JoeinTXYes, congrats to the Chileans!
They are quietly building an ever more capable and competent air force down there. Kudos to them.
JoeinTXQuote:
Originally Posted by Nils
Furthermore, another possible customer is Brasil, if they are willing to modify the Sao Paolo with a ski-jump, they might actually buy up to 12
Right, because inducting a hypothetical navalized Eurofighter that was already dropped from their FX-2 tender, instead of using the 2 of 3 remaining FX-2 contenders (Rafale, F-18) who are navalized from their very inception just makes so much sense…..
Agree 1000%. First off, the Sao Paulo spends 90% of its time in port……it’s an old ship, bought for a song, and is very limited operationally in today’s environment. The last time I checked the Brazilians were struggling to keep a serviceable complement of A-4s flying for simple operational viability due to funds. Simply can’t imagine the purchase and use of any new, modern aircraft for it considering the ship’s limits and the funding problems they have now.
And, even if the Brazilians were able to afford to operate their carrier and buy new aircraft for it, the Rafale or SH make SOOOOOOO much more sense than a “pie in the sky” dream years away and more costly like a Naval Typhoon would be.
The Brits are not interested after the money spent on the F-35 program. There is NO way the Tranche 3 Typhoons can be “exchanged” for newly developed navalized versions at this date. Neither the Spanish or Italians are equipped or planning on any vessel capable of serious CTOL ops.
The Naval Typhoon is an idea, but that’s all. It will never exist. Done. Not trying to be combative but the idea, costs involved, and timetables are well past reasonable for it to evolve.
JoeinTXI gotta jump in here……….the X-32 was a wonderful looking airplane. Harkening back to an age of classic airplanes that we just don’t see anymore today. Unapologetic gaping nose intake…..odd ground stance……slab sides……..looking like something out of the 1950s USAF “X” programs. Ugly? Hell no. Unique is the word for it.
The two operational aircraft it reminds me the most of, the F-8/A-7, I also like the looks of. Functional, capable airplanes that simple never bothered to check themselves out when they passed the mirror………they were too busy doing their job and doing it well. There’s a beauty in that my friends.
Agree with some others on the Phalcon AEW and will throw in the Nimrod AEW as a close second. The Global Hawk is not all that appetizing to look at. The Yak-38 trainer looks constantly as if it’s about to drop in to the ocean since half of its airframe is below the centerline in a weird drooping serpentine fashion.
JoeinTXThe U.K. actually had signed the contracts and some of the first -K’s were on the line when they cancelled the order in 1968. The primary reason, as mentioned above, was cost in the eyes of the then Labour government which did have something of a valid point seeing as the F-111 program had been severly curtailed and modified.
Instead of either the TSR-2 or the -111K, the RAF began receiving the first of 46 Buccaneer S2B aircraft in 1969 as direct Canberra replacements under the same requirement………ironically after they had largely rejected the aircraft a decade earlier.
All in all, and in hindsight, the WarPac didn’t overrun Western Europe and Great Britain wasn’t invaded by Red hordes because the TSR-2 didn’t enter service. The Bucs (and the 60 odd -2as inducted into the RAF in the following years as the FAA was run down) did a fantastic job of providing offensive capability for the U.K. in lieu of the V-Force and before the introduction of the Tornado to the fleet. For the money, the Buc simply has to be among the most efficient uses of funds for the service it returned in the U.K.’s history……
JoeinTXThis has gotten beyond pathetic
No offense, but have to agree.
The “plan” was to replace all of the “Hornets” first. To be followed by the Super Hornet. Which, would be replaced by the F-35 and/or CUAV.
I’m not sure there was as clear a “plan” here as might be thought. The A-12 was cancelled………..and then the NATF was canned. The USN had one airframe in production at the time and that was the legacy Hornet. With Tomcats and Intruders creaking on the flightdecks the easiest, cheapest, and quickest way to replace those airframes was MD/Boeing’s proposal for an improved Hornet and thus the Rhino was born.
