Red Fox

Stoleit, counter arguments noted. Questions: If the F-35 is to operate off an assault ship to support let's say a beachhead, will it have to immediately climb to get out of the AAA threat and deliver weapons from high above? If so, I just don't see how it can deliver much fire-power. Do you think it will be effective in that role? Or how about other Marine operations? How do you think it will do? I view the A-7, F-8, and A-4 as fairly inexpensive aircraft that wouldn't put such a large hole in our pocketbook if one were lost. I see us making a major investment in this plane. Do you think it prudent to put such a high-priced aircraft that is single engine on a boat? Seems to me that not just with a loss of an engine, but also in reduced thrust conditions the plane will become a fish house. I think a second engine could save many. Do you agree or disagree? Regards, RF

Wow, do I feel out of touch. Next thing you know, someone is going to tell me the "Eagles" disbanded or that the Raiders moved back to Oakland. Thanks for bringing me into the 21st Century Digger. Regards, RF

Unless something has changed since I retired, someone awarded a missile badge is rated. Regards, RF

I think the argument that it can't "dogfight" the F-16 is moot. It wasn't designed for that. The F-16's aerodynamic design is superb and it's newer engines give it a turn capability difficult to match, especially for a VTOL/STOL, LO designed strike aircraft. But, I think we all know that. I don't doubt we need next generation strike aircraft like some here have advocated, but I think this plane is poor value for the cost. Why make a VTOL/STOL aircraft LO? If we are going to put aircraft at austere airfields that require that capability then those very aircraft will most likely be vulnerable to attack from the surface or air. The attack on the Marine Air Squadron in Afghanistan is still raw and I'm also reminded of what a determined foe can do in moving artillery into difficult positions like the North Vietnamese did against the French at Dien Bien Phu. One can argue the planes would be in hardened shelters. Well if you can build hardened shelters then you can lengthen a runway. Also, it is poor design to make such a pricey aircraft to be used for carrier ops single engine. How many will be lost due to low power emergencies vs those we could save if there was a #2? Also, how will they conduct buddy refueling ops? As of now, the USN uses F-18's with external bladders to refuel others (so I was told by a Hornet pilot). Will the F-35 be able to do that once the F-18's are retired? And one last question, how effective will it be against a large mobile force that is invading friendly territory? What if there is weather? Will the CFACC risk these high priced assets in order for them to accurately engage the enemy? And now, one last point. It is poor strategy, IMHO, to use high priced weapons/aircraft to destroy $5000 trucks with a machine guns mounted in their backs. When we utilize them in combat vs low tech adversaries, we risk giving away footprints, flight profiles, data link info, etc. to potential higher-tech adversaries. I believe the F-35's LO technology will be obsolete before the entire buy is complete and we will be stuck with an air-frame that we have to hang pods from that doesn't perform as well as it's predecessors. My 2 cents (from an ORF) Regards, RF

