Intruders' demise (was attack on CVBG)
IH8ScrName
airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course. I would
really like to hear a good counter argument for this, or even an ok one.
Andrew Toppan
: Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
: airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
: put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course.
Very stupid. First, no upgrade will change the fact that they're
a 30+ year old design. They'll still be slow, they'll still be
vunverable. Second, the redesign would cost a lot of $$$. Third,
opening a new production line would be very expensive. An amazingly
large percentage of the cost of any aircraft program is in the startup--
establishing the line, training the people, preproduction airframes,
testing, etc. This isn't a problem when you have an established line
like the F/A-18 line.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
Dwayne Allen Day
: Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
: airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
: really like to hear a good counter argument for this, or even an ok one.
Here's the quick story: the Navy didn't originally want the A-12 stealth
plane but a modernized A-6 instead. Finally it decided it wanted both.
A-12 started sucking cash like a Hoover vacuum cleaner. A-6F/G got
canceled. A-12 got canceled.
And Grumman is out of the aircraft business.
D-Day
--
I'm not a real expert, but I play one on the Net.
Andrew Toppan
: And Grumman is out of the aircraft business.
No, they merged with Northrop and are back in the airframe business--
building new E-2Cs.
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
> : airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
> : put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course.
>
> a 30+ year old design. They'll still be slow, they'll still be
> vunverable. Second, the redesign would cost a lot of $$$. Third,
> opening a new production line would be very expensive. An amazingly
> large percentage of the cost of any aircraft program is in the startup--
> establishing the line, training the people, preproduction airframes,
> testing, etc. This isn't a problem when you have an established line
> like the F/A-18 line.
>
lower RCS via composites and using Iron Ball paint. Plus we can get
newer electronics in. Tack on a few dozen other goodies as well that
came from the lessons we learned over the Intruder's long life and
let's see if the A-6 can't outlast the C-130.
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Graydon
: Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
: airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
: really like to hear a good counter argument for this, or even an ok one.
Because the art has advanced just a little in the subsequent 30 years,
you're either paying for something inherently obsolete, or you're doing
the (expensive) design and test for a new aircraft, in which case the A6
is not the obvious starting point; a mission capabilities statement is.
What you're seeing is the A6's wearing out just a little before their
replacements (the F/A-18e/f) is ready; it happens.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Dwayne Allen Day
: Dwayne Allen Day reshaped the electrons to say:
: : And Grumman is out of the aircraft business.
: No, they merged with Northrop and are back in the airframe business--
: building new E-2Cs.
At the rate of a handful a year. Technically, she's out of the game.
But I stand corrected.
D-Day
--
"I do think that lying filth in the US government should compensate
ranchers for cattle Zeta Reticulans mutilate. It's not right for the
government to lie about these mutilations and not reimburse the ranchers."
--Mark Hines, December 1995
Andrew Toppan
: In Desert Storm the airforce used stealth aircraft to suppress the air
: defences for the Navy.
They did? I thought USN did it's own SEAD with EA-6Bs and F/A-18s.
The "stealth aircraft" (F-117s) went "downtown" with 2000 pound LGBs.
They did not support USN strikes.
Conrad
wrote:
>Conrad (con...@ccc.com) wrote:
>: Actually all current carrier based aircraft are obsolete. SAM design has far out
>: paced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war today our
carrier
>: wings would quickly become decimated.
>
>: Go in low and AAA eats you. Go in medium or high and your SAM bait. Lets face it a
>: missile will always be able to pull more G's than a pilot.
>
>: Until the navy gets a stealth aircraft they will be ineffective over a modern
battle
>: field.
>
> Say what? Have you ever heard of Kuwait? It's this small
>country on the Arabian Peninsula. It has lots of oil. We just fought a
>war there a few years ago.
> I don't remember the Navy having any problems over the modern
>battlefield there.
> Note also, that very few of the planes used by the USAF were
>*not* stealth aircraft. Hell... The USAF doesn't even have a tactical
>jamming aircraft anymore. They can't be *that* worried about SAMs.
>
>Joe Poulin
>
I did not mean Iraq. I meant a modern version of what our pilots faced in North Viet
Nam( the most formidable air defense ever created). Using the most advanced SAMs that
are being built now and radar guided guns.
W.E. Nichols
>N-> : Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
>N-> : airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be
to
>N-> : put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course.
>N->
>N-> Very stupid. First, no upgrade will change the fact that they're
>N-> a 30+ year old design. They'll still be slow, they'll still be
>N-> vunverable. Second, the redesign would cost a lot of $$$. Third,
>N-> opening a new production line would be very expensive. An amazingly
>N-> large percentage of the cost of any aircraft program is in the
startup--
>N-> establishing the line, training the people, preproduction airframes,
>N-> testing, etc. This isn't a problem when you have an established line
>N-> like the F/A-18 line.
>N->
>N- My repectful disagreement: We can use the rewinging to get a
>N-lower RCS via composites and using Iron Ball paint. Plus we can get
>N-newer electronics in. Tack on a few dozen other goodies as well that
>N-came from the lessons we learned over the Intruder's long life and
>N-let's see if the A-6 can't outlast the C-130.
Rewinging of the A-6 might have been the nail in its coffin. Back in the
mid 80s they were restricted to so many carrier landings (total accumulation
of traps). It would have been cost effective to "modernize" the A-6 but
that is not the way the defense establishment thinks. New is better and
efficient. Albeit extremely expensive. All this stuff about stealth is
well and good, but it is not what it is all cracked up to be. I would
suspect that the cost of rebuilding the F/A-18 would probably pay for the
A-6 modernization. The E/F models are going to be 25% larger that the
original A/C. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor
Performance. But that is the way the industry works. Don't give them all
the need on the first shot. Lets drag this out for the life of the A/C.
Nick
W.E."Nick" Nichols Non Illegitimi Carburundum est
******************************
Eric Gross
far out >: paced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war
today our carrier >: wings would quickly become decimated.
Hmmm. Well, the Iraqi's integrated air defense system was quite a bit more
sophisticated and dense than Vietnam's -- in fact, it was touted as one of the
most sophisticated in the world. You can see all the good it did them. A
significant part of the work of taking the system down was accomplished by
"obsolete" Navy aircraft firing decoys, HARM's, jamming and doing a variety of
SEAD work.
Now, I'm not arguing that SAM systems these days aren't getting tougher and
more lethal, but the point is there is more than one way to skin an air
defense system. For every tactic there is a counter tactic; for every advance
there is a countermeasure. It's not just the airframes (although I'd welcome
some cutting-edge stuff on the carrier decks) -- it's the weapons, tactics,
training, electronics and intelligence. No one, to my knowledge, has yet
built an air-defense system that hasn't been penetrated and mastered by a
determined opponent in sustained combat.
Pete Bowen
>In article <4ahmm6$i...@nic.umass.edu>, pou...@titan.oit.umass.edu (Joseph L Poulin)
>wrote:
>>Conrad (con...@ccc.com) wrote:
>>: Actually all current carrier based aircraft are obsolete. SAM design has far out
>>: paced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war today our
>carrier
>>: wings would quickly become decimated.
>>
>>: Go in low and AAA eats you. Go in medium or high and your SAM bait. Lets face it a
>>: missile will always be able to pull more G's than a pilot.
>>
>>: Until the navy gets a stealth aircraft they will be ineffective over a modern
>battle
>>: field.
>>
>> Say what? Have you ever heard of Kuwait? It's this small
>>country on the Arabian Peninsula. It has lots of oil. We just fought a
>>war there a few years ago.
>> I don't remember the Navy having any problems over the modern
>>battlefield there.
>> Note also, that very few of the planes used by the USAF were
>>*not* stealth aircraft. Hell... The USAF doesn't even have a tactical
>>jamming aircraft anymore. They can't be *that* worried about SAMs.
>>
>>Joe Poulin
>>
>I did not mean Iraq. I meant a modern version of what our pilots faced in North Viet
>Nam( the most formidable air defense ever created). Using the most advanced SAMs that
>are being built now and radar guided guns.
>In Desert Storm the airforce used stealth aircraft to suppress the air defences for
>the Navy.
You ought to read a little history and know something about IAD's
before talking like this. I think there have been quite a few IAD
systems created since Vietnam that are far more formidable--one of
them being Iraq's. Navy and Marine aircraft had extensive
participation (without stealth aircraft) in the suppression and defeat
of the Iraqi IAD system.
Graydon
: In article <4ag8p4$o...@knot.queensu.ca>, saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon) wrote:
: >What you're seeing is the A6's wearing out just a little before their
: >replacement (the F/A-18e/f) is ready; it happens.
: Actually all current carrier based aircraft are obsolete. SAM design has far out
: paced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war today our carrier
: wings would quickly become decimated.
: Go in low and AAA eats you. Go in medium or high and your SAM bait. Lets face it a
: missile will always be able to pull more G's than a pilot.
: Until the navy gets a stealth aircraft they will be ineffective over a modern battle
: field.
This is highly questionable.
'Stealth' is a _tradeoff_, not magic. You trade maneuvering limitations
and maintenance limitations for being hard to see with certain kinds of
radars. It is a worthwhile tradeoff for an aircraft intended to attack
certain sorts of fixed targets (a role that one would prefer to use
something other than aircraft for if possible, but it often isn't possible.)
