Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Too long to copy/paste:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Too long to copy/paste:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.

I haven't read it... but, learning those lessons wouldn't necessarily make the next batch easier...

It's the constant technological evolutions of these projects that are driving up costs... the true barometer of whether these planes are worth it (imo) is that the lesson learned are applied to OTHER aspects in the industries.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Too long to copy/paste:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.

The F-4 wasn't a failure. It kicked all kinds of ass in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
The F-14 wasn't a failure. It wasn't cheap but it was a premier full fledged interceptor and again could kick all kinds of ass in its day.
The B-2 wasn't a failure by any means. Its just ungodly expensive.

F-35 sounds like bad news though.

I always thought the F-14 was considered a success and was only retired when the F-18 rendered it obsolete?

The F-4 was a failure when you realize it wasn't originally designed to be a fighter-bomber, it just turned out to be effective in that role, and that became its saving grace. As an actual air-to-air combatant, it was too heavy and too unmaneuverable, hence why older MiGs had no issue shooting them down. Also, when you consider that it was designed to combat enemy aircraft with missiles, but then realize that it wasn't actually maneuverable enough to dodge enemy missiles itself, you realize a serious design flaw...

The F-14 was a failure because it was likewise too heavy and unmaneuverable, let alone how complex it was. Its saving grace was that our pilots were far better trained than their Libyan opponents (amongst others). It was also considered a 'success' because it was the sole platform to my knowledge capable of carrying the AIM-54c Phoenix missile, which in and of itself wasn't that great a piece of hardware in practical usage.

The B-2 is likewise a failure when you realize that we didn't actually NEED a stealth bomber, even at the time it was designed. Its a piece of redundant hardware.

All of those aircraft became famous for doing things other than what they were designed to do, and weren't particularly effective in doing what they were designed to do in the first place, and were way too costly for the alternative roles they found themselves in relative to other aircraft.

Lucius - Think for a moment, the F-15/16/18 are still flying and will still be flying for quite some time longer than the F-14 was (the 15/16 have already surpassed its service life IIRC and the 18 is well on its way). The 15 and especially the 16 are regarded as superior air-to-air combatants, and the F-18 was designed to "compliment" (read: make up for all of its many faults, deficiencies, and issues) the F-14. Does that sound like a success to you?

Also notice that swing-wing, once touted as the future of aircraft design, is considered largely to be a technological dead-end at this point.

Clusterfeth is mild...the F-35 is reaching boondoggle status. Meanwhile, the F-22 is a bonafide boondoogle. We seem to have reached a new phase of the military-industrial complex in which we sink billions into BUILDING -- not just developing -- equipment that will never get used. Oh, for the days of the M247 Sergeant York. That one looks tame now.

See, this is why I want a functional, rational GOP. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, the Republicans are the key to restoring some sanity to our military spending.

Your a bit off base. The F-4 was a superb fighter. It sustained so many casualties early on because our pilots were not being trained properly for dogfights. And by that I mean they were not being trained at all. Once we recognized that short coming training schools were created to fix the gap. We also only lost 30 F-4's in air to air combat. As for your assertation that it wasn't maneuverable enough to "dodge missiles", the F-4 filled the Wild Weasel role for nearly 40 years. It's job was to find SAM sites, and have them fire missiles at it, so other aircraft could locate it, and destroy it. They don't pick an aircraft who can't escape those missiles, to do that job. It is still being used today by modern air forces, such as the Japanese Air Self Defense Force as an intercept fighter. Failures aren't still in service with modern nations 50 years after they were originated.

The B-2 is still actively used for it's stealth capabilities, as a first strike bomber. It was the first aircraft in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and knocked out vital targets that made it safer for the rest of our aircraft to operate.

The F-111, again not a failure. A succesful platform that did it's job superbly, and is still in use with todays modern militaries (Australia). We retired it from US service because it was cheaper to maintain a few fighter aircraft like the F-15/F-16/A-10. The F-111, like the F-117, were cut from our service in large part because of massive budget cuts that the DoD sustained during the 90's. It was also the first aircraft to score a "kill" on the F-22A. Granted, it was an accident, but it still did it.

The F-14, again a great aircraft for it's role. It was an adaptable craft that handled many roles outside of what it was originally designed for, and again was a victim of shrinking budgets, and advancements made for the F/A-18 that rendered it a redundant aircraft.

The closest to being right that you were was the B-1. And the only real problem with it was that it was designed to fight a foe that dissapeared shortly after it was introduced into the force. It is still a capable strategic bomber, compaired to the venerable B-52, and that is why we still have it in service today. It's fast speed makes it a great CAS bomber who can get to a trouble point quickly, and deliver a large number JDAMS with precision. In regards to that role, it's much better then the B-52.

