Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-22s fly first combat mission

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I seem to recall something similar, if I remember correctly, the F-14 could only make an arrested landing with 5 Phoenix, and only then if they had a healthy headwind. At half a million dollars each, I'm sure they weren't casually dumping those Phoenix missiles in the drink however.
    A healthy headwind and the ship doing 27knots . . . which is why I said, you rarely, if ever, saw them launch that way.
    Last edited by desertswo; 25 Sep 14,, 18:05.

    Comment


    • #17
      Desertswo,

      Do you have any insight as to why the USN end up going for the F-14 instead of the F-111b? My understanding is that the F-111b could bring back a full weapons load. I believe both planes actually used the same engines, radar, and missiles. Was the F-111b just too heavy?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
        Desertswo,

        Do you have any insight as to why the USN end up going for the F-14 instead of the F-111b? My understanding is that the F-111b could bring back a full weapons load. I believe both planes actually used the same engines, radar, and missiles. Was the F-111b just too heavy?
        The basic entering argument that one must grasp is that it is far easier for the US Air Force to take an aircraft designed for the Navy and convert it to their uses, than for the Navy to take one designed for the Air Force and convert it to theirs. By the time the Bravo variant was suitably "naval-ized" such that it could survive repeated iterations of that controlled crash that is the arrested landing, it was a bit of a pig. No one was happy. Not the Navy and not the manufacturer, so along came Grumman, with their long history of making fine airplanes for the Navy, took the best parts of the F-111B, and gave us the Tomcat.

        Comment


        • #19
          Not to mention when the F-111 rolled off the assembly line it was an absolute parts hog. It took about 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. It would have been difficult to keep the parts level high enough in the fleet to keep the operational rates within tolerance.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
            Not to mention when the F-111 rolled off the assembly line it was an absolute parts hog. It took about 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. It would have been difficult to keep the parts level high enough in the fleet to keep the operational rates within tolerance.
            Which was yet another reason the Navy didn't want it. The real truth is that they never wanted it. It was crammed down their throats by the various McNamara acolytes in the DoD.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by desertswo View Post
              The basic entering argument that one must grasp is that it is far easier for the US Air Force to take an aircraft designed for the Navy and convert it to their uses, than for the Navy to take one designed for the Air Force and convert it to theirs. By the time the Bravo variant was suitably "naval-ized" such that it could survive repeated iterations of that controlled crash that is the arrested landing, it was a bit of a pig. No one was happy. Not the Navy and not the manufacturer, so along came Grumman, with their long history of making fine airplanes for the Navy, took the best parts of the F-111B, and gave us the Tomcat.
              Yes, the F-111 was indeed a "pig" when it came to navalizing it; as desertswo succinctly put it, Air Force aircraft don't do the navalizing thing very well, it's usually the other way around (AD-1/A-1, F-4, A-3/B-66, A-7, etc.). There's a reason the Navy never got on-board with a navalized variant of either the F-15 or the F-22. The F-111 eventually turned out to be a decent Air Force/RAAF plane, but that was only after 25 years of fine-tuning and working the bugs out.
              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                Yes, the F-111 was indeed a "pig" when it came to navalizing it; as desertswo succinctly put it, Air Force aircraft don't do the navalizing thing very well, it's usually the other way around (AD-1/A-1, F-4, A-3/B-66, A-7, etc.). There's a reason the Navy never got on-board with a navalized variant of either the F-15 or the F-22. The F-111 eventually turned out to be a decent Air Force/RAAF plane, but that was only after 25 years of fine-tuning and working the bugs out.
                It was obviously great in the AAW suppression mission. I know more than a few Air Force two and three-stars who were wishing they were still available in the Spring of 1999. I was in the NMCC when the future suddenly changed and all of the EA-6Bs that were in line for decommissioning were instantaneously "op held" and a bunch sent to the fray, and all of them placed on the list of 30 or so military capabilities that are controlled directly by SECDEF by way of the Chairman (it's faintly unconstitutional, but we do it anyway). It seems that stealth wasn't quite as stealthy as we all hoped it would remain, and an old mission suddenly resurrected itself.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                  Overkill.And it won't capture cities back.
                  Using the F-22?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                    Which was yet another reason the Navy didn't want it. The real truth is that they never wanted it. It was crammed down their throats by the various McNamara acolytes in the DoD.
                    Sir, do you find the F-35 program to be "similar" to the F-111 program?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                      Overkill.And it won't capture cities back.
                      Flying missions over Syria, without a guarantee that the Syrian IADS might decide to "accidentally" use the USAF for target practice?

                      No, not overkill at all. A smart move.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        TopHatter,

                        My optimistic side says that it seems like Assad is doing his best to work his way back into the US's good graces short of giving up power. Surely he isn't stupid enough to invite retaliation by shooting down American warplanes.

                        My cynical side tends to agree that using stealthy aircraft is prudent, since Assad may not have firm control over his military forces.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                          My cynical side tends to agree that using stealthy aircraft is prudent, since Assad may not have firm control over his military forces.
                          Not cynical, pragmatic. Pragmatic in every sense of the word.

                          Whether accidentally or "accidentally", an incoming SAM is still an incoming SAM.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X