Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:16 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Ravenman if you want to argue please do a better argument than "appeal to authority". It's boring and a logical fallacy.

The article I quoted above confirms as an undeniable fact that the F-35 has zero margin for extra heat dissipation, because it can't function if it's fuel is too hot and it's fuel is the coolant. So yeah actually since image / signal processing is my specialty for 20 years I have an insight here. Dr Gilmore is undoubtably a smart man but is his specialty image and signal processing? Note I am not doing an appeal to my authority, I'm telling you what is required in terms of processor power and heat dissipation from my experience to achieve what they have promised in Block3F, feel free to independently do some research and confirm this.

Last edited by coremelt; 09-22-2016 at 02:20 PM.
  #102  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If the jet uses fuel as coolant, how does it cool off when the fuel is depleted near the end of a sortie?
As a factual matter, the fuel is most useful as a coolant when the airplane is on or near the ground. The cavities where the fuel is stored onboard (they aren't actually tanks in any meaningful use of the term) can dispose of some waste heat to the extent that the ambient air temperature is say, 100 degrees, the fuel may be 85 degrees or whatever, and so on.

Once the plane takes off, ambient temperatures are like zero, so you don't need a lot of fuel to suck up waste heat. Also, the power used in the aircraft will generally be less at the end of a mission with less fuel, less going fast, perhaps expended weapons, less use of electronic warfare and other features, etc.

This is a total non-issue.
  #103  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:37 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Ravenman if you want to argue please do a better argument than "appeal to authority". It's boring and a logical falsity.
I don't think you actually understand that fallacy at all.

If I say that Dr. Gilmore is an expert on weapons testing, his opinion is highly relevant on whether the F-35 is in trouble is highly relevant. That's because he is an expert in his field, and is offering views based on his knowledge, experience, and opinions based directly on the subject at hand. Another example of this would be respecting the views of Stephen Hawking on matters of theoretical physics -- sure, he might make errors, but in general he's a credible source on that topic.

An improper appeal to authority is one in which someone who does NOT have any credentials on the matter at hand. Like a software engineer claiming that a military aircraft is completely broken and unfixable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote:
An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
Quote:
The article I quoted above confirms as an undeniable fact that the F-35 has zero margin for extra heat dissipation, because it can't function if it's fuel is too hot and it's fuel is the coolant.
The article doesn't say the F-35 has zero margin for heat -- you're inferring something that is not there. The followup article I posted also says that this silly issue has not resulted in any postponed or cancelled sorties, and there's been no coverage of this dumb fuel issue for two years.

This is a non-issue.
  #104  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:42 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Thanks Ravenman for the clarification about the heat and fuel.


Not to hijack the thread, but I wonder, if we were to turn the clock back, knowing what we know today about the JSF, how might the aircraft be designed differently?


Maybe:

1) Twin engines, to assuage the Navy (and Canadian and Australian) concerns about engine failure over wide, remote, regions?

2) Larger internal volume to accommodate issues that could arise with overheating or unanticipated equipment or technology that will need more room;

3) A more spread-out program timetable for testing and evaluation before any production jets are actually produced (maybe an IOC of 2020 for all three military services?)



In a way, it seems that criticism of a program for being behind schedule causes rushing, which then causes errors, and then the same critics demand, 'Why did you rush?"

Last edited by Velocity; 09-22-2016 at 02:43 PM.
  #105  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:51 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Thanks Ravenman for the clarification about the heat and fuel.


Not to hijack the thread, but I wonder, if we were to turn the clock back, knowing what we know today about the JSF, how might the aircraft be designed differently?


Maybe:

1) Twin engines, to assuage the Navy (and Canadian and Australian) concerns about engine failure over wide, remote, regions?

2) Larger internal volume to accommodate issues that could arise with overheating or unanticipated equipment or technology that will need more room;

3) A more spread-out program timetable for testing and evaluation before any production jets are actually produced (maybe an IOC of 2020 for all three military services?)



