RE: Gates proposes defense cuts

RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 8:07:53 AM)
And once again you're wrong. The Big Four conversion of the B-52 fleet began in 1959 and the design proceeded that by quite a bit. Functionally before the first planes were delivered in 1955 the change in tactical doctrine had already occured. So the idea precedes the U-2 shootdown and actually was correct despite your claims to the contrary. We lost 15 B-52's to SA-2 fire during Linebacker II in 1972 (SA-2 is the same weapon that shot down Power's U-2 in 1960) when we tried mass formation carpet bombing of a defended airspace.

samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 7:46:42 PM)
Ken That's a chicken and egg argument. The uprated turbofans allowed the B-52s to use a low altitude approach, whereas the previous turbojets would have sucked too much fuel. So the idea of a low altitude approach needed the technology to become viable- but it also still worked better at high altitude. Since the development of high altitude missiles was known, it's not surprising that the AF also began looking at the B-52 in the low level approach. Note that the B-47- a smaller aircraft suffered some losses when attempting to maneuver down low based on the wings clapping. Recall that the initial designs back in the late 40s of the B-52 actually bear a striking resemblance to the Tu-95 (turboprops on a straight wing though)- the airplane evolved a lot over time. Aircraft designed to fulfill a similar mission often bear striking similarities. Both the Tu-95 and the B-52 have had very long service lives- a tribute to a well designed aircraft, but then again, neither one has thankfully been used in their original designed role. While Linebacker may have shown the problem of a massed formation over what was the most heavily defended airspace in the globe, the Ploesti raid in 1943 using Liberators showed the alarmingly high losses of operating high altitude strategic bombers at low level. The loss rate of F-105 which were far faster, maneuvrable and sturdier than the Buff when operating down low in Viet Nam was also unacceptable. However, I suspect that in nuclear combat, an unacceptable loss rate is part of the game. The real take home from Viet Nam was that attacking the enemys installed weapons rather than their production is a losing strategy. In summary then- while I concur that the Navy needs some new aircraft- I disagree on the F-35 as a useful replacement of the F-18 E/F. It's not enough of an improvement over the F-18 to make it worth the money, and it still leaves alarming gaps in the Navy's capabilities. A far more useful aircraft would be an updated Spad. The desire for the F-35 strikes me as an attempt to keep up with the Air Force's F-22. Your comment that the Navy needs a navalized F-22 shows that you've accepted the arguments of the Navy which are based more on ego and desire than needs. I disagree that the Navy needs its own version of the F-22- the Navy needs a very different aircraft which works better in the ground attack role- the characteristics of which have been described previously. The Navy has a long history of trying to make carrier groups relevant in nuclear combat -aka high intensity conflict. As noted previously, a carrier group is terribly vulnerable to a nuclear strike, thus it makes little sense to try and equip it to do so. Instead, carriers have enormous value in the current arena of low intensity conflicts and they need aircraft which function well in this environment. The F-35 is too expensive, carries excessive electronics which will likely increase maintenance costs and downtime, and has been designed to be stealthy- which is of dubious value in the conflicts it's projected to be used in. (This is even assuming the airplane isn't the turkey that I think it is.) Nor will the F-22 do much better in these conflicts for largely the same reason- except it will be more successful against other aircraft. Note that less sophisticated aircraft using visual means for identification and guns may be able to out dogfight the F-35 at a fraction of the cost. Anybody wanna bet that a pair of F-16s could take one out? Stealth technology is easily defeated by a sharp pair of eyeballs. Sam

Kirata -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 8:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct What we really need is something closer to a naval version of the A-10 Gotta love the ol' Warthog! The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off.... The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 900 pounds (408 kg) of titanium armor.... its primary built-in weapon is the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun. One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown. Ref K.

DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/8/2009 8:57:29 PM)
The desire to have a top line air superiority fighter is no desire to keep up with the USAF and its indicative of how little you know of the USN. A carrier group isn't just vulnerable to a saturation attack. The picket is vulnerable to attack from as little as 3 or 4 missiles launched by a single aircraft. The E-2 is a very vulnerable aircraft and needs very capable aircraft defending. The strike wing needs air superioty coverage when operating. Those are all roles that the USN needs a top of the line air superiority fighter for. That was what was galling about the F-22 program. Note also that the USN does not want the F-22. The F-22 is a show piece intended to sit on runways and be seen at air shows. The USN needs an effective aircraft that fit sits needs and requirements. You're trying to compare prop aircraft from WWII with a turbofan B-52? The fact is you talked about the USSR being unable to shoot down B-52's because you obviously didn't know enough history to know that Soviet gear operated by Soviet personel had shot down 16 of them. As to visual engagement defeating stealth, you can't be serious. If you eyeball scan around with little idea of range or vector you are not going to have much luck picking up a plane until it is exceptionally close, likely enough when it is firing position behind you.

