habu2 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Waco, Can I get an Amen, brother??? Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Phantom Works, Not to bash you, but I'm getting a kick out of your posts! You really, really, really, really need to spend some time on the pointy end of the spear for a while -- Waco is spot on from my experience (13 years of flying for the Navy). Among your other points...100 F-22's is NOWHERE near enough for the current threats out there. And if you think a mad islamic terrorist is the greatest danger to the United States, you need to read Jane's Defense Weekly, Armed Forces Journal, JFQ, etc. more. Quite frankly, one of the biggest advantages of the F-22 is that it is flying NOW! How many times have we seen something at hand cancelled, with "the plan" shifted to a future offering that never materializes. Look at the USMC now.... For the X-32, you guys lost because your technology demonstrater was not representative of the product offering. Plain and simple. The material out of the JSF office clearly states this. Heck, that was on the NOVA show about the competition. L-M was ready to rock and roll. Boeing wasn't. Is that reality? Maybe not, but that's the perception that has been put out. I'm out. 2's in if they want. Spongebob BTW - testing with the V-22 shows that it is far MORE survivable in Vortex Ring State than a regular helo - rotate the nacelles and power out. If it hadn't been 2 C-130 guys flying the thing, that mishap wouldn't have happened.... VRS is a big black area in the helo's flight envelope and you are trained from day 1 not to go there or you will die. An H-46 doing that same maneuver would have hit the dirt more than hard enough to kill everybody also. Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 And if you think a mad islamic terrorist is the greatest danger to the United States, you need to read Jane's Defense Weekly, Armed Forces Journal, JFQ, etc. more. ...jsut HAD to post this!! B) :D http://centerclick.org:81/videos/archive/s...oviet_union.mov (If u get an error, tis because someone else is downloading, only lets 2 at a time etc.....) regards Raymond Link to post Share on other sites
phantom works Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) no big deal for me if somehow you guys don't agree with my points.......and quite a few of the points I've made waco seems to conveniently ignore.........but for the record I think waco makes a strong argument if the thing didn't cost so damn much. I never bothered to check any of waco's numbers, but I was told the other day by someone who certainly should know....that the USAF could buy up to 6 F-15E's for every F-22 it buys........now waco don't shoot the messenger on this one......I'm just saying I haven't checked all your cost figures out so I haven't debated you much on that point. At the end of the day it will be quite interesting to see if this AEF concept with F-22's, F-35's etc, etc ever happens (it won't).........guess time will tell if my argument, or position let's say.....wins out over waco's position. Simply stated, the United States cant keep trying to buy weapons systems the same way they always did.......Again at the end of the day, nothing personal in my comments.....just mixing it up a little bit. I can't quite remember if I hijacked the thread, or if waco did.....but I enjoyed the discussion.......... You have a strange definition of "turkey". Exactly what aerodynamic/performance margin are we talking about? So far the engine's installed thrust is higher than expected, we have thrust to spare (slowing the d@mn thing down is usually a factor), aerodynamically it out-turns, out-climbs, and out-accels everything else in existence, and is performing above spec in the maneuvering category. Sounds like plenty of spare performance to me. granted, in the stealthy OCA scenerio that is very hard to justify given the end of the cold war and with end of cold war budget realities....but I don't want to go in circles anymore.........the budget realities will come and find you and me both, don't matter who is right or wrong. Avionics-wise, the SA and tactial picture it provides are near-AWACS quality, with better resolution for weapons targeting. we could hang the avionics on a lear jet and use it versus 90% of the potential enemies we may face in an OCA scenerio.........the other 10% I'll grant you, we could use an F-22. Maybe your AEF concept could use some F-22 detachments like the british do with the 4 tornado's down in the falklands or NATO does providing air defense for lithuania or something like that (hehehehehehehehe) It carries a full complement of the most advanced A/A missiles, in equivalent numbers to the current leading A/A fighter (F-15C), or it can carry a mix of A/A and A/G weapons, again in equivalent numbers to other multi-role/strike aircraft, wow, you're telling me the F-22 can carry 4 x 2000 pounders plus 4x amraam? or 12 x 500 pounders and 4 x amraams......or any number of combinations of A/A and A/G weapons......plus three bags of gas? wow.....I