This might sound crazy, but what about the new Iraqi AF?
:confused:
Just a stab in the dark

Low cost to buy and operate!
Only a small number required!

I`m guessing a Erieye to be cheaper than a E-2 Hawkeye?

Regards
Pioneer

I’d say that C-17 would have been great but for a half price. A strategic transporter so expensive that you need to call Volga Dnepr every now and then because you have insufficient capacity is not a good solution.

I both hear, like and support your thoughts!!

I say lets take a look at class cockpit Boeing YC-14

Regards
Pioneer

I’m still failing to see why an ANG interceptor is going to need VLO details, ground attack radar modes, and a large motor like the F110. Makes more sense to me to set a competition up for a dedicated – you know, single-role – interceptor. Aim for a smaller engine, preferably OTS, with 60kN dry and 90kN wet thrust performance goals at an SFC that is sustainable in time of national security. These airframes need to be affordable, sustainable in an economic downturn, and effective for the ANG to carry out it’s domestic defense role. We don’t need stealth, 100 radar modes, and certification to carry every gizmo ever slung under a warplane in the history of the United States.

So hypothetically would you say the size/weight/sophistication of a revamped Northrop F-20(C?) Tigershark – with 2 x 20mm cannon, two Aim-9X and two Aim-120`s? Or would you go for something the size/weight/sophistication of the likes of the Aviation Technology Group Javelin – with a 20mm cannon and two-four Aim-9X`s ?
Very interested to know what you think MadRat!!

Regards
Pioneer

Boeing has given the Navy an unsolicited offer to buy 149 of those aircraft carrier-based fighters as part of a multiyear procurement plan at $49.9 million apiece. The price tag would likely drop if the military bought more to equip Air Guard units.

I wonder how much weight and cost saving could be achieved by a de-carrier F/A-18E Super Hornet?

ANG uses the USAF supply system. F-18 parts are not in the USAF supply chain.

Standardisation makes complete sense in my view!

Combined with T-50 for the T-38 replacement? Common logistics, ‘n all that. The basic aircraft should be cheaper.

Makes sense to me! But then again the lobbying power of LM and Boeing would make it unlikely!!!:)

P.S One thing is for certain in my opinion – The F-35 is way way overboard and expensive for the ANG and home defence!!

Regards
Pioneer

You do know that an ESG will never be sent into a combat situation without a CSG.

You make a valid point my friend, which I am well aware!
But the near future enemy I envisage will not play by the United States (navy`s) game!

I enjoy spam bashing as much as the next man but to accuse them of this in isolation seems both unfair and dangerously self-deluded

Your opinion is yours my friend!
I am far from being a spam basher! (how you came to this conclusion has me f@%$*&)
but ‘unfair and dangerously self-deluded‘?:( please
I will not endeavor to get into a childish slogging match. All I will say, is that I have operated with the American military operationally on more than one occasion, I have witnessed what I have stated!

I should clearly state that I have no problem with technological improvements on the modern battlefield (even though I tend to carry more AA batteries than bullets:D), in fact I support it, but it will not always substitute hard combat proven lessons.

Regards
Pioneer

i think it would be possible to design a small ski jump for the harriers/F-35Bs that would only take away one helo spot. maybe it wouldn’t be a full 12 degree ramp like on the ark royal, but even a smaller 6 degree ramp could offer serious take-off advantages for the fixed wing aircraft that are deployed on these ships.

the US military is the only one in the world that regularly deploys fixed wing aircraft on non-CATOBAR/non-ski-jump equipped flat-tops. but ultimately, the US navy has the luxury of being so damn large that they can afford to have an entire fleet of flat-tops solely dedicated to the assualt role without worrying about getting the maximum efficiency out of the token fixed wing planes that they deploy alongside the helos. in other navies, flat tops have to be a lot more flexible and less specialized because they are so scarce to begin with.

that said, i still think politics is at play to a certain degree in that the US navy does not want to demonstrate the effectiveness of a smaller ski-jump/STOVL carrier for fear that it could somehow threaten their precious CATOBAR beasts.

I`m with you brother!!
I have no doubt the USN at the end of the day are playing politics over capability!!
Their deep routed fear that Congress would view any LHD/LHA as an aircraft, threatening their super carriers has become prolific within the U.S Navy!

Regards
Pioneer