User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:50:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fly, which software revision are you referring to? Legacy Hornets have gone thru some 20+ revisions of the EFCS code... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah but there was one big one around 2004. I'll leave the actual name out but the departure resistance gained from the new software was amazing. Improved BFM capabilities. And thankfully, changed the EP for OCF to the same EP as the Rhino, eventually anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:52:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Are A-6s or F-14s survivable vs modern A/A or S/A threats? The answer to that is no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:06:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are A-6s or F-14s survivable vs modern A/A or S/A threats? The answer to that is no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Are A-6s or F-14s survivable vs modern A/A or S/A threats? The answer to that is no. That's why you replace them, upgrade them. But in so doing you don't trade less capability for newer platforms. You should always be increasing/improving capability. With the FA-18 (series) EVERYTHING becomes a fuel issue. The Navy is reliant on land based big wing tanking for every mission now. That is a HUGE loss in capability. How many more aircraft with buddy stores do we have to use to get a strike package ashore solely organically? Every tanker is one less strike asset. Combine enhanced survivability with lower fuel capacity/range and lower ordnance capacity, and you get a survivable platform that can't do the job. Fuel is life. Fuel planning becomes the critical element. The FA-18 is the reason cycles are ~1+00 now rather than 1+30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:13:18 PM EDT
[#4]
That's strange...every cruise I was on we were flying 1+45 in -18Cs....
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:14:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:14:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but there was one big one around 2004. I'll leave the actual name out but the departure resistance gained from the new software was amazing. Improved BFM capabilities. And thankfully, changed the EP for OCF to the same EP as the Rhino, eventually anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fly, which software revision are you referring to? Legacy Hornets have gone thru some 20+ revisions of the EFCS code... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah but there was one big one around 2004. I'll leave the actual name out but the departure resistance gained from the new software was amazing. Improved BFM capabilities. And thankfully, changed the EP for OCF to the same EP as the Rhino, eventually anyway. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:18:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why you replace them, upgrade them. But in so doing you don't trade less capability for newer platforms. You should always be increasing/improving capability. With the FA-18 (series) EVERYTHING becomes a fuel issue. The Navy is reliant on land based big wing tanking for every mission now. That is a HUGE loss in capability. How many more aircraft with buddy stores do we have to use to get a strike package ashore solely organically? Every tanker is one less strike asset. Combine enhanced survivability with lower fuel capacity/range and lower ordnance capacity, and you get a survivable platform that can't do the job. Fuel is life. Fuel planning becomes the critical element. The FA-18 is the reason cycles are ~1+00 now rather than 1+30. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Are A-6s or F-14s survivable vs modern A/A or S/A threats? The answer to that is no. That's why you replace them, upgrade them. But in so doing you don't trade less capability for newer platforms. You should always be increasing/improving capability. With the FA-18 (series) EVERYTHING becomes a fuel issue. The Navy is reliant on land based big wing tanking for every mission now. That is a HUGE loss in capability. How many more aircraft with buddy stores do we have to use to get a strike package ashore solely organically? Every tanker is one less strike asset. Combine enhanced survivability with lower fuel capacity/range and lower ordnance capacity, and you get a survivable platform that can't do the job. Fuel is life. Fuel planning becomes the critical element. The FA-18 is the reason cycles are ~1+00 now rather than 1+30. You make points and I'm not slamming by any means. But around the ship everything for everyone is always a fuel issue. Tankers always are configured for ship ops so you're not losing any recovery tankers. You would lose a couple mission tankers which would be tanker configured anyways. And 1 hour cycles (every pilots favorites other than 45 min cycles) are not the normal cycle time anymore. A legacy Hornet can do a 1+30 with no tanking if needed, although it's tricky. All hour cycles would be too tough on maintenance and the flight deck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:19:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Wow. Reading this thread is like a "how to" of elicitation techniques and a "how not to" of responding - as if Primorsky 2.0 was just launched into service.
