# Fixing the Fighter Gap



## Amsel (Jul 9, 2009)

> The President's budget request continues the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program but would end production of the F-22A Raptor at 186 fighters while retiring 250 legacy fighters.[2] These changes will result in what is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security. Finally, the budget request will have a disproportionately negative effect on the Air National Guard--particularly its ability to continue air sovereignty alert missions. As the U.S. Senate prepares to debate the FY 2010 defense authorization bill, Congress must put the military's requirements first and override the President's budget request by:
> 
> -Authorizing a multi-year procurement for additional fourth-generation fighters (either F-15, F-16, or F-18 or a combination thereof) for the Air National Guard;
> 
> ...





> Congress should continue its commitment to closing the fighter gap for the Navy and Air Force, including the Air National Guard. In the final FY 2010 defense authorization bill, Congress should:
> 
> -Fully fund 20 F-22s;
> 
> ...


Mackenzie M. Eaglen is Research Fellow for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.


Fixing the Fighter Gap Facing the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Air National Guard


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 9, 2009)

Very interesting.


----------



## Torch (Jul 10, 2009)

Another possible option.PICTURES: Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features-17/03/2009-Washington DC-Flight International


----------



## Amsel (Jul 10, 2009)

I haven't heard of that variant. Boeing says they can upgrade existing frames for this package.


----------



## lingo (Jul 10, 2009)

How many fighter aircraft does America want? Easy, the more the merrier.
How many do they need? Not so easy to answer. Of course the Military and the manufacturers will lobby hard for the obvious reasons. How many can be afforded at present? That's the real question.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 10, 2009)

Being a superpower and needing to have air superiority over our peers, i would assume quite a bit of fighters, especially next generation type.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 12, 2009)

Just read that the F-22 costs $44,000/hr to operate when you factor in the 6 hours of maintenance for each 1.7 hours of flying. The Silent Eagle is flying next year. I say purchase those and F/A-18E/Fs. Invest the money that would have gone into the F-22 into UCAVs like the X-45C as a force multiplier and let the F-22 manage the battlespace.


----------



## PJay (Sep 4, 2009)

I assume everyone is aware of the current problems with the F-22.High-Priced F-22 Fighter Has Major Shortcomings
Seems that the manufacturer has been a bit economical with the truth.


----------



## Butters (Sep 4, 2009)

The F-22 is a white elephant. Sure, when it's working right, it is the best fighter in the world, but it's just too damned expensive and unreliable. And this is after more than 20 yrs of development! The true cost of the thing is well over $300 million a pop. And for this you get a 60% serviceability rate and monstrous maintenance costs. And after spending all that money, now they're gonna have to spend another $8 billion dollars to upgrade it so that the older ones can communicate with 'legacy' a/c . And yeah, I know how wonderfully stealthy it is. About the same as any other hanger queen...

The sad part is that the F-35 increasingly promises to be more of the same. I see that 10 more of'em have recently been ordered at the bargain price of 4.5 billion dollars.. This for an a/c that was supposed to be in the $ 60 million range. My guess is that even if hundreds are produced (You can forget the '1000's' being bandied around. It ain't gonna happen), it will almost certainly have a true cost in excess of $200 million per. IOW, a typical squadron of 12 a/c of unexceptional performance, range, and payload is gonna cost around $3 billion. 

The USAF and pals needs to adopt a new motto. Maybe something like the Rolling Stones song that goes, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard, you might get what you need"...

Nobody needs 2-3 hundred million dollar a/c that won't work half the time. Even if they are loaded with all those super-duper ultra-fancy bells and whistles...

JL


----------



## PJay (Sep 5, 2009)

I wonder if the RAM 'paint' problem will also affect the F-35.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 25, 2009)

Torch said:


> Another possible option.PICTURES: Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features-17/03/2009-Washington DC-Flight International



Needs thrust vectoring.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 25, 2009)

lingo said:


> How many fighter aircraft does America want? Easy, the more the merrier.
> How many do they need? Not so easy to answer. Of course the Military and the manufacturers will lobby hard for the obvious reasons. How many can be afforded at present? That's the real question.


It's for export
in ITAR-cleared configuration and the piece does state that the USAF are not a sales target. If they really need an F-15SE they'll retrofit their existing F-15 inventory. Nice to see there's life in the old bird yet, though, it's a lovely machine.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 5, 2009)

> When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska’s Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger[sic]. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn’t want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.
> “White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form,” one source close to the unit relayed.
> Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hanger[sic] and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House’s behest.
> The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides’ demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger [sic] with the president.


Hot Air Blog Archive Obama refused to be photographed with F-22


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

Butters said:


> The F-22 is a white elephant. Sure, when it's working right, it is the best fighter in the world, but it's just too damned expensive and unreliable. And this is after more than 20 yrs of development! The true cost of the thing is well over $300 million a pop. And for this you get a 60% serviceability rate and monstrous maintenance costs. And after spending all that money, now they're gonna have to spend another $8 billion dollars to upgrade it so that the older ones can communicate with 'legacy' a/c . And yeah, I know how wonderfully stealthy it is. About the same as any other hanger queen...
> 
> The sad part is that the F-35 increasingly promises to be more of the same. I see that 10 more of'em have recently been ordered at the bargain price of 4.5 billion dollars.. This for an a/c that was supposed to be in the $ 60 million range. My guess is that even if hundreds are produced (You can forget the '1000's' being bandied around. It ain't gonna happen), it will almost certainly have a true cost in excess of $200 million per. IOW, a typical squadron of 12 a/c of unexceptional performance, range, and payload is gonna cost around $3 billion.
> 
> ...



Butters, I wonder what source you're making your claims on - Newsweek? CBC? Aviation Week? Are you close to a source or involved with DND in Canada's potential purchase of the F-35? Have you even seen either aircraft up close??? I don't think you have a clue about the inner workings of either aircraft and how their procurement program will allow the numbers requested too be fulfilled. Do you even realize that the aircraft are purchased in yearly "bloc" buys and procurement will be stretched out or compacted based on money available or current need?? Additionally although the F-22 currently has difficulty meeting its MC rates (and the F-35 will have the same problems), that will change in the near future and this situation is no different than any other combat aircraft with leading edge technology deployed for the first time. Lastly, do you also realize that the manufacturer is penalized when schedule or MC rates are not met?

20 years of development - do you know why? For one can you say "Bill Clinton?" And that has nothing to do with the situation today.

As far as the F-35. It will become a very capable aircraft and will be deployed within the numbers planned, unless you see other administration either reduce or expand procurement numbers based on the input and need of the USAF. When the F-22 and F-35 are fully deployed I see the B-52, earlier bloc F-15 and F-16s as well as the A-10 going away, and just from the operational and sustainment costs saved by those airframes being retired will offset a portion of the F-22 and F-35 coming on board.

I can proudly say that I worked on the YF-22 during my last years at Lockheed. My best friend along with many other friends helped design the X-35 and are currently on the F-35 program. I've seen both aircraft and was involved in the inner workings of their development, either during my time at Lockheed or as a subcontractor. In either case I could attest that I seen both aircraft up-close and personnel and will say that they will be both untouchable once deployed - again, I make these statements by being there, not by reading some negative propaganda thousands of miles away from the source. Even today as an employee at the USAFA I still interface with people who have worked on both aircraft and both the planners and "warriors" want both aircraft. 

Yes, both aircraft are extremely costly and like any other modern weapons system, will exhibit teething pains when first deployed, but in the end they will be around for a very long time and worth their cost, quieting naysayers either at the source or from their recliner chairs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

PJay said:


> I wonder if the RAM 'paint' problem will also affect the F-35.



And what "problem" is that?


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2009)

I wold second FJ's comments. Its also worth remembering that the US has a huge advantage in that the current F18/F15 and F16s will be available for some years to come. Whilst they may not be up the standards of the F22 / F35 they are still more than capable of wiping the floor with the vast majority of the potential opposition.
Would anyone have bet on the B52 still being around 50 years ago?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

Agree Glider....