In a way, it seems that criticism of a program for being behind schedule causes rushing, which then causes errors, and then the same critics demand, 'Why did you rush?"
Really, the biggest issue was that they tried to design a single airframe to do multiple missions for multiple services. If we had it to do over again, THAT is probably the thing that should have been changed. But they felt we could save money (on a cutting edge 5th generation fighter ) by having one design for the air frame that could then use a large percentage of it's components in common 'off the shelf' (once they were designed and developed of course) and save the tax payer in the long run.
  #106  
Old 09-22-2016, 02:58 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If the jet uses fuel as coolant, how does it cool off when the fuel is depleted near the end of a sortie?
Same way the SR-71 does, it's the flowing fuel that does the cooling. It's not a problem unless you actually run out of fuel.
  #107  
Old 09-22-2016, 03:04 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
There is probably an awful lot of stuff inside the airplane that could smartly be used as common for all three services -- the radar is awfully good, the sensor fusion stuff is groundbreaking, the engine is... okay but not great.

But the whole concept of the program at the beginning was that all three airframes would be something like 80% common parts, and the remaining 20% was the stuff that would make the Navy airplane work on carriers, the Marine Corps and the STOVL capability, etc. This general philsophy extended into the early parts of the test program, in which it was planned that if an F-35A could open the flight envelope for aeronautics testing, then the F-35B and F-35C wouldn't have to repeat all of those tests. They could just do some. Of course, we had to go back and test a lot more of those test points because it didn't work out that way, and that cost time and money.

So back to the commonality. The numbers are squishy on this, but I'd say its probably closer to 20% parts that are truly common, another 50% that are "cousins", and the remainder are unique. They really are three different jets. They should have started as three different jets. I bet the Navy would be much more enthusiastic about the F-35C if it was an F-37 with two engines, for example. The Marines would probably end up with roughly the same aircraft, I would think.

These lessons have been learned the hard way. The Navy and the Air Force are now beginning to design a 6th generation fighter, but they are basically doing their own studies and concepts. What they produce will not be the same airplane, nor a variant of the same airplane, to be sure. That's a better way to go, IMO.
  #108  
Old 09-22-2016, 05:27 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You are being incredibly dishonest and you know it,. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
And again it's dishonest of you . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As far as your suggestion . . . , its a stupid threat that nobody would ever take seriously. The equivalent of a toddler's tantrum.
. . .
Sir, I'd like to have some of whatever you are smoking. It must be reallllly good stuff.
You are both out of line, violating rules against calling other posters liars and general insults against other posters.

You will both stop, now. The next such remark will receive a Warning.

[ /Moderating ]
  #109  
Old 09-27-2016, 04:16 AM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, a death spiral is not "slipping further behind schedule." A death spiral is commonly understood to be a defense program in which development problems cause cuts to procurement quantities, leading to increased R&D AND procurement costs, forcing further procurement cuts, and eventually program termination. If procurement is increasing, there is no death spiral. It's nonsensical.
Ah, that explains it. "Death Spiral" is also a specific software industry term, refering to software projects, where it has the meaning:

"A project that will never complete, because the further you get in, the less fixable it becomes"

The situation you describe, where the unit price increases, killing the project, is very rare in software, becasue software is not sold on a cost-plus basis. If anything, in software it would be more common for procurement to increase, as the suppliers make increasingly despeare attempts to save the project by adding more sales/users to cover costs.
  #110  
Old 09-27-2016, 04:39 AM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, a death spiral is not "slipping further behind schedule." A death spiral is commonly understood to be a defense program in which development problems cause cuts to procurement quantities, leading to increased R&D AND procurement costs, forcing further procurement cuts, and eventually program termination. If procurement is increasing, there is no death spiral. It's nonsensical.
Ah, that explains it. "Death Spiral" is also a specific software industry term, refering to software projects, where it has the meaning:

"A project that will never complete, because the further you get in, the less fixable it becomes"

The situation you describe, where the unit price increases, killing the project, is very rare in software, becasue software is not sold on a cost-plus basis. If anything, in software it would be more common for procurement to increase, as the suppliers make increasingly despeare attempts to save the project by adding more sales/users to cover costs.
  #111  
Old 09-27-2016, 09:39 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I bet the Navy would be much more enthusiastic about the F-35C if it was an F-37 with two engines, for example. The Marines would probably end up with roughly the same aircraft, I would think.
But the Marines needed a STOVL aircraft for their itty bitty carriers, and a twin-engined aircraft would have been too heavy to develop into a STOVL variant.
And the Marines don't buy enough aircraft to justify building something just for them - which is why they ended up the Harrier variants last time around.
  #112  
Old 09-27-2016, 10:34 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Erm, I said that the Marines would probably have ended up with a single engine, STOVL aircraft. They might have descoped some features, like the sensor fusion, to control costs - who knows. But I didn't say that Marines would have a twin engined airplane.

