RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 7:10:09 AM)

F-22 is useful in one role. In that same role the F-35 is more effective than any foreign fighter now flying or expected to be flying in the next few years.

The F-35 is also designed for other roles, including carrier operations, for which the F-22 was specifically designed to not be capable of.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-fcas.htm

The USAF designed the F-22 to replace the F-15, a plane that is more or less a prestige aircraft for the USAF, and not one meant to meet the needs of the US. The F-35 was designed to fulfill a number of combat roles and all reports are that it will meet all of those operational requirements. The F-35 will be deployed in USAF, USN and USMC squadrons, replacing both the F-18 and F-16, rather than restricted to a handful of USAF squadrons.

Cutting the F-22 at only 300 planes and building more of the plane all the services actually need seems like a good idea to me.



slvemike4u -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 7:14:28 AM)

Kirata just shooting off the top of my head here....but is it possible when referring to outside influences...he was speaking of defence contractors?



Owner59 -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 7:24:20 AM)

As true today as ever.Perhaps more so.


"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes"

~~~~~~~

We must also not let fear mongers and scardy cats drive our policy.



samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 7:38:19 AM)

Hi Ken

You're asking good questions- and you're forcing me to give you a more detailed and accurate response- so here goes.

You've just reinvented the rationale of the swing wing of the F-14.  It's how they got an airplane that size, power and weight off a carrier since a conventional solid wing airplane wouldn't do it.  (Note- I would not call the F-14 a turkey. Expensive to fly...yes, turkey- no.)

One of the critical parameters of a wing is its lift to drag ratio- L/D.  This ratio is a function of airfoil and planform (shape).  Glider wings have high L/D ratios and you will note that they are long and skinny (aka high aspect ratio) as are the wings on commercial jet aircraft.  Fighter aircraft have wings with low aspect ratio to improve roll rates and to allow them to go supersonic.  However, they have poor L/D ratios- not much drag- but not much lift either.  The high L/D ratio is what allowed the US Air flight to stretch it to the Hudson and ditch safely, whereas pilots in an F-104 that suffered a flameout were riding a brick.

The F-14 was a brilliant way to have both a good L/D ratio for low speed handling (takeoff) as well as reduced span for high speed flight and maneuvering.  The F-35 does not have this feature, and all the computer enhanced controls are going to have a hard time keeping that turkey airborne off a pitching carrier deck.  The Aussie article pointed out that the F-105 with a similar layout required a very long takeoff run using good runways- an enormous capital and recurring expense.  When you couple the need for long runways with the F-35s short range, you'll wind up hearing the armed services bellyaching that in order to fly the airplanes where they're needed, we have to keep up a military presence throughout the globe.  There is a strong correlation between the range of an aircraft and the support it needs to do its task- short range aircraft need lots of logistics.

In terms of the folks "in the know"....please- follow the money- and look at the history of military decisions.  The F-35 is planned on being produced in the thousands.  The US is planning on selling this turkey to our allies because they've decided that rather than develop their own weapons systems and keep a domestic defense industry going, they're going to rely on ours.  This has all the hallmarks of the politics that doomed the Canadian Arrow; an airplane that was a bit ahead of its time- but a beautiful design.  This will give Lockmart a virtual global monopoly with the exception of the Russians and the Chinese. Everyone is going to study this airplane and it will not be hard to figure out an effective defense- even if the existing opposing fighters don't already succeed (which I'll bet they probably do in actual combat.) 

The simulations used as a selling tool to show that a limited number of F-35s can clobber a more numerous force of Sukhois are just that - simulations.  Also note that Lockmart wants to reduce the number of tests on the protoypes as a "cost savings measure".  My guess is because if the airplane is actually evaluated well, its flaws will become widely known. The simulations claim that this turkey can do both ground attack and be a fighter.    Well, no one's been able to pull off that feat yet- and typically the response of an attack aircraft when engaging a fighter is to get rid of the weapons you're carrying to increase maneuvrability.   It's why ground attack aircraft need fighter escort.  Calling this turkey a fighter was also a surprise to Lockmart- it was intended to be a ground attack aircraft because the F-22 was too expensive to risk in that role- plus it's quite rare for a high altitude aircraft to do well down low. 

