|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2014 10:48:19 GMT -6
Quote is from the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System website. Note the underlined phrase. Seems to say it all, at least for me.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 18, 2014 8:25:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 18, 2014 13:46:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 23, 2014 8:15:57 GMT -6
Regardless of how effective of an aircraft it is, I'm hoping that the Pentagon and the aviation industry is taking note never to run an aircraft procurement program this way again. To put it politely, it's a complete Charlie-Foxtrot. Haven't had time to sit down and watch the 60 Minutes piece, but I did read that despite the "critical" attitude there were no interviews with the actual outside critics of the F-35; everyone interviewed was either with the Pentagon or Lockheed-Martin. medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5dThe F-35B has some more bulkhead cracking issues now - www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_21_2014_p0-666195.xml
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 23, 2014 9:21:44 GMT -6
Regardless of how effective of an aircraft it is, I'm hoping that the Pentagon and the aviation industry is taking note never to run an aircraft procurement program this way again. To put it politely, it's a complete Charlie-Foxtrot. Haven't had time to sit down and watch the 60 Minutes piece, but I did read that despite the "critical" attitude there were no interviews with the actual outside critics of the F-35; everyone interviewed was either with the Pentagon or Lockheed-Martin. medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5dThe F-35B has some more bulkhead cracking issues now - www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_21_2014_p0-666195.xmlCenter barrel problems!! That is unbelievable, because its predecessor, the F-18A had exactly the same issue when we brought them in for depot maintenance, we had to remove the center barrels and send them to MacAir for rebuild. Now the plane hasn't even reached production and flying status and they have already found center barrel cracks. I am depressed.
This program's problems really stemmed from the Pentagon who could not establish and maintain a consistent set of requirements for the aircraft and the manufacturers had to hit a moving target which boosts costs. Couple this with a lack of spending controls and this is what is the result. Much of this also is related to the change in our geopolitical goals from Cold War to fighting little wars and maintenance of peacetime patrols everywhere. It changed the paradigm for weapons development. Lots of changes, caused lots of moving targets for all weapons systems. Couple this with the spending cuts as we ramped down from the Cold War and this is the result. No politics but I've been watching this stuff for over a half of a century.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 25, 2014 10:50:38 GMT -6
I've been attempting to get more detailed information on the budget cuts because all I can find is media reports.... none of which give you details. I agree with the A-10 elimination, as the drones and missiles can do a much better job with less risk. None of our possible opponents has a large tank force, the savings are important. I believe that they should eliminate the George Washington, but buy another Gerald Ford to replace in fifteen years. The Army reduction is a no brainer. I told my wife a few years ago, that we need to reduce US Army brigades and make them as self-contained and mobile as possible. Special forces like Rangers and SEALS are a far better trained and equipped force to deal with most situations. Base closures is a no brainer also. It's time to reduce our infrastructure which really boosts the cost of our force structure.
Please, no politics on this. Just the facts.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 25, 2014 16:38:14 GMT -6
Skirting politics on this will be kind of hard. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the budget issues are largely a creation of a Congress that seems to have a used car salesman's "I can getcha that for only $999.99!" attitude towards revenue and spending. But let's skip that.
The Army reductions I agree with. I think we've learned our lesson that even with the force we built up in the last decade, we cannot or should not attempt to wage large-scale, long-term ground operations. The biggest army in the world is useless if you can't get it to the fight in a timely fashion, and we don't have the transport capacity to get a lot of troops and equipment someplace in a hurry. The alternative is to preposition troops around the world, and that has its own cans of worms associated. The A-10 reduction I'm not crazy about especially since the proposed replacement (the F-35) is still a bit of a question mark, but I can see the logic.
On the naval front, I do not agree with the idea of taking CVN-73 out of service. To me that's just penny-wise and pound-foolish, junking a strategically valuable platform with a good 20+ years of service left in it. If you want to shrink the carrier fleet, speed up the retirement dates for CVN-68 and CVN-69; they're older hulls with higher maintenance requirements and less than ten years of service remaining. Likewise, I am not keen on the purported sidelining of half the remaining Ticos; those are newer ships of the class that simply require upgrades to the Aegis system. Pulling three of the LSD-47 ships from service may be a worthwhile move, given that we seem to be moving away from the requirement to have 12 of them.
