Does the USN need a new skyraider?

[Werner]

Doesn't matter. Until the DARPA Mach 6 aircraft is available, CONUS based bombers can shock the enemy, but they will never sustain the engagement.

[Werner]

The last mission for the A-6E Intruder was to approach a USSR task group containing Kirov and Slava as well as several other types, to within 20Km at altitudes of 5m or less from multiple points of the compass simultaneously, and deploy HARM, Harpoon and Mavericks to "behead" the attack units and confuse, and ultimately destroy their defenses.

[Seasick]

A few points:

1. A navalized F-16 is not practical at this point.
-- The landing gear and airframe are totally unacceptable. The F-16 would need to have the landing gear completely redesigned.
-- The radar would need to be upgraded to somthing that would be capable of maritime strike.

2. A-7E in the First Gulf war.
-- The A-7E with its large bomb load and advanced bombing avionics underperformed. The unguided bombs dropped by the A-7E did no better hiting targets than earlier generations of the A-7. [This is the opinion GHWBush's Secretary of defense Richard "Dick" Cheney in 1992 when he recomended the aircraft be decomissioned.]
-- The A-6F was canceled by Reagan administration Secretary of the Navy Lehman.

3. The F/A-18E/F 'Super Hornets' are far more cost effective than the F-14. The F-14 was a hanger hog.
4. JDAM bombs are not expensive. JDAMs are regular Mk82, Mk83, and Mk84 bombs with a strap on GPS guidance system. Single F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F have been taking out targets that would have taken a whole squadron in Vietnam.

[Sean Hert]

A few points:

1. A navalized F-16 is not practical at this point.
-- The landing gear and airframe are totally unacceptable. The F-16 would need to have the landing gear completely redesigned.
-- The radar would need to be upgraded to somthing that would be capable of maritime strike.

Right- remember also, the navy already said no to the F-16 once- that's why the have the F-18 in the first place. ( YF-16, -17 and -18 programs, IIRC)

[Guest]

How many Mk-82s?

We don't do carpet bombing anymore.

Vietnam era A-6s carried 1/2 the MK.82s as a B-52.

A-6s dropped more aggregate tonnage in the Vietnam War than the B-52s.

Even with it's periodic reconstructions, current B-52s have load restrictions well below the original specifications.

This is a point well made .. The B52s and B1s today are being used in the Tactical strike arena and not so much strategic anymore. Most of their targets are "lit up" by ground forces using lazer and electronic/GPS aided targeting. Very effective as demonstrated in Operation Anaconda etc.
They have a longer loiter with higher weapon loads than most if not all our present "attack" aircraft inventory... Not to mention that the B52 is an excellent Tomahawk platform which alows it to attack from a stand off location when the target has an effective defence network.

[Seasick]

I went and asked a knoweledgeable source of mine and he said that a navalized F-16 would gain considerable weight over the land based version. The landing gear, beside being completely redesigned to handle the enormous stress of a carrier landings day after day, would need to be repositioned for carrier operations. The current position would not be acceptable for carrier landings. If you get a chance look at the difference between the landing gear of an F-16 and an A-7 and you will see the difference. The YF-17 was much more adaptable than the YF-16.

After the A-12 debacle the USN was faced with only having the F/A-18A/B/C as their only fighter and strike aircraft. The F-14D was to expensive with the post cold war budgets. The F/A-18E/F was the only realistic solution.
If the USN had continued with the F-14D and the F-14B rebuilds I doubt that a force level of 12 air wings.

Since the F/A-18D is not carrier capable the two seat F/A-18F gives the USN sufficient strike capability until the F-35C enters service.

The AIM-120D missile is entering service. The AIM-120D has much longer range and fills much of the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54C. Plus the new missile flys at mach 4 and is far more agile that the Phoenix. The APG-73 radar is extreemly capable. The Super Bugs can easily take 8 into the air, and these missiles are fire and forget but can also upload target information from the F/A-18E/F.
The AWG-9 radar on the F-14A and B was analog (That means vacume tubes not chips).

