# Controversial airplanes...



## Elmas (Sep 8, 2020)

Dont’t give me a G-91
Flying backwards when firing its gun
it’s slow and it creeps
off the runway it seems
Dont’t give me a G-91
_Chorus!_
Don’t give me an ’86-K
with rockets, radar & AB
she’s fast, I don’t care
she blows up in mid-air!
don’t give me an 86-K
_Chorus!_
Don’t give me an F-104
with a shaker and kicker and all
It pitches and spins
with no wings and no fins
Don’t give me an F-104
_Chorus!_


_



_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 8, 2020)

Sending F-4 Phantom IIs to tangle with Vietnamese MiG-19 and MiG-21 without a gun was a controversial design decision, or should have been IMO. Did anyone ask the pilots what they wanted or needed?


----------



## Gen. MacArthur (Sep 8, 2020)

Nice! That was a cool jam. But i like the F-86. It looks super clean and sleek.


----------



## Tom Fey (Sep 10, 2020)

The development and intent of the TFX / F-111 aircraft was about as controversial as you can get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 10, 2020)

Tom Fey said:


> The development and intent of the TFX / F-111 aircraft was about as controversial as you can get.


F-22 in my book. 187 aircraft for a total program cost of over US$80 billion in 2020 dollars. That’s US$428 million per aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> F-22 in my book. 187 aircraft for a total program cost of over US$80 billion in 2020 dollars. That’s US$428 million per aircraft.



And worth every penny. Believe me when I say it is untouchable at the moment.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> F-22 in my book. 187 aircraft for a total program cost of over US$80 billion in 2020 dollars. That’s US$428 million per aircraft.


Economy of scale. 
Had more been built, the per unit cost would have gone down. I truly believe it would have been money well spent. To just give up something that tremendous was short sighted. Oh well.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sending F-4 Phantom IIs to tangle with Vietnamese MiG-19 and MiG-21 without a gun was a controversial design decision, or should have been IMO. Did anyone ask the pilots what they wanted or needed?


More like, did anybody *ask *the pilots what they wanted or needed? ...well,..uh,...no, but what does that matter? In the end Congress saw fit to fund a fix for the USAF, but not USN.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

Tom Fey said:


> The development and intent of the TFX / F-111 aircraft was about as controversial as you can get.


The ultimate Macnamara "pignorantism"!


----------



## Elmas (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And worth every penny. Believe me when I say it is untouchable at the moment.



And for many years to come, I think.
Geopolitical situation apart, probably F-22 has been so successful to convince Pentagon that even a much less number of planes was sufficient to scare potential enemies.
But of course they won't tell that in these terms..


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 11, 2020)

Elmas said:


> And for many years to come, I think.
> Geopolitical situation apart, probably F-22 has been so successful to convince Pentagon that even a much less number of planes was sufficient to scare potential enemies.
> But of course they won't tell that in these terms..


The F-22 program reminds me of the Seawolf-class SSNs, both considered by Congress as technological overkill in the post Cold War period, at an unsustainable price tag. One replaced by the F-35, the other by the Virginia-class SSN.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The F-22 program reminds me of the Seawolf-class SSNs, both considered by Congress as technological overkill in the post Cold War period, at an unsustainable price tag. One replaced by the F-35, the other by the Virginia-class SSN.



The F-22 is not being replaced by the F-35. They are fulfill two different roles.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The F-22 is not being replaced by the F-35. They are fulfill two different roles.


The F-22 can't do the F-35's strike role, but isn't the F-35 being asked to do what the F-22 was intended for, that of air superiority? The Lightning is certainly being marketed as multirole aircraft with a strong air superiority capability. That's what the USN is hoping they're getting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The F-22 can't do the F-35's strike role, but isn't the F-35 being asked to do what the F-22 was intended for, that of air superiority? The Lightning is certainly being marketed as multirole aircraft with a strong air superiority capability. That's what the USN is hoping they're getting.



The F-35 is not built to do the air superiority roll of the 22. Just sit them next to each other and you will see what I mean.

i’m not knocking the 35, it is a great aircraft, although I certainly have personal reasons to push up the 22.

Think F-22 = F-15 while F-35 = F-18


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The F-35 is not built to do the air superiority roll of the 22.


