JoeinTXA fair argument to my point would be that for GWOT anyway, Pakistan has killed off a lot of bad guys for us. A lot. And with good ground forward air controllers ( GFACs ) A JDAM carrying jet like the F-16 is really very very handy for ops. Big time.
Well, yeah, sort of. The Pakistanis have reluctantly participated but not to the degree one would like to see. Internally, I do not believe the population is supportive of anti-terrorist initiatives…Musharraf only for the most part to keep the U.S. happy.
F-16s in just about any shape are a qualitative jump in their inventory as it is. And, after the eery similarities between the -16 and the JH-17, I’m not sure we can trust Pakistan with much without it finding it’s way into China’s hands.
Additionally, the U.S. is (rightly in my opinion) moving further toward India as our primary partner in the region…….democratic, facing the same issue with islamic terrorism, and anti-China. Providing their arch-enemy with nuclear capable airplanes isn’t good for future plans.
JoeinTXThe guys above have already pretty much summed up the the situation with STOBAR.
STOBAR still has all of the requirements of CTOL aircraft operation (angled deck, arresting gear, heavier airframes for deck landing stresses, etc.) without providing the greatest advantage of CTOL operations….assisted launch allowing much greater take-off weights for the same aircraft.
There’s really no reason to go to the trouble of adopting all of the above without adding the obvious advantages of the catapult.
it will carry maybe two LGBs and the rest of the stores will be fuel and AAMs and jamming pods
We’re talking payload here, not weaponload. Either way, it’s pure weight and without a catapult launch no aircraft can clear the deck carrying more total load than it could without it.
JoeinTXFirst off, good post topic.
Twenty-five years ago you had the P-3, the S-3, the Atlantique, the IL-38, Tu-142, and the 737 being offered up for the role……..ironically, it’s pretty much the same list as today 😮
P-3: It seems that a good number of refurbishable airframes will be available for the foreseeable future for low-order customers. Cheap, reliable, and infinitely upgradeable.
S-3: Lots of conjecture about the future of the retired Vikings. They too have a good deal of life left in many of the airframes now out of service.
737: Indonesia was oddly ahead of the curve in using the aircraft as a naval surveillance platform, since retired, in the 80s. Of todays “new” offerings, it is the most ideally suited in terms of range/speed/payload to pick up where the P-3 left off.
P-X: Interesting concept. Essentially an Orion fuselage with new tail, wings, engines, and control surfaces. I’m not sure why the 737/P-8 wouldn’t fit the bill just as well, but the JASDF wants to pursue it. Besides, the Japanese can’t sell military aircraft to foreign customers, so even if developed it won’t serve anyone but them.
Many are turning to transport conversions. We saw it with the F-27 and C-130 previously, now the likes of CN-235/CN-295 and IL-76.
Flying boats, while I like them, are so out of favor due to special operating considerations as to make them unlikely in the future.
It looks like second-hand P-3s and Embraer or light-transport conversions will rule the market for the time to come. One-off customers nonwithstanding…
JoeinTXI saw the report the other day on t.v. and the first thing that came to mind was “ridiculous”…..
It’s obviously not stealthy in any way, seems to have no provision (where would you put them?) for weapons, and it had no obvious means of guidance for any precision munition.
Also, the “underwater rocket” they spoke of is reputedly wildly-innacurate. It might be good for a saturation attack against oil-tankers….but so would a normal torpedo in most cases.
JoeinTXTrue, un-produced model designators are often recycled and used later down the road, so discounting a -F model is probably premature.
Considering the limited number of F-22s and F-35s to be purchased, I see some gap in equipping AFR and ANG squadrons in the future. Some will convert to tanker/transport or UCAVs as advances proceed, but this doesn’t account for all. The transfer of -Es and C/D F-16s will take care of many of them, but I don’t rule out the chance that a trickled production run of further F-15s is possible.
JoeinTXWhen it comes to longevity and timelessness, then the B-52 will be the classic bomber of the ages. Lots of reverence to the Bear, however.
B-1: Good idea messed up by politics which is still trying to correct some of the nagging problems of a screwed-up development.
Tu-160: Brutish and glows like a Christmas tree on any radar screen, but quite an achievement by all measure.
Tu-95/20: What a Cold War icon. The menagerie of complicated props in today’s world seems so out of place, yet it lives. 1940s fuselage with 1950s engines and control surfaces armed with 21st Century weapons. Still a killer….
B-47/Tu-16: Intermediate aircraft in all reality born of the race for the firstserious jet bomber among the superpowers. The Badger wins easily for life-span and continued relevance…..even if old.
The V-Bombers: Vulcan was truly revolutionary and ahead of even today’s time in many respects. Had it been in U.S. service, it would easily still be flying today. Valiant? Very basic. The Valiant, oh what a graceful yet ugly airplane at the same time.
Tu22M/26: Ultimately an oversized Su-24 with greater range, but not a strategic bomber in the normal sense. It did what it was designed to do and continues to do so today. No slouch and something a lot of nations wish they had.
FB-111: Out of a poorly conceived idea, the base F-111 turned in a couple of decades of reliable service. SAC recognized it a good penetrator, but then based it inside the CONUS limiting its effectiveness. Overall, it didn’t have much impact at all.
B-2: Appeared at the end of “war” it was supposed to win, expensive and complex, and built in such small numbers. All of this while UCAVs and long-range cruise weapons are doing much of the job it was intended and doing so cheaper. Ultimately, its existence is marginal.
JoeinTXYes, while the South American countries have been long time users of it’s predecessor, the S-2, the S-3 is a tad different.
It’s bigger and heavier than the Tracker, which could operate from the mid-sized carriers, but to my knowledge the Viking has never flown from anything smaller than a USN super-carrier sized vessel. Trying to operate the S-3 from the Sao Paulo would both at the absolute limits of the vessel and the aircraft with no margins.