What's so funny is I could remember back in the mid 1970s, even with the former Soviet Union in existence, the same negative inputs when the F-15 and F-16 were being developed.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 5, 2009)

But then they were really needed to deal with the latest Soviet fighters.

Now I really don't see that much use for them. It's not that other countries have the financial means to get latest generation fighters. It seems that a 4.5 is all what they can afford. 

However, I do like the idea of the F/A-22 (or whatever it would be called) as there is much more need for a long range stealth interdiction aircraft. One with a longer range than that of the F-35. 

I also have my doubts about the real need of the ANG. But that is of course taken from my PoV, I know it goes to the core of the American history ... think militias.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

Civettone said:


> But then they were really needed to deal with the latest Soviet fighters.
> 
> Now I really don't see that much use for them. It's not that other countries have the financial means to get latest generation fighters. It seems that a 4.5 is all what they can afford.
> 
> ...



The situation the world is in right now would tend to show that there is no need for an advanced air to air fighter with stealth capabilities, but 25 years ago who would have ever predicted that the Soviet Union would be no more? 

The F-35 will be a more capable aircraft than being advertised, being able to replace the AV-8, F/A-18, F-16 and A-10 depending on configuration. This isn't about what you're purchasing for today's world and threats, it about being proactive to know what could be possibly facing you on the horizon and not being proactive may mean seeing the USAF falling no longer holding the state of the art advantage, something I would not see happen.

As far as the ANG - do some research on them and why they exist. Essentially they are a reserve function that is run by the Governors of each state and the mission varies from state to state. Not only does it give the state to answer any domestic problem (natural disasters or civil unrest) but also provides a training platform for a reserve function with most of its membership being "citizen soldiers."


----------



## Civettone (Dec 6, 2009)

So what do you think can happen in 25 years from now that most people think won't ?

And the F-35 seems a better option even though the price tag seems to have risen substantially too.

So do you consider the ANG really necessary ? Or at least in its present size ?

Kris


----------



## krieghund (Dec 6, 2009)

I HAVE TO CHUCKLE AT THE COMMENTS THAT OUR ADVANCED FIGHTERS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW.....EVER CHECK OUT THE PRC THREAT......ITS MID-TECH EQUIPMENT BUT WEIGHT IN NUMBERS WE CAN NOT DEFEND TAIWAN WITH OUR CURRENT ASSETS

OF COURSE THIS IS ALL OBE (OVERCOME BY EVENTS) AS PRC OWNS ALL OUR DEBT!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> So what do you think can happen in 25 years from now that most people think won't ?


Who are the "most people" you speak of? "Most people" didn't think the Berlin Wall would fall. Most people didn't think the US would be attacked on 9-11.


Civettone said:


> And the F-35 seems a better option even though the price tag seems to have risen substantially too.


I actually agree, but right now any argument for the F-22 is void. The line stops at 147 aircraft


Civettone said:


> So do you consider the ANG really necessary ? Or at least in its present size ?
> Kris



Yes and yes - I don't think you realize that guard units not only operate fighters, a large part of the ANG is airborne Mobility with missions to support the US Army. Be rest assured that if hostilities were to end in Afghanistan, you'll see cuts in active duty units as well as the ANG.



krieghund said:


> I HAVE TO CHUCKLE AT THE COMMENTS THAT OUR ADVANCED FIGHTERS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW.....EVER CHECK OUT THE PRC THREAT......ITS MID-TECH EQUIPMENT BUT WEIGHT IN NUMBERS WE CAN NOT DEFEND TAIWAN WITH OUR CURRENT ASSETS
> 
> OF COURSE THIS IS ALL OBE (OVERCOME BY EVENTS) AS PRC OWNS ALL OUR DEBT!!!!


ever call "cash" and we default, who's going to buy their cheap crap?

Very true, although I think the PRC needs us as much as we need them. If they


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

How many Northrop F-5s could you buy for the price of a Raptor? Just thinking out loud.

If you look at all possible threats today, Cuba NK Iran then an updated F-15 would have no bother.

I would like to know which threat needs the F-22? China or Russia? To say the very future of the USA is dependent on a single weapon system is misleading.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

The Basket said:


> How many Northrop F-5s could you buy for the price of a Raptor? Just thinking out loud.


And that's an excellent point as a small, simple and nimble aircraft like an F-5 in great numbers could present a threat.


The Basket said:


> If you look at all possible threats today, Cuba NK Iran then an updated F-15 would have no bother.


Point taken, read below...


The Basket said:


> I would like to know which threat needs the F-22? China or Russia? To say the very future of the USA is dependent on a single weapon system is misleading.


Agree as well but personally I look at it this way - we have at our disposal a weapons system that is probably light years ahead of any competition, perceived or planned threat. To me why settle for mediocrity? Suppose in 1939 the RAF had Mk XXI Spitfires against Bf 109Es for example?

Cost is a consideration, however as long as the GNP of the US stays on the plus side (and even during this world wide economic downturn, it has) the DoD will be able to procure these aircraft over a given period depending on need.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

From the AFA this Summer...

F-22 Assertions and Facts
July 2009 
Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne. 

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.

Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.

Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22’s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.

Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well. 

Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

*Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.*

Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.

Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours. 

Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.

Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.

Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. 

Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe. 

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.

Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.

Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.

Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today’s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.

Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft’s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts. 

Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn’t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today’s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

I agree.

An F-22 will better than an F-5 but look at history.

The F-86 was not superior to the MiG-15...a Wildcat was not superior to a Zero...but the USA won anyway...man not machine. Even in a F-22, you need all the manpower and backup and without the professionalism of a well trained air force then any fighter is just a lump of metal.

A later mark of Spitfire would have been nice in 1940 but how many would we have had? Each loss would be a significant depletion of fighters and that is not including losses in training and mechanical failure. 

The A-10 is a good example of less is more. You don't need the final 50 cents of technology if all your facing are warmed up MiG-21s.

The less F-22s you have the less likely you will use them in combat...you will end up using them as Mini-awacs as the Iranians used thier F-14s.

To me, the continuation of production of the Raptor has to do with jobs and Lockheed's future more than defence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

The Basket said:


> I agree.
> 
> An F-22 will better than an F-5 but look at history.
> 
> The F-86 was not superior to the MiG-15...a Wildcat was not superior to a Zero...but the USA won anyway...man not machine. Even in a F-22, you need all the manpower and backup and without the professionalism of a well trained air force then any fighter is just a lump of metal.


I hear what you're saying but one correction - the F-86 WAS better than the MiG-15 in most performance aspects, but that's another discussion.



The Basket said:


> A later mark of Spitfire would have been nice in 1940 but how many would we have had? Each loss would be a significant depletion of fighters and that is not including losses in training and mechanical failure.


 Supposed you had thousands of them????


The Basket said:


> The A-10 is a good example of less is more. You don't need the final 50 cents of technology if all your facing are warmed up MiG-21s.


You don't but that many not always be the case. The whole idea here is prepare for the worse possible scenario.


The Basket said:


> The less F-22s you have the less likely you will use them in combat...you will end up using them as Mini-awacs as the Iranians used thier F-14s.


There's 147 of them - what do you base that on? Do you have any written or proposed document by anyone in the USAF that will happen? If anything I'd bet the first chance the USAF has to confront any air-to-air foe, the F-22 will be there front center.

BTW - 23 B-2s have been built - did those numbers prevent them from being used in combat?


The Basket said:


> To me, the continuation of production of the Raptor has to do with jobs and Lockheed's future more than defence.


Again wrong. The F-22 is already gone and soon most of those jobs will be as well HOWEVER Lockheed Martin has a lot more going on than the F-22 and F-35.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

If you say we need F-22s because of future airwar against a very formidable enemy...then that same enemy will be able to strike at the forward bases where the F-22s will be.

