Air Force One Replacement

EvilEagle said:
More A-10s would be awesome, but that's just not going to happen. There's no support to truly reproduce the old airplane in the same fashion. The A-10 is truly un-replaceable. That doesn't mean they won't try...
Click to expand...

See, this is why the people mistrust the military and military industrial complex. Here is a weapons platform that does a superlative job in its role, is highly adaptable, has greater loiter time to be on station within moments of the FAC call capable of accurately delivering a lot of death really quickly. And the thing that gets most people upset is that this is a platform directly responsible for keeping their kid in the infantry covered when things are at the worst. That the machine is relatively cheap and easy to produce a lot of just makes it all the more questionable of a decision in the public's mind. It's not like we are getting rid of the B-52 either for the same reasons. It does what it needs to do well, and reasonably economically. What was the ratio of B-52 sorties to B-2 sorties over the last decade? How many of each were lost?:dunno:

To scratch develope a replacement platform for the A-10 makes no sense. The threats for the roll are the same now as the day it was designed. To do so would be a waste when we can ramp up the A-10 production to take on the alien invasion, in the end, it's gonna be the 30MM DU sabots that bust their crap.;)
 
Henning, I don't think there's a warfighter out there that will disagree with your last post. The problem is that war fighters don't make that call. Generals and Congress do. There's a whole new (old?) can of worms...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
Henning, I don't think there's a warfighter out there that will disagree with your last post. The problem is that war fighters don't make that call. Generals and Congress do. There's a whole new (old?) can of worms...
Click to expand...

The question becomes, "When everbody paying the bill, in both money and lives, and not standing to personally gain from the expense, sees that a costly error is being made, why do we tolerate it?":dunno:
 
Henning said:
The question becomes, "When everbody paying the bill, in both money and lives, and not standing to personally gain from the expense, sees that a costly error is being made, why do we tolerate it?":dunno:
Click to expand...

Ever read The Pentagon Wars? Guys like Col Burton and Col Boyd are long gone. Therefore we have the current military procurement mess that we have.

As far as the F-35, I was reading Combat Aircraft Monthly a couple months ago. They had a story on USAF ANG units. These F-15 guys were basically saying their aircraft would have no problem dispatching an F-35. Pretty sad when a 40+ year old design is better than our latest fighter.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Ever read The Pentagon Wars? Guys like Col Burton and Col Boyd are long gone. Therefore we have the current military procurement mess that we have.

As far as the F-35, I was reading Combat Monthly a couple months ago. They had a story on USAF ANG units. These F-15 guys were basically saying their aircraft would have no problem dispatching an F-35. Pretty sad when a 40+ year old design is better than our latest fighter.
Click to expand...

Really sad about the F-35. :( If it doesn't function as a good replacement for the Harrier, it sounds like a total waste. How many have we bought so far? Did they end up more or less expensive than the F-22? I remember when they were shorting the order on F-22s saying the F-35 was going to be 30-50% the cost and the cost would be spread across all these NATO contracts. I always wondered why they didn't build a Navy adaptation of the F-22, and modernize the Harrier.:dunno: It alway seemed like a better deal to me.
 
spiderweb said:
I'm going to quibble a bit with you, Jay. Part of showing the world that we are THE superpower, and a country which strives for good, is to have an impressive presence. The 747-800 should fit the bill, nicely.



Remember, too, that it will serve not only Mr. Obama, but a few presidents to come, as well.
Click to expand...


Ben, long time no see! Still flying I hope.
 
It's interesting to me that everyone says the F-35 sucks, yet all over the world countries are lining up to buy it.

It's not like the F-35 is the only high tech fighter on the market, yet Lockheed seems to be selling plenty of F-35s.

Could it be that current Air Force leaders all over the world know something that isn't obvious to the peanut gallery?
 
Well I'm briefed to its actual capabilities and have trained with them so I'm not just guessing.

Everybody's lining up for the only available stealth aircraft in the world. Even as bad as it is, it is a force multiplier for anyone who doesn't have 22's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
JimNtexas said:
It's interesting to me that everyone says the F-35 sucks, yet all over the world countries are lining up to buy it.

It's not like the F-35 is the only high tech fighter on the market, yet Lockheed seems to be selling plenty of F-35s.

Could it be that current Air Force leaders all over the world know something that isn't obvious to the peanut gallery?
Click to expand...

We aren't selling them the F-22, so it's the only stealth aircraft they can buy, and from my understanding, as with US orders, NATO orders have been seriously scaled back as well.
 