MrRodgers -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 7:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata F-22 Production to Halt We're going to miss the F-22 some day. K. Why ? We are not using them now and haven't used them. They are like the C-17 and the B-1 bomber, a jobs program and that's all and like too many 'war' planes...obsolete by the time they worked. We have much better and in some cases...cheaper alternatives.

samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 11:02:25 AM)
K et al. Doing a little digging on the A-10 shows some very interesting parallels with the current claims of the F-35. http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/sic_transit_warthog-print.html The A-10 was an unloved, unwanted child of pork barrel politics- not AF requests. Yet it proved to be one of the most valuable weapons in both Iraq I and II- a function of its armor, loiter time, and armament. From my perspective- the lack of demand for this aircraft out of the top military leaders illustrates what's wrong with the defense procurement process. Since the Navy seems to get asked to do similar tasks- they need a similar airplane. The F-35 is very, very far from it. Ken- May I make a suggestion that you try thinking a bit more critically about whatever source you're reading to come up with this stuff? Also- your previous posts such as "A navalized F-22 would be wonderful" lead me to think that your gushing over the F-35 and your condemnation of the F-22 aren't exactly consistent. An F-35 is sort of a navalized F-22- it's claimed to do the same stuff. So why does it suck as an AF fighter but seems to be the greatest thing since sliced bread for the Navy? In WWII, there was a classic game of spy vs. spy in between the British and the Germans involving radar and night fighters. The take home message from that is that it was very much a see saw, and technological improvements were rushed from the lab to the airfield in very short order (days to months.) The idea that the current stealth technology is a be all and end all of aircraft detection is pretty laughable. Let's even assume that the current radar evading technology defeats all radar- different bands included. What then? Well, there are lots of ways to detect an airplane- visual wavelength (mark 1 eyeball, but there are also now computer enhancements), IR (used in current missile technology) and jet aircraft will always have an IR signature (fuel cell aircraft might not.) and acoustic -used for detection in both WWI and WWII prior to the development of radar- as well as in the FSU in the Urals IIRC. The F-35 will not remain low observable forever-I suspect this feature will be rendered obsolete in less than a decade if a conflict with China escalates. Furthermore- your idea that stealth and radar negates a good pair of eyeballs in the cockpit shows a lack of awareness of dogfighting history and practice. In WWI- dogfights occurred between 80-100 knots, in WWII, 250-300 knots, In Korea, 400-500 knots - and it's pretty much stayed there. Aircraft rarely engage at supersonic speeds- it takes too long to turn around and they've long since left the battlezone. Current fighters are still equipped with guns- and guns rely on visual means (and generally subsonic speeds) to shoot at a target- radar has nothing to do with it. History is full of examples of how a better pilot in a supposedly less capable aircraft managed to down a less experienced foe- ranging from Migs being shot down by F-51s or Spads to the Israelis using Fouga Magisters to take out a Mig 21- without firing a shot. Sam

DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 11:59:28 AM)
You truly don't know jack all about the military or the procurement process. In simplest terms if a system is desired and designed solely to USAF requirements it is likely to be horrifically expensive, perform below expectations and in many cases leave knowledgeable people scrtaching their heads wondering why? Take the most recent tanker procurement as an example. The decision was made to buy a custom built airbus airframe and specs were let to guarantee that outcome, despite the fact that using any of a number of Boeing's commercial airframes converted to tankrs would have worked and worked much more cheaply. When word got out that the process had been fixed Congress broke the contract and made the USAF start over. So the USAF put out specs that may has well have been the performance numbers right off the airbus brochure. Which in the end means we will probably spend more money for fewer planes based simply on the desire of the USAF to not fly planes anyone else flies. This can further be illustrated by the F-4 and the fate of Grumman. So it is perfectly consistent to assume that the F-22 is another useless "starship" designed to reassure USAF generals about their penis size. OTOH the F-35 program was vigorously pursued by the USN, USMC and only begrudgingly by the USAF. Therefore it is beyond safe to assume that th eplane will be a useful airframe capable of doing the job it is designed to do. Now for stealth, fighter aircraft radar wavelength is constrained by several factors, primarily issues dealing with generating and propogating very high frequency RF and available power. The shorter the wavelength the better able a radar is ableto get a meaningful return from a low signature target. However the shorter the wavelength the more power is needed to get returns from the same range and producing and transmiting these high frequencies becomes significantly more difficult. So ground stations and airborned early warning aircraft may have the ability to detect a low signature target fighter aircraft are unlikely to have such any time soon. Luckily for the stealthed aircraft the radars capable of detecting them are also easily targeted by HARM weapons. So in general fighter pilots will be trying to gain visual observation of an incoming aircraft they are unsure of range and approach vector which is very dificult until the other plane is very close which quite obviously gives the advantage to the stealthed aircraft. As an aside the navy does not get tasked to do jobs appropriate to the A-10's role. The A-10 is a long loiter time tank killer. USN/USMC combined arms forces are not meant for fighting set piece battles against tank divisions. That's supposed to be the job of the USAF and USArmy. The USN and USMC need a more general ground strike aircraft not one specialized for such a rarely needed role. Although I'm sure the jarheads wouldn't mind some more money to buy AH-1Z's.

