Wanna take on an F-35

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Obviously unmanned is the future. And honestly, we should be putting our money there. What if the Chinese built thousands and thousands of cheap, easily built and replaced drones? Nothing could stop them. We could perhaps shoot down hundreds of them, but the shear numbers would make them unstoppable.

Our insistence on spending $30 mil, $50 mil, $100 mil per plane is the 1980's way of dealing with Russia. Russia is in the past. We need to worry about North Korea and China now.
Well you know there is all that lobby money being spent .
 
If you guys really think drones will replace manned fighter aircraft in the immediate future, why not ask an expert in the field like Astro14?
What I suspect he will tell you is that the job of fighting a fighter (not just flying it) is an order of magnitude more complex than flying an airliner. While there is an enormous economic incentive to employ drone airliners, do you see any now? If state of the art technology hasn't fielded drone airliners, what makes you think it would be successful with something immensely more complicated? And don't even get me started on the impact of electronic warfare from a technologically advanced opponent on drone warfare.
We do have massive numbers of "drones" involved in the strike role: cruise missles, glide bombs, etc. But as to fighters, they may be viable 20 years after all commercial airliners convert to drones. Maybe. They simply aren't viable with the current state of technology.
 
The Tigershark was a fine aircraft that was beaten mostly politically by Lockheed. That's not taking anything away from the F-16, a classic for the ages. There were times Lockheed was offering to sell F-16s for $10M per copy to keep Northrop out. They did.

The Tigershark was one of the first military aircraft to employ ring laser gyro inertial navigation. That and enhanced engine start techniques enabled the aircraft to go from a cold start to wheels up in 23 seconds (demonstrated many times). The RLG would do an alignment and shut down and the heading/attitudes were stored (novel at the time) This allowed sitting strip alert in a cold airplane until ordered to go. A very useful quality analogous to the RAF being able to stay cocked and locked until radar could direct them to intruders. But the F-20 lost. And we recovered. You can quit reading here if you're not interested in a story that grew out of that.

First we had already been in a contractor funded (no Fed $) effort on the F-15E. McDonnel-Douglas was funding the airplane side of that, no government money. With the existing mechanical INS having an MTBF of around 50 hours and us guaranteeing 2,000 hours you'd think it would be a no brainer. But it costs money to make wholesale changes - logistics, training, etc. etc. But we finally did it. After they saw the performance we were able to provide, we finally convinced the Air Force to standardize on RLG in August of 1985. Guaranteeing 2,000 hours in fighter and 4,000 hours in non-fighter platforms, the system was a revelation and became the US standard.

Throughout this time frame I had three systems flying in the Swedish Saab Gripen development program. That finally bore fruit as well (they even gave me an award! But not a blonde. Dang..) and it's still there today, doing the job.

All of this was made possible by private investment and management foresight, not mine, even earlier that resulted in Boeing selecting the very same H423 based system in the 757/767 in about 1981/82. This provided the volume and hot production line that we could then point to in the Air Force effort. Modernized, even smaller systems, in triple redundant configuration, are still airline standard to this day. And along the way mechanical inertial systems that cost three times as much and had criminally low MTBF's went the way of the wild goose. But not easily.

The previously incumbent company still owned the international market, they got there first. It still costs a lot of money to "change" and the smaller the user, the more painful that is. What to do. Their weakness now was that their US cash cow was dead. Profits - poof. So I asked management to approve small bids at cost for the smaller offshore customers for a period of four years. It didn't cost us much and without that tidy cash flow the competitor would be unable to underbid us. Result - inert competitor. Dead. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys. They'd been soaking the taxpayer for long enough.

I'm out of the game but I feel pretty sure the F-22 and F-35, along with every other major aircraft are flying with RLG's. GPS can't do the job alone, at all. Even if it could it is laughably easy to jam. But with the GPS providing velocity updates to the nav kalman filter, it's a match made in Heaven. Superb accuracy, superb reliability and the ability to withstand GPS "interruptions" for significant periods. Stabilization of all the sensor packages (IR, radar, enhanced vision systems, F-35's virtual reality view "through" the aircraft, transfer alignments to missiles and pods and on and on) data comes for "free". All this enhancement to capability because of a privately funded, commercially leveraged technology effort over a 30 year period by a visionary management. Pretty good American success story eh?

There are more "stories" about how we also standardized it on US artillery starting with the PALADIN self propelled howitzer and observation systems and precision survey. Or how we sold a tactical missile guidance package that, without GPS aiding (it didn't have one), drove the aiming stake into the ground 300km downrange. No "close", it was a ringer - good stuff. Missile defense systems use. And comic relief...Swiss National Railways railroad roadbed cetification (not kidding), tunnel boring machines, mining machines, ship nav, drones.... Lordy, the fun never stopped....yes, it did.