I understand. But the F-35 is being asked to do the role of the 22. When I think of the F-15 it's the multirole Strike Eagle, not the pure fighter variant that comes to mind.

The first F-22 was introduced in 2005 and has an estimated 30 year lifespan, and as they begin retiring in the the next fifteen years and the number of Lightnings increases into the hundreds, the F-35 is going to have to fill the F-22's role. By 2040, about nineteen years from today there will be no F-15 or F-16 in US service, and an increasingly declining number of F-22s. It's going to be thousands of F-35 and whatever Skynet-controlled ROV the complex has flogged.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I understand. But the F-35 is being asked to do the role of the 22. When I think of the F-15 it's the multirole Strike Eagle, not the pure fighter variant that comes to mind.
> 
> The first F-22 was introduced in 2005 and has an estimated 30 year lifespan, and as they begin retiring in the the next fifteen years and the number of Lightnings increases into the hundreds, the F-35 is going to have to fill the F-22's role. By 2040, about nineteen years from today there will be no F-15 or F-16 in US service, and an increasingly declining number of F-22s. It's going to be thousands of F-35 and whatever Skynet-controlled ROV the complex has flogged.



The F-22 will be around longer than 2035. That is why we have SMR.

The replacement for the 22 will be another platform all together.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 11, 2020)

B-1?


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 11, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> B-1?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Sep 11, 2020)

Indeed. But, those smarter?????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Very fitting for today...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 11, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 594593​



Not too many planes get canceled and resurrected, seems like the epitome of controversial.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 11, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> Not too many planes get canceled and resurrected, seems like the epitome of controversial.


Does the B-2 Lancer qualify?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Does the B-2 Lancer qualify?



You mean the B-1 Lancer?


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You mean the B-1 Lancer?


Uhhh....just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Yeah, that one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Uhhh....just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Yeah, that one.



Last year we were awarded more than $14B in contracts to modernize the B-1 and B-52, to keep them going a bit longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 11, 2020)

Sorry. I sometimes suffer from “fat finger syndrome”. I really gotta start previewing moor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Happens to all of us...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The F-22 will be around longer than 2035. That is why we have SMR.


Could L-M restart F-22 production or was this a case of the Avro Arrow with all drawings, jigs, etc. purposely destroyed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I understand. But the F-35 is being asked to do the role of the 22.



By who? Not by the USAF. The primary mission of the F-35 is to drop bombs, end of story. "Joint STRIKE fighter."


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> By who? Not by the USAF. The primary mission of the F-35 is to drop bombs, end of story. "Joint STRIKE fighter."


By most of the other nations that have purchased it. You are correct it is primarily a bomber but a lot of nations cannot afford two types

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 11, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Last year we were awarded more than $14B in contracts to modernize the B-1 and B-52, to keep them going a bit longer.



You personally? Can I "borrow" a million or two?

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> You personally? Can I "borrow" a million or two?



I wish!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Could L-M restart F-22 production or was this a case of the Avro Arrow with all drawings, jigs, etc. purposely destroyed?



The aircraft was actually built by L-M and Boeing. L-M had the forward fuselsage and tail, Boeing built the aft fuselage and wings.

To answer your question though...

No, it cannot be built again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sending F-4 Phantom IIs to tangle with Vietnamese MiG-19 and MiG-21 without a gun was a controversial design decision, or should have been IMO. Did anyone ask the pilots what they wanted or needed?


Hmmm.. where to start.

First the MiG-19 was not used in numbers until late in the war. The VNAF used MiG-17s and 21s

The no gun F-4 was a design philosophy that was brought in during the 1950s. Pilots weren't invited to the table until the airwar wasn't going well. It might have worked until politicians created Rules of Engagements that would limit the effectiveness of air to air missiles (among other things) . Last, the Sparrow missile was junk and was not suited for combat in SE Asia.

Despite all this, the USN and USAF did eventually gain higher kill ratios, the US Navy started Top Gun and that helped a lot.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Sep 11, 2020)

Very well stated


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmm.. where to start.
> 
> First the MiG-19 was not used in numbers until late in the war. The VNAF used MiG-17s and 21s
> 
> ...


I’ve read of some of the rules of engagement. B-52’s having navigation lights on, flying the exact same routes, etc. I’m wondering what other rules were in effect?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Does the B-2 Lancer qualify?