slvemike4u -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 12:02:43 PM)
geez guys a lay men can get a headache reading this thread.....(just kidding,carry on)

samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 3:10:46 PM)
"You truly don't know jack all about the military or the procurement process." Probably true- but then I'm not sure anyone does. Here's my first hand experience with the procurement process. I have a client come to me and say I've developed new technology to help find faults in an aircraft using a visual imaging technology. It would clearly speed the repair process. So I go to the Navy guy in charge of procurement of new technology and ask him what the next step is. He gives me a hangdog look, and says the Navy can't buy it, unless it comes from the primes. So I talk to the guy from Northrup Grumman (NG). He says that NG really isn't interested since they didn't develop it. (NIH- not invented here) Besides, NG can't sell anything to the Navy that the Navy didn't first request. But the Navy says that most of their new technology ideas come from the defense primes because the Navy doesn't have the resources to find out what's possible. Get the picture? It's a Catch-22. Another example: SBIR contracts have been quite successful at helping develop new technologies. They're written by people in the services that have a need and want new technology to solve the need. Unfortunately, by the time the technology has been developed (it can take several years) the person who wrote the requirement has generally moved someplace else and is no longer responsible for the program. So a few years later, there's another solicitation, but by this point, the company that developed the technology has gone bust. Also- since SBIR contracts were supposed to be the method of moving innovative ideas into defense applications, you'd think that the primes would have an office for SBIR contacts. Well they do- most of them were established in the past two years. What you were supposed to do prior, I have no idea. I haven't found anyone else who does have a clue either. I'm not sure that anything has been commercialized through this pathway either. So I think I do have some first hand experience with how the procurement process works- or rather doesn't work. How about a few more examples of how these companies are broken? NASA develops a composite fuel tank for the shuttle to save 1/3rd the weight of the aluminum tank it replaces. The tank works fine initially, but when one of them has an in flight failure, the group that used to build the tank is long gone, and there's no one there who knows how to figure out what went wrong. At a meeting I was at- a guy from NG gets up and says "Back in the 50s we built a spar out of a certain type of aluminum (don't remember the designation) for the F-5/T-38. We don't know how to build it anymore. Can anyone help?" These examples show where our taxpayer dollars are going- to reinvent the wheel. These companies have no institutional memory- they constantly have to reinvent stuff because the drawings got thrown out, the guy who knew how to build it retired/got canned... etc. I've already pointed out that these companies are also risk averse (and have been for at least two decades)- crippling the design process. In terms of the Navy needing an air superiority fighter- they had one in the F-14. All the criticisms that have been leveled at the F-22 are valid here. How many enemy aircraft did it ever shoot down- half a dozen maybe? And those were operated by other countries. You claim it's a political decision to quit flying the aircraft. I suspect it has far more to do with parts availability. The F-14 was a very sophisticated airplane and had a number of dramatic technical innovations. The wing box is an amazing piece of design, materials, and engineering. It's also probably impossible to replace. Mind you, I don't consider the F-14 a waste of money. A certain level of preparedness keeps nogoodniks from getting ideas and preparation is cheaper than war (in dollars and especially lives.) In the article on the A-10, the AF has resorted to having parts custom fabricated for the airplane. I suspect that's harder to do for the F-14- it's a much more sophisticated airframe. Plus the AF will fly planes with a certain level of corrosion as long as they think the part is basically OK. The Navy won't. I'm well aware of the differences in procurement in the services and how they handle maintenance- again, through first hand experience. You seem to think that the Navy's system of procurement is fine, whereas the AFs is broken. My comment is that all the services have a broken system- especially since everything has to come in through the primes. The Navy's may not be as badly broken as the AF, but it's broken nonetheless. You also commented that I used an example out of WWII to show that strategic bombers don't work down low. AFAIK, they never flew Buffs down low in Viet Nam or Iraq, so it seemed relevant. Your comments about the disaster of Linebacker II seemed less so- there is a world of difference announcing that you're attacking a heavily defended target in a mass formation, and a dispersed attack with hundreds of possibilities (i.e. a nuclear assault on the FSU) even if both are at the same altitude. Also- having read Johnnie Johnson's History of Air Fighting (along with numerous other books on the subject- I'm an airplane nut.) his comments are pretty clear- that the tactics of air fighting have evolved since the days of Dicta Boelcke close to a century ago, but there has been no revolutionary change which make these tactics less relevant today. (OK, there have been some tweaks.) And Johnson goes through the Falkland war. Since there has been only limited fighter on fighter engagements since then, the tactics that have evolved have not been tested in war. From my perspective, wars often provide the opportunities to unlearn all the new tactics developed and return to the basics. To your point about the F-4 in Viet Nam (as well as the F-8) I agree that the century series of AF jet fighters were not as successful on the whole as the F-4- the AF had forgotten that aircraft need to be able to dogfight and that missiles are not short range weapons, where a lot of dogfights occur. As an aside- the F-4 was a terrible aerodynamic kluge. It just flew well, carried a gun, and could defeat the lighter and far more maneuvrable Migs with good tactics. In terms of your comments about stealth...What happens when an opponent either figures out a stealthy aircraft of their own- or the even simpler expedient of overwhelming the expensive stealthy aircraft with sheer numbers. The Russian fighters in WWII generally did not have the performance of the German aircraft- but even with lousy tactics, they managed to wipe out the Germans. I suspect that tactics being developed that rely on stealth these days, will have to get unlearnt when they don't work in actual combat or stealth is defeated. Your comments about the Navy not being needed in a ground war....absolute nonsense. The whole point of the carrier force is to provide a working air force where its needed. In WWII the conclusion was reached that while Army pilots had an abysmal record operating over water, naval pilots proved adept at strike roles on ground targets. Since there is no navy out there in the globe to threaten ours, it's clear that the point of the carrier is to provide a force to attack ground targets- especially in places where the AF doesn't reach. (and note- I agree with your comments with regard to tankers. I think the Bush administration's idea was to approve every stupid idea that the services have had over the last few decades so that it would become impossible to kill all the programs where Bush's butt buddies made out.) This has been shown in both Korea and Viet Nam, as well as the Falklands (and I think in Serbia or Crustacea as too.) Sam