Turning on a radar is _dangerous_ in exactly the same way as turning on a
flashlight in a night infantry action is - it's a 'here I am, *shoot
me*!' sign. This feature can be exploited to allow even non-stealthy
aircraft to make penetration attacks; the successes of various naval
aircraft and F15Es in Desert Storm ought to make that clear.
It takes teamwork and paying attention, but SAMs and radar directed AAA
are just as subject to countermeasures as anything else.
MICOMA
writes:
>I did not mean Iraq. I meant a modern version of what our pilots faced in
>North Viet
>Nam( the most formidable air defense ever created). Using the most
advanced
>SAMs that
>are being built now and radar guided guns.
If memory serves me right, SAMs were not the major threat over NVN, it was
AAA. I believe far more aircraft were lost to the AAA then SAMs.
Are you saying that after the experience that the military had over NVN,
in addition to learning from what happened over the Sinai in Oct. 73 by
Israel, that we are not better prepared to deal with threat(s) from the
ground?
Mike
Chris Douglas
>
> Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
> really like to hear a good counter argument for this, or even an ok one.
Presumably the production line is completely dismantled and those trained to work
on it are doing other things. Assuming the equipment for manufacturing Intruders
still even exists at all (not at all a given), it would take a lot of time and
money to put the line back together. When you add into the equation "upgraded and
modernized" design considerations, you could easily be looking at a proposition
nearly as costly as starting from scratch with something new, or at least
upgrading something else more modern (like the F/A-18).
Historically speaking, the A-6 was indeed a great aircraft. By modern standards,
though, it's pretty dated. There's only so much 90's-class work one can do with a
50's-conceived airframe. It really looks like F/A-18E/F will give the A-6E a
serious run for the money in terms of strike performance, plus enjoy better
defensive and AA capability with a much more sophisticated RCS solution.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
The mindless corporate entity for which I work has
no opinions. Those expressed must be my own.
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph L Poulin
: This is the most sensible explanation of stealth presented yet. It is
: ironic that the AF designated their new stealth fighter the F-117. "F" is
: for fighter, i.e., ACM missions. But is it a figher or a bomber. It would
: be interesting to put the F-117 in a dog fight with a F-14 and see who wins.
This would only be interesting if only the F-117 had an E-3 backup,
it was night, and the F-14 crew decided not to use their radar. Then the
F-117 could try to fly above it and see if you can hit an aircraft
traveling at 400 knots with a Maverick or a 2000 lb LGB. :)
Basically... The F(ighter)-117 is NOT a fighter, no matter what
they call it. It should be an 'A-117' or perhaps 'B-117'. Maybe someone
else here can post the explanation for why the AF hates the A(ttack)
designation? I haven't seen it lately.
Joe Poulin
Jacob M McGuire
demise (was .. by W.E. Nic...@infi.net
>I have to side with Hutchinson. Most everyone thinks that newer is
>better. False assumption in many cases. Also, I am not one to say that
>because we have been doing something for 30 years doesn't makes it right.
>We had a lot of growing pains with the A-6 when she first joined the
>fleet. Primarily with the avionics, not the airframe. The A-6 is
ugly,
>but she is a reliable and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up
>against the F/A-18 in an isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win.
>That is if everything is weighted fairly.
>
>In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
>modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
>consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been
>kept up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6 would
>have been cheaper.
>
> I have said this before and will say it again. The F/A-18E/F models are
> 25%
> larger than the current model. That, couple with the re-powering of the
> F-18 is a humongous cost. They will basically have to re-introduce the
> A/C into the fleet. BIS trials (Board of Inspection and Survey =
> shipboard suitability), redo all tests of flight characteristics, redo
> all tests for launch and recovery parameters, retrain all pilots in the
> A/C, re tool at the factory, etc.
>
> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
>
The following is copied from Andrew Toppan's web page.
From: horn...@aol.com (HORNET265)
I recently posted performance data on the new Hornet with respect to the
Intruder. Probably like many of you I read only selected topics on this
newsgroup because the volume is so high, and frankly, many of the subjects
are pretty inane. So I don't expect my posts to be widely read. However
I did think my information would catch the eye of most of the Hornet
bashers out there. Guess not. Still a lot of folks making unsupported
statements on this subject that are incorrect. If it's a qualitative
opinion I shall respect it. I won't tell people what to like or dislike.
Quantitative statements should be supported with relevant data.
Now, to review the facts.
Payload:
The A-6E has five stores stations. The Aero-7A bombrack can carry 3600
lbs. The Intruder has 4. The Aero-7B rack can carry 3700 lbs. There's
one on the centerline station. Add these up and you get 18,100 lbs. Nice
number. Makes good PR. Won't work. Why? It exceeds max gross weight.
Max cat gw is 58,600 lbs. Empty weight is about 28,000 lbs
(FLIR/SWIP/ECM/composite wing all add to this number). Internal fuel is
16,000 lbs (9K fuselage and 7K wing). The Intruder cannot take a cat shot
with partial fuel in the wing, so it's either full or empty. We just
don't launch with empty wings unless it's a CQ evolution. So add the 28K
and the 16K and you get 44K. Subtract the 44K from 58.6K and you get the
max payload: less than 15,000 lbs. For recovery the max trap weight is
36K. This leaves a maximum of 8K for bringback, including fuel.
The F/A-18E has five stores stations like the A-6, but with BRU-32
bombracks attached to the pylons. Same max weight capability. BUT...the
new Hornet has 2 more wing stores stations, each with 1100 lbs capacity.
AND...it has 4 more stores stations for weapons/sensors (2 wingtip AIM-9
and 2 fuselage AIM-7/AIM-120/Nav-Tgt FLIR). Total stores stations equal
11, giving MUCH greater flexibility. The F/A-18E max cat weight is 66,000
lbs. The weight of the F/A-18E with pilot, 400 rnds of 20mm, & full
chaff load is 32,000 lbs (actually it's 31,983 for a 205 lb pilot). Full
internal fuel is 14,460 lbs (and likely to be 15K due to some design
optimizing). Planned max external load is 17,750 lbs. Better number.
And it works. If you do the math, you come up to about 64.2K on the cat,
well within the 66K limit. The difference, about 1800 lbs, is for planned
growth, so we can add new systems for years to come and not reduce the max
payload. The carrier bringback is specified at 9,000 lbs at 42.9K max
trap weight. Notice again the math works in the Hornet's favor: 42.9
minus 32.0 gives us 10.9K bringback. Factor in recovery fuel (4K day & 5K
night) and there's plenty left to recover with expensive weapons. By the
way the F/A-18F has the same numbers, except internal fuel is reduced by
215 lbs.
Comparative Loadout Example: 4 Mk 84 LGB
A-6E: Weapons on parent racks stations 1,2,4 & 5
300 g fuel tank on station 3 (18K total fuel)
54 to 55K launch weight
F/A-18E: Weapons on parent racks stations 3,4,8 & 9
480 g fuel tank on station 6 (17.7K total fuel)
2 AIM-9M (stations 1 & 11)
Targeting FLIR on station 5
plus the flexibility of adding:
Choice of AIM-7M, AIM-120C, or AGM-88 on stations 2 & 10
Choice of AIM-7M, AIM-120C, or NAVFLIR on station 7
63 to 65K launch weight
Fuel:
A-6 max fuel is 26K (5 300 g tanks). No weapons! At 24K fuel one weapons
station is available.
F/A-18E max fuel is 24.3K (3 480 g tanks). 8 weapons stations available!
The wing is structurally provisioned to accommodate 2 additional 480 g
tanks (bringing total fuel to 30.8K with 6 stations still available for
weapons), but we are not testing this configuration in the first flight
test program.
The A-6 could carry the larger fuel tanks, but there are no plans to
invest in an integration and flight test program for them.
Now both jets have similar fuel flows at cruise. The Hornet's optimum
altitude is 5-10K higher, and speed is .11-.13 Mach faster. In most
scenarios this means the F/A-18E will go farther.
Reliability:
Mean Flight Hours between Failure (MFHBF), a measure of the average number
of hours the airplane will fly before something breaks.
A-6E: 0.5 Hrs
F/A-18C: 1.5 Hrs
The F/A-18E will have even better performance because several of the new
subsystems have demonstrated improved MTBF. Very likely the new Hornet
will be in the 2.6 Hrs range.
Direct Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour (DMMH/FH), a measure of how
many man hours of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance are required for
each hour the jet flies.
A-6E: 51.9 Man hours
F/A-18C 19.1 Man hours
A lot of the A-6 maintenance is scheduled, which means compliance with
airframe and powerplant bulletins where mechanics have to conduct
recurring fatigue inspections...very indicative of an older aircraft. The
F/A-18E will see reduced maintenance time because we have better access to
systems, better diagnostics and fault isolation. We can also change an
engine in 30 minutes. Ask an Intruder Mech how many hours it takes to
change out a J-52!
Safety:
Class A mishap rate (Flight Mishaps per 100,000 flight hours)
Cum Hours Rate
A-6 3,401,461 7.53
F/A-18 1,037,496 4.03
Data through 28 February 1995
Survivability:
The new Hornet goes faster, is less detectable, has better ECM & more
expendables, has better sensor integration, and a formidable air to air
capability. I put out a detailed post on this and won't waste bandwidth
by repeating it here. Email me if want the data.