The B52 is still in service, of course.

djones, so much of what you just posted is extremely wrong, if I wasnt on a phone atm id go into greater detail but a quick overview:
1. The f-4 isnt and hasnt been in service as a front line fighter in years. Its used for aerial recon and EWar. In regards to wild weasel missions, it was only successful in that role due to its straight line speed being high enough to enter and exit the contemporary SAM systems threat range fast enough, in air to air combat avoiding a missile takes a bit more.

2. B-2 was not first into any of those places, helos and mc-130s were. In fact helicopters opened the hole in iraqs air defenses for the rest to follow.

3. You realize the F-111s intended role was to be an air to air fighter??? The F designation was there for a reason unlike the F-117s... it only ever found utility as an ewar platform and fighter bomber and is outmaneuvered and outmatched at all points along its flight envelope by all contemporary and most preexisting fighter aircraft (hence why the f-15 came into existence).

4. The F-14 was great at everything but its intended role (exceptfor maybe intercepting soviet bombers, but it doesnt take much to be good at that), that is when it wasnt down for maintenance. It was a hangar queen if there ever was one.

5. The B-1 has a lot more problems than youve realized (note that i was also referring to the original b-1 not the one we have today, slightly different aircraft, though several serious design flaws carried over.

Do yourself a favor, read Boyd (every Airman should).

Back on topic, though, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be made with any new piece of equipment.

I don't know how much an F35 costs compared to an F18, for example, however if it was twice as expensive you need to be able to think it can kill about twice as many enemies (allowing for the cost of pilot training, logistics, etc.) or it would not be superior as a war weapon.

Naturally this calculation is very complex.

The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.

Chaos, in 2006 I watched as F-4's of the JASDF were launched to intercept foreign aircraft who were threatening USAF assets. It still serves as a front line fighter today. The JASDF wing at Misawa AFB uses F-4's as their primary fighter aircraft, and uses F-2's to train pilots for service in other locations.

Again, yes the B-2 is the first combat aicraft in. In Libya they were the first combat aicraft in, and hit 45 seperate targets on that mission. They struck interceptor aircraft and C2 assets making is effectively impossible for the Libyan military to resist our forces.

The F-111 and F-14 were aircraft designed for a role, and had the world change around them. They then adapted to other rolls, which is not a mark of failure, but that of success. And aircraft who can act outside of it's original role is a succesful aircraft because we're getting more use out of it. And you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.

Your whole premise of measurement is false. You listed the F-16 and F-15 as successes, but like the "failures" that you claim the F-14 and F-111's to be, they were originally designed solely as air superiority fighters, whose rolls expanded as the world changed around them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The B52 is still in service, of course.

I got inside one many moons ago. Couldn't believe how cramped it was. They're quite literally all fuel, bombs and equipment.

You can't argue with a 35 ton bomb load.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic, though, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be made with any new piece of equipment.

I don't know how much an F35 costs compared to an F18, for example, however if it was twice as expensive you need to be able to think it can kill about twice as many enemies (allowing for the cost of pilot training, logistics, etc.) or it would not be superior as a war weapon.

Naturally this calculation is very complex.

True that. At this point the thing is ungodly expensive, and not rolled out well.
The argument that having "one plane to rule them all" being imprudent is a good one. There are different missions, and the flight characteristics for those missions are different.
Good VTOL - no ones's really worked up a competitive VTOL. You can make one but its not going to be the next F15.
Good carrier plane - can't do VTOL.
Good general FB - ok
Cheap F of FB - not with the above baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can't argue with a 35 ton bomb load.

Yep. Everything else is tight, but the bomb bays sure aren't. Its almost a perfect ruise missile/JDAM kind of launcher againt low intensity conflicts where we utterly control the sky. Its a flying mack truck.

As a BBC correspondent said during the Falklands War, "there is nothing old fashioned about a 1,000 Lb bomb when it is dropping on you."

 djones520 wrote:
Chaos, in 2006 I watched as F-4's of the JASDF were launched to intercept foreign aircraft who were threatening USAF assets. It still serves as a front line fighter today. The JASDF wing at Misawa AFB uses F-4's as their primary fighter aircraft, and uses F-2's to train pilots for service in other locations.

Again, yes the B-2 is the first combat aicraft in. In Libya they were the first combat aicraft in, and hit 45 seperate targets on that mission. They struck interceptor aircraft and C2 assets making is effectively impossible for the Libyan military to resist our forces.

The F-111 and F-14 were aircraft designed for a role, and had the world change around them. They then adapted to other rolls, which is not a mark of failure, but that of success. And aircraft who can act outside of it's original role is a succesful aircraft because we're getting more use out of it. And you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.

Your whole premise of measurement is false. You listed the F-16 and F-15 as successes, but like the "failures" that you claim the F-14 and F-111's to be, they were originally designed solely as air superiority fighters, whose rolls expanded as the world changed around them.

My understanding is that the F-4s in Japanese service (which are heavily modified from the US version) are retained in reserve to augment Japans fleet of F-15s (which are the actual front line fighters). In any case, it wasn't after a boatload of modifications to the US version that it became useful to us.