And I don't concede that Marines cannot afford to develop large programs. The Expeditatiknarg Fighting Vehicle was a 20-year R&D program involving billions of dollars before it was cancelled. The development of the Osprey speaks for itself. The CH-53K (soon to enter testing) and the newer H-1 helos are all rather small programs in terms of production quantities, and to be sure not as difficult a development as a tactical fighter, but are no doubt large development programs that most countries (forget branches of armed forces) could probably not afford on their own.

As far as "death spiral" terminology, even if the term of art has a slightly different meaning for software as compared to defense terminology - I disagree that there's any evidence that the situation even meets the software definition. There's no evidence that the schedule delays are worsening or that certain functions are impossible. Every block of software has been delayed (except maybe .5, can't remember), but it doesn't seem for example that block 1 was delayed by a year, then 2A by 18 months, then 2B by two years, etc.

The criticism of 3F is whether it will deliver inside the scheduled window for developmental testing, not whether it will deliver at all.
  #113  
Old 09-27-2016, 11:33 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
Yeah, but there are large programs, and then there are 5G multirole fighters. The EFV program seems to have cost about $3.3 billion. The Osprey's program cost is projected at $36 billion after procurement is finished. The F-35 program cost is $1.3 trillion. Let's say - generously - that a quarter of that is for the STOVL stuff and everything else that is unique to the B airframe, plus acquisition costs. That's way more than any other Marine program. Even the 8 Wasp-class carriers only seem to have cost about $10 billion in total.
  #114  
Old 09-27-2016, 12:57 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Yeah, but there are large programs, and then there are 5G multirole fighters. The EFV program seems to have cost about $3.3 billion. The Osprey's program cost is projected at $36 billion after procurement is finished. The F-35 program cost is $1.3 trillion.
You're making the same apples to oranges comparison error that always pops up on this issue.

Let's be very clear: $1.5 trillion has to do with R&D, procurement, AND 50 YEARS OF OPERATIONS of roughly 2,500 F-35 fighters, with roughly 80% of those costs being fuel and maintenance. Of the cost of developing and producing the aircraft, the total bill to DoD is likely in the $330 billion range. Of that, roughly $59 billion is for R&D activities from the beginning of the program and for the next half-century. Of that total R&D bill, the actual amount that the Marine Corps has budgeted for R&D for the F-35 from the start of the program to this very date, is probably along the order of $7 billion -- just in very rough numbers. Might be as high as $10 billion, but I'm not sure of that. In contrast, the R&D that has been sunk into the V-22 by the Marine Corps is over $9 billion. That's a fact.

So to be clear: I'm not saying that the Marine Corps could have developed the F-35 B Lightning II STOVL aircraft for roughly $10 billion. I'm saying that they spent a lot of money on F-35 development, just as they have on development of other big programs, so let's not pretend that the Marine Corps is broke.

And I'm saying that if they had gone their own way on developing a replacement for the Harrier, perhaps with synergies but not a flawed approach to a "common" airframe design to cooperate with other services, the Marine Corps would very likely have developed something that has the general attributes of what the F-35B turned out to be: STOVL, single engine, more survivable. Other attributes of this fantasy plane surely would have been different -- maybe reused a mature engine instead of a whole new F135 development program, maybe more of a low observable instead of very low observable aircraft, and so on.

