Less competent carrier planes

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

The history of aviation though relatively short is rich in all countries. Fascinating to read about. As was said though the number of companies that have the ability to build aircraft today grows shorter every year. I also am afraid that the era of the manned aircraft is drawing to a close particularly in military aviation. A number of years ago I went to a fly in of Beechcraft Staggerwings in of all places Gunnison, CO. I have photographs somewhere of that. There must have been at least a dozen there at one time. What a sight.

I must disagree with the belief that manned A/C will soon be a thing of the past. It's not going to happen.

renrich · 03-30-2007, 06:02 PM

How did I know I would hear from you on that? I yield to your enthusiasm and knowledge and retract the statement. Please forgive me. On the Beech Staggerwing. There was a famous bush pilot who lived in Gunnison name Rocky Warren and it was he who was responsible for the fly in there. There is a story(I think it is true) which is hilarious about Rocky and his supercharged Staggerwing. One day Rocky was doing aerial photography over the front range at high altitude( I think 27000 feet, but my memory is not all that good anymore) and a Delta DC8 captain, who obviously had never seen a staggerwing, radioed Denver control, identified himself, and said ther is some idiot up here at this altitude in a bi plane and he is upside down.

Aggie08 · 03-30-2007, 08:02 PM

Everyone kind of knows that the Tomcat has had it's day but no one really wanted to see it go. Just one of those things. Of course the new jets will perform better and everything but you still halfway want to see it stay.

Haha, it's hard to imagine pilots that have never seen the staggerwing. Such a pretty plane. It's like a car enthusiast never having heard of a Testarossa.

mkloby · 03-30-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

How did I know I would hear from you on that? I yield to your enthusiasm and knowledge and retract the statement. Please forgive me. On the Beech Staggerwing. There was a famous bush pilot who lived in Gunnison name Rocky Warren and it was he who was responsible for the fly in there. There is a story(I think it is true) which is hilarious about Rocky and his supercharged Staggerwing. One day Rocky was doing aerial photography over the front range at high altitude( I think 27000 feet, but my memory is not all that good anymore) and a Delta DC8 captain, who obviously had never seen a staggerwing, radioed Denver control, identified himself, and said ther is some idiot up here at this altitude in a bi plane and he is upside down.

an unmanned a/c is not a living, breathing, thinking human. Us pilots aren't terribly smart, but we get the job done. That's a major mitigating factor there for many of the complications I see with a future of unmanned birds. Not to mention - they need to navigate based on preset coordinates, GPS, or other traditional navaids. Anyone with decent flight experience can tell you all the times these things DON'T work as planned, and the crew needs to improvise - sometimes resorting to visual navigation. An unmanned a/c is not going to be capable of that. Just a few things to consider off of the top of my head.

renrich · 03-31-2007, 04:05 PM

Mkloby, all good points. Always good to remember Murphy's Law. Thanks for the Jolly Roger picture, Aggie, I really mourn the Turkey's passing. Was at an air show once where a F14D had flown in from Fallon and spent an hour or so with the pilot and RIO. They were really proud of their airplane. For some reason I feel the loss of the F14 as I did the F4U. Interesting story, I have a friend back in Texas same vintage as me. He has 2000 hours in the F100 and was an IP at the Fighter Weapons School at one time. Flew 150 missions as a FAC in Viet Nam and retired as a United pilot. Doesn't fly anymore but I sent him a picture of an F4U taken by my brither at Oshkosh and he told me that looking at that airplane really gave him the urge to fly it.

FLYBOYJ · 03-31-2007, 05:58 PM

Remember, back in the 1950s it was said the day of air-to-air combat (dogfighting) was over.

If I had to guess, I'd be there has been over 100,000 fighter to fighter engagements since 1960...

Chief · 03-31-2007, 09:07 PM

Actually, I can see why they let the F-14 go rather than the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The F-14 was the navy's air interceptor and escort fighter. It was designed specifically to intercept bombers and fighters. The F/A-18 Super hornet is a multipurpose Fighter /bomber designed for everything from Night/day bombing, fighter escort, reconnaissance(though not needed as much with today's satellite system.)

The F-14 is designed specifically as a Fighter interceptor, it can and will take down anything else one on one, minus maybe the F15, not to mention the later versions have AGM capabilities.
The super hornet is what I call a contingency plan aircraft. It's a tactical bomber not the best, but with 17,500 lbs of ordnance it's not something you want to take lightly. With it's Aim-120 AMRAAM Missile it's also a fighter capable of taking on just about anything anybody else has and at a safe distance and at half almost half the cost.

Now the navy is coming out with the F-35 which is said will become the worlds top new Air-to-air fighter. Now you have to replace a bird you currently have. If you get rid of the Super hornet, your stuck with the F-14 with it's outstanding fighter capability you already have with F-35, but you'll lose the bombing capabilities you'll still have if you keep the F/A-18E/F Super hornet. Sure you'll have an effective air superiority campaign, but you won't have a nearly as effective bombing or close-air-support campaign. That also means a less effective air force and a less effect military.
The Navy in essence doesn't really need the F-14 anyhow. If you got rid of the F-14 (like they did) the U.S Navy would still have a top of the line Air superiority fighter, but you'll also have a top of the line tactical bomber in all in one and a smaller price tag.

Though it doesn't make it an easy decision to make especially with a war bird with as big a record as the Tomcat.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 04-01-2007, 03:53 PM

They got rid of the F-14 because she was aging fast. She was a bitch to work on (I know I have a friend who was a F-14 mechanic and he said he hated every minute working on the things), and there is no threat for the F-14 anymore. Relatively speaking however.

davparlr · 04-01-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

On the story about the light weight fighter trend, I believe there was what was called The Light Weight Fighter Mafia in the Air Force. They believed that our fighters had gotten too complicated and bulky with an example being the F4. They wanted the USAF to buy the F20 in bulk. I believe Yeager was a charter member of this group. The F20 was not procured but out of this controversy came the competition between the YF16 and the YF17. The Navy saw possibilities in the YF17 because of the two engines and out of that a/c came the FA18. I wonder if one can call the FA18 a lightweight fighter. For a heavyweight it seems like the F15 has had some success.

The LWF program occured about ten years before the F-20 flew.

davparlr · 04-01-2007, 05:48 PM

The F-18 is a very capable aircraft. Like the F-4, the F-18 is taking over several jobs. This will help the Navy standardize support (which it has been trying to do for years), reducing variety of parts, simplfy operations, etc. But, like the F-4, when you take on several roles, you maximize none. However, it is a great aircraft, and, with its Navy and Marine pilots, will not take a back seat to any non-stealth aircraft. Also, with its much higher reliability numbers, flight hours vs. deck space (if there is such a thing) will increase significantly.

Glider · 04-01-2007, 06:43 PM

The one thing that I always wondered, was why didn't they develop a land only based version. The vast majority of the customers don't have carriers and a land based version could shed a lot of weight fairly easily, significantly improving the performance.
The obvious thing is to avoid development cost but with the new generation of competition i.e. Gripen and Rafel it could make a difference as these are serious contenders.

FLYBOYJ · 04-01-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The one thing that I always wondered, was why didn't they develop a land only based version. The vast majority of the customers don't have carriers and a land based version could shed a lot of weight fairly easily, significantly improving the performance.
The obvious thing is to avoid development cost but with the new generation of competition i.e. Gripen and Rafel it could make a difference as these are serious contenders.

I think you'll find that many of the customers specifications for their fighter purchased included things that you would think is found only on a naval aircraft IE. the tail hook. There isn't much you could remove form the FA-18 to make it lighter.