The Intruder has served the navy well. It's an ugly, noisy bomb truck. I
loved flying it for 20 years. I used to bash Hornets all the time. I
know better now. Now you do too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill DuBois {wdu...@opnav-emh.navy.mil} ) )
CAPT, U.S. Navy {HORN...@aol.com} )) ))\
Deputy Program Manager )) ) ))))\__
for F/A-18E/F \=*=*=*=*=*=/
Naval Air Systems Team "Anyone can hold the helm
Washington DC when the sea is calm."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------+------------------+
| Small towns in western Germany are | Jake McGuire |
| usually about ten kilotons apart | mcgu...@cmu.edu |
+------------------------------------+------------------+
Peter H. Granzeau
>This is the most sensible explanation of stealth presented yet. It is
>ironic that the AF designated their new stealth fighter the F-117. "F" is
>for fighter, i.e., ACM missions. But is it a figher or a bomber. It would
>be interesting to put the F-117 in a dog fight with a F-14 and see who wins.
I always figured the F-117 designation was a bit of misdirection,
anyway (considering the aircraft didn't even officially exist until
people started seeing them all over the place). To start with, the
F-117 is subsonic. Does it even carry air to air weapons? Very
uninteresting fight, I would think. How about setting up an A-6 to
F-14 fight?
Regards, PHG
ICBM:37ø01'48"N,76ø25'38"W
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
>>N-> : airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be
> to
>>N-> : put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course.
>>N->
>>N-> Very stupid. First, no upgrade will change the fact that they're
>>N-> a 30+ year old design. They'll still be slow, they'll still be
>>N-> vunverable. Second, the redesign would cost a lot of $$$. Third,
>>N-> opening a new production line would be very expensive. An amazingly
>>N-> large percentage of the cost of any aircraft program is in the
> startup--
>>N-> establishing the line, training the people, preproduction airframes,
>>N-> testing, etc. This isn't a problem when you have an established line
>>N-> like the F/A-18 line.
>>N->
>>N- My repectful disagreement: We can use the rewinging to get a
>>N-lower RCS via composites and using Iron Ball paint. Plus we can get
>>N-newer electronics in. Tack on a few dozen other goodies as well that
>>N-came from the lessons we learned over the Intruder's long life and
>>N-let's see if the A-6 can't outlast the C-130.
>
> False assumption in many cases. Also, I am not one to say that because we
> have been doing something for 30 years doesn't makes it right. We had a lot
> of growing pains with the A-6 when she first joined the fleet. Primarily
> with the avionics, not the airframe. The A-6 is ugly, but she is a reliable
> and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up against the F/A-18 in an
> isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win. That is if everything is
> weighted fairly.
>
> In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
> modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
> consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been kept
> up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6 would have
> been cheaper.
>
> I have said this before and will say it again. The F/A-18E/F models are 25%
> larger than the current model. That, couple with the re-powering of the
> F-18 is a humongous cost. They will basically have to re-introduce the A/C
> into the fleet. BIS trials (Board of Inspection and Survey = shipboard
> suitability), redo all tests of flight characteristics, redo all tests for
> launch and recovery parameters, retrain all pilots in the A/C, re tool at
> the factory, etc.
>
> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
aircraft, just not as a replacement for the Intruder and Tomcat. It
is, however, the IDEAL replacement for the F/A-18C/D models out there,
and finally has appeared to address the problems the F/A-18A/B/C/D had
with regards to range.
I think it will prove to be an excellent plane, and wouldliek
to see it modified to replace both the EF-111A and the F-4G.
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
> : ironic that the AF designated their new stealth fighter the F-117. "F" is
> : for fighter, i.e., ACM missions. But is it a figher or a bomber. It would
> : be interesting to put the F-117 in a dog fight with a F-14 and see who wins.
>
> it was night, and the F-14 crew decided not to use their radar. Then the
> F-117 could try to fly above it and see if you can hit an aircraft
> traveling at 400 knots with a Maverick or a 2000 lb LGB. :)
> Basically... The F(ighter)-117 is NOT a fighter, no matter what
> they call it. It should be an 'A-117' or perhaps 'B-117'. Maybe someone
> else here can post the explanation for why the AF hates the A(ttack)
> designation? I haven't seen it lately.
One minor correction. When I talked with F-117 pilots at the
air shows, I was able to confirm that the F-117 CAN carry the AIM-9
Sidewinder, so it is not quite as helpless against an F-14/E-3 combo
as one might think. Actually, if we could get a WORKING IR Search and
Tracking System and be able to program the data into the AIM-9X, we
could be able to develop a 21st century version of the legendary
"Black Widow", and it would be PERFECT for sch jobs as whacking an
AWACS or busting a few fighters on CAP with NO warning whatsoever.
W.E. Nichols
>N-'Stealth' is a _tradeoff_, not magic. You trade maneuvering limitations
>N-and maintenance limitations for being hard to see with certain kinds of
>N-radars. It is a worthwhile tradeoff for an aircraft intended to attack
>N-certain sorts of fixed targets (a role that one would prefer to use
>N-something other than aircraft for if possible, but it often isn't
possible.)
This is the most sensible explanation of stealth presented yet. It is
ironic that the AF designated their new stealth fighter the F-117. "F" is
for fighter, i.e., ACM missions. But is it a figher or a bomber. It would
be interesting to put the F-117 in a dog fight with a F-14 and see who wins.
Brian varine
> hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
> >N-> : Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
> >N-> : airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be
> to
> >N-> : put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course.
> >N->
> >N-> Very stupid. First, no upgrade will change the fact that they're
> >N-> a 30+ year old design. They'll still be slow, they'll still be
> >N-> vunverable. Second, the redesign would cost a lot of $$$. Third,
> >N-> opening a new production line would be very expensive. An amazingly
> >N-> large percentage of the cost of any aircraft program is in the
> startup--
> >N-> establishing the line, training the people, preproduction airframes,
> >N-> testing, etc. This isn't a problem when you have an established line
> >N-> like the F/A-18 line.
> >N->
> >N- My repectful disagreement: We can use the rewinging to get a
> >N-lower RCS via composites and using Iron Ball paint. Plus we can get
> >N-newer electronics in. Tack on a few dozen other goodies as well that
> >N-came from the lessons we learned over the Intruder's long life and
> >N-let's see if the A-6 can't outlast the C-130.
>
> I have to side with Hutchinson. Most everyone thinks that newer is better.
> False assumption in many cases. Also, I am not one to say that because we
> have been doing something for 30 years doesn't makes it right. We had a lot
> of growing pains with the A-6 when she first joined the fleet. Primarily
> with the avionics, not the airframe. The A-6 is ugly, but she is a reliable
> and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up against the F/A-18 in an
> isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win. That is if everything is
> weighted fairly.
>
> In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
> modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
> consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been kept
> up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6 would have
> been cheaper.
>
> I have said this before and will say it again. The F/A-18E/F models are 25%
> larger than the current model. That, couple with the re-powering of the
> F-18 is a humongous cost. They will basically have to re-introduce the A/C
> into the fleet. BIS trials (Board of Inspection and Survey = shipboard
> suitability), redo all tests of flight characteristics, redo all tests for
> launch and recovery parameters, retrain all pilots in the A/C, re tool at
> the factory, etc.
>
> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
The A-6 is O L D. It requires loads of maintanence and would cost plenty
to keep in the fleet past ~2000. I have seen nothing anywhere where the
A-6 beats the F/A-18 E/F. Range, payload, speed, radar, etc. of the E/F
are all superior to the A-6. Add to that it's much easier to repair and
there is some common parts with the A-D's. The A-6 was an awesome plane
and did it's job superbly, but, it is time for a replacement.
William Baird
>All this stuff about stealth is
>well and good, but it is not what it is all cracked up to be.
Please back up this statement. At face value, it looks like your comment
over in sci.military.moderated about liquid propellants for tube arty and
guns. (rocket fuel et al for a cannon??? Nani???)
>I would
>suspect that the cost of rebuilding the F/A-18 would probably pay for the
>A-6 modernization.
*sighs* I'm beginning to think that the '6 is like the F-4. People
refuse to let it die because of how long it was in service. With the 18E
being able to carry more than the 6E (15k lbs (6E) vs. 17.75k lbs (18E) &
5 weapon stations (6E) vs. 11 weapon stations (18E)), the missions get
shifted around quite a bit. You no longer need a heavy iron carrier
since your flight deck is dominated by them (the 18E's, minimum 36,
IIRC), you need an air superiority aircraft (14, or my wish list NATFish
14 successor) and a highly stealthy aircraft for "first day" strikes
(proposed for this is the JSF/JAST & AF-117X(N?)) to minimize loses to
SAM's & AAA until the enemy AD is suppressed. Now, where does the 6G or
F fit into this situation? Nowhere, AFAIK.....
Will
>Nick
Will Baird InterNet: wba...@nmsu.edu chpw...@arriba.nm.org
#include disclaimer.h Web Page: http://essex.nmsu.edu/~scomputi/
Creator of the KU, "After All This Time", Jordanite, Ranma 1/2 Addict, & More
"The Creator made women to please the eye and trouble the mind" -RJ, tFoH
W.E. Nichols
Nick
W.E. Nichols
>N-I did not mean Iraq. I meant a modern version of what our pilots faced in
North Viet
>N-Nam( the most formidable air defense ever created). Using the most
advanced SAMs that
>N-are being built now and radar guided guns.
