F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[rjmaz1]

Wont be an issue with the JSF's data fusion, DAS and systems integration.

Even with 4th generation automation in the cockpits two humans in the loop will be able to do a better job. The best data fusion to a single pilot will significantly reduce their workload however the pilot can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

A super hornet could be dog fighting with an enemy fighter and the guy in the back could launch a HARM missile mid turn at an enemy SAM site. JSF cannot do this, the data fusion does not automatically target and deploy weapons.

If a JSF is providing close air support the pilot will be looking at the head down display showing whats happening on the ground. The pilot has 100% of his concentration on that moving picture of the ground.

Maybe, maybe not. However, you gets what you pay for.

So if the US actually ordered 700 F-22's and they only cost 100 million each would that make them inferior to the current F-22 that cost twice as much?

The JSF price could be anywhere between the price of the hornet to the point where they cost twice as much as a hornet, this all depends on how many orders they get. Either way you get the same JSF aircraft regardless of the price. So you get very little for what you pay for if the price is high, but you get alot for your money if the price is low.

You are incorrect in stating that you get what you pay for.

So will JSF!

No the JSF wont be a single aircraft fleet.. We will most likely purchase Super Hornets next year which means two different aircraft in the fleet when JSF arrives. So the only way to have a single aircraft fleet is to not buy JSF but more Super Hornets instead.

 

[gf0012-aust]

rjmaz1,

you do realise that magoo is probably one of the most informed people in australia about the Hornets and Super Hornets? You do realise that he is one of the few people in australia who has flown the official JSF sim - even though it had a declassified suite?

 

[Tasman]

A super hornet could be dog fighting with an enemy fighter and the guy in the back could launch a HARM missile mid turn at an enemy SAM site. JSF cannot do this, the data fusion does not automatically target and deploy weapons.

I just cannot imagine (other than in a simulator) that the backseat person would attempt to engage a ground target in the middle of a dogfight. I am certain that he/she would be giving 100% to helping the pilot win the dogfight (I know that's what I would be doing if I was in the back seat!).

Cheers

nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

No the JSF wont be a single aircraft fleet.. We will most likely purchase Super Hornets next year which means two different aircraft in the fleet when JSF arrives. So the only way to have a single aircraft fleet is to not buy JSF but more Super Hornets instead.

I think what Magoo is trying to get at in part, is you probably shouldn't be quite so certain in your convictions. SH hasn't been ordered yet. Nor has JSF.

Why don't we simply WAIT and see what happens prior to making definitive statements?

There is NO guarantee that an SH would remain in-service once JSF is operational even if purchased. There have been surprise "supplemental" funding additions before...

 

[contedicavour]

The eurofigther constorium, the british are responsibilie to potentual markets in japan. Japan is considered a serious prospect. However, i feel japanese bias, will have them buy all american (F-18E/F) then (F-35A/B). But eurofigther would work hard and fast to try to capture any possbilitiy of selling to the japanese.

As I already wrote before in this thread, a big influencing factor will be the level of participation of Japanese aerospace industry to EADS, Finmeccanica and BAE programmes. If there is massive offset directly on Typhoon manufacture or on Airbus for example, there is a chance Japan may order Typhoons.
However the main influencing factor remains the very close US-Japan relation. Politically I don't see Japan buying anything else than American jets.

cheers

 

[Ths]

As to the F-22.
The interesting part of the discussion was the stance of the senate.
Extrapolating from historical experience, this would mean that the US does not think the Russian and Chinese developments are what they are cracked up to be. That is interesting in itself. This means that air-defence capability isn't the issue.

The problem is bridging the gap between the F-4 and the F-35

An F-15 XYZ is a solution; but then the problem occurs in 15 years time when Japan will have newly build, but old fighters - where are they to go.

A Typhoon solution (with some local production of electrical wire fastners) might be the way to go as they could replace some early F-15's as well without bothering the F-35 programme´.

What is to be avoided - from the US point of view is a deep strike capability into China proper: We don't want them tearing those nice new dams down - as that would give the Chinese legitimate grieviences - thus making it difficult to reach an understanding with China in other areas.

 

[Big-E]

What is to be avoided - from the US point of view is a deep strike capability into China proper: We don't want them tearing those nice new dams down - as that would give the Chinese legitimate grieviences - thus making it difficult to reach an understanding with China in other areas.

Grievences is taking it a bit lightly. Taking out Three Gorges would be worse than nuking Beijing. It would be Total War...