Every few decades, the military "brains" decide that dogfighting is obsolete.  They did this prior to WWII (the bomber will always get through.), in Viet Nam (fighters just need missiles) and they're doing it with the F-35 (back to the bomber will always get through even though they're calling a bomber a fighter).  The exception was Korea which followed close on the heels of WWII, and the lessons of the previous war hadn't been lost.

The cost rationale of the F-35- develop 3 separate airframes but equip them with different engines and electronics was shown to be deeply flawed in the days of the TFX (back in the '60s) because airframes are actually a relatively cheap component of a modern fighter- engines, software and weapons systsems make up something like three quarters the cost.  Given the range of the airplane- the F-35 is an aerodynamic kluge and since aircraft tend to get heavier in service with all the new doo dads they hang on, the range is only going to get shorter.  Note that the P-51 in WWII had better range than the F-35. 

Kirata

I guess I'm the exception to your political characterization.  I despised the Bush administration and support Obama- but that doesn't mean that I'm going to close my eyes to his mistakes- and this is a big one.  But the military defense complex has evolved over decades, and it does need a radical makeover.  I may be a liberal but I see the need for a strong and effective defense.  Unfortunately, we haven't had that for decades- Ronnie's SDI has left a crippling economic legacy and apparently no way to put this ludicrous idea out of its misery.   It's really very simple.  The most effective anti missile defense is the pre-emptive strike.  It works and its cost effective.  Not to mention our Navy is ridiculous- its larger than the rest of the world put together. 


Sam



DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 8:06:49 AM)

You know samboct, I don't need lectures on basic aerodynamics. I wasn't the one making erroneous claims about wing load and carrier catapults.

As to the many whinges on range, the F-18 has a combat radius of just over 300 miles while the F-35C has a combat radius of 600 before mid air refueling. Please get you facts straight.

It still comes down to this, F-22 useless, F-35 useful.



samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 8:47:49 AM)

Ken

You got the lecture on basic aerodynamics because you seem to be unquestioning that the military services are making decisions based on good data.  You're the one who threw the F-14 into the comparison whereas aerodynamically, the F-35 and the F-105 are a much better match.  Your point about the F-14 being capable of being carrier launched is well taken- but you seemed to completely ignore how that was possible.

You also seem to accept that the military are now smart shoppers- when their past performance shows them to be anything but.  Why do you believe them now?  Aren't these the same people that said we needed Star Wars, a 600 ship navy and over a dozen carrier groups?  Or a nuclear arsenal that targeted every city over what was it- 50,000 people with several nuclear warheads?  How about the host of anti missile weapons that rely on the targets blowing themselves up in a test? 

There are also other reports that the F-35's performance is not what the manufacturer claims- see here-  http://www.f-16.net/news_article3027.html.  The article also points out that much of the F-35s capabilities are being based on "netcentric warfare" NCW- an unproven, expensive, and extremely dubious technology.

In terms of your comments about the F-18s range- please note that there are two airplanes with the same designation: F-18.  The earlier "legacy" airplanes outline and some components were used to develop the F-18 E/F aka Super Hornet, which probably should have received a new designation because it has very little in common with the previous version (different wings, fuselage etc.).  The F-18E/F has a range increase of some 40% using internal fuel over the legacy aircraft.

My guess as to why everybody's already so het up about the F-35 over the F-22 is that the F-22 was either not widely available for export or was deemed too expensive- although when similar production numbers get discussed, the costs of the F-22 and the F-35 are quite comparable -within 25% of initial purchase price  IIRC- and with the increased range of the F-22- it's probably less expensive operationally when base expenditures and tanker requirements are factored in.  The performance however, is not.  The F-22 is a far superior aircraft in the fighter role and may not do too badly in ground attack as noted in the Aussie article previously cited.  Military services reward loyalty- who's actually going to say that the F-35 is a turkey?  Only a retiree- and one who doesn't mind pissing off his buddies.