>N-
>N-In Desert Storm the airforce used stealth aircraft to suppress the air
defences for
>N-the Navy.
You can use the Desert Storm/Viet Nam comparison. It is not realistic.
Desert Storms was basically unlimited warfare. Viet Nam was restricted
warfare. I seriously doubt that stealth was much of a factor in desert
storm. Just a bunch of hype.
Andrew Toppan
: Most everyone thinks that newer is better.
Not me. In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. You don't see me
calling for replacement of the C-130 with a totally new aircraft.
: False assumption in many cases.
But not all.
You obviously will not be convinced that the A-6 need replacement,
so I will not argue the issue further.
Graydon
: I always figured the F-117 designation was a bit of misdirection,
: anyway (considering the aircraft didn't even officially exist until
: people started seeing them all over the place). To start with, the
: F-117 is subsonic. Does it even carry air to air weapons? Very
: uninteresting fight, I would think. How about setting up an A-6 to
: F-14 fight?
_sigh_
Look, if it can nuke Moscow, it gets a B designation, if it the USAF
likes having it on inventory it gets an F designation, and if it is for
moving mud and congress made them take it, it gets an A designation.
It's that simple, to this external observer.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> The A-6 is ugly, but she is a reliable
> and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up against the F/A-18 in an
> isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win. That is if everything is
> weighted fairly.
How do you mean "up against"? In an air-to-air match, the Intruder's
life is likely to be short and fiery. Air-to-ground, the F/A-18C doesn't
have the range or haul weight of the Intruder, but it does deliver with
better accuracy and is easier to keep mission capable. The -E model
beats the Intruder on all counts. Just what does the Intruder do better
than the F/A-18E?
> In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
> modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
> consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been kept
> up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6 would have
> been cheaper.
To buy, not to own and fly.
> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
Obviously not: someone in the Navy evidently decided that after the A-12
fiasco, they still had too much money so they decided to waste lots of
it on a completely useless aircraft that carries more ordnance further
than the Intruder, is more versatile, and is cheaper to maintain. Far
better to buy a much older, less capable, less survivable, aircraft
and keep throwing maintenance man-hours at it.
Exactly what does the A-6 do that the F/A-18E will not?
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Lee Green MD MPH
Nichols) wrote:
> >N-there is some common parts with the A-D's. The A-6 was an awesome plane
> >N-and did it's job superbly, but, it is time for a replacement.
>
> Cant't argue with this. The problem I have is with the small percentage
> increase in capabilities to the total cost of the program.
The point isn't the cost of the program, but the cost of the alternative.
Rebuilding A-6s "as is" would yield spanking new 1950s single-role
aircraft (yes, I know it can tank and SEAD, but it won't fly BARCAP),
subsonic and with no realistic air-to-air capability, and most importantly
saddled with the same high maintenance manpower requirements and costs.
(Remember, the cost of an aircraft isn't just procurement; that's a
minority of the total cost. Just having two aircrew instead of one adds a
quarter of a million per year per aircraft, even though the backseater
only draws $40k in direct pay.) Building updated A-6s with current
materials, modular design, and the like would be a completely new
airframe. It'd cost as much as the E/F project, and still yield a
subsonic, single-role aircraft. Multirole aircraft are the way the Navy
is going, for several good reasons, and the Intruder just won't fill that
bill.
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Andrew Toppan
: It's criminal to have
: to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
What are you talking about? We built the F/A-18A/B/C/D as an A-7 and
F-4 replacement. It wasn't intended as an A-6 replacement. Then
we built the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. I don't see the problem.
Chris Douglas
...
> I did not mean Iraq. I meant a modern version of what our pilots faced in North Viet
>
No, they didn't. The F-117's were doing deep strikes, not SEAD work. Clearly the F-117's
had an impact on the overall command and control of the AA network, but the majority of
defensive sites themselves were neutralized primarily by HARM-shooters and jammers, both of
which the Navy has in quantity.
I guess the more important issue, though, is whether or not success or failure against a
hypothetical idealized AA network defines the obsolescence of an air fleet. If such a
network does not exist, and will presumably not exist for years, then it hardly seems
relevant.
But I agree that some stealthy AC for the Navy would be nice, for other reasons.
Andrew Toppan
: Lets start over. They introduced the F/A-18 as a replacement for the A-6.
No. The F/A-18A/B/C/D models were introduced into the fleet at replacement
for A-7s and F-4s. Period. Later on, the A-6Es began to die, and they
decided to retire them early, instead of putting big bucks into a
temporary fix. The A-6Es are going out a few years before their replacements
(F/A-18E/F) come in, but that's the price we pay for the procurement disaster
of the A-12.
W.E. Nichols
>N-In article <30ce1eed...@allnews.infi.net> w...@infi.net (W.E.
Nichols) writes:
>N-
>N->All this stuff about stealth is
>N->well and good, but it is not what it is all cracked up to be.
>N-
>N-Please back up this statement. At face value, it looks like your comment
>N-over in sci.military.moderated about liquid propellants for tube arty and
>N-guns. (rocket fuel et al for a cannon??? Nani???)
You must have missed it. What is Nani??? Stealth is okay for conventional
radars. It does not make the a/c invisible like everyone believes.
>N->I would
>N->suspect that the cost of rebuilding the F/A-18 would probably pay for
the
>N->A-6 modernization.
>N-
>N-*sighs* I'm beginning to think that the '6 is like the F-4. People
>N-refuse to let it die because of how long it was in service. With the 18E
>N-being able to carry more than the 6E (15k lbs (6E) vs. 17.75k lbs (18E) &
>N-5 weapon stations (6E) vs. 11 weapon stations (18E)), the missions get
>N-shifted around quite a bit. You no longer need a heavy iron carrier
>N-since your flight deck is dominated by them (the 18E's, minimum 36,
>N-IIRC), you need an air superiority aircraft (14, or my wish list NATFish
>N-14 successor) and a highly stealthy aircraft for "first day" strikes
>N-(proposed for this is the JSF/JAST & AF-117X(N?)) to minimize loses to
>N-SAM's & AAA until the enemy AD is suppressed. Now, where does the 6G or
>N-F fit into this situation? Nowhere, AFAIK.....
Okay I will spell it out. I have never adovcated keeping the A-6. The crux
of all my posts has been that we did not get our moneys worth with the F-18.
To reach a comparable weapons load they had to introduce a "new" F-18. So
they have basically had to build two a/c to replace one. I have been
anticipating an F-18 type to jump in and tell us exactly what they have done
to make the E/F model 25% larger. I would strongly suspect that they do not
want to do that and let the cat out of the bag.
The Navy wasn't exactly jumping up and down with glee about the initial
F-18.
W.E. Nichols
>N-Excerpts from netnews.sci.military.naval: 14-Dec-95 Re: Intruders'
>N-demise (was .. by W.E. Nic...@infi.net
>N->I have to side with Hutchinson. Most everyone thinks that newer is
>N->better. False assumption in many cases. Also, I am not one to say that
>N->because we have been doing something for 30 years doesn't makes it
right.
>N->We had a lot of growing pains with the A-6 when she first joined the
>N->fleet. Primarily with the avionics, not the airframe. The A-6 is
>N-ugly,
>N->but she is a reliable and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up
>N->against the F/A-18 in an isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win.
>N->That is if everything is weighted fairly.
>N->
>N->In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
>N->modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
>N->consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been
>N->kept up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6
would
>N->have been cheaper.
>N->
>N-> I have said this before and will say it again. The F/A-18E/F models
are
>N-> 25%
>N-> larger than the current model. That, couple with the re-powering of
the
>N-> F-18 is a humongous cost. They will basically have to re-introduce the
>N-> A/C into the fleet. BIS trials (Board of Inspection and Survey =
>N-> shipboard suitability), redo all tests of flight characteristics, redo
>N-> all tests for launch and recovery parameters, retrain all pilots in the
>N-> A/C, re tool at the factory, etc.
>N->
>N-> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
OPNAV asst pgm mgr comparison deleted to conserve bandwidth.
I have read this several times before, but thanx for reposting it.
>N-Probably like many of you I read only selected topics on this
>N-newsgroup because the volume is so high, and frankly, many of the
subjects are pretty inane.
The assistant program manager for the F/A-18 says that this news group is
silly.
I getting a little sick of the disinformation about the capabilities of the
F/A-18. All the data posted for comparison purposes is for the E/F models.
Lets start over. They introduced the F/A-18 as a replacement for the A-6.
The ORIGINAL replacements have less of a capability than the A-6E. Period!
Now don't you think that is a flawed decision? That is a hell of a lot of
money as a stop gap measure.
If you do make a comparison between the A-6 and the E/F models you do get an
increase of about 10%-13% in bomb load. That is a hell of a price for about
ONE MK-84. The FLIR is built into the A-6, its a pod for the F-18. Pods
take up racks, thus reducing weapons loads. Other capabilities are also
added by pods. Again reducing weapons load.
The raw data on comparison can be and often are quite impressive. The only
true comparison is to do real world mission/weapons profiles. Then look at
the data. You set this up by using NATOPS manuals. Not a memo posted from
an AOL account.