A war with Chaina will not be won with 147 Raptors.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

The Basket said:


> If you say we need F-22s because of future airwar against a very formidable enemy...then that same enemy will be able to strike at the forward bases where the F-22s will be.


Perhaps....


The Basket said:


> A war with Chaina will not be won with 147 Raptors.



No it won't - that's why you have F-35 and other resources depending on the combat scenario.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2009)

I dont know a tenth of what you guys do when it comes to modern technology, but my two cents worth just the same. If you look at the technological capability of the new generation Russian and Chinese hardware, there is still a gap, but I think accepting second best is dangerous. In my own region, the "opposition" (who are actually our friends at the moment....but this like all things can change...thirty years agao we were shooting at them)...now fly Mig-29s and Su-35s, and for the first time in a long time the RAAF is now sayiung that technologically our F-18s are outclassed. I happen to think thats a bit alarmist, but our "friends" would just love to have that technological advantage that we enjoy. 

So my opinion is that we cant afford to be lax regarding our pursuit of technology. Australia is not involved with the F-22 program, but we are investing heavily in the F-35. I just hope the aircraft is ready soon, and can do the job we want it to do.....

The price for complaceny could be our liberty, our prosperity, and our lives


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

The F-35 is a poor poor substitute for the F-111...

And again, does anyone see China producing hundreds of 5th generation fighters? Russia ??

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

We are swiftly going from an air power that dominates the world to one that dominates only our own back yards as we start to lack the ability to project force into the back yards of rival super powers. I doubt we can take on Russia, China, or India in their air space. 

A friend of mine in the DIA told me the people who run these simulations say we could be kicked out of the Indian Ocean by India any time they wanted to remove us.

I don't know if there is a solution unless the government reworks their incredibly expensive and Byzantine procurement system and starts getting weapons for reasonable prices.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> The F-35 is a poor poor substitute for the F-111...


And why do you say that?


----------



## The Basket (Dec 7, 2009)

Your friends simulations should tell him India is an ally.

When does the USA plan to invade India?

Or is India planning a pre-emptive strike?


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And why do you say that?


The range which is so essential in that area (SE Asia).
To a lesser extent the payload.

This is a rather big issue with Australian defence specialists and aviation fans.

RAAF vs F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Kris


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2009)

There seems to be a lot of knocking going on but no real thought about an alternative to the F35. The USA are not going to sell the F22 to anyone and I doubt if Australia could afford many anyway. So the obvious choice would be the Typhoon an excellent aircraft but no doubt one which would receive similar negative comments and not affordable with the money already spent on the F35.

It might be worth thinking about what is possible and not what isn't possible

The F111 was seen as the all dancing solution but it would have been in trouble in a dedicated air to air scenario. When the F111 was chosen there was a good case for spending the same money on twice as many F4's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2009)

Civettone said:


> The range which is so essential in that area (SE Asia).
> To a lesser extent the payload.
> 
> This is a rather big issue with Australian defence specialists and aviation fans.
> ...



And when you're carrying bombs that weigh less and do more? I'll let you think about that one....

As far as the range issue? Yes, the -111 has it there and with payload, but that's one reason why you have tankers.

The -111 is not a very good fighter when placed in that scenario. my father in law flew them. he said the plane was fast as hell but did not accelerate quickly and was not maneuverable. Also sitting side-by-side didn't help if you were placed in a visual engagement.

As far as the RAAF - they'll have the final word but at the same time i see no other modern multi-role fighter that offers better performance and versatility. As far as aviation fans? Just chatter boxes on the sidelines.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 8, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Your friends simulations should tell him India is an ally.
> 
> When does the USA plan to invade India?
> 
> Or is India planning a pre-emptive strike?



You haven't heard?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> You haven't heard?


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as the range issue? Yes, the -111 has it there and with payload, but that's one reason why you have tankers.


But then the F-111 can still fly further with more payload as it too can be refueled.



> The -111 is not a very good fighter when placed in that scenario. my father in law flew them. he said the plane was fast as hell but did not accelerate quickly and was not maneuverable. Also sitting side-by-side didn't help if you were placed in a visual engagement.


It is not a fighter, it is a low-level high-speed strike aircraft. 
It is for that why the Australians bought them. That is what they need, not a fighter for local air superiority 1000 miles from home. 



> As far as the RAAF - they'll have the final word but at the same time i see no other modern multi-role fighter that offers better performance and versatility.


I agree. 
Though the Su-34 would be nice although politically impossible. 



> As far as aviation fans? Just chatter boxes on the sidelines.


I consider myself to be just that. So thanks for the insult 

Kris


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2009)

Australia will never risk buying another Euro fighte4r after our experiences with the mirage. Nothing wrong with the plane, but the French would not allow "their" aircraft to be flown in Vietnam, which really upset the Sust5ralian government. The French recalcitrance tarred every EWuropean supplier in Australian eyes.

With no European suppliers that we aree prepared to rely on, who else in the world can we rely on?

Another issue for us is commonality with our chief ally and military partner. During Gulf war 1, Australia considered sending a brigade of Leopard Is to the region. We decided against it in the finish, for a number of reasons, but including our inability to integrate our leopards into the Abrams equipped US formations. The differences in range, fuels/kubricants, ammunition mobilitymade these otherwise good tanks incompatible to our coalition obligations.

Australia has a rapid deploymwent force, that is expected to plans to integrate fully to US force structures and capoabilities. We want the force to have access to fully compatible armour artillery, etc, to make the force as ballanced and integrateable as possible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2009)

Civettone said:


> But then the F-111 can still fly further with more payload as it too can be refueled.


That it can, but at twice the cost and not as effective even though it carries more.


Civettone said:


> It is not a fighter, it is a low-level high-speed strike aircraft.
> It is for that why the Australians bought them. That is what they need, not a fighter for local air superiority 1000 miles from home.


Making a point in comparing them to F-22s, but yes, a "Strikefighter" that could be deployed.




Civettone said:


> I consider myself to be just that. So thanks for the insult
> 
> Kris



You know I'm joking....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Your friends simulations should tell him India is an ally.
> 
> When does the USA plan to invade India?
> 
> Or is India planning a pre-emptive strike?


Because of some hurt feelings over their nuclear program and a mutual border with China, India has closer military ties to Russia than it has with us. India has also become one of biggest detractors of the US Dollar in recent months. I don't think it will happen any time soon, but there might come a time when India's interests in their sphere and ours do not coincide. Our economies are not nearly as tied together as the U.S. and China are. Indians are good people and they are far from an ambitious would be super power, but don't be surprised if they start to resent not sitting at the grownups table in the U.N. Security Council and start throwing their weight around.

Imagine if, for instance, they told us to get out of Afghanistan or else either for local political reasons or to make a point. We'd have to do it.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2009)

The obvious flashpoint for India and the West is Pakistan. If the west were to back Pakistan too strongly in the war against terror, selling them hi-tech weapons for example, and the Pakis, instead of using them as intended, used them to conduct even more outrageous terror attacks in India, the Indians would be far from happy. Its not WWII, but both these countries have nuclear weapons. A few atom bombs dropped on the sub continent, could easily run up a casualty figure of several hundred million


----------



## Civettone (Dec 9, 2009)

Fb, what did you mean by twice the cost ? F-111 more expensive than the F-35??

I like this page on the JSF and Australia
Australia and the F22 Raptor || kuro5hin.org

_The F22 is very expensive, currently thought to be in the area of 200 million USD each, but Maj. Gen. Richard B.H. Lewis claims the next production run of one hundred F22s will bring the unit cost down to 116 million per aircraft.
That makes it cost competitive with the JSF which is thought to currently cost somewhere between 95 million and 100 million.
That may be cost competitive with the F15K as well. South Korea bought forty F15Ks for 4.2 billion which comes out as a unit cost of 105 million each. Modern platforms are expensive no matter what. A C130J goes for over 60 million now! 

(...)