I'm now an ORF and a concerned taxpayer and come at this with a concern about our nation's fiscal health and defense, I was a career airlifter/training IP, but was involved with quite a few CAF-centric exercises, with several being CW. So, I'm familiar with current challenges, but not nearly as knowledgeable as you aviators who fly our CAF aircraft. I know enough to be dangerous one might say. I would like to give those we put in harm's way the best equipment possible. So I need to defer to those who have the experience, such as Brabus (above comment). Here are a few questions/concerns I have, as a taxpayer and as someone who cares, directed at those of you who are far more "in the know". 1. I used to work with a gentleman who was an ATS pilot for many years. At the time I knew him, he was most likely the most experienced Aggressor the USAF had had. He called the F-22 revolutionary. Is the F-35 similar as a strike aircraft? 2. It seems to me we are making a huge investment for the sake of an LO VTOL/STOL design and losing aircraft performance for that design (from what I understand). What happens if/when a unique detection signature for the F-35 is found by our potential adversaries? I believe it is far cheaper for an adversary to find a counter to LO than for us to develop LO. I could be wrong. but again, we are investing huge sums of money into an airframe and powerplant that are not easily altered. It will be the backbone of our fighter fleet for how many years, thirty or forty? 3. Would it not be more prudent to build fewer F-35s and buy more F-16s (Block 60s), F-15Es, F-18s and augment the newer Gen 4 fighters with better ECM and lethal SEAD capabilities/tactics? Or buy the F-32 for the VTOL/STOL? (I knew the Boeing test pilot for the F-32. He was the first one to fly it. He was convinced Boeing had the better design. Of course, he had skin in the game). I believe it is not wise to put all of our eggs in one basket with the F-35 and with Lockheed. I believe it is in our best interests to have more than one company, just for the sake of business competition, building our fighter aircraft. We need to maintain the skilled workers from more than one company as part of our overall national strategic planning, IMO. 4. Will our military leaders be willing to put such a high priced aircraft at austere fields where base defense is not always guaranteed? Look at what happened with the AV-8's we lost in Afghanistan. If not, what is the point of having VTOL/STOL, FARP maybe? 5. I believe just as SAM capabilities and lethality have improved, so will/have SSM's. How willing will we be to risk our CV's? Will our CV's be required to be so far offshore as to where the F-35s will be outside their operational combat range? I understand there is air-to-air refueling, but what aircraft will provide that refueling? Right now, F-18's buddy refuel when nothing else is available (or so I was told). Even with the refueling, will they have the legs to get in and out? 6. Will our commanders be willing to risk such high value aircraft for low priority targets? What if there is high intensity barrage fire? How effective will the F-35 be at delivering PGMs from above the envelope against targets on the move? We lost more F-105's to AAA (including one my Dad was flying) than to SAMs. Yes, they were often flying below 20K and in the heart of the envelope, but how effective will we be if we always stay above the threat? My understanding is that our effectiveness against armored vehicles with PGMs in Allied Force was not that good (could be wrong). As a side story; on one particular mission in Vietnam, my Dad was flying as #2 when the weather over the Ho Chi Minh Trail suddenly cleared and revealed a huge convoy in a mountain pass. The convoy had no cover in which to hide and the FAC diverted all available aircraft to the target. My Dad's flight was the first on the scene. He and his flight lead put their bombs on the lead vehicles and 3 and 4 puts theirs on the trail end. The remaining vehicles couldn't move. They then low angle strafed until empty. They had a field day. Dad told me how the Vietnamese were firing down at them from their gun emplacements in the mountains. Will we be able to do that with F-35s? I understand we have far better and more accurate weapons than in Vietnam, but are we going to sacrifice high priced PGMs to kill low value trucks? Will we even have enough weapons in the air to destroy a convoy, like in this case? Another story; then Major, Jay Lindell (retired as a Major General) was awarded the Silver Star for saving a Special Ops unit under attack by executing a low angle strafe in an F-16 below the clouds with his wingman during Desert Storm. Would that happen with an F-35? 7. How smart is it to build such a pricey aircraft that is single engine? How smart is it to do that for carrier aircraft? How many F-16s have we lost due to engine failure? If I remember correctly, during the 80's we lost a lot of them due to fan blade failure on the P&W engines. I know in the past we and the Navy had a lot of single engine fighters, but we had a far larger fighter fleet and the planes were a lot less expensive. 8. Finally, I believe we will lose effectiveness/capability with the F-35, because our already risk averse commanders will be even more so when employing such an expensive aircraft. I fear those on the ground will not get the help in urgent situations, like the one involving Lindell. I could write/ask more, but I think this tome was enough. Again, I want you guys and our future aviators to have the best equipment possible to get the job done and come home safely. But, I have serious doubts about the F-35. But, like I wrote earlier, I will defer to you who are in the know. So any insights than can be shared are appreciated. (I understand that one cannot truly have an in depth discussion about capabilities vs. capital expenditures via the internet.) I appreciate the forum, Regard, RF.

I think our success in Desert Storm has been a detriment to our strategic planning. I think the success of our PGMs and LO assets have caused us to become too technology dependent and risk averse. Yes technology is great and we are able to execute missions while risking fewer lives, but we haven't fought a large scale conventional war against a determined foe since Vietnam. Yes, PGMs and newer technologies would have been a great help to us then, but if we had had them, the Vietnamese, most likely, would have also. At some time in the future we may have to fight a determined adversary with equal technology if we want to maintain the current status quo within the globe and will have to accept loss of large numbers of pilots and aircraft to win. Is it possible for us to develop weapons so expensive that our military leaders and civilian authority will be scared to employ them for fear of losing such high value equipment? We lost about half of our F-105s in Vietnam. Imagine losing half of our F-35s/F-22s. I doubt we could afford to recapitalize and then where would we be in maintaining desired global status quo? Personally, I think we should invest in some LO, but not solely LO. I think we need to invest in cheaper aircraft where we could buy more, perhaps many more. They would be more cost effective in operations similar to Iraq or Afghanistan and we would maintain a larger number of trained and proficient fighter pilots. One day we may have to rely on numbers and not just technology to accomplish a mission and we will have to accept losses. This is akin to the Normandy invasion or Iwo Jima. We would not have achieved success there without overwhelming numbers of young men willing to die. We may have to do the same in an air campaign some day. So, I believe it is in our national strategic interests to maintain a large fighter fleet,and fighter pilot force, to maintain a skilled defense/aircraft industry labor force, and to keep more than one company in the business of manufacturing fighter aircraft. We can't do it by buying only the F-35, IMHO. A bit of a ramble. Hope it makes sense. Regards, RF