Be careful, gents, your audience is the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:20:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah, there were 2 more after that...I hung it up in 2011. Loved the improved troubleshooting with the '04 rev. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fly, which software revision are you referring to? Legacy Hornets have gone thru some 20+ revisions of the EFCS code... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah but there was one big one around 2004. I'll leave the actual name out but the departure resistance gained from the new software was amazing. Improved BFM capabilities. And thankfully, changed the EP for OCF to the same EP as the Rhino, eventually anyway. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah, amazing what the engineers can do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:21:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Reading this thread is like a "how to" of elicitation techniques and a "how not to" of responding - as if Primorsky 2.0 was just launched into service. Be careful, gents, your audience is the world. We have sock puppets and industrial espionage trolls in a few GD threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:21:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does sled sweeping go away with the -53? 53 was supposed to have sunsetted, replaced by the MH-60S pulling a lightweight sled or sensor. Didn't work so well and the investments in the airframe that were deferred due to pending retirement are manifesting in the Sea Dragon fleet. See the recent crash off Norfolk for one example. Sweeping goes away. 60S has some MIW capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:25:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Exactly. The crux of the issue re: Super Hornet has been lost in this thread to arguing over details like level acceleration to the supersonic at sea level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:27:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:27:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have sock puppets and industrial espionage trolls in a few GD threads. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow. Reading this thread is like a "how to" of elicitation techniques and a "how not to" of responding - as if Primorsky 2.0 was just launched into service. Be careful, gents, your audience is the world. We have sock puppets and industrial espionage trolls in a few GD threads. In a past life, I was told that engineers were often the best targets for such things, as their egos-based need to defend their programs made them quick to cite the very stats and figures certain other groups were often ultimately trying to find / verify. Give them something to correct, or defend, then sit back and watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:28:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
53 was supposed to have sunsetted, replaced by the MH-60S pulling a lightweight sled or sensor. Didn't work so well and the investments in the airframe that were deferred due to pending retirement are manifesting in the Sea Dragon fleet. See the recent crash off Norfolk for one example. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does sled sweeping go away with the -53? 53 was supposed to have sunsetted, replaced by the MH-60S pulling a lightweight sled or sensor. Didn't work so well and the investments in the airframe that were deferred due to pending retirement are manifesting in the Sea Dragon fleet. See the recent crash off Norfolk for one example. dude I share a cube with now; his son died on a 53 doing that mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:30:03 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Dunno if this one is better, or not. It's bigger, though. And in color! Sadly, this diagram is also subsonic below 10k. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:30:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. Unfortunately, without swing-wing you get suboptimal swept wing angles. Either you are configured for low speed handling for recovery or you are configured for high speed. You don't get both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:31:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Reading this thread is like a "how to" of elicitation techniques and a "how not to" of responding - as if Primorsky 2.0 was just launched into service. Be careful, gents, your audience is the world. There is one poster on this forum who identifies himself/herself as an Intelligence Specialist Second Class in the United States Navy. Not the best move in personal security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:35:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Too bad because I can't find my magnifying glass either.  Is that the strike package by Vulcans and Victors on the Falklands?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:36:51 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too bad because I can't find my magnifying glass either. Is that the strike package by Vulcans and Victors on the Falklands?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Too bad because I can't find my magnifying glass either. Is that the strike package by Vulcans and Victors on the Falklands?
correct. better copy posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:47:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, without swing-wing you get suboptimal swept wing angles. Either you are configured for low speed handling for recovery or you are configured for high speed. You don't get both. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. Unfortunately, without swing-wing you get suboptimal swept wing angles. Either you are configured for low speed handling for recovery or you are configured for high speed. You don't get both. I guess 100% of the World's Air Forces have decided that having two difference airframes for two different jobs was a better trade off. Variable swing wings haven't been seriously thought about since the Russians made the Tu-160 in 1980. Recovery was more of an after thought vs. being able to get the lift for a heavy fuel/bomb load. During recovery it's usually assumed most of your weapons are gone and fuel is low. The Navy will always be centered around the limitation of the aircraft carriers deck size, they will always want something that carries more weapons and fuel and go's faster and farther yet can land on a postage stamp yet be stored in a tin can. Now they bought into that it needs to be stealth on top of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:50:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
correct. better copy posted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Too bad because I can't find my magnifying glass either. Is that the strike package by Vulcans and Victors on the Falklands?