But let's not pretend that the Marine Corps is so poor that they couldn't afford to build a STOVL. If they don't have a STOVL jet, the big deck amphibs are pointless. The Marine Corps would surely prioritize to make sure that they get something useful out of those ships. Perhaps they would not have invested in such an aggressive new heavy lift helicopter as the CH-53K, which comes with an acquisition pricetag of $35 billion, for example.
  #115  
Old 09-27-2016, 01:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,359
Fuck it, everybody gets the A-10. Make it work.
  #116  
Old 09-27-2016, 03:12 PM
AndrewL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Fuck it, everybody gets the A-10. Make it work.
I am very curious to see what the VTOL version of the A-10 will look like.
  #117  
Old 09-27-2016, 03:13 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
It will look pretty much the same but leaning against some scaffolding.
  #118  
Old 09-27-2016, 03:29 PM
Rysto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewL View Post
I am very curious to see what the VTOL version of the A-10 will look like.
Step 1) Point the miniguns directly towards the ground...
  #119  
Old 09-28-2016, 07:22 PM
Soulcatcher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewL View Post
I am very curious to see what the VTOL version of the A-10 will look like.


www.yojoe.com/vehicles/84/rattler/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #120  
Old 09-29-2016, 12:44 AM
iLemming is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: In the queue
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
It makes very very clear that the main delay in the F-35 at this point is actually the software.
Gee... You think?

I would have thought re-writing six million lines of computer code, so it does not clash with its Guangdong knock-off counterpart's curiously similar concoction, would have been a piece of copy-paste piss...

Shows how much I know about 1's and 0's.

Last edited by iLemming; 09-29-2016 at 12:46 AM.
  #121  
Old 09-29-2016, 12:33 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Clueless in Australia


Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
The situation you describe, where the unit price increases, killing the project, is very rare in software, becasue software is not sold on a cost-plus basis. If anything, in software it would be more common for procurement to increase, as the suppliers make increasingly despeare attempts to save the project by adding more sales/users to cover costs.
This argument is totally specious for two simple facts: We are not "buying software" i.e. waiting for x-milliion lines of code to be delivered and indtalled in a computer(s). In fact, the software is totally proprietary - owned and controlled by Lockheed. The Government will never touch it, except as directed for maintenance and upgrade, by Lockheed. Additionally, on a program like this, time "is" money, with schedule slips reverberating through an entire industrial base, literally across the planet.
  #122  
Old 09-29-2016, 01:07 PM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
I think what Melbourne meant was that in commercial software sales, the specific scenario of death spiral by increasing unit costs vs. the customer's effectively fixed budget just doesn't happen.

Instead commercial software fails in the marketplace in a different way.

He's not speaking even a little bit about F-35 software as if it was commercial software, was developed like commercial software, or was/is sold like commercial software.


The F-35 may in fact be entering into a traditional DoD/Congress budgetary death spiral. And if so software-related delays will be / have been a major driver.

But that's not the same issue.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 09-29-2016 at 01:09 PM.
  #123  
Old 09-29-2016, 06:36 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
I think what Melbourne meant was that in commercial software sales, the specific scenario of death spiral by increasing unit costs vs. the customer's effectively fixed budget just doesn't happen.
That's why there is no comparison from a software standpoint in terms of any perceived "death spiral." Flight software is a fundamentally different animal in many respects, including how it is developed, how it is managed and how it is delivered. Integration issues are many orders of magnitude more difficult than most people's concept of the term software. It's apples vs. oranges comparing the F-35 software to OTS-ware.
  #124  
Old 09-29-2016, 08:30 PM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
That's NOT what he's doing. At least that's not how I read it.

He merely was saying that he originally misunderstood the term "death spiral" in this thread. He was applying his knowledge of slang in commercial IT and couldn't figure out how his understanding of the term could map to what folks were talking about here.

Once somebody explained what "death spiral" means in the context of DoD procurement he had an "aha" moment. He was explaining to us the source of his confusion. Nothing more was meant.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 09-29-2016 at 08:31 PM.
  #125  
Old 09-30-2016, 09:17 AM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534
Aha!
  #126  
Old 11-23-2016, 12:28 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Wouldn't call this a death spiral, but Canada is buying Super Hornets as an interim measure and re-thinking the F-35 buy altogether. Super Hornets were always more sensible for Canada; the vast distances and expanses make a twin-engine jet better in case of one engine's failure, the greater commonality with the CF-18s, and a lower price tag. For that matter, Super Hornets would work better for Norway, Australia, etc.