Yup, lots of canceled orders. I expect a lot more cancellations when the other countries take their first batch of deliveries.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
Yup, lots of canceled orders. I expect a lot more cancellations when the other countries take their first batch of deliveries.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I know this absolutely not the place to talk capabilities in any depth but...are you kidding me bro? lol

The F-35 is vastly superior to any 4th generation aircraft. Having an F-35 square off against an F-15 would be like kicking a puppy. In some ways this aircraft is superior to the F-22 because the avionics are a decade newer. The Israelis have F-15s and still cream themselves around the F-35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fly a 35? No. I'm cyber. :) The mural on the wall next to my office in Fort Worth reads "Not Seeing Is Believing"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
Do you fly the 35? F15? F16?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

EE, under what circumstances would you NOT prefer to be in the F-35? Unless it is a knife fight or a (very) few vs many engagement (where the F-35 runs out of missiles first), wouldn't you prefer the -35 over the -15, 16, or 18 because of the advantages stealth provides?
 
The best real world data I can tell you about an F15 vs an F35 is from the multiple sorties I've flown in my F15 vs the F35. In my experience you couldn't be more wrong. But hey, maybe I just dreamed it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'd prefer to be in an Eagle in every circumstance imaginable apart from hanging out in a double digit SAM MEZ. I would rather be not in any airplane in that case but if I had to, I'd take a 35 then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
I'd prefer to be in an Eagle in every circumstance imaginable apart from hanging out in a double digit SAM MEZ. I would rather be not in any airplane in that case but if I had to, I'd take a 35 then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd have assumed the F-35 could find you and pink you before you could reciprocate...
 
EvilEagle said:
The best real world data I can tell you about an F15 vs an F35 is from the multiple sorties I've flown in my F15 vs the F35. In my experience you couldn't be more wrong. But hey, maybe I just dreamed it?
Click to expand...

Didn't the F-4 guys say the same thing and they didn't have the twenty years in the airframe that you have in yours. Not saying you're wrong, just saying there is an experience in type disadvantage here.
 
Clark1961 said:
Didn't the F-4 guys say the same thing and they didn't have the twenty years in the airframe that you have in yours. Not saying you're wrong, just saying there is an experience in type disadvantage here.
Click to expand...

IIRC there is also a serious power to weight difference as well. It's hard to beat horsepower in a horse race.
 
kyleb said:
I'd have assumed the F-35 could find you and pink you before you could reciprocate...
Click to expand...


If you believe the brochure, yes. If you believe real world data, no. At least not yet.

Keep in mind it's not as stealthy (at least from what I've read open source) as the 22), and we have a great radar that's very good at finding small targets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Clark1961 said:
Didn't the F-4 guys say the same thing and they didn't have the twenty years in the airframe that you have in yours. Not saying you're wrong, just saying there is an experience in type disadvantage here.
Click to expand...


The 22 is a different story. That is our "replacement" and is a similar comparison to F4 vs F15.

The 35 will get better I'm sure, although I seriously doubt it will live up to the hype. As a taxpayer I hope I'm wrong.

It will never be any good at visual range stuff and I guess that's ok for us since we have the 22 in theory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The 35 will not out fly the 15 or 16. That's not the point. The 35 is a flying supercomputer and its strength is built around that type of capability. The 15 would be in the kill zone of the 35 for quite a long time before the 15 driver even knew the 35 was in the area. The 35 has 360 degree situational awareness and can leverage Intel from other assets. The 35 would probably know when the 15 left the runway several hundred miles out - space assets. Maybe save a missile and walk past you after a cyber attack to your sensor suite. This would all be automated to reduce pilot workload of course. You do have the coolest job in the world though Evil I'll give you that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So you've read the brochure. Congrats. Let me know when it can do even 1/3rd of that.

Sorry, one thing it won't ever do is have an exclusive wez on the Eagle. Read up on the APG-63V3 or APG-82.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
The 22 is a different story. That is our "replacement" and is a similar comparison to F4 vs F15.

The 35 will get better I'm sure, although I seriously doubt it will live up to the hype. As a taxpayer I hope I'm wrong.

It will never be any good at visual range stuff and I guess that's ok for us since we have the 22 in theory.
Click to expand...

What's the Navy going to have, the F/A-18 series?:dunno: I don't see why not, stealth isn't all that effective for that roll, visual rules favors horsepower and maneuverability. I guess the Navy is going to use the F-35 as a Stealth Bomber and ELINT platform, with the Marines flying them for bombing and CAS.:dunno:

I still question the value of the platform to the Navy. The ELINT/recon roll is the one that is well served by stealth, and I can't imagine it wouldn't have been more cost effective and yielded a better result to make a carrier adaptation of the F-22, it can't be that fragile.
 