You want an example of this kind of nonsense?  Look at the production contracts for the B-17 and the B-18 prior to WWII.  The B-17 proved to be a capable aircraft- but was more expensive than the B-18 in terms of initial purchase price.  But a useless aircraft is a waste of money.  It's better to have a smaller force of capable aircraft, rather than a large force of turkeys.  Were their members of the AAF who spoke out publically against the B-18? Not a lot....generally considered career suicide.  


Sam



DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 9:05:31 AM)

If I meant super hornet I would have specified that. Even the Supper Hornet only has a combat radius of 390 miles still only 2/3rds the 600 of the F-35C.

Once again you're claiming the F-35C cannot be carrier launched? It has far more thrust than a F-105 and is actually built for carrier ops. It is lighter than a F-14 with comparable thrust at takeoff with about the same wing loading and with much larger wing area than the F-105 (385ft^2 vs. 668ft^2 for the F-35).

As to the military being smart shoppers, they aren't. That's why we have the F-22 in the first place. A useless plane that we don't need. However we do need the F-35. The F-18C/D and F-18E/F are terrible carrier aircraft and we've needed a replacement since they were forced on the navy because a congressman's son managed to kill himself in an F-14. The F-35B would replace the very aged AV-8's for use on the helicopter carriers.

There is no way the F-22 can fulfill either role, the USAF specifically required it not be carrier capable during design. Engineering a navalized F-22 would be a massive engineering challenge that would take years. USN and USMC pilots, the ones likely to actually face enemy aircraft in advanced 4th gen fighters, need something now not in 6 or 8 years.



kittinSol -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 9:23:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If I meant super hornet I would have specified that. Even the Supper Hornet only has a combat radius of 390 miles still only 2/3rds the 600 of the F-35C.



How much? I could do with a half a dozen of these.



sappatoti -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 10:45:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If I meant super hornet I would have specified that. Even the Supper Hornet only has a combat radius of 390 miles still only 2/3rds the 600 of the F-35C.

How much? I could do with a half a dozen of these.

I'll call your half dozen with a half dozen of these old Delta Darts.

Feeling nostalgic about seeing these interceptors flying overhead as a boy, am I right in thinking that the US no longer has a pure interceptor in its arsenal? Instead, the military is opting for a smaller number of platforms that can fulfill multitudes of missions?



DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 1:19:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sappatoti
Feeling nostalgic about seeing these interceptors flying overhead as a boy, am I right in thinking that the US no longer has a pure interceptor in its arsenal? Instead, the military is opting for a smaller number of platforms that can fulfill multitudes of missions?

Interceptors of the F-106 type were another roleless aircraft. The idea was to stage squadrons of interceptors to rapidly scramble to engage deep penetration bombers in case of a Soviet attack. Of course the Soviets never deployed a significant number of deep penetration bombers and relied on the ICBM as their first strike weapon. With the primary weapon, an air to air nuclear rocket, only usable in nuclear war,  it was left without a gun and with only 4 short range missiles and was a white elephant extremely popular with pilots as it was fun to fly.




samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 2:07:41 PM)

Ken

I've made the comments that I think the real world range of the F-35 will prove to not be a significant improvement on the F-18E/F.  Nor will its loiter capability and I've referenced them.  The debate vis a vis the F-105 seems to be going nowheres.

I've met some VPs and division heads of defense primes.  These companies have been risk averse for the past two decades.  The level of improvement for a new electronic box to make it onto an airplane has been set so high that in practical terms, the designs are largely frozen.  I don't see how a risk averse company can turn out a product that's anything better than mediocre- and based on the specs I've seen on the F-35 and the lack of demonstrated capabilities, it fairly screams gobble, gobble, gobble.....