I detect additional disinformation by the assistant program manager with his
comment about the full wing fuel for launch. I would suspect this to be
true for the F-18 and most other a/c. The lack of a similar comment for the
F-18 makes it suspect. You don't make fair comparisons without giving equal
time to negative comments on one a/c and not the other.
W.E. Nichols
>N-The A-6 is O L D. It requires loads of maintanence and would cost plenty
>N-to keep in the fleet past ~2000. I have seen nothing anywhere where the
>N-A-6 beats the F/A-18 E/F. Range, payload, speed, radar, etc. of the E/F
>N-are all superior to the A-6. Add to that it's much easier to repair and
>N-there is some common parts with the A-D's. The A-6 was an awesome plane
>N-and did it's job superbly, but, it is time for a replacement.
Cant't argue with this. The problem I have is with the small percentage
increase in capabilities to the total cost of the program.
Nick
W.E. Nichols
>N-> hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>N-> False assumption in many cases. Also, I am not one to say that
because we
>N-> have been doing something for 30 years doesn't makes it right. We had
a lot
>N-> of growing pains with the A-6 when she first joined the fleet.
Primarily
>N-> with the avionics, not the airframe. The A-6 is ugly, but she is a
reliable
>N-> and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up against the F/A-18 in an
>N-> isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win. That is if everything
is
>N-> weighted fairly.
>N->
>N-> In a realistic cost analysis, it might have been cheaper to do a fleet
>N-> modernization of the A-6. In this cost analysis you have to take into
>N-> consideration as why they shut down the A-6 line. If the line had been
kept
>N-> up as an option prior to the introduction of the F-18, the A-6 would
have
>N-> been cheaper.
>N->
>N-> I have said this before and will say it again. The F/A-18E/F models
are 25%
>N-> larger than the current model. That, couple with the re-powering of
the
>N-> F-18 is a humongous cost. They will basically have to re-introduce the
A/C
>N-> into the fleet. BIS trials (Board of Inspection and Survey = shipboard
>N-> suitability), redo all tests of flight characteristics, redo all tests
for
>N-> launch and recovery parameters, retrain all pilots in the A/C, re tool
at
>N-> the factory, etc.
>N->
>N-> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
>N- A decent post, but the F/A-18E/F DOES promise to be a good
>N-aircraft, just not as a replacement for the Intruder and Tomcat.
Your pretty good there, Hutch. Promises is what everyone is banking on.
Well, I'm from the gummint and I promise to help you. It's criminal to have
to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
Nick
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Lets start over. They introduced the F/A-18 as a replacement for the A-6.
> The ORIGINAL replacements have less of a capability than the A-6E. Period!
> Now don't you think that is a flawed decision? That is a hell of a lot of
> money as a stop gap measure.
No: the F/A-18A entered the fleet to replace the F-4 and A-7. Various other
programs (most notably the A-6F, A-6G and A-12) came and went to replace
the A-6E. Nobody AFAIK ever intended the original Hornet to replace the
Intruder, because it evidently can't: it needed to be bigger and longer-
ranged to do that.
> If you do make a comparison between the A-6 and the E/F models you do get an
> increase of about 10%-13% in bomb load. That is a hell of a price for about
> ONE MK-84. The FLIR is built into the A-6, its a pod for the F-18. Pods
> take up racks, thus reducing weapons loads. Other capabilities are also
> added by pods. Again reducing weapons load.
So carry a FLIR and you only have twice as many racks as an A-6 (ten vs.
five?) Meanwhile, what have you done to the Intruder to give it any sort
of credible air-to-air capability? Put a centreline tank and one self-
defence Sidewinder on the A-6, and you're down to three racks free vs. seven
for the F/A-18E with wingtip AIM-9s, FLIR and LST.
I found comparative statistics for A-6 and F/A-18C Hornets in Desert Storm,
for the squadrons flying off the USS Saratoga in the Red Sea. The Hornets
managed twice as many sorties as the Intruders, and they lost one aircraft:
the Intruder squadron lost two. The Hornet is a lot more survivable, flexible
and versatile than the Intruder is.
> The raw data on comparison can be and often are quite impressive. The only
> true comparison is to do real world mission/weapons profiles. Then look at
> the data. You set this up by using NATOPS manuals. Not a memo posted from
> an AOL account.
I have a nasty feeling those NATOPS manuals are classifed and stamped
NOFORN. If not, could someone actually get them? Otherwise, we take what
data we can get and run it through a bullshit filter. However, everyone
sets theirs differently ;) I think the F/A-18E looks like a very good
aircraft. You obviously don't agree. Probably only time will settle this
one.
Lee Green MD MPH
> I found comparative statistics for A-6 and F/A-18C Hornets in Desert Storm,
> for the squadrons flying off the USS Saratoga in the Red Sea. The Hornets
> managed twice as many sorties as the Intruders
That's the operational impact of those lower failure rates and lesser
maintenance hours requirements. Intruders can carry more bombs than
F/A-18Cs on paper. Bombs, however, aren't carried on paper, they're
carried in the air. If your aircraft ain't in the air, it ain't bombing
the bad guys.
And on a different point:
Please, Hornet-skeptics, keep the F/A-18C and -18E distinction clear! The
C was NOT introduced to replace the Intruder. It replaced the A-7 and
part of the F-4 missions. The E replaces the Intruder. No, the C and E
are not the same plane and both the Navy and McD-D openly state that.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
gre...@umich.edu your personal physician. These posts are my
KF8MO personal doings, not a service of nor the
responsibility of the University of Michigan.
SkyVoice
>
> w...@infi.net "W.E. Nichols" writes:
> > Lets start over. They introduced the F/A-18 as a replacement for the A-6.
> > The ORIGINAL replacements have less of a capability than the A-6E. Period!
> > Now don't you think that is a flawed decision? That is a hell of a lot of
> > money as a stop gap measure.
>
> No: the F/A-18A entered the fleet to replace the F-4 and A-7. Various other
> programs (most notably the A-6F, A-6G and A-12) came and went to replace
> the A-6E. Nobody AFAIK ever intended the original Hornet to replace the
> Intruder, because it evidently can't: it needed to be bigger and longer-
> ranged to do that.
>
> > If you do make a comparison between the A-6 and the E/F models you do get an
> > increase of about 10%-13% in bomb load. That is a hell of a price for about
> > ONE MK-84. The FLIR is built into the A-6, its a pod for the F-18. Pods
> > take up racks, thus reducing weapons loads. Other capabilities are also
> > added by pods. Again reducing weapons load.
>
> So carry a FLIR and you only have twice as many racks as an A-6 (ten vs.
> five?) Meanwhile, what have you done to the Intruder to give it any sort
> of credible air-to-air capability? Put a centreline tank and one self-
> defence Sidewinder on the A-6, and you're down to three racks free vs. seven
> for the F/A-18E with wingtip AIM-9s, FLIR and LST.
>
> for the squadrons flying off the USS Saratoga in the Red Sea. The Hornets
> the Intruder squadron lost two. The Hornet is a lot more survivable, flexible
> and versatile than the Intruder is.
>
> > The raw data on comparison can be and often are quite impressive. The only
> > true comparison is to do real world mission/weapons profiles. Then look at
> > the data. You set this up by using NATOPS manuals. Not a memo posted from
> > an AOL account.
>
> I have a nasty feeling those NATOPS manuals are classifed and stamped
> NOFORN. If not, could someone actually get them? Otherwise, we take what
> data we can get and run it through a bullshit filter. However, everyone
> sets theirs differently ;) I think the F/A-18E looks like a very good
> aircraft. You obviously don't agree. Probably only time will settle this
> one.
>
> --
> "When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
> him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
> or for worse, you have acted decisively.
> In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
>
> Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
For certain the A-6 is dead. One of very few aircraft in our past that
was NEVER sold to a foreign nation. A very worthy aircraft. But, face
it, the F/A-18 is a superior aircraft in all respects. The only
shortcoming is the range, however, survivability for the F/A-18 is
heaven compared with the relatively slower A-6. The time has come and
gone for the A-6...too many dollars would have been required to keep
them alive vs. utilizing the only currently available alternative.
Also, given the versatility of the Hornet...it makes sense to have the
ability to determine your mix of mission aircraft for given roles/needs.
And if required, can carry more Hornets "on deck" than a given number of
Intruders. Hey, they doin' a KF/A-18 yet;-)??
W.E. Nichols
wrote:
+ w...@infi.net "W.E. Nichols" writes:
+> The A-6 is ugly, but she is a reliable
+> and sophisticated work horse. Put the A-6 up against the F/A-18 in an
+> isolated conflict and you will see the A-6 win. That is if everything is
+> weighted fairly.
+
+How do you mean "up against"? In an air-to-air match, the Intruder's
+life is likely to be short and fiery. Air-to-ground, the F/A-18C doesn't
+have the range or haul weight of the Intruder, but it does deliver with
+better accuracy and is easier to keep mission capable. The -E model
+beats the Intruder on all counts. Just what does the Intruder do better
+than the F/A-18E?
You certainly caught me there. Of course the A-6 would lose in an ACM
match. My 300ZX will out run your Yugo also. Lets keep with the mission of
the A-6, Attack mode only. There are two primary a/c, attack and fighters.
When you have a duel purpose a/c like the F/A-18 there are going to be major
trade offs in one category or the other. As for the E model, your still
banking on promises. Its not in service yet.
snip
+> The arguments for replacement of the A-6 just don't wash.
