The Mighty F-15 Eagle

[Gripen]

evil thought

what would happen if you stuck 2 F-404's on a C-130H Hercules?

[Raptor]

Oh, we did put the F-404s on the skyhawk. They were re-designated the A-4SU Super Skyhawk. Announced Globally and under official records. So, thus, it became an extremely potent jet in it's day-although non-afterburning, the airframe structures had multiple problems with the strain put on them

Then, again, you Americans had run out of Skyhawks (we bought them all)  

As for you, Gripen, nothing, 'cos the engines would just run loose...

[Valiant1]

You guys got all the Skyhawks...too bad...I thought they were great.  You know, the problem with my country is that once the military bigwigs feel certain weapons are getting old, they either sell them to other countries for cheap or they just discard them. 
I mean, what happened to the A-7 Corsair II's and A-6 Intruder's after they were retired in the early to mid-90's?
I'm the kind of person who believes that we should always have some backup resources in the event of a major war, not get rid of them all.  I still think that weapon platforms such as the A-4, A-6 and A-7 are viable systems that can be improved over a period of time - just look at the B-52.  And I KNOW the US has the money to take on such a project.
But that's just me, the US military and political bigwigs don't  get it - they only get what's coming to their pockets...

[Webmaster]

Okay, I didn't read the whole discussion, but the last post brings up quite some thoughts, maybe it's because of my field of study, dunno.

First of all... don't forget the reserves in AMARC...

You can't keep them flying just for the sake of non-disposing them.

They are out of service life time, in most cases anyway, which means you can't continue to fly them without major overhaul. Or else you will suffer reduced reliability and even losses.

The old components/parts will suffer from problems sooner or later, and things as metal fatigue might come unexpectedly sooner than originally anticipated.

Then there is the upkeep, don't forget that modern systems are build with reduced operational and maintenance cost in mind. The older designs have more moving parts, less time between overhauls, worse Mean Time Between Failures, etc. They were build for manufacturing, and designed for their purpose, not for their economical life. Don't forget that ideas of all kinds of Quality engineering in manufacturing and designs started after most of these aircraft were first designed!
 
Next comes the operating costs, which are higher for older systems most of the time; less ecnomical engines, more support needed.

Then the operational viewpoint itself, maybe the most important, these aircraft are no longer compatible with current systems and weapons. You will have to do major upgrading/updating, which is very expensive. Capability wise the designs are limited in one way or another, upgrading them won't mean that they will be as good as more modern designs, and even if they are upgrading them in future again is not feasible.

Upgrading/redesigns/overhauls take time, which means even lower availability rates for aircraft fleet already suffering from low availability.

Without upgrading, pilot workload is the same as in the past, which will probably result in more losses or higher requirements on training.

These aircraft have served their lifes, and are paid off, they are sunk costs, so don't mind about keeping them when you need to do investments anyway on them, which you might as well spend on new fresh aircraft.

They can still serve a purpose, and create value, beyond the scope of what was originally imagined. They are written off, but you can still sell them on the market, sell their parts/components, recycle parts, components, materials. Or you can find other uses for them, which brings me to your question about the A-6/A-7...they are used as artificial reefs to defend your coastline!! Different kind of defence, but still valuable to the US. Another example are the F-100, F-106, F-4 and soon probably F-15s that are converted to drone and used for real-size airborne targets. And also instructional airframes for training and educational institutes.

[Valiant1]

I didn't say it wouldn't come at a cost and I understand that most of the airframes are old.  But there are examples of airframes still being revamped, such as the B-52 and the C-130, both of which maid their maiden flight 50 years ago!  Even the younges B-52 airframe is over 40 years old - most likely older than the pilots who fly them.

I guess I look at it this way - the aircraft that was intended to replace the A-6 and A-7, the F/A-18 C & D models, do not even have the range and payload capacity that the Intruder and Corsair II had.   Yes, the Hornets are a whole lot faster and maneuverable, but that doesn't compensate for the fact that if their mission were an attack mission,  they don't carry as much as the previous aircraft.

Maybe if the military took the youngest airframes and kept them in storage, just in case of emergencies or lack of resources, have those airframes refurbished so we wouldn't run into any kind of shortages.  I've always believed in redundancy - a backup to a backup.  The A-10 Warthog exemplifies this - I believe it has a triple redudancy system to its flight controls.

I believe the US military should have backups and not completely rely on technology all the time - stealth doesn't work 100% of the time - sooner or later, an SAM will find its mark and bring down an F-22 or F-35.  So, if or when that happens, the US would have lost a $100 million plane - ouch! to the taxpayers!  I think supermaneuverability, supercruise and powerful engines are better because if you don' t have these in a fighter, stealth is nothing.  I know, the Raptor and Lightning II have these qualities, but they come at mucho dinero. 

That was Germany's problem in WW2 - they spent too much time on technology, which isn't bad, but they never build in huge numbers, w/the exception of the Messerschmidt 109 series.  The allies, particularly the US, had backups to a backup to a backup - we had numbers, which ultimately overwhelmed the Axis powers.

What I'm trying to say is my government and the military, shouldn't waste all the taxpayer's money on really expensive, ultra hi-tech equipment that may not even work.
The F-15, F-16 and F-18 (too bad for the F-14) can do the job more than sufficiently.  The US should have done what the Russians are doing - taking an existing airframe and improving on it - the Su-27 Flanker line is an excellent example - the Russians just watched this line evolve, although I still think Western planes are better, but that doesn't mean that they aren't competent machines.