Guys, I didn't do it alone, not claiming that. I just thank God I was lucky enough to have been in a position to do some good and have fun doing it. I'm just a very lucky guy in that regard. Sorry for the regurgitation. The Gripen, F-16, F-20, F-22 and F-35 got me going on about how these systems integrations spread out over time. It was an intense life, too much travel (million miler on two different airlines, I have a square butt..), too much time away from family. There were costs and it didn't end well professionally or personally. But I did some good and I'll settle for that.

Cheers and apologies again for the dump. I'm in a mood I guess.
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
F35 pilot will fly up the Gripen's pilot arse and tickle the inside of
his eye ball and he won't know the score until he is pharting warhead...

d2636184.jpg

The pilot doesn't even know which side is up
laugh.gif
. Pilors these days.
 
It's presumptuous to say what (insert any military entity you like here) needs, because the tactics, environment and political climate are always changing. What (continue inserting...) need is the most capability they can get at a sustainable and affordable rate. Penny-pinching naysayers pitching 80% solutions don't have to get out there in harm's way.
 
We need lots and lots . Can't run out of stuff if we really want to win a conflict.
 
F20 was based on the 1959 T38 Trainer whereas the F16 was 1974 start
from scratch air superior fighter... the only thing superior about the
F20 was Gen Chuck Yeager's superior flying demonstrations...


usaf-california-center.jpg


Come out and play F20... I won't hurt you... he he he...
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
The pilot doesn't even know which side is up
laugh.gif
. Pilors these days.


Mercy 8... there is no up or down in aerial combat... only kill or be killed...

Russian pilot call sign "Chute" as in Parachute... he he he...
81958.jpg

6971146-3x2-940x627.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
F20 was based on the 1959 T38 Trainer whereas the F16 was 1974 start
from scratch air superior fighter... the only thing superior about the
F20 was Gen Chuck Yeager's superior flying demonstrations...


You'd be surprised to know the testing showed equal performance with one giving a little to the other in various configurations. And BTW, take a look at that F20 engine compared to the F5. You'd be downright scandalized to know that the F16 really didn't provide much more in the way of one on one maneuvering kill power than the even older F104. It's good, I don't argue that but there's more to the story.

It helps to understand what was going on here. The first was a congressional requirement for a high-low fighter mix. It was thought that a couple of thousand F15's would be unaffordable. So we needed a cheap fighter to go with the F15 so it could be bought in numbers. Hold that thought...

The US had exported tons of F5's (basically T38's with fire control systems and evolved engines) around the world to provide a supersonic capability that was easily trained/maintained in lesser developed countries. So we trained their pilots here, had the logistics tail here and could choke off support and parts if we didn't like what they were doing. Now those T38/F5 aircraft were from Northrop and Northrop needed a followon upgrade or they would eventually be out of the tactical aircraft business. What to do?

They developed the F20 on their own dime to pitch at the cheap end of the US high-low mix. Even if they did not win it all their hope, desperate hope really, was to win even one squadron of aircraft for training, attack, you name it. Why? To keep the logistics tail alive in the US. Without that, all those little operators of F5's around the world were not going to buy F20's no matter how good it was (and it was very good) or less expensive than the F16 (maybe 25% or so). Dead end.

Back to the F16. Lockheed did a lot of smart business things and, ultimately, a lot of smart technical things. First they lowballed the upfront prices knowing they would make it back in change orders/exports/etc. after Northrop was dead. Second really smart thing was to establish a multinational production program with, if memory serves, four other NATO nations. Ah, groundswell support, share the wealth (and the technology) a little, make more in the long run. Over time of course the F16 would become a $50M+ item instead of a $10M item. They did some dumb things too like delivering fly by wire aircraft that weren't ready for prime time. And it killed a number of pilots till they got it straightened out. The pilots didn't call it the electric lawn dart for nothing.

But the Air Force really stuck it to Northrop. Heck, Northrop would have given them a few squadrons to stay in the international game and used them here to go right on training the foreign nationals here. No go. I don't know how many drinks and meals and entertainments were bought, political donations made to the proper elected representatives, subcontractors located to which districts, swinging door VP jobs at Lockheed passed out afterward, retired generals and former congessmen hired as consultants, etc. etc. but it was enough to bury Northrop.

My point here is that this is not just about which plane was better. They both tested about equal. That's a fact. At the time the F20 had the superior avionics systems. But the way the system works is the way the system works. And don't think I'm overly critical of it.

When it came time to sell the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) to the army my team adopted the same tactics right down to the multinational production program. And it worked. I did it again with the Swedish AT-4 antitank weapon by helping transition it to US based production. And now we've built hundreds of thousands of those plus, as always, the very capable, very expensive, variants (bunker busters, fire from enclosures, off-route mines, etc. etc.). Hey, you can't make this stuff up.
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
It helps to understand what was going on here. The first was a congressional requirement for a high-low fighter mix. It was thought that a couple of thousand F15's would be unaffordable. So we needed a cheap fighter to go with the F15 so it could be bought in numbers. Hold that thought...


I remember and my thought was... Negative Congress... the USAF never needs a pedestrian fighter... they always need an air superior fighter...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top