Two can play the quote break-down game, Mr. White. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Folding rotor blades for the hook would cost big $ -- the Ch46 had 'em in the design spec. The Hook is too high for the hangars aboarg ship, the CH53 was specifically designed to fit them and its tail boom folds giving it a smaller footprint than the hook.
It's no fun talking to someone who knows specific facts, rather than someone who makes wild, rather unsubstantiated generalizations. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
While we can agree there's much wrong with the process, it's not nearly that simple -- that is for a separate thread.
No, and I know it's not quite that simple, but the constant willingness to throw good money after bad has to be the most flagrant (and easily-changed) problem in the procurement process. There is an expectation, no - actually a demand, for any R&D effort, no matter how small or how far-fetched to produce a viable system. That's criminally stupid stubbornness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
All the last two paragraphs of complaint are true -- but much of the meat is the fault of Congress, not the services. The EFV will probably die, OBE and a step too far. The MV 22 will get fixed; any technological leap is gong to have beaucoup bigs initially. Is it overpriced, sure -- but IMO almost ALL aircraft are (including the civil side). Sellers market...
Oh, absolutely Congress is to blame in large part. I worked there last summer; I got to see their dysfunctionality in all its glory. My boss forgot to sign a bill he submitted; a member of the transportation committee called our office asking what railroad companies have track or rolling stock in his district, etc.
I don't share your view that the EFV is going to die - mainly because the AAV is both old and is tainted in the current anti-IED hysteria of Congress, and the Marine Corps needs something else, even if its NOT a vehicle for a questionably-relevant mission that's as big as a house in an era of precision-munitions proliferation. . .
. . .and the MV-22 or CV-22 or whatever will undoubtedly have its bugs worked out, but not it's weak armament (1 7.62mm MG on the ramp?), nor (if it turns out to be the case, as some suspect) the inherent fragility of its tilt-rotor mechanism and subsequent susceptibility to battle damage.
You're right about its capabilities and advantages as compared to other options, I think, and probably in regards to the decision made to buy it, but I'm still violently against the way in which its development and procurement occurred as representative of the process as a whole. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
That settles it. If the Think Tanks are against it, I'm for it!!!
Those turkeys make a lot of noise and while there are unquestionably some good and smart guys working for them; they have zero responsibility and do not have to live with the results of their products.
LOL, fair enough, I was desperate for credibility. You're pretty confident of its eventual success, so I won't argue the point further. I hope you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Sorry, I guess we can disagree on that. However, do note that I said good and not great; and needed and not irreplaceable... ;)
Fair enough - I will admit that I'm more skeptical of the aircraft's performance rather than adamantly opposed. To tie this into the thread's original message, however, I will say that part of the conditions for funding the AF's massive boondoggle should be a change in the procurement system. Not that the costs of the aircraft themselves are going to go down - you're right about that as well - but at least the system should be run better.
And maybe a little foresight, like maybe forcing them to invest in SLEPs or something of that ilk when their new-acquisition programs are cut, wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Matt
Just to clear up some things...
The USN is switching out its F/A-18C/Ds for single seat F/A-18Es (although I don't know if they are swapping out all of them; I suspect not), and replaced its F-14s with two-seat F/A-18Fs (although I believe that one F-14 squadron transitioned to the single seat "E" models).
The Marines decided not to buy any Super Hornets (the E/F models), instead deciding to wait for the F-35 to replace their older Hornets and AV-8Bs.
Uh Oh, the Wild Blue is Gaining Media Attention. . .
Spilled my coffee when I saw this in the Chicago Tribune this morning:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...944816.gallery
Go to #8.
Apparently, this boondoggle is catching on. . . the next manned bomber is next, I'm sure.
Matt
Airplanes really do wear out...
"Scores of F-15s Likely to Stay Grounded
Los Angeles Times | By Julian E. Barnes | January 09, 2008
The Air Force is likely to order dozens of its F-15 fighter jets permanently grounded because of critical structural flaws, significantly reducing the number of planes available to protect the United States, officials said Tuesday.
After one of the fighters broke apart during a simulated dogfight in November, Air Force officials grounded the entire F-15 fleet, nearly 700 planes, fearing such a defect. The newest versions of the fighter jets were allowed to resume flying shortly afterward, but 440 of the older model F-15s have remained out of service.
The Air Force plans to allow about 260 of the remaining grounded planes to return to duty today. About 180 will remain idle because of suspected structural flaws.
"Many of them may never fly again," said a senior Air Force officer. The officer, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because results of the investigation were not to be made public until today.
Many of the F-15s, long the nation's most sophisticated front- line fighters, have been around for 30 years, and the fleet is being replaced gradually. The Air Force still relies on F-15s to protect the continental United States and to fly combat missions abroad. Newer model F-15Es are used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and were the first of the planes to resume flying after the mishap in November.
The problems with the F-15, Air Force officials argue, have increased the need to buy additional F-22s, a swift and stealthy but expensive new fighter plane.
"This is grave," said a senior Air Force official. "Two hundred of our air superiority aircraft are on the ground, and we are acting like it is business as usual."
An investigation of the Nov. 2 crash shows the F-15 that broke apart in midair had a fault in a crucial support component called a longeron, a structural beam that serves as part of the spine of the aircraft. F-15s have four longerons around the cockpit.
Air Force officials have not yet learned how a defective beam came to be installed in the plane when it was manufactured in 1980. But Air Force officials emphasized that the age of the airframe, combined with the faulty part, put the older F-15s at risk.
There is one squadron of about 20 F-15s based at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton. Langley spokeswoman Lt. Georganne Schultz said Tuesday night that the base has not received any word that its jets will be among those permanently grounded."
...and it is not just some sly Air Force trick.
"and it is not just some sly Air Force trick."
Possibly. It may not be sly and it may not be a trick and I have no doubt the birds need replacement, none at all.
However, all the public utterances of Moseley et.al. recently in the "we're dying here" mode and the Op-Eds by Dunlap along with several major errors in new contracts (or attempts to let new contracts) are not making them look too good to Congress or even the public. Not to mention our ignorant attack dog media...
So I suspect they'll be accused of trickery.