One customer for whom the F-35B would make a great deal of sense would be Taiwan. It's a small island with numerous airfields, so the engine-failure issue isn't as big of a concern, and runways are likely to be targeted in wartime, making a STOVL aircraft highly valuable. The only issue is cost and also the United States' reluctance to sell. But if many other countries canceled on the F-35, Taiwan would be a logical customer to pick up the slack.

Essentially, the best customers of the F-35 are small countries that have a need for an advanced fighter.
  #127  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Canada sucks. Some new F-15s would be way better than F-18s in their situation, but they're too cheap to do national defense properly. It wouldn't surprise me if they cancel the F-18 order in the future and go with Gripens, or downgrade it further to some turbo-prop drug interdiction plane like the Super Tucano.
  #128  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:25 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
You don't know what you're talking about.

1. Buying F-15s would make far, far less sense than Super Hornet. The F-15 is an absolutely nonsensical idea. Super Hornet at least is similar to the existing fleet of CF-18s.

2. The interim purchase of CF-18s is not Canada being cheap. It's exactly the opposite; it's the government spending FAR more than it should for political purposes. This allows them to delay the inevitable purchase of a more advanced fighter.
  #129  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Let's pretend that you were in charge of a large, sparsely-populated fictional country, something like Canada or Australia. If you're building an Air Force from the ground up for your country, and you had a choice between the latest-and-greatest F/A-18E/F or a similar number of F-15SA fighters, you'd have to be nuts to pick the Superbugs over the Strike Eagles. You'd be buying the slower, shorter-ranged, lower-ceiling, smaller-payload jet. The only reason you'd do it is to save some money because F-15's are expensive. Agreed?
  #130  
Old 11-23-2016, 01:57 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Cturbo-prop drug interdiction plane like the Super Tucano.
Those can't intercept. Canada needs jets capable of greeting Russian bombers that like to drop by to say hi, or intercepting a hijacked airliner, etc.
  #131  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:00 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's pretend that you were in charge of a large, sparsely-populated fictional country, something like Canada or Australia. If you're building an Air Force from the ground up for your country, and you had a choice between the latest-and-greatest F/A-18E/F or a similar number of F-15SA fighters, you'd have to be nuts to pick the Superbugs over the Strike Eagles. You'd be buying the slower, shorter-ranged, lower-ceiling, smaller-payload jet. The only reason you'd do it is to save some money because F-15's are expensive. Agreed?
You don't buy bestest and fastest for the sake of bestest and fastest. You buy what you need and makes sense for you.
  #132  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
You buy the faster, longer-range jet for exactly the reasons you said: sometimes Canadians have to intercept Russian bombers that are, inconveniently, located a long ways from their air bases. Would it better to get there slower and have less fuel for escorting them, or get there faster and have more fuel for escorting them?

It makes sense for Canadians (and Australians), which have to cover huge expanses of territory, to purchase the faster, longer-range jet, unless they're just too expensive.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 11-23-2016 at 02:10 PM.
  #133  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:18 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You buy the faster, longer-range jet...
That's great, but you're buying a completely different platform from your existing fighters, and an old jet that's not being made past 2019. It would be a stupid decision, which is why the F-15 wasn't even one of the options the RCAF considered for competition. The Super Hornet is a superior choice either as an interim solution or a long term solution. The F-15 would have been a ridiculous choice.

The correct aircraft is, regrettably, the F-22, which the USA won't sell. Failing that, probably the F-35, but politics won't presently allow that. What is for sure is the F-15 is a silly choice (and you certainly would not want the Strike Eagle variant if your priority is interception.) We're talking real life, not video games.
  #134  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:20 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You buy the faster, longer-range jet...
That's great, but you're buying a completely different platform from your existing fighters,, an old jet that's not being made past 2019, and one with limited interoperability with our allies. It would be a stupid decision, which is why the F-15 wasn't even one of the options the RCAF considered for competition. The Super Hornet is a superior choice either as an interim solution or a long term solution. The F-15 would have been a ridiculous choice.