Copy all. Makes sense. Thanks

Tree, Yes, excellent point. I think it would be the same for TAWS also. Would you agree? And you know of the A-10 midair that I referenced. I worked with two guys at Randolph who had flown A-10s at Alex at the time of the accident who described what happened to me. One of them, being the investigating safety officer, was one of the first at the accident sight. Very tragic indeed. I understand about the serious break down in the contract. But, do you think TCAS would have made a difference (as that one last link in the chain), given it was a training sortie? When I began flying in the USAF there was no TCAS, or data Links, or GPWS, etc. Hell, I didn't even fly with an INS or flight computer or a HUD until I was well over 10 years into my flying career (not trying to puff myself up here, its for context.). I remember it being a big deal when the Tweet got the electronic DME display. I flews lots of VFR in the Tweet and Herc without the newer avionics. So maybe my habit patterns formed differently. I didn't have the tools that today's pilot does. I was taught and I taught contact flying meant looking outside and using the horizon as the primary attitude reference. Everything inside was backup. That was a given. I'm reading comments here expressing concern about new guys spending too much time with their heads down and using the "toys" in place of basic aviation practices. Are things being taught differently today or is just too tempting for some to use the electronic magic? (I might have fallen into that habit also if I had them at the time.) Again folks, I've been out of the arena for a while. This is an interesting topic for me and I still like talking aviation on occasion, but you're the ones in the cockpIts. It's your butts that are at risk, not mine. I can opine on flying boards, you can actually instruct and correct and make valuable contributions and inputs to the worthwhile endeavor of USAF aviation. I envy you for that. I read far more that I post and enjoy reading the threads. Helps to keep me somewhat informed of the "goings on" of today's AF. Regards, RF Recent edit. I initially reference GPWS when I intended TAWS.

Ram, Yes, it is a matter of semantics. I come at it from an airlifter point of view and read "sense and avoid" as using all tools available, not as staring inside at an MFD. Again, TCAS has saved heavy aircraft (including commercial) that would not have been able to maneuver quickly enough to avoid collision if the pilots had relied solely on "see and avoid". TCAS would have saved the C-141 off the coast of Africa and most likely the two A-10s from Alex (as I mentioned in a previous post). Being a former ATC IP yourself, then you understand what I mean about keeping track of the aircraft in the pattern (I wan't trying to glorify myself BTW. That was the best example of using something other than one's eyes I thought of at the time.) Did that not help you visually clear? It certainly helped me. When you are on the range, like R2211 near Eielson, where one would fly the BSA pattern you referenced (correct me if I'm wrong), I imagine you use radios to help with SA. Am I wrong? Also, I'm guessing you use your RADAR for SA also? Am I wrong? TCAS/Mode S/Mode 5 for a heavy is similar to RADAR in that it gives some presentation of aircraft that the pilot might not yet see. Gives SA, so he/she might know where to look in the canopy. It's another tool, similar to radio SA, similar to RADAR, IMO. This is really my only point. It helps. It doesn't replace. So, I'm not bothered by the term "sense and avoid" vs. "see and avoid". The change in term would not alter my clearing pattern or use of cockpit displays. I'll grant you this: this is your USAF and no longer mine. You are still flying and I'm not and haven't for years. You currently have far more at stake than I do. I have the luxury of pondering the term's meaning without having to experience its impact. Therefore, your concerns matter, while my opinions are simply opinions shared on a flying board. Regards, RF

You misinterpreted my post. When I was flying the C-17, It was procedure for the PNF to go heads down to select the TCAS page on an MFD and gain SA on the potential conflict when there was a TCAS alert. I never wrote "stare at a screen" (looking inside does not equal stare at a screen) and yes that is not the intent and a bad idea. My point is; there are times heavies cannot maneuver fast enough when relying soley on see and avoid. The fact that TCAS saved your bacon once has proven its worth and supports sense and avoid. I was a Tweet IP at Willy and at Randolph, so I understand what it means to have one's head on a swivel. But even at a UPT base, it wasn't just see and avoid. As an example: while flying in the pattern, I knew the whereabouts of every other aircraft (back in the day there was an 8 aircraft limit in the pattern at the same time) by listening to the position calls. Because of that, I was able to anticipate potential conflicts and look in that sector of the canopy for the other aircraft. So, it was more than just see and avoid. I see TCAS augmenting a crew's SA, much like the pattern position calls did for me those many years ago.