The Marines are jazzed about a replacement for the Harrier. They get to keep their short deck carriers because of it.

The Navy guys I know aren't excited about flying a single engine in combat and/or blue water ops. Not to mention all the ordinance they can't haul... Or a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
The Marines are jazzed about a replacement for the Harrier. They get to keep their short deck carriers because of it.

The Navy guys I know aren't excited about flying a single engine in combat and/or blue water ops. Not to mention all the ordinance they can't haul... Or a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I totally see the roll for the Marines, no worries, I think if we were building to the Marine's specific jobs, CAS and bombing, we could have built better for cheaper.
 
EvilEagle said:
The Marines are jazzed about a replacement for the Harrier. They get to keep their short deck carriers because of it.

The Navy guys I know aren't excited about flying a single engine in combat and/or blue water ops. Not to mention all the ordinance they can't haul... Or a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Navy's strike capacity was gutted when the A-12 was cancelled and the A-6 was retired. Nothing launching off of a boat today (or tomorrow) has the ability to carry very much very far..
 
Absolutely! Again, I'm right with you. We have all sacrificed real capability at the alter of having a "joint" fighter which is anything but. Different engines, wings, capes, gear and much more for each service. We now will have a jet that sorta looks like the ones our other services have but we can't share most parts and the jets don't fully fulfill the requirements of any service. Awesome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EvilEagle said:
Absolutely! Again, I'm right with you. We have all sacrificed real capability at the alter of having a "joint" fighter which is anything but. Different engines, wings, capes, gear and much more for each service. We now will have a jet that sorta looks like the ones our other services have but we can't share most parts and the jets don't fully fulfill the requirements of any service. Awesome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And the contractors and shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank..:mad2::mad2::mad:
 
EvilEagle said:
Absolutely! Again, I'm right with you. We have all sacrificed real capability at the alter of having a "joint" fighter which is anything but. Different engines, wings, capes, gear and much more for each service. We now will have a jet that sorta looks like the ones our other services have but we can't share most parts and the jets don't fully fulfill the requirements of any service. Awesome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I've decided this is the SOP for funding.

Politicians announce joint aircraft to "save money".

Joint aircraft goes hideously over budget and everyone mostly hates it except one branch.

Other branches scream bloody murder.

Politicians quickly authorize money to "fix the problem". Especially if one of the original bidders that lost on the first bid is waiting in the wings (pun intended!) to sell to the biggest butthurt branch.

Multiple aircraft are born.

Wash rinse repeat.

It's how you got the Eagle after all.
 
In a hangar at Lakeland Linder there is (the parts) an old Bamboo Bomber. I think I was told that there are only four in existence, and this me is on a big, flat bed trailer.

I got a tour last year during Sun-n-Fun and wondered if it was the one Eisenhour used to follow the activity on D Day.
 
denverpilot said:
I've decided this is the SOP for funding.

Politicians announce joint aircraft to "save money".

Joint aircraft goes hideously over budget and everyone mostly hates it except one branch.

Other branches scream bloody murder.

Politicians quickly authorize money to "fix the problem". Especially if one of the original bidders that lost on the first bid is waiting in the wings (pun intended!) to sell to the biggest butthurt branch.

Multiple aircraft are born.

Wash rinse repeat.

It's how you got the Eagle after all.
Click to expand...

huh? Aren't you thinking of the F-111 and F-14? I didn't think the F-15 had any real relationship to a joint program.
 
Amazing thread drift. I think AF1 should be a single seater and our president should be a pilot... There, back on topic.
 
The " joint fighter" approach was tried under macnamara and the airplane was a complete failure. It was mentioned at that time that it was foolhardy to try it as the various branches are different in needs and become petulant and hard to deal with when confronted. A typical example would be the insistence of the marines to keep flogging their need for the osprey, like the F 35 an idea who's time never should have arrived. Both a tremendous waste of taxpayers money. In the case of the F35, over a trillion dollars when alls said and done. Insane.( the current president had nothing to do with either. Lobbyists did, corruption did) .
 
RyanShort1 said:
Amazing thread drift. I think AF1 should be a single seater and our president should be a pilot... There, back on topic.
Click to expand...

With Pedals instead of an engine and brightly colored ribbons that protrude from the handlebar grips, along with a sweet little bell. ring...ring...ring
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top