Maybe the US can consider buying the Typhoon and Gripen to implement and supplement our current forces.  Why not?  They are 2 of the most maneuverable and capable aircrafts in the world at a fraction of an F-22's cost, although the Gripen is possibly cheaper than the Typhoon.

Imagine that - squadrons of Gripens fighting alongside F-16s and F-15s in the US Air Force!   

[Raptor]

For one, the C-130s and the B-52s are both large airframes, which adds up to more cost in making a completely new replacement for them...of course, though, the more manuverable aircraft, such as the A-6 and A-7, should you keep on using the airframes, would most likely result in the death of multiple pilots.

Take for example, our flying the Hunters (hawker), we probably had dozens of crashes before we finally gave up with them. If you keep on using outdated airframes, they'll waste even more money than you spent on the re-vamping. And think of the lives involved.

As for the Gripens flying alongside the F-16s, i don't think it would be sane for the Swedes to sell them to the USA, for one, USA would have to provide plenty of resources to the Swedes, considering that they would need a lot of aircraft...

[Valiant1]

I would have to disagree with you on that one, Raptor.  First, I mentioned that these airframes should be used as backups in the event resources become very limited in a war.  Second, the US should take the newest airframes, albeit a couple of decades old, and refurbish them and again, these are just reserves, not frontline. 

It's like having a new and old car - you drive the new one daily, and the old one, if you keep it, like I am, start her up once a week, drive her around the block, just to keep her warmed up ( I have an 89 Civic hatch that runs better than some of these newer ones). 

War is ugly, nobody likes it, certainly not I.  But if we run out of resources, what do we do?  Surrender?  Or start throwing rocks at enemy planes coming in?  Like I mentioned before, we need reserves just for safety measure. 

If the US military bigwigs and the military contractors weren't so corrupt, maybe we could have built Raptors and F-35s many times over what we'll have, then, we wouldn't have to worry about not having enough resources.

I wish those corrupt US politicians and military bigwigs were on this site reading this stuff.  And this is coming from me, an American. 

[Raptor]

You could send an e-mail to one of them, petitioning them to join the forum...

Ok. Then, maybe it is possible. But to quote Thoedore Roosevelt, or however it's spelt (i'm from the other end of the world) 'the only thing we need to fear is fear itself'. I hear that the Americans won the war through pure courage and determination. (or something like that) because the Japs had way better training.

So if you're not afraid to go up against the enemy, no matter how small your resources, there is the possibility of winning, albeit small.

[Valiant1]

This isn't about fear, Raptor.  When it comes to a major war or major battle, the United States will have no problem winning.  But we're fighting a different kind of war now.  This is like Vietnam all over again in Iraq, and I'm for moving our troops out.  That isn't fear - that's just concern for our men and women who are getting killed for nothing and I only have the US government to blame.

I'm talking about having enough resources if or when a major war comes about.  Not that I'm hoping for that because I certainly don't want to see people dying on either side.  And certainly this isn't about fear - looking at the Somalian situation in '93 - 99 Army Rangers and Delta Special Forces against 5000 Somalia malitia.  50-to-1 odds against our men - I'd say we didn't do bad against them and they were ready to go back in with a large force but Clinton ordered them out. 

It was their training that helped them overcome the enemy.  I'm sure they didn't like the odds, but they didn't let fear get in the way.

[Viggen]

I have to disagree with you on the issue about fear Valiant1.  If you dont feel fear in a combat situation, then you are of no use and will get yourself killed very fast.  What the Rangers and Delta did in Somalia 93 shows of true curage and determination. If you were not feeling fear in that situation, fear of dying, messing up, getting your "brothers" killed or of the opposition.

Feeling fear is not the same as being a covard. But they did not let the feeling of fear overcome them, taenks to their training. That made them come home alive. 

[alyster]

Havin no fear, it's impossible. Only The Rasmus can sing about it, it aint happening in the real life.

"Don't no man come to tell me about that someone is not afraid, everyone are afraid. No exeptions. Everyone. There's a fear of death, but the duty and maybe also the feeling of embarassement puts the men fighting."   Harri Rent, a WW2 veteran, Waffen-SS 20th Grenaderdivision, fought at Sinimäed in 1944. Horrible place, huge artlllery duell. Waffen-SS held the line against red army in 1944 in there for 8 months while in south soviets moved on 1000km!

[Valiant1]

Again I'm misunderstood with the subject of fear - read what Raptor said first - I don't know how he got on the subject of fear - the subject was about having enough resources in time of war.  How fear got into the picture, I don't know.  What I meant about fear was a response to Raptor's reply that if the US didn't have enough resources, we should be able to overcome an enemy with pure courage and determination - maybe, then again, maybe not, but it's been done before.  And the only reason the Somalis were so "brave" was because they had vastly superior numbers, but definitely not superior training.  And it was quite evident of the Rangers and surely Delta's vastly superior training or else they would have all been dead, with the odds being 50-to-1 against them. 

But let's not get into that because of what they did to the body of one of the Rangers, which really enrages me to no end.  No decent human being deserves that. 

Yes, I agree fear is in the heart of every warrior - it's what that warrior does with that fear. I'm sure our troops have some form of fear before or during a battle, but they
use it in a way  that they can overcome the enemy.