Ram, were you in the USAF in the mid 90's when a C-141 collided with a GAF C-160 off the coast of West Africa? The investigating board determined TCAS would have saved both crews. The CSAF at the time, Gen Ryan, did not like that finding and argued to remove it. The AMC/DO argued for it and the finding remained. (I had a friend who was on the safety board and witnessed the argument, so I'm telling the story 2nd hand and from memory). There are times when pilots flying a heavy cannot move the plane fast enough to avoid a collision when using only see and avoid. Sometimes the closure rate is too fast and there is not enough time. In the case of the C-141 accident, the C-160 was unobserved (TCAS would have changed that), but the board determined even if it had been seen, based on the closure rate, the crew could not have reacted quickly enough to avoid the collision (the aircraft commander was actually out of the seat at the time). IMO, the visibility in the C-17 and C-130 is not that great and terrible when compared to the bubble canopy of the Tweet (using the 3 planes I flew post UPT as examples). The MFDs in the C-17 are in a good location and with two pilots, it works well to have one pilot looking inside or be head's down at certain times, like when there is a TCAS alert. TCAS has probably saved several if not many aircrew, military and civilian. (It also gives airlifters great SA during Red Flags). So for heavies, sense and avoid works. Back in 1991, there were two A-10s from Alex that mid-aired, killing both pilots (had a friend on that board also). The board determined they converged at an angle where they didn't see each other until it was too late. TCAS may have helped them also.

I think Jethro Tull did a remake of "Bungle in the Jungle" as a duet with Lynyrd Skynyrd. Three DVD's: Lonesome Dove, the Magnificent Seven, Green Berets (or the Longest Day)

Vertigo, I'm not arguing that malpractice is the primary cause. I specifically stated it wasn't and simply stated that some regions in the past have been affected by malpractice law suits and gave one example. I think you are trying to find an argument where one doesn't exist. No need to burn your brain bytes trying to convince me of your point. Did you read my first paragraph? IMO, that is one of the reasons, because "easy" money is by nature inflationary (simple economics). Did you read my last paragraph that stated I believe it's a complicated issue? There is not a singular cause nor are there simple solutions.

Easy money inflates whatever it targets. Low mortgage rates in general cause higher home prices (until the bubble bursts, like in Vegas). Easier access to student loans have increased tuition rates. This appiles to health care costs also. People via insurance and/or government subsidies have easier access to health care, thus increasing the demand, and thus increasing costs. Medical malpractive is not the primary cause for the rising costs, but has affected some regions and specialties. I read in a Forbes article where some doctors in Dade County, FL have 1400% higher malpractice insurance premiums compared to their counterparts in MN. That does have an impact. There are regions that had difficulty in attracting certain specialties because of malpractice suits. That also impacts cost. Mississippi used to be notorious, but several years ago, passes tort reform legislation. Complicated subject with no easy explanation or solution. Unless we want to continue passing our debt to future generations, someone or some group is going to get screwed. It's a zero sum game. I don't mind paying a little more if it helps a large group who for whatever reason have had trouble getting insurance, like pre-existing conditions, lay-offs, etc.

Back in the day I flew C-130s and worked several Northen Edge exercises. So, lots of mingling with the Army (full of overly ambitious promises for use of airlift). During a planning conference break, I was talking with a USAR O-5. He told me when he was a young O-1 or O-2 he was participating in a mass airdrop at Pope. It was an all out effort with the general and staff jumping also. He and another young Lt were to be the jump masters on their plane. Before the drop, they overheard or were told directly by an oldhead jumpmaster NCO how he used to ride the air deflector doors after the doors were opened and prior to green light. The O-5 telling me the story deferred the challenge, but his friend was all for it. Needless to say, that particular C-130 had one jumper well short of the DZ and the gungho Lt had a difficult time expaining to the CO why he was way late getting to the rally point. Story is much better when told in person. This is akin to a USAR NCO suggesting to one of his troops that he ride in the HMMWV while it was being LAPES'd. Loadmaster had a helluva time convincing the kid that it was a joke.