The "Bone" is still in service with about 100 in the USAF inventory.
You don't see or hear about them much because their mission profile is aimed more at high-speed (surgical) nuclear strikes where the "Buff" is more along the lines of saturating a target with conventional weapons.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

When I asked about the B-1 I was wondering if it counted as controversial. Wasn’t there a ruckus about its cost, it was canceled until it wasn’t, and then we got the “B-1 lite”?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2020)

The B-1 program did have issues in the 70's and alot had to do with cost and the media (as usual) attacked it. So the program was suspended with a handful of B-1As completed.
The program was restarted in the 80's for several reasons, resulting in the B-1B, which did have some changes and upgrades.
The irony of this, is now the media heat was off the B-1 and instead, directed at the B-2 program.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

I know, every program is “too expensive and riddled with pork” so I did feel a little silly mentioning cost as an issue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-1 program did have issues in the 70's and alot had to do with cost and the media (as usual) attacked it. So the program was suspended with a handful of B-1As completed.
> The program was restarted in the 80's for several reasons, resulting in the B-1B, which did have some changes and upgrades.
> The irony of this, is now the media heat was off the B-1 and instead, directed at the B-2 program.


Just like the F-35 is the media whipping boy, next will come the B-21

4 B-1As built, 100 B-1Bs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just like the F-35 is the media whipping boy, next will come the B-21
> 
> 4 B-1As built, 100 B-1Bs.



The B-1 is very near and dear to my family.

My Father in law.

New B-1B Bomber Sets 18 Aviation Records

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

The B-1 really is a beautiful airplane. It’s one of my jet favorites.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrumpyOldCrewChief (Sep 17, 2020)

I have it on good authority that all the B-1 airframes were "modded" out of the nuclear role, as part of a SALT-type agreement, several groups of years ago. Notionally, that would leave some of the B-52 fleet, and all of the B-2 fleet as the US's only heavy, long range nuclear flash bulb delivery systems. Is this wrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 17, 2020)

GrumpyOldCrewChief said:


> I have it on good authority that all the B-1 airframes were "modded" out of the nuclear role, as part of a SALT-type agreement, several groups of years ago. Notionally, that would leave some of the B-52 fleet, and all of the B-2 fleet as the US's only heavy, long range nuclear flash bulb delivery systems. Is this wrong?


This must have been what I was thinking of. B-1 was controversial for whatever reasons. Brought back as a B-1 “lite” with reduced capabilities.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 17, 2020)

F-111 as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> This must have been what I was thinking of. B-1 was controversial for whatever reasons. Brought back as a B-1 “lite” with reduced capabilities.


The B-1 was resumed (as the "B") with enhanced capabilities in the 80's - it was in the 90's that it's rotary bomb-bay was modified to conform to SALT II requirements, but it's slated to receive new hardpoints to enable it to carry up to 31 hypersonic missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 17, 2020)

Now we’re talking!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 17, 2020)

Possibly serve as a launching platform for the F-35, B-1 launches the missile and the F-35 takes over guidance. I think that's just ingenious!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 18, 2020)

Glider said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Beez said:
> ...



Most of the other nations that have purchased it never had anything even in the class of the F-15, much less the F-22!
They had F-16s - which the F-35s are replacing.
So they are asking the F-35 to do the role of the F-16... which was to drop bombs/air-ground missiles, do some light battlefield air-air work, and do peacetime air-space policing.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 18, 2020)

Those nations that have bought the F-35 that had aircraft for the air-superiority role:

Britain had Tornado F.3s, replaced by Typhoons.
The Germans had F-4s, replaced by Typhoons.
The Italians had Tornado F.3s, replaced by Typhoons.
The Japanese had F-4s, replaced by F-15s.
The Israelis had F-4s, replaced by F-15s.

Everyone else has/had F-16s, except Australia which has/had upgraded F/A-18A&Bs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2020)

Canada currently has the CF-18 and will be upgrading to the F-35.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Canada currently has the CF-18 and will be upgrading to the F-35.


I don’t think we will, instead we’re likely getting Boeing Super Hornets.