As for the F-14 being an air superiority airplane, the USN’s definitions of aircraft are not necessarily those commonly used elsewhere. The F-14 (and the F-4 before it) were the only interceptor/fighter/air-to-air dedicated aircraft on the USN’s decks for many years so by default they were intended to secure aerial dominance around the battle group and for the strike aircraft of the carrier. While more of an interceptor, it was the airplane intended to secure the air for the fleet and the mission.
The F-35 is very capable….it will possess the same thrust and an equivalent t/w ratio and range as the original A/B Eagle while having far superior radar, weaponry, and reliability. It will be superior to the A-C Hornet in practically all respects. But, it doesn’t have the same flexibility as the original Eagle/Hornet designs…..it is locked down with little room for design changes or serious mods without major mods.
While UAVs can easily conceivably take on the attack/AEW roles in the future, air defense is something they have not clearly proven themselves. In this one respect a manned platform using advanced tech is the better option. 20 years? 30 years? Hard to say, but as of now, the manned airplane for the planner is still the best one.
JoeinTXPallet haulers?
There is not, and never has been, a military cargo airplane designed around requirements for hauling palleted cargo. All such types are converted civilian aircraft.
I love the combo tanker/transport aircraft, hauling people or pallets primarily when not tanking, but no one has bought an airplane for simple pallet duty since they are so limited. Converted 707s, A300/310/330s, 767s, and the like are more than up to the task of pallet cargo as they’ve demoed several times.
No need for specific military pallet carrying airplanes.
JoeinTXPallet haulers?
There is not, and never has been, a military cargo airplane designed around requirements for hauling palleted cargo. All such types are converted civilian aircraft.
I love the combo tanker/transport aircraft, hauling people or pallets primarily when not tanking, but no one has bought an airplane for simple pallet duty since they are so limited. Converted 707s, A300/310/330s, 767s, and the like are more than up to the task of pallet cargo as they’ve demoed several times.
No need for specific military pallet carrying airplanes.
JoeinTXThe “Transformers” movie was trash…..if the same collection are making the second one then we can expect more of the same.
More poor dialogue, over-CGI, unrealistic, video game-esque BS to further drive the art of movie making down into that of the late 19th Century buggy-whip maker realm.
In this case, less is more……….and turning back time is beyond priceless.
JoeinTXThe “Transformers” movie was trash…..if the same collection are making the second one then we can expect more of the same.
More poor dialogue, over-CGI, unrealistic, video game-esque BS to further drive the art of movie making down into that of the late 19th Century buggy-whip maker realm.
In this case, less is more……….and turning back time is beyond priceless.
JoeinTXWow, the inanity of this entire thread is beyond me, but, I am going to reply anyway.
The C-17 is exactly a “jack of all, master of none”……….and by design. It is not a pure widebody strategic lifter because such airplanes are by nature much more expensive and specialized in their use. The U.S. has 100+ C-5s that spend a large amount of their time sitting around waiting maintenance and upkeep between strategic missions because they are so specific and limited in what’s economically feasible for them to be used. The C-17 is replacing a specific airplane, the C-141, which was neither large enough to carry an MBT nor small enough to operate from less than perfect runways. The C-17 tries to mate them as much as possible and while it can’t be C-130ish in ops it’s certainly more favorable than anything else in its class. Good Lord, what do you want???
I am all for buying the extra C-17s if it means we can wean down the C-5 fleet to the newest and least costly airframes left including the -M upgrade they are going through. The C-5 is a pure strategic asset to be hauled out for times of crisis or unusual circumstances while the C-17 is a full time player for any and all transport needs at a more economical price.
Besides, it is today the single most proven and cost effective transport airplane on the market……….nothing can do more for less investment than it can.
JoeinTXWow, the inanity of this entire thread is beyond me, but, I am going to reply anyway.
The C-17 is exactly a “jack of all, master of none”……….and by design. It is not a pure widebody strategic lifter because such airplanes are by nature much more expensive and specialized in their use. The U.S. has 100+ C-5s that spend a large amount of their time sitting around waiting maintenance and upkeep between strategic missions because they are so specific and limited in what’s economically feasible for them to be used. The C-17 is replacing a specific airplane, the C-141, which was neither large enough to carry an MBT nor small enough to operate from less than perfect runways. The C-17 tries to mate them as much as possible and while it can’t be C-130ish in ops it’s certainly more favorable than anything else in its class. Good Lord, what do you want???