+
+Obviously not: someone in the Navy evidently decided that after the A-12
+fiasco, they still had too much money so they decided to waste lots of
+it on a completely useless aircraft that carries more ordnance further
+than the Intruder, is more versatile, and is cheaper to maintain. Far
+better to buy a much older, less capable, less survivable, aircraft
+and keep throwing maintenance man-hours at it.
I am unable, at present, to confirm the fact that the F/A-18 was shoved down
the throat of the navy. Congress seems to have made the decision for the
navy as to what a/c to buy.
W.E. Nichols
+W.E. Nichols reshaped the electrons to say:
+
+: It's criminal to have
+: to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
+
+What are you talking about? We built the F/A-18A/B/C/D as an A-7 and
+F-4 replacement. It wasn't intended as an A-6 replacement. Then
+we built the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. I don't see the problem.
Nice try Andrew. I would strongly suspect that the original F-18 was not a
replacement for the F-4. If it is, it is the first time I have heard it.
Hell, the F-4 had been out of service for several years before the F-18
arrived. The two a/c I referred to was the two completely different models
of the F-18.
The E/F models was a choice the Navy made under duress. With the demise of
the A-12 program, what choice did they have. It equates to a cat covering
up its own mess. If ya nowatimeen.
W.E. Nichols
+>Stealth is okay for conventional radars.
+
+What prary tell, does the military use in addition? Over the Horizon
+radars are great picking them up a long distance off (supposedly).
+Bistatic radars are supposed to have a couple limitations. First being
+that you need to know the locations of the reciever rather well. Second
+you need to be in, or close to, one of the lobes of "bounced" radar.
Conventional radar was a bad choice of terminology. I should have clarified
it to say that when DefCon 1 is set, the radar frequencies of the enemy
changes overnight. Stealth has not been tested with these new frequencies.
stuff deleted. Thanx for the lesson on camouflage.
+>Okay I will spell it out. I have never advocated keeping the A-6.
+
+Oh? Really? My reading comprehension skills must well and truly suck to
+not get that idea from below.
+
+>>N->I would
+>>N->suspect that the cost of rebuilding the F/A-18 would probably pay
+>>N->for the A-6 modernization.
It has nothing to do with you reading comprehension skills. It has to do
with selective listening.
+
+>The crux
+>of all my posts has been that we did not get our moneys worth with the
F-18.
+
+Perhaps. Perhaps not. As part of the (14, 18, 6) combo it seems to work
+well, ne?
If the 14, 18, 6 combo has to do with deck loading of a/c, we could debate
the issue. Depends on the mission.
And what would you replace the F-14 with?
+Global Village Hitman
+F/A-18 Mafia.
Boy, I'm thrilled to no end to learn there is an F/A-18 Mafia. I have been
saddened every since the demise of the A-6 Mafia, of which, actually
existed. John Lehman was the capo de capo. The cheap prick. He invites
you to lunch in the SecNav Mess, then makes you pay for the meal. Really.
There were some excellent officers that saw their careers go by the way
while the A-6 mafia was in power.
+(*cheezy wannabe italian accent*: "Heya, Andrew. Wanna have me pulla
+numba on dis guy?")
Make you first shot count, cuz you'll never get another. <G>
Brian varine
> wba...@nmsu.edu (William Baird) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
> +>Stealth is okay for conventional radars.
> +
> +What prary tell, does the military use in addition? Over the Horizon
> +radars are great picking them up a long distance off (supposedly).
> +Bistatic radars are supposed to have a couple limitations. First being
> +that you need to know the locations of the reciever rather well. Second
> +you need to be in, or close to, one of the lobes of "bounced" radar.
>
> Conventional radar was a bad choice of terminology. I should have clarified
> it to say that when DefCon 1 is set, the radar frequencies of the enemy
> changes overnight. Stealth has not been tested with these new frequencies.
Who cares? The freqs will still be in the same general vicinity of the
old freqs. Switching freqs at war time does not mean a radar that
operates at 9GHz will suddenly operate at 36GHz in wartime. You'd have to
re-engineer the whole system to change the frequency significantly.
Waveguides, antennas, recievers, etc.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> +How do you mean "up against"? In an air-to-air match, the Intruder's
> +life is likely to be short and fiery. Air-to-ground, the F/A-18C doesn't
> +have the range or haul weight of the Intruder, but it does deliver with
> +better accuracy and is easier to keep mission capable. The -E model
> +beats the Intruder on all counts. Just what does the Intruder do better
> +than the F/A-18E?
>
> You certainly caught me there. Of course the A-6 would lose in an ACM
> match. My 300ZX will out run your Yugo also. Lets keep with the mission of
> the A-6, Attack mode only. There are two primary a/c, attack and fighters.
> When you have a duel purpose a/c like the F/A-18 there are going to be major
> trade offs in one category or the other. As for the E model, your still
> banking on promises. Its not in service yet.
By that argument you can't ever buy a new aircraft, because it isn't in
service yet ;) One point to note is flexibility: a driver for the 'Bombcat'
upgrade was the speed with which air superiority was gained in Desert
Storm, which left the F-14s sitting with little to do: giving them an
air-to-ground capability meant the carrier had that much more fighting
power. Replacing the A-6 with the F/A-18E has the same effect: you lose
no air-to-ground capability, while gaining a squadron of capable air
superiority aircraft.
And after the A-12 fiasco, if the Navy doesn't have killer penalty clauses
written into the contract, they deserve everything they get: McDD seem to
be bringing the F/A-18E in underweight at the moment, quite an achievement.
Now, if you built a dedicated mud-mover today, you'd have something much
more capable than either Hornets or Intruders... but it would be a single
mission bird, and with limited numbers on deck that's not such a good idea.
> Congress seems to have made the decision for the navy as to what a/c to buy.
After the mess the Navy made of the decision, can you really blame them?
Arved Sandstrom
>Actually all current carrier based aircraft are obsolete. SAM design has
>far outpaced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war
>today our carrier wings would quickly become decimated.
>
>Go in low and AAA eats you. Go in medium or high and your SAM bait. Lets
>face it a missile will always be able to pull more G's than a pilot.
>
>Until the navy gets a stealth aircraft they will be ineffective over a
>modern battlefield.
This is simplistic. Go in low (_extremely_ low, with terrain-following
radar) and triple-A isn't going to have much prep time, unless you're
over the steppes of Russia. Higher - well, I thought that was what Wild
Weasels and HARM's were for.
I could've sworn that Phantoms, Thuds and B-52's did Ok in probably the
most intense AAA airspace the world has ever known. Yeah, we lost some.
And Iraq had lots of nice stuff. Where does their failure fit in your
theory?
_Most_ of the countries out there don't have a *modern* battlefield. I'd
love to find out if the Bosnian Serbs are using JSTARS, AWACS, etc.,
etc. There are probably 10 nations in the world that can put up
reasonable opposition to US military force. (Not sure if the fUSSR is
still in that list :))
--
Arved H. Sandstro"m | YISDER ZOMENIMOR
Physical Oceanography Group | ORZIZZAZIZ
Dept.of Physics, Memorial Univ. of NFLD | ZANZERIZ
asnd...@crosby.physics.mun.ca | ORZIZ
Charles W. Stewart Jr.
>
> el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
> +W.E. Nichols reshaped the electrons to say:
> +
> +: It's criminal to have
> +: to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
> +
> +What are you talking about? We built the F/A-18A/B/C/D as an A-7 and
> +F-4 replacement. It wasn't intended as an A-6 replacement. Then
> +we built the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. I don't see the problem.
>
> Nice try Andrew. I would strongly suspect that the original F-18 was not a
> replacement for the F-4. If it is, it is the first time I have heard it.
> Hell, the F-4 had been out of service for several years before the F-18
> arrived. The two a/c I referred to was the two completely different models
> of the F-18.
The F-18 was a replacement for the USN A-7 and the USMC F-4. The
Marines never flew the F-14, since all USMC aircraft must have air-to-
ground capability according to USMC docterine. There was significant
overlap between the introduction of the F-18 and the demise of the
USMC F-4s.
Chip
All standard disclaimers apply
W.E. Nichols
wrote:
+I have a nasty feeling those NATOPS manuals are classifed and stamped
+NOFORN. If not, could someone actually get them? Otherwise, we take what
+data we can get and run it through a bullshit filter. However, everyone
+sets theirs differently ;) I think the F/A-18E looks like a very good
+aircraft. You obviously don't agree. Probably only time will settle this
+one.
As far as I know, the NATOPS manuals are not classified or stamped NOFORN.
There may be some classified addendums or associated pubs that are
classified.
Your are correct, time will only tell. Its a sad state of affairs when the
gummint pays billions of dollars for a pig in a poke.
William Baird
>Conventional radar was a bad choice of terminology. I should have clarified
>it to say that when DefCon 1 is set, the radar frequencies of the enemy
>changes overnight. Stealth has not been tested with these new frequencies.
I also suspect that the, as anotehr poster pointed out, the freq's won't
change as much as you think they will unless they rip apart the poor
machine and MAJORLY reengineer it. They'd have to be Motie Engineers to
pull THAT stunt as quickly and well as would be needed.
>If the 14, 18, 6 combo has to do with deck loading of a/c, we could debate
>the issue. Depends on the mission.