Boeing: Boeing Canada - F/A-18E Super Hornet


----------



## davparlr (Sep 18, 2020)

I don't think the F-35 has the threat penetration capability that the F-22 has and cannot as adequately perform the threat suppression mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I don't think the F-35 has the threat penetration capability that the F-22 has and cannot as adequately perform the threat suppression mission.


In an air-to-air role? It can most certainly detect the threat (at least the F-35A and C, I don't know if the F-35B has the same AEW capability as it's two brothers) how it deals with the threat is up for debate.

From LMCO F-35 info site:

_"Advanced electronic warfare capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radio frequencies and disrupt attacks with unparalleled precision. All three variants of the F-35 carry active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including false targets, network attack, advanced jamming and algorithm-packed data streams. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars that threaten the F-35. In addition, *the ASQ-239 system provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.*_

_While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter._

_"What we've done with the 5th Generation [aircraft] is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God's eye view of what's going on. [...] It's a stunning amount of information."_​_—Gen. Mike Hostage, Commander, Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force_​
_The F-35’s survivability, electronic attack, electronic protection, situational awareness, advanced targeting and unprecedented Combat ID will make the entire air wing better. Research indicates that adding more F-35s in a high threat environment is far more effective than adding more single-mission, electronic attack support aircraft. The electronic warfare suite on the F-35 gives improved emitter location capability over legacy aircraft."_


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 18, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> By who? Not by the USAF. The primary mission of the F-35 is to drop bombs, end of story. "Joint STRIKE fighter."


By the USN I suppose. The navy must use the F-35 in the air superiority and fleet air defence role. Ever since the F-14 was ditched the USN has had to make due with strike aircraft as interceptor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> By the USN I suppose. * The navy must use the F-35 in the air superiority and fleet air defence role*. Ever since the F-14 was ditched the USN has had to make due with strike aircraft as interceptor.



Currently not the plan - That's for the Super Hornet. The F-18 fulfills fleet defense just fine, the F-14 had to go and it was becoming a maintenance nightmare (I personally knew people who worked on them.) From LMCO:

https://www.f35.com/about/variants/f35c

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 18, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Currently not the plan - That's for the Super Hornet.


Does that suggest that the Super Hornet offers the RCAF the NORAD-required intercept capability that the F-35 does not?

Now, a Canadian Tomcat, that would be something..... The CF-14-Eh Tomcat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Does that suggest that the Super Hornet offers the RCAF the NORAD-required intercept capability that the F-35 does not?



Depends - Are you looking for just an interceptor or an aircraft with multi-sensors, AEW capability as well as a Stealth and conventional strike capability?



Admiral Beez said:


> Now, a Canadian Tomcat, that would be something..... The CF-14-Eh Tomcat?
> 
> View attachment 595401



It would have worked 35 years ago, better NORAD interceptor then the CF-18

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Does that suggest that the Super Hornet offers the RCAF the NORAD-required intercept capability that the F-35 does not?
> 
> Now, a Canadian Tomcat, that would be something..... The CF-14-Eh Tomcat?
> 
> View attachment 595401







Yup! Then this wouldn't be fantasy...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 18, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> View attachment 595408
> 
> Yup! Then this wouldn't be fantasy...


We'd probably need another name, as the French _matou_ doesn't sound as good.

Whilst colloquially referred to as such by all CAF personnel and all Canadians, we don't officially use Hornet for the CF-18, because the French _frelon_ is already a NATO helicopter.


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The ultimate Macnamara "pignorantism"!



The guy who replaced the original Thunderbird sports car with the Edsel. 'Nuff said?


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> The guy who replaced the original Thunderbird sports car with the Edsel. 'Nuff said?


The Edsel didn't replace the T-Bird. They made 58 Edsels and 58 T-birds, and every year after they made both, until 1960, when they quit making the Edsel.
They increased the size of the T-bird from a 2 seater to a 4 seater in 58, and sold more 4 seaters each year than they ever had the 2 seaters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2020)

Edsel was also it's own division within Ford Motor Company (Lincoln, Mercury, Edsel, Ford) and had nothing to do with Ford's T-Bird.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 19, 2020)

Plus you can't blame the Edsel on Mcnamara , the Edsel wasn't his baby, he didn't even want the extra car line.
He's the one that convinced Henry Ford II to drop the Edsel line in 1960.
Nuff said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