 

[Occum]

Embarrassing!

rjmaz1,

you do realise that magoo is probably one of the most informed people in australia about the Hornets and Super Hornets? You do realise that he is one of the few people in australia who has flown the official JSF sim - even though it had a declassified suite?

Pleeeeease, this is embarrassing - and for Magoo, as well!

I can give you a long list of names of professional Australian aeronautical types who would be better informed on Hornets and Super Hornets. So, too, could Magoo. When he was writing his book, he sought advice from a whole bunch of people, including Dr Carlo Kopp whose name would be up there on the list.

As for flying a sim - 'official' (what ever that means) or otherwise - or an aircraft for that matter, Magoo and any other reasonable and logical thinking person can vouch for the fact that it is one thing to sit in the seat but an entirely different thing to have the knowledge and expertise to 'fly' the machine and, moreover, assess its capabilities. Just ask the flight test saavy RAAF pilots and engineers who are trying to get to do exactly that to bring some professional nous and sense to the techno glitter starry eyed perceptions that have come out of the whizz bang joy rides by the project office navs and their equally starry eyed (but have an excuse because they have less experience) staff.

While talking about Sims, any modelling or simulation is only as good as the verification and validation that has been done using real world flight test data to calibrate the machine. Until that has been done, the thing is just a big (albeit sophisticated and expensive) video game. The last time we looked at the particular JSF sim to which you are referring, the aero deck and a good part of the propulsion deck was based on the F-16 model. This was not so long ago.

Until the simulators have been certificated, using real world flight test data, one cannot say it or they, in the particular area they are simulating/modelling, are representative of the aircraft or how the aircraft will perform or behave.

 

[Grand Danois]

What is to be avoided - from the US point of view is a deep strike capability into China proper: We don't want them tearing those nice new dams down - as that would give the Chinese legitimate grieviences - thus making it difficult to reach an understanding with China in other areas.

Good observation. US can define Japanese options through their arms sales and limit any offensive posturing.

 

[Magoo]

Pleeeeease, this is embarrassing - and for Magoo, as well!

I can give you a long list of names of professional Australian aeronautical types who would be better informed on Hornets and Super Hornets. So, too, could Magoo. When he was writing his book, he sought advice from a whole bunch of people, including Dr Carlo Kopp whose name would be up there on the list.

This is true. Carlo was a great help to me when I wrote the book, and whilst I may know alot about the history of the jet, I can barely scratch the surface of the operational and technical stuff that those in industry and the operators use everyday.

As for flying a sim - 'official' (what ever that means) or otherwise - or an aircraft for that matter, Magoo and any other reasonable and logical thinking person can vouch for the fact that it is one thing to sit in the seat but an entirely different thing to have the knowledge and expertise to 'fly' the machine and, moreover, assess its capabilities. Just ask the flight test saavy RAAF pilots and engineers who are trying to get to do exactly that to bring some professional nous and sense to the techno glitter starry eyed perceptions that have come out of the whizz bang joy rides by the project office navs and their equally starry eyed (but have an excuse because they have less experience) staff.

Again, correct. Whilst I have flown the F-22 (not F-35) and Super Hornet sims, my couple of hours total time is insignificant compared to any kind of operational use and analysis. My knowledge is generally imparted second hand from talking to many, many people over the years who ARE in the know.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[gf0012-aust]

Pleeeeease, this is embarrassing - and for Magoo, as well!

Thanks for the speech.

The point is that someone who has greater intimacy across various levels is not someone to dismiss lightly.

ie, who has greater credibility in the balance of the debate, and in the persistent quality of that debate - well for me its Magoo.

and I am well aware that authoring anything is a collaborative effort involving many others.

Page 162 of his book details the acknowledgements.

 

[Big-E]

I must ask... is Dr. Kopp a veteran RAAF combat pilot? Or is he a pencil-pusher?

Edit:
A little birdie told me he spent 30 minutes in a Super Bug... well I have 300 hours so there. I guess I should be the holy grail... worship me. imp

 

[Occum]

And So It Starts

The New Year brings with it many predictions - see:

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=15815

In the parlance of good, objective management, the risks are starting to materialise. 2007 is not going to be a good year for the JSF Program.



As for your last post on this thread, Big-E, your ad hominem attacks on people, including Dr Kopp, are getting a tad tiresome.

Three hundred hours, huh, on one type. Now, that is impressive (and I mean this sincerely).

I have something over 1,000 hours in just a few more than one type plus several tens of thousands of man hours working on aircraft and aircraft systems - most of it in flight test in some very interesting programs that are germane to much of the discussion on this and other threads.