Personally, I found the announcements about the LCS program to be the most intriguing, but that's a topic that should go in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 25, 2014 17:56:28 GMT -6
Skirting politics on this will be kind of hard. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the budget issues are largely a creation of a Congress that seems to have a used car salesman's "I can getcha that for only $999.99!" attitude towards revenue and spending. But let's skip that. The Army reductions I agree with. I think we've learned our lesson that even with the force we built up in the last decade, we cannot or should not attempt to wage large-scale, long-term ground operations. The biggest army in the world is useless if you can't get it to the fight in a timely fashion, and we don't have the transport capacity to get a lot of troops and equipment someplace in a hurry. The alternative is to preposition troops around the world, and that has its own cans of worms associated. The A-10 reduction I'm not crazy about especially since the proposed replacement (the F-35) is still a bit of a question mark, but I can see the logic. On the naval front, I do not agree with the idea of taking CVN-73 out of service. To me that's just penny-wise and pound-foolish, junking a strategically valuable platform with a good 20+ years of service left in it. If you want to shrink the carrier fleet, speed up the retirement dates for CVN-68 and CVN-69; they're older hulls with higher maintenance requirements and less than ten years of service remaining. Likewise, I am not keen on the purported sidelining of half the remaining Ticos; those are newer ships of the class that simply require upgrades to the Aegis system. Pulling three of the LSD-47 ships from service may be a worthwhile move, given that we seem to be moving away from the requirement to have 12 of them. Personally, I found the announcements about the LCS program to be the most intriguing, but that's a topic that should go in another thread. We agree that the army reductions are necessary. The A-10 does not have survivability in the modern battlefield, it was lucky in the Gulf War because of the lack of good quality ground to air, even then it took some real hits. If they can replace it's mission with unmanned drones, I think that is a good idea. As to the George Washington, she will not be retired, just mothballed. Keep in mind, that the GW is stationed in Japan and I've seen this before. Those ships don't get the SLEP as often as others and hence become the first candidates for mothballing. It makes perfect sense. If you have just sent a ship through an extensive SLEP, why mothball it, use another ship that hasn't because in the long run, it will save you money.
I am not certain removing the Tico's is a good plan but I really would like to hear the Navy's reasoning. Remember, SECDEF asks the Navy for recommendations on how to slim down the budget, then they discuss their recommendations so this idea is coming from the Navy itself. We need to find out what the reason is. According to sources, the Navy already had plans to retire nine Tico's in 2013 and 2014 so this is something that has been in the wind for years. I also know that they have been having problems with the aluminum alloy used to build the ship, it seems to have a prevalence for cracking. This maybe the reason the navy wants to eliminate them as soon as possible instead of trying to rebuild them.
As to the LCS program, I think this is a lousy program and will not live up to its hype.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 25, 2014 20:56:40 GMT -6
I'm going to shift further discussion of shipbuilding issues to the "21st Century Naval Ships and Launchings" thread, just to keep this one on aircraft. To the Red Force side of the issue - medium.com/war-is-boring/af28abb0be7d
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 28, 2014 16:51:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 30, 2014 14:24:04 GMT -6
Sorry for the late reply, we were staying in Mission Bay at a resort and just came home.
I can't see any real problem with using the f-14 as a bomb truck except that bomb trucks do not have a great survivability rate without laser guidance. The real question is how many are still flying? Some sources say about 19. The original 800 F-14s did not have air to ground capability and that was added with a LANTIRN system. I seriously doubt that the Iranian's got any of those upgrades after the 80 Tomcats were delivered. So, now the question how are they going to drop the bombs? The LANTIRN system or Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared could come from the Soviets. IMO, they should leave it as an interceptor. It's suited for it and much more survivable in that role. Of course, maintenance if vital. The bird is not the easiest to work on, take my word for it. I hope they are using DuPont 3145 sealant on the avionics boxes or they are going to have many problems. The plane leaks.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 30, 2014 17:39:27 GMT -6
I get the impression that in the 1980s they weren't going for precision - more like scream in at high altitude and high speed, toss the bombs, and hope you at least scare someone. Nowadays they might have bought or kitbashed together some LGB kits and designators. If they're having a dodgy time keeping the fire-control radars and other AtoA systems in working order they may just be trying to squeeze some use out of them as bomb trucks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2014 8:00:57 GMT -6
I get the impression that in the 1980s they weren't going for precision - more like scream in at high altitude and high speed, toss the bombs, and hope you at least scare someone. Nowadays they might have bought or kitbashed together some LGB kits and designators. If they're having a dodgy time keeping the fire-control radars and other AtoA systems in working order they may just be trying to squeeze some use out of them as bomb trucks. Actually, you would scream in at low altitude, then pull up and loft the bomb, especially a 7000 lbs. bomb! They have developed a reasonably good aircraft industry and have demonstrated some good practical solutions to problems like the night targeting and precision.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 2, 2014 8:25:31 GMT -6
BTW, there are many mission profiles that are used: high-low-high, low-high-low, low-low-low etc. The profile depends on topography, air defenses, type of aircraft etc. I will elaborate if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2014 19:11:25 GMT -6
|
|