Australia is in a similar position with its F111 being retired without a replacement. Miniaturisation has meant that platforms such as the F18 can carry the precision weaponry that previously the domain of large strike-bombers such as the F111.
But there is no denying that even with the JSF replacing the F111/F18 platforms there will be a loss of Australian projection. There is the added problem of there being a gap between the F111's retirement and the JSF coming into service.

(...)

Australia's relationship with Indonesia took a nasty turn recently with Indonesia recalling their Ambassador. A silly move that is normally a prelude to open warfare but a display that Indonesia is prepared to enter another Konfrontasi cycle with Australia. This is not a good thing for regional security or stability.
The current summit between Australia and Indonesia is nothing to write home about as Indonesia is playing power politics with us, and winning._ 

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

> Australia's relationship with Indonesia took a nasty turn recently with Indonesia recalling their Ambassador. A silly move that is normally a prelude to open warfare but a display that Indonesia is prepared to enter another Konfrontasi cycle with Australia. This is not a good thing for regional security or stability.
> The current summit between Australia and Indonesia is nothing to write home about as Indonesia is playing power politics with us, and winning.



What is it you and Indo normally fight over?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2009)

Generally territorial claims by the Indonesians, or attempts to deflect attention from internal problems. Examples were the Indonesian takeovers of West Irian in 1961, the attempted takeover of Mayasian Borneo in 1965, the invasion of Timor in 1975, and the Australian led intervention force in 1998. Several of these led to shooting incidents with Indonesian backed forces. Several others led to a significant ramping up of tensions. Recently there have been rising latent tensions about an Australian film concerning the alleged murder of Australian journalists in 1975, as a result of deliberate targetted fire from the invading Indonesian forces

If the Indonesians had had thougt that Australia lacked the capacity to project its force, or the ability to resist them, Australian wishes and national interests would have been just brushed aside as worthless by the Indonesians. We are friends with them, but lurking just beneath the surface is a deep seated animosity and distrust.....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Generally territorial claims by the Indonesians, or attempts to deflect attention from internal problems. Examples were the Indonesian takeovers of West Irian in 1961, the attempted takeover of Mayasian Borneo in 1965, the invasion of Timor in 1975, and the Australian led intervention force in 1998. Several of these led to shooting incidents with Indonesian backed forces. Several others led to a significant ramping up of tensions. Recently there have been rising latent tensions about an Australian film concerning the alleged murder of Australian journalists in 1975, as a result of deliberate targetted fire from the invading Indonesian forces
> 
> If the Indonesians had had thougt that Australia lacked the capacity to project its force, or the ability to resist them, Australian wishes and national interests would have been just brushed aside as worthless by the Indonesians. We are friends with them, but lurking just beneath the surface is a deep seated animosity and distrust.....


Being friends with a breeding ground for Islamic terror has to be difficult. But then look at us, we are friends with Saudi Arabia, one of the funding and personnel capitals of terrorism.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 9, 2009)

what does islamic terror has to do with it?

That;s like calling the American invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan ... the "christian invasion by the Americans".

The only reason why you can drag the religion into this is if the invasion was for religious reasons. 

Kris


----------



## parsifal (Dec 10, 2009)

The relationship over the years has at times been difficult, but each nation is keen to maintain the good neighbour relations. There are extreme elements in both countries, and at times our national interests have collided with each other. For all that we have managed to carve out a reasonable relationship with the largest Muslim country on the planet....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Fb, what did you mean by twice the cost ? F-111 more expensive than the F-35??



To maintain and operate - even though the F-35 is expesive up front, you have to consider maintenance and operational costs during the aircraft's lifetime. I do know the -111 is not an easy aircraft to maintain and keep in the air.


----------



## Butters (Dec 10, 2009)

The Lockheed Booster Club Fact Sheet may impress those who can't divide $65B by 187, but others may not be so impressed. This is from a piece by Pierre Sprey and WT Wheeler

"The F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 now authorized are costing the nation just over $65 billion. That's almost $350 million for each one, counting all development and production costs. 

Not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be foolish to deploy them. There is no enemy air force there. To send F-22s as yet another bomber - at what DOD data shows to be three times the operating cost of the F-16s that are already bombing too much over there - would be just another harmful drag on the real war effort.

Even more important is the question of whether the F-22 makes a good fighter, presumably against a competent enemy air force - if we are ever faced with one. The simple truth is that the F-22s make US air power weaker, not stronger. 

Study after study - to say nothing of war itself - shows conclusively that pilot skill dominates all other factors in winning or losing air battles. Because of the F-22, the skill of our pilots has been seriously degraded. Due to its gigantic maintenance and support burden - over $3 million per fighter per year, again according to official DOD figures - the Air Force has slashed our in-air pilot training. In the 1970s, famously called the "hollow decade" because of low combat readiness, our fighter pilots were getting 20 to 30 hours a month of air combat training - half what the Israeli Air Force pilots found necessary to achieve their lopsided 15 to 1 victory ratio in 1973. Today, our F-22 pilots get an obviously inadequate 10 to 12 hours. High tech theorists claim flying training can be replaced by ground simulators. Experience teaches otherwise: simulators can be used for cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality, they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat. 

Ignoring the combat-dominating human dimension, the Air Force, Lockheed, and their congressional boosters tout the F-22 as the magic silver bullet of air combat, a technological wonder weapon. It's likely to be the opposite.

The F-22's so-called "stealth" may hurt more than it helps. First of all, stealth imposes huge aerodynamic, weight and maintenance penalties, reducing both combat agility and numbers of fighters available in the air. The invisibility claimed is disingenuous. In truth, against small (that is, short wavelength) radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of possible viewing angles. Over the huge remaining span of viewing angles, it is very detectable. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range, long wavelength radars, particularly Russian and Chinese ones, that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles - simply because all long wavelength radars are immune to any kind of stealth shapings or coatings. Believers in stealth's cloak of invisibility should ask the pilots of the two - not one, as commonly believed - stealthy F-117 bombers taken out of action by antiquated Russian radar-directed defense systems in the 1999 Kosovo air war. Moreover, a new unfolding whistleblower scandal is presenting court evidence that the F-22's stealth skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements - limited as they are - because it has been badly fabricated and dishonestly tested. 

Worse, the widely advertised 10:1 or even 30:1 kill ratios of the F-22 in Air Force-umpired mock air battles rest entirely on using its radar (without allowing enemy anti-radar measures) and on assigning wishfully inflated kill percentages to its radar missiles. Despite the Air Force's long standing dream, in every real war of the last 45 years, our radar-equipped fighters were simply unable to use beyond-visual-range radar missile shooting or, at best, fired off a handful of inconsequential pot-shots. These few actual firings produced kill rates far less impressive than the percentages the Air Force assigns in F-22 mock battles.

The vaunted invincibility of the F-22 founders on two incurable flaws:

First, the plane's so-called "low probability of intercept" radar may now be easily detected by simple, low cost electronics, thanks to the worldwide proliferation of spread spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. That creates an environment where, if the F-22 pilot is foolish enough to turn on his radar, he announces his presence over hundreds of miles. Even better for the enemy, the radar makes an unmistakable beacon for home-on-radar missiles. Both the Russians and the Chinese specialize in - and sell - just such missiles. Despite that, our Air Force almost always bans these potentially devastating missiles and tactics from the F-22's mock battles, for reasons that are not hard to fathom. 

Second, when actual combat forces our F-22 pilots to turn off their radars and forget the beyond-visual-range dream, they'll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised by the burden of complex stealth and heavy radar electronics in that dogfight regime, the plane's agility, short range missiles, and guns are nothing special - as one of us observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 "shot down" an F-22 in exercises.

As for the plane's advertised ability to cruise supersonically - indeed a desirable characteristic - unfortunately, the F-22's low fuel capacity (27 percent of takeoff weight, only two thirds of what's needed for combat-useful supersonic endurance in enemy airspace) reduces this to a brief airshow trick. Why the big fuel shortfall? Once again, to make room for combat-irrelevant tons of stealth technologies and radar electronics.