Besides, I think the amount of money that would be spent on trying to up-engine and tailor the S-3 for smaller ship ops would be almost prohibitive considering the small number to be acquired and the ultimate return.
The rest was summed up above: Argentian already has the Orion and has little money to spend. Chile looks like the only real option and Lockheed is planning to display the S-3 in the country.
JoeinTXWhile the F-22 seems stylish for Japan at the moment, some of the comments above are noteworthy.
An upgraded F-15E/K/S with AESA would still be huge and it’s likely that Mitsubishi could work out a potential co-production deal. This would fill the multi-role requirement, present lower costs, satisfy a need for domestic involvement, and fit in with an existing support chain. If I’m a Japanese defense official I have to look at this as a very good alternative to field somethig superior to the Chinese and cost-effective as well.
But…
The Super Hornet is no slouch and will hold it’s own against the J-10/11. Co-production is iffy. But, it is designed from the start for they apparently need the new aircraft for…
JoeinTXLookin’ prettier every day….. 🙂
JoeinTXThe USAF did operate Sherpa’s, primarily in Europe as a theater base-to-base transport for low priority non-combat jobs.
The issue of fixed-wing aircraft operation by the Army has been a contentious spot for the Air Force since 1947. Apparently, the Army decided that it wanted a self-sufficient transport abilility somewhere between their C-47s and AF C-130s, thus the FCA. The Air Force seems to have given in finally, in part, not objected and even looked at this as a potential aircraft for them as well.
The number of aircraft is what I caught on……60 days ago this was a little mentioned Army deal for 30-odd planes. Now, it’s blown into something 5 times that size and I’m not sure what the USAF really wants with it when the job that the Sherpa did isn’t really necessary anymore.
Just weird….
JoeinTXThe C-27J and CN-295 are the only “real” competitors in this…..a Boeing-ski Coaler derivative is too politically taboo and not a good fit.
The Spartan is larger and can carry larger sized equipment plus it has the benefit of full Lockheed involvement…..but it’s also more expensive. The CN-295 is the cheaper of the two, but smaller and more “foreign.”
I would have to guess that the C-27J wins.
But, I was not aware of what this program had become. The last info I had was that this was a program by the Army to buy around 30 aircraft to assume the role of former USAF Sherpas. However, apparently, it has now ballooned in a multi-service search for up to 145 aircraft.
It was shock to me…..
JoeinTXBoth are very ambitious and I hope they can do it, but….
Why the P-X?
It appears to be a P-3 with new wings, tail section, and four jets replacing the current turboprops. Home-grown ideas? Okay, but the P-8 is exactly what they need and it will almost certainly be cheaper.
I dunno, just looks like they are trying to upgrade the wheel with it when something else can be had easier….
JoeinTXThese things are getting a little long in the tooth and they’re limited by the design, so pouring money into them isn’t a real option.
The JASDF has been looking at with either newer versions of the C-130 or a domestic development, which is less likely.
Domestic aerospace programs over the last 20 years haven’t met a lot of success for the Japanese. Characteristically for them, they have been superb at reproducing existing designs with efficiency and quality. But, unlike their naval and ground programs, when faced with developing their own aircraft it hasn’t been nearly the success.
Now, with a serious eye to an F-22 buy, I would bet that the JASDF is going to look to economize where possible. They have been looking at a development of the P-3 as well to be their future ASW/maritime patrol aircraft.
In order to have the money for all, they will almost certainly buy off-the-shelf C-130Js and P-8s for less and save as much as they can for adding F-22s….
JoeinTXI’m sorry, but buying 126 very capable M2000s to replace creaky Mig-21s and as a hedge against deployment of the less capable Tejas really had no downside.
#1-An aircraft which the IdAF was alread experience with and a support organization was already in place which would only need expansion rather than creation from the ground up.
#2-It is already an exceptionally capable aircraft and a dramatic improvement in capabilities over than anything it would replace.
#3-There is no exceptional need for a multi-engine platform. The M2K has already proven to be a very reliable aircraft with respect to single vs. multi engine operations.
#4-It is a proven strike aircraft capable of adaptation to the nuclear role. It’s job would be multi-role.
#5-For the role intended, the Rafale doesn’t add enough capability over the 2000 to justify the extra cost. They’ve already got the multi-engine super fighter in the Su-27 series.
The IdAF needed a relatively quick plug-in replacement for a large number of older aircraft which could be had at a reasonable cost. It was so simple….so obvious….so easy. Yet, the beauracracy managed to f@ck that up too.
Damn depressing for an outsider looking in who wants India to be all that it can be……
JoeinTX@Adrian 44-
The TFX (ultimately F-111) was pushed heavily by McNamara, but it was to come about later than the F-4. The F-4 wasn’t hoisted upon the services as a result of of the TFX problems, rather it predated it and was the impetus for the SecDef’s insistence on a combining the different services requirements…albeit in a screwed up way…based upon its success.
The F-110 was flying in ’59 and USAF testing was done in 1961…….well before the TFX. It was an accident that this aircraft designed from the F-3 Demon for the Navy also surpassed USAF requirements. The Air Force, in a moment of clarity, picked up on it and decided to make the buy because it was a marked improvement upon what they had in the pipeline………….read F-105, F-100, F-102, etc.
As for the difference between Navy and USAF F-4s prior to the E/G, there weren’t hardly any. Minor details regarding radios and peripheral gear, but other than that they were essentially the same basic airplane coming off of the line in different paint schemes. The A-D and K/J/S airframes all had folding wings, carrier landing gear, tailhooks, etc. So, the weight issues were marginal.
Sign In