We all have something to contribute, and might I suggest in some noted cases especially those whom you choose to much malign with your personal attacks and derogatory sneering.

By all means feel free to criticise someone's views or works, ( the 'what' not the 'who' ) for that is what critical debate is all about but do so with facts not fiction, supposition or make believe as these will go to your own credit, maturity and worth as a contributor, particularly as you are doing so hiding behind a NDP.

If you still want to attack someone personally, then at least have the balls to do so under your own name .....
and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Personally, I would suggest you play the ball, not the man as I believe you have much that may be worth hearing about if you do so.

 

[alexsa]

The New Year brings with it many predictions - see:

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=15815

In the parlance of good, objective management, the risks are starting to materialise. 2007 is not going to be a good year for the JSF Program.

Is this based on hard data that it will be a 'bad year' for the programme or a hunch. You will have to forgive me but you almost seem to be willing it to fail.

 

[Grand Danois]

IMHO USAF space programmes are much more likely to be cut as they're running badly over budget...

 

[Big-E]

Three hundred hours, huh, on one type. Now, that is impressive (and I mean this sincerely).

I have something over 1,000 hours in just a few more than one type plus several tens of thousands of man hours working on aircraft and aircraft systems - most of it in flight test in some very interesting programs that are germane to much of the discussion on this and other threads.

I only transitioned to the Rhino 8 months ago. I have 1350 hours in the legacy Hornet with 325 arrested carrier landings and almost 100 combat sorties from Afghanistan to Iraq. I have 600+ hours in the T-34C at my time with TRAWING 6 and the various assundries that came with my personal 10 million dollar flight training. On the civilian side I have 300+ hours racing P-51s on the weekends for my team and I also own a Cessna 310Q of which include thousands of hours. I also held an SFTI instructor position for SWATLANT the last two years.

While I will bow to your superior engineering knowledge there are very few in Australia who can match my flight experience including your most capable veterans. Some how I get the impression you knew I had more flight time than that... you know how the USN works.

We all have something to contribute, and might I suggest in some noted cases especially those whom you choose to much malign with your personal attacks and derogatory sneering.

The only point I have made is to move on from the F-22 and F-111, they are off the table. I am all up for a debate of relevent issues.

By all means feel free to criticise someone's views or works, ( the 'what' not the 'who' ) for that is what critical debate is all about but do so with facts not fiction, supposition or make believe as these will go to your own credit, maturity and worth as a contributor, particularly as you are doing so hiding behind a NDP.

Yes... that NDP keeps me silent on many issues I wish I could scream at. What have I attacked besides Kopp's credability? I think that is a rather important aspect of choosing which side of debate one should take. When one speaks from personal field experience and the other speaks from behind a desk I think it is obvious who most will back.

If you still want to attack someone personally, then at least have the balls to do so under your own name .....
and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Actually the reason you got me started was because you attacked both Magoo and AussieDigger's credability. Magoo has proven himself to be in-the-know, just because he flew the F-35 simulator doesn't give him a negative on the subject. Aussie Digger's service should never be disparaged wether it is 6 or 16 years. You tought your experience like your word is the end of the road. Believe it that there are people in Australia and especially the USN that have more tactical experience than you in this regard. I have been working with the gents from SPAWAR and see their contributions similiar to Dr. Kopp, but none of them would propose to the DoD a procurement plan based on their credentials.

Personally, I would suggest you play the ball, not the man as I believe you have much that may be worth hearing about if you do so.

Move on from an F-22/F-111 orbat and I'm more than game.

 

[old faithful]

im really enjoying this!nfloorl: so who has the biggest dicknfloorl:

 

[gf0012-aust]

im really enjoying this!nfloorl: so who has the biggest dicknfloorl:

In real absolute power terms - Web.

Now that credentials have been established, we can let it return to respectful adversarial jousting on the merits of the "X-29 over the Berkut" etc......

 

[alexsa]

I only transitioned to ..... and I'm more than game.

I know one liners are passee .... but nice come back. However I have to agree with old faithful.

Cheers

 

[rickshaw]

Unfortunately, I don't necessarily believe that flying an aircraft of a particular type necessarily means much more than the fact you can fly it. It doesn't necessarily mean you know how to get the theoretical best out of it, nor does it necessarily make you a great airpower strategist. Its akin to suggesting because a person has been an infantry private, he's suddenly equipped to be the best strategist in the world.