[Lesforan]

A quick look at the F-16 shows it would be unsuited for carrier operations.
The main gear would need to be shorter and stouter, both to better absorb landing shock and to align the wing at a greater aspect ratio for carrier takeoffs. A tailhook would be needed, with reinforcing to distribute the sudden deceleration load on the airframe. All this would add to aircraft weight and increase wing loading.

Probably the worst feature, probably impossible to correct without a complete redesign, is the location of the engine air intake. Can you imagine trying to hook the nosegear to the cat shuttle directly in front of that underslung maw of an intake? The A-7 gained a reputation as a "people eater", but it would be nothing compared to a F-16.

[Tracy White]

The F-16 already has a hook, but one that's unsuited for carrier ops. Not only is the inlet iffy for hook up, it's structure would have to be significantly beefed up to prevent the beefed up nose gear from shooting up into the cockpit on the first landing...

[Werner]

One of the problems with the F/A-18, which is only aggravated by the retirement of the S-3 Hoover is buddy fueling will consume 1/2 the air wing to get any reasonable range with the aircraft.

One third to one half of the air wing will have to refuel the attack aircraft as it travels to the target, and again as it returns. This job had been done by dedicated aircraft like the S-3, KA-3, and KA-6 which could handle several fueling operations at once. With buddy fueling, it it more like 1:1 on an aircraft WITH VERY SHORT LEGS (F/A-18). This makes the issue of TARCAP very problematic with much less loiter time than the F-14.

F/A-18C 369 miles mission radius
F/A-18E 520 miles mission radius
A-6E 460-890 mile mission radius depending on loadout
SBD Dauntless range (1942) 350-400 miles.

[richter111]

I am really surprised that someone has not come out with conformal fuel tanks for the Superbug. There has to be someplace that they could be slung. Even the F-16 in Israeli service has adapted conformal fuel tanks.

Ahh wheres the resin manufacturers when you need them.....

Ric

[Seasick]

Werner:

One of the problems with the F/A-18, which is only aggravated by the retirement of the S-3 Hoover is buddy fueling will consume 1/2 the air wing to get any reasonable range with the aircraft.

Thats not a problem with the F-18, its a problem with the political leadership. A refueling aircraft was supposed to have been developed. Donald Rumsfeld canceled it.

[Werner]

Werner:

One of the problems with the F/A-18, which is only aggravated by the retirement of the S-3 Hoover is buddy fueling will consume 1/2 the air wing to get any reasonable range with the aircraft.

Thats not a problem with the F-18, its a problem with the political leadership. A refueling aircraft was supposed to have been developed. Donald Rumsfeld canceled it.

Not my favorite SECDEF, although my neighbor and a very classically educated so-and-so.

I don't recall a tanker aircraft design. The mission came on suddenly with the departure of the KA-6 in 1992. I think the real crime here is the removal of ASW mission equipment from the S-3. Subs are a larger proportion of the threat than ever, but we're ignoring them.

I would design a carrier air wing that would allow a carrier to go anywhere without assistance. That probably means more multimission aircraft including helos and bombers that can be used in the ASW role.

[Gerarddm]

Going back to an earlier post in this thread, I find it very surprising that we would allow the SOSUS net to lapse. Are you sure? How the hell else are we to keep tabs on adversary subs?

[ViperTomcat]

It seems to be very in vogue to blame Donald Rumsfeld for everything that has gone wrong with military procurement over the last few years.

The truth is, the A-6F program was canceled under Clinton.

The F-14D program was cancelled after the end of the cold war, and Northrop lobbied Then SecDef. Richard Cheney to adopt a cheaper, more cost efficient, more matienence friendly version of the F/A-18 (The Super Hornet family).

the S-3 was never an ideal tanker, and the demise of the KA-6 truly hamstrung the navy in terms of airborne refueling.

The simple fact is, the 9 year defense spending "holiday" after the Cold War and the Clinton years did far , far more damage to the military than is known.


The only real thing I can pin on Rumsfeld is his cut of the F-22 buy. the AF needs 380-460 F-22's. NOT 183.