guess I should go back and read some more janes.... For the X-32, you guys lost because your technology demonstrater was not representative of the product offering. Plain and simple. The material out of the JSF office clearly states this. Heck, that was on the NOVA show about the competition. L-M was ready to rock and roll. Boeing wasn't. Is that reality? Maybe not, but that's the perception that has been put out. hey I'm glad you mentioned that nova show......that was a great program. The back of my (red) head is actually in that at some point......I think I was on the phone at the time. Anyway, the JSF story is a great story. It actually is a story of the final stake in the heart of a once great aircraft company.....Mcdonnell Douglas...and we did it to ourselves. We in St. Louis had the particular distinction of loosing that competion twice...........We were fortunate here in St. Louis to be given the fwd fuselage of the X-32 and we did a very good job in terms of design and mfg team in that we did what we said we would do for the price we said we'd do it (basically)........but the boeing entry in the competition was a long shot from the very beginning.......in fact it was truly a V/STOL turkey from day one. Now, with that said, and you may remember from the NOVA show, there was a point in the competition where the customer could have defaulted LM and awarded the contract to Boeing because LM was so far over cost and behind schedule (if memory serves)......but the customer let LM stay in it.......bottom line, the LM approach to V/STOL was more risky for a higher pay off...and there was a period of time where it didn't appear they were going to pull it off........at boeing, we pretty much did what we said we would do, and proved that the company could design and build on schedule and cost.......but the V/STOL concept going in was already maxed out. In fact, they had to take the landing gear doors, inlet lip, etc....off the airframe, and do hover and V/STOL in pax river because of the density altitude.......and we still had hot gas ingestion issues......this on an aircraft that was only a demonstrator, not a weapons system (with all the associated weight that goes with making something a warplane instead of a test plane).........now, sometime halfway thru the competion the customer changed the requirements to such a degree that the original configuration for the X-32 could not meet the bringback requirements (if I remember correctly) without adding some tail surfaces to get the ability to trim the aircraft while still meeting the bringback/landing requirments (again, if memory serves me correctly)... I kind of flipantly say that all LM had to do was not crash and they would win, but the basic truth is, they had a better concept but it was higher risk.......I suppose that's why I hear the thing got real heavy real fast and real behind schedule after they got serious about a PWSC. No sour grapes for me on that one..... Edited December 21, 2005 by phantom works Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 88 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) Too many words, must put glasses on. ;) Why don't we buy some Eurofighters. :D Edited December 21, 2005 by Super Hornet 88 Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Isnt there still some Voodoos in the Bagotville fire dump? Lets rejig them!!! :D Link to post Share on other sites
raptor22 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) this thead is too funny.... F-15SG ---> F-22A ---> F-35 JSF Edited December 22, 2005 by Ken Middleton Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Phantom Works, Yep, that was a very interesting show! It also highlighted some great behind the scenes stuff - like the "dour" meeting where the decision was made to change designs at Boeing. It seemed like management forced the decision to go with the new tail for the actual proposal...and added to an overall stodgey and dour team. Contrasted with L-M, where it really seemed like they were a bunch of "airplane" guys having fun. That could just be the show. My guess would be L-M got the $$ reprieve because of the potential their lift system had.... And weight is always an issue - nothing ends up weighing as little as planned! Spongebob Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Sooooo .... Singapore is buying Strike Eagles ehhhh ??? Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