While your point on the need for Navy and Marine aircraft to be capable of ground attack and support is well taken, apparently that hasn't penetrated the brass at either organization.  The Navy still views its primary role as protecting the fleet and does not have a decent aircraft to provide support for a chopper on a rescue mission of a downed pilot for example.  Loiter capability, survivability, and armaments are of primary concern for this mission, and they haven't had anything as good as the Spad in years.  Neither the F-18 nor the F-35 are very useful in this role.  Its really rather debatable how useful the Harrier is in modern day warfare- being again, a classical cold war airplane- a fighter which could operate without an airfield so that it wasn't vulnerable against a first strike.  But since the vertical lift capability isn't used in combat, I'm not sure what the point is these days- unless you want to put these airplanes on smaller ships.

In terms of your criticism of the F-14- I suspect the real reason it's been canceled is that a lot of the materials used to build the airplane are in short supply and it required 30 hours of maintenance for each hour in flight.  Carrier takeoffs and landings put enormous stresses on aircraft that their land based counterparts don't undergo.

In terms of your criticism of the F-106- let me point out that the Tu-95 Bear was designed as an intercontinental bomber in 1954 and first flew in 1956.  In many ways it's counterpart is the B-52 and although it's a somewhat smaller and lighter airplane, it's exact range was unknown till after the cold war ended.  (6,400 km unrefueled, 8,200 km with one refueling.)  It was also built in reasonable numbers (over 100 IIRC) so as far as I'm concerned, it certainly appeared to be a viable threat to the US.  Also note that the reliability and accuracy of the first ICBMs was extremely questionable- with the reliability remaining somewhat debatable to this day.

The F-106 was designed as an interceptor aircraft- not a dogfighter or air superiority fighter.  Its goal was to shoot down incoming bombers before they could reach the continental US and carried a large radar along with a missile bay rather than guns.  Since identification of friendly aircraft wasn't thought to be a problem, it seems to have been a somewhat daring but ultimately successful concept- to whit- the Russians never launched a strategic attack against the US.  How it would have fared in an actual attack is debatable- especially given the performance of the missiles of the day.  But it was a sound airplane.

The F-22 is NOT a cold war airplane in contrast to what its critics say.  It's a pure air superiority fighter.  Its intended to get to an airspace quickly and efficiently and shoot down any nogoodniks there.  This is an old requirement and dates back to the first fighters of WWI.  The closest historical parallel is probably the P-51 and we all know what a flop that airplane was.  Like the P-51, the F-22 can carry some bombs and other ordinance, but it's really intended to secure airspace.  And there is no question that it will do so far better than the F-35.  Since one squadron of F-22s would be more effective than several squadrons of F-35s (range can be a force multiplier), in my book, the airplane has far better bang/buck.  From my perspective, the F-22 is less revolutionary than evolutionary (there's a lot to be said that it's an improved F-15) but that's not so terrible.  OK, so the engines really do seem to be a big improvement- the ability to fly supersonically without afterburner hasn't been demonstrated in a military aircraft before- only the Concorde could do it.  The reason that the military doesn't seem to be so hot on the airplane is that there doesn't seem to be much out there that could give it a run for its money so why do we need it?  That'll change.....The military would rather have more airplanes that are less capable because the size of the service doesn't shrink- and we need a smaller, more capable military.


Sam



DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 2:45:28 PM)

The debate on the F-35 v the F-105 is going no where for you because all your factual claims were wrong.

Naval aviation does need fleet protection and the F-35C will be more capable at that than the F-18E/F as well as being a superior strike aricraft.

The F-22 is not a novel aircraft. It is a follow on to the F-15 which has seen sparing use due to the enormous expense of each plane. The much less capable F-16 has seen much more combat time because it was always intended to have both air to air and air to ground capabilities. The F-35 beats the F-22 as an air superiority fighter by the simple fact that it will be at the scene of the trouble rather than sitting on tarmacs in the US. No carrier capability for the F-22, a USAF design requirement, means the plane will not see combat except in big set piece conflicts and we can win those with what we have in the inventory today. OTOH we do need a new carrier borne fighter and we have one in the pipeline that will also fill roles in the USAF, assuming they get over their distaste for flying anything anyone else flies.