The correct aircraft is, regrettably, the F-22, which the USA won't sell. Failing that, probably the F-35, but politics won't presently allow that. What is for sure is the F-15 is a silly choice (and you certainly would not want the Strike Eagle variant if your priority is interception.) We're talking real life, not video games.
  #135  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
What is for sure is the F-15 is a silly choice (and you certainly would not want the Strike Eagle variant if your priority is interception.)
Why is that?

Quote:
The image above shows the F-15SA once again, albeit this time it is in an air-to-air configuration, including no less than eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs and eight AIM-9X Sidewinders. This amounts to double the missile carrying capability of the F-15C or F-15E. Also note the Infrared Search and Track system mounted above the jetís radome. This, combined with its state of the art radarís low probability of intercept modes, advanced radar warning receiver and Link 16 data-link, allows the F-15SA to hunt for enemy aircraft in electromagnetic silence while still maintain high-situational awareness.
source
  #136  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:36 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,978
I seem to recall that the CF-18 had some desirable performance attributes in relation to operating from airfields in the more frosty, northern parts of Canada. I believe they need the CF-18's arresting hooks to operate in icy conditions on shorter runways. An F-15 wouldn't be a good choice if my memory is correct and that is what is required.
  #137  
Old 11-23-2016, 02:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I seem to recall that the CF-18 had some desirable performance attributes in relation to operating from airfields in the more frosty, northern parts of Canada. I believe they need the CF-18's arresting hooks to operate in icy conditions on shorter runways. An F-15 wouldn't be a good choice if my memory is correct and that is what is required.
Perhaps you're right, but it's worth mentioning here that F-15s also have tailhooks, as do F-22s (and probably other USAF jets), although I believe their primary use is in emergency situations (and for that matter, I'm not sure how often Canadian CF-18s use an arresting hook either).
  #138  
Old 11-23-2016, 04:35 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps you're right, but it's worth mentioning here that F-15s also have tailhooks, as do F-22s (and probably other USAF jets), although I believe their primary use is in emergency situations (and for that matter, I'm not sure how often Canadian CF-18s use an arresting hook either).
Do you have a cite that either the F-15 or F-22 have hooks? I've read a lot about both over the years, seems tons of pictures and videos, and have never heard anyone say this, certainly never saw one deployed.
  #139  
Old 11-23-2016, 04:43 PM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Do you have a cite that either the F-15 or F-22 have hooks? I've read a lot about both over the years, seems tons of pictures and videos, and have never heard anyone say this, certainly never saw one deployed.
F-15s and F-16s do. As did prior USAF fighters back for decades. F-22 and F-35 do also.

A quick google image search for [F-22 tailhook] will show some pics. Plus a bunch of other aircraft, but the F-22 pix are obviously there and obviously real.

Fighters have a lot less systems redundancy and the tail hook is considered a backup braking system. It's also used to land semi-safely with various gear malfunctions. A USAF standard runway will have one arresting wire near each end of the runway. For gear problems you land at the start of the runway and catch the first wire (called a "barrier"). For braking problems you roll to the far end and engage that one. See here for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest...-based_systems

The big difference between USAF and Navy tailhooks (besides the groping ) is USAF designs are intended for only very occasional use whereas the Navy stuff is built to withstand all day every day use.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 11-23-2016 at 04:47 PM.
  #140  
Old 11-23-2016, 06:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Do you have a cite that either the F-15 or F-22 have hooks?
Here is an article describing the hook and its operational use http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.c...ave-tailhooks/
  #141  
Old 12-23-2016, 02:18 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
BUMP
Looks like Trump is inclined to cancel the whole thing.
  #142  
Old 12-23-2016, 06:01 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,061
It's obviously outside the conventions what Trump is doing by seemingly meddling so intimately in the economy, but I think this is one area in which I probably don't mind. Contractors have been fleecing this country for years -- it's about time someone hold them accountable.
  #143  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:51 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Do you have a cite that either the F-15 or F-22 have hooks? I've read a lot about both over the years, seems tons of pictures and videos, and have never heard anyone say this, certainly never saw one deployed.
I asked the same question when I viewed a YouTube video of a plane (F4 Phantom in this case) claimed to be an Air Force Phantom flying by with it's tail hook down. I was ready to claim that it must have been a Navy or USMC plane.
I received comments from 2 different people, both Air Force mechanics, describing how Air Force planes really did have tail hooks. Seems there are times they use them to arrest landing distances other than on a ship. One even described the noise made when a hook was dropped while a plane was in a maintenance hangar. So strange as it seems, many AF planes have tail hooks.