No, the B-2 is not the first combat aircraft in, we had boots on the ground well beforehand, and I assure you that they didn't WALK in... (unless of course you're fudging the definition of combat aircraft to only include those with an F or B designation, ignoring all the other armed aircraft in service that aren't fighters or bombers). Similarly, as a stealth bomber, it seems to have an issue where it becomes a big frakking target once it opens its bomb bay.

The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).

In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).

 djones520 wrote:
The F-111, again not a failure. A succesful platform that did it's job superbly, and is still in use with todays modern militaries (Australia).

Actually, the RAAF retired the F-111 in December 2010.

One thing that I feel I must point out, is that when the Joint Chiefs want to create a new weapons platform, they put out the word, and something gets designed.... If they buy it for whatever branch it is that branch goes and gets to play with it. IF the branch feels it sucks at the roles that the Chiefs and designers had for it, they come up with a new role, since they are stuck with it.

Imagine for instance, that the navy wanted a new destroyer. So a company out there designs a ship with a flat topped deck, but it has a ton of guns too... Well, the navy may soon realize that it may not be the best destroyer out there, but that flat top is great for planes, so now it becomes a carrier/destroyer. Is the overall ship a failure? By most other folks views it isnt.


My point here, especially towards Chaos, is that just because something "fails" at what the designers and purchasers sold it as, but still lasts 15-20+ years in service means that it isn't a failure. And generally, aircraft that bring SOF into a country are not really considered "combat" even though they are carrying a metric gakload of "whoop-ass" in them.

The F-4 phantom is regarded as one of the most successful military fighter plane programs in history. It was also used by all American military branches making it the first true "Joint Strike Fighter".

Lockheed WISHES their F-35 would be even a fraction as successful as the F-4 was for Mcdonnell Douglas. Chaos, you're way off base.

 djones520 wrote:
you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.

My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.

We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.

It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.

 chromedog wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.

My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.

We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.

It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.

I thought it was because the Australian military consumed the essence of Drop Bears to gain their powers?

Well sure, but that's not the 'official' story

As an engineer involved in both the F-35 and the F-22 programs, and sustaining efforts for F-15,F-16, F-18 and others, the level of tech in the 35 and 22 is light years ahead of anything out there. (most of that is in the avionics, and stealth tech)

Yes you could go on building airplanes with 1970's and 1980's technology, but think about what that means when you have other nations building birds with cutting edge 21st century tech.

Also.... no way an F-111 kills an F-22 without some flukey event taking place. The F-111 wouldn't even see the F-22, in fact the F-22 could take out 15 F-111's and they wouldn't even know what hit them.

GG

It was an F-16 that got taken out by the pig, not a 22 (22 wasn't in service yet).

The pilot took advantage of local woodlands, ground-clutter to muddy the pulse-doppler radar return and Tree-top height.

And then he snuck up behind him and smacked him.

 generalgrog wrote:
As an engineer involved in both the F-35 and the F-22 programs, and sustaining efforts for F-15,F-16, F-18 and others, the level of tech in the 35 and 22 is light years ahead of anything out there. (most of that is in the avionics, and stealth tech)

Yes you could go on building airplanes with 1970's and 1980's technology, but think about what that means when you have other nations building birds with cutting edge 21st century tech.

Also.... no way an F-111 kills an F-22 without some flukey event taking place. The F-111 wouldn't even see the F-22, in fact the F-22 could take out 15 F-111's and they wouldn't even know what hit them.

GG

The problem is in simulation those planes with 1970's and 1980's tech are blowing the the f35 out of the sky. And honestly, you really don't need the f35 to bomb countries with little to no AA capability past a zu23 strapped to a pickup truck. It's been massively over sold to fit any and all combat roles and in the end it seems like it will be like the f22, too damn expensive to risk losing.

 chromedog wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.

My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.

We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.

It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.

Well that and your new "Drop Bear Artillery" and "Crocodile Torpedoes." You don't need high tech when Nature has provided you your own WMDs.

I watched TOP GUN I know that the F-14 wasn't a failure.

 Frazzled wrote:

Well that and your new "Drop Bear Artillery" and "Crocodile Torpedoes." You don't need high tech when Nature has provided you your own WMDs.

But drop bear artillery is rendered ineffective by helmet technology readily available a hundred years ago.

More seriously, while a more advanced fighter may be too expensive to use in action against far inferior enemies who don't stand a chance against last-gen tech or older, it would be ruinous to lack adequate equipment to deal with other advanced fighters, or the countermeasures other nations who have the resources and wherewithal to develop/purchase proper military equipment may possess. I'm not saying the f35 is such a fighter, regardless of its intended purpose, but the point is there; "we don't need something better, since all of our old equipment can beat the snot of any two-bit third world joke of a military" isn't a good reason not to develop along the cutting edge.

How many countries are there outside NATO and other allies with aerospace technology capable of seriously challenging the USA?