As to the F-14, if you truly don't know what happened to the Tomcat you haven't been around the aroespace world very much.

Finally the F-106 was not built to intercept Tu-95's. The Tu-95 is not a deep penetration bomber but a strategic bomber in the B-29 mold. Intened to fly in massive tight formations while methodically approaching a target and escorted by air superiority fighters. The F-106 would have had exactly one recourse to that, the nuclear rocket. The plane which was closest to what the F-106 was meant to shoot down that ever actually entered service with the USSR was the Tu-22 which entered service well after the F-106 was obsolete.



samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 4:45:55 PM)

Ken

To the debate at hand.... or anyone else.  Name one great airplane that was designed as "multi role".  My comment is that I don't trust the defense industry to tell a straight story.  The history of military acquisitions has an alarming number of turkeys in it for me to trust the process.  Anything designed as "multi role" has never failed to produce anything other than a turkey.  OK, maybe a buzzard, some haven't been total flops such as the F-111- but its certainly not a great airplane.  Great airplanes come from a single task which leads to good design with minimal compromises.  Often a great design can be used in other roles with success such as the Mosquito, the P-38, the B-25, the Ju-88 etc.  Multi role is an airplane designed by a committee which excels at nothing.

In terms of the F-16 versus F-15 debate- the F-15 was built in a lot fewer numbers and the F-16 was exported far more widely.  The F-16 being relatively inexpensive got used a lot more.  This argument doesn't apply to the F-35 versus F-22 since the cost savings of the F-35 are marginal at best.  Furthermore- there's a philosophical point that's lost here...An aircraft can be successful if by its presence it prevents a war.  The term "Peacemaker" for the B-36 was accurate since the airplane helped derail the FSUs expansion plans in Europe.  Yet it never fired a shot in anger (or dropped a bomb for that matter)- but it's presence was a great deterent.  Its quite possible the F-15 served a similar role by its presence as will the F-22.  Note that the Iraqis chose not to fight the US in the air in either 1991 or the more recent fracas.  The complete air supremacy made the larger Iraqi tank force utterly irrelevant.  Had there not been complete air supremacy from the start, the outcome of the battles might not have been so one sided.

In terms of your gripe about the F-22 being specifically not designed for carrier use- I think I figured out what's going on.  (Didn't see anything on the link you posted.)  No land based aircraft has ever operated functionally off a carrier.  Yes, there have been some examples of land based aircraft landing without arrester gear, but the landing gear of a carrier aircraft are much, much beefier than a land based plane.  Ever see the films on the testing of the F-14's gear?  They drop the airplane from over 10 feet.  Taking off from a carrier has been done for a much wider variety of aircraft however, ranging from the delivery of Spitfires, P-51s to other propeller driven aircraft- probably the largest being the B-25s used in the Doolittle raid.  However, launching the F-22 off a carrier would probably require beefing up the nosegear- the most likely hardpoint for a catapult shot.  But this will probably take weight- probably over 50 lbs.  (I'm absolutely guessing here- but it's more than a couple of pounds.)  This is useless empty weight- a feature that will rarely (if ever get used) add to the expense of the airplane, and reduce it's utility.  Aircraft are flown to regions of conflict using refueling rather than being shipped.  Deleting an overly beefy nose gear sounds like a good idea to me.

In terms of your comments about the Tu-95 Bear.  I have no idea where you've gotten those notions.  However-  the Bear, the B-52 and the B-29 are all strategic bombers- which are by definition- deep penetration having the ability to hit a broad range of targets throughout a country.  Tactical bombers are shorter range and have a more restricted target list.  The idea that Tu-95s would fly in a large massed formation protected by escort fighters is nonsense- they never had the escort fighters with the requisite range!  Neither did we- although there were some experiments with refueling F-84s and parasite fighters such as the XF-85- a flying abortion if there ever was one.  Also-although the Russians were slower to strip off defensive armament than the US, the Tu-95 did not have the firepower of either the B-29 or the B-36- aircraft which were designed to fly in large formations for mutual protection.  Without sufficient defensive firepower, there's no benefit to a formation- it's just a bigger target.  Since the Tu-95 is still being flown today- the idea that the F-106 was designed as an interceptor for that aircraft certainly makes sense- and again- it fulfilled a useful role since it discouraged air attack on the US.


