xcraftllc

Based on what the Navy is saying these days, I think that's about their plan; keeping a lot of Super Hornets and Growlers to do the bulk of the work with F-35s and stealthy UCAVs to knock out the dangerous threats early on. I would love to see the F-16 fully modernized and maintained in large numbers. I'm not saying the Eagle is total crap, but I believe replacing those aircraft with F-35s first, would keep our cost-effective Vipers flying longer and free up some funds to modernize them. Now that the Raptor is finally starting to flex it's muscles, I think the Eagle, particularly the C model, can now move on to the big Hangar in the sky.

No I see what you're saying, that's pretty good stuff.

Man, sims are the worst-best thing that happened to military aviation. Absolutely awesome tools for emergency training and other high-risk flying that requires a bit of familiarization to make safer. The problem though is that the command uses them as a 1 for 1 substitute for actual flying when the budget is tight. There are infinite ways in which that isn't the case. I hope the F-35 program doesn't go in that direction.

For the FOGs: What was the typical annual flight hours a pilot used to get back in the day, including the dark days of the Carter Administration? My biggest concern about the F-35 is the hourly flight cost. Fighter Pilots aren't flying enough as it is already. I know it's a big issue in the Raptor community and is one of the main reasons why the AF is having a hard time retaining experienced fighter pilots. I know there have been bad times in the past but I think during the Reagan days it was something like 300+ a year.

Yeah, who knows man. Add politics and money to the mix, and it's almost an exercise in futility to think about the practical aspects of the design anymore these days anyway.

FWIW, more talk about F-x stuff: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-americas-6th-generation-fighter-jets-rule-the-skies-12613

Even a beefed up version would still be really sketch as a close support machine. Just a couple bullet holes through any composite is a nightmare and will basically ruin the airframe. If not it certainly isn't quickly repairable in a forward-deployed location like such an aircraft would be used in. Although it could kinda do all of the missions the A-10 does, it certainly wouldn't pack the punch when it came time to do a major mission. We've kinda gotten too used to light loads over the last 10 years of the GWOT. As we see in Army Aviation, the continued improvements in Apaches and UAVs have made really small close-in aircraft like the Kiowa less desirable. Even though the Kiowa is really cheap to operate. Improvements on the Air Force side have swayed them away from that mentality as well. Also, single-engine is fine for high and fast flying aircraft like the16 and 35, and composites are ok as well if your plan is basically never to get hit, but not down in the dirt. In a sense, such an aircraft would be an AF version of the Kiowa only it wouldn't be rapidly field-repairable.

Nope Still nope. Nope Nope Nope.

Mk44* The thing that gets me about those guns though is the poor rate of fire and weight. I know you could step it up to about 600 RPM for an aviation application (like the Apache's), but even with 2 that's still only 1200 RPM, and you would start to risk barrel warp from overheating. Add to that the fact that they weigh 344 lbs, if you had two of them, their combined weight would be more than a GAU-8 anyway. The Avenger really hit the nail on the head. https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/automatic-cannons-chain-guns/docs/MK44_Bushmaster_Fact_Sheet.pdf

That's also just a good point for the 173mm casing over the Apache's 113mm. The initial muzzle velocity is higher and the round carriers that velocity for a longer distance, which allows more immediate effects. Might sound like just a bunch of war mongering garbage to your average hippie but it matters. As Lawman was saying, the M230 is more of a grenade launcher, albeit one that can shoot out to 4200 meters and take out APCs. That's fine for a slow moving helicopter with a gun that's mounted on a turret, but a jet can't be waiting for 5 seconds until round impact on a strafing run, even if it is flying as slow as an A-10 can.

(not trying to speak for the A-10 guys) The main reason the Apache has a 30mm (and I'd imagine the A-10 as well) is to be able to take out armor. In short, I firmly believe that it would be a complete waste of time to build an attack/cas specific design with anything smaller than a 30. That is; you check in to a TIC in WWIII(or whatever) and there are five armored vehicles attacking some light armored convoy. Sorry guys, we only brought 4 armor penetrating bombs/missiles between us, looks like your F'ed. Aside from that, just in general can you imagine how frustrating it would be to have an A-series aircraft that can only attack armored targets with the same kind of bombs/missiles as any other air frame? (no offense harrier guys, I know 25mm API rounds technically work). I'm curious to hear the A-10 guys opinion on this as well. Some other questions I would have would be; is the Avenger in the same boat as the air frame itself in that it would be cost prohibitive to build more for any such new air frame? Also how expensive/possible is it really to reset an A-10 air frame? I know they're doing such things with A and D model Apaches that are being converted to E models.

Listen, think, pause, respond, and stay inside your circle!

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/

But seriously man, can you imagine how old the anti-F35 arguments must be getting for the pilots walkin around in their day-to-day lives? At the end of the day, they're just doing their job. They must feel like the British Petroleum gas station employees after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Add the modern social media world, combined with the overly PC politicians and chain of command, and these guys gotta feel like they're always in the hot seat. It would be nice if all they had to say was "look it's not a perfect design but it's the best we got and the only legit 5th gen design in production right now, and we're committed to making it work" and have that be the end of it.

(I feel a negative vote coming) You know, such a plane would indeed be very cost-effective, and there are some good ideas out there, but every time I see these proposals, all I can think is; just reset the A-10 air frames and update the avionics. I mean, OV-10s and Skyraiders are cool in Vietnam Era terms, and I'm sure Light Air Support aircraft will play a crucial role in the security of small nations like Afghanistan, but they have their limits. Could you imagine what they would've been able to do with A-10s in Nam? Many of the lessons learned in the era of OV-10s and Skyraiders were applied to the Hawg's design. Not to mention all the logistics and experience that is already in place. I will now excuse myself from this thread...

I think the proper terminology is "it".

From what I've been told it's basically been a matter of a general shortage of fighter pilot instructors in the training squadrons overall. Both in IFF and the B courses. Not to mention the D model viper set back with the longerons.

Well it sounds like it's well behaved. But I gotta say; the way I interpret the beginning with all the "the door is open to improve maneuverability" talk, is that the Viper consistently smoked it. Still I'm sure the technology makes up for the "unimproved" maneuverability at the moment. I just hope that eventually they find some ways to lighten it up and maybe put an even better engine on it, not that the 11:1 T/W PW F135 is a crappy engine.

I can't help but imagine that the commentary at the end was some quietly protesting sarcasm by the people who were forced to make that video. From about 1:30-1:45 the priceless audience reactions are being shown while the narrator says, "So far crowd reaction has been fabulous". Their faces say it all...

I think that's an article by Tony Carr, an Air Force guy if I'm not mistaken. Unless I'm misinterpreting the first paragraph. No real point one way or another, just thought I'd mention it. I just hope whatever they do, the F-35 program is used as the standard of how not to run acquisitions. Of course, the F-35 program was supposed to be the program that used the F-22 program as an example of how not to run acquisitions...

Just a repost from FighterSweep.com. Pretty cool though, brings a whole new meaning to "MultiRole Fighter". https://fightersweep.com/1620/south-carolina-guard-f-16s-help-rescue-boaters/

SMO was a huge topic of discussion in my Aviation Law class just recently. I gotta say though, I don't think any changes will come out of this incident. I would hate to be wrong.

You don't even know man: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=103690

Or a fuel selector valve thing like John Denver. I doubt it though.

Fighter Sweep posted some audio, not much but interesting: https://fightersweep.com/1571/ryan-pt-22-recruit-crashes-on-los-angeles-area-golf-course-update/