hatchet Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I had to listen to someone I know proclaim how they will soon replace everything in our inventory and about how all other forms of thought were purely nonsencial bs.... right. Duncan? Duncan Sandys?? I thought he was dead!!! :) Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I for one have gotten quite a lot out of WACO's "altered" responses. :lol: :huh: :D :D An honest question for our fighter guys (to completely hijack the thread, hehehe) What do you think of the future of UCAVs? I had to listen to someone I know proclaim how they will soon replace everything in our inventory and about how all other forms of thought were purely nonsencial bs.... right. Where do you see them being practically applied in a combat scene? At full strength, serving in conjunction with manned aircraft performing patrol/intercept/strike missions? In a future conflict could a UCAV pilot become an "armchair ace"? I appreciate the thoughts from our airborne military community here. Thank you. -Brady Brady, They certainly have a future, probably in reconnaisance, interdiction and weasel type missions. There are others though, like CAS and air to air where the human element is probably needed. The idea is to put armed UCAV's on missions well away from friendly troops, the Patriot has already demonstrated what a machine on full automatic mode can do. Frankly (and IMHO) I wouldn't be shocked to see the F-35 cancelled and its place taken by a mix of UCAVs, and late block F-16's and F-15's. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
phantom works Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Yep, that was a very interesting show! It also highlighted some great behind the scenes stuff - like the "dour" meeting where the decision was made to change designs at Boeing. It seemed like management forced the decision to go with the new tail for the actual proposal...and added to an overall stodgey and dour team.Contrasted with L-M, where it really seemed like they were a bunch of "airplane" guys having fun. That could just be the show. My guess would be L-M got the $$ reprieve because of the potential their lift system had.... oh man that meeting scene was great wasn't it........they show the poor configuration team agonizing over the tails and you can see the stress on their faces, so they go and man up and decide to make the change to the "pelikan tail" instead of the 4 tail arrangement.........then they take it to the boss and the boss sez "no I think we'll go with the 4 tail arrangement".....hehehehehehe.................I don't know if the general public realizes just how few people are actually involved in what an airplane configuration ends up looking like.......yes there's hundreds or thousands of designers on the team, but you could count on one hand and have fingers to spare for how many people are involved in the decisions that define what the configuration will be....... Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I can do a cartwheel. B) Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
JohnCeglarek Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 My only question, as someone who's coming to this thread very late, is why in the world did you edit out all your posts, WACO? I was really looking forward to reading them along with Murph's, and all there is is that stupid dancing hot dog! John Link to post Share on other sites
General Grievous Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I for one have gotten quite a lot out of WACO's "altered" responses. An honest question for our fighter guys (to completely hijack the thread, hehehe) What do you think of the future of UCAVs? I had to listen to someone I know proclaim how they will soon replace everything in our inventory and about how all other forms of thought were purely nonsencial bs.... right. Where do you see them being practically applied in a combat scene? At full strength, serving in conjunction with manned aircraft performing patrol/intercept/strike missions? In a future conflict could a UCAV pilot become an "armchair ace"? I appreciate the thoughts from our airborne military community here. Thank you. -Brady http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382992/ :lol: GG Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 the real future of UAVs? Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 (edited) Hey phantom works Since you worked on the JSF program have a question, we were told that in the JSF presentation area that you guys had, there was at one time a crank handle sticking out of the wall that went into a buck of nuts and bolts and stuff and you would have people turn the crank and you would get this big god awful crunching sound and feel, and the remark would be something to the like, " Yeah, that’s what going to happens with the LM lift fan clutch.", true or an old wives tale? Regards Jim Barr Edited December 22, 2005 by Jim Barr Link to post Share on other sites
phantom works Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 not in st. louis.......maybe in seattle......but we certainly did think that's what the lift clutch would sound like! hehehehe, maybe it still will who knows....... Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 hehehehe, maybe it still will who knows....... Oh I think it has been pretty well proven that it works. Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 My only regret is coming to the show too late to see Waco's replies... Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 (edited) Ditto. Though this is certainly quite a thread. Edited December 23, 2005 by David Walker Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts