too bad they had to scrap them.

CmdrWilkens wrote:36 F-14E
24 F/A-18E
24 A-6F
6 S-3
3 EA-6B
3 KA-6D
3 E-2C

Um, Greg - that's nearly 100 aircraft. The CVs are designed for something like 87, and that includes the SH-60B/Fs.

The Dark wrote: As I recall, the Army is actually muttering dark threats about breaking their ban on fixed-wing aircraft and obtaining the A-10s for their own use. I'd also like to point out I never said the F-35 would be a GOOD replacement for the A-10, just that that's what the brass wants for it.

This is more semantics, but it's an agreement on fix-winged aircraft rather than an outright ban, IIRC. And the US Army got away with having OV-10s for years until they were finally withdrawn in the 1990s.

Vympel wrote: *picturing culture mind piloted aircraft ....*

Anyway, it depends on what the F-16 is armed with. If the fight gets within visual range and the F-16 is armed with older generation AIM-9s, and not the new AIM-9X, if the MiG-21 snaps off an R-73 with a helmet-moutned sight off boresight shot, it's dead. This is what would happen in a fight between India and Pakistan- the only realistic MiG-21 versus F-16 scenario.

You're giving the MiG-21 medium range missiles, and the F-16 short range ones. Of course the aircraft with the longer range weapons is going to win.

Thing is, thats the F-16.

Howedar wrote:

Vympel wrote: *picturing culture mind piloted aircraft ....*

Anyway, it depends on what the F-16 is armed with. If the fight gets within visual range and the F-16 is armed with older generation AIM-9s, and not the new AIM-9X, if the MiG-21 snaps off an R-73 with a helmet-moutned sight off boresight shot, it's dead. This is what would happen in a fight between India and Pakistan- the only realistic MiG-21 versus F-16 scenario.

You're giving the MiG-21 medium range missiles, and the F-16 short range ones. Of course the aircraft with the longer range weapons is going to win.

Thing is, thats the F-16.

No, the R-73 is a WVR missile, just like the AIM-9 (though the latest marks of the R-73- the R-73M2, has a far superior seeker/FOV as well as a kinematic range of 40km). You were mentioning that an F-16 turns faster than a MiG-21, so naturally I assumed you were talking about a dogfight. No F-16 will ever fight a MiG-21 though (unless the Israelis have done it ...). The MiG-21 has served for a long time, but it's time is now up.

phongn wrote:

The Dark wrote: As I recall, the Army is actually muttering dark threats about breaking their ban on fixed-wing aircraft and obtaining the A-10s for their own use. I'd also like to point out I never said the F-35 would be a GOOD replacement for the A-10, just that that's what the brass wants for it.

This is more semantics, but it's an agreement on fix-winged aircraft rather than an outright ban, IIRC. And the US Army got away with having OV-10s for years until they were finally withdrawn in the 1990s.

IIRC, the agreement (true, it wasn't a ban, spoke too hastily) was for the Army to not have any armed fixed-wing aircraft, and the Air Force to not have any armed rotary-wing aircraft. I think it's a moronic idea. Let the Army take care of their own CAS, and the Air Force concentrate on air superiority and tactical and strategic bombing.

There is a danger that the Army might leave their newfound aviation to rot, however. A small one, but a possible one indeed - they'd probably concentrate on armor, infantry and artillery.

phongn wrote:There is a danger that the Army might leave their newfound aviation to rot, however. A small one, but a possible one indeed - they'd probably concentrate on armor, infantry and artillery.

Sure, but it's not like the Air Force is planning on doing anything with the Warthogs. I like A-10s, and I'd rather see them in a service that appreciates them than with a group that will treat them as second-class aircraft.

Alway thought the A-10 was more at home with the Apache and other CAS aircraft anyways.