ETA
I see LSGuy already hit this...

Last edited by Morgenstern; 12-23-2016 at 09:52 AM.
  #144  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:52 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
BUMP
Looks like Trump is inclined to cancel the whole thing.
Putin wins again!
  #145  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:57 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
BUMP
Looks like Trump is inclined to cancel the whole thing.
Trump probably knows that Congress will keep the F-35 program alive. He gets to sound brash and strong, and gets to blame Congress for the spending.
  #146  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:07 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I asked the same question when I viewed a YouTube video of a plane (F4 Phantom in this case) claimed to be an Air Force Phantom flying by with it's tail hook down. I was ready to claim that it must have been a Navy or USMC plane.
I received comments from 2 different people, both Air Force mechanics, describing how Air Force planes really did have tail hooks. Seems there are times they use them to arrest landing distances other than on a ship. One even described the noise made when a hook was dropped while a plane was in a maintenance hangar. So strange as it seems, many AF planes have tail hooks.

ETA
I see LSGuy already hit this...
The F-4 was an intermediate case in that it was a 100% Navy design that the Air Force belatedly decided to buy.

As such it had many Navy standard design features: nose gear with dual wheels & catapult connector, long travel monster main gear, extra corrosion proofing, etc. And relevant to this hijack, a USN standard heavy-duty hook rather than the USAF standard occasional-use hook.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-23-2016 at 10:07 AM.
  #147  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:11 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
Complete hijack, but I once read that of current airforce planes, the F16 was the only one which could readily be redesigned as a carrier plane. (By which I mean, a carrier version made, not that existing airframes be retrofitted). This is unlike Russian and French practice, where carrier planes are basically models of existing airforce planes.
  #148  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:15 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Putin wins again!
Not to pick on the quoted poster, but it's amazing to see people who have been calling the F35 a piece of shyt for years suddenly learning to love it when Trump expresses that same opinion.

The Guardian newspaper for one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4
Trump probably knows that Congress will keep the F-35 program alive. He gets to sound brash and strong, and gets to blame Congress for the spending.
Either way this is the first real political pushback Lockheed has had. Earlier, the criticisms came from middle managers, everyone in power in the US and abroad has been busy fellating them to actually do something.
  #149  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:21 AM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Not to pick on the quoted poster, but it's amazing to see people who have been calling the F35 a piece of shyt for years suddenly learning to love it when Trump expresses that same opinion.

The Guardian newspaper for one.


....
Unfortunately, I've been a supporter of the aircraft. I've accepted the "if we could only tell you all the classified capabilities of this aircraft" as reason enough to give it a chance. I'm not privy to classified information, so I'm stuck listening to the experts/pilots who flew it when they tell me it's awesome.

But again, Putin will love it if Trump cancels a major threat to his potential air-superiority in any conflict.

ETA, even the Chinese are copying it, but the Chinese think just looking like it is being it. (China's J-31)

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/20...opycat/121859/

Last edited by Morgenstern; 12-23-2016 at 10:25 AM.
  #150  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:47 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Complete hijack, but I once read that of current airforce planes, the F16 was the only one which could readily be redesigned as a carrier plane. (By which I mean, a carrier version made, not that existing airframes be retrofitted). This is unlike Russian and French practice, where carrier planes are basically models of existing airforce planes.
I'd be curious for a ref to that if you have one. It seems to me ... implausible.

The airplane was built very lightly wherever it wasn't needed to carry Gs. That's part of how it performed so well.

The main gear's gross design was akin to that on the A-7, another joint USAF/USN aircraft. I could imagine some non-expert writer observing that similarity and writing something along the lines of "With its Navy style main gear and its hook it could easily be adapted for carrier use." Which IMO would be bunk. But externally plausible bunk.

OTOH, there's no guarantee I've got it right here either. I just worked there; I sure wasn't involved in the design stuff.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017