correct. better copy posted. Ha! just saw it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:02:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
During recovery it's usually assumed most of your weapons are gone and fuel is low. Bad assumption, especially for ROE-constrained strike/on call CAS missions. Increased bring back was one of the Super Hornet pros. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:06:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bad assumption, especially for ROE-constrained strike/on call CAS missions. Increased bring back was one of the Super Hornet pros. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
During recovery it's usually assumed most of your weapons are gone and fuel is low. Bad assumption, especially for ROE-constrained strike/on call CAS missions. Increased bring back was one of the Super Hornet pros. Historically were/are most carrier landings heavy fuel with full weapons loads? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:07:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Historically were most carrier landings heavy full with full weapons loads? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
During recovery it's usually assumed most of your weapons are gone and fuel is low. Bad assumption, especially for ROE-constrained strike/on call CAS missions. Increased bring back was one of the Super Hornet pros. Historically were most carrier landings heavy full with full weapons loads? No, because the aircraft weren't capable of landing that way. Lots of ordnance dropped in a designated area, not a TOO, in order to be able to land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:13:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because the aircraft weren't capable of landing that way. Lots of ordnance dropped in a designated area, not a TOO, in order to be able to land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
During recovery it's usually assumed most of your weapons are gone and fuel is low. Bad assumption, especially for ROE-constrained strike/on call CAS missions. Increased bring back was one of the Super Hornet pros. Historically were most carrier landings heavy full with full weapons loads? No, because the aircraft weren't capable of landing that way. Lots of ordnance dropped in a designated area, not a TOO, in order to be able to land. That's my point, most aircraft even land based, aren't making heavy weight landings based on their airframe. Everytime I've dealt with an RTB, either standard mission, IFE or even training missions, we were trying to lighten up, burning fuel with turns around the flag pole or dumping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:15:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's my point, most aircraft even land based, aren't making heavy weight landings based on their airframe. Everytime I've dealt with an RTB, either standard mission, IFE or even training missions, we were trying to lighten up, burning fuel with turns around the flag pole or dumping. The idea is to be able to land with the six figure and up cost ordnance, some of which we have in limited quantities, vice having to drop it in a safe area that isn't a target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:20:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Black Buck was totally political. It was the last "Grandstanding" for the RAF. I believe it was SHAR pilot Sharkey Ward who wrote about the waste of fuel to get one hit on the runway that was easily repaired the next day.
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/12/falklands-30-rewriting-history/ http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/12/falklands-30-rewriting-history/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:22:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea is to be able to land with the six figure and up cost ordnance, some of which we have in limited quantities, vice having to drop it in a safe area that isn't a target. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's my point, most aircraft even land based, aren't making heavy weight landings based on their airframe. Everytime I've dealt with an RTB, either standard mission, IFE or even training missions, we were trying to lighten up, burning fuel with turns around the flag pole or dumping. The idea is to be able to land with the six figure and up cost ordnance, some of which we have in limited quantities, vice having to drop it in a safe area that isn't a target. Which I would think is a result of our current conflicts, and design consideration that will typically be considered in future carrier based aircraft. Although I doubt that any future Navy considerations for those aircraft will include a variable swing-wing design to accomplish that. But I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:22:55 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strange that the OP has chosen to comment on just about everyones post except for the Hornet pilot that posted up, and said something contrary to the OPs beliefs.... As for helicopters, screw the physics. I am a wizard that uses magic and the souls of the vanquished to fly on. That explains the frequency of helo crashes. The Demon demands blood sacrifice! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:24:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which I would think is a result of our current conflicts, and design consideration that will typically be considered in future carrier based aircraft. Although I doubt that any future Navy considerations for those aircraft will include a variable swing-wing design to accomplish that. But I could be wrong. Conflicts since the 90s, actually. Lots of bringback during the FYR adventures in the Adriatic after all the fixed targets were serviced. Agree, almost definitely won't be a swing wing, but engine tech has come a long way since the Tomcat helping to reduce the need for a variable geometry wing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:26:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That explains the frequency of helo crashes. The Demon demands blood sacrifice! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Strange that the OP has chosen to comment on just about everyones post except for the Hornet pilot that posted up, and said something contrary to the OPs beliefs.... As for helicopters, screw the physics. I am a wizard that uses magic and the souls of the vanquished to fly on. That explains the frequency of helo crashes. The Demon demands blood sacrifice! Maybe those pilots have not vanquished a sufficient number of souls or relied too much on flight skills instead of wizardry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:35:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's strange...every cruise I was on we were flying 1+45 in -18Cs.... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile How long ago was that and where were you operating? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:49:45 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:50:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Do you believe the the Navy made a mistake in cancelling the A-6(F?) program? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:51:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Reading this thread is like a "how to" of elicitation techniques and a "how not to" of responding - as if Primorsky 2.0 was just launched into service. Be careful, gents, your audience is the world. The functional relationship of relative aircraft performance F-35B < F-35A < F-35C < C-23 < F-4 < F-18 < F-16 < F-18 < F-15 < F-22 < F-14 has been public knowledge for quite some time, and has been declassified since next Tuesday. Now granted, the binary communication message at 508.123 THz between an F-14 engaged in a negative 4g dive with a MiG-28 was, until now, something that had never been officially made public. But, you'll never get the government to acknowledge the fact. So, the secret is still safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:51:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You make points and I'm not slamming by any means. But around the ship everything for everyone is always a fuel issue. Tankers always are configured for ship ops so you're not losing any recovery tankers. You would lose a couple mission tankers which would be tanker configured anyways. And 1 hour cycles (every pilots favorites other than 45 min cycles) are not the normal cycle time anymore. A legacy Hornet can do a 1+30 with no tanking if needed, although it's tricky. All hour cycles would be too tough on maintenance and the flight deck. I wasn't thinking of the recovery tankers, but the missions tankers. More specifically the organic mission tankers. The Navy's reliance on bigwing tanking has resulted in a huge loss of capability. Reliance on bigwing tankers make the Navy assets nothing more than land based aircraft that happen to launch and recover from a platform at sea. Independent operations is a huge force multiplier and the Navy has severely hindered that capability. We tried 1+45s during workups and the CAP were always fuel limited. The part in red is what became the limiting factor. A guy could launch, get onstation, loiter, and return. But any intercept made him fuel critical and it becmae such a planning/logistics issue that we had to pull in the CAP stations closer to the boat and reduce the cycle times. So both CAP and Strike missions have been affected negatively. Which is the argument I was making re: we don't have replacements for the F-14 and A-6 and the FA-18 replaced the A-7. We don't have a replacement for the S-3 either BTW (which did a lot more than ASW). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:54:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Alpha Strike plan? I can read Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the top but can;t make out anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:55:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. I know of one account where an F-15 survived a mid-air collision, and then made it back, with ONE wing!  ETA: F-15B? I think it was a two-seater...
I won't lie, the F-15N model posted a few pages back did make my pants tight.  I don't think the Navy would've ever accepted it if it had came to be, what with the F4 pill that they were forced to swallow (or was it the Air Force had to swallow? All I know of that is McNamara said "You both use this!" and everybody was mad, but did the best with what they were given.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:58:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Holy shit you guys are easy to troll.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:59:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you believe the the Navy made a mistake in cancelling the A-6(F?) program? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Do you believe the the Navy made a mistake in cancelling the A-6(F?) program? I don't know enough details of that program to have an opinion, and I agree the A-6 platform aged out of viability, and the A-12 program was a cluster. All I said is we didn't replace that capability (or more accurately - we lost that capability to other concerns). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:00:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy shit you guys are easy to troll. We now have input from the Dutch Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:01:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We now have input from the Dutch Navy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit you guys are easy to troll. We now have input from the Dutch Navy. Dutch marines don't need AAAV/EFV. Wooden shoes mean they can walk ashore 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:01:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We now have input from the Dutch Navy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit you guys are easy to troll. We now have input from the Dutch Navy. The dutch have that bad ass absalon frigate. read about that shit in proceedings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:02:04 PM EDT
[#45]
I'm not reading all 13 pages.