Alright then. So be it. What mission of the 1980's was the 6, 18, & 14
ill equipped for? The JSF, 18E, & 14 combo would work rather well for
the new missions envisioned (From The Sea, etc). Missions change. The 6
is falling apart (figuratively at least) and isn't much use outside it's
intended role. The mission of the CVBG has changed and it appears that a
direct replacement for the 6 isn't called for. If the USN & GD/MD hadn't
blown it, we MIGHT be seeing a flight deck of 12's, 18E's, and NATF's.
THis isn't too likely unless RUssia rears up again or someone else does.
>And what would you replace the F-14 with?
Prolly a new airframe. NATF looked good at first, but the 22 deriv
couldn't meet weight speck, IIRC, and teh navy didn't have the cash.
If a fleet interceptor was called for I'd say that the parallel effort
deriv of teh YF-23 would be a good bet. To be noted that the YF-23 might
be more of a technical risk given Northrop's history with stealths (B-2)
and that the YF-23 was a bare bones prototype requiring an extensive EMD
stage (part of teh reason it lost to the YF-22).
Actually, I'd love to see what the current contractors could come up with
themselves. (LM, B, NG, & MD). It may be that if a contractor were
willing to do as much of teh designing and paying for it themselves that
the Navy might be interested after a prototype was made available....but
then again, based on the experience of the '20, prolly not.
Will
>Nick
BTW, saw the MD JSF. If the Boeing plane is uglier than that, I'm terrified!
MICOMA
Nichols) writes:
>el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
>+W.E. Nichols reshaped the electrons to say:
>+
>+: It's criminal to have
>+: to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
>+
>+What are you talking about? We built the F/A-18A/B/C/D as an A-7 and
>+F-4 replacement. It wasn't intended as an A-6 replacement. Then
>+we built the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. I don't see the problem.
>
>Nice try Andrew. I would strongly suspect that the original F-18 was not
a
>replacement for the F-4. If it is, it is the first time I have heard it.
>Hell, the F-4 had been out of service for several years before the F-18
>arrived. The two a/c I referred to was the two completely different
models
>of the F-18.
If indeed this is the first time you have heard that the original F/A-18
was a replacement for the A-7 and F-4, I strongly suggest you take a
little time and go back thru the published material from the mid to late
70's. Then read on into the 80's. What you will find is that in the Navy
the A-7 squadrons got F/A-18s and changed their designations from Attack
(VA) to Strike Fighter (VFA). Also two VF F-4 squadrons (151 & 161) got
F/A-18s and became VFA-151 & 161 flying off MIDWAY. That's the story for
the Navy, now for the other service operating F-4s - the USMC. They
traded in their F-4s for F/A-18s - without changing squadron designations
for the F/A-18A & C models - VMFA. Those Marine squadrons which gave up
F-4s and got FA-18Ds, they changed designations to VMFA(AW).
I don't know how many people have to repeat this same statement for you to
be convinced - the original F/A-18 series (A-D) was not intended as a
replacement for the A-6, but for the A-7 and remaining F-4s in USN/USMC
service. Period.
Mike
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
> el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) Banged on the keyboard and wrote:
>
> +W.E. Nichols reshaped the electrons to say:
> +
> +: It's criminal to have
> +: to build two a/c in ten years to get what you wanted to start with.
> +
> +What are you talking about? We built the F/A-18A/B/C/D as an A-7 and
> +F-4 replacement. It wasn't intended as an A-6 replacement. Then
> +we built the F/A-18E/F to replace the A-6. I don't see the problem.
>
> Nice try Andrew. I would strongly suspect that the original F-18 was not a
> replacement for the F-4. If it is, it is the first time I have heard it.
> Hell, the F-4 had been out of service for several years before the F-18
> arrived. The two a/c I referred to was the two completely different models
> of the F-18.
Phantoms flew with the USAF in Desert Storm, in the Wild Weasel role. The
Marines flew the F-4S until the Summer of 1991, when VMFA-321 at Andrews,
Washington transitioned to ... F/A-18 Hornets.
The origional plan was to equip 6 Navy and 12 USMC fighter squadrons with
Hornets, and transition 24 Navy and 20 USMC Light Attack squadrons as
well. The USMC fighter units went directly from the F-4 to the F/A-18,
beginning in 1982 (or so), and ending in 1991, as I said above. The F-4
had _not_ "been out of service for several years", there were several years
of overlapping service.
The F/A-18D has also replaced the A-6 in the USMC inventory, the A-6's going
to the Navy. Not sure if the Marines still have any A-6's left.
- Grover
Steve Bulger
con...@ccc.com (Conrad) wrote:
>Actually all current carrier based aircraft are obsolete. SAM design has far
out
>paced aircraft design. If we became involved in a Viet Nam type war today our
carrier
>wings would quickly become decimated.
>
>Go in low and AAA eats you. Go in medium or high and your SAM bait. Lets face
it a
>missile will always be able to pull more G's than a pilot.
So what? An aircraft pulling 9G at 400 kts has a _smaller_ turn radius than a
missile pulling 30G at 2000 kts. Assuming the pilot is on the ball, [this is
not a given :) ] evading a SAM is quite possible.
>Until the navy gets a stealth aircraft they will be ineffective over a modern
battlefield.
Suuuurrreeee they will....
Steve
"How do I spell relief? Ctrl-Alt-Delete!"
Gary Rogers
Ok, I'm just a dumb Civie, what is the BombCat upgrade?
(I under stand it's a -14 air to mud upgrade I want details)
Would it be feasible to swap the backseater to something approaching a
Mud Hen? (I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW the air frames are about as olf as the
Intruders, probably all kinds of problems with old wing boxes, etc....)
EDUCATE ME!
Gary Rogers
Novice, initiate, interested
W.E. Nichols
wrote:
We are just about on common ground there, Paul.
+And after the A-12 fiasco, if the Navy doesn't have killer penalty clauses
+written into the contract, they deserve everything they get: McDD seem to
+be bringing the F/A-18E in underweight at the moment, quite an achievement.
Believe it or not, the procurement process is really in favor of the
contractor, not the gummint. At least in the 1-2 mil range contracts. I
would not expect the a/c to hit the fleet underweight. Someone will fill it
up so it is pushing the envelope and of course the price goes up.
+
+but it would be a single mission bird, and with limited numbers on deck
that's not such a good idea.
I have mixed feeling about single mission-vs-multiple mission a/c. Common
sense tells me that a single mission a/c would be the most prudent. With
this thinking, it would ensure a fully capable fighter or attack a/c.
Ideally, the following is my CVW composition.
20-24-F-14s
12-Bomb Trucks (new sole mission attack a/c)
4- Bomb Trucks converted to tankers. (Also Buddy stores capability for
F-18e/f and for Bomb Trucks)
18-F-18E/Fs
4-E-2s
8-S-3s
6-New SH-3s
4-EA-6s or the Bomb Truck equivalent
Of course this is for a standard mission. Depending on the circumstances,
one of the F-14 squadrons could be replaced with an additional Bomb Truck
squadron. Or even remove the S-3s and add more Bomb Trucks. The plans for
changing the a/c mixis not new. We have been doing it for years.
+After the mess the Navy made of the decision, can you really blame them?
Nope. I have some personal experience with NavAir procurement. Not a pretty site.
I have seen them buy the most worthless crap in the world. Crash cranes and
a/c support equipment are a couple. Those folks are firmly entrenched and
operate on the most flawed mentality I have ever seen. So I am not
surprised about the F-18 issue and the A-12.
They start out with good intentions most of the time, but as they get
further along their intentions change. Cost over runs, the contract
process, etc. gets them behind the eight ball. When this happens, they are
like a cat trying to cover their own mess. If my memory is correct, about
the only one who took a fall over the A-12 was the 0-7 program manager. The
commander of NavAir and the DCNO for Air were just a culpable. One of the
DCNOs is a person whom I respect very highly, but he should have gone down
also.
Congress, the program managers and the contract are the root of the problem.
The entire contract process would be a starting point to avoid any further
fiascos such as the A-12.
MICOMA
writes:
>The F/A-18D has also replaced the A-6 in the USMC inventory, the A-6's
going
>to the Navy. Not sure if the Marines still have any A-6's left.
Nope, they're all gone. Couple years now. I believe the low-time A-6s
went to Navy squadrons.
A follow-on question concerning this: Is it your understanding that only
USMC A-6 squadrons went to the F/A-18D? I was under the impression that
at least one USMC F-4 squadron went to F/A-18Ds also. Just curious.
Mike
dnutting
>Ok I have one question, if the A-6 is such a great aircraft and the
>airframes are getting old just how economicly(sp?) stupid would it be to
>put them back into production, upgraded and modernized of course. I would
>really like to hear a good counter argument for this, or even an ok one.
First, the A-6 IS a great aircraft but it's day is done; as for how stupid
would it be to put them back in production.....why not get M-D to put the
A-1 back in production, it was a great aircraft also.
I feel like I've come full circle; I saw the Spads go and the Intruders come
now I'm seeing the Intruder phase out....of course I can remember when we
had VAH squadrons on the boat.
As for the F/A-18, when it first hit the fleet we joked that it was a much
better fighter than the A-6 and a lot better attack plane than the F-14 but
it has proven itself over and over. I understand the new F/A-18E/F will be
one hell of an airplane; one of it's few drawbacks is that it will take up
just a bit more deck space than the original but, since there won't be any
A-6's cluttering up the deck.......
