Posted on 05/16/2010 9:12:38 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
As cost estimates for the Lockheed Martin F-35 continue rising, some US lawmakers are pushing military officials to increase spending on fourth-generation fighters as a back-up.
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says he considers the F-35 a "really extraordinary aircraft", but is concerned about the military's projected tactical aircraft shortfalls.
"There will certainly be pressure to sustain the fourth generation and improvement of aircraft because the fifth generation is coming on more slowly and more expensively than we hoped for," Lieberman told a Senate hearing on the tactical aircraft budget on 13 April.
The US Navy has projected a 243-aircraft shortfall by 2017 and the US Air Force estimates a fighter gap of 800 aircraft after 2020.
Lieberman says the military should invest in a "combination of fourth and fifth generation [fighters] to keep us where we want to be". His concerns were echoed by Illinois Senator Roland Burris, who expressed his doubts in a question to the panel of military officers assembled for the hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
The Russians do not hesitate to mix 4/5 gen fighters but 4 is not good enough for the Pentagon. Most of the time you are not fighting top shelf opponents anyway.
I think we should have kept the F-14’s myself, I am sure we could find a use for them. Didn’t have to be naval, could have been used by Air National Guard or something.
Why waste stuff? :)
ping
Getting too expensive to maintain, airframe hours too high,
not cost effective to upgrade, not able to carry latest
stores.. There was a program to address this but it was decided to spend on new development instead (F14E or F
can’t remember).
They have flown the hell out of those birds, you wouldn’t want the wing spars to snap or something ..
“Lieberman says the military should invest in a “combination of fourth and fifth generation [fighters] to keep us where we want to be”.
I’m not an expert on defense matters, but this seems like a good idea. The F-35 project isn’t where it needs to be yet, and the Super Hornet and latest models of F-16’s are still prime combat aircraft.
If nothing else, I would think it prudent to replace the older squadrons with new Falcons and Super Hornets. It would give an increase to the overall capability and readiness of the squadrons. When the F-35 is finally ready to go, we can gradually sell the 16’s and 18 E/F’s off to one of our secondary allies or move them to the reserves.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
The Air Force wouldn’t have such a large fighter gap if it were allowed to purchase all of the F-22s it originally planned to acquire.
I know they were old but they were cool looking planes.
I was only half serious really.
Kind of huge for navy planes too.
Big honk’n bad ass plane. Mach 2+, Phoenix (100 mile) missiles, powerful radar. They were just starting to realize the full capabilities of the airframe. New models would have been even more kick ass.
One of my favorite birds.
Could you imagine if they would have kept making them? wow.
Thanks
More "wooden gun" Republicanism, straight out of the 1920's, from a 1920's kind of Republican. Tennis, anyone?
From the site I referenced.
“Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
“Its the same old Hornet shit, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy.” He said that “it can never match the Tomcat’s long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy’s inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell.”
LOL! Leave it to a Tomcatter to tell it like it is.
Welllllll..... that liberal fudge packer is gonna have a tight fit, 'coz his name is Richard "Big Dick" Cheney! LOL!!
They should have dropped the pretense right there and just redesignated it the A-19. No "F" involved. (Or maybe just the "QA-19".)
After all, the F/A-18 was just the YF-17 design salvaged as a replacement for the A-4 and A-7 (tho' the latter's payload makes you wonder why they retired it). It wasn't worth the effort, probably, but in the end they got an exportable aircraft out of it, and lots of good guys fly it now.
Our carrier airdales seriously need a new fighter.
Two or three years ago I even endorsed heresy by agreeing with the guys who said we should do a deal to co-produce the Su-33 with Stateside engines and avionics. The hole in our OOB and the theat to the CBG's and MEU's is that obvious. I mean, what the hell do they plan to do, wait on incoming, and then call for designs?
All I hear about for the last 10 years is vapor airplanes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.