Just tell me if it can take off from the goddamn treadmill or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:02:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alpha Strike plan? I can read Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the top but can;t make out anything else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip. Reminds me of this. couldn't find the better copy http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608033284825747259&pid=1.7 Alpha Strike plan? I can read Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the top but can;t make out anything else. Black Buck refueling plan. Someone posted the better copy later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:03:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know enough details of that program to have an opinion, and I agree the A-6 platform aged out of viability, and the A-12 program was a cluster. All I said is we didn't replace that capability (or more accurately - we lost that capability to other concerns). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And we still don't have a replacement for the A-6 or F-14 Sure we do, the Super Hornet Can the Super Hornet fly a double cycle CAP at 200NM out without refuelling and have enough fuel for an intercept? It's got half the range of the A-6 with the same ordnance capacity. Do you believe the the Navy made a mistake in cancelling the A-6(F?) program? I don't know enough details of that program to have an opinion, and I agree the A-6 platform aged out of viability, and the A-12 program was a cluster. All I said is we didn't replace that capability (or more accurately - we lost that capability to other concerns). While I have no idea if an A-6 would be survivable in today's threat environment, I agree the Navy lost a capability it had. IIRC, the upgraded A-6 would have had a glass cockpit, upgraded sensor suite, some A2A capability, and non-afterburning Hornet engines that would have given it a marked range improvement. As you stated, it was cancelled in favor of the fooked up A-12 program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:03:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not reading all 13 pages. Just tell me if it can take off from the goddamn treadmill or not. It can't. thats why the marines didn't buy the 18 E/F. NO treadmill capability. which is why we need the 35B |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:03:59 PM EDT
[#49]
I'm sure a lot of people in the know are aware, but with all the "funny" accounts lately, it might be a good time for another refresher.
Long link PDF file. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiswg.research.ucf.edu%2FDocuments%2FPPT%2FF22%2520OPSEC%2520brief%2520(unclass)%2520Feb%252008%5B1%5D.ppt&ei=V38gVNqWDcypogS8qYGoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHzjY9MUQxi1vWNanl6jSaQ07ROrg&sig2=oPzbvqGFJxcn30dG1dLwsw&bvm=bv.75775273,d.cGU&cad=rja |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:09:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know of one account where an F-15 survived a mid-air collision, and then made it back, with ONE wing! ETA: F-15B? I think it was a two-seater...I won't lie, the F-15N model posted a few pages back did make my pants tight. I don't think the Navy would've ever accepted it if it had came to be, what with the F4 pill that they were forced to swallow (or was it the Air Force had to swallow? All I know of that is McNamara said "You both use this!" and everybody was mad, but did the best with what they were given.)Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because, you sacrifice weight and performance for complex internal mechanisms in order to achieve added lift on take off, then gain aerodynamics and speed, at a loss of maneuverability. Swept wings were all the rage in the 1960's and now they aren't even a serious consideration vs. newer wing designs. Almost all swept wing designs are completely gone expect for the B-1B and it demonstrates the concept perfectly, needing the added lift on take off with a heavy bomb and fuel load, then going fast with little maneuvering at speed. For fighters it's not a good trade off vs.wings like the F-15 has. I know of one account where an F-15 survived a mid-air collision, and then made it back, with ONE wing! ETA: F-15B? I think it was a two-seater...I won't lie, the F-15N model posted a few pages back did make my pants tight. I don't think the Navy would've ever accepted it if it had came to be, what with the F4 pill that they were forced to swallow (or was it the Air Force had to swallow? All I know of that is McNamara said "You both use this!" and everybody was mad, but did the best with what they were given.)And the 20 year F-15 avionics maintainer in me sees the F-15N model and wants some design questions answered. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