Dwayne
Jim McCoy
[...]
> Now, if you built a dedicated mud-mover today, you'd have something much
> mission bird, and with limited numbers on deck that's not such a good idea.
What kind of mission capablities would a new naval ground-attack plane
possibly share with other planes or possible future missions that might
give such an airframe similar multi-role capabilities to the Hornet? I
am assuming that a good naval ground-attack aircraft would be:
-twin engine/subsonic; we will trade speed for a studier airframe
(to haul heavier loads), low speed maneuverability, and for
longer range and loiter times. A fast dash capability would
be nice but not worth compromising the first three criterea.
-good avionics, heavy emphasis on LO and passive systems.
-reduced observability as a primary design goal but not the
purpose for the plane...
-light armoring of the crew compartment, or some form of
serious ground-fire protection.
-a strong airframe (what is the heaviest package in the US
inventory that does not require a B-1 or bigger? T-LAM?)
What other things could such an airframe do? Might it be useful in SEAD,
ASW, and recce? It seems that the Hornet is indicating that single-role
aircraft are not in the short-term picture when a multi-role plane can
do some of the job just as well (not all of it, but some...) So, what
other roles could an aircraft designed mainly for ground-attack perform?
jim
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Banged on the keyboard and
> wrote:
> +And after the A-12 fiasco, if the Navy doesn't have killer penalty clauses
> +written into the contract, they deserve everything they get: McDD seem to
> +be bringing the F/A-18E in underweight at the moment, quite an achievement.
>
> Believe it or not, the procurement process is really in favor of the
> contractor, not the gummint. At least in the 1-2 mil range contracts.
Sheesh... given the sort of penalties we get if we don't deliver on time,
meeting reliability specs, et cetera, that surprises me. Especially after
the A-12.
> I would not expect the a/c to hit the fleet underweight. Someone will fill
> it up so it is pushing the envelope and of course the price goes up.
Oh, yeah, it always goes that way: but at least it's *underweight* during
development and they can just stick stuff in. That's way cheaper than
paring ounces whenever you want to add something.
> +but it would be a single mission bird, and with limited numbers on deck
> that's not such a good idea.
>
> I have mixed feeling about single mission-vs-multiple mission a/c. Common
> sense tells me that a single mission a/c would be the most prudent. With
> this thinking, it would ensure a fully capable fighter or attack a/c.
> Ideally, the following is my CVW composition.
>
> 20-24-F-14s
> 12-Bomb Trucks (new sole mission attack a/c)
> 4- Bomb Trucks converted to tankers. (Also Buddy stores capability for
> F-18e/f and for Bomb Trucks)
> 18-F-18E/Fs
> 4-E-2s
> 8-S-3s
> 6-New SH-3s
> 4-EA-6s or the Bomb Truck equivalent
>
> Of course this is for a standard mission. Depending on the circumstances,
> one of the F-14 squadrons could be replaced with an additional Bomb Truck
> squadron. Or even remove the S-3s and add more Bomb Trucks. The plans for
> changing the a/c mixis not new. We have been doing it for years.
The problem is when a carrier with an air-to-ground deck gets told to go
enforce a no-fly zone, and A-6-type birds have to shadow MiG-29s and
make "land or we shoot" stick. Look at how the Tomcat got shut out of
Desert Storm: there wasn't an air-superiority mission, so the F-14
was relegated to necessary but dull tasks, while its latent capability
in the air-to-ground mission would have been very useful.
My personal choice for an A-6 replacement is something along the lines of
the Tornado or F-14: a VG aircraft with some low-observable features and
the ability to get in fast and low if stealth doesn't work, mostly hauling
air-to-mud ordnance in large amounts but able to bolt on racks of medium-
range air-to-air missiles and act as an outer-zone interceptor. (not much
ACM capability, but this bird would salvo off its AMRAAMs and then scoot,
leaving the Hornets to absorb the survivors). But that's a WAG after too much
Bulgarian red wine :)
As it is, it looks like the F/A-18E will be a good aircraft: hopefully,
like the F-4 (my personal favourite all-time great) it'll turn out to be
a jack of all trades, and enough of a master of them all for government
work.
Matt Clonfero
> My personal choice for an A-6 replacement is something along the lines of
> the Tornado or F-14:
Arrgh! `Can Tornado Land on a Carrier' thread predicted.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Here are the USMC squadrons which went to the F/A-18D:
VMFAT-101, VMFA(AW)-121, -225, and -242, all operating out of El Toro,
CA. The VMFA(AW) squadrons went from the A-6E, VMFAT-101 went from the
F-4S into its' current role of training, so you're right.
- Grover
W.E. Nichols
wrote:
+ w...@infi.net "W.E. Nichols" writes:
+> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Banged on the keyboard and
+> wrote:
+> +And after the A-12 fiasco, if the Navy doesn't have killer penalty
clauses
+> +written into the contract, they deserve everything they get: McDD seem
to
+> +be bringing the F/A-18E in underweight at the moment, quite an
achievement.
+>
+> Believe it or not, the procurement process is really in favor of the
+> contractor, not the gummint. At least in the 1-2 mil range contracts.
+
+Sheesh... given the sort of penalties we get if we don't deliver on time,
+meeting reliability specs, et cetera, that surprises me. Especially after
+the A-12.
Maybe so, but they make for it other ways and they do quite well at it.
+> changing the a/c mixis not new. We have been doing it for years.
+
+The problem is when a carrier with an air-to-ground deck gets told to go
+enforce a no-fly zone, and A-6-type birds have to shadow MiG-29s and
+make "land or we shoot" stick. Look at how the Tomcat got shut out of
+Desert Storm: there wasn't an air-superiority mission, so the F-14
+was relegated to necessary but dull tasks, while its latent capability
+in the air-to-ground mission would have been very useful.
The main reason the F-14 got shut out has to do with inter service rivalry.
The Air Farce finally had a mission where they could do their thing with out
haveing a 8 hour transit.
I can not conceptulize a conventional mission where my deck load would not
be able to fully execute the battle plan in any part of the world. Except
maybe deep into the interior of Europe or the ex Soviet Republics. Even the
AF would have extreme difficultly with that.
+My personal choice for an A-6 replacement is something along the lines of
+the Tornado or F-14: a VG aircraft with some low-observable features and
+the ability to get in fast and low if stealth doesn't work, mostly hauling
+air-to-mud ordnance in large amounts but able to bolt on racks of medium-
+range air-to-air missiles and act as an outer-zone interceptor. (not much
+ACM capability, but this bird would salvo off its AMRAAMs and then scoot,
+leaving the Hornets to absorb the survivors).
Why not just update the A-6 from the ground up. The lessons learned from
its past would certainly make it cheaper and a much more superior a/c.
+But that's a WAG after too much Bulgarian red wine :)
I hope that stuff is better than Virginia wines, which sux.
MICOMA
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>Here are the USMC squadrons which went to the F/A-18D:
>
>VMFAT-101, VMFA(AW)-121, -225, and -242, all operating out of El Toro,
>CA. The VMFA(AW) squadrons went from the A-6E, VMFAT-101 went from the
>F-4S into its' current role of training, so you're right.
This is splitting hairs, as you plainly know your USMC squadron numbers,
but weren't the USMC A-6 outfits designated as VMA(AW)s? That's my
understanding in any event. Then, once they got F/A-18Ds they were
redesignated VMFA(AW)s.
Of course now -121, -225, -242 have (or are to) move to Miramar - right?.
I wasn't even thinking of the VMFAT outfit, so it appears no operational
outfit switched from F-4Ss to F/A-18Ds. I stand corrected on my earlier
statement regarding the switching of A-7 and F-4 squadrons to F/A-18s.
Thanks for the additional info.
Mike
00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
> In article <1995Dec23...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
> 00jeg...@bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>
>>Here are the USMC squadrons which went to the F/A-18D:
>>
>>VMFAT-101, VMFA(AW)-121, -225, and -242, all operating out of El Toro,
>>CA. The VMFA(AW) squadrons went from the A-6E, VMFAT-101 went from the
>>F-4S into its' current role of training, so you're right.
>
> This is splitting hairs, as you plainly know your USMC squadron numbers,
> but weren't the USMC A-6 outfits designated as VMA(AW)s? That's my
> understanding in any event. Then, once they got F/A-18Ds they were
> redesignated VMFA(AW)s.
That's correct, the USMC A-6 outfits were VMA(AW) before the transition.
>
> Of course now -121, -225, -242 have (or are to) move to Miramar - right?.
I'm not certain where they're going. Maybe Lemoore - there's already
several Navy F/A-18 Attack Squadrons there. Miramar is (was?) the home
of the PACFLT F-14 & E-2 community, so I wouldn't expect Marine Attack
Squadrons there, but who knows? I'm having a heck of a time keeping up
with the ship decommissionings, let alone basing changes. Another real
shocker for me was learning that VF-84 "Jolly Rogers" was being
decommissioned - their skull & crossbones markings were always a favorite
of mine.
>
> I wasn't even thinking of the VMFAT outfit, so it appears no operational
> outfit switched from F-4Ss to F/A-18Ds. I stand corrected on my earlier
> statement regarding the switching of A-7 and F-4 squadrons to F/A-18s.
>
> Thanks for the additional info.
>
> Mike
Glad to help.
- Grover