[Werner]

The simple fact is, the 9 year defense spending "holiday" after the Cold War and the Clinton years did far , far more damage to the military than is known.

Clinton called it "spending the peace dividend". At one point during the Bosnian intervention, we ran completely out of Tomahawks.

[Gerarddm]

Before Clinton bashing reaches terminal levels, it pays to recall that the military designed for a Soviet tank army surging through the Fulda Gap was and is not the military required in a post- Cold War world. It may also pay to recall that for much of the Clinton era Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress, and his SecDef was a Republican ex-senator. I sincerely doubt you can lay a surfeit of Tomahawks at Bill Clinton's personal door.

[Werner]

A Republican was SecDef only after the first one resigned. As I recall, the Republican Congress routinely passed larger Defense budgets than Clinton requested.

[Seasick]

A Republican was SecDef only after the first one resigned. As I recall, the Republican Congress routinely passed larger Defense budgets than Clinton requested

The size of the budget being larger than Clinton's request isn't revelaing.

Republican controled House Armed Services Comittee put the breaks on several programs. The Cheaphawks made a mess of several programs. Some had the idea to kill the F-22 and make the USAF adopt the Super Bug because it was less expensive.

The biggest problem I have with the WBush administration is that they have continued the process of converting the Armed forces into a policing agency.

[Werner]

A Republican was SecDef only after the first one resigned. As I recall, the Republican Congress routinely passed larger Defense budgets than Clinton requested

The size of the budget being larger than Clinton's request isn't revelaing.

Republican controled House Armed Services Comittee put the breaks on several programs. The Cheaphawks made a mess of several programs. Some had the idea to kill the F-22 and make the USAF adopt the Super Bug because it was less expensive.

The biggest problem I have with the WBush administration is that they have continued the process of converting the Armed forces into a policing agency.

You have to agree that an F-22 at $345 million tco is a poor economy compared to, say a Burke class destroyer at $872 million per ship, even considering the gross inflation of contractor dollars. The F-22 cannot shoot down ICBMs and cruise missiles simultaneously and cannot remain on station for a month or so.

One of the other posters in this section says the F-35A can do most of the F-22s job for a tiny fraction of the cost. All while we are moving into a regime of pilotless vehicles which will make all these aircraft obsolete.

What was the point of the B-2, which cost a substantial fraction of an aircraft carrier when the DARPA replacement is a pilotless Mach 6 aircraft based in the USA for a tiny fraction of the unit cost?

[Jack Ray]

The size of the budget being larger than Clinton's request isn't revelaing.

Republican controled House Armed Services Comittee put the breaks on several programs. The Cheaphawks made a mess of several programs. Some had the idea to kill the F-22 and make the USAF adopt the Super Bug because it was less expensive.

The biggest problem I have with the WBush administration is that they have continued the process of converting the Armed forces into a policing agency.

You have to agree that an F-22 at $345 million tco is a poor economy compared to, say a Burke class destroyer at $872 million per ship, even considering the gross inflation of contractor dollars. The F-22 cannot shoot down ICBMs and cruise missiles simultaneously and cannot remain on station for a month or so.

One of the other posters in this section says the F-35A can do most of the F-22s job for a tiny fraction of the cost. All while we are moving into a regime of pilotless vehicles which will make all these aircraft obsolete.

What was the point of the B-2, which cost a substantial fraction of an aircraft carrier when the DARPA replacement is a pilotless Mach 6 aircraft based in the USA for a tiny fraction of the unit cost?

Pilotless aircraft are fine. However, humans like to fly and Americans more than most. Also, most people who go to the trouble of becoming pilots, or aviators don't do it because they are forced to. Most are grateful for the privilege and honor of being able to defend their country as flying warriors. It would be a real shame if pilots became obsolete because some pencil necks decided that pilotless aircraft were more efficient, cheaper, and more humane (no lost pilots).

This also goes for ground forces. Can you imagine some superannuated robot forklift going around with a USMC veteran sticker on its bumper? Part of being a citizen in any republic should be defending it as some sort of soldier, sailor, or pilot.

Jack