It's not as if it's technically hard to design and produce a truly great air-to-air fighter that can whip any other fighter in the world. The only hard part is enforcing the discipline needed to: 1) focus austerely on what has proven inescapably effective in the actual air combat our pilots have experienced and are likely to experience (as opposed to the imagined high tech air combat dreamed up by our arm chair theorists); 2) rigorously excise extraneous niceties and alluring but untested technologies; 3) build two competing combat-capable prototypes, then go with the winner of a brutally administered series of head-to-head dogfights and live weapons firings (even if the winner fails to evenly spread subcontracts across 40-plus states). The two most successful planes flying in today's Air Force were built just that way. There's no reason we can't do that again - and come up with a new, even better, world-beating fighter."

Link to full text to follow...

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4527


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Butters said:


> The Lockheed Booster Club Fact Sheet may impress those who can't divide $65B by 187, but others may not be so impressed. This is from a piece by Pierre Sprey and WT Wheeler



And with that document, you have the current F-22 fleet EXACTLY what Sprey said it should be in several 2009 papers written on the aircraft this year that eventually led to the current production halt. It funny though, Spey was part of the "Fighter Mafia" that brought about the F-15, 16 and A-10. How he defended his concept then and now out of "the loop" is condemning new aircraft based on his own design philosophies.

Bottom line Butters, the F-22 is bought and paid for and the reduced numbers reflect the current need and future planning. At the same time the same Pierre Sprey also said that we should build "4,000 smaller and more agile A-10s" and he thinks it will cost $60 billion, the same for 1,100 "smaller, faster F-16s for $44 billion. Now you do the math and if you anything about re-starting a production line, re-tooling for reconfigured design, and the sustainment engineering to go along with it, your first comment about dividing $65B by 187 will make a lot more sense.

BTW Sprey has also mentioned in some of his other recent papers that his 2009 "dream team" - "electronics will be cutting edge, all-passive with 360 degree infrared and radar warning," in other words no radar.

Sprey was brilliant in his day but I think not being a "player has effected his judgement.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

> And with that document, you have the current F-22 fleet EXACTLY what Sprey said it should be in several 2009 papers written on the aircraft this year that eventually led to the current production halt. It funny though, Spey was part of the "Fighter Mafia" that brought about the F-15, 16 and A-10. How he defended his concept then and now out of "the loop" is condemning new aircraft based on his own design philosophies.


 could you expand on this inside stuff? I'm extremely interested.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

F-15, F-16 and A-10 are awesome pieces of hardware. Mafia or not, whoever was giving orders did a good job ordering those back in 70's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> could you expand on this inside stuff? I'm extremely interested.



Just look up info on Sprey

Nieman Watchdog > Ask This > The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Sprey Quarter Century.pdf

Is the F-22 Worth the Money?



tomo pauk said:


> F-15, F-16 and A-10 are awesome pieces of hardware. Mafia or not, whoever was giving orders did a good job ordering those back in 70's.


 Errrr..... Tomo, he wasn't in a "Real" mafia - that was just a term given to a group of visionary aircraft design concept engineers who paved the way for the development of those 3 aircraft. Boyd, Sprey, Riccioni to name a few....

Fighter Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

No worries, I've heard about 'fighter mafia' some time ago


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 11, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I've heard about 'fighter mafia' some time ago


There's no way you'd get an F-15 into a violin case


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2009)

It was interesting stuff but to be honest most of the slide presentation was nonsensical. To call the F14 a short legged aircraft, just assume that you could shave 20% off the weight of an F5 and that 6 x 0.5M3 were the most effective guns ever, says it all.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> There's no way you'd get an F-15 into a violin case


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

Glider said:


> It was interesting stuff but to be honest most of the slide presentation was nonsensical. To call the F14 a short legged aircraft, just assume that you could shave 20% off the weight of an F5 and that 6 x 0.5M3 were the most effective guns ever, says it all.



I've seen this stuff before. While the dude is pretty radical, some of stuff makes one wonder. Plus it makes Grippen, F-20 and that Pakistani new fighter look like awesome machines, even if those are to 'techy' for some of the views of the presentation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2009)

Glider said:


> It was interesting stuff but to be honest most of the slide presentation was nonsensical. To call the F14 a short legged aircraft, just assume that you could shave 20% off the weight of an F5 and that 6 x 0.5M3 were the most effective guns ever, says it all.



Point taken and agree. These guys are quick to be critical as the F-22 and F-35 are just entering service and are expected to have bugs, just like the F-15, F-16 and A-10 did. If read some of their thoughts and criticisms, it contradicts some of their own concepts. I think its a matter of being on the "outside looking in" and no longer being a "player" in the fighter game.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Point taken and agree. These guys are quick to be critical as the F-22 and F-35 are just entering service and are expected to have bugs, just like the F-15, F-16 and A-10 did. If read some of their thoughts and criticisms, it contradicts some of their own concepts. I think its a matter of being on the "outside looking in" and no longer being a "player" in the fighter game.


Which concepts do they contradict?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Which concepts do they contradict?


Having a "long legged" superior air to air fighter to handle anything confronted with (back in the cold war days). A smaller nimble single seat fighter with a multi mission capability. Both concepts led to the F-15 and 16 and Sprey was part of the team that developed that concept. The F-22 and F-35 are bringing the same thing to the table with the F-35 taking up part of the A-10's mission. I think Sprey doesn't fully understand aircraft field maintenance and some aspects of production and is prematurely casting judgement against both aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2009)

They complained that the F16 added a fair amount of weight and cost to the original design and say that they wanted flexible multi role aircraft. The initial reason for the weight and cost gain was to make it a more capable GA aircraft.
If you just kept the F16A you would save a lot of money and keep missing the ground targets, a small but not insignificant hole in his argument.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Having a "long legged" superior air to air fighter to handle anything confronted with (back in the cold war days). A smaller nimble single seat fighter with a multi mission capability. Both concepts led to the F-15 and 16 and Sprey was part of the team that developed that concept. The F-22 and F-35 are bringing the same thing to the table with the F-35 taking up part of the A-10's mission. I think Sprey doesn't fully understand aircraft field maintenance and some aspects of production and is prematurely casting judgement against both aircraft.


I think he may be wrong about the F-35, but right about the F-22.The guys around Lackland AFB love both, but the radar-seeking missile problem sounds pretty damning. He's certainly shaken my confidence in its actual stealth ability. I wonder if an unfriendly-territory confrontation with MiG-29s (assuming good pilots) would really go our way with these new birds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I think he may be wrong about the F-35, but right about the F-22.The guys around Lackland AFB love both,* but the radar-seeking missile problem sounds pretty damning*. He's certainly shaken my confidence in its actual stealth ability. I wonder if an unfriendly-territory confrontation with MiG-29s (assuming good pilots) would really go our way with these new birds.



Not really - that has been a bit of a quagmire for a few years. I would rather not go into it because I'd be relaying 3rd hand info and for OpSec considerations, but that issue has been addressed...

I think the F-22 would eat MiG-29s alive regardless, unless an F-22 driver is suckered into doing something stupid. Just look at what F-15s have done to the MiG-29 over the years when they have met in combat. Mind you a lot of that is based on pilot skill, but if you have the right equipment you'll never be that close in to show your skills, and I think the MiG-29 is basically "fully grown."


----------



## Butters (Dec 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And with that document, you have the current F-22 fleet EXACTLY what Sprey said it should be in several 2009 papers written on the aircraft this year that eventually led to the current production halt. It funny though, Spey was part of the "Fighter Mafia" that brought about the F-15, 16 and A-10. How he defended his concept then and now out of "the loop" is condemning new aircraft based on his own design philosophies.
> 
> Bottom line Butters, the F-22 is bought and paid for and the reduced numbers reflect the current need and future planning. At the same time the same Pierre Sprey also said that we should build "4,000 smaller and more agile A-10s" and he thinks it will cost $60 billion, the same for 1,100 "smaller, faster F-16s for $44 billion. Now you do the math and if you anything about re-starting a production line, re-tooling for reconfigured design, and the sustainment engineering to go along with it, your first comment about dividing $65B by 187 will make a lot more sense.
> 
> ...



Indeed, the F-22 is a fait accompli. The US has too much invested not to continue throwing money at it in the hopes that it may someday be a reliable and effective weapon system. That still doesn't make it any less a 'white elephant'...

And where did I say that I agree with everything Sprey says? As far as Sprey goes- for one, his views on how the USAF should be equipped, are irrelevant in regards to the validity of his argument, re: F-22. That argument stands or falls on its own merits.

Second, I am not aware that Sprey was influential in regards to the design of the F-15. It is my understanding that the F-15 was a response to the increasing sophistication and performance of Soviet a/c, esp the MiG-25, the utter failure of the ill-conceived USAF air combat doctrine of the early '60's (Brutally falsified by the horrendous losses incurred during the Viet Nam air campaign) and the conceptually flawed TFX program (now being repeated with the equally flawed and outrageously expensive JSF program...).

Your claim that Sprey, by attacking the F-22/F-35, is contradicting his own position vis the F-16 and A-10, is somewhat baffling, given that the LWF concept that led to the F-16, and the A-X program that led to the A-10, are the very antithesis of the pie-in-the-sky, Buck Rogers fantasies driving the current programs.

The A-X concept was for a simple, rugged, and inexpensive dedicated CAS/anti-armour aircraft. A modernized Skraider, if you will... IOW, an aircraft whose raison d'etre is not to boost the egos of the white scarf set, but to perform a vital, if unglamorous, mission in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Which it has accomplished in spades. No wonder the USAF has always hated it...

The F-16 was also designed to fill a very clearly defined and singular role. That of an inexpensive, no-frills, hi-performance dogfighter. The fact that it has evolved into a very capable multi-role combat a/c is simply a testament to the clear and coherent thinking of the philosophy behind its basic design.

Neither of these a/c, nor the core philosophy behind their designs, are at all similar to that of either the F-22, or the JSF program. Both of these programs are a reversion to the fantasies promulgated by USAF theorists in the '60's. Central to that dogma is the absurd belief that advanced technology is an end in itself, and that if you ask for it, Santa the US taxpayer will pay for it. I'll bet they all have well-thumbed copies of 'The Secret', in their desks...

The F-22 could not be killed, as Sprey well knows. And again, whether his opposition to both it and the JSF are the result of personal pique, is irrelevant. His arguments against both a/c deserve serious consideration, esp given how little bang for the buck these a/c have delivered. Or even 'promise' to.

Hi-tech hype and promises will not win air battles against well-equipped and competently-trained adversaries.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2009)

Butters said:


> Indeed, the F-22 is a fait accompli. The US has too much invested not to continue throwing money at it in the hopes that it may someday be a reliable and effective weapon system. That still doesn't make it any less a 'white elephant'...


And although you're entitled to your opinions, you have not demonstred any real evidence that the F-22 is headed down a "White Elephant" path - and as we speak its MC rate improves almost weekly (well over 70% at this point)


Butters said:


> And where did I say that I agree with everything Sprey says? As far as Sprey goes- for one, his views on how the USAF should be equipped, are irrelevant in regards to the validity of his argument, re: F-22. That argument stands or falls on its own merits.


Then why even post his gibberish?


Butters said:


> Second, I am not aware that Sprey was influential in regards to the design of the F-15. It is my understanding that the F-15 was a response to the increasing sophistication and performance of Soviet a/c, esp the MiG-25, the utter failure of the ill-conceived USAF air combat doctrine of the early '60's (Brutally falsified by the horrendous losses incurred during the Viet Nam air campaign) and the conceptually flawed TFX program (now being repeated with the equally flawed and outrageously expensive JSF program...).


He was part of the Fighter Mafia as pointed out - just go through some of his work and he was right there front and center. The doctrine behind the F-15 was being planned well before Vietnam by Albert Boyd and company.

BTW - horrendous losses during Vietnam? Are we talking air to air or all encompassing?


Butters said:


> Your claim that Sprey, by attacking the F-22/F-35, is contradicting his own position vis the F-16 and A-10, is somewhat baffling, given that the LWF concept that led to the F-16, and the A-X program that led to the A-10, are the very antithesis of the pie-in-the-sky, Buck Rogers fantasies driving the current programs.


Are they? Again what are you basing your comments on?


Butters said:


> The A-X concept was for a simple, rugged, and inexpensive dedicated CAS/anti-armour aircraft. A modernized Skraider, if you will... IOW, an aircraft whose raison d'etre is not to boost the egos of the white scarf set, but to perform a vital, if unglamorous, mission in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Which it has accomplished in spades. No wonder the USAF has always hated it...


Hated it? Over 30 years (and still going) of hatred is a long time, don't you think.


Butters said:


> The F-16 was also designed to fill a very clearly defined and singular role. That of an inexpensive, no-frills, hi-performance dogfighter. The fact that it has evolved into a very capable multi-role combat a/c is simply a testament to the clear and coherent thinking of the philosophy behind its basic design.


OK - agree


Butters said:


> Neither of these a/c, nor the core philosophy behind their designs, are at all similar to that of either the F-22, or the JSF program. Both of these programs are a reversion to the fantasies promulgated by USAF theorists in the '60's. Central to that dogma is the absurd belief that advanced technology is an end in itself, and that if you ask for it, Santa the US taxpayer will pay for it. I'll bet they all have well-thumbed copies of 'The Secret', in their desks...


And again, that's your opinion, present some evidence to support your position......


Butters said:


> The F-22 could not be killed, as Sprey well knows. And again, whether his opposition to both it and the JSF are the result of personal pique, is irrelevant. His arguments against both a/c deserve serious consideration, esp given how little bang for the buck these a/c have delivered. Or even 'promise' to.


The only time his argument deserves consideration is if - 1. The aircraft doesn't perform, 2. The contractor can't produce the aircraft for what it was contracted for in terms of $, 3. The aircraft cannot be supported logistically, and 4. The aircraft fails miseribly on the battle field.


Butters said:


> Hi-tech hype and promises will not win air battles against well-equipped and competently-trained adversaries.
> 
> JL



And I agree, and with the F-22 and F-35 the USAF will have the pinnacle of "well equipped and well trained." Based on what we've seen so far both aircraft are going to meet their design expectations. If the F-22 has a combat record half as good as the F-15 and last 35 yours or more, it will be more than worth the price (same goes for the F-35). Bottom line, until either program falls flat on its face, detractors have no real argument, do they? And with that said, you show me the last time the USAF or the US Aviation Industry produced a dismal failure?!?!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 13, 2009)

> Hated it? Over 30 years (and still going) of hatred is a long time, don't you think.


I've heard for years that the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 and it has always been the Army that has been behind keeping it. These are rumors only but I've heard the Army has never been happy with all land based fixed wing airgraft being given to the Air Force, who don't care as much about close air support as the army would like them to.

I admit this is coming from random military guys from Lackland AFB and Fort Hood, but oddly the Air Force guys and Army guys repeat the same rumors.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

The true reality of the Raptor and F-35 is not known to us so this thread dont make much.

Is the Raptor good or bad? Dunno...dont have the data.

So pure speculation.

What you mean dismal failure Flyboy? I can think of some USA jets that didn't fill the full spec...

F-102....was that a dismal failure?...nope....the MiG-23 was dreadful but they still pumped em out...depends how willing someone is willing to fund a project.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The true reality of the Raptor and F-35 is not known to us so this thread dont make much.
> 
> Is the Raptor good or bad? Dunno...dont have the data.
> 
> So pure speculation.



In some cases you're correct and a lot of the "speculation" is based on what's coming out of the press and from people like Pierre Sprey. There are many who build on the negative of such news.