Sam



thornhappy -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 5:20:45 PM)

Most got said already.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 5:24:25 PM)


Yeah but....with all the people out of work in this country, wouldn't it be cheaper (and far more effective) instead of blowing these people up.....if we just sent over 300,000 of our women....with no head scarves on....the enemies would all freak out and then go running for the hills.



DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 8:51:39 PM)

My point that you continue to ignore is that by the simple fact of the F-22 being specifically designed to not be a naval aircraft means that if we prioritize it over the F-35 then the USN and USMC, the operators of the combat squadrons most likely to see combat, will still be flying the quite thoroughly obsolete F-18's while the USAF will have spent trillions on planes that never fire a shot in anger.

The F-35C OTOH is designed to be a carrier aircraft. It shares many design components with the F-35A and F-35B which makes for better parts supply and simpler training of maintenance crews. If we are going to spend trillions acquiring a fleet of aircraft for the first third of the 21st century it should be a plane that can actually be put into service where it is needed most.

As to the B-52 and Tu-95, you really do need to know the terminology before discussing the aircraft. The B-52 was designed as a deep penetration strategic bomber. IOW it was designed to operate singly, fly at low altitude and deploy one or more strategic weapons on target. The F-106 was designed to counter a presumed similiar aircraft fielded by the USSR except of course that the USSR was unable to build such a plane and instead built the Tu-95 which was meant to fly high, in tight formations with fighter escort. Claiming it wasn't meant for that purpose is odd since we have numerous examples of the USSR and follow on states training in them in exactly that manner. As a matter of fact NATO fighters close encounters with squadrons of Bears in close formation has resulted in several minor collisions and numerous close calls.



Kirata -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/7/2009 11:44:59 PM)

~ Fast Reply ~

Why the F-22 Raptor
 
Navalizing the F-22 Raptor
 
Edited to add:
I can't find the links again, but in some quarters long-range air dominance fighters (like the Raptor) are viewed as the necessary and inevitable successors to sea-launched air power, because carriers have become increasingly vulnerable assets. It was recently reported that China has an operational low-observable missile with the potential to be a one-strike anti-carrier weapon.

K.






DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 6:30:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ Fast Reply ~

Why the F-22 Raptor
 
Navalizing the F-22 Raptor
 
Edited to add:
I can't find the links again, but in some quarters long-range air dominance fighters (like the Raptor) are viewed as the necessary and inevitable successors to sea-launched air power, because carriers have become increasingly vulnerable assets. It was recently reported that China has an operational low-observable missile with the potential to be a one-strike anti-carrier weapon.

K.

A navalized F-22 would be wonderful however all reports indicate it is not as trivial as that article claims. Best estimate I've seen is 5 years before prototypes could be flying and a cost roughly equivalent to the original design costs of the F-22, IOW north of $500 billion.

For any weapon to be reliably one strike versus a carrier it has to be a nuke. For conventional weapons the strategy remains saturation attack.



samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 6:37:03 AM)

K

This is an old debate.  There was a time when there were actually real choices made in the budget and in order to fund the B-36 program, the Navy lost two carriers.  Like most calls to get rid of seemingly obsolete weapons, this one also falls flat on its face.  There are several reasons why we're still going to need carriers.

Military presence.  Nogoodniks have lots of bluster when only threatened by aircraft that are far away or submarines.  A carrier is a visible threat which delivers a large air force to your doorstep and is very hard to ignore.  Nogoodniks are often like children in a classroom.  Under the teachers watchful eye, they can look like little angels, but when the teachers out of the room- the devil made them do it.  Carriers are the worlds teachers and principals.

Carriers are also far better at supporting forces on the ground than an air force base thousands of miles away- especially when they have aircraft that can hang around for a while.  Given the number of conflicts we get in- these ships have gotten used in every presidency. 