I am all for buying the extra C-17s if it means we can wean down the C-5 fleet to the newest and least costly airframes left including the -M upgrade they are going through. The C-5 is a pure strategic asset to be hauled out for times of crisis or unusual circumstances while the C-17 is a full time player for any and all transport needs at a more economical price.
Besides, it is today the single most proven and cost effective transport airplane on the market……….nothing can do more for less investment than it can.
JoeinTXI remember 100 F-35s being bantied about for a time before the SH order which was to be cushion against early F-111 retirement.
Those 24 SHs were to ease the transition to the F-35 and ongoing center barrel replacement program problems with the legacy Hornet as I recall.
Australia is still looking at a near one-for-one replacemenet of current comabt types with new aircraft which is enviable among Western countries today…where is the trouble with that.
JoeinTXOne is the version of the Texan II with a FLIR and laser pod on its belly that can patrol at altitude at use laser for ground launched stand off weapons or Hellfirers.
And to me that would seem the most likely. It’s in production and large scale use already so support is already available. Add more pylons, protection, and associated systems and, ouila, an economical but still effective enough solution to what has to be a small fleet requirement.
Yeah, new built A-10s is something I always thought about.
There are hundreds of them sitting at D-M right now (743 originally built and around 400 in current USAF service) and a good number of them have been regenerated over the years to meet demand as the active force went through structural mods. So, I don’t see any need to build brand new A-10s when there is a decent pool of useable airframes available. Does the DOD maybe think that this is not the solution to the problem they’re considering?
As for the Bronco, there isn’t really a restarting of the production line option……the production line doesn’t exist and hasn’t in 30-odd years. Who assumed Rockwell’s ops………Boeing? Even if you pulled out the old blueprints, you’d still need to redesign to take different engines, electronics, and various sub-assemblies. The original concept and airplane is simple enough, but, you wouldn’t be building that very same airplane again in 2010.
To this, the U.S. Army just had to can it’s Bell light recon helo project, built upon an existing production chopper, because of cost overruns and technical problems…..and the entire program was based upon taking a cheap production airframe and appyling some modern tech and minimal modifications to get a budget replacement for the Commanche.
JoeinTX2. The initial acquisitions was ALWAYS going to be 75 aircraft.
Yeah, when I read the original post I was thinking “yeah, and?” because I thought the current buy was for only 75 as well.
Oh well, trading 71 Hornets for 75 F-35s is still a plus-plus.
JoeinTXWell, I don’t see where the airplane would get any interest from the USAF seeing as how they still have the A-10 for close support and aren’t interested in spending any more money on a small fleet of limited use specialty airplanes.
This would seem something more suited for the Army but they are, like the USAF, moving more toward UAVs for support roles and are still having Hell just getting a light recon helo off the shelf within budget. Besides, they’d have to fight the USAF over any funds for a fixed-wing combat type.
It’s too slow and specialized for the USAF……it can’t carry enough troops/stretchers or other loads versus traditional helos to make it a multi-purpose tool for the Army…..it would be a combat type for the Army meaning it would compete against the Apache and whatever recon helo program the Army eventually decides upon…..it’s not easily air transportable.
Forgive me, but didn’t the Marines retire the last of their Broncos in the mid-90s? First, why did they no longer deem it a necessary capability? Second, there are a lot of Bronco airframes sitting in Davis-Monthan right now that could be overhauled and brought back to life if the need was so great…..it’s not a particularly advanced airplane that would require tremendous rejuvenations costs.
As for foreign buyers, there are so many Tucanos and Embraers and newer turboprop types around that can do the job at not much greater cost but with much newer airframes that I can’t see it happening. This is a niche market situated between the countries that are too poor to buy any meaningful aircraft to speak of and those countries able to buy more capable types that introducing an entirely new entry in the market does’t seem a good to me.
Sign In