The Basket said:


> What you mean dismal failure Flyboy? I can think of some USA jets that didn't fill the full spec...


Name one.....


The Basket said:


> F-102....was that a dismal failure?...nope....the MiG-23 was dreadful but they still pumped em out...depends how willing someone is willing to fund a project.


MiG-23 dreadful? Not really. it was just bested by other aircraft it came across, and a lot of that had to do with tactics and pilot training.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

It depends on your point of view...

The convair 880 was not exactly successful...althought it was a good machine...

The Flogger was a dog and had to be constantly updated to make it fly right...

Tell me your understanding of a dismal failure and I can give an example...

Was the SB2C Helldiver a dismal failure....

The major issue is that a fighter is a huge cost machine which becomes a political football...a classic case is the F-111...which good or bad cannot be allowed to fail due to politcal fall-out....and so throw money at it until it works.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2009)

I would certainly disagree that the Flogger was a dog. We were always told that he Mig23 was roughtly equal to an early F4 in ability. Did this make it the best fighter in the world? no, did it make it a serious threat to the majority of NATO most of whom were equipped with F104 or earlier aircraft?, yes a serious threat.
Had the Soviet forces received better training then it would have been a bigger threat.

I understand that the USA had a small number for evaluation, wouldn't it be nice if those pilots could say what they thought about it.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

The MiG-23 did not have that problem, as it was designed for speed—but it was unstable and difficult to fly.

Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. “The guys really didn’t like flying the 23,”....“They were scared of them.”

Read other comments that the Flogger was the worst aircraft they had flown and only the absolute most experienced pilots got near them.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The MiG-23 did not have that problem, as it was designed for speed—but it was unstable and difficult to fly.
> 
> Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. “The guys really didn’t like flying the 23,”....“They were scared of them.”
> 
> Read other comments that the Flogger was the worst aircraft they had flown and only the absolute most experienced pilots got near them.



I am sorry but I have difficulty believing that. Too many aircraft were sold to too many third world nations which in turn were often flown by other nations on millitery aid (eg Pakistan) without this being mentioned to any degree.
Have you got anything that I look at to support this view.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> It depends on your point of view...
> 
> The convair 880 was not exactly successful...althought it was a good machine...


The convair 880 was a passenger plane.


The Basket said:


> The Flogger was a dog and had to be constantly updated to make it fly right...



Again - specifics? I know someone who operates one and although it has its limitations, it is no different operationally than a MiG-21, of course offering better performance.

MiG-23




The Basket said:


> Tell me your understanding of a dismal failure and I can give an example...


Fairey Battle, Bread 88, Vought F7U Cutlass...


The Basket said:


> Was the SB2C Helldiver a dismal failure....


No - it had its problems but in the end served well


The Basket said:


> The major issue is that a fighter is a huge cost machine which becomes a political football...a classic case is the F-111...which good or bad cannot be allowed to fail due to politcal fall-out....and so throw money at it until it works.


That was the case 40 years ago. Today manufacturers are compelled to get it right the first time and keep it on schedule. The F-22 had its share of problems but I no one is "throwing money at it" to make it work. If it doesn't work, it comes out of Lockheed Martin's pocket.

The A-11 and P-7 were two programs that didn't deliver and they were cancelled in recent years to prove my point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I've heard for years that the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 and it has always been the Army that has been behind keeping it. These are rumors only but I've heard the Army has never been happy with all land based fixed wing airgraft being given to the Air Force, who don't care as much about close air support as the army would like them to.
> 
> I admit this is coming from random military guys from Lackland AFB and Fort Hood, but oddly the Air Force guys and Army guys repeat the same rumors.


Hogwash - I work with former A-10 drivers and they love their machine and know that the aircraft and its mission is necessary and appreciated.

As far as the Army? Ask an Army aviator what some in the Army's higher command think of aviation. I was at Aberdeen 2 weeks ago and heard the term "bastard stepchild" a few times.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

Constant Peg

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=92244&page=2

Interesting forum...about the MiG-23 in USAF hands...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The MiG-23 did not have that problem, as it was designed for speed—but it was unstable and difficult to fly.
> 
> Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. “The guys really didn’t like flying the 23,”....“They were scared of them.”
> 
> Read other comments that the Flogger was the worst aircraft they had flown and only the absolute most experienced pilots got near them.



Go to the link I posted and see the two being operated by civilians. One of the guys who flies the aircraft was never in the military and managed to master the aircraft. Its a fast aircraft and could be a handful, but its no more difficult than any other Soviet and in many cases, western fighters of the period.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Constant Peg



"That does not mean they could be written off. Far from it. “They performed very well for the state of technology they had,” said Manclark."

Those were evaluators who flew the aircraft and after coming out of an F-15 or 16 and jumping into a MiG-23, I'd be scared of it as well!


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The convair 880 was a passenger plane.
> .



You said US aviation industry

Interesting quote...I read that before about the Flogger being 3 different airplanes...

But he keeps it in the numbers...he isn't pushing...and that is where it goes...

The Constant peg drivers flew the Fishbed and Fresco with no big issues...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> You said US aviation industry


And it was obvious we were talking fighters, so I'll limit my comments as such. BTW, the 880 did well, technology got the jump on it however, but it was a decent aircraft, drank too much fuel, was a bit complicated and did not carry a lot of pasengers....


The Basket said:


> The Constant peg drivers flew the Fishbed and Fresco with no big issues...



As far as the article covered.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2009)

This thread will also be of interest. Ampng its participants are pilots who flew the Mig 23 in the USA as part of Consant Peg and a russian pilot who trained on it with Iraqi pilots
MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?

The long and the short of it was that the BN version was an excellent GA aircraft but no good as a dog fighter but later versions were a lot better. All versions had excellent acceleration and were easy to maintain with quick turn around times.

May I remind everyone that in combat it lost out to the F15 and F16 which is only to be expected but when it entered service it was mainly up against F104, F100, Mirage III and F5A in Nato. Against these aircraft the Mig 23 was a very real threat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

Glider said:


> This thread will also be of interest. Ampng its participants are pilots who flew the Mig 23 in the USA as part of Consant Peg and a russian pilot who trained on it with Iraqi pilots
> MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?
> 
> The long and the short of it was that the BN version was an excellent GA aircraft but no good as a dog fighter but later versions were a lot better. All versions had excellent acceleration and were easy to maintain with quick turn around times.
> ...



Agree 100%

And great article!


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

Disagree.

The Flogger was ten years late and when they finally got it to work it was obsolete.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Disagree.
> 
> The Flogger was ten years late and when they finally got it to work it was obsolete.



The first one flew in 1967, the MiG-23S entered service in 1970 and were still basically prototypes, the 23M came on line around 1972 and 1300 of those models were built and like many other Soviet fighters of the period, it was constantly modified, so when in the production do you get this "ten years late?"


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

The F-4 phantom first flew in 1958.

And started to go operational 1960.

1967....for a prototype flight very late for a 3rd gen machine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The F-4 phantom first flew in 1958.
> 
> And started to go operational 1960.
> 
> 1967....for a prototype flight very late for a 3rd gen machine.



It depends on how much emphasis the operator (in that case the Soviet Union) was putting into the program. The MiG-21 was still being built and modified. The MiG-25 was also being produced along with other Soviet fighters. For example the Su-15 first flew in 1962 and didn't enter service until 1967. During that period, I don't see a 3 year development period unreasonable, especially when the MiG bureau departed from a basic design philosophy.

There was a lot of money and support behind the F-4 and early successes during testing accelerated its production, especially when two operators (The USAF and USN) wanted the aircraft.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...

But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...

Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.

All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...


Possibly, so that's more schedule induced than developmental


The Basket said:


> But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...


Agree, especially since the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor than dogfighter.


The Basket said:


> Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.


True, but at the same time the F-14 has its developmental roots from the original TFX program, later VFX. Grumman had all kinds of developmental information and data that went back to 1967 at their Calverton LI facility. They (Grumman) knew the F-111B program was in trouble and eventually severed themselves from GD, although they built sub-assemblies for the F-111A 


The Basket said:


> All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.