DomKen -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/9/2009 4:41:25 PM)
I never said anything about retiring the F-14 being political. I said a Congressman killed the purchase of more airframes because his son crashed one. Well documented fact. Linebacker II wouldn't have had a different outcome i fit was a surprise. Air search radar is quite capable of picking up even dispersed B-52's from a very long way out. Far longer than it would take to scramble launcher crews. The F-4 was a terrible aircraft that simply killed everything thrown against it. Unlike every USAF fighter in their inventory which all were getting beat. The CVBG is not intended to support a major ground offensive. Their simply isn't enough aircraft. The CVBG is supposed to project force quickly and provide air support for fast response units, primarily the USMC but some Army light forces. For major or prolonged conflicts the USAF is supposed to do the job not a single air wing off a CVN. I never said the USN procurement is not broken but that it has a track record of not being as screwed up as the USAF's.

MrRodgers -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/11/2009 2:13:12 PM)
Ever notice how we meaning we taxpayers have put the pentagon's friends on welfare. Is there anything in the weapons system's procurement process that we don't pay for ? Isn't this something we should start to tell our hi-schoolers to invest in...the defense industry as their stocks always eventually go up by making systems, many of which exist to produce income and hopefully...a profit but nothing much more ? Missile defense the 'star wars' project comes to mind which is and been a federal boondoggle for all time. Whether what they produce works or not, whether it serves our current fighting needs or not...keeping production lines open, and the old-school, never-ending favorite...cost overruns. The pentagon is to procurement what wall street is to wise investing. What a deal !

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125