Yes, we have more than we need- I suspect the carrier force could be cut in half with no major consequences- and possibly more.

Carriers are very useful in low intensity conflicts- i.e. the sort of wars we've got in since WWII with opponents that do not have the resources to match the military might of the US.  High intensity conflicts- the type that would involve nuclear weapons- may have little need for carriers since as you point out- a carrier task force is easily destroyed with one bomb.  But if it comes to that- who really cares?  There are no victors in a high intensity conflict.

In low intensity conflicts- it's clear that its gotten easier to locate carriers with the advent of global satellite coverage.  But so what?  The uses of carriers have generally involved being highly visible on station- we're not trying to hide them.

The one area I agree with Ken on is that the Navy could use some new airplanes-because the ones it has aren't doing the job.  But the F-35 is effectively more of the same and doesn't solve the problems of ground support which requires armor, loiter time, and a big weapons load.  (Need to be able to drop lots of various ordinance- not just a few big bombs.)  What we really need is something closer to a naval version of the A-10- and I'm still not convinced that props aren't better for this job. 

One of the dumbest examples I've seen of the Navy trying to get away from props involves the Poseidon replacing the Orion.  http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-p-8a-poseidon-to-replace-p-3-orion/8315/.  The job of a sub hunter is to stay on station to locate and destroy submarines.  Given that submarines are very hard to track- this isn't done by sending an airplane out, dropping a torpedo and flying home.  You need to set out sonobuoys and wait for contacts which can involve a large search area.  The P-3 was plenty fast enough to get the job done.  The Poseidon is faster, but has far less loiter time- and I think less range- so we'll need more of them to replace the P-3.  The Navy's bellyache about the P-3 was the same as the Spad- real pilots fly jets, not props.  It's all about ego- not getting the job done.  The P-8 is a weapons system I'd cancel in a heartbeat.

Sam



samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 7:10:14 AM)

Ken

I have no idea where you get what you come up with, but it completely ignores the development of the aircraft in question.

"As to the B-52 and Tu-95, you really do need to know the terminology before discussing the aircraft. The B-52 was designed as a deep penetration strategic bomber. IOW it was designed to operate singly, fly at low altitude and deploy one or more strategic weapons on target. The F-106 was designed to counter a presumed similiar aircraft fielded by the USSR except of course that the USSR was unable to build such a plane and instead built the Tu-95 which was meant to fly high, in tight formations with fighter escort. Claiming it wasn't meant for that purpose is odd since we have numerous examples of the USSR and follow on states training in them in exactly that manner. As a matter of fact NATO fighters close encounters with squadrons of Bears in close formation has resulted in several minor collisions and numerous close calls."

The B-52 was a contemporary of the Tu-95- both aircraft first flew within a couple of years of each other.  Development of the airplane began back in the 1940s when large fleets of strategic bombers were envisioned to fly at high altitudes (improving range terrifically-All engines drink lots of fuel at low altitude due to temperature- the colder the better for efficiency.  The reduced drag at higher altitude also helps extend range.) carrying heavy defensive armament.  Wikipedia does a nice job here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

The idea that the B-52 should go in low came about in the late 50s, early 1960s when it was thought that the Soviet Unions missile capabilities made high altitude bombing too vulnerable.  This mistaken idea was thought to be confirmed by Francis Gary Powers getting shot down in the U-2.  However, it's extremely debatable whether the B-52 or the XB-70 would have had their missions thwarted by this missile capability- the U-2 is a very, very delicate airplane and it took a LOT of missiles to knock one down.  The SR-71 was never shot down- and that used  high altitude, high speed for penetration.

Even the B-58 Hustler was originally designed for high altitude but again, adapted to a low altitude high speed dash- but high operational expense, losses, and limited range led to the withdrawal of that airplane after a relatively short time in service.  
As I've noted before- a well designed airplane built for what is effectively a single type of mission is often adaptable- whereas an airplane designed for multiple missions never does anything well. 

Sam



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875