Points taken, but they were still at the "tip of the spear" and probably would have encountered MiG-23s if things heated up in the late 70s or early 80s. The last F-104s were built in 1979.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...
> 
> But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...
> 
> ...



All the Jets I mentioned were front line aircraft in Nato facing the Mig 23. Yes the later F4's in service when the Mig 23 arived were better than the Mig *BUT MOST OF NATO DIDN'T FLY THE F4*. Those that did tended to have a small number of F4 and a lot of F104/F5a/Mirage III.

The 1970's were a very dangerous period for Nato when the qualative gap between NATO and the Soviet Pact was close and they had the numbers. Until the F16 arrived in quantity around 1980, the Mig 23 was a major threat to NATO and could well have tipped the difference.

However the Mig 23 was not the dangerous aircraft to fly that you stated, neither was it ineffective or a sitting duck.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 14, 2009)

The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.

Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.

The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.

A number NATO countries flew the Phantom...not forgetting our own Lightning.

I will have to do some reading when the 23 was available in numbers and the time frames.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.


That goes for a number of fighters including the F-104


The Basket said:


> Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.


As stated, the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor with some air-to-air capability. The MiG-23s that came up against the IAF were decimated (mainly from Syria) not only because of this, but they were up against better trained and better equipped foe who were flying F-15s.


The Basket said:


> The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.


Not by much - the Flogger B had different IFF, slightly weaker radar systems and no ECM. Aside from the electronics they were the same as the main Soviet models, the MiG-23M


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.


As mentioned by FJ not unique in the West either. 



> Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.


Against an F15 or F16 it is, no one ever denied that. I suggest you ask the IAF how many they shot down with the Mirage or Dagger



> The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.


Not by much, dont get them mixed up with the ones sent to the Middle East



> A number NATO countries flew the Phantom...not forgetting our own Lightning.


As I said those that did had a small number of F4 and a lot of other types. During the 1970's
Greece 30 F4 which arrives with Mirage F1C in mid 70's. These replaced the F102 and the rest of the Air Force was F5/F104/RF84
Germany Unarmed RF4 and F104
Turkey 40 x F4E the rest of the airforce was F104
So the total Non US/UK NATO F4 excluding recce was 70 against 1,100 F104G, 172 F5A, 110 Mirage excluding France, approx 300 F100 [/QUOTE]


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2009)

An extremely intersting debate. I cant add much to the knowledge you guys are throwing around, but if I may I would just add my two cents worth.

My wife is Rusian, and has an uncle who served in the Soviet Frontal Aviation forces as a full colonel based in East Germany in the 1970s.

He says that the Soviets were keenly aware of the qualitative inferiority they wewre labouring under, but thought that the numbers advantages they enjoyed, coupled with the advantages of being on the attack, and the first strike advantage would give them at least a temporay superiority in any conflict. Soviet strategy was to strike hard and move quickly. 

Interestingly, Soviet forces feared rotary wing formations, the American gunships in particular. They felt that they could neutralize and suppress most of the NATO airbases quite early but that the rotary formations could be very hard to suppress.

In a long term engagement, drawn out over a period of more than 30 days, the Warsaw Pact was not confident of victory.

All the NATO forces had to do was to hang in there and shoot down as many WP planes as possible.

Maybe none of this true, but I thought it might be interesting what the "other side of the hill" was thinking at the time you guys are discussing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Great Info!


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2009)

Parsifal
Interesting comment and with a lot of logic in it. The airbases were almost certain to get clobbered in the first hours and nearly all the 1970's aircraft needed a lot of tarmac to get off the ground.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 15, 2009)

So with hindsight, perhaps the Army/Air Force bickering that resulted in the Army developing strong rotary wing formations helped prevent a Soviet invasion (?)

If the Air Force had concentrated more on tactical support as the Army wished (more like the WWII Luftwaffe), the Army would not have developed rotary wing formations as much as it had.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2009)

Perhaps....thats all anyone could say.....one of the achilles heels for the NATO force structures was the relative immobilty of its fixed wing assets. Modern aircraft (of the seventies) were often tied to just a few airbases, because of differeing maintenance and spares issues. It would have been diffifult for example to move Italian F-104s to northern or central Germany in a hurry. I understand NATO did a lot of work on this commonality issue in the '80s and 90's. Australia has certainly given a lot of thought to the issue of mobility and commonality with our chief allies (which is really just the US now) to try and avoid this issue of not being able to redeploy quickly.

The US has also put a lot of effort into increasing the mobility and portability of its ground support echelons


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

I agree with Parsifal, this has been a great thread read especially since I know nothing about these aircraft except "Oh that one looks nice!" But I want to throw this in: In the early 80s I remeber watching a report on the technological advances between Us aircraft and Soviet. There was a conclusion that although Soviet aircraft were behind in Technology when compared to US aircraft at the time, that may have actually helped the Soviets. The premise being that in a nuclear war, EMPs from bombs would nullify the US aircraft because of the computers while Soviet aircraft, still using glass tubes would be protected.

Any truth and if so, would this be a factor among which was better?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I agree with Parsifal, this has been a great thread read especially since I know nothing about these aircraft except "Oh that one looks nice!" But I want to throw this in: In the early 80s I remeber watching a report on the technological advances between Us aircraft and Soviet. There was a conclusion that although Soviet aircraft were behind in Technology when compared to US aircraft at the time, that may have actually helped the Soviets.* The premise being that in a nuclear war, EMPs from bombs would nullify the US aircraft because of the computers while Soviet aircraft, still using glass tubes would be protected.*
> Any truth and if so, would this be a factor among which was better?



To a point true but a lot of our stuff is/ was shielded against EMP.

What I have always found when working on East Bloc aircraft was their simplicity and ruggedness, but sometimes they made maintenance a lot harder than it had to be. A lot of servicing points required special fittings that could have been half the size. In some of the maintenance manuals I seen rigging procedures that were pretty complicated and would have been better served with just simple dimensions and some rig boards - I do know that some of the folks who worked on these aircraft did develop short cuts to make life easier. I make these comments with regards to the MiG-15, 17, 21 and to the L-29/39 ans Iskras I've had the opportunity to work on.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

A buddy of mine was an aircraft mech with the Nat Guard 20 years ago at Pomona and he said the same thing. Again, my question is probably filled with dust as I'm sure things have changed somewhat since I heard it 20 years ago.

Thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> A buddy of mine was an aircraft mech with the Nat Guard 20 years ago at Pomona and he said the same thing. Again, my question is probably filled with dust as I'm sure things have changed somewhat since I heard it 20 years ago.
> 
> Thanks



In the mid-late 70s EMP was a concern especial when the Soviets outpaced us because of the "Peanut Farmer" but by the 1980s we started addressing stuff like this.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

You just made me realize it was further than 20 yrs. 1981-82!! I hate Old-Timers disease!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> You just made me realize it was further than 20 yrs. 1981-82!! I hate Old-Timers disease!



I know what you mean, time sure flies!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 15, 2009)

I was born in 1981.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 15, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I was born in 1981.



I thought for sure you were older.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I was born in 1981.



You kid you!!!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 15, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I thought for sure you were older.


So do most people on the internet, my football forum thought I was in my 60s. I was sure my thread-starting would mark me as a whipper-snapper though. Then again I don't talk to guys like Flyboy as if I'm the expert. Most youngsters don't understand respect these days.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> So do most people on the internet, my football forum thought I was in my 60s. I was sure my thread-starting would mark me as a whipper-snapper though. *Then again I don't talk to guys like Flyboy as if I'm the expert. Most youngsters don't understand respect these days*.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 16, 2009)

Thats a beautiful line!


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2009)

1981....jeez, I was married in 1981, and had my first child two years later......I was divorced from my first marriage before you were of school